Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 23 March 2005, Corrected Copy)

The Clerk announced the absence of Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy-Speaker (The Hon. John Charles Price) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Deputy-Speaker offered the Prayer.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill introduces amendments to parts 2 and 4 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 to broaden the range of factors that the Minister may have regard to when considering a request by a prisoner to be transferred to, or from, another State or Territory. The Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 commenced on 1 July 1984. The Act forms part of the national co-operative legislative scheme which permits inmates to be transferred between participating jurisdictions for two purposes: to stand trial or for welfare purposes.

Part 2 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 covers transfers for welfare purposes. A transfer for welfare purposes may be made at the request of the prisoner concerned and depends on the Minister forming the opinion that it is in the interests of the prisoner's welfare that the prisoner should be transferred. This bill amends Part 2 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 to remove the limitation on the Minister's discretion in relation to transfer requests and provides, instead, that the Minister may have regard to certain matters.

Currently, under the national co-operative legislative scheme, welfare transfers involve a three-step process. Firstly, a prisoner makes a request to the Minister in his or her State for a transfer. If that Minister is of the opinion that the prisoner should be transferred in the interests of the welfare of the prisoner, the Minister writes to the corresponding Minister in the receiving jurisdiction requesting that the Minister accept the transfer. Secondly, under the corresponding legislation the relevant Minister in the receiving jurisdiction then has discretion to approve the transfer. Thirdly, if the Minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents to the transfer, the Minister making the original request may make the order for transfer. Where the prisoner is a Federal offender, or a joint State or Territory and Federal offender, the Commonwealth Attorney-General must also consent to the transfer.

Part 4 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 deals with prisoners who have been transferred for the purposes of standing trial, but whose trial has resulted in no sentence being imposed in New South Wales or a New South Wales sentence of imprisonment being imposed that is shorter than the period of imprisonment the prisoner has left to serve in another participating jurisdiction. In either case the Minister must, with certain exceptions, transfer the prisoner back to the original participating State or Territory. One of the exceptions to this requirement for the Minister to transfer prisoners back if no sentence is imposed in New South Wales or the New South Wales sentence imposed is shorter than the other jurisdiction's sentence is where the Minister receives a request from the prisoner for a transfer for welfare purposes. This bill amends Part 4 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 to provide that the Minister may have regard to the broader range of matters.

I turn now to the detail of the bill. Schedule 1 [1] amends the heading of part 2, to change it from "Transfer for prisoner's welfare" to "Transfer at the request of prisoner". This emphasises the fact that the impetus for a transfer comes from the prisoners themselves and better reflects the prisoner's own part in the welfare transfer procedures. Schedule 1 [2] amends section 7 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 to broaden the matters the Minister may take into account in relation to transfer requests under the current Act.

A new section 10A is inserted into the Act to provide a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Minister may consider when a prisoner makes a request to be transferred to, or from, another State or Territory. This bill provides that the Minister may have regard to the following when considering such a request: the welfare of the prisoner concerned, the administration of justice in New South Wales or any other State, the security and good order of any prison in New South Wales or any other State, the safe custody of the prisoner concerned, the protection of the community in New South Wales or any other State, and any other matter the Minister considers relevant.

The measure in schedule 1 [4] provides that, when forming an opinion or exercising any discretion about a request for the welfare transfer of a prisoner, the Minister should particularly consider any reports of parole and prison authorities of New South Wales or of any participating State. Schedule 1 [6] inserts a mirror provision to new section 10A into part 4 of the Act. Part 4 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 contains a requirement that a Minister must, in respect of prisoners who have been transferred for trial purposes, transfer those prisoners back if no sentence is imposed in New South Wales or the New South Wales sentence is shorter than the other jurisdiction's sentence. One of the exceptions to this requirement, which is already contained in section 23 of the Act, is where the Minister receives a request from a prisoner for a transfer for welfare purposes.

It follows that the Minister will consider the same factors with respect to an application for a transfer for welfare purposes from a prisoner transferred for trial purposes as the Minister would for an application received for a general request for transfer for welfare purposes. The bill amends section 23 of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 to remove the limitations in relation to welfare transfer requests after transfer for trial and provides, instead, that the Minister may have regard to the broader range of matters I have just outlined, that is: the prisoner's welfare, the administration of justice, the security and good order of prisons, the safe custody of the prisoner, the protection of the community, and any other matter the Minister considers relevant.

The current terms of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 allow the Minister to consider welfare transfers only in a relatively narrow and unclarified manner. This bill opens up the Minister's discretion to consider broader policy objectives such as the general administration of justice, as well as other important matters such as the prisoner's safety and the safety of the community in general. A recent Federal Court of Australia case highlighted the need for these provisions to be clarified. The changes the bill makes in relation to welfare transfers may provide increased opportunities for inmates and their families to develop and foster relationships during the prisoner's period of incarceration. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Andrew Humpherson.

Debate resumed from 23 February 2005.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.10 a.m.]: Honourable members may experience a sense of deja vu because this debate is similar another debate a year ago. That is because the Government did not do its homework properly. The Minister for Justice had an opportunity to get it right when he announced on 15 January 2004 that he would introduce the legislation, but he failed to do so. When the legislation was debated some four months later in the Legislative Council the oversights were not rectified.

The Government has shown all the characteristics of being a tired old Government that has forgotten about details. Indeed, it appears to be more interested in spin and deception. On 15 January 2004 the Minister for Justice announced that no further compensation claims for major damages would be paid to offenders from within the correctional system. That was a fraud in a number of respects. The Minister said that the legislation would be effective from 15 January. Those offenders in the correctional system who were convicted as juveniles were still not covered. In March 2004 the Minister remedied that anomaly to make it apply to juveniles also.

However, the legislation was still not right. The bill was assented to in May, but was not proclaimed until six months later, on 19 November, by which time the Minister, and the Attorney General working in concert with him, acknowledged major deficiencies in the bill. He agreed that new legislation would be required to fix those oversights, which is the reason for this bill. The House would not be debating this bill if the Minister for Justice had done his homework. He is inexperienced and naïve. It is ironic that, as a lawyer, he has not properly undertaken his duties as a law-maker to get the legislation right. The Minister for Justice aspires to be Attorney General yet the Attorney General in the other place has had to clean up his mess.

The Minister for Justice, who is a member of the right wing, is like a new puppy that has not been house trained and the Attorney General, ironically a left winger, has had to run around with a legislative pooper-scooper to pick up after him. If the Attorney General had not slept in, he would be present in the Chamber and no doubt would be smiling at the irony of the Minister for Justice trying to appear hairy chested but still not getting the legislation right. A number of frauds have been perpetrated on the people of New South Wales. The media and the public have been misled. The legislation will not be correct until the bill is passed but, even then, it will not apply to offenders who made claims for compensation before 15 January 2004. An unknown number—potentially 100 or 200—of claims are in the legal system and offenders could seek damages in the order of $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000—similar to the claim made by Craig Ballard, who fell out of bed, sought compensation and received $100,000 in damages. However, the victims of his crime and others are not entitled to receive damages of that magnitude for criminal acts perpetrated upon them.

Why is it that criminals in New South Wales gaols are still able to make claims for compensation that exceed those to which victims are entitled? The answer is that the Labor Party in this State has far more sympathy for criminals than for law-abiding citizens. It gives priority to those who commit crimes. The Government has protected criminals by not making this legislation retrospective, yet it introduced vendor stamp duty legislation to retrospectively apply to mums and dads and average investors in this State, people who are struggling to do the right thing. Prisoners can still make claims and ultimately receive large compensation payouts that are paid for by the taxpayers.

The Government's priorities are totally warped. It is completely out of step with public expectations and the bill passed last year should have rectified that. At that time the Opposition moved amendments in Committee to ensure that any payouts to offenders were not out of step with public expectations. The Government did not support those amendments. Instead, it voted to protect criminals and to protect high compensation payments to those criminals, despite the fact that victims are not entitled to receive compensation of that magnitude.

A number of questions remain unanswered. The would-be Minister opposite, the honourable member for Campbelltown, probably has no idea what the legislation is about. He will probably read a prepared script because the Attorney General could not be bothered to be present in the Chamber. The unanswered questions are: How many claims in the system predate 15 January 2004? How many claims were settled between 15 January 2004 and the date of proclamation, 19 November 2004? Why was the proclamation date postponed from May until 19 November? Why does item [9] of schedule 1 state that the bill changes the original Act that was passed last year to make the bill effective from 19 November? The citizens of New South Wales need those questions answered so they can better understand the ultimate cost to be borne by them of compensation payments to offenders. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. It simply makes the clear point that the bill still does not achieve its aim. It is merely a tidying up exercise because the naive and novice Minister could not get the legislation right in the first place.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [10.18 a.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I follow my learned colleague the honourable member for Davidson, who is leading the fight on behalf of the good people of New South Wales against a Government that seems to be more interested in protecting the rights of criminals—murderers and others—than protecting victims of crimes. The bill seeks to rectify the Civil Liability (Offender Damages) Act 2004, which was introduced last year to ensure that damages awarded to offenders in custody or while performing community service work are not greater than those available to workers suffering the same injury. The Opposition did not oppose the changes, but argued that in closing off excessive compensation payments to offenders the new law should apply to claims lodged prior to 15 January 2004 and not be prospective.

Item [1] of schedule 1 to the bill amends the definition of offender in custody or offender in section 26A (1) of the principal Act to make it clear that the definition includes persons who are attending a place in compliance with the requirements of a community service order, as well as persons while they are performing community service work. Items [2] to [4] of schedule 1 amend section 26D of the principal Act to make it clear that part 7 of chapter 7 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 as applied by that section to the assessment of the degree of permanent impairment resulting from injuries to offenders applies with the additional modifications. It includes those relating to section 330 and the provisions of part 7 of chapter 7 of that Act, to be applied with such other modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations.

Item [5] of schedule 1 amends section 26I of the principal Act to make it clear that section 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in its application to determining an offender's entitlement to compensation is to be read as if the reference in that section of the Workers Compensation Commission were a reference to the court determining the amount of compensation. Item [8] of schedule 1 amends schedule 1 of the principal Act to enable the Governor to make regulations of a savings or transitional nature consequent upon the enactment of the proposed Act. Item [9] of schedule 1 also amends a transitional provision relating to part 2A of the principal Act. This amendment makes it clear that the new part does not affect any award of damages, settlement or consent order made before the commencement of the part on 19 November 2004. Item [10] amends schedule 1 the principal Act to by inserting a new part containing savings and transitional provisions consequent on enactment of the proposed Act.

I note with concern the history of the bill. I reinforce my colleague's statement that once again this is legislation on the run. The Government is bereft of ideas and vision. It is acting in a fog of confusion and panic as it tries to juggle scandals and failures without listening to the good counsel and guidance of the Opposition.

Mr Steven Pringle: Always playing catch-up.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Always playing catch-up, as the honourable member for Hawkesbury said. Unfortunately, it is quite often the Opposition or those in the other place who have to fix legislation that emanates from our colleagues on the other side. The bill contains minor mechanical changes. The honourable member for Davidson highlighted that the Minister was pursuing headlines rather than proper policy or legislation. I am sure that one of his media releases will interest those opposite. They fired the gun and the bullet has ricocheted all over the place. Unfortunately, it has landed in the lap of the right-wing member, the Attorney General, who has had to sort out this mess. It will be interesting to see for whom he votes in the next Premier leadership challenge.

On 15 January 2004 the Minister announced reforms for juveniles. On 18 March 2004 the legislation was introduced, effective from 15 January for adults and effective from 18 March for juveniles. On 13 May 2004 the bill was assented to. On 15 January 2004 the Minister issued a media release, guns blazing, in which he said, "The New South Wales Government today said that it would crack down on exorbitant compensation payouts to prisoners", which, in one recent case, topped $100,000. "The Justice Minister said that he would introduce legislation early this year to make it tougher for inmates to lodge claims against the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services." They are talking to talk, but they cannot walk the walk. It is all spin over substance. The Government is quite happy to get out and beat the drum, kick the can and issue press releases, but when it comes to doing something to assist the real victims—the taxpayers of New South Wales—it will not do anything. The legislation was introduced after a payout in 1999 of $100,000 to Craig Ballard after he fell out of bed.

I would be surprised if the Government had any inkling whatsoever how many compensation claims were made prior to this date. What is the potential amount of damages that the New South Wales taxpayers will incur in the next 10 years? Are we looking at $10 million or $100 million? We must be informed. Although the Government is happy, as the honourable member for Davidson stated, to tax retrospectively family investors through the vendor stamp duty and punish the mum and dad investors, those who have worked hard, it does not seem keen to respectively stop criminals from receiving large payouts for what are quite often minor injuries when the victims of their crimes are not afforded that same level of coverage. We must clamp down on these prisoners' claims.

Although we do not oppose the bill it is an absolute disgrace that it has taken so long to come back to this House. I ask those on the other side to pay a little bit more attention when putting legislation together and to consider retrospectively closing off the ability for criminals to receive excessive payouts for minor injuries. It is an absolute disgrace that perpetrators of crime in New South Wales have more rights retrospectively than their victims. I seriously question whether the Government has any concept of the extent of any liability that the people of New South Wales may face in the future. The Government's incompetence is highlighted by the fact that it has taken so long to bring this bill before the House when more than one year ago it announced that retrospective claims would cease.
Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.28 a.m.], in reply: As the Minister said, the bill makes minor amendments, mainly of a procedural nature, to clarify the operation of part 2A of the Civil Liability Act 2002. Part 2A, special provisions for offenders in custody, was inserted into the Act by the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Act 2004, which has commenced, and the bill will not affect the operation of the principal functions of the scheme. It will simply make minor consequential amendments to part 2A to clarify its operation and simplify certain processes. The legislation already provides that victims compensation restitution will be withheld from any damages award prior to payment being made to an offender. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 9 November 2004.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [10.30 a.m.]: I support this bill. Animal cruelty is a serious and topical issue. We all saw on television over the Christmas period the serious maltreatment and abuse that was perpetrated on kittens by a group of youths in the Sydney area. That behaviour outraged the community and made most people think hard about better protecting animals from cruelty. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Welfare League are working to improve the situation and to better protect animals in New South Wales. They do that every day; they are always out there looking after animals. The rest of us only see occasionally the cruelty we saw over the Christmas period.

Like other honourable members, I want suitable laws in place that help the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, the police and the courts to deal with cases of cruelty. Just as importantly, I want laws that enable officers to prevent cruelty to animals and not simply to respond to an animal cruelty incident after the fact. That is what the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill does. It makes a range of useful and appropriate legislative changes that will greatly facilitate the prevention of cruelty to animals. The bill is the product of a great deal of work. Officers of the Department of Primary Industries have spent several years on developing the bill. They have done so in close consultation with the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, and they have consulted with groups such as the New South Wales Farmers Association.

The result is a bill that meets many of the needs of charitable groups while at the same time ensuring that animal owners and carers are treated fairly. Obviously, as a representative of a regional seat I know that we need to keep a close eye on animal cruelty. All the farmers in the area I represent care greatly about their stock and the animals in the region, and they resent people who act cruelly or mistreat their animals. They are certainly not frightened of appropriate and sensible laws that ensure that animals are treated properly. The bill provides new powers to issue directions for the care or treatment of animals, and to issue penalty notices for less serious offences. The powers of the police are expanded so that they can direct and detain vehicles, such as cars, trucks, aeroplanes and boats.

However, the extension of the powers in the Act is balanced by new requirements that officers of the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League must identify themselves and explain what they are doing. Although not new in practice, these obligations are now given greater weight by their inclusion in the legislation. The powers of the courts are also being enhanced. In addition to any other penalty, the courts will be able to make an order against a cruel offender so that he or she cannot own or have control of any animal. This court power is already available under the Act against a convicted offender who is in charge of an animal, such as an owner. However, the ban was not previously available to the courts when convicted offenders were not in charge of the animal, such as when a convicted offender attacked a stray animal or another person's pet. The bill will address that problem, which occurred last Christmas with the cruel treatment of a cat at a railway station in Sydney.

The amendments in the bill are not simply about compliance. They have an education base, and recognise that people might be treating their animal cruelly unintentionally. For example, obesity can cause serious difficulties in humans, and it is also a problem for animals—although it is not a serious problem for many grazing animals in my electorate at the moment—and companion animals in particular. A new directions power for officers of charities will allow them to direct people to care for their animals in a particular way, for instance, in relation to the provision of food or examination by a veterinarian. The directions power is an educative tool that is aimed at providing early intervention to prevent future injury to an animal.

It is important for me as a representative of a regional seat to mention that New South Wales must have strong rules in place to prevent cruelty to animals. The New South Wales Government and Country Labour continue to ensure that the legislation is balanced and that extreme groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA], which has received a lot of media coverage recently, do not push their agenda of getting stuck into our grazing industries. This bill does not do anything to help those organisations. For example, PETA is conducting a campaign against mulesing, ignoring the fact that the practice prevents fly strike and the great suffering that sheep have to endure.

The Government and Country Labour in particular continue to support our grazing and sheep industries in New South Wales in the work they do for the benefit of our community. That is an important point to make when we know that extreme groups, which have no understanding of these industries and the treatment of animals, constantly come out with ridiculous campaigns and statements. This legislation will ensure a proper balance. We protect animals from cruelty. We are moving to protect animals from cruel treatment, and to enable prosecution after they have been treated cruelly, but we balance that aim with the rights of owners and with the need for people to care properly for animals in their care.

Cruelty to animals is a topical issue—we have seen it reported in the media, particularly over the Christmas break—and the bill has come at the right time. A number of people have been campaigning for this change to be made, and I am pleased that the Minister took the opportunity to consult with people in this process of developing the amendments to the legislation. We need firm powers for enforcement officers and the courts, as well as a high regard for the role that education can play in protecting our animals. The bill introduces changes that are a proper mix of the two, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [10.37 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this bill. The Hon. Duncan Gay, the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, will give a detailed response to the bill in the upper House on behalf of the Opposition. Although he will raise a number of concerns, at the end of the day the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, I shall make a couple of brief comments about cruelty inflicted on animals. Firstly, one of the cruellest things that has been done to an animal in recent times is to compare rats with the Premier. Rats have feelings too. Secondly, cruelty inflicted on animals is sometimes regarded more seriously than cruelty inflicted on human beings. During the Christmas period we saw media reporting of the cruel treatment of a cat on a train station. I do not underestimate the seriousness and sickness of such behaviour. There was huge public outcry, and rightly so. We have all heard about cruelty to children, particularly by parents, and I wonder whether we are becoming desensitised to such behaviour.

I attended a school presentation in my electorate and noticed that one of the children at the front of the group was mucking around. He was being quite disobedient and I asked the principal what the story was. She said that he had been locked in a cupboard for a couple of years by his parents and suffered psychological damage as a result. When I asked what had happened to the parents, I was told that the child was taken away from the parents for approximately 6 months and that the parents now have temporary access to the child. I could not help but think that if someone locked up a duck in a cupboard for two years, they would probably get into more trouble than the parents were in for locking up that child. I understand that dealings involving adults and children are more difficult and complex, but I sometimes think that it is a tragedy that we regard cruelty inflicted on animals more seriously than cruelty inflicted on human beings. The Opposition will not oppose the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [10.40 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill. Before I deal with a number of matters, I point out that it is not useful for the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to compare the prevention of cruelty to animals with the treatment of human beings, because cruelty in any form to any living thing must be stopped. It cannot be tolerated and it is absolutely sickening. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee referred briefly to an animal that has been the subject to of a recent media campaign. In my view, any effort by members of the Opposition to trivialise the importance of this bill by introducing humour into the debate is absolutely appalling.

The bill will introduce a number of changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that are intended to enhance the Act's operation. The bill has adopted a dual approach to improving animal welfare. The first aim of the bill is to improve compliance and enforcement aspects of protecting our wonderful animals. In this regard, the bill extends the powers of police officers and inspectors, the way that offences are prosecuted, and the powers of the courts. The second aspect of the dual approach adopted in this bill is to facilitate greater education and early intervention so that incidences of cruelty can be stopped in their tracks. The bill achieves those outcomes by, among other things, introducing direction powers and penalty notices. During my preparation for debate on this bill, I noticed the unforgettable article that was written on 27 January 2005 by Mark Nolan under the heading "2 kittens killed and strung out on fence". The article states:

Two kittens were bludgeoned to death and slumped over a barbed wire fence bordering a disabled children's holiday camp in yet another sickening case of cruelty.

A mother, driving her children to a nearby preschool, made the gruesome discovery at Camp Breakaway, in San Remo on the Central Coast.

One of the six-month-old kittens was so badly beaten its blackened ginger fur was covered in blood and its eyes had popped from its skull.

No children were attending the camp at the time of the incident.

Police said it appeared the killings were a copycat of the recent string of horrendous acts of cruelty against kittens.

It is the fourth attack on kittens in just 12 days in NSW and Victoria.

An eight-week-old kitten was stoned, jumped on, ridden over and kicked on to train tracks at Seven Hills on January 16.

Last Saturday a 10-week-old kitten was doused with petrol and set alight at Mt Druitt while a three-month-old kitten was kicked, swung by the tail and thrown during an attack at Shepparton in Victoria.

An 18-year-old man and a 16-year-old youth, both from Tregear, were charged on Tuesday with committing an act of aggravated cruelty on an animal over the Mt Druitt incident.

Those poor little kittens! There are many more articles depicting horrendous acts of barbarism committed on the wonderful animals that people enjoy as companions in sharing this wonderful planet. A matter I wish to concentrate on is the manner in which the effectiveness of the Act may be increased by its enforcement when this bill is implemented. As in the examples I have given, who can forget the terrible cruelty of the cases of mistreatment that have been reported in the media? These and other terrible acts of cruelty to animals demand the provision of additional powers to the police, the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League to enable them to take action when, sadly, they come across incidents of mistreatment.

The amending provisions of this bill will broaden enforcement options to enable the police, officers of the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League to be more proactive in preventing cruelty by giving lawful directions and penalty notices. Through expanded powers of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, officers will be able to allow first offenders, or others who have committed less serious breaches of the Act, the opportunity to remedy the situation. A direction may be given without an offender being subject to court proceedings or other penalty. The power to give directions will provide an officer with an enforcement tool for relatively minor breaches which will save enforcement agencies becoming involved in expensive and resource-draining prosecutions. The Chief Inspector of the RSPCA, Don Robinson, has stated that this would be a "day-to-day occurrence" if the RSPCA had those powers.

The bill also introduces the power to enable officers to issue penalty notices for prescribed offences. In most cases the ability to issue penalty notices will avoid the burden of court proceedings for less serious offences. Currently the Act provides that a court may ban the purchase, acquisition, possession or custody of an animal. However, the power to ban is currently limited to a person who is in charge of an animal and has been convicted of a serious cruelty offence under the Act. Section 31 states that when a court makes an order regarding the disposal of an animal, it can make an order stopping the offender from acquiring or having an animal. The court can also apply time limits on the order. That is as it should be. Unfortunately, the wording of section 31 is not adequate because it does not cover people who harm other people's animals.

In the past, there have been cases of cruelty to animals in which the offenders have been convicted, but the courts have not been able to ban ownership or custody of animals by the offenders. That happened because the animals they had harmed belonged to other people, or perhaps belonged to no-one in the case of strays. An illustration of this point is the case of a person who is convicted of abusing or mistreating someone else's kitten, but the court would not have the power to prohibit the person from acquiring an animal of his or her own. What a terrible situation that is! The shortcoming of the power clearly goes against the intention of section 31. The aim of section 31 is to stop serious or repeat cruelty offenders from having ownership and control of animals. It is outrageous and beyond my comprehension that people would want to repeatedly commit acts of cruelty upon animals.
Because offenders may perpetrate serious animal cruelty offences when they are not the person in charge of the animal, the bill expands the court's power to ban the purchase, acquisition, possession or custody of an animal. By virtue of this bill, the power could be applied to any person who has been convicted of a serious cruelty offence under the Act. The section will also be amended to make it apply to any conviction under part 2 of the Act which encompasses the cruelty provisions. The provisions of this amending bill send out a clear message to potential offenders. They also greatly improve the power of the courts to protect animals from potential and future acts of cruelty by convicted offenders.

Another court-related amendment in this bill concerns the limitation period for prosecutions under the Act. At present, actions must be commenced within six months of an offence being committed. The amending bill extends that period to 12 months, and that must be another good step in the right direction. Under current provisions, the Act requires enforcement agencies to commence prosecutions in the Local Court within six months of the offence. However, many cases of cruelty to animals are very complex. They involve a lot of facts and interviews of various witnesses, and can sometimes take more than six months to prepare. In other cases, the offence is not drawn to anyone's attention until the six-months period has passed. Don Robinson cited an example of offenders who have moved interstate to avoid prosecution by invoking the statute of limitations. In such cases, the alleged offenders avoid penalty. The changes provided in this bill will overcome that problem.

Offenders will not be able to get off lightly any longer. Enforcement agencies will have 12 months in which to bring forward prosecutions. The change will mean that those who are enforcing the Act will have sufficient time to properly prepare cases, even more difficult and more complex ones. It will also provide more time for offences to come to light and for prosecutions to be undertaken. I think this is a sensible and practical change—a change that will enhance the common good. A procedural matter this bill addresses is the court process where more than one animal is treated cruelly. At present, the prosecution must lay a separate information and file a separate summons for each animal. This causes a particular problem where the offence involves large numbers of animals, such as a flock of sheep. The requirement for a separate information and summons for each offence means considerable additional costs for enforcement agencies. This requirement also adds to the court's workload and costs, and has resulted in criticism by some magistrates.

A case Mr Robertson brought to my attention was one where the RSPCA tried to bring one charge covering the maltreatment of 50 horses. It sickens me how people can do that. It is very sad. However, to stick to the law as written, the magistrate directed the RSPCA to file one charge per horse. What a waste of time and resources! Under the amendment in this bill, the court will be able to consider whether an offence involved more than one animal. This will allow a clear presentation to the court of the seriousness of offences that may relate to herds, flocks or groups of animals of the same species at the same place and whose management has been identical.

Other changes to the Act will introduce safeguards regarding the exercise of powers of enforcement officers aimed at protecting the rights of citizens. For example, officers will be able to enter residential premises only in animal welfare emergencies or under the authority of a search warrant. The bill demonstrates our Government's commitment to protecting the welfare of our wonderful animals. I do not know how anyone in this House could not say that animal welfare is a matter of deep concern for every member of our community, irrespective of political positions. The amendments in this bill will ensure that the community's just expectations are appropriately met. The expanded range of powers will allow better, more targeted intervention and more efficient procedures when matters have to come to court. It will mean a better, more efficient use of resources These, and the many other amendments in this bill, will improve the Act's administration. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [10.52 a.m.]: In the six years I have been a member of this Parliament I have spoken to every bill that relates to prevention of cruelty to animals. I place on record my support for this bill and my appreciation of the Opposition's support for the legislation. I heard the honourable member for Murrumbidgee comment that at times we are more fascinated by outrageous cruelty to animals than cruelty to humans. He spoke about the attack on the cat at the railway station, and there appear to have been copycats of that incident. That attack happened just after the tsunami. I think I know what the honourable member for Murrumbidgee was alluding to. At times we do become used to seeing people dying in war zones and in terrible tragedies, and when we see an animal suffering as a victim of human cruelty the reaction is almost the same. That is a natural human reaction.

I remember reading that one of the great philosophers said that human society can be judged by how it treats the weakest of the species, including other species. Society can be judged on how humans treat animals. If animals are treated poorly, badly or cruelly—and sometimes animals are treated poorly through neglect by people who love their animals but cannot look after them—Parliament has to do everything it can to stop such treatment. I will not examine the detail of the bill, as that has already been done. I urge the judiciary to treat cases of cruelty to animals more seriously. It is quite common when the RSPCA or the Animal Welfare League or another organisation prosecutes people for cruelty to animals that they walk out with virtually a tap on their hands from a feather duster. Those who have a predilection for cruelty to animals are likely to be cruel to other people. There is evidence to back that up. Youths who are serial offenders against animals may well develop that syndrome as they get older and treat their families and friends in the same way. I support any legislation to prevent further cruelty to animals. The honourable member for Bligh has always done the same. Again, I support the bill and thank the Opposition for its support.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [10.55 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill, which introduces changes to the 1979 Act designed to prevent cruelty to animals and promote their welfare. In the year 2002-03 the New South Wales RSPCA investigated 12,748 complaints of cruelty to animals, a marginal increase from the previous period, although the number of prosecutions at 112 defendants is slightly down. These figures are still unacceptably high and I welcome those provisions in the bill intended to address the alarming level of animal cruelty in our society. The widespread publicity surrounding the recent horrific cases of kittens being tortured—as mentioned by the honourable member for Strathfield—reinforces the need for constant vigilance about animal welfare and the necessity to continually improve the effectiveness of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I commend the Minister for Primary Industries for introducing the bill.

I welcome the introduction of provisions in the bill giving inspectors the authority to issue directions for the care of animals. The combination of education and compliance is an important preventative measure and clearly reflects the spirit of the Act. If an inspector considers that an animal's welfare is at risk, he or she can issue written directives for the animal's proper care. This power could be particularly relevant when an owner has neglected the welfare of an animal through ignorance, and it may, in many cases, prevent further cruelty to the animal. I am also in favour of those provisions in the bill that expand certain enforcement powers of the inspectors to investigate offences. I note also that the definition of "premises" has been expanded to include vehicles and other forms of transport. Inspectors will be given the power to enter a car if a dog is suffering from heat exhaustion and to inspect livestock in transit.

However, the bill removes the current unrestricted power of inspectors to enter residential premises. Except for an extreme emergency, consent from the owner or a search warrant will have to be sought. While this new provision is consistent with current laws governing police powers, it weakens the effectiveness of officers appointed under the Act to respond to cases of animal cruelty. I also welcome the expansion of a court's powers to ban a person convicted of previous cruelty to animals from owning another animal. Persons who have shown themselves incapable of considering the welfare of animals should not be allowed to own another. The Act currently exempts veterinarians from charges of cruelty if they are treating an animal. The amendment removes this exemption. Veterinarians are as a profession dedicated to the health and wellbeing of their animals. This amendment reflects current community expectations that animals should be treated as humanely as possible.

Although the bill's extension of the limitation period for prosecutions from six to 12 months is an improvement, I believe that there should be no limitation, as is the case with other criminal legislation. Animal welfare groups have informed me that there are cases where photographic, video and witness evidence of shocking treatment and torture of animals has been rendered useless because it is 13 or 24 months old. I also express concerns related to this legislation. The bill expands the definition of "stock animal" to include deer. I note that this formalises the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996, in which deer are already prescribed as "stock animals". The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act sanctions the differential treatment of animals. Stock animals are not provided with the same degree of protection as other animals.

For example, they are exempted from the need for adequate exercise, a provision that allows for the intensive farming of animals, such as battery hens, which are confined in cramped wire cages, unable to carry their own weight. Various procedures performed on stock animals are acceptable under the Act as long as they do not inflict unnecessary pain on the animal. Surely any pain inflicted on any animal is unnecessary and unacceptable. I have some reservations about the inclusion of deer in the category of stock animal. A report prepared in 2004 for the Australian Government's Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation raised significant welfare issues in relation to commercial deer farming in Australia. One of the findings of that report expressed concern. It stated:

Despite the increased kill, the total weight of venison processed in the 2002/2003 year was similar to that processed in 2001/002 which reflects the lower average carcase weight of all stock processed which in turn reflects the lack of appropriate feeding caused by the drought.

As stock animals, deer will have less protection under the Act from the anti-cruelty provisions that apply to other animals. I am concerned that the expansion of the definition will facilitate the intensive farming of deer and remove it from the anti-cruelty provisions that apply to non-stock animals. I oppose any expansion of the category of stock animal and recommend that schedule 1 [2] be deleted from the bill. I will move an amendment to that effect in the Committee stage. Another major concern with the bill relates to the prohibition on coursing, currently defined in section 21 (1) (a) of the Act as using a dog to chase, catch or confine an animal. My proposed amendment to schedule 1 [8] limits the offence to one in which the animal is released from confinement to be chased, caught or confined by dogs. It will be permissible to use a dog for the purpose of hunting, shooting, snaring, trapping, catching or capturing an animal, but only in a manner that inflicts no unnecessary pain on the animal.

Regardless of whether coursing is confined to the control of vertebrate pests, as suggested in the second reading speech, it will be coursing—a sport that is capable of inflicting immense suffering on an animal. We should look to the remarkable example in the United Kingdom where, despite a long and well-established tradition of hunting with dogs, recently an Act was passed that bans that cruel practice in both England and Wales. It is ironic and appalling that New South Wales wishes to sanction that activity. I strongly oppose the amendments contained in the bill that exempt coursing from the anti-cruelty provisions of the Act. I recommend that schedule 1 [8] to the bill be deleted and that section 24 (1) (b) (i) of the Act not be raised as a defence under the measure in schedule 1 [9].

I am concerned about the provisions of the bill that will permit the feeding of live animals to predators. Obviously there are cases in which an injured reptile or owl, for example, is being looked after before being released into the wild. In those cases there is no alternative to feeding with the natural live animal diet. However, I oppose granting an exemption when a predatory animal is lawfully kept as a pet. I have been informed by animal welfare groups that over time the kept animal will accept a diet of dead animals. In my speech on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill 2003, I raised issues relating to the use of animals in medical research. I noted that in 1999 the Government banned the supply of pound animals for medical experimentation.

I requested members of this House to call upon the Federal Government to better monitor and provide public transparency for a Federal code to require alternatives to the use of live animals. I urge honourable members to reconsider my original request. As a society we must assume responsibility for animals. One of our most important responsibilities is to care for both children and animals. It has been said that the way we treat animals is as much a measure of our humanity as is our treatment of people. I conclude with the words of Abraham Lincoln:

I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.

Several amendments contained in the bill represent a significant improvement to the Act, and I commend the Government for their introduction. However, I oppose the provisions I have mentioned and will move amendments at the Committee stage.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.03 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have contributed to debate on this bill. I will address a few points raised in debate, especially those highlighted by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. The Minister for Police has announced that more attention will be given to violent crime against animals and its possible linkage to violence against people. A task force has been established, and has met, to investigate better intelligence sharing about offences involving deliberate cruelty to animals. The task force has brought together NSW Police, the Attorney General's Department and other enforcement agencies more than ever before. The Department of Primary Industries will also take part in the task force. Today we are witnessing the union of professionals and agencies dedicated to protecting and enhancing the lives of people and animals.

Animal welfare organisations are already co-operating with domestic violence agencies to ensure the safety of animals residing in violent homes and to assist women and children seeking safe havens and freedom from abuse. The aim is to relieve some of the stress of people who are in difficult circumstances. A recent example involved the RSPCA and the St George Hospital. The Government supports that task force and the involvement of staff of the Department of Primary Industries. I look forward to the development of new programs and legislative reforms that will assist in both reducing violent crime in our society and the suffering of animals. I take this opportunity to recognise all of the people involved in the activities of animal welfare organisation. Their dedicated work is essential for the maintenance of high animal welfare standards in New South Wales.
In particular, I recognise and thank the officers of the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, who conduct the necessary enforcement activities under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Officers of the New South Wales police service must also be recognised for their important contribution to the enforcement of the Act. I recognise also the significant work of veterinary practitioners in both treating animals and maintaining high standards of animal care in this State. The Government will oppose the amendments to be moved in the Committee stage. The provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill, in particular the new powers to give directions and to issue penalty notices, will greatly enhance the ability of the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and police officers to effectively and efficiently enforce the provisions of the Act and to maintain high standards of animal care in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [11.07 a.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 6 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [8], lines 1-3. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1 [9], line 4. Omit "and (4)".

No. 4 Page 4, schedule 1 [9], lines 13-16. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 5 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 34:

[13] Section 24 (2)

Insert "or 21" after "section 19A".

No. 6 Page 15, schedule 1 [23], line 21. Omit "12 months". Insert instead "3 years".

The purpose of amendment No. 1 is to remove deer from the category of stock animal. I am concerned that the inclusion of deer in that category will lead to an increase of cruelty to deer, as stock animals are not covered with the same provisions as other animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Amendments Nos 2 to 5 remove provisions that allow for coursing when a dog is used to hunt another animal. Recently that practice was prohibited in the United Kingdom, where, of course, there is a much longer history and culture of hunting. I call for the removal of provisions that allow that cruel and brutal practice. My amendment No. 6 allows for the extension of prosecution material for up to three years instead of 12 months to allow for evidence that is 18 months old still to be used. These amendments are very much in keeping with the spirit of this bill and with what the Minister intends to do to improve provisions relating to the protection of cruelty to animals. I hope that he responds positively to these amendments, which will further increase the strength of this responsible bill.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.10 a.m.]: Opposition members do not support the amendments moved by the honourable member for Bligh, primarily because we were given only eight minutes notice of them and we have not had an opportunity to consult anyone. This bill was introduced last year so the honourable member for Bligh had a significant amount of time within which to provide Opposition members with details of these amendments. The honourable member for Bligh has three staff members and I have only two, so there is really no excuse for introducing these amendments at such a late stage. I cannot comment on their content as they were handed to me at the last minute and I have not had an opportunity to consult anyone. For those reasons, the Opposition does not support these amendments.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.11 a.m.]: The Government opposes all the amendments. I refer to the first amendment. "Deer" has been specified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 as a stock animal. It is proposed, as a tidy-up exercise, that deer also be included in the definition of "stock animal" under the Act because deer are farmed animals. This proposed change has no bearing or influence on other legislation where deer may be separately considered as pest animals or as wild game. The Government similarly opposes amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4.
Section 21 of the Act is intended to prohibit sporting-type activities where an animal is kept or confined and then released for the main purpose of being chased, caught or confined by dogs. Concern has been expressed about the fact that the word "used" in relation to a chased animal, which appears at present in section 21 (1) (a), could broaden the scope of the section so that vertebrate pest control and other legitimate activities are caught by the section, for example, the chasing of rabbits by dogs to confine rabbits in burrows before warren destruction and moving sheep during dog trials. To ensure certainty as to the scope of the offence section, it is proposed that the word "used" be replaced by more limiting words such as "released from confinement" so that the offence is directed only to sporting-type activities where quarry animals are kept and released to be chased, caught or confined by dogs.

Clarification of the provisions related to this proposed change have been suggested to make it clear that all legitimate animal husbandry practices are not caught by the provisions of this section. Mustering, although already mentioned, is not the only legitimate use of working dogs where they might be construed to chase, catch or confine stock that have been released from confinement. Farmers often use dogs for purposes such as work in yards to catch flyblown sheep in a paddock or to separate them from the mob. Sheep dog trials are also a legitimate recreational activity where working dogs are used to move and direct sheep about a paddock following release from a pen.

In relation to hunting, dogs are permitted to be used, as long as no unnecessary pain is inflicted upon the hunted animal and no animal is specifically released for the purpose of being hunted or chased by a dog. I refer next to amendment No. 5. The current provisions are the result of consultation. There is no need to extend the amendments further. I refer lastly to amendment No. 6. At this stage there is no clear demand to extend the period to three years. However, that issue will be closely monitored to establish whether that period needs to be extended. The Government opposes these amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 8 December 2004.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [11.15 a.m.]: As shadow Minister for Roads I indicate at the outset that the Opposition does not oppose the Road Transport (General) Bill, but it has a number of reservations and concerns that it wishes to raise relating to some of its provisions. The Road Transport (General) Bill, otherwise known as the chain of responsibility legislation, or compliance and enforcement legislation, goes a long way towards providing a legislative framework for the compliance and enforcement of mass, dimension and loading requirements for heavy vehicles. Before I refer to the details of the bill I would like to refer to this legislation in a broader context. One of the greatest tasks facing State and Federal roads and transport Ministers over the next decade is that of addressing road safety issues associated with the doubling of the road freight load.

Heavy vehicles currently carry nearly all metropolitan freight and most non-metropolitan freight. The Bureau of Transport Economics has told us that by 2020 the amount of freight being carried by road is expected to double. The current growth rate in the road freight sector is 1.3 times gross domestic product, in other words, the road freight sector is growing 30 per cent faster than the domestic economy generally, which we all know is growing quite strongly. Even with the Federal Government's additional Auslink expenditure on interstate rail freight, road freight will still play a vital role in facilitating and increasing freight load over the next 10 to 15 years. As a community we increasingly have an expectation that freight will be delivered on time. Businesses no longer warehouse large stocks of inventory; rather they have an expectation that goods will be delivered on request from warehouses in urban centres or as required, that is, just on time. In some respects trucks are becoming moving warehouses. This expectation of "just on time" delivery, combined with population and economic growth, is driving the growth in heavy vehicle freight demand.
There are several issues arising from this growth in road freight. These include, but are not limited to, road and driver safety, future road infrastructure needs, where roads will go with the possibility of new roads, as well as the ongoing wear and tear on existing road infrastructure. Other issues that arise as a result of increasing road freight are environmental issues such as increased greenhouse gas emissions and also the noise of trucks as they pass people and communities who live nearby and whose amenity, peace and enjoyment of their properties are being adversely affected. One of the greatest concerns to the travelling public is the rapid increase in road freight movements on major New South Wales routes such as the Pacific Highway. On the Pacific Highway heavy vehicles account for 15 per cent of traffic but are involved in 35 per cent of fatal crashes. Heavy vehicles are not necessarily always the cause of these accidents. However, when heavy vehicles are involved in crashes they often result in fatal consequences

On the whole, heavy vehicle drivers are responsible and are providing a service that is essential for our community. However, some issues within the heavy vehicle industry must be addressed. Many drivers travel at high average speeds on roads that also carry high volumes of local traffic, including tourist traffic and retirees. For example, on the Pacific Highway heavy vehicle interstate traffic, including B-doubles, mix with local light traffic 24 hours a day. Some drivers and operators are tampering with speed limiters that are required by law and that should restrict heavy vehicles in New South Wales to a maximum speed of 100 kilometres per hour. Of serious concern is the pressure being placed on drivers to deliver goods based on unachievable or unrealistic timetables. This pressure on drivers is reflected in the principal causes of fatal accidents involving heavy vehicles. Some 25 per cent of accidents involve drugs and alcohol, 11 per cent are the result of driver fatigue and 9 per cent are the result of driver misjudgments.

The issue of speed limiter tampering will be addressed by the Transport Legislation (Speed Limiters) Amendment Bill, which will amend the Act so that a person responsible for a heavy vehicle will be deemed to have committed a speed limiter tampering offence when a heavy vehicle travels at a speed of more than 115 kilometres per hour. That legislation is awaiting debate in the House, and the Opposition will support it. The Road Transport (General) Bill, which is before the House today, aims to address an associated problem of some in the logistics chain avoiding responsibility for the influence placed on drivers to break the law in order to meet delivery deadlines. The legislation is based on the national model provisions approved by the Australian Transport Council, comprising Federal and State roads Ministers, in November 2003. At that time the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, called on the States and Territories to adopt appropriate chain of responsibility legislation to benefit road safety and long-term transport efficiency. He specifically called on the States and Territories to:

… when implementing their new laws... ensure that there is not an over-zealous, but a fair enforcement regime.

The traditional approach to heavy vehicle enforcement in New South Wales has been to place legal liability on the driver. This is an inadequate approach because other parties in the heavy vehicle industry chain can have a major impact on driver speeds, driving hours, load sizes and driver behaviour. I believe accountability in the road transport sector should extend beyond the driver of the vehicle, and therefore I am generally supportive of the legislation. Furthermore, New South Wales has a responsibility to provide a fair enforcement regime that is consistent with the national model.

However, a number of industry concerns have been raised with the Opposition in relation to the legislation in its current form. While the bill is generally consistent with the national model developed by the former National Road Transport Commission that was endorsed by the Australian Transport Council in November 2003, the New South Wales Road Transport Association has raised concerns in regard to industry codes of practice, in particular. In a briefing note that I received from the Road Transport Association the organisation expressed the concern:

… that [the bill] does not enable recognition to be given by the Roads and Traffic Authority to industry Codes of Practice.

A code of practice is very important and would clarify responsibilities for all parties—drivers and operators, enforcement agencies and the trucking industry. It would also assist in determining a reasonable steps defence. I am not suggesting that a code of practice should be an alternative to the compliance provisions in this bill. It would need to be consistent with the fundamental compliance conditions relating to mass limits, dimensions and loading requirements. I believe a code of practice would be supplementary to the existing provisions in that it would clarify best practice for the trucking industry. I think a code of practice is central to the success of this legislation and that not having Roads and Traffic Authority recognition of industry codes of practice makes the legislation weaker, less effective and less clear. Without this recognition the legislation is less likely to meet its objective of improving compliance.
The legislation will allow authorities to charge anyone involved in the loading of a truck with a major breach when the truck has been loaded beyond the legal limit by more than 5 per cent. But how are those associated with the loading of the truck expected to get the load weighed when they are in the middle of nowhere? This legislation requires that the load has either been weighed or that documentation exists to show that the load is not overweight. In the case of livestock loading, it is not practical to weigh the load on the property and there would be no documentation regarding the weight of animals to assist the driver. Whilst it might be possible to obtain weight estimates, it would be difficult to do it accurately. Industry has generally expressed the view that 5 per cent tolerances are too narrow in circumstances when loads shift during transit or when there is difficulty measuring weight accurately at the pick-up point. I am also concerned that tolerances are too narrow given the unintentional loading and mass errors associated with trucking operations. These might include the non-inclusion of pallets in weight estimates or changes in the weight of the vehicle as a result of refuelling, additional spare tyres and the like.

Another concern raised with me relates specifically to the reasonable steps defence. The reasonable steps defence is not available to drivers and operators for some offences. If this legislation is to apply to all parties equally then all parties must have the same rights and responsibilities. This is another point made by the New South Wales Road Transport Association, which states:

… there should be equal access to defences for those parties which have taken reasonable steps, regardless of their position on the chain of responsibility.

It should be noted, however, that the national model bill provides the reasonable steps defence for minor risk breaches only while the New South Wales legislation extends the reasonable steps defence to substantial and severe risk breaches relating to load mass requirements. Therefore, I believe that part of the New South Wales legislation is stronger than the Federal model. The problem is that people are not treated equally under this legislation. I think it is a fairly powerful point of principle that all people involved in any part of the transport chain have access to a reasonable steps defence.

In regard to penalties, the legislation allows for the new fees designed to act as sanctions to be imposed by regulation. I have reservations about the imposition of new fees without the proper scrutiny of Parliament. Generally new taxes and fees should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and the imposition of new taxes by regulation is an inappropriate delegation of legislative powers. The Legislation Review Committee has written to the Minister seeking an explanation in this regard. I certainly hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will address the concerns raised by the Legislation Review Committee about allowing regulations and fees to be set by regulation outside the parliamentary process.

There is also concern within the trucking industry about extending the definition of "authorised officer" to include a police officer. Under the national model bill authorised officers will be consigned to a small group of specifically trained enforcement officers from road agencies and the police force. Under this legislation there are no requirements regarding the qualifications and attributes of those authorised to undertake enforcement for the purposes of the bill. The Legislation Review Committee has also written to the Minister for Roads in this regard, seeking an explanation as to why it is not specified that the authorised officer must be a member of staff of a public authority and why there are no other requirements regarding the qualifications or attributes of that person. I trust that the Minister will address the two issues that have been referred to the Legislation Review Committee and the other matters that I have raised.

Concerns have been expressed about the provisions relating to the immediate suspension of a person's driver's licence. The exceptional circumstances limitation in the legislation must be reconsidered. Its removal would give local courts the power to review and overturn the immediate suspension of a person's driver's licence. The Opposition has been contacted by the Law Society, which believes the courts should be able to review and overturn the immediate suspension of a driver's licence when the circumstances warrant it. The Opposition generally supports this legislation. There is no doubt that the extension of liability for offences beyond drivers and operators is long overdue. Authorities must also have the appropriate powers if they are to investigate effectively and prosecute those who break New South Wales road transport laws, thus endangering all members of the travelling public.

Under this legislation authorities will be empowered to inspect or search heavy vehicles. I note that business premises can be searched only after obtaining a search warrant or by consent. There is a need for a broader system of compliance and enforcement for those members of the heavy vehicle transport industry who knowingly and intentionally break our road laws and put the safety of other traffic and pedestrians at risk. While the Opposition has a number of concerns, the most significant of which is the absence of a provision that ensures a mandated code of practice in the legislation, we will not oppose the bill. I expect the legislation to provide a safer road environment for all those in the transport chain. However, I would like the Government to respond to the concerns that I have raised on behalf of The Nationals and the Liberal Party during my speech.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [11.30 a.m.]: I support the Road Transport (General) Bill. My constituents have asked me a number of questions, and whilst a number of them have been answered by previous speakers, I want to place on record further answers to alleviate fears that seem to be developing in some areas. The general question is about the need to implement compliance and enforcement [C and E] provisions. The C and E reforms are an improved framework for the regulation of the heavy vehicle industry and other participants in the road transport task. The general objectives of the C and E reforms are to improve compliance outcomes for road safety, infrastructure and the environment, while minimising the adverse impacts of road transport to the community. They will also help create a level playing field for industry by making it more difficult for those who operate outside the law to gain a competitive advantage.

Has the industry been consulted? If so, what was the industry input? The road transport industry has been consulted widely on the development of the national provisions, and the national model provisions have been in the public domain since mid-2002. Industry representatives were part of the national legislative advisory panel that assisted in the development of the provisions. They are generally supportive of the provisions and welcome the extending of liability beyond the driver and operator. The Australian Trucking Association and the New South Wales Road Transport Association were disappointed that the "reasonable steps" defence is available to drivers only in the case of minor offences.

In New South Wales the current requirement of producing evidence that a vehicle has been weighed will be maintained. The focus is on encouraging behaviour that complies with the regulations and in that regard nothing will change from what drivers and operators currently experience. It is expected that some sectors of industry will continue to argue for full access to a "reasonable steps" defence by drivers and operators in all cases. Those sectors of industry that are being brought into the chain of responsibility for the first time—for example, loaders, consignors and receivers—are concerned about their new liabilities. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has established an industry liaison group to assist with the communication task to ensure that all parties are made aware of their obligations under C and E.

What are the checks and balances for the enhanced enforcement powers? It is anticipated that the more intrusive of the enhanced powers will be delegated only by the chief executive of the RTA to a small number of appropriately trained authorised officers. The enhanced powers will not be applicable to general RTA inspectors whose current roadside enforcement activities will not be substantially impacted upon. A similar system has been adopted successfully in Victoria where the enhanced enforcement powers have already been enacted. Detailed procedural guidelines will be finalised before commencement of the new regime. Those will clearly define the methods and circumstances of when it is appropriate to invoke the enhanced powers.

How will the chain of responsibility [CoR] provisions work in practice? It is not the intention of the new provisions to make each offence an automatic CoR investigation. CoR investigations are, by their nature, very time and resource intensive and will be pursued only in those instances it is considered appropriate. Triggers that the RTA may use to initiate a CoR investigation include, but are not limited to, evidence of systemic and habitual breaches, evidence of continued unfair commercial advantage as a result of breaches and evidence of unreasonable demands and pressures on other parties in the supply chain to breach. A specialist audit and investigations unit will lead CoR investigations. Those investigations will be a strategic tool that will supplement the current enforcement practices of the RTA; they will not replace them. For example, a particular industry sector in which evidence suggests that compliance is poor may be targeted. A successful prosecution will then potentially act as a deterrent across the broader industry, hence increasing compliance levels.

When will the C and E reforms be implemented in New South Wales? It is anticipated that the new provisions will commence in mid 2005. Implementation is being accompanied by a comprehensive awareness and publicity campaign to assist all stakeholders prepare for the introduction of the C and E reforms. What special defences are available in New South Wales? The national model bill provides special defences that are tailored to the role and responsibility of each of the parties in the chain. New South Wales has retained that principle. One special defence is known as the reasonable steps defence [RSD]. It is available for some parties in certain circumstances. If available, it requires that a person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known of the breach concerned, and had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the breach, where there were steps the person could reasonably be expected to have taken. Off-road parties—that is, consignors, loaders, packers and receivers of loads—will have access to the RSD. The provisions set out a list of possible factors that might constitute reasonable steps.
On-road parties, drivers and operators will have access to the RSD only in the case of minor dimension and load restraint breaches. That is to cover those times when, even though complying with sensible, reasonable business practice, an unforseen breach still occurs. In the case of mass, drivers and operators will retain access to the current limited reasonable efforts defence that applies in New South Wales. This means that defendants are required to demonstrate either that they have weighed the loaded vehicle or that they are in possession of sufficient and reliable evidence from which the mass was calculated. It will be available for minor, substantial and severe mass breaches. It is important to note that with all these defences the burden of proof rests with the defendant. The different defence provisions for different parties recognise the fact that the chain of responsibility is about appropriate responsibility, not equal responsibility.

What are container weight declarations? A container weight declaration is intended to accurately state the weight and contents of a freight container. All containers should have one. The new provisions mandate that accurate container weight declarations must be provided by the person defined as the "responsible entity", namely the person in Australia who consigns or otherwise engages the road carrier or offers the container for transport by road in Australia. Without a container weight declaration, a driver is not to transport the container. Those provisions are designed to ensure that drivers and road operators receive the correct information to enable the selection of the appropriate vehicle to transport the container within the relevant legal mass limits.

How do the New South Wales provisions differ from the national model C and E bill? The national model C and E bill has both "desirable" and "essential" aspects. That distinction recognises that each jurisdiction has its own individual legal systems, yet also achieves nationally consistent outcomes. For that reason, the RTA has decided to depart from the national model provisions in the following main aspects. In relation to not registering industry codes of practice, whilst not prohibiting the development of industry codes of practice and in fact being supportive of any efforts industry makes to ensure their business systems and processes meet the legal requirements, the RTA does not believe it is its role to register any such codes. The RTA maintains that industry itself is in the best position to assess its risks and to develop appropriate systems to mitigate them.

In relation to application of mass dimension and load restraint provisions, the national model bill applies the provisions relating to mass dimension and load restraint offences only to cases where the load on the vehicle is, or may be, a factor in the breach. That effectively means that the bill does not apply the categorisation of breaches to dimensions offences where there is no load, for example, where a trailer has been configured incorrectly making the vehicle too long. That distinction will not apply in New South Wales, meaning that all dimensions breaches will be prosecuted under compliance and enforcement provisions and determined as minor, substantial or severe, regardless of whether a load is a factor in that breach.

I now turn to special mass defences for drivers and operators. The national model provisions allow access to a "reasonable steps" defence for drivers and operators only in the case of a minor breach. New South Wales has decided to maintain its current provisions in terms of special mass defences for drivers and operators. That means there will be no change to the status quo for drivers and operators. The current reasonable efforts defence, under which defendants are required to demonstrate either that they have weighed the loaded vehicle or that they are in possession of sufficient and reliable evidence from which the mass was calculated, will remain. It will be available for minor, substantial and severe mass breaches.

What concessions are made for uncertainties with loading practices in the field? It is important to note that these new provisions will not change the statutory limits. Whilst acknowledging that the transportation of particular loads can be more problematic than others, the responsibility remains with the operator to develop business systems that ensure statutory mass limits are not exceeded. For example, after making best efforts to manage the risk when loading, the first load could be used to test the accuracy of the precautions, moving the vehicle to a level site and assessing the mass using on-board scales, and then making any necessary adjustments to the loading practice. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [11.41 a.m.]: I want to speak only briefly on the bill, as the honourable member for Ballina, who led for the Coalition, has outlined the Opposition's position on it. For some years I served as shadow Minister for Roads. In that time I had meetings with the industry relating to the development of a chain of responsibility. There was great enthusiasm in the industry for that, and I commend the industry for following the matter through to a stage where it is part of the legislation now before the House.

Some concerns remain about the matter, but the legislation overall provides for new responsibilities throughout the trucking industry, making parties to road transport and supply other than drivers and transport operators more accountable and legally liable for breaches of road transport laws. The bill will strengthen the enforcement of sanctions in relation to the investigations attached to road laws, provide a "reasonable steps" defence for mass offences for drivers, operators and owners, and encourage road transport participants to adopt active risk management strategies to prevent breaches of the law.

The whole concept of the bill is to go outside the immediate driver, and look down the chain to see where an offence has been committed. I attended conferences of the Road Transport Association at both Albury and Coffs Harbour when this matter was vigorously debated and I made a short speech. I commend those people for following this matter through. There was a genuine desire for this proposal to come to fruition, in full knowledge of the effects that that may have. People were prepared to work with provisions relating to a chain of command. However, we need a mandated code of practice that is clear so that people understand their responsibilities under it. I am sure it would also help with any relevant legal proceedings that may occur under this legislation.

There is no doubt that there are cowboys in the industry. I was heartened, when I attended those conferences, that the finger of responsibility for breaches was pointed at the cowboys, not only at the truck-driving level, but right up to directors of the companies involved, and others. I well remember many years ago, probably before this matter was even being debated, the concerns that country members of this place had, in fact still have, regarding heavy vehicles on our roads. All honourable members would have been receiving complaints from constituents about methods of driving, bearing in mind that only a small number of people are responsible for the complaints made.

However, one leading organisation, which I will not name, used to advertise that its customers could send their products, et cetera, by its air express to Melbourne and that they would be there next day. The "air express" was actually a truck hurtling at excessive speed down the Hume Highway. That decision was made at board level. This legislation will stamp out that sort of activity and, hopefully, give people at the bottom of the chain, who are doing it tough in this industry, some relief from anxiety that they will be driven to early graves, as often occurs as a result of demands placed on them. This legislation is good for the industry, which I congratulate on driving it through to fruition.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Housing) [11.45 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and for expressing concerns they have about the bill. The honourable member for Ballina, who led for the Opposition, raised a number of issues, and I will respond to them. The first relates to codes of practice. The Government supports the development of industry codes of practice, and is working with the National Transport Commission to finalise guidelines for industry codes. The Roads and Traffic Authority will work with industry associations to develop codes of practice that help operators to comply with road transport law in New South Wales. Another issue raised relates to work done by the Legislation Review Committee. I note that the Minister has responded directly to the committee.

Issues were also raised about the power to impose fees. That provision, which is in the existing Act, provides legislative certainty to the imposition of fees for cost recovery. Fees are the subject of regulations, which can of course be disallowed by resolution of either House. Another matter raised relates to authorised officers. The extended powers provided by the bill will be exercised only by specifically authorised officers who have been trained in the provisions of the bill. As the shadow Minister noted, a warrant will be required to search any premises, and that will provided necessary checks and balances to these powers. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 37 agreed to.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Housing) [11.47 a.m.]: I move:

Page 33, clause 38 (1), line 29. Insert "or combination" after "vehicle".

This amendment clarifies the application of the length breaches covered by clause 38 to "vehicles" and "combinations". All of the other dimensions required in the bill as drafted apply to both "vehicles" and/or "combinations". A "combination" is defined as "a group consisting of a motor vehicle connected to one or more other vehicles". The policy that New South Wales has adopted in applying the dimensions requirements in the bill is that they should apply to vehicles or combinations, loaded or unloaded, as the potential safety implications of an over-dimension vehicle could be the same regardless of the vehicle configuration. The definition of "vehicle" in clause 3 of the bill covers "any description of vehicle on wheels" and so would seem to cover a "combination" of vehicles anyway. However, to remove any possible future confusion, and for consistency with the dimensions requirements, the amendment inserts the words "or combination" after the word "vehicle" in clause 38 (1).

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [11.48 a.m.]: Though the Opposition was advised of this amendment only a short time ago, a reading of it appears to confirm what the Minister said, that it is a clarifying amendment, and for that reason we do not oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 267 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Leave granted for up to 12 private members' statements to be noted forthwith.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.52 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the women of my electorate who wish to undergo mammograms as a preventative measure against breast cancer. Last week I was contacted by Councillor Kerry Child, who, together with Dorothy Hayes, recently organised a petition containing 8,000 signatures seeking to ensure that the mobile breast cancer screening unit continue its work across the North Coast. Unfortunately, Mrs Child has now advised me that people within the Coffs Harbour electorate, who, because of doctors' advice, need a mammogram to examine suspicious lumps in their breasts are not receiving written notification of the scheduled visits of the van. This penny-pinching act is unacceptable to those people. They deserve the same service as their city cousins: regular mammograms.

When Kerry Child contacted the Department of Health she was told that it is up to the individual to contact the department to find out when the van will be in the area. One lady who did that was told, "I am sorry, the schedule is full, you cannot have a mammogram." That is unacceptable. Two friends of my wife and I have died as a result of breast cancer, and we know others who have had a breast removed because of cancer. The mobile mammogram service is absolutely vital for those in the 40-years to 70-years age group. However, they are the people who are not being notified, and that is totally unacceptable. The Government must immediately make sure that they are notified. If the van cannot provide the service to the number of women who want mammograms and has to visit a particular area more often than it currently does, so be it. This is far too important an issue to penny pinch because of perhaps $2,000 worth of postage and $2,000 worth of stationery per annum.

On behalf of Mrs Kerry Child and Mrs Dorothy Hayes, who was recently named the Coffs Harbour Electorate Woman of the Year for her continuing work for cancer carers and sufferers, for her work Meals on Wheels and for her work in other areas, I ask this House, the Minister and the Government to ensure that funding for this vital service is sufficient for the van to conduct regular visits. I also ask that further funding be provided, if necessary, to ensure that all women wishing to have mammograms are notified when the van is in the area and their names are placed on a screening schedule. On behalf of the two fine ladies I have mentioned, the women in the Coffs Harbour electorate and the women on the North Coast I ask the Government to give this matter its urgent and favourable consideration.

Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [11.56 a.m.]: Last week was Seniors Week. One of the activities in the Hunter region was a competition which was the initiative of two council road safety officers, Scott Pickering from Lake Macquarie City Council and Alan Drabsch from Newcastle City Council. They conceived the idea of a motorised wheelchair safety awareness competition for seniors. Following a controversial court case on the Central Coast last year and a number of deaths of people driving motorised wheelchairs on public roads in recent years, honourable members would be aware of the need for education across the whole community about the safe use of motorised wheelchairs. Many people who use motorised wheelchairs are older citizens who live with carers, in nursing homes or in other places where they are looked after by others. Both the users of motorised wheelchairs and their carers need to be made aware of safety issues surrounding motorised wheelchairs and the limitations of those vehicles.

The councils arranged for sponsorship of the competition, which meant there was no cost to the ratepayers of Newcastle or Lake Macquarie. The competition was held at Glendale Stockland Centre car park on Saturday 19 March from 10.00 a.m. until 4.00 p.m. The principal sponsor was Walk on Wheels, a scooter and wheelchair warehouse at Warners Bay. I thank Peter Wilson and his wife, Ann, for the generous donation of a motorised wheelchair worth about $5,000 as the principal prize. It was a great gesture. I know that they are very concerned about safety issues arising from the use of motorised wheelchairs in public places. Other sponsors included Seniors Week, the Speers Point RSL, Lake Macquarie City Council, Toronto Workers Club, the NRMA, Newcastle Permanent Building Society, and Stockland Glendale. Thanks to the sponsors thousands of dollars were raised to generate the necessary publicity.

Seventy people entered the two-phase competition. One part of the competition was on practical skills: a slalom, going over a curved ramp, through a doorway and stopping as close as one could to a "Stop" sign. The other part was a knowledge quiz. Question one: According to the Australian Road Rules, when you are using a motorised wheelchair (scooter) you are classified as a", tick a box, "driver", "a small car", "pedestrian", "motorcyclist". The correct answer was "pedestrian". Question two: "Name two items that will help make you more visible to drivers". The main two items are a flag in the air and a bright or light-coloured jacket and clothing to enhance visibility. Question three: "When using a motorised wheelchair (scooter) on the footpath you should—", tick a box, "obstruct the path of other pedestrians", "weave in and out of pedestrians as if in a race", "try to travel at the same speed as other pedestrians", "nudge pedestrians out of the way with your motorised wheelchair". It is not too hard to get the right answer to that question.

A pamphlet entitled "Scooter Survival Guide" was created 18 months ago by Wyong, Gosford, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie councils to try to educate the community about the safe use of these vehicles, which are a wonderful mobility aid not only for the physically disabled but also for those with heart conditions who cannot walk more than 30 or 40 metres without puffing. Another question reads, "When should you travel on the road in a motorised wheelchair?", and the four responses are "At all times", "Only as a last resort", "When the speed limit is 60 kp/h", and "When going through roundabouts". It is not difficult to guess the correct response to that question. Question five asked respondents to indicate why they wanted a motorised wheelchair.

Mr Thomas George: Did you win?

Mr JOHN MILLS: I did the course, but I did not formally enter the competition. The winner was a senior citizen from the suburb of Balmoral in Lake Macquarie who was overcome because he needed a wheelchair. He was truly delighted to win it, and the competition had a wonderful outcome. With the assistance of television and newspaper coverage, I believe we achieved the important road safety objective of increasing community knowledge of the safety aspects of motorised wheelchairs. I thank the Lake Macquarie and Newcastle councils for a great initiative during Seniors Week.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [12.01 p.m.]: March 8 was International Women's Day and I recognise and congratulate the Albury Electorate Woman of the Year, Mrs Jane Ayers, who is the chief executive officer of the Mercy Health Service in Albury. As part of celebrations for the United Nations International Women's Day 2005, the New South Wales Office for Women asked every member of Parliament to acknowledge the outstanding achievement and leadership of a local woman. That woman's achievements and leadership would be recognised in the local community, and the winners from each electorate were to be invited to attend a Premier's reception for the announcement of the New South Wales Woman of the Year. Jane Ayers was nominated by the Lions Club of Lavington, which consists of 42 members, including three women. Brenda Henderson, who is the current president of this dynamic community service club, submitted the nomination which had been prepared by club stalwart Charles Leaney.

Mrs Henderson said that club members had been impressed by Jane Ayers' enthusiasm and dedication over many years. Jane Ayers was educated at Albury High School and trained as a nurse in Sydney. She returned to Albury in 1975 and began work at the Mercy Hospital. While nursing was her vocation, Mrs Ayers was involved in a wide range of other programs. She was the facilitator for regular in-service training at all border health institutions and nursing homes. She conducted workshops for loss and grief and for pain control, and as a consultant for palliative care and bereavement she assisted other health professionals in developing their palliative care programs. She has been a strong advocate for patient care in hospital and at home. It was her professional and personal qualities which led to her being appointed as chief executive officer of the Mercy Health Service.

As I remarked during the morning tea presentation to Jane in the gardens of the Mercy Hospital, so many people in the Albury region—from the very young to the very old—have touching stories to tell of the wonderful care they have received at the Mercy Hospital. Whether it is in the areas of geriatric medicine and rehabilitation, palliative care or support for parents and babies, Jane Ayers has been a central figure for so many residents of the Albury electorate. Her innovation, advocacy, administrative ability, team leadership and, above all, her compassion have made her a most worthy recipient of the award. If that was not enough, Jane Ayers is currently involved with the Mercy Million Building Appeal, which seeks to raise $1.5 million from the border community to complete funding for a major refurbishment of the Mercy Hospital.

The ambitious appeal was launched in September 2004 by actress and charity worker Paula Duncan. Paula was back in Albury last Friday to launch the hospital's new aged care advisory service and to announce that in 25 weeks a total of $942,445 had been raised. This has come about through the generous donations of local businesses, community groups and individuals. The Commercial Club, Albury, made a $100,000 contribution to the appeal while Albury Wodonga's Rotary clubs also made a $100,000 pledge to the building project. The deputy administrator of the area health service, Dr Joe McGirr, spoke at the launch and announced government funding of $200,000 towards the palliative care refurbishment. He said that the Mercy Hospital's board would "build a centre that will rival any for aged care in Australia". The Mercy Health Service will refurbish its existing buildings in Albury to accommodate a new palliative care centre, subacute aged care service and a parent and baby unit.

This is a story of community gratitude and high esteem for the service provided. How far that is removed from the Government's shoddy mismanagement and crass discrimination that was exhibited throughout the Woman of the Year exercise. It is a sour note on which to end, but this unprofessionalism will not be accepted. The nomination form sent out by the Minister for Women was scant of detail and had obviously been subject to a quality cutback, judging by the fuzzy grey nature of the overphotocopied single sheets. It was in no state to be sent out to the electorate and had to be redone. Much worse though was the blatant discrimination policy adopted by this old Carr Government, which saw fit to deliberately invite only female members of Parliament to the Premier's reception for International Women's Day. This meant that I could not accompany my electorate's Woman of the Year recipient. Only female members of Parliament could do so.

This discrimination is incomprehensible and sets a terrible example. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition was informed that the only way he could attend was if he wore a dress. However, the Premier was there, along with the male members for Miranda and Newcastle. No doubt they were appropriately dressed! Finally, and this should concern all members, the New South Wales Woman of the Year was simply hand-picked by the Minister, rather than being selected from the finalists who were the Electorate Women of the Year. Is this some sort of political farce? What makes it worse is that at no time was anyone informed of this, which led the local papers, the recipient and me all to believe that Mrs Ayers would be in the running. I quote from the Border Mail: "Mrs Ayers becomes a finalist with women from other electorates for the New South Wales Woman of the Year Award." This is another example of the selective discrimination instituted by the Government.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [12.06 p.m.]: I wish to report to the House on an event I attended in my capacity as the State member for Liverpool on 26 February at the State Theatre. It was an evening of Sufi music with Ahmet Özhan and the Whirling Dervishes. Many of the organisers of this event live in my electorate in Sydney and a number of my constituents attended. Among the organisers I mention particularly Recep Aydogan and Ismail Aydogan, from the Feza Foundation, and Mehmet Tosun and Kemal Ismen who is now the President of the Islamic Council of New South Wales. The honourable member for Auburn, Barbara Perry, was also present. The event was presented by the Feza Foundation and the Affinity Intercultural Foundation. The sponsors included Turkish Airlines, the Community Relations Commission of New South Wales and World TV.

The event featured Turkish State Artist Ahmet Özhan and a 13-man ensemble from the Istanbul Historical Turkish Music Choir. They performed Sufi music and were accompanied by the Whirling Dervishes. The Sufi tradition is a well-known element of the spiritual tradition of Islam. The Whirling Dervishes in particular have attracted a great deal of attention from outside the Islamic world. They consist of individual members—at the event there were four—who rotate or whirl on the spot for a very considerable period. They are described as being in a trance when they are whirling. They have attracted a great deal of attention from the non-Islamic world. I note that the Whirling Dervishes featured on a recent program of Compass on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. It is worth noting that there is obviously a particular historical and political background in presenting such an event at this point of time. The Affinity Intercultural Foundation has stated:

In the last few years, just about everything about Islam and Muslims has been talked publicly in the media. While some Muslims only tend to focus on the troubled middle-east politics and the anxious Western World is busy seeing all Muslims as potential terrorists, the rich spiritual tradition of Islam is almost always ignored. Yet Islam has a long tradition of spirituality and perhaps the spiritual aspect of the Prophet Muhammadpbuh [peace be upon him] is his most striking quality. The spiritual discipline of Islam, tasawwuf (Sufism) is either rejected by puritanic Muslims outright or stripped from its identity by Western enthusiasts.

In Turkey, the advertised performer, Ahmet Özhan, is a very significant figure. Since 1991 he has been a director of the Istanbul Historical Turkish Music Choir, which was established by the Turkish cultural ministry. He was awarded the title of State Artist in 1998. The performance I attended was the only Sydney performance, but the group had recently performed in Perth and was shortly to perform in Brisbane and Melbourne. A brief summary of the background of Sufism and the performance is stated in promotional material relating to the event:

Ahmet Özhan and his 13 man ensemble from the Istanbul Historical Turkish Music Choir will perform a banquet of Sufi Music with the graceful Whirling dervishes, allowing us to relive the mystical traditions of ancient Istanbul and Konya.

Sufi music has been described as spiritual, mesmerizing and soothing, and it is often given more cultural and historical depth by lacing it with readings of beautiful poems from the great 13th-century Turkish mystic and poet Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi.

The rituals of the Rumi's followers (Whirling Dervishes) are among the most enduring as well as the most exquisite ceremonies of spirituality. The ritual whirling of the dervishes is an act of and a drama of faith. It possesses a highly structured form within which the gentle turns become increasingly dynamic as the individual dervishes strive to achieve a state of trance. The music that accompanies the whirling from beginning to end ranges from sombre to rhapsodical; its effect is intended to be mesmerizing. Chanting of poetry, rhythmic rotation, and incessant music create a synthesis which, according to the faithful, induces a feeling of soaring, of ecstasy, of mystical flight.

The Whirling Dervishes trace their origin to the 13th century Ottoman Empire and are one branch of the vast Sufi tradition of Islam. Sufism espouses a well-founded interpretation of Islam, which focuses on love, tolerance, worship of God, community development, and personal development through self-discipline and responsibility.

I thank the Feza Foundation and the organisers for inviting me to attend the function. At a time of execration of Islam and extraordinarily ill-founded conferences by lunatics such as Fred Nile, it is a pleasure to be able to comment on this event in this place.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [12.11 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a David v Goliath battle facing a small business in my electorate of Clarence. Graham and Kris Downing own a small general store and post office at Palmers Island, which is 10 kilometres west of Yamba. With the support of the local community they applied for a take-away liquor licence and spent almost $10,000 on upgrading the business to satisfy the required standards. The upgrades satisfied the local council and the Roads and Traffic Authority. However, a conglomerate heavyweight, Woolworths, lodged a last-minute objection, causing much anguish for Kris and Graham and their five young children. Woolworths' bullyboy tactics are impacting not only on the Downings but adversely also on Woolworths' image. This matter has received wide local media coverage, including an article in the Daily Examiner headed "Couple's dream in tatters", which stated:

Woolworths objection puts plan for Palmers Island bottle shop on hold …
Mrs Downing said the objection created a substantial financial risk to their proposal.

Before it can be considered, the Downings will have to build extensions worth an estimated $30,000, a cool room worth $14,000 and a seven-car carpark worth $10,000.

Because an objection has been lodged, the Downings will have to carry out those extensions before they can appeal the decision. Another article in the Daily Examiner was headed "Downings take the fight up to Woolworths". Although Woolworths may have the financial muscle to make things difficult for a small operator and win financially, morally and ethically Woolworths' reputation in the Clarence valley would be severely tarnished by those tactics. For many years big conglomerates have stood over small corner stores and forced them to close down through price-cutting and flooding the market with cheaper goods. In a letter to Roger Corbett, the Chief Executive Officer and Group Managing Director of Woolworths Limited, I stated:

Your company has objected, inter alia, on the grounds that "the interests of Woolworths would be negatively affected by the granting of this application".

The owners of the Pit Stop, Graham and Kris Downing, pose no threat to Woolworths. While it is true that some local residents use your BWS store in neighbouring Yamba for some of their alcohol purchases, there is no way this small family business could compete against the Woolworths group on variety or price.

Woolworths' actions have already caused significant negative publicity for the company in the Clarence media, and this "David and Goliath" story is now attracting the attention of the primetime current affairs programs of the national television networks.

That media coverage is happening today and will continue to be aired over the next couple of days. A letter to the editor of the local newspaper by John Berlin, a prolific writer, contains a lot of substance. It states:

Bottle shop bully

Surely we, as a community, have got to support our "own" against the 900 kilogram gorilla, aka Woolworths.

When the tiny, family-owned, Palmers Island Pit Stop General Store applied for an "off licence" alcohol outlet, the last thing on their mind was taking business away from any existing grog merchant.

Therefore, there were no objections to the NSW Department of Gaming and Racing within the specified period.

That was until a Woolworths solicitor stumbled upon the case and immediately lodged an objection on behalf of Woolworths trading as BWS, Yamba.

Woolworths and Coles already account for 80 cents of every retail dollar spent in this country.

Woolies CEO, Roger Corbett, is worth $70 million. He personifies the modern day Gordon Gecko. He is also, wait for it, a Christian lay preacher in Sydney.

Let's tell "Rev. Rog" that greed is not good.

I hope the new CVC [Clarence Valley Council] supports the Pit Stop against this huge conglomerate.

The Clarence Valley Council has already done that. The letter concludes:

Let's all give the big W the big A.

That is a strongly worded letter and it represents the strong feelings of small communities that are being stood over by the bullyboy big conglomerates. That shop, which has been in operation since 1952, was purchased by Kris and Graham two years ago. They started building up the business and looked forward to a long-term community lifestyle in Palmers Island, only 10 kilometres from the beautiful seaside resort of Yamba. I wish them well. I join with the community in supporting them and we hope that Woolworths back off and give the little bloke a fair go.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.16 p.m.]: Today I deliver a mid-point report on the Hornsby electorate. In 1995, 10 years ago this week, the Carr Government was elected to office in New South Wales. In numerous ways it is a tired, old Government and it is time for a change. Many good things are happening in the Hornsby electorate and I will comment on some before I talk about other things that need to be improved or created. I do so now because I did not have an opportunity to respond to the delivery of the 2004-05 budget. First, I congratulate Nancy Richards, who was nominated and selected as Woman of the Year for the Hornsby electorate. Nancy works behind the scenes and has given a great deal of her life to the scouting movement.
Recently an anorexia nervosa forum was held at the Hornsby RSL. Bronte and Jan Cullis travelled from Melbourne to speak at the forum. Dr Carol Kefford, an adolescent specialist, delivered an address in relation to health matters. Sarah McMahon, a young woman who has recovered from anorexia nervosa and has almost completed a psychology degree, is working as a counsellor with Lifeline. Sarah also contributed to the forum. All speakers gave an important, significant presentation to the 200 people who attended the forum. Hornsby Lions Club is seeking to set up a house in Sydney, perhaps under the umbrella of the Bronte Foundation, similar to those operating in Melbourne and Brisbane. In the near future a workplace fatalities forum will be held. I am working on that with the local chamber of commerce. In April a youth forum will be held, which I am arranging with the mayor of Hornsby.

On the downside, in my electorate many in the community are suffering. That should not happen, given the record intake of taxes from the property boom. The Government also has reaped many dollars from the GST, dollars that should be put back into the community. The upgrade to the Hornsby hospital is way overdue. Completion of the well-advertised construction of new maternity and paediatric facilities as well as a new accident and emergency unit is long overdue. I am distressed to note that fewer beds than are currently available will be provided in the new development. The existing mental health unit is stretched to the seams and more beds are desperately needed. I call on the Minister for Health to provide more beds to the mental health unit at Hornsby hospital, including some for adolescents.

The proposed sewerage connection for Brooklyn and Dangar Island is finally taking shape. Recently an assessment of the environmental impact of the Brooklyn and Dangar Island sewerage scheme went on public exhibition. That project is related to the budget, and I urge the Minister for Energy and Utilities to provide funding so that the properties can be connected to the sewerage scheme. Obviously that project is behind time; it was expected to have been commenced by now. But the locals are ever patient and deserve to have that connection as soon as possible. Cowan must also be connected to this sewerage scheme. It is ridiculous not to connect a tiny isolated community to the sewerage scheme when Brooklyn and Dangar Island have already been included. People in my electorate are in a great furore about transport issues. I received many letters about this issue, including a letter from Adam Woodhams, who states:

I arrived at Nth Sydney station at 16:25 to catch the scheduled 16:30 to Berowra. At 16:31 the indicator board changed with the addition of a Lindfield train before the Berowra train. According to the timetable this train is supposed to arrive after the Berowra service.

My constituent, who arrived at his destination 20 minutes late, was given no explanation and no apology, which is not good enough. I received another letter from Mr Ben Reynolds referring to similar circumstances. The Carr Government must lift its game and put more money into the community, otherwise it is truly time for it to go.

Mrs VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [12.21 p.m.] I refer today to the official opening on Friday 20 February 2005 of the Aquinas Centre at Santa Sabina College in my electorate of Strathfield. The official opening of the Aquinas Centre at Santa Sabina College was heralded by a trumpet and began with the arrival of the New South Wales Governor, Her Excellency, Professor Marie Bashir and her husband, Sir Nicholas Shehadie, together with the official party which included: Mrs Sue Fabian, chairman of the college board; Sister Judith Lawson, college principal; Sister Rosemary Lewins, prioress of the Dominican Sisters of Eastern Australia; Miss Margaret O'Shea, head of Santa Sabina Secondary School; Ms Margaret Mulcahy, head of Martin de Porres Middle School; Father John Gibson, college chaplain; and Mr Brian and Mrs Colleen Boyd, board member and chairman of the capital appeal.

Other special guests included Mr Philip Batten, property manager and project manager; other members of the college board; the Dominican sisters; representatives of the family of Sister Mary Anselm O'Brien after whom the new library is named; the artist Mr Sam Jupurella who turned the designs of Sister Sheila Flynn into a glorious set of kiln-fired glass panels for the prayer space—a beautiful reflective area—principals of surrounding Catholic and independent schools; Howard Tanner and Associates, the architects of this magnificent building; representatives of Gledhill Constructions who built the Aquinas Centre; representatives of the ANZ Bank; Mr Grahame Bradshaw from DVA Navion; Mr Fred Cooke who assisted Santa Sabina College with its capital appeal; staff members; students from all three campuses; parents and friends; former students; former members of staff; secondary, middle school and Del Monte representatives; and Alexi Raad, student leader.

Santa Sabina College is an independent Catholic girls school which follows the Dominican tradition. The new Aquinas Centre has been named after the great patron of schools, St Thomas Aquinas, who was a thirteenth century Dominican monk. Throughout his life St Thomas devoted himself to study and lecturing, acquiring a reputation as one of the greatest thinkers and writers of his time. The Aquinas Centre comprises a library, a prayer space, an auditorium, student services and a staff room. The new library has been named the Anselm O'Brien library, after a much loved and respected Dominican sister who taught at Santa Sabina from 1925 to 1945. This continues a great tradition commenced by grateful former students who named the first library at the school after Sister Mary Anslem.

Various facilities within the centre have been designed to meet the needs of students as well as the needs of their teachers. The new facilities will ensure that learning will truly be a joy, with new technologies, pleasant surroundings and a functional layout. Santa Sabina College has been a landmark in the Strathfield electorate for over a century. The school celebrated its 110th anniversary only last year—a celebration that I had much pleasure attending. It has grown from a handful of students and several dedicated nuns to a thriving educational centre for 1,500 students. No doubt the nuns who founded the school would be absolutely delighted with the way in which their vision has continued. This new building, the Aquinas Centre, continues the aims of the school to provide quality and caring education. The afternoon's ceremonies began with the singing of the national anthem by the school body and an acknowledgement of the land by Samantha Ivansik, one of the students.

The college principal, Sister Judith Lawson, welcomed the assembly and acknowledged the role of many individuals and organisations who worked together to bring the building to fruition. Sister Judith reminded students that they were at the heart and centre of the reasoning for the existence of these facilities and that their enthusiasm for life and learning was the future of our nation and our world. I am sure that those sentiments are echoed around the world by all parents and educators. Mrs Sue Fabian, chairman of the college board, presented an address on behalf of the board. The board is charged with setting a long-term vision for the college and with putting in place the means to make that vision a reality. The new Aquinas Centre is evidence of the achievement of those goals.

After commemorating the occasion by the unveiling of a plaque, Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, then addressed assembled students, staff, parents and friends of the school, and spoke of her great faith and hope in the current generation of young people. She challenged them to work for justice and reconciliation in their local community. Alexandra Raad, college student leader for the period 2004 to 2005, graciously thanked Her Excellency on behalf of students and acknowledged what a wonderful role model the Governor is to students through her involvement in and support of so many interests and projects. The opening by the Governor was followed by the blessing of the new centre by Father John Gibson, chaplain to the college for many years. Father Gibson has shepherded countless students and their families.

Michelle Brooks, deputy college student leader, then read from chapter 28 verse 16 of the Prophet Isiah. A beautiful song entitled Proclaim the Truth, which was written by music teachers James Long and Elizabeth Vidot for this special occasion, was than performed by the college orchestra and school choirs. The soloists were two very talented students—Laura Musolino and Emma Gialouris. The college orchestra and school choirs, led by Mr James Long and members of the music department, performed wonderfully throughout the whole ceremony with their beautiful music and songs. Prayers of the intercession were read by Sister Rosemary Lewins, congregational leader; Elizabeth Pooley, president of the Parents and Friends Association; Mary Kleist, religious education co-ordinator; and Catherine Treoloar, president of the former students association.

The building was then blessed by Father John, accompanied by Miss O'Shea and members of the student executive. The ceremony concluded with the singing of the new college song written last year by Gary Monger of the Santa Sabina College music department to reflect the changed composition of the school with its primary, middle and secondary campuses. I then had the honour of being taken on a wonderful tour. I was impressed by the thought that had been incorporated into the design of this centre. The windows were planned to view the magnificent grounds of Santa Sabina College. I shared a wonderful afternoon with Santa Sabina College and its school community. [Time expired.]

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [12.26 p.m.]: Today I draw to the attention of the House the appalling state of our train services. Over the past few weeks my office—and I am sure the offices of many Government members—has been inundated with letters referring to the shocking state of our train system. It is fair to say that many commuters were prepared to give the new Minister a go in the hope that things would get a little better, but they have not. I quote from an email to the Minister that states:

... within a very short time the service on the Richmond line has once again fallen to levels that are unacceptable. For the last 5 working days the 07:20 Richmond to North Sydney which stops at a few stations between Seven Hills and Central has changed into 07:56 Riverstone to Gordon. Your organisation is making no effort to provide to the people of Hawkesbury the published timetable.

At Riverstone station or any other station many train services that are supposed to be express services have been made all-stop services. It is now taking commuters up to two hours to get from Windsor into the city, which is a joke. In the steam train era trains were much more reliable and commuters were provided with a much better service. It is time for the Government to think about any alternative other than the service we currently have. I refer to specific examples that commuters would like to be placed on the public record. One commuter writes:

The train leaves Richmond at 7.20 a.m. (on time).

While at Mulgrave, an announcement is made that the train will be held at the station for 10 minutes.

At Riverstone, an announcement is made that the train will be held at the station for 6 minutes.

Again at Riverstone, another announcement is made that the train will be changing to an all stops.

That is good for CityRail as statistics show that the train—which was once providing a different service—is now an all-stops train and is on time. The net result for commuters is that they get to Central station at 9.10 a.m., which is 25 minutes late. It is taking commuters an hour and 50 minutes to get into the city, which is a joke. Commuters are told by CityRail staff that the situation will be fixed in two years, which is a long time to wait. Taking into account the many promises that we have had from this Government, commuters and I doubt whether the situation will be better as long as this Government is in office. No work has been done on the much heralded Rail Clearways project or on the Richmond railway line. This program, which is supposed to commence in a few years time, is most unlikely to occur. I received a letter from a mother whose daughter commutes to the city each day to attend school. She writes:

My daughter was at Windsor Railway Station this morning at 8.20, ready to catch the 8.30am train and guess what? An announcement was made that the train was delayed by 20 minutes and would now be leaving at 8.50am!

She was told that she could drive to the next railway station and catch a faster train at that station. But, lo and behold, when they arrived at the next railway station they found that the train was running another 20 minutes late. Last week all the morning trains were late. Commuters and I keep asking: Why is this problem continuing? Some 14,000 fewer commuters are using the CityRail system now than before the Olympic Games. People are choosing not to use our rail system and are clogging our roads instead. How can ordinary, average people have normal lives and hold down jobs when our trains continually run late? Commuters do not know whether they will be able to get off at their train stop. It is a serious problem when trains race through the smaller stations without stopping in order to make up time. We have an abysmal rail service—to quote many of my constituents. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Connex, a Melbourne rail contractor, was fined $4.6 million for running the trains a little late—but they were nowhere near as late as the trains in our system. This Government should be fined millions for its lousy rail system.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [12.31 p.m.]: Today I shall speak about the recent International Women's Day celebrations in the Penrith electorate and an associated event involving women that was held in the preceding fortnight. GirlSavvy is a workshop that encourages young women to think about what their future will be like. It is a program developed by the Office for Women and supported by several groups, including the YMCA, Guides Australia, business and professional women, and the Commonwealth Bank Foundation.

On 10 March girls from Jamison, Kingswood, Nepean, Glenmore Park and Cambridge Park high schools attended a financial independence GirlSavvy workshop. I was also fortunate to attend for part of the day. I spoke to girls at the workshop and took part in one of the activities. The activity involved the girls choosing an occupation, which had a monetary reward. The girls then chose lifestyle options—for example, whether they lived at home, rented, bought their furniture or shopped at op-shops, what kinds of meals they ate, where they ate out and what clothes they wore. The girls ticked the boxes next to the options they chose, each of which cost a certain amount of money. The girls were required to complete the task twice because on their first attempt everyone was in debt. They realised what life is like in the real world when one has an occupation, expenses and debts. The girls then chose different options that allowed them to live on the money they earned from their fictitious occupations.

I had a wonderful time at the workshop and I thank and commend the Office for Women and the Minister for Women for organising the GirlSavvy workshop, which is held throughout the State, not just in Penrith. I sat at a table with girls from Kingswood High School and it was interesting to see the options they chose. I also thank the local businesswomen who gave up their valuable time to mentor the girls present. I particularly thank Yvonne Howie, the new Chief Executive Officer of the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce. I hope that she participates in more workshops and I look forward to a great relationship with Yvonne in the future.

The other recent event that celebrated women in my electorate was the Penrith Electorate Woman of the Year Award. I am pleased to announce that Jennifer Hollingworth, the founder of the Western Sydney Grandcarers Support Group, was named the Penrith Electorate Woman of the Year. The electorate of Penrith spans the areas from Blaxland to Kingswood and Jamison to Cranebrook. I first met Jennifer in mid to early 2003 at one of my first Pollie in the Park meetings that I hold in the electorate every fortnight. Jennifer, who is from Kingswood, came to my Pollie in the Park meeting, introduced herself and announced that she was starting a group for grandcarers. Grandcarers are grandparents who care permanently for their grandchildren because of parental physical and mental abuse, desertion, neglect or because their parents have drug problems or are in gaol. Jennifer recognised the need to support grandparents who are permanent carers and established the group in early 2003.

I have met several group members over the years. On Australia Day while attending the citizenship ceremony I spoke to two grandparents from Jennifer's group who praised the support that they receive and the programs in which they participate. I kept their comments at the back of my mind and when nominations were invited for the Penrith Electorate Woman of the Year Award, Jennifer was the first name on the list. I congratulate the Minister for Women on initiating the Electorate Woman of the Year Awards. I note that the United Nations International Women's Day is held on 8 March each year and 2005 marks the tenth anniversary of the Fourth World Conference of Women, held in Beijing. My daughter celebrated her tenth birthday at about the same time. It brought back memories of a new mum dressing her daughter in feminist mauve shortly after her birth, prompting hospital workers to think, "This new mother needs assistance!" Ten years down the track we have wonderful women in Penrith who should be supported and congratulated. [Time expired.]

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.36 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Penrith, the Minister for Women and the Premier on a wonderful celebration of International Women's Day at Government House, which was attended by members from both sides of the House. I also commend the Electorate Woman of the Year Awards as an important celebration of the positive impact and input of women in every electorate across New South Wales. The honourable member announced that Jennifer Hollingworth, who founded the Western Sydney Grandcarers Support Group, was the winner of the Penrith Electorate Woman of the Year Award. Her work is just one example of the enormous contribution that women make to the community, as grandparents, mothers or businesswomen.

I cannot let this opportunity pass without noting that Ms Rhonda Scruton, the Chief Executive Officer of the Hunter Surf Life Saving movement, was named the Newcastle Electorate Woman of the Year. She has done great work ensuring that Hunter Surf Life Saving is at the forefront of surf-lifesaving in New South Wales. Women from all walks of life are celebrated through that award for making great contributions to their communities. I thank the honourable member for Penrith for noting the work of women and I congratulate the Minister for Women on initiating this particular celebration of women in each State electorate.

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Georges River) [12.37 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the retirement of two well-known figures in the Georges River electorate. The first is Mr Jim Burrell, who has just retired as editor of the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. Jim—known initially as "Young Jim", more recently as "Gentleman Jim" and now I am told by some at the newspaper as "Old Jim"—never planned to become a journalist. In fact, his first job was selling fishing tackle! But one day he walked into the offices of the Daily Telegraph and got a job as a copy boy. He was later offered a cadetship at Australian United Press, where he became chief subeditor at the age of 21. After a career with that organisation, he moved to the Sun newspaper, where he worked in various capacities for 23 years. Following the demise of the Sun newspaper, Jim moved to the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader and became its editor in 1995.

Jim has always been passionate about local issues. Of late he has pursued issues such as the fate of Botany Bay and the Kurnell sandhills—an issue that is at the forefront of the mind of the honourable member for Miranda. The honourable member for Miranda and I have had a great working relationship with Jim Burrell in his capacity as editor of the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. I am sure that other State and Federal members in the St George and Sutherland districts have had a similar experience.

Jim's numerous interests include ballroom dancing and a love for a V12 Jaguar coupe. I am told the only thing that rates with Jim's love of the car is his hate for the bills that come with maintaining such a vehicle. Jim has also just bought a yacht on which he plans to enjoy his retirement. I am told that one of the great concerns in the district is the decrease in business for McDonald's—he was a great lover of an order from McDonald's. Jim had the great respect of people with whom he worked at the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. He had a great love of the craft of journalism. I spoke to a senior journalist, John Mulcair, who said that Jim will certainly be missed. Recently Jim had a courageous fight against a serious illness. I look forward to seeing him for many years to come while walking his dogs around Lugarno, particularly at Evatt Park. I hope he enjoys a long retirement.


I refer also to Susan Smith, who has been the co-ordinator at the Georges River Community Service [GRCS] since 1987. She started as a volunteer, she became the assistant co-ordinator in 1985. Susan took the position of co-ordinator and when the service was restructured she became centre manager in July 2002. Susan has a degree in social work. I have found Susan to be committed to helping people in the welfare sector. Susan has been an integral part of the Georges River Community Service. She has ensured a high standard of service delivery to a wide community base, which extends from babies to the aged. She has represented GRCS on many committees and has helped organise numerous local events.

Susan has worked hard to bridge the gap between funding from various organisations and the cost of deliveries. She has been engaged in many fundraising ventures. I recently spoke about a trivia night that I attended for GRCS. She was instrumental in getting after-hours school service programs offered by GRCS. Susan has been popular with the staff and the many volunteers who work with GRCS. Susan is a dedicated mother of four children and she looks after her husband, Keith. Susan is a loving daughter to ageing parents and has chosen to retire to look after them. When I have spoken to Susan her compassion, kindness and generosity of spirit have always come through. I wish Susan and Jim well in their retirement.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.42 p.m.]: It is always a pleasure to listen to the honourable member for Georges River paint a picture of the contributions so many people make to his community. He referred to Mr Jim Burrell, the former editor of the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, who is passionate about local issues. His strong views as editor have given people the chance to communicate with local levels of governance, which is an important role. The honourable member for Georges River also referred to the valuable work of Mrs Susan Smith, the centre manager of the Georges River Community Service. That organisation assists disadvantaged people in our community, from babies through to the aged. Susan Smith has contributed enormously to her community. I thank the honourable member for Georges River for raising the valuable contributions of those two important people in .

Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [12.44 p.m.]: In 1998 Manly Council widened the scenic walkway from approximately 1.2 metres to between 1.8 metres and 2.4 metres. At the time of that widening there was local disquiet along the strip between Lauderdale Avenue and Manly wharf that this would be an opportunity to allow for its shared use with bicycles. The community was strongly against a shared pathway with bicycles because it is a scenic walkway. A lot of upset local people attended a heated public meeting. Council gave an unequivocal commitment that the walkway would not be 2.5 metres or wider and that it would not be a shared bicycle path. The critical size was 2.5 metres—the minimum size the Roads and Traffic Authority will allow for a shared bicycle-pedestrian walkway.

The bicycle committee of Manly Council recently put a submission to council calling for family cycling along the scenic walkway. Council dealt with that submission on 14 March. I am disappointed to say that some councillors who would normally call for public consultation moved to allow a one-year trial of family cycling along the scenic walkway. The council should reaffirm its commitment to keep it as walking only. At the very least, public consultation should be allowed from the outset. One Sunday in February 1998 the council conducted a survey on the scenic walkway and found that 8,000 pedestrians walked both ways between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. As I said, the walkway is roughly between 1.8 and 2.4 metres wide. Allowing a mix of bicycles and pedestrians on the walkway will spoil the experience for pedestrians. Furthermore, the walkway is an area for unleashed dogs to romp. Lots of people enjoy taking their unleashed dogs for a walk while enjoying the beautiful scenery. Unleashed dogs and bicycles do not mix—we cannot have both. In addition, the notion of bicycles mixing with children and older people is dangerous on such a narrow path.

The call for family cycling has come about because under the Australian road rules a child under 12 years of age has the right to ride a bike on a footpath if accompanied by an adult. That rule is being used as a way to get bicycles on that scenic walkway. Council rangers will not be able to police whether an adult is with children if the children are 100 metres ahead. It is a bit like being a little bit pregnant: there is either cycling or no cycling. We cannot have it both ways, particularly on that pathway that is too narrow for bicycles. Bicycles would spoil the walk for pedestrians. Walking is one of the simple pleasures in life, it is the most environmentally friendly form of activity, it is a way for people of all sizes and ages to help keep themselves in shape, and it is a way for people to enjoy the environment as they take their dogs and children for a walk.

I am a big supporter of bicycleways. In fact, I got a commitment from the Government that it would fund a study to establish a possible integrated bikeway along the northern beaches. At the moment a consultant on behalf of the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils is undertaking bike mapping in the different local government areas. A piecemeal one-kilometre strip of narrow pathway, which would spoil it for pedestrians, is not the answer. We should try to get a genuinely large bicycleway along the northern beaches so people can take their children for a ride, have a picnic, go to the beach and make a day of it. Council has to think bigger than a one-kilometre strip that will be spoiled for an awful lot of people, particularly the elderly. As it is, bicycles are already using the walkway and people are distressed about that. Mixing 8,000-plus pedestrians a day with God knows how many bicycles is a recipe for discontent. People will have arguments with each other. It will spoil it for everyone. Manly Council should rethink this policy; it should affirm its old policy of not having bicycles on the scenic walkway.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [12.49 p.m.]: Today I would like to challenge the House to think outside the square and consider another response to the dire skills shortage we face. The answer is not to be found in the two-tiered Federal-State training system or in knee-jerk reactions such as importing skilled workers from overseas. In fact, the solution is much closer to home. As the member for Dubbo, I regularly receive representations from tradespeople and project managers who are buried under a mountain of regulations. Tradespeople have achieved success through hard work and by developing a sought-after skills base. They live by rules of honesty, loyalty and fairness. For their efforts they have been slapped with a raft of new and onerous regulations, an arbitrary points system that appears to be nothing more than window-dressing, and an inspections system apparently intent on casting everyone as a potential workplace villain.

Fellow members, despite this ominous skills shortage, we are in real danger of regulating our existing and experienced tradespeople out of business. They are prevented from structuring their businesses in a way most likely to deliver success, and are ambushed at every turn by regulatory inconsistencies that are both confusing and demoralising. What, for instance, are we to make of a system that classifies a tradesperson as a subcontractor for the purposes of WorkCover and an employee for the purposes of the Office of State Revenue [OSR]? The only value of this anomaly is to the Government, by making the project manager liable for payroll tax. This is not Henny Penny stuff. The sky really is falling for some of my constituents. One of them, Mr Brett Harvey, has told me that during a recent inspection by the Office of State Revenue a number of his subcontractors were deemed to be employees. Both Mr Harvey and his accountant felt that the arrangement with his subcontractors met both Australian Taxation Office [ATO] and WorkCover criteria and were understandably alarmed by the ruling.

It has very real serious repercussions. First, Mr Harvey may be liable for payroll tax, an expense not factored into his work quotes during the past few years. Second, he may have a newly created WorkCover liability. This is not about tax evasion. Mr Harvey genuinely believes he has been subcontracting this work. His completely reasonable desire is to engage motivated people while limiting his administrative overheads. The question is: Whose interests are being served by hounding experienced tradespeople out of business or making them less attractive to engage? On many jobs in remote communities one contractor will work on a project for months, but this does not equate to an employer-employee relationship. Mr Harvey, for example has engaged one contractor who owns a $40,000 work vehicle carrying more than $10,000 worth of equipment, yet this man is classified as an employee. Let me say any employee who uses $50,000 worth of his own gear for his boss's cause is an unusual person indeed.

What is desperately needed is a precise definition of a "contractor" and an "employee", a definition that is consistent across the ATO, WorkCover and the OSR—and yet not so broad as to be burdensome or punitive. One thing is certain: if we do not remove the hurdles to making an honest buck, then we can expect a further drain of skilled tradespeople from our communities. As for the points system, both Mark Behan and Ian Piddington of Narromine typify the hostility tradespeople have towards this obnoxious piece of government policy. Supposedly, this regulation puts the squeeze on bad operators, yet no-one has been able to explain to me just how this is achieved, or how attending seminars, taking a course by CD, reading a magazine or attending a trade fair—in a bid to earn the required 100 points every three years—will tackle consumer concerns about shoddy work and overcharging. The points system is a cakewalk for the shonks and an impost on the majority of hardworking tradespeople.

Surely the better policy is to issue all licence-holders with 100 points and dock them points for every proven breach. Lose your points, lose your licence. Continue to provide quality work and you will not run foul of the government. Of course, none of this even touches on the ramifications for employers if proposed penalties for a death at work are implemented. Eventually—and I believe it should be now—the Government must stop raiding its big stick cabinet and start pulling out a few carrots. Where, for instance, are the incentives encouraging endeavour and success in business? And what of these skilled workers the Federal Government proposes we bring in from overseas? Will they face the same obstacles and disincentives once they hit our shores? There is a more fundamental step needed before listing the nation in the Help Wanted columns of overseas magazines. We can wring our hands all we like about the skills shortage but the situation will never improve if it remains onerous for tradespeople to stay in business, and an unattractive career option for our young people to pursue.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.54 p.m.]: The honourable member for Dubbo made some very strong statements regarding the skills shortage. Given the complexities of issues such as definitions of "contractors" and "employees", I imagine the honourable member already would have taken up this matter with relevant Ministers. However, I am sure her call in the House today will be looked at very closely by all Ministers who have responsibility for this matter.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [12.54 p.m.], by leave: Today I wish to talk about the Wollongong 2005 Woman of the Year and International Women's Day. As I am sure you, Mr Acting-Speaker, and other honourable members are well aware, International Women's Day is a day to celebrate the gains women have made over the years and to bring attention to the issues that still face women. Above all, it is a day to recognise that we, as women, have made and continue to make a difference. It is a day to celebrate women's contribution to making Australia and the world a better place for everyone. Around the world, International Women's Day marks a celebration of the economic, social, cultural and political achievements for women.

International Women's Day is celebrated on 8 March and is an occasion marked by women's groups around the world. This day is commemorated also at the United Nations and is designated in many countries as a national holiday—something I would be keen to support here in Australia. Women in every country—often divided by ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic and political differences—come together to celebrate this important day, which represents equality, justice, peace and development. International Women's Day is the story of ordinary women as makers of history. It is rooted in the centuries-old struggle of women seeking to participate equally in society, on an equal footing with men. In ancient Greece, Kysistrata initiated a sexual strike against men in order to end war. During the French Revolution, Parisienne women calling for "liberty, equality, fraternity" marched on Versailles to demand women's suffrage.

This year I attended the International Older Women's Network morning tea held at the old Wollongong Town Hall to celebrate International Women's Day. The Illawarra branch of the International Older Women's Network was established in 1998, with the aim of promoting the rights, dignity and wellbeing of older women. The networks objectives are to promote mutual support, companionship and friendship among older women; to present a positive image of older women in the media and in the community; to lobby for a fairer deal for older women; to assist older women to develop skills; and to exercise the mind and body. As always, the Silver-T-owns entertained us with their delightful renditions of old favourites, including "Bread and Roses", which during the textiles strikes of 1912 became an anthem of women's rights, along with some original compositions and a joke or two thrown in for good measure.

Norah Alexander, co-ordinator of the Illawarra Older Women's Network, did a beautiful job as master of ceremonies of the morning's proceedings. As always, Monica Chalmers and Lindley Berrie were on hand to make all who entered through the door feel welcome. Monica Chalmers and her long-time companion, Irene Arrowsmith, as well as her husband, Neville Arrowsmith, were in attendance. Monica and Irene were there as I entered that door. They were the first women of a political influence that I met on arrival in this country. Those two women helped to form many of my views, and gave me magnificent support in the early days, when it was not terribly popular for a woman to be a trade union official.

One of this year's guest speakers was 17-year-old Vanessa Mann from the Illawarra Sports High School, in Berkeley. Vanessa's sport of choice is soccer. She relocated from Penrith to attend the sports college to pursue her dream of one day becoming a professional sportswoman. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Vanessa on her speech and on her dedication to her sport. I wish her all the best on her adventure to America, where she has been offered a college scholarship that will enable her to receive a college education whilst continuing with her soccer.

In Sydney, International Women's Day was first celebrated in 1928 at a rally that called for equal pay for equal work—which we are still calling for—an eight-hour day for shop workers, no piecework, a base wage for the unemployed and paid annual holidays. Rallies and marches have been held throughout Australia every year since. Yet, as I walked through the Wollongong city town centre towards my office, a young woman no more than 20 years old approached me and asked what my International Women's Day badge meant and what it stood for.

It was then that I realised that notwithstanding all our progress, our cause is ongoing and our message still has to reach some ears. It is for this reason that I commend the Minister for Women, the Hon. Sandra Nori, the Office for Women and the New South Wales Premier's Department for presenting an award for woman of the year in every electorate. I was asked to nominate a woman from my electorate of Wollongong for her contribution to the community and I am pleased to inform the House that Mrs Margaret Fuller was selected as this year's winner. Margaret is a social worker and the manager of a busy counselling program auspiced by Anglicare. She is also involved in Kairos, a prison ministry. [Time expired.]

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.59 p.m.]: Once again the honourable member for Wollongong has reminded us of the importance of International Women's Day. "Give us bread and give us roses" was the statement that launched the first International Women's Day. Women wanted to be treated fairly both in the workplace and in the home. I congratulate Minister Nori on the Electorate Woman of the Year program, which was implemented this year. Every member who has spoken about it, either inside or outside the House, has reminded us that it is a celebration not only of International Women's Day but of the contribution of all women in our community. Margaret Fuller, an Anglicare social worker from the electorate of Wollongong, demonstrates the tremendous contribution made by women in our community.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr John Mills) left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr BOB CARR: I advise the House that in the absence of the Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is attending the Treasurers Ministerial Council meeting, I will answer questions on his behalf. In the absence of the Minister for Health, who is ill, the Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts will answer questions on his behalf. In the absence of the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth, who is caring for a family member, the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women will answer questions on her behalf.

Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery officers of the Parliament of the Kingdom of Thailand, who are here as part of an exchange program between our parliaments that was established in 1994. I welcome Mr Apichart On-Soi, Director of the Parliamentary Committee on Sports, Miss Bongkot Wongthai, Editor, Miss Chompunuth Prompak, Research and Information Officer, and Mr Tawat Tunkum, Finance and Accounting Officer. I trust their visit to New South Wales has been of benefit to them.

Petition requesting that the Alstonville Bypass be completed by the end of 2006, received from Mr Donald Page.

Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock, Mr Malcolm Kerr, Mr Steven Pringle and Mr Andrew Tink.

Petition requesting the rescission of land tax changes, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petitions opposing sandmining on the Kurnell Peninsula, received from Mr Barry Collier and Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petition opposing the application to construct a quarry at Ardmore Park, Bungonia, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting amendment of the zoning policy to preclude fishing competitions, by both spear and line, in the Jervis Bay Marine Park, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing any restriction of the recreational use of Lake Wollumboola, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting expansion of the boundaries of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 to provide environmental protection against high-rise development and overdevelopment in the area serviced by Lawrence Hargrave Drive, received from Mr Paul McLeay.

Petition opposing the downgrading of existing services at Yass District Hospital, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a level 4 intensive care unit for Armidale and New England Hospital, received from Mr Richard Torbay.

Petition requesting an appropriate bypass for Nowra, after community consultation, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
Petition requesting funding for implementation of the Old Northern and New Line roads strategic route development study, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition requesting that the new airconditioned buses assigned to the mid North Coast not be removed, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition praying that the House improve safety on the Pacific Highway and fast-track the proposed bypassing of Kempsey and Macksville, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition opposing the tar sealing of Point Plomer Road, Crescent Head, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting the building of cycleways in the Forster-Tuncurry area, received from Mr John Turner.

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petitions opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson and Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the Southern Tablelands line, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.


Petitions requesting the retention and improvement of Newcastle rail services, and implementation of an integrated public transport plan for the Lower Hunter, received from Mr John Mills, Mr Matthew Morris and Mr Milton Orkopoulos.

Petition requesting that pets be allowed on public transport, received from Ms Clover Moore.

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

Petition requesting community consultation in the planning, funding and building of appropriate public school infrastructure in the Milton-Ulladulla area and surrounding districts, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all classrooms and the library of Colo High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition opposing the extraction of water from the Shoalhaven River to support Sydney's water supply, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition praying that funding be provided to construct a reticulated sewerage system for Glossodia, Freemans Reach and Wilberforce, 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 an assessment of the electricity requirements of the Wisemans Ferry district, 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 objecting to the criteria for country cancer patients to qualify for the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition opposing the sale of Staunton and Weissel ovals in Wagga Wagga, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting the immediate cessation of the public inquiry into the Tweed Shire Council, received from Mr Andrew Fraser.

Petition requesting approval for the construction of a motorcycle track at Collector Bushrangers Reserve, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition opposing the sale of the Burwood Colliery Bowling Club crown land site to the club for the purpose of a joint venture development, received from Mr Matthew Morris.

Petition requesting that the subsidy for sullage removal be extended to residents in the Hawkesbury local government area, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Petition opposing any proposal to sell State Forests, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

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


Mr JOHN BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [2.38 p.m.]: I move:

That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) of which I gave notice earlier today [Goods and Services Tax Revenue Distribution] have precedence on Thursday 24 March 2005.

It is important that the people of New South Wales know the truth on the GST debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the right to be heard in silence.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: It is important that the Premier, the biggest whinger to ever hold that job in this State and the most negative person ever to do so, confesses that he signed the GST agreement. When the Liberal Party gathers together, John Howard tells the story about being elbowed out of the way by the Premier to sign the document. Premier Carr was keen to put his name in ink on the document, but now that he is the senior Labor Premier in the country he ought to stop whinging and whining and being negative.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: He ought to convene a meeting of Labor Premiers and take a plan to the Federal Government for a fairer share of GST revenue for New South Wales.

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

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: Today the Federal Treasurer made it clear to the people of Australia that if the Labor leaders came to him with a deal for a fairer share of GST Revenue for New South Wales he would happily sign it.

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

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: The Federal Treasurer made it clear that he would be the happiest man in Australia. Indeed, as the senior Labor leader in the country it falls to Premier Carr to gather together the five Labor leaders, Premiers and Chief Ministers, and convince them to go together to Canberra and ask for a fairer share for New South Wales. Perhaps the leaders could convene the meeting on a farm in New Zealand. Premier Carr needs to show some leadership. As the senior Labor Premier in the country he should tell his Labor colleagues that New South Wales deserves a fairer share, and that they ought to give it over. That is the way it ought to work. The Federal Government has made it clear that it will agree to a fairer share if the States bring this matter forward. It is pretty clear that the Premier has no cachet in Canberra. He is not taken seriously. He needs to convene a meeting of all Labor premiers and take this issue forward as a matter of urgency.

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

Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.41 p.m.]: The Government welcomes a debate on the GST and its impact on New South Wales. If the New South Wales Government had not signed the 1999 agreement we would have received no money from Canberra. There would have been no grants flowing to New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Southern Highlands to order. I call the honourable member for The Hills to order.
Mr BOB CARR: Our argument with the Federal Government is that New South Wales gives up $13 billion and it gets $10 billion back.

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

Mr BOB CARR: If the agreement had not been signed New South Wales would not even have got that $10 billion.

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

Mr BOB CARR: I will quote from something that the Leader of the Opposition would not be aware of—that is, the legislation that governs payments to the States.

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

Mr BOB CARR: The 1999 legislation, which is called A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act, states:

The relativities factor for a State for a GST is the factor determined in writing by the Treasurer.

That is, the Federal Treasurer. It then states:

The Treasurer must determine the factor before 10 June in the GST year.

Further on the legislation states:

Financial assistance payable to a State under this Act is to be paid in such amounts, and at such times, as the Treasurer determines in writing.

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

Mr BOB CARR: There it is in legislation determined by the Federal Treasurer.

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

Mr BOB CARR: On this we are supported by New South Wales businesses. The State Chamber of Commerce supports the position taken by this Government. New South Wales ought to get back the full $13 billion.

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

Mr BOB CARR: Australian Business Ltd supports the position taken by this Government. New South Wales ought to get back the full $13 billion that it pays in GST.

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

Mr BOB CARR: If we had not signed we would have received no money. Signing was the prerequisite for getting any grants from the Commonwealth Government. This inexperienced Leader of the Opposition has again proved his total ignorance of Federal-State financial relations and the legislation that governs it. [Time expired.]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A number of members are already on several calls to order. I now deem those members to be on three calls to order. Debate will be conducted in accordance with the rules of the Chamber. The member who moves a motion and the member responding to it will be heard in silence.

Motion agreed to.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Can he confirm that the Independent Commission Against Corruption is investigating the role of the honourable member for Strathfield for inappropriately lobbying a Burwood councillor to support a development application by developer Anne Bechara, who made an $896,000 profit out of the deal and who also organised a fundraiser of $1,000 a head for the honourable member for Strathfield before the last election?

Mr BOB CARR: I do have not the faintest idea what the Independent Commission Against Corruption is investigating. I do know that, according to today's St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, the Liberal member for Cronulla is in the deepest trouble. I hope that the ICAC is not investigating this because I want to titillate honourable members with—

Mr John Brogden: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat. I remind the honourable member for Willoughby that she has already been called to order. I take it that the Leader of the Opposition wants to take a point of order?

Mr John Brogden: I do. My point of order clearly relates to the relevance of this question, that is, the corrupt activities of the honourable member for Strathfield. I am waiting for an answer from the Premier.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

Mr BOB CARR: Corruption is a dreaded phenomenon. The Leader of the Opposition should look at this description in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader of 17 March of what is going on in his branch. This is hot off the press. The document states:

A burst of—

and I ask honourable members to control their nausea—

branch stacking is expected from April 1 …

These are Liberal Party branches in Cronulla.

Mr John Brogden: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat.

Mr John Brogden: I again ask you to draw the Premier's attention to my question about the corrupt activities of the honourable member for Strathfield.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Premier was only making some preliminary remarks.

Mr BOB CARR: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. Corruption is a terrible thing. That is why I think the ICAC ought to have a look at this report in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, which states:

A burst of branch stacking is expected from April 1, when both factions are expected to—

Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Premier is ignoring the process of this Chamber, which is insulting to you as Speaker. He is demeaning the value of question time this afternoon. I ask you to bring him back at least to the purport of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Premier was only making some preliminary remarks. He will continue with an appropriate reply.

Mr BOB CARR: I have always treated the honourable member for Lachlan with the greatest respect. He is an old trooper. He and I have done great things for this State. It was only with his co-operation that I was able to shift the Department of Agriculture to Orange, which was a great achievement. When I got the Olympics for Sydney in Monte Carlo, he was there by my side. When we returned to the Parliament this year we found that he has been relegated to the backbench like a mad Victorian relative sent to the east wing. That is a disgraceful relegation! Again, as to deeply rooted corruption—the sort of thing that ICAC should investigate—the article stated:

A burst of branch stacking is expected from April 1, when both factions—

"Factions" is a horrible word—

… are expected to begin recruitment drives …

What is that synonymous with? What sort of spectre does that raise? What does the honourable member for Liverpool say about that? Some of you have a lascivious gleam in your eyes. It continues:

… and transfers of memberships to bolster numbers …

I do not mind recruitment drives and I do not mind transfers of memberships but when they are intended to bolster numbers to do in this champion parliamentarian, I say, "Unfair! Liberal faction targets Kerr!" I hope there is no corruption associated with this. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition: It is precisely the kind of thing that the ICAC should investigate. The relegation of the honourable member for Lachlan deepens my concerns about what is going on in the Coalition. What is the story with the sudden retirement announcement of the honourable member for Barwon? As they said about Brezhnev's death, "What does he mean by that?"

Mr MATT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the WorkCover scheme?

Mr BOB CARR: The answer to that question is very simple: This Government has cut the WorkCover deficit by half. The scheme has been rescued from bankruptcy. The deficit was $3.2 billion before our hard-won reforms started to take effect. The latest PricewaterhouseCoopers update of 31 December 2004 shows that the deficit is now $1.65 billion. PricewaterhouseCoopers credits this directly to the Government's reforms combined with better management of claims and improved investment returns.

Nobody in contemporary State politics will ever forget the tough decisions that this Government was forced to make in 2001. As a Labor Premier and a lifelong unionist, no decision has been more difficult. But we had to do it. The WorkCover scheme, with that $3.2 billion deficit, was headed for bankruptcy. And here is why. The previous Labor Government—I was in the Cabinet—put in place an effective statutory scheme that PricewaterhouseCoopers, the WorkCover actuary, says was very effective, with premiums easily compensating for costs. The premiums covered the payouts, which is what you want in a compensation scheme. The Greiner Government came to power—John Fahey was the Minister for Industrial Relations—

Mr Ian Armstrong: A top Government too.

Mr BOB CARR: I welcomed his support when I got the Olympics. I have always said that. I could not have done it without the bipartisan support that flowed across the Chamber to this side of the House. The Greiner Government recklessly cut premiums and allowed more common law claims. The result was that a successful and sustainable scheme was pushed into chronic deficit. One of our biggest challenges over the past decade has been to unravel that dreadful Coalition mess. But there were other problems as well. The WorkCover scheme focused more on payouts than on enforcing better workplace safety. We had a culture that did not give workers the treatment and support they needed to recover and return to work wherever possible. We had a system that was choking in legalese, with workers waiting years for settlements. We had businesses being forced to pay ever-increasing premiums, putting jobs and investment at risk. Not only did we have to fix the WorkCover deficit but we had to reform the whole system.

That is why we brought in the world's best workplace safety legislation. That is why we streamlined the workers compensation system, increasing benefits in the statutory scheme, speeding up settlements by cutting out the legalism and conflict, and putting in place a fair and efficient dispute resolution model. In fact, our system gives injured workers medical and financial support within seven days. The main focus is on restoring the health and wellbeing of workers to the greatest extent possible, returning them to work rather than having them stay at home for years on lawyers' advice. Under that sort of regime their work readiness and morale deteriorated while they waited for a court hearing.

The WorkCover scheme is the strongest in a decade. We have reversed the Greiner Government's bungling and put the scheme on a sound long-term footing. That does not mean we should start clamouring for lower premiums. Yes, the Government is always looking to cut imposts on business. But we have seen how the Coalition's reckless cuts to premiums almost destroyed the scheme and we do not want to make the same mistake. So we will take advice from the actuaries and see what can be done in the years ahead. In the meantime, let us take pride in today's announcements, remembering—I hasten to add—that credit should be restricted to this side of the House because those opposite opposed our reforms. Had they been successful, the WorkCover deficit would now be $5 billion. Instead we halved the deficit—one of the many good policy outcomes resulting from 10 years of sound Labor Government in this State. I thank the House for its attention.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Ten years after the Premier promised to halve hospital waiting lists or resign, why has Macksville man Patrick O'Keefe—who is bedridden for most of the day and survives on a cocktail of painkillers that are no longer effective—been forced to wait 18 months for urgent back surgery when his surgeon recommended hospital admission within 90 days?

Mr BOB CARR: The classification as to clinical category and urgency is made by doctors. In that context, I am happy to have this case investigated.

Mr JOHN MILLS: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on law reform measures to protect the public from drink spiking?

Mr BOB DEBUS: As the Easter holiday approaches, most of us will be looking forward with pleasurable anticipation to a variety of social events, such as parties, barbecues and socialising with friends. But as the weekend social calendar unfolds in bars, clubs and parties across the State it is timely to issue a reminder—particularly to young people—about the pernicious problem of drink spiking. Drink spiking is an insidious practice. It is also a significant problem throughout Australia, and has been identified as such in an Australian Institute of Criminology [AIC] report released last year. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that up to 4,000 cases of drink spiking occur across Australia each year, that the spiking agent most commonly used is alcohol, that one-third of drink spikings involve sexual assault, that four out of five victims are young women and that only one in six cases are reported to police.

Drink spiking is not harmless and it is not funny. It has a variety of negative physical and emotional effects upon the victim. In the majority of incidents the physical effects include memory loss and nausea. Intoxication, vomiting, unconsciousness and even paralysis are also common. Those effects are of course compounded if there is additional associated criminal behaviour. In its report the AIC identified that no Australian State or Territory had legislation that specifically outlawed drink spiking. It also found that many victims felt that nothing could be done if they reported the crime, which was, in turn, a significant reason for the low rates of reporting to police.

Honourable members will be interested to learn, therefore, that within weeks New South Wales will become the first State in Australia to fill this legislative gap, which is why I am making this announcement. The Government will create a new summary offence of drink spiking, which will carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, a fine of $11,000 or both. Drink spiking that involves adding a prohibited drug such as GHB or a prescription drug such as sedatives to another person's drink is already an offence in New South Wales.

In fact, five existing offences apply to drink spiking, with penalties of up to 25 years when the offender intends to commit an indictable offence, such as sexual assault or robbery, upon the victim of the spiking. It will now become an offence to spike drinks even where alcohol is used as the spiking agent, and where there is no intention to commit a subsequent offence against the victim. That is referred to as prank spiking. The new law will act as a significant deterrent to those who might be considering spiking someone's drink, and it will send a clear message that drink spiking is not acceptable even as a prank.

The Government's package will simplify and modernise the law in relation to existing offences that cover the practice of spiking. In particular, existing laws will be amended to remove any doubt that an offender who spikes a drink with alcohol for the purpose of committing a serious offence on the victim is liable to 25 years jail. The new law will create a protection—and this is important—for licensed venues by ensuring that bar staff do not work in fear of being prosecuted if they inadvertently provide five millilitres extra in a shot of spirits. Only those who spike drinks, without the knowledge or consent of the victim, and with the intention that the victim will become intoxicated or overpowered, will be liable. These laws will ensure that New South Wales has the best-practice laws in Australia in relation to these matters.

The Government has also established a Drink Spiking Action Task Force chaired by NSW Police with representatives from a number of government agencies involved in the front-line fight against drink spiking. Police are also reviewing and updating their procedures to ensure that victims are encouraged to come forward, and that when they do come forward their complaints can be investigated and offenders brought to justice. In order to increase awareness of drink spiking among potential victims and the public, the Government has initiated across the State education campaigns in schools, leaflets issued to coincide with Schoolies Week and a web site entitled "About Date Rape", which contains information for women aged 15 and older.

Licensed venues are also participating in the Government's action group to improve knowledge of bar staff about drink spiking, and what they can do to prevent it. The Government has made it a priority to combat the phenomenon of drink spiking and the serious consequences that can flow from it. I am sure that all honourable members will welcome a package of initiatives that will resist this practice and give an extra element of security as we enter the holiday season.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: My question is directed to the Premier. How can the Premier explain why doctors at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital refused to examine a three-year-old girl who was believed to have been sexually assaulted because of the "legal mess" they would have to deal with?

Mr BOB CARR: Inquiry into this matter is under way at the request of the family concerned. I am advised that the Greater Southern Area Health Service received a complaint from the family of the child involved on 31 January. I am advised that the same day the area acknowledged the complaint and requested that a report into the incident be prepared by the hospital. The report has been completed and received by the area Director of Clinical Operations. The area director is now reviewing the report and will consider referring the matter to the Health Care Complaints Commission to seek further details from those involved in this incident.

Mr PAUL PEARCE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on the safety of Sydney Buses and related matters?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: State Transit has an excellent safety record. But I am pleased to inform the House that State Transit is continuously looking at that record, seeking to improve safety on buses, both for the travelling public and those people working for State Transit. The functions of State Transit require a concentrated safety effort in two important fields: safety and security in bus operations and safety in the workplace. Recently State Transit established a Safety Forum as its first step in a new era of safety awareness for the organisation, and I commend the State Transit Authority [STA] for that initiative. I advise that the major role of the forum is to bring together key players, including management, unions, drivers and those working for State Transit to focus on current guidelines and to develop new and improved guidelines that apply to safety.

I am advised that the forum has already identified a number of safety issues, which include safety training in all positions, more focus on risk prevention and bad driving habits. Changes in those areas will result in improved and safer driving habits that will benefit all passengers and employees of the STA. Safety audits of depots have been introduced and the results are clear. The lost time injury frequency rate of State Transit has been in decline since 2003 with a 27 per cent reduction recorded. In December the amount of road time lost to injury hit an all-time low of 13 hours for every one million hours worked—a good figure.

The introduction of closed circuit television in all buses has enhanced the security of passengers as well as State Transit drivers and supervisory staff. In 2003-04 State Transit reported a total rate of safety incidents on its buses of less than 1.8 incidents for every one million passenger journeys. The rate of passenger incidents is even lower—0.7 incidents for every one million passenger journeys—a striking figure. Low-floor buses have been introduced to provide ease of entry for the elderly and those less mobile members of the community, such as mums with prams, to further lessen the risk of injury when people are entering buses. Wheelchair access has been provided, together with safety boards and retaining straps to secure wheelchairs in position.

State Transit has been recognised for its commitment to safety with a New South Wales Premier's Public Sector Award for bus passenger safety and technology. State Transit has also been awarded a WorkCover NSW Safework Award for best training program. That program is giving bus drivers the skills to defuse aggressive incidents that may occur on buses to further protect themselves and the travelling public. State Transit is helping to deliver a safer and more reliable public transport system. I commend State Transit for those efforts.
Whilst discussing the important issues of bus safety and operations, I must turn to the related topic of bus stops. The location of bus stops is determined by local councils with a general rule that the public is best served with bus stops being about 800 metres apart, which applies to all electorates. That ensures that the elderly, in particular, and young children do not have far to walk to get to their local bus stop. Transport planners, not Federal Government mathematicians, determine the location of bus stops and train stations, and the number of buses and trains. That is why we keep those Federal pointy heads out of planning the transport delivery in New South Wales. We trust transport planners to provide us with the network that the travelling public needs.

The Federal Government mathematicians suggested, through the recent Grants Commission report, that in New South Wales there should be 15,873 fewer bus stops. So the Federal Government, through the Grants Commission, is saying that in this State we should not have 15,873 bus stops as they are above and beyond what the travelling public of New South Wales need or deserve. The Federal Grants Commission and the Federal Government believe that we have over-invested in public transport infrastructure. We want to do more; they want us to do less when it comes to public transport infrastructure.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: But, worse, they have held back $3 billion of our GST because of these erroneous, facile arguments. They also believe, as was mentioned in the report delivered to the New South Wales Treasurer yesterday, and as was argued by the Federal Grants Commission, that New South Wales has 1,2700 too many buses. That is, the Federal Government believes 20 per cent of the public and private bus fleet in New South Wales is not required, that there is an oversupply of those services in this State. That is what the Grants Commission is arguing in Canberra. It also argues that there are 18 kilometres of underground track and 38 kilometres of standard track that New South Wales does not need. What underground track do we not need in our network? What seven stations do we not need?

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Which of the 15,000 bus stops should this State do without?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the right to be heard in silence.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Leader of the Opposition must immediately reject those Grants Commission arguments.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: If he is not prepared to stand up and tell the Federal Government that the Grants Commission has it wrong, he should identify which bus stops and buses this State can do without.

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

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women. With tourism being one of the key industries on the mid North Coast, exemplified by the recent formation of a 300-business strong industry body called the Greater Port Macquarie Tourism Association, what is the Minister doing to help this new association promote tourism on the mid North Coast, in particular in the Greater Port Macquarie region?

Ms SANDRA NORI: Honourable members would recall that two weeks ago I talked about the five new regional television advertisements that we had launched in the markets. I spoke then of those television commercials as being a piece of marketing infrastructure that would take us into the future. Of course, they were research based and part of the Government's long-term strategic plan to deliver tourism dollars to regional New South Wales. The honourable member will be pleased to know that I plan to launch the North Coast campaign at the end of the first week that the House sits in April. I intend to make that launch at Port Macquarie. I understand that my office will be discussing with the honourable member times, dates and places to ensure that he can be present at the launch.
The advertisements will go to air on Sunday 10 April. For the purposes of this campaign, when we say the North Coast, we are talking about the 22 local government areas from Terrigal all the way to the border, including as regions what people in the marketplace would consider the Central Coast, the North Coast, the Northern Rivers and the Hunter. The Upper Hunter and Muswellbrook are part of Heart of Country, and so are not part of this campaign. The North Coast campaign is part of a $4 million television, cinema and print campaign. We will be looking for co-operative partners to put money into the kitty so that we may extend the life of these television commercials, or in fact offer particular subregions the opportunity to develop a 15-second version of the advertisement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will stop calling out. I call the honourable member for Myall Lakes to order for the second time.

Ms SANDRA NORI: Since the honourable member has asked the question, I will take him through the media plan. There will be a 30-second television commercial, running over a three-week period from Sunday 10 April this year, to be shown in Sydney and regional New South Wales, including south-eastern Queensland. Over a period of two weeks a 45-second cinema commercial will be running on 150 screens in Sydney, regional New South Wales, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. There will be a two-minute brand infobreak, running for two weeks from 17 April, in Sydney, regional New South Wales and south-east Queensland on channels 7, 9 and 10. There will be full-page and double-page spread print advertising, including in the Open Road, Readers Digest, Sunday magazine and the Wanderer magazine, running from March until May. There will be a half-hour North Coast of New South Wales WIN "Destinations" television program in April. The Today show will run North Coast items for five days, with a live weather cross, in May. There is also a campaign on the web site. I am happy to give the honourable member the remainder of the detail after question time.

Ms NOREEN HAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Housing. What is the latest information on funding for crisis accommodation and community housing?

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: We all know that homelessness is a tragedy for those who find themselves in such a situation, as well as for all of us as a community. No-one wants to see Australians sleeping out in our back alleys or parks. That is why the Government is committed to providing social housing to the most vulnerable—those at risk of homelessness. Earlier this month, at the request of the honourable member for Georges River, I saw first-hand the great work of the St George Community Housing Association and Anglicare Youth Services. They operate two houses in Hurstville for young people at risk of becoming homeless.

Those two organisations are hard at work helping people in difficult situations find shelter. They reach out to people in the most distressing situations and provide invaluable help. Their work is made possible by the State Government's Crisis Accommodation Program. The program is of vital importance to vulnerable people who are in severe housing need or who are homeless. The program is particularly important to women and young people fleeing volatile home environments.

Today I can inform the House that the New South Wales Government is committing a further $18.1 million to make 122 extra homes available for use as crisis accommodation and community housing. This money will help purchase, lease, renovate or upgrade homes to provide short- and medium-term assistance to people at risk of homelessness. These homes give people who would otherwise spend the night on the streets a safe and secure place to live. Crisis accommodation projects include three units in Maitland, to help young Aboriginal women with newborn children; three villas in Adamstown, which will enable Eva's Place to continue to provide accommodation for women escaping volatile family situations; and a three-bedroom home for emergency housing in Wollongong.

Some of the community housing projects include two properties in Tweed Heads to provide housing for families with complex needs requiring support; four units in Wyong, to assist low-income households in need; four units in Wollongong, to assist young people who are entering training or employment in the Illawarra; and the Newmac-Richmond Fellowship in Newcastle, which will receive $460,000 to provide four units of supported housing for people with a mental illness. Today's new funding includes $13.5 million to provide an extra 91 homes under our Community Housing Assistance Program and $4.6 million to provide 31 homes under our Crisis Accommodation Program. This $18.1 million commitment will give vulnerable people integrity, independence and self-respect.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: My question without notice is to the Premier. Why is 30-year-old Coffs Harbour man Adam Cody, who is unable to work, is at risk of becoming a severe C3 quadriplegic, and suffers muscle spasms, reduced bowel and bladder control and spontaneous nerve impulses through his limbs, being forced to wait more than 12 months for urgent spinal surgery?

Mr BOB CARR: In these matters, as in all hospital matters, surgeons rate the seriousness of the case. I will investigate that case and confirm that for the House. The Leader of the Opposition keeps interjecting because he is embarrassed that in the weekend Sun-Herald he announced that this week the Government would be under siege. He said he would put the Government under siege. We are in day two of the week, and the Government is not under siege. This is not the battle of Leningrad. The media update for today—Opposition sightings nil. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will be taken seriously and any matter he raises will be investigated properly because he made a very valid statement a few days ago.

The honourable member for The Hills accused the Government of logging Kosciuszko National Park. We looked at the map he was invoking, which turned out to be a 1978 parchment map, one that was not even a gazetted map showing the boundaries of the park. It turns out that State Forests was logging in—wait for it—a State forest. He carried on bravely, attacking State Forests for performing its statutory responsibility of logging a State forest. But the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said in his press release on the Leader's letterhead that Michael Richardson's claims were absurd and totally inaccurate.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. My question is one about Adam Cody and his injury. Why don't you wake up and give him the surgery he needs and stop treating this place like a bloody kindergarten! You face Adam Cody and tell him why he can't get an operation. You're failing health. You're a joke.

Mr BOB CARR: What could be more relevant than talking up the very member who asked the question? He went on to say of his colleague, "Whilst use of the Garmin GPS receiver is accurate to within 15 metres, basing it on a 1978 map that was altered in 1983 and has now been superseded … renders this attempt at sleuthing a joke." He said his colleague is a joke. What a siege the last two days have been. The Leader of the Opposition announces in the Sun-Herald every week that in the coming week he will bring down the Government; he will whack on a siege. I thank the House for its attention.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: It is clear that this Premier has reached the stage where he could not give a stuff about patients who are on waiting lists for 12 months. It is time he started realising the parliamentary process. He should not be Premier of this tired old Government. He should retire.

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

Mr JOHN PRICE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Regional Development. What is the latest information on measures to support Hunter businesses?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: If this is a siege then I am happy to stick my head above the ramparts. I acknowledge the honourable member for Maitland's considerable interest and effort in trying to develop the Hunter and encourage jobs growth and economic development in the area. The Carr Government has a strong and a detailed plan for regional investment jobs, which is benefiting the Hunter region. In particular we are targeting the region's future export potential. The Opposition does not like this, and you can hear it. Tuesday's edition of the Newcastle Herald at page 17 reported on the Leader of the Opposition talking down business growth in the Hunter region. While he is whingeing and whining, and talking it down, with no plans, policies or ideas, local investors in the Hunter economic zone are investing their money and encouraging investment and new jobs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation on both the Government and Opposition benches. The Minister has the right to be heard in silence. I expect honourable members to treat him with courtesy and pay attention to his answer.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Our ongoing support means that the Hunter Export Centre can undertake the second stage of its Upper Hunter project, which is helping to diversify the region's economy to encourage companies to export their products and services. To date 20 Upper Hunter companies have participated in the project, which also has included two trade missions to China. This success has been good news for the local mining and equine industries.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. If the Minister is attempting to explain his Government's policies in relation to regional development in the Hunter, he needs to explain what his Government is planning for the Broadmeadow to Newcastle rail line.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop wasting the time of the House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I am thankful to the Leader of the House for providing me with a copy of an article from the Port Macquarie News dated 7 January 2005. For the benefit of the House the headline reads, "So what, says Mr 1 per cent", and refers to the Leader of The Nationals. Local papers say he has only 1 per cent and people cannot identify him. It is important that members of the House know that we are providing $41,000 for the second stage of the export project in the Hunter, which will help to employ an export officer. It will also see the Hunter Export Centre continue to work with its original companies, while expanding to support a further 20 companies. This venture is funded also by the Coal and Allied Community Trust. We have strong and detailed plans that encourage investment, but we also take the opportunity to lever off the private sector and work with it to encourage jobs growth, which will come through export.

I know that most members of the Opposition will not be interested in this, but other members of the House will be interested to know that one in four jobs is a result of export in this country. It is an important goal to try to encourage, and the Government has plans to do that. The New South Wales Government is also encouraging the Hunter Economic Development Corporation's effort to diversify agriculture in the region. Some members of the Opposition might be interested when we start to talk about agricultural products. I am sure the honourable member for Lachlan will have an interest, but perhaps not many of his colleagues will. Members of the House should know that we are providing $30,000 to investigate intensive grain and seed crops for the Hunter River flats. Over the next two years the Realising the Hunter River Flats Potential Project will explore the potential for new crops like adzuki beans and navy beans.

[Interjection]

The honourable member for Newcastle interjected to acknowledge the importance of that particular project. He certainly understands that it is important to invest in high-tech industries, but it is also important to invest in traditional agricultural industries and to look for export opportunities as a means for driving jobs growth in the Hunter region. The Government is working in partnership with a number of regional groups on this project, including Crops for the Hunter, which is exporting to Japan.

[Interruption]

Adzuki beans are exported to Japan. The honourable member for Lismore should know that. I am sure he will remember that he heard it here and learnt it here. The Government is working with a number of regional groups on this project, including Crops for the Hunter, Singleton, Muswellbrook and Upper Hunter councils, and Canterbury Seeds. Our regional development programs are also encouraging local companies in their efforts to find overseas markets. We are helping Schreiber Hamilton Architecture to market its services in China. The current management of the company has been operating for six years and the company employs 15 people. The Government's assistance is helping the company to upgrade its web site specifically for non-English-speaking clients. A new market expansion program is also supporting another Newcastle company, Piano Australia, to target new export markets.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has already been called to order twice. If his present behaviour continues, he may not be in the Chamber for the conclusion of question time.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Piano Australia makes the Stuart piano and is probably the only local design grand piano maker in Australia. With support from the New South Wales Government, the company intends to sell its pianos in the very places that the musical instrument was originally developed—the United Kingdom and Europe. I congratulate the company. I am advised that the company has been invited to display one of its products at the World Expo at Nagoya in Japan. Despite the Opposition's efforts to talk down the region, the Carr Government is getting on with the job of encouraging investment in the Hunter.

When it comes to regional New South Wales, the Opposition has no ideas, no plans, no solutions and no policies. As I said, as recently as this week, the Leader of the Opposition once again was running down the Hunter region in the Newcastle Herald. All the projects to which I have referred show that this Government's strong and detailed plan for regional development is creating new opportunities and new jobs in the Hunter region. That is why the Government's plan has resulted in $322 million in local investment and more than 2000 new jobs in the Hunter.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr Carl Scully: Branch stacking—it is a disgusting habit!

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I want to talk about that.

Mr Carl Scully: It is traducing your reputation.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: In response to the interjection made by the Minister, I have to say—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I am just responding to an interjection.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I take it that the honourable member for Cronulla wishes to make a personal explanation.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: He should proceed with his personal explanation.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 70. Today the Premier sought to enhance my reputation by describing me as a champion parliamentarian. The House may think that there is some substance to that allegation. However, I should explain to the House in relation to that that the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader came out last Thursday. Only a tired old Premier would describe last Thursday's St George and Sutherland Shire Leader as hot off the press.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cronulla is entitled to make a personal explanation; he is not entitled to debate the matter.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I am not. I am only seeking to make an explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cronulla should either proceed with his personal explanation or resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I am seeking to explain that in relation to what the Premier said about branch stacking and branch corruption, when he was the Treasurer of the Maroubra branch, the accounts were never audited.

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

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [3.34 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide for:

(1) the following routine of business on Thursday 24 March 2005 —
At 10.00 a.m. (Speaker takes the Chair);
General Business Notice of Motions for Bills (concluding not later than 10.30 a.m.);
General Business Orders of the Day for Bills (concluding not later than 11.30 a.m.)

At 11.30 a.m. General Business Notice of Motions (not for Bills):
At 12.00 p.m. the usual routine of business prior to Questions as follows—

Ministerial Statements;
Notices of Motions;
Petitions (with the closing time for lodgement being 11.00 a.m.);
Placing or Disposal of Business;
Formal Business;
Committee Reports—tabling;
Questions.

(2) At the conclusion of Questions, the House will adjourn, without question being put, until Tuesday 5 April 2005 at 2.15 p.m.

The program will provide a more orderly management of the business of the House this week and will accommodate a strong representation from The Nationals to get home early for Easter.

Motion agreed to.

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources) [3.35 p.m.]: This motion is urgent because nine months after reaching what the New South Wales Government believed was an agreement with the Commonwealth Government for the Commonwealth Government to match this State's $55 million to deal with structural adjustment for ground water plans throughout this State, the Commonwealth Government is yet to deliver its funds and irrigators need to make crop planting decisions within the next few weeks. This motion is urgent because of the livelihoods of irrigators. This motion is urgent because they need to make decisions based on how much water they will be allocated when the new water year commences on 1 July. It is urgent because of the uncertainty caused by the failure of the Commonwealth Government to match the New South Wales Government's $55 million share. There is no certainty for investors, irrigators and farmers in six ground water areas throughout the State.

This motion is urgent because this Parliament needs to send a message on behalf of the farmers and irrigators around this State that they want the Commonwealth Government to honour the commitment it made more than nine months ago. Last July, with the agreement of the Commonwealth Government, the New South Wales Government deferred the six ground water sharing plans and we went to the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] and put $55 million on the table as part of the joint funding proposal with the Commonwealth Government. That was done with the full expectation that the Commonwealth Government would match State funding.

At that stage the New South Wales Government had given undertakings but nine months later we are still waiting for the Commonwealth's matching funds to come through. With ground water sharing plans due to commence on 1 July this year, there is widespread uncertainty among investors throughout the bush, no less so than in the electorate of John Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister, including the Namoi River valley. This motion is urgent because farmers need the support of this Parliament to send a clear message to Canberra to just get on with the job of delivering its $55 million so that structural adjustment packages can be delivered to hard-pressed farmers right throughout this State.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [3.37 p.m.]: This motion is urgent and deserves priority because this House deserves to know why Baragrove Pty Ltd, a company owned by Anne Bechara, planned to build 18 two-bedroom apartments on land at 70-74 Burwood Road, Burwood Heights and stood to profit to the tune of $896,000 on the transaction. This Parliament urgently needs to receive an explanation from the honourable member for Strathfield, Virginia Judge, to ascertain whether she applied any pressure to the Burwood Council to ensure that the council approved the development application.

This motion is urgent because the Parliament needs to know whether the honourable member for Strathfield, Virginia Judge, is being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] in relation to the inappropriate lobbying of councillors at Burwood Council. The Parliament needs to know whether the development was approved as a result of lobbying by the honourable member for Strathfield, Virginia Judge. The motion is urgent because there was a fundraising event held at the Il Buco restaurant and it was attended by John Abi-Saab, Michael Saklaoui and the Hon. Eddie Obeid at a cost of $1,000 a head.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour must establish urgency. Despite only a minute and a half having elapsed since he commenced his speech, the honourable member is already rattling off serious allegations, but he has not established the urgency of the motion. Without having established urgency, he is speaking directly to the substance of the motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order taken by the honourable member for East Hills has some relevance. I remind the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that he must show why his motion should have priority.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: This matter is urgent and deserves priority because at the moment there are absolutely rotten apples in barrels at Strathfield and Burwood councils. Today we have been advised that an almost $900,000 profit has been made by Anne Bechara, a great fundraiser and friend of Virginia Judge. We need to know whether the honourable member supported the development application—

Ms Kristina Keneally: Point of order: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour should address members by their title, not by name, in this Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a relevant point of order. I remind the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that members should be referred to by their correct titles.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I would also like to know why the honourable member for Strathfield received donations from a number of developers who have been named adversely in the ICAC investigation into Strathfield council.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: yesterday when you gave a deliberative ruling on what a member could say you said:

That parliamentary privilege is expressly recognised in section 122 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. However, members need to be aware that this privilege should be exercised with care so that, in the interests of justice, a witness does not feel inhibited or that his or her legal rights have been denied.

In reminding you of your ruling given yesterday I point out, once again, that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has invoked the name of the ICAC several times in reference to the honourable member for Strathfield. By your ruling, he should be ruled out of order. I ask you to ask him to sit down.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: To the point of order: This motion would give the honourable member for Strathfield the opportunity to explain to the House whether she is being investigated by the ICAC, what she knows about the donations that have been given to her by developers, by Anne Bechara, and tell us whether she is a witness—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Yesterday I gave a considered ruling in relation to matters currently before the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I made it plain that although members have freedom of speech in this Chamber, they must remain cognisant of the fact that what is said in this Chamber could influence proceedings before the Independent Commission Against Corruption and may even draw adverse comment from the commissioner. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is walking a very thin line, and he should take care that what he places on record in this Chamber will not draw adverse criticism from the commission or, indeed, in some way impede any investigation or inquiry the commission may undertake.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: We want to know whether there are fishing expeditions. Is there any ICAC inquiry into Burwood Council? What role has the honourable member for Strathfield played in the development? We want to know about the $896,000 profit by Anne Bechara— [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Macquarie Fields be proceeded with—agreed to.

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources) [3.43 p.m.]: I move:

That this House expresses its concern about the Commonwealth Government's delay in formalising its commitment to the ground water structural adjustment package to assist inland ground water users.

In October 2003 an interesting group of people met around Gae Swain's kitchen table at Gunnedah. Of course, everyone knows that Gae Swain is the mayor of Gunnedah and everyone would have regarded that meeting as neutral territory: Gae Swain hosting a meeting, and sitting at her table were representatives of the irrigation community, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and me. The only other person who should have been at the meeting was Merrill Benfield, from Charleston, South Carolina—he could not get to the meeting. Most importantly, the Deputy Prime Minister and I brought people together to talk about this important issue. At the conclusion of the meeting there was new hope for ground water users around New South Wales. Collectively we agreed to undertake fresh work on matters affecting history of use in an effort to improve the six ground water sharing plans that were due to come into operation on 1 July.

We acknowledged that there was much work to be done and it should be done in partnership. We agreed that I would defer the implementation of the ground water sharing plans, to give us all time to do the necessary work. The Gunnedah meeting will be written into our history as the Swain meeting. For the first time, irrigators were involved in working through the data, working on the ideas. We saw the coming together of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Leader of The Nationals, and a Labor Minister for Natural Resources. It was a powerful message that governments were willing to rise above politics and solve one of the most difficult issues facing our nation: the allocation and use of water.

By June 2004, about eight months later, sufficient work had been done on the ground water sharing plans for the Premier of New South Wales to go to the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting and put $55 million on the table as our agreed matching contribution to facilitate the structural adjustments necessary in those ground water valleys. Nine months ago the New South Wales Government was able to put $55 million on the table. It is a matter of public record that on the afternoon of 25 June, at the end of the COAG meeting, I received a phone call at Parliament House from the Deputy Prime Minister thanking me personally for my efforts in getting other jurisdictions to support the national water initiative. I was pleased to do so. That is a good initiative that brings the jurisdictions together.

I record in Hansard that I was left in absolutely no doubt that the Commonwealth's matching $55 million was available and would be delivered in a very short time. Sadly, nine months later, I am still waiting for the cheque to arrive. The Deputy Prime Minister and I knew the urgency involved and we both understand that it is still urgent, yet New South Wales is still waiting for the cheque. A lot of work has to go into the adjustment of ground water sharing plans if we want to better reflect history of use and that is why we agreed to defer the start of the ground water plans from 1 July 2004 to 1 July 2005—to give us the full 12 months we needed to do the work, to help farmers and irrigators in those six valleys to provide an even better result on water sharing.

Very shortly, irrigators will be making crop-planting decisions based on how much water they expect to get in the new water-sharing year beginning 1 July 2005. Of course, traditionally they make those decisions in April, a good two months in advance of the new season. They do that because they have to prepare their land, purchase seed, get machinery in order and all the normal business and farming practices in which a bit of advance notice is not something that is unreasonable to expect. There are no excuses for the Commonwealth to not commit the matching dollars to the ground water structural adjustment proposal, to give farmers and irrigators the certainty to which they are entitled. Whilst there may be some argy-bargy about some details, it is important that the Commonwealth commit the dollars to the principles and show good faith to those irrigators that they are willing to be part of the game.

The Commonwealth did that in Gunnedah, at the COAG meeting, but nine months later we are still waiting for the money. In fairness to the Deputy Prime Minister, I say to all the players that there is some argument about some of the detail—for example, about Commonwealth tax arrangements. I suggest that is best sorted out when the money is on the table. If the money is not there in the first place, obviously there is nothing to argue about. I am satisfied that the Deputy Prime Minister has demonstrated a personal commitment to make this work. I am confident that he wants it to happen. However, he has to get his bureaucrats to get on with the job and deliver the money. Farmers are entitled to some certainty about their future; the Commonwealth's indecision is causing a great deal of uncertainty for them. Without that $55 million from the Commonwealth it is not viable for New South Wales to simply go it alone. And that was made clear at the COAG meeting, and has been part of the process of working together in partnership. That is what we have said from day one. Unless there is sufficient money to complete the task there is no point in creating false hope in the farming communities for even starting in the first place.
A significant group of farmers and irrigators in the ground water licence district want to see the new trading regime introduced. We have legislated for it, we have given them their title, and they want their trading regime up and running, equivalent to the other 30 water sharing plans that we introduced last year. We have to implement the provisions in the Act in those areas to give irrigators the benefit of the changes that we have already made. In the interests of farmers who have been affected, unless the Commonwealth formally commits to the ground water structural adjustment proposal very soon, it is most likely that I will be forced to implement existing water sharing plans with across-the-board cuts to water entitlements. At least that will give farmers the certainty that they need to enable the trading regimes to begin. I have said all along that the Commonwealth has to sign up to the package. We cannot go it alone.

We want to address the history of use, but we cannot do that in isolation. I want to see the changes and the package implemented. I want to give greater weight to the history of use. I want to see productive farmers remain productive. After all, they are the people who are creating wealth in rural communities and they are the people that we are trying to support. I cannot believe that The Nationals in Canberra would let farmers hang for nine months, but that is what they are doing. It is worth adding that they are doing all that in the context of the $10 billion budget surplus. They cannot say that they do not have the money. Peter Costello was crowing today at the Treasurer's meeting about just how much money he has. What about a bit of dough for the farmers? What about a bit of money for the irrigators? What about honouring a commitment that was given at the COAG meeting in June last year and in October the preceding year around Gai Swain's kitchen table?

Why do we not get on with it and give these people some certainty so that they can make investment decisions? These funding promises have to be honoured. What the Commonwealth gives with one hand it takes away with the other. That is normal practice. At this stage we do not even have the $55 million on the table so it can tax the poor old irrigators to get back some of the money. We just want to see the money to start with. We want a better deal for irrigators. We have worked hard on this issue. New hope was created that day around Gai Swain's kitchen table. Governments worked together with farm communities to achieve a good result. The options of again deferring water plans and of not being able to proceed without the Commonwealth matching our commitments are very real. We must ensure that people understand we are unable to proceed with those structural adjustments without the Commonwealth being there. All that work, effort, commitment and goodwill is under threat for one reason alone: the seeming inability of the Commonwealth Government simply to write a cheque.

In the end that is what this is going to take. Our $55 million has been on the table in tough budgetary circumstances for this State since the June COAG meeting last year. At the conclusion of that meeting I received a phone call from the Deputy Prime Minister to thank me for my efforts. I received an undertaking that the Commonwealth Government would be there to match our contribution. Work has been done with irrigators to adjust the plans. We are still waiting. With a couple of months to go a number of irrigators are wondering whether to invest on one water regime or another. What are their prospects? This issue will be sheeted home right where it belongs—smack on the desk of the Deputy Prime Minister who was at the Gunnedah meeting, who has been part of this all the way, and who made an undertaking to me after the June COAG meeting.

I make it very clear that a number of irrigators are waiting for him to show some leadership on behalf of his constituents and his rural communities. He must ensure that he gets bureaucrats to extract their digits in Canberra. He must ensure that they get on with it and that they write the cheque. People are sick and tired of this. They want the money. These last six water sharing plans complete the enormous work that has been done by my predecessors—Aquilina, Amery and Yeadon—and by me. The Commonwealth has also done a lot of good work. I do not want to see this matter go bad because of the intransigence or stupidity of the Commonwealth Treasury, which appears to be holding up this process every step of the way. If members of The Nationals in this Chamber have any sense they will back this motion every step of the way.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.53 p.m.]: It is good to see the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources finally surface this year on a natural resources issue. After his recent annus horribilis it seems he is now turning his attention to some of the issues in his portfolio. The Macquarie Fields riots, the Campbelltown hospital fiasco, the Orange Grove outlets centre and doing the numbers for the Premier's job have been distracting issues for the Minister. Sadly, that has been to the detriment of the many hardworking water users across this State. This is the first time that the Minister has surfaced this year in any significant way. Sadly, it has been to whinge, whine and stick out his hand for Federal money for what, under the Constitution, is a State responsibility. There is no doubt that the six ground water systems in New South Wales need urgent attention.
Ms Linda Burney: Do you know that what you said is not right?

Mr ANDREW STONER: Water is a State responsibility, which is why the legislation is a State issue. If there had been no leadership from the Federal Government nothing would have happened in relation to water in this State.

Mr Craig Knowles: Point of order: The Leader of The Nationals made some pejorative comments about me, but I am not sure where he has been for the past 12 months A funny thing called the national water initiative was signed off jointly by the Commonwealth and the States. At the last Federal election John Howard announced a $2 billion package unilaterally, which indicated that the Federal Government had responsibility for water. Pull your head in, wake up, grow up and read some paperwork!

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The point of order is upheld.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The Federal Leader of The Nationals, John Anderson, clearly recognises that reform to the ground water systems in New South Wales must be pushed ahead. This motion is all about the Minister covering his backside because he knows that he has taken his eye off the ball in relation to this matter. He is so preoccupied with city-based scandals he has allowed his department to drop the ball on this issue. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR] has failed to provide water users with essential ground water data, including entitlements and history of use. That information is vital to ensure that we have a clear picture of what is going on and what structural adjustment is required. We all want certainty—

Mr Craig Knowles: Point of order: Let Hansard record that the note from which the Leader of The Nationals is reading was clearly provided by the Commonwealth Treasury in Canberra. It is the same line that has been given to us over the past two months.

Mr ANDREW STONER: That is not a point of order.

Mr Craig Knowles: The excuses have run out and the honourable member is perpetuating them. It does no service to his constituency.

Mr ANDREW STONER: That is not a point of order. You have had your chance to talk. You will get a chance in reply. Sit down and shut up!

Mr Craig Knowles: It does no service to his constituents. He is a Treasury lickspittle.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I uphold the Minister's point of order. I remind the Leader of The Nationals that he should direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Tell him to sit down! If he wants to take a point of order he should take a legitimate one and address these issues in reply. The Minister should be told to control himself.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Leader of The Nationals has the call.

Mr ANDREW STONER: We all want certainty for irrigators, but the Carr Labor Government has dropped the ball. I ask the Minister: How can he be sure that the $55 million from both the State and Commonwealth governments will be sufficient for structural adjustment when he cannot provide the basic data on which decisions will be based? This is the Minister's problem. He needs to pay a visit to departmental staff and ask them what is going on. Where is the data? He should talk to his bureaucrats in DIPNR who are out of control. Over the past few years we have heard a lot of rhetoric from this Minister about the wonderful things he was going to do in natural resources. It has all been derailed because of his bureaucrats. The Minister had the hide today to whinge about the Federal Government. He should forget playing political games and wasting the time of this Parliament by seeking a scapegoat in the Commonwealth. He should go to work on his own bureaucrats because that is where the problem lies. The Minister has not acknowledged that he has not honoured a request for the three parties—irrigators, the Commonwealth and the State Government—to meet and to thrash out outstanding issues.

I understand that the New South Wales Government is soon to meet with the National Water Commission to discuss its application for funding. However, that came after the Minister's and the Premier's childish stunt during the Federal election of pulling out of the national water initiative in a bid to prop up Federal Labor leader Mark Latham. This stupid decision has threatened funding for a number of essential projects and structural adjustment funding for ground water users facing allocation cuts of up to 87 per cent. Finally, commonsense prevailed and the Minister and Premier again signed up to the national water initiative.

I am glad that the pressure brought to bear on New South Wales Labor by The Nationals, water industry groups and communities has paid off. But in the interim its dummy spit on the national water initiative has been to the detriment of ground water users in the Namoi, Lachlan, Gwydir, Macquarie, Murrumbidgee and Murray areas. I again call on the Minister to provide the necessary data so we can ensure that we achieve the best possible outcome on structural adjustment for our ground water irrigators. While we are on the subject of action or inaction on the part of departments, we have seen record ineptness, inefficiency and mismanagement in the Natural Resources portfolio. I instance the native vegetation laws introduced by the Government in late 2003—

Mr Craig Knowles: Point of order: There was a time when one feared the contribution of a National Party leader to the debate as one would be ripped to shreds. The Leader of The Nationals is only halfway through his allocated speaking time but is perambulating around the Natural Resources portfolio because he has nothing more to say about water allocations. I warn the Leader of The Nationals that if he continues on his present course I shall continue to take points of order. There is a motion before the House and I ask you, Madam Acting-Speaker, to direct the Leader of The Nationals to address his remarks to it.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I uphold the point of order. The Leader of The Nationals should address his remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My point is that the Government's ineptness on water is mirrored by its ineptness with regard to other natural resources issues. This motion is about an inept Minister, an inept department and an inept Government trying to blame the Commonwealth for its lack of action in relation to water. We saw it happen with native vegetation and with the Brigalow belt south bioregion, on which there has been no ministerial decision since 1999. We saw the Government withdraw from the national water initiative and then witnessed its subsequent backflip. The Minister has failed to stand up for forestry jobs and forestry workers. This motion is nothing more than political grandstanding and this Minister trying to cover his backside. He has dropped the ball because he is preoccupied with other issues. The Minister has finally surfaced, but, sadly, it is to point the finger at the Federal Government. On the subject of Federal politics, I must state for the record that the Federal Labor Party has acknowledged the New South Wales Government's inept use of Commonwealth water competition payments. Federal Labor's environment and heritage policy states:

… performance payments have gone into states' coffers rather than improved water management, and progress in some states has been slow.

Nowhere has it been slower than in New South Wales. The Minister should get off his backside, pick up the telephone, talk to John Anderson and progress the agenda because it is his problem.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.02 p.m.]: This issue is very important for farmers and communities in the vicinity of the upper and lower Namoi, lower Gwydir, lower Murrumbidgee, lower Lachlan, lower Lachlan and lower Murray river systems. It is a test of the Opposition. The eight-and-a-bit-minute contribution by the Leader of The Nationals revealed clearly that the Opposition and The Nationals have failed again. The test is simple: Is the Coalition willing to back New South Wales residents or will it continue to make excuses for the Howard Government? The Minister for Natural Resources, who moved the motion, has put in the hard yards on this issue. He has faced the problem, consulted the community, and come up with a solution—often following consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister. This is a tough issue and, as with so many tough issues, The Nationals in New South Wales are rushing backwards as fast as they can to do absolutely nothing.

Our inland ground water systems are overallocated. They are unsustainable. A responsible and proactive Government works to fix these problems because that is the only way we can ensure the sustainability of businesses and local economies. The New South Wales Government has put up $55 million to get the adjustment process going. The Government looked at implementing water-sharing plans but delayed their introduction until 1 July this year in order to consult with communities and put in place a reduction methodology and program that considers the different ways of assisting water users in these systems. The Government recognised that making across-the-board cuts to entitlements was not the fairest way of tackling the problem. The Minister has spent many months working with users to devise a fairer system, which now needs only the Commonwealth's commitment of matching funding. We must ask: Why the delay?
As the Minister said, the timing is getting critical for water users. Without a quick answer those water users will experience across-the-board cuts that will make their lives very difficult. Those users would be justified in asking why The Nationals have let them down again. The Nationals in New South Wales had a chance in this debate to get behind the State Government and support farmers and rural New South Wales. Did they seize that chance or did they continue their negative, whingeing politics? They chose the latter option. The Nationals will not stand up for the people of New South Wales. The ground water question is like the Commonwealth's industrial relations power grab, about which the Opposition has no policy. I note that in yesterday's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he agreed with the Commonwealth Government's grab for industrial relations power. He replied, "Watch this space." The Leader of The Nationals said much the same thing today about water: Watch this space. The Opposition has no opinions. It is not willing to stand up for the people of New South Wales.

The Leader of The Nationals mentioned some other Commonwealth-State funding issues. The State Opposition has never once stood up for New South Wales and complained about the fact that we pay $13 billion in GST and receive back only $10 billion. It is a case of "Watch this space". The Nationals, like their web site, are a policy-free zone. For the past year or so the helpful page of The Nationals web site that is headed "State Policies" has carried the words "Under construction." Let us continue to watch that blank space. There is an awful lot of space in the Opposition; it is a vacuum. It has no policies for New South Wales and it has failed to back the State's communities and rural residents. The Opposition is a negative, whingeing, policy-free vacuum.

The Nationals today failed to back the water users of these six river systems. The Leader of The Nationals waffled for a while and tried to shift the blame. He said that the State Government has not done enough and the Commonwealth is doing all the right things. Why are his comments so bad? It is because many of these river systems are in electorates that members of The Nationals claim to represent in this House. No wonder the once great National Party can no longer even field a football team. It is an absolute disgrace that this once mighty party has fallen so far. It is a sorry story. The Nationals are failing to stand up for their constituents—they will be their constituents only until the next election—and to represent their views. The Leader of The Nationals—whom a recent survey found had a 1 per cent recognition rate across New South Wales; he obviously thinks that is okay—failed to offer an opinion on this matter in the mere eight and a half minutes for which he spoke today. He failed to back New South Wales water users and the good work of the Minister for Natural Resources in attempting to tackle the problem of water overallocation in these catchments.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [4.07 p.m.]: I am a little disappointed that the Minister for Natural Resources has left the Chamber. I assume that he is not too far away. The Minister moved this motion on a subject that is very important in my electorate and in that of the honourable member for Murray-Darling. The lower Murrumbidgee ground water association is an important organisation that represents many irrigators who will be significantly affected by these reforms. I am glad to see that the Minister has returned as I intend to make a most constructive contribution to the debate. I think this motion distracts from the key issue in the water reform process, particularly as it relates to ground water, in that it is not really about money. It will be about money later when the reforms require monetary assistance but the reform process must come first.

Surface or ground water irrigators always say that they do not want the money; they want to be able to use the water. We must get the water-sharing plans right and then the money will flow. I think this motion puts the cart before the horse. On the subject of money, irrigators will ultimately want compensation, not structural reform or capital works in the areas affected by the reforms. If money is to be part of the equation, they will want real compensation. Irrigators in the lower Murrumbidgee challenged the water-sharing plans not because they wanted to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars on legal costs for no reason but because they believe them to be fundamentally flawed. They understood the Government was trying to reduce the overallocation that everyone acknowledged and accepted. Over the decades both parties have been responsible for that. They believe it is not the right approach.

The Murrumbidgee Ground Water Users Association wants a water level management approach. It is often called the dipstick approach: the water level of the bore of each ground water user is looked at and if the water level drops because of the level of pumping the users have to stop pumping until the water reaches a certain level. One can pump within a certain band width of the water level. The lower Murrumbidgee ground water users want that approach adopted in a water-sharing plan that will also reduce allocations by the amount the State Government wants them reduced. That will be fairer to more irrigators than the current water-sharing plan. The New South Wales Government needs to get those fundamental things right.

The across-the-board cut will disadvantage people who should not necessarily be disadvantaged and give an unfair advantage to others, and ground water levels will not benefit. The heart of the ground water problem is the water-sharing plan. The Murrumbidgee Ground Water Users Association is concerned that its message to the Minister's advisers has not got through to the Minister. Ken Schuster, the chairman of the association, is a fine man. He is no longer an irrigator with a personal interest in this matter, but he would like the opportunity to speak to the Minister.

Mr Craig Knowles: They have been postponed for 12 months.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I acknowledge they have been postponed for 12 months. Mr Schuster has had all sorts of difficulties trying to speak to the Minister. The association has a logical approach to the problem that will achieve a reduction in allocations to a sustainable level. The correct environmental outcomes will be achieved without affecting businesses too significantly. The ground water users only want a little understanding and consultation.

Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.12 p.m.]: With the honourable member for Monaro I am more than delighted to support the motion moved by the Minister. What has happened today is a clear demonstration that the only coalition in this place that is working is the coalition of Country Labor and city Labor on this side of the Chamber. Clearly the Coalition on the other side of the Chamber is not working. I will review some of today's events. That great Labor tactician, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the only one they have got left after putting two of the great older members of The Nationals on the back seat, took issue with the honourable member for The Hills.

In question time there was a rift between them, and now we have a rift in the Federal Coalition being exposed in this Chamber. That rift is clearly about John Anderson not getting his way with Peter Costello, the Federal Treasurer. Peter Costello said to John Anderson "No, no, no, I am going to keep my $10 billion surplus. You are not going to get $55 million for the structural advancement package." Incidentally, who is John Anderson's offsider? It is none other than the infamous John Cobb, his Parliamentary Secretary. He is running around the bush, failing people right, left and centre on exceptional circumstances drought assistance and water issues generally. The Federal Coalition is in tatters. John Anderson cannot get his way with Peter Costello.

In 2004 the New South Wales Government took a decision to support this adjustment process by putting up $55 million to assist water users in cutting back their water use. A condition of that was that the Commonwealth match that New South Wales funding with $55 million of its own. Did John Anderson support the Equine Centre at Tamworth for that good friend of those on this side of the Chamber, Tony Windsor? I can only conclude the Equine Centre at Tamworth is far more important to John Anderson than the wellbeing of irrigators. A process was proposed, to be set up through the catchment management authorities, to consult affected stakeholders on a local basis in an effort to tailor the package to suit local circumstances. That is fine.

Those circumstances are the ground water systems of the upper and lower Namoi River, the lower Gwydir River—now wait for it—the lower Murrumbidgee River, the lower Lachlan River, the lower Macquarie River and the lower Murray River. Three of those rivers are in the electorate of Murray-Darling. If it were not for this great Minister, who said, "Yes, we can extract ground water unsustainably", Hillston, on the lower Lachlan River, would be in a dreadful economic state. We have been able to keep the potato industry and some cotton industries going via ground water, with no water coming down the Lachlan River.

It is ironic that we are in drought and a letter headed "Inspection of Bores" from the Murray Darling Association states in the first paragraph that there are approximately 70,000 bores in New South Wales and in the fifth paragraph claims there are 90,000. It is confusing; I am not sure whether the association got those figures right. The letter also states that insofar as the Murray River, which is in a different region, is concerned, there were 910 licences issued last year and approximately 600 were issued in the Murrumbidgee area. It is interesting to note what has happened so far as this drought initiative is concerned. First of all, the Hon. Duncan Gay, that great expert, went to Deniliquin and the media reported:

During his visit, Mr Gay also took the opportunity to express his concern at the recent regular sightings of Member for Murray-Darling Peter Black in the Murrumbidgee electorate.

"Mr Black hasn't been seen much in his own electorate lately.

"He is becoming known as the boundary rider, trying to look after the people that Adrian (Piccoli)—

and that is where it is completely wrong—

is already representing,"

I will explain how good the representation is. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee had five branches of The Nationals in the southern Riverina. On 9 March the Southern Riverina News reported "About 18 months ago, Tocumwal and Barooga branches amalgamated". These are the people involved with irrigation! So that is five branches down to four, but guess what? The article continued:

Mrs Hawkins said the proposal would see Tocumwal, Finley, Berrigan and Barooga branches amalgamate to form one group …

The five branches of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee have collapsed into one for no other reason than the support Country Labor is giving to the people of the southern portion of his electorate. We are supporting the irrigators. The Nationals have failed. The second speaker for the Opposition in this matter has failed yet again, because he is a failure himself. [Time expired.]

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources) [4.17 p.m.], in reply: Let history record that on a matter that is fundamental to The Nationals' heartland constituency, they refused to move an amendment to a motion by a Labor Minister condemning The Nationals in Canberra. Let the Land, Country Hour and all the regional newspapers and radio stations take note of that today The Nationals squibbed it because they know that what we said here today is right. The huffing and puffing, argy-bargy and nonsense from the Leader of The Nationals is to be contrasted with the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. The Leader of The Nationals did nothing more than display an inability to come up with any alternative plans, ideas or policies, and that is a recognition that The Nationals know that $55 million is stuck in Canberra's Treasury, and they cannot get it out to match the $55 million that has been on the table from the New South Wales Government since the June Council of Australian Governments meeting last year. Let Hansard record the failure of The Nationals to stand up for their constituents.

Honourable members must have noticed—I certainly know—that the note from which the Leader of the Opposition read was the briefing note from Commonwealth Treasury officials to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have seen that note. I am aware of the Commonwealth Government's line. The Leader of the Opposition just perpetuated it. This was one of the few times in the history of this Parliament that a leader of The Nationals was seen playing second fiddle to faceless Commonwealth Treasury bureaucrats. But the Leader of The Nationals ran the Commonwealth bureaucrats' line, instead of standing up for the people of rural New South Wales.

The honourable member for Murrumbidgee made a reasonably valid point when he said it is not just about the money, it is not about structural adjustment, but about reforming the ground water sharing plans to ensure they are effective so that we can achieve an economic front that will result in the twin objectives of farmers continuing to produce and sustainability for the long-term management of the environment. But we cannot have one without the other. A year ago the Government was willing to take the punt and put $55 million on the table at the Council of Australian Governments meeting. We are still waiting. I think the Leader of the Nationals would know, and I think John Anderson certainly knows, and I think everyone in the farming community would know, those twin objectives can be achieved only if the State Government's commitment is matched by the Commonwealth. As I have said in this Parliament before, $55 million is not enough: $110 million gets a long way down the path.

I can assure the honourable member for Murrumbidgee and the Leader of The Nationals that those in the industry do not think the fault lies with the State Government. I have been meeting with irrigators and irrigation groups, particularly in the past few days, and I have to tell the Leader of The Nationals that they know exactly where the problem lies. If members of The Nationals even pretend to represent rural communities, they should show a bit of spine, a bit of backbone, and get the Deputy Prime Minister to stand up to Peter Costello in Cabinet and to the Commonwealth Treasury bureaucrats. The Nationals should urge the Deputy Prime Minister to tell Peter Costello and Commonwealth Treasury bureaucrats to get the chequebook out and write the matching cheque, as the Leader of The Nationals said he would in June last year.

This is a very straight up and down sort of matter. The work has been done. The Government's money has been on the table for nine months. We are simply waiting for the Commonwealth to match that funding. Every day that goes by means more uncertainty for the constituency of The Nationals. Those members have in their electorates irrigators who are waiting to make investment decisions. They need to know what the collective decisions of the national Government and the State jurisdictions are before they can make those decisions with certainty. They will, nonetheless, have to make those decisions, but that will be done in a less certain environment.

I would have thought The Nationals would have done what the honourable member for Lismore did: pick up the phone! The Nationals should not be asking for a Commonwealth Treasury briefing note. They should be ripping into the Deputy Prime Minister and Commonwealth Treasury officials, telling them they want some action. They should be saying they want the $55 million, and telling them they should be getting on with the job. That is the task of The Nationals in this matter—not being apologists in this place for some Commonwealth bureaucrat who jots down some briefing notes to be urgently faxed through to the Leader of the Nationals so that he can make a few half-baked points in a parliamentary debate in Sydney.

In the end, the money will come through. It has to come through, one way or the other. But it is better that it should come through sooner to allow constituents of The Nationals a bit more time to do their planning, and for the Government to have the time to do the necessary work, as the honourable member for Murrumbidgee suggests must happen. We have deferred this work for 12 months to allow that to happen. We have wasted nine months waiting for the mates of The Nationals in Canberra to act. I have three months left. If I have to defer this matter again, a lot of people in the constituency of The Nationals will be very unhappy about that. The opportunity is there for the Commonwealth to match what the Government has done, and let us all get on with the job.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—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 Mrs Fardell Ms Gadiel

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Knowles Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Morris Mr Newell Mr Oakeshott Mr Orkopoulos

Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Mr Torbay Mr Tripodi 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 Hazzard 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

Mr Iemma	Mr Brogden
Ms Meagher	Mr Hartcher

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.31 p.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance the outstanding innovation of New South Wales small businesses that work so hard to develop new products and services. Not only do these innovative businesses work hard on new developments, they are also committed to improving existing products and services. Not content to rest on their laurels, these businesses strive to ensure they respond to changing customer demand. I am delighted to inform the House that last night I launched such a product, a revolutionary piece of equipment set to make medical history. In what is believed to be a world first two New South Wales men have worked together to transform a medical device used in Australia more than a million times each year. I am delighted that the New South Wales Government has assisted in the development of what is thought to be the world's first disposable laryngoscope.

The Yeescope, as it is known, is designed to reduce the risk of diseases being spread between patients. It is the result of more than three years development work by Sydney anaesthetist Dr Kevin Yee and precision toolmaker Mark Bennett. The Yeescope, which is used once before being thrown out, minimises the risk of cross-infection that occurs with multiple use medical equipment, and thus enhances patient safety. Laryngoscopes are used by medical staff to open the airwaves of patients to allow them to breathe during emergency procedures or when under anaesthetic. Traditional laryngoscopes are not fully disposable. They have to be cleaned after each use, which is a difficult and expensive process that, if not done properly, can pose a risk of disease spreading. The potential for infection due to the reuse of medical instruments has grown with the emergence of micro-organisms, including multi-resistant bacteria, HIV, hepatitis and viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS.

Traditional laryngoscopes cost about $250 each, but have to be cleaned thoroughly and sterilised after each use at a cost of between $15 and $25 each time. The Yeescope, which will market for about $30, will mean health care professionals will no longer have to worry about sterilisation processes, laryngoscope maintenance costs or the threat of cross-contamination. Dr Yee and Mr Bennett's company, Anaesthesia Airways, has signed a joint venture agreement with Sydney company TUTA Healthcare Pty Ltd to manufacture and market the Yeescope worldwide from a production facility at Lane Cove. The Yeescope will be available to the Australian medical community within a month, with export markets in Europe and the United States to be targeted later.

The international market potential for the Yeescope is thought to be hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a great new export for New South Wales, and I am sure honourable members will join me in congratulating Dr Yee, Mr Bennett and TUTA Healthcare Pty Ltd on this exciting new venture. As I said, the Carr Labor Government has helped the development of this exciting product. Our BioBusiness Program has offered support in a number of areas, including legal and financial advice touching on distribution, intellectual property protection, risk management, licensing and accounting.

In 2003-04 more than 80 New South Wales companies received business development advice worth more than $1.4 million from the BioBusiness Program. That advice and guidance included assistance with regulatory approvals, intellectual property protection and business planning. Of the companies receiving this assistance, 98 per cent credited the BioBusiness Program for much of their subsequent success. They believed the program played a significant role in average increases of 22 per cent in employment, 20 per cent in sales and 58 per cent in exports. Medical device manufacture is a multibillion-dollar industry worldwide. In 2003-04 the export of Australian medical equipment totalled $846 billion, with New South Wales' contribution totalling more than half of that at $450 million, or 53 per cent.

The disposable laryngoscope is the latest in a long line of exciting New South Wales innovations that have come from the small business sector. Another medical success story is a St Leonards company, Australian Surgical Design and Manufacture [ASDM], which is a world-class manufacturer of medical instruments and implants, primarily in the orthopaedic field. Before I tell the House about the leading-edge work of ASDM I must congratulate the company founder and managing director, Dr Greg Roger. Earlier this month he was one of three people to receive an Innovation Hero Award from the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering at the University of Sydney. Dr Roger's work was recognised last year when he received the Clunies Ross Medal, which is awarded for the "application of science and technology for the economic, social or environmental benefit of Australia". Dr Roger graduated in medicine from the University of Sydney, and he has worked in emergency medicine and orthopaedics.
Inspired by the problems he saw orthopaedic surgeons facing in their surgical work, Dr Roger undertook a Masters of Engineering and subsequently invented a surgical screw. He sold the intellectual property rights to the surgical screw and used the proceeds to create his own medical manufacturing business, ASDM. The company is now the largest Australian orthopaedic implant and device manufacturer, and it is growing rapidly. Dr Roger holds more than 20 patents and his business turns over about $10 million a year. His products and inventions include devices in the field of reconstructive surgery, heart valves, hip replacements, spinal implants and more. He continues to assist surgery in theatre. ASDM has developed cutting-edge technologies for improving the manufacture of total knee replacements, trauma implants and craniofacial implants. These technologies include a unique surface polishing treatment that overcomes the major cause of early failure in joint replacement in arthroplasty.

The technology has been independently assessed at the University of Sydney and at ANSTO. Several multinational organisations already have expressed interest in licensing the surface polishing technology. The company also holds patents for technologies relating to knee and hip prostheses, craniofacial implants and ENT equipment, which it developed in house and for which it owns all intellectual property. The global market for joint replacement is growing. Approximately 500,000 artificial knees are implanted each year at a cost of $1.85 billion. ASDM has its own specialised in-house manufacturing facilities that produce the orthopaedic implant.

To maintain the highest possible professional design, development and manufacturing standards the company collaborates constantly with innovating surgeons, scientists and companies all over the world. The New South Wales Government is proud to have assisted ASDM. With support from the Department of State and Regional Development, the company has undertaken market visits to Europe and the United States of America. ASDM's products are benefiting not only Australians but people all round the world. ASDM supplies products, technology and advice to customers throughout the United States, Europe and Asia. The Government has also supported ASDM through its membership of the Australian Technology Showcase.

ASDM has also been supported by the New South Wales Government's BioBusiness Program, which I mentioned earlier. The BioBusiness Program is part of BioFirst—the New South Wales Government's biotechnology strategy which aims to position New South Wales as a leader in biotechnology while maximising the social, environmental and economic benefits of this sector for the people of our State. The BioBusiness Program recognises that while this industry is technology driven, there are business challenges to be met in growing the individual enterprises that make up the industry. A key driver is the need to close the gap between basic research and commercialisation.

The objectives of the BioBusiness Program are to help develop world-class, export-oriented products, services and businesses; support the biotechnology pipeline to take basic research through development to commercialisation; and to promote leadership and training. ASDM is about to further develop its export markets by taking part in the New South Wales Government's trade mission to New Zealand next month. I am confident that the honourable member for Georges River will have more to say about this trade mission. Of course, not all innovation happens in high-tech laboratories or universities. Often a small business operator sees a challenge or problem in their own work area and, in true Australian fashion, decides to give it a go.

Innovation plays an important role in small business success. Generating ideas for new products, services and processes can contribute to business growth and more efficient ways to do business. Research has shown that innovation, when properly managed, can produce a higher rate of return than many other forms of investment. The New South Wales Government is committed to advancing innovation, and provides assistance and services to promote the adoption of innovation in business. Any original concept, new or improved device, product, material, business process or service falls within the definition of innovation and will be considered for assistance at Government-funded New South Wales innovation advisory centres.

Only a very small number of innovations end up making money in the marketplace. But some of the factors that can contribute to this low success rate are that the innovation is not technically feasible, there is little demand for the innovation, or the development of the innovation has been poorly planned. All these factors can be addressed by looking ahead and getting good advice, which is what our innovation advisory centres have been set up to do. I have mentioned some products and a number of programs that are part of the Government's strong and detailed plan to support innovation and to celebrate the contribution that small business makes to this State's economy.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [4.41 p.m.]: At the outset I congratulate and applaud the significant achievements of all innovative small businesses in New South Wales. Innovative small businesses comprise a wide range of businesses that should be recognised for their special role and contribution. By generating important new concepts, ideas, products and service, innovative small businesses make a unique and valuable contribution to the economy and to the community of New South Wales for the wider enjoyment and benefit of the New South Wales community and economy. This contribution needs to be recognised, commended and promoted. Innovative small businesses range from developing new products such as advanced green street lights, which save 8,000 tonnes of coal a year, to developing quality pre-made web site packages for clubs and subscription-based businesses.

In my own electorate of Burrinjuck, in the small town of Boorowa, which is situated in the heart of New South Wales prime merino wool-growing country, a small business, Corkhill Engineering, has recently developed an Enforcer rugby scrum machine for a growing international market. Corkhill Engineering has sold its highly successful and innovative product to a range of countries, including Korea and Japan, Ireland and Hong Kong, to name just a few. The great Laurie Fisher, the Brumbies forward coach, recently said about the Enforcer, "It's a good way to get lots of your scrum basics in place, without having that physical pressure on your side." It is a fantastic product and it is being made in the town of Boorowa in the Burrinjuck electorate. Innovators such as Corkhill Engineering, as well as the less well-known innovators, are all doing a great job, and potentially are affecting, impacting upon and reaching thousands of people's lives.

Innovators not only have a crucial role to play in the small business sector, but are crucial to the State of New South Wales as well as the national and international economy. The Corkhill Engineering example proves that very well. However, it is about time the Carr Labor Government faced up to the reality that its high-taxing policies and burdensome compliance requirements are an impediment to innovative small business in New South Wales. At lunchtime on this very day I met with representatives of small business who once again expressed their extreme concern over compliance regulations and new policies being passed by this House that are hurting small business very badly. The Government has created and facilitated a negative environment that is not conducive to the growth of innovative small businesses, in both regional and metropolitan New South Wales. It is about time the Government stopped suffocating small businesses innovation in New South Wales.

Generating ideas for new products, services and processes can contribute to small business growth. Through using innovative products and practices, small businesses should be able to develop more efficient and competitive ways of doing business. But the corollary of this is that small business ideas should not be hindered by policies that restrict the growth and efficiency of small businesses and threaten their very existence. The point was reinforced at today's meeting that the policies of this Government have clearly and undeniably impeded the expansion of small business innovation in New South Wales. The Government has done this by its anti small business policies that continue to suffocate new ideas and products before they can breathe. It has done this by creating a negative environment that is not conducive to small businesses innovation, and by forcing the hard realisation upon many small business owners that high State Government taxes and charges, the imposition of burdensome compliance requirements, and lengthy red tape will not allow the idea or product to be sold at competitive prices.

Late last year I conducted a survey. I circulated approximately 2,000 survey forms and received approximately 200 responses, which reflects a reasonable response rate given that many small business people are too busy to participate in surveys. Out of those responses, 55 per cent of small business people identified taxes as a major constraint to the growth of their businesses. But the statistics are more than just numbers; they reflect the hard reality that New South Wales is the highest taxing State per capita in Australia for small businesses. That is backed up by the view expressed by the State Chamber of Commerce, as stated in the State Chamber of Commerce New South Wales Budget Submission for 2005-06, which was released in November 2004. The submission declared that "New South Wales is becoming an increasingly unaffordable place to establish a business".

The submission also showed, through a comparative analysis of business taxes in all States, that New South Wales is overwhelmingly the least affordable State in Australia to conduct a business. What incentive is left for innovative small businesses to emerge and thrive when the stark reality is that the greed and ever-increasing tax grabbing of the Carr Labor Government is unsurpassed by any other State Government? High taxes such as payroll tax, fire services levy and stamp duty all serve as major constraints and disincentives to small business innovation and growth. The statistics cited by the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce support this view by revealing a disturbing comparison between the States that reveals that the taxation costs of running a business in New South Wales are over eight times the cost of running a business in Tasmania and, in a shameful order of magnitude, over 10 times higher than the cost of running a business in Queensland.

The Cross-Border Commission is being debated in this House and many honourable members have commented on the disturbing trend of businesses shifting to other States and Territories to avoid the high taxes and charges that apply in New South Wales. Is it any wonder that innovative small businesses, like property investors, will head north where the sun shines brighter on small businesses and the State Government's tax grabs are much less greedy? The upshot of these high taxes and charges is that, under this Government, New South Wales has the dubious distinction of being the highest taxing State for businesses in the nation. High taxes are a significant disincentive for small businesses. Given these sad realities, it is not surprising, albeit extremely alarming, that the number of small businesses in New South Wales is in decline.

There are almost 400,000 small businesses in New South Wales. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics report, entitled "Characteristics of Small Business 2003", shows that between 2001 and 2003 the number of small businesses in New South Wales declined by about 3,600. In the same period across Australia the number of small businesses grew by 17,300. In Victoria small businesses grew by a significant 24,700. The Minister for Small Business likes to get up and pat himself on the back for his tokenistic efforts on behalf of small business. Today we heard about the great E-scope—fantastic, sounds great—but there is an opportunity for much more innovation than is currently occurring. The decline in the number of small businesses in New South Wales reveals the harsh reality of the disincentives created and maintained by the Government for small business innovation in New South Wales. The February 2005 Small Business Index put the New South Wales Government's approval rating at a net negative 43 per cent—the lowest approval rating ever recorded in the 12-year history of the Sensis Business Index. What an achievement!

Not only that, but New South Wales also recorded a further decline in business confidence in New South Wales, down a massive 10 percentage points to 45 per cent, being the lowest net confidence of any State or Territory, with confidence among New South Wales businesses, small and medium enterprises, being below average since February 2003. Rather than the Minister banging on in this place he should do something practical and useful for his portfolio and actually stand up for his constituency. At the moment it seems that all he does is throw himself on the ground before the Premier and the Treasurer and tell them to walk all over his portfolio and him. But the problems do not stop there. The survey I conducted in January also shows that 54 per cent of small business identified the streamlining of compulsory regulations as beneficial to the growth of their businesses. More plainly put, many businesses stated that excessive red tape and compliance burdens involving unreasonable paperwork, rules and regulations called into doubt the viability of running their business.

One small business I surveyed stated that the lack of faith in the present Government made running a business the hardest it had every been. Another small business owner stated, "The Government squeezes small business and makes them bleed." That opinion is supported by the State Chamber of Commerce budget submissions, which claim that New South Wales needs a lower compliance burden to be attractive to businesses. That is also backed up in the key findings of the 2004 State Chamber of Commerce Red Tape Register, which also says that many respondents found occupational health and safety regulations a hindrance to business performance. If the Minister is not concerned about the latest occupational health and safety regulations and their impact on small business, he needs to get out more often. It is quite clear from the feedback I receive that thousands of small businesses across the State are sick and tired of the Carr Labor Government, they are sick and tired of the compliance burdens put on them, and they want to have an easing up of regulations in this State. [Time expired.]

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Georges River) [4.51 p.m.]: I am pleased to have this opportunity to join with the Minister in acknowledging and congratulating our innovative New South Wales small businesses. One exciting, innovative business exists in my electorate of Georges River: wheelchair-maker Baribunma Holdings Ltd, based in Stanley Street, Peakhurst. Wally Bancroft and his team have spent years perfecting what some would call the Rolls Royce of wheelchairs—a fully adjustable chair with a seat that looks more like one found in a car or a lounge room. In fact, the desire to help disabled people have easier access to car transport has been—pardon the pun—the driving force behind Wally's work. The seat of the Baribunma powered wheelchair can be raised and lowered while turning in a circle, giving the user greater manoeuvrability. This allows the user to sit at almost any table, desk or workbench regardless of its height. It also allows the person to operate at a position of comfort, regardless of body size or shape. Another special feature of the Baribunma wheelchair is that it can accommodate a range of seats.

Mr Daryl Maguire: It is important to have a seat in a wheelchair.

Mr KEVIN GREENE: Yes, as the honourable member for Wagga Wagga said, it is important to have a seat in a wheelchair. And it is most important to have a seat that people can use, and I take his point. The wheelchair can be used in conjunction with most commercially available people movers or vans. Product development has included testing with vehicles produced by Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Volkswagen, Chrysler and Kia. Existing wheelchairs require a vehicle to be structurally modified to allow entry to the vehicle, and restraint accessories to be fitted and certified by an engineer to fasten the chair during travel. That can be extremely expensive and means that the car cannot be traded in at a later date. That modification is necessary due to the inability of existing electric wheelchairs to reduce sufficiently in height to clear the access doors of the vehicle. Structural change can cause damage to a vehicle by affecting its structural integrity, and significantly adds to costs. Typically, structural changes involve lowering the floor of a vehicle, raising its roof, fitting a hoist, or a combination of those solutions.

The Baribunma wheelchair adapts to fit most commercially available people mover vans by reducing sufficiently in height to allow ready access. Furthermore, the wheelchair needs no costly restraints or further engineering certification. During the development and testing of earlier custom-built chairs, the company obtained engineering certification. That allowed the disabled operator to drive motor vehicles using a combination of the chair and commercially available vehicle hand controls. The wheelchair has enormous benefits, including improved mobility for people confined to a wheelchair. Vehicle modifications are not required; no damage is done to the motor vehicle, thereby improving resale value and reducing corrosion; and the user does not feel different from other passengers in the vehicle. Needless to say, that type of chair makes motor vehicle travel much easier not only for the user, but also for friends, families and carers who assist with transportation.

The Baribunma wheelchair removes most of the impediments to normal automotive transport for disabled passengers. They can sit at ordinary automotive seat height, and use ordinary seat belts, thus outwardly appearing to be no different from any other passenger in an equivalent vehicle. A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of taking the Premier to visit Wally Bancroft and his firm. The Premier was impressed by that innovation and was complimentary about the work done by Wally and his team. I am pleased to inform honourable members that the New South Wales Government has assisted the company with the patent process and compliance testing. I am also pleased to advise that that innovative New South Wales small business will join a New South Wales Government trade mission to New Zealand early next month. Baribunma Holdings have so far made promising early contacts in New Zealand.

I take this opportunity to mention another local business, one run by Mr Wayne Devine. Wayne has invented a swing that can be used by people in wheelchairs. Last year that wheelchair-compliant swing was demonstrated on the television program New Inventors. Wayne has gained international support for his product both in England and the United States of America. It is fantastic that businessmen in my community and throughout New South Wales are using their engineering brilliance to develop products. I am pleased to say that the New South Wales Government is providing the support they require to make their innovations successful and better for our community. [Time expired.]

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Georges River for his contribution and for his understanding of this matter of public importance. This discussion is about celebrating the contributions that small businesses make to the creation of innovative products, and the jobs and economic growth and the sense of community that follow. The same could not be said about the shadow Minister, of course. I note that she has disappeared from the Chamber; she could not go the distance.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Point of order: Before leaving the Chamber, the shadow Minister informed me that she has been called away on an important constituent matter. She has left the Chamber, but it was to deal with an important constituent matter.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Nevertheless, what we got from the shadow Minister was the classic, traditional whingeing and whining that attempts to hide the fact that the Opposition has no policies, no ideas and no plans. The shadow Minister refused to take up an opportunity that could help in securing Federal Government funding, as pointed out by the honourable member for Lismore. She has refused to telephone Canberra and ask for the return of the $3 billion. Indeed, if New South Wales got back that $3 billion in GST receipts that have disappeared into a big, black hole, a number of business taxes that she complained, whinged and whined about might well be altered. Most people would know—but perhaps the shadow Minister does not—that Australian Business Ltd [ABL] released a report earlier in the week. It had these positive things to say about the New South Wales Government's approach to the economy:

• Employment has grown strongly and unemployment has fallen from 6.1 % to 5.1 %.

• Government debt has been reduced and the Triple A credit rating is secure.

If by chance the shadow Minister reads the Hansard she will see that government debt has been reduced and New South Wales' triple-A credit rating is secure. Australian Business Ltd went on to state:

• Businesses and community organisations have seen the benefits of tort law reforms introduced prior to the last election.

• Low unemployment, improved water protection, the heroin drought, 'gaol not bail' legislation and better policing have seen crime rates fall consistently over the past two years.

That will have a positive flow-on effect to the small business sector. The article continued:

• The appointment of a NSW Minister for Economic Reform.

Contrast that with the fact that the ABL report has this to say about the Opposition:

Failure to address in any real detail issues relating to labour market and skills shortages, OH&S compliance issues and WorkCover premium setting.

Time and again Opposition members come into this Chamber and whinge, whine, complain and moan but they have no ideas, no plans and no policies. Opposition members have nothing positive to offer. They have no feather to fly in relation to this issue. The Government has the runs on the board. Its strong and detailed plans have supported the small business sector, as demonstrated in my earlier comments and reinforced by the comments of the honourable member for Georges River. At one stage the shadow Minister referred to Corkhill Engineering of Boorowa. I point out to her that that business was supported by a Carr Labor Government initiative—the new Market Expansion Program.

The shadow Minister praised the products of that business and I echo those comments. It is a great innovation in support of sport. If the shadow Minister had done her homework she would have made the point that the New South Wales Government supported the efforts of that business through the new Market Expansion Program. This matter of public importance is about celebrating the success of small business, acknowledging the innovation of small business in our economy and the way that adds to the strength of communities and leads to jobs. Opposition members simply could not resist the temptation to score some cheap political points and undermine this issue, that is, celebrating the contribution that small business makes through innovation. I referred earlier to the work of innovation advisory centres that receive funding from this Government. I encourage people to look at programs that are part of this Government's strong and detailed plan for the small business sector.

Discussion concluded.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! It being close to 5.15 p.m., with the leave of the House I propose to proceed to the taking of private members' statements.

Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [5.03 p.m.]: Mr Acting-Speaker, it is a great privilege to have you in the chair at this time. Tonight I wish to refer to a week in the life of people in the Murray-Darling electorate. Mr Acting-Speaker, on many occasions you and your lovely wife, Trudy, have been to St Patrick's Day races. You will appreciate the magnitude of what it is all about—a great social occasion and more than a race meeting. This year's the St Patrick's Day race meeting was an overwhelming success, with 8,700 people passing through the gates and an estimated 10,000 people attending. Facilities in the town were booked out. There were eight races on the program and it was a huge event.

I commend in particular Margaret Corradini, the president of the race club and one of the great citizens of western New South Wales; Cheryl Krutli, the secretary, who was ably supported by vice-presidents Andrew Schmidt and Greg Curran Greg; Fran Vartuli, the treasurer; and a great committee. St Patrick's Club also runs associated events that occur both before and after race day. I commend Wayne Krutli, president of the club; Helen Teelow, the secretary; vice presidents Geoff Cullenward and Steve Southon; and treasurer Sarah McConnell for that great event. I sum up the meeting by referring to the report on the meeting in the Barrier Daily Truth on Tuesday 15 March. The article stated:

About 8,700 people went through the gates at Saturday's 40th St Pat's race meeting.

The race club's Andrew Schmidt—

he is a well-known and leading identity with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—

said that it had been a successful event with patrons working their way through 21,000 cans of beer, 52 kegs of beer, 2,000 bottles of wine, 6,700 cans of pre-mixed drinks, and 15,500 bottles of water.

The setting was incredible. Imagine all the marquees, the fillies and colts. All the other areas were booked out. It was a great event. We had a tremendous St Patrick's Day race meeting. For the benefit of honourable members, the St Patrick's Day race meeting is always held the fortnight before Easter. We do not worry about when the event is held in Ireland; we worry only about when it is held in Broken Hill. On the Sunday following the race meeting I went to Wentworth shire. For the benefit of honourable members I will go through the week's events. The following Thursday night I drove 1,440 kilometres from Cobar—which cost me about $300 at the current rate of 120.9¢ to fill up with diesel at Warren and 121.9¢ to top up at Cobar on the way home—to go to a twenty-first birthday party.

This was a twenty-first birthday with a difference. It was for George, the toothless wonder wether who is 21 years old—the oldest sheep that we know of in New South Wales. It was an incredible event. Reporters from the Land and Aboriginal elders attended the event, but unfortunately the local member did not. The birthday party was held just over the border past Barraba Central School in the Barwon electorate. I was wearing a Richard Clegg woollen shirt that I acquired at Tottenham—a very fine 15-micron shirt.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the interjection of the honourable member for Southern Highlands. She has great taste in matters of dress. I attended the twenty-first birthday party of this wonderful wether at Willie Retreat, which is operated by Myra and Phillip Tolhurst. After he had eaten two finger buns—he has no teeth and has to be fed finger buns—I read him a poem. Before I read the poem in this Chamber I will tell honourable members why this wether has lived for so long. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—a dreadful mob—want to stop mulesing. This wether, which has lived for 21 years, has never had fly strike. The secret is early mulesing, no fly strike and a clean backside. The poem, which is entitled "To George Happy Barrrrrrrrthdaaaaay from Peter Black, OAM, MP", states:

I commend the 21-year-old wether. Last year I said that sheep were not supposed to die of old age, but this one surely will.

Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [5.08 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House two recent award ceremonies in Wingecarribee shire—the presentation of national medals and long service awards to local Rural Fire Service volunteers. I was honoured by being asked to attend the two ceremonies—one in February and one in March. Sadly, I was not able to attend the ceremony in February but I was able to attend the ceremony in March.

We are proud of the achievements of local Rural Fire Service volunteers. Many of those who were honoured are also members of other volunteer organisations. So the Rural Fire Service is not the only thing to which they commit their private time. We are proud of all of them and we thank them for the work they do. When they get a call on their pagers at any time they do not know what they are going to be facing—whether it is just another training session or a life and death situation. I acknowledge the families of those people who for many years have supported them in the work they do.

We simply cannot do without these volunteers. They do a great job protecting life and property in our area. I shall briefly mention some of the award recipients. The 15 years long service award recipients included Andrew Beville of Colo Vale, Peter Casburn of Wollondilly, Michelle Coates of Hill Top, John Dalgleish of Wollondilly, Molly Dalgleish of Wollondilly, Ashley Frank, Greg Hebbard, Mark Kracht, Rowan Lund, Mary Marks-Chapman, Phil Moore, Haldane Rowan, Leigh Thomas and John Tranter.

The 25 years long service award recipients included John Blatch of Yerrinbool and Kevin Hambridge—who is known as Fred—also of Yerrinbool. The 35 years long service award recipients included Janette Alcock of the Bowral brigade; the late John Lund, who passed away on Christmas Day 2004, of Hill Top brigade; and Geoffrey Thiessen. The 50 years long service award recipients included Rosalind Badgery of Wollondilly brigade, and George Barnett, who started off in the Berowra brigade and is now at Canyonleigh. I am honoured to say that George and Shirley Barnett are close friends of ours and George was our former fire control officer in the Wollondilly. Other recipients included Bill Dunn of the Talmalmo brigade, who is a member of the fire control centre and a Wingecarribee group captain.

The National Medal and clasp recipients included Jim Armstrong, 1st Clasp; John Blatch, the National Medal and 1st Clasp; Bill Dunn, 3rd Clasp; Ashley Frank, the National Medal; Kevin Hambridge, the National Medal and 1st Clasp; Dianne Jones, the National Medal and two clasps; Phillip Moore, the National Medal; Noel Snowden, the National Medal and two clasps; Geoffrey Thiessen, the National Medal and two clasps; and Leigh Thomas. I must also mention some other people whom I was honoured to be involved with presenting to during the March awards ceremony. They included Richard Hollis, who received the National Medal and two clasps; Geoffrey Moore, the National Medal and 1st Clasp; Bruce Slater, 3rd Clasp; Ian Smith, the National Medal and two clasps; Bill Walker, the National Medal and three clasps—I am honoured to say that Bill is a long-time member of the Lions club of which I am also a member and is a very well-respected citizen in our area—and Max Worner, the National Medal and three clasps.

The 50 years long service award recipients included the late Ivy Walker, Bill Walker and Max Worner, who were all from the Mandemar brigade. The Mandemar brigade was very well represented at the awards evening. Alistair Wood, also of Mandemar, received the 25 years long service award. The 35 years long service award recipients included Deidre Farquhar, Ian Farquhar, Ian Smith, Noel Symonds and Roy Woods. The 25 years long service award recipients included Noel Brumfield; Stuart Hawkins; Simon Parkes; Frank Roberts; Bruce Slater; Elaine Walker, who is also a member of the local Lions club; and Phillip Worner. The 15 years long service award recipients included Mario Biasutti, Norman Gair, Evan Hayes, Gordon Ibbett, Tracey Lawrence—the latter two recipients are both from Balmoral Village brigade—Mark Murray, Stephen Temporali, the late Brian Truscott, Matthew Walker and Yvonne Worner.

We are very proud of these award recipients. We simply cannot do without the outstanding work of all our Rural Fire Service volunteers. The presentation of these awards is some small recognition of the service—in some cases, stretching over half a century—that these people have given in protecting lives and property in the Southern Highlands. They are continuing to pass on their immense experience to a younger generation. We honour their achievements.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.13 p.m.]: This afternoon I draw the attention of the House to some of the achievements of seniors in my electorate and to the activities that took place during the recent Seniors Week. The New South Wales Minister for Ageing, the Hon. John Della Bosca, presented Seniors Week Achievement Awards to two residents of the Tweed. The first award was presented to Eunice Hancock, a resident of Nunderi, at a prestigious ceremony in Sydney. I congratulate Eunice on her remarkable achievements over the past 30 years. Eunice was chosen to receive this prestigious award from among 60 people from across the State.

Eunice Hancock has been the leader of the Adventist Development Relief Agency within the Seventh Day Adventist Church, Murwillumbah Branch, for the past 30 years. She has also co-ordinated and managed the church's food and friendship kitchen for the past eight years. Eunice helps people who lose their property through fire, flood and financial difficulty by providing food, clothing and support. Eunice is also a Meals on Wheels volunteer and provides a wonderful service in that capacity. I am delighted that Eunice Hancock has been recognised for her outstanding work in the Community Service/Volunteering award category.

Banora Point's Peter Campton also received an award from Minister Della Bosca at the ceremony. Peter has been involved in the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association's Kingscliff Flotilla. He has held many positions since its formation in 1985, including staff officer, fundraising officer, training officer, deputy commander and commander—in other words, leader of the flotilla. Peter also served on the Marine Advisory Council, the Emergency Services Customer Council, the State Emergency Service Customer Council and the Local Emergency Management Organisation. Peter was also recognised for his outstanding work in the Community Service/Volunteering category. It is a delight to pay tribute to those two residents of the Tweed for the work they have done in a volunteer capacity over so many years. I am sure that they derived as much from their contributions as the community benefited from their volunteer work.

Seniors Week in the Tweed opened with a concert and gathering at Mountview Retirement Village in Murwillumbah. A bush and folk music duo and other artists entertained mightily at the concert. Other activities held during Seniors Week in the Tweed included river cruises, a number of luncheons, courses in information technology—which in most cases were given by other seniors—and bus tours. Most of these activities were booked out. Seniors Week closed with a Sunday luncheon in Murwillumbah. I thank and pay tribute to the committee members who organised the events, particularly the committee chair, Father Harry Reuss, the Anglican pastor in Murwillumbah. I also commend the committee for its planning in the months preceding Seniors Week.

It is a little unfortunate to have to report that there was some negative publicity in the lead-up to Seniors Week. A grant was made to the Murwillumbah Adult Education Centre to hold a computer course for seniors, which I understand was very well patronised. However, there was some negative publicity in the local newspaper that an application from the committee was deemed to be inadequate so the grant was not made in the first instance. Unfortunately, the committee overlooked contacting the local member of Parliament. But when it did so things soon fell into place. The centre's application for $500 had been refused but I am pleased to report that Minister Della Bosca granted $1,000—I thank him for his generosity—that paid for a friendship lunch held on the Tuesday, which was very well attended. People were most grateful for that donation. It was a fantastic week overall and I look forward to a similar experience during Seniors Week next year.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.18 p.m.]: I must again raise the concerns of Carlingford Public School regarding the long delay in repairing school buildings damaged in a fire that occurred at the end of 2003. The main school buildings are still in total disrepair. I have just received a letter from the Minister for Education and Training dated 17 March that has much angered the school community. The Minister says in the letter that a number of circumstances delayed the reconstruction of the buildings, including police investigations into the arson attack. I said on a previous occasion that I made inquiries with the police—I have no reason to doubt their version of events—who confirmed that their files and their investigations were concluded and completed on 2 April last year. I believe—I know that my belief is shared by key people in the school community—that the Department of Education and Training, for reasons best known to itself, is blaming the police for delays that are really the fault of the department. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.

The department also blamed the school community for the delay. The Minister said in the letter that additional planning and design of the new interior, undertaken in consultation with the school community to better meet the school and access needs, is another reason for the delay. This afternoon Mr Vianellos, President of the Parents and Citizens Association, sent me an email in response to the letter. He made it clear that there were discussions brought about by the need to provide disabled access to the library and a couple of other issues that are required in any modern school building. There were also some problems with the covered outdoor learning area, which were no fault of the parents and citizens. In his email Mr Vianellos said:

These plans were presented … to the P & C at our meeting of May 2004 and were accepted by the P & C at that time. Why has it taken 11 months to draw up a set of plans?

He rightly asked: How can the Minister blame the parents and citizens and, in effect, the school community for a delay of 11 months? The police and the school community are being blamed for delays in the Department of Education and Training. That is unacceptable. We suspect that the department does not have the money to carry out these repairs. If that is the case, it ought to say so rather than blame the school community and the police. The third matter mentioned in the Minister's letter is the heritage listing of the building and Parramatta council requesting the submission of a development application. When Ray Hadley discussed the matter on 2GB it was on the basis—and clearly understood—of information provided by the Department of Education and Training that a development application was before the council. Indeed, on 11 February Mr Hadley said on 2GB "the development application is before council". He said that based on information put to him by the Department of Education and Training. That was not the case and, indeed, it is still not the case.

It still appears from the Minister's letter that the Department of Education and Training is now requesting an "exception"—I assume that is a typographical error and should read an "exemption"—to the development application with council. I am happy to support that exemption, and I have already made representations to the council in relation to that. It strikes me that an explanation is required as to how it was ever put to approximately one million people who were listening to the radio at the time that such a development application was already lodged when no such thing had been done. If the department was clearly focussing on this problem perhaps it would have moved to be excepted, or exempted, from such a development application in the first place—representations I would have been happy to make and endorse. There is a fair bit of bad blood in the local community about this matter. The Minister is new to the portfolio and I give her the benefit of the doubt—she is still working on departmental advice. However, we request a meeting at a fairly senior level to restore some of the confidence between the school community, the department and the Minister to ensure that this program gets back on track quickly. [Time expired.]

Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [5.23 p.m.]: On Saturday 5 March, with about 70 other members of the Port Stephens community, I was the guest of the National Service and Combined Forces Association of Australia, Nelson Bay and District Branch. The association conducted a memorial unveiling and dedication at Apex Park in Nelson Bay for the national servicemen who served in Vietnam. I acknowledge the work of John Kelly, president; Bruce Terry, vice president; Brian Spurway, secretary; Patricia Sessions, treasurer; and Alan Wilson, who co-ordinated the ceremony. The national servicemen's ode is:

The names of deceased national servicemen from the local area include: Bertram Condon, Kevin Curtis, Keith Davis, Tom Emery, George McKinnon and Richard Train. In 1951 the third universal conscription scheme in Australian history began. In 1964 Sir Robert Menzies introduced a ballot for compulsory military service. From 1965 to December 1972, 804,000 Australians registered for national service and 63,000 were conscripted. Some 19,450 of those who were conscripted served in Vietnam—50 per cent of the troops sent to Vietnam—and 21,132 regular Army members served in Vietnam. Initially, they were conscripted for two years—they were 20 years old when their name went into the ballot—and later that was reduced to 18 months. There was a ballot every six months. I am sure the names of many honourable members were in the ballot—and they either came out and they were conscripted, or they did not.

On my research, if a person was in the first ballot in 1966 he had a 53 per cent chance of being called up. However, there was an inequality because by the time they got to the fifth ballot they had only a 25 per cent chance of being called up. Two hundred national service personnel were killed in Vietnam, and there were 1,279 non-fatal casualties. We all know and acknowledge the emotional and psychological problems of fighting in a war that many Australians were not in favour of. However, a "Nasho" who was conscripted was fighting for their country at a time when the country was not necessarily behind them. They almost did a double service for the Australian community: they were fighting in a war that was unpopular, but they went out and did their job. That is a great tribute to them and for all the people who attended the dedication of the memorial.

Old men start wars and young men die in them. When most of the 20 year olds went off to the Vietnam war they did not understand that it had split Australian society. In hindsight, it left a generation that was rebellious in many ways. As a result of that rebellion, they lacked respect for authority and the institutions of society. I suppose that is the legacy that has come from the Vietnam war. But those "Nashos" who served overwhelmingly fulfilled their obligation and became part of the proud Anzac legend that dates back to Gallipoli. If people say that the Vietnam war was not worth it, they died in vain. They were in Vietnam for exactly the same reason we are in Iraq today: to support the only ally that could come to our homeland defence. I commend everybody involved in the memorial dedication. [Time expired.]
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [5.28 p.m.]: One of the issues of great concern in the Ballina electorate is the Government's trifecta of property taxes: namely, stamp duty, land tax and vendor duty. On several occasions I have raised the new land tax regime and its devastating effect on investment and housing affordability in coastal areas such as Ballina, Byron Bay and the North Coast generally. Recently in Parliament I raised the case of a man from Lennox Head who had been hit with a massively increased land tax bill on a house he provided for his disabled son. It has now come to my attention that a number of residents in the Ballina electorate have been charged vendor duty on their principal place of residence.

In one such case, a family has had a sudden change in personal financial circumstances and is unable to complete the construction of their home. They have had to take out a loan to pay land tax on the property and may be forced to sell the half-completed home to service that debt. If they do so, they will be hit with the vendor duty on its sale, and then will have to pay land tax and vendor tax because they were unable to complete construction of their home. Another couple, who moved from their principal place of residence in Lennox Head to another house in the same town within the two-year period mandated by this Government, have paid vendor tax of more than $9,000. They have simply moved from one principal place of residence to another—which we should all have the right to do—and yet they have been hit with a massive vendor tax bill as a result. They have earned no investment income on their property, and never intended the property to be used for investment purposes. Yet, as a result of exercising their free choice to move to another family home within a two-year period, they have been hit with a massive vendor tax bill. This is wrong in principle. No-one should have to pay vendor tax on their principal place of residence.

A third family has narrowly missed out on paying the vendor tax on their principal place of residence by disposing of their property at a discount price within the period allowed by this Government. They had purchased a new home but, as a result of the State Government induced real estate slowdown, were having difficulty selling their previous home. As a result, they took the hard decision to dispose of the property at a discount price to avoid payment of the vendor duty. So there is not only an issue of residents having to pay vendor duty on the sale of their family home if they sell within two years of purchase, but there is also an issue of sellers having to dispose of properties within a specified time frame at heavily discounted prices. This is difficult to do given the slowdown in the property market. The ongoing health of the New South Wales property market and housing affordability are issues of concern. Macquarie Bank predicts:

Demand for property along Australia's east coast will continue to be subdued in 2005, with worst hit the investor market as investors hold off buying residential property and pursue alternative investment classes instead.

The flight to investments other than New South Wales property is very understandable. The Labor Government should be concerned about the impact its land tax regime is having on the residents of New South Wales. It should be concerned that those who have carefully saved for their retirement will be left without a nest egg and will become increasingly reliant on governments of all levels for assistance. Another problem with the vendor tax is that it has to be paid prior to settlement. Hence, some people are taking out bridging loans to pay vendor tax. In a recent case that came to me a woman wanted to access her superannuation payment early, just so she could pay the vendor tax. Of course, if she does that, there will be a penalty to be paid in respect of her superannuation payout.

The New South Wales Government's trifecta of property taxes is discouraging investors and aggravating the housing affordability problem. The Affordable Housing National Research Consortium believes $27 billion needs to be poured into affordable housing to avert a crisis. Yet the New South Wales Government is discouraging investment in rental properties. The property tax regime in this State makes the New South Wales property investment market uncompetitive. Why would residents of New South Wales not look over the border to Queensland when they know they are going to be hit with high stamp duty on purchase, land tax while they own the property and a 2.25 per cent vendor duty when they sell?

I noted this week an article in the Daily News, a Tweed newspaper, that Queensland Premier Beattie has foreshadowed a plan to significantly cut land taxes. Under the proposal, the number of people or entities paying land tax on property will be halved. This is in stark contrast with the New South Wales regime of property taxes. The Nationals and Liberal parties have listened to the stories of hardship associated with these taxes and are committed to removing the vendor tax and reinstating the land tax threshold. I call on the Government to give the mum and dad investors in New South Wales a break, and do the same.
Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.33 p.m.]: On Thursday 10 March I was honoured to attend a welcome home function for about 100 military personnel and their families at the Holsworthy Barracks, located in my electorate. The group, from the 1st Health Support Battalion, returned home as undoubted heroes after a 10-week deployment helping tsunami victims in the ruins of a Banda Aceh hospital, later dubbed the Anzac Field Hospital. Today I would like to share with the House the content of the commendation the group received from Brigadier D. H. Chalmers, AM, CSC, Commander Combined Joint Task Force 629, "Sumatra Assist". The brigadier wrote:

I commend you on your exemplary performance in establishing casualty treatment and primary health care facilities at the Dr Zainoel Abidin Public Hospital at Banda Aceh during Operation SUMATRA ASSIST.

Following the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that devastated coastal areas around the Indian Ocean, the Australian Defence Force mounted Operation SUMATRA ASSIST to support the Government of Indonesia's relief effort. The ANZAC Field Hospital was tasked to provide health support in Banda Aceh.

The ANZAC Field Hospital was required to restore health facilities at the Dr Zainoel Abidin Public Hospital in Banda Aceh. This required diplomatic liaison with the surviving hospital administration staff, and careful clearance of extensive earthquake and tsunami debris. Concurrently, the ANZAC Field Hospital established emergency casualty treatment and primary health care facilities to treat disaster victims. Over 3600 patients were treated in a sixty-day period, including 289 life saving surgical procedures. Critical X-ray, pathology and infectious disease care capabilities were restored in the hospital. The hospital played a major role in stabilising the overall disaster situation and received major praise from Indonesian Government authorities.

The ANZAC Field Hospital developed and implemented a program of transferring health care skills to AusAID and Indonesian hospital staff. This program included the training and mentoring of Indonesian nursing staff and administrators to resume responsibility for hospital operations. All training was completed on schedule and was a significant contribution to the overall success of the Australian Defence Force disaster relief effort.

The achievements of the ANZAC Field Hospital are of the highest order and are in keeping with the finest traditions of the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.

There is little I can add to that excellent commendation by the brigadier. However, given the fact that the function happened to be in the same week as International Women's Week, I ask the House to note that the deployment was led by the very impressive Lieutenant Colonel Georgina Whelan. Also, I draw the attention of the House to the vital contribution of the Army Reserves to Operation Sumatra Assist, for example, by Dr Peter Tralaggan, an anaesthetist at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Dr John Crozier, a surgeon from Liverpool Hospital, who were there on the evening. I am well aware that these committed people also have devoted their talents to the greater good of their local communities and the global village on previous occasions.

Much has been said in this Chamber over the past few weeks about the Indian Ocean tsunami and the terrible devastation that it wreaked. But we should not leave it at what has been said. Today, I have taken the opportunity to highlight the efforts of military personnel who reside in my electorate because, as we speak today, there are still people coping with the devastation of their communities and with the terrible losses of so many lives. The experience of the men and women at Holsworthy Barracks who cleaned up the mess and tended to the needs of the affected community will never be forgotten. Nor will they ever forget the sights that they have seen and the deeds that they have done. It gives hope that while they were there they delivered 18 babies. I draw that to the attention of the House because we saw some of the photographs taken while these people were in Banda Aceh. Thankfully, we were spared some of the more graphic shots of scenes that we were told about. For instance, when they first entered the hospital there were bodies, including those of small children, piled against the walls of the hospital.

It is important to note, for their sake, that when they departed they did so with a sense of hope that they had left the place much better than they had found it. The first job they had was to muck out the hospital and make it habitable. They did that, with smiles on their faces. They then cleaned up whatever needed to be cleaned up, and left the hospital in the hands of the Acehanese, who will not only get on with, but hopefully make progress in, their lives. The contribution of these Australians—who hit the ground running and were ready do the work from the moment they landed—should be acknowledged by this House.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.38 p.m.]: I again draw the attention of honourable members to Batemans Bay Hospital and Moruya Hospital on the far South Coast. Time and again in this House I have referred to the emergency department at Batemans Bay Hospital and the effect on residents of the decision for ambulances to bypass Batemans Bay Hospital for Moruya Hospital. I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions and he has been called on publicly on countless occasions to deal with these issues. It is disappointing that the Minister for Health does not see fit to respond to the far South Coast community, which has had a gutful of the many headlines resulting from decisions made by Greater Southern Area Health Service. A week ago the front page of the Bay Post/Southern Star flagged a proposal by the area health service to bypass Batemans Bay Hospital on the weekend and send patients to Moruya Hospital because the workload of the three Batemans Bay general practitioners qualified to undertake anaesthetic services had become fairly onerous. The situation is completely untenable for the hospital and the community, particularly when the Princes Highway is incredibly dangerous.

It is remarkable that the Government has not seen fit to consult widely with the ambulance staff, nursing staff and doctors about the best way forward. I plead with the Minister to resolve the situation once and for all. The community wants services at Batemans Bay and Moruya hospitals maintained and enhanced. Although problems plague both hospitals, which are in competition with each other, it is not good enough to cut services without an appropriate public debate on a centralised regional-based service. The anaesthetist problem has not been resolved. The general manager of the Eurobodalla Area Health Service has indicated that the service would use locums from the end of the month until the end of the advertising period as a temporary measure. I call on the Government to ensure that this temporary measure remains in place until a permanent solution is found to the problem. It is not good enough for Batemans Bay Hospital to be bypassed because of the Government's inability to manage rosters and locums. The Minister has been warned about this, but he continues to fail to act. I encourage the Minister to involve the Director-General of Health to resolve the situation.

I also bring to the attention of the Minister further delays in the upgrade and reconfiguration of the emergency department at Batemans Bay Hospital, which have been ongoing for 18 months. The former acting chief executive officer of the health service told me that the emergency department would be reconfigured for the summer of 2003-04 and that it would be completed by the summer of 2004-05. Guess what? Work on the emergency department is nowhere near starting. It is the Minister's responsibility to outline to the community a timetable for the signing of the contract and the starting and finishing of the work so that the community can hold the area health service and the State Government accountable for the new emergency department at Batemans Bay Hospital. It is embarrassing that this situation has continued. It is embarrassing that our local hospitals in both Batemans Bay and Moruya have been promised services—I refer particularly to the renal unit at Moruya Hospital—but that the Government has failed to deliver. It is high time that the Minister spoke publicly and solved this major problem.

Mr PAUL CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [5.43 p.m.]: It is my duty to draw to the attention of the House a sign on the northern end of the western side of Wyong railway station that reads "Long Term" with a "P" in a square, which means long-term parking. The only trouble is that once people are inside the designated area 20 of the spaces allow for only two-hour parking. Quite rightly, my constituents have written to me because they have been fined by council officers. In their view the situation is downright dishonest, and I can certainly see their point. The council engineer, Mr Cathers, says that a review of signage is required by the Department of Transport and that may well be the case. I ask the Minister for Transport to consider this matter urgently. However, there has been some good news. The General Manager of Wyong Shire Council has asked council officers not to issue infringement notices in that location until the signage is resolved.

However, I know of people who have been fined and who have paid those fines. It is incumbent on any level of government to do the right thing. One of the people caught out is Margaret Whittle, who does sterling work on the Wyong Hospital auxiliary. She believes that when she parked in this location graffiti was on the two-hour parking signs. I believe her as someone whose honesty is beyond reproach. A $70 fine might not mean a great deal to people in this Chamber; not many of us would blink too much at it. However, I point out that $70 out of a weekly single pension of $238.15 represents a substantial amount. This problem is causing a great deal of anguish for a lot of older people who want to park in the area and think they are doing the right thing.

Last Thursday the Minister for Transport was in my electorate to look at the proposed location for the new lift on the eastern side of the railway line. Obviously, it has not yet been constructed. Many elderly people who have trouble with their joints want to access the lift from the western side of the railway station. They are doing the right thing. They are not seeking to disobey the law. We must be tolerant. I hope the council can reconsider the infringements that have been issued and the fines that have been paid because the people who were fined thought they were doing the right thing. Nothing undermines society more than unjust taxes or parking fines. That leads only to contempt for, and disregard of, other important laws that this House or councils promulgate from time to time. It is important that we keep faith with people who are simply trying to live their lives and obey the law but through some bureaucratic foul-up they find themselves in strained financial circumstances.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [5.48 p.m.]: The provision of water resources for irrigation in the Lachlan Valley is administered by an irrigation officer who normally resides and works at Forbes. However, that officer has taken extended maternity leave and the position has been filled temporarily by an officer who is an agronomist at Orange. The current arrangement involves travelling time each day of approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes out of a day's work and there is no guarantee that the position of irrigation officer for the Lachlan Valley will be permanently occupied. This is happening at a time when the district is enduring the worst drought in history. The issue of fixed water charges may best be illustrated by extracts from letters written by two landholders from the Lachlan Valley. The first letter is from the Old Pine Hill Partnership in Forbes and states:

Re: Fixed Water Charges for General Security Irrigators …

Our farm has paid $11,500 in the year 2003-04 and $10,000 in the year 2002-03 for Government Fixed Charges. In this time we have had no irrigation and limited stock and domestic supplies. When the Water Sharing Plan was agreed to by the Lachlan Irrigators, the historical analysis used by the River Management Committee... showed that in no years since 1898 should we expect to experience such a prolonged dry time. Because current conditions are way outside the range of flows agreed to in the Water Sharing Plan, we believe the existing water charges are completely unfair as the Government is charging for services which they have no hope of supplying.

In other words, the Government is charging people for a water supply which it cannot deliver. I have mentioned this matter in the House previously, but this time the individual landholders have taken up the cause. The other letter is from J. H. and K. M. Coupland and states:

In 2002 my wife and I sold everything we owned, we borrowed money from a bank and from our parents to buy an irrigation farm on the Lachlan River. I was not "flying blind" when we decided to invest in the Lachlan Valley as I have been working as an irrigation agronomist in the valley for over 13 years.

He is a most experienced and well-recognised man. The letter goes on to state:

Since my arrival to the valley, irrigation water was relatively secure and always available, this is why we invested in the valley... As our luck (or lack of it) turned out, since we bought our property we have had virtually no irrigation allocation available to us.

Their story is much the same as stated by the Old Pine Hill Partnership. The letter goes on to state:

We are hoping that with your support we could convince the NSW State Government to waive the 2003/04 fixed water charges... For us this equates to just over $13700... which we have struggled to pay. Our request is to have the 2003/04 fixed water charges waived not deferred for the obvious reason that the drought HAS NOT BROKEN.

The classic illustration of the problem is that I made representations on behalf of both landholders to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources, the Hon. Craig Knowles, and received a response from the executive director of the office of the director-general. A letter from Minister for Energy and Utilities, Mr Sartor, relating to my representation on behalf of Mr Jock Coupland states:

I refer to your representations to the... Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources... regarding waiver of fixed water charges to relieve the burden on irrigators... I am advised, however, that the Minister for Primary Industries... has announced Lachlan Valley customers are eligible to apply for deferred... charges... and I have referred your representations to him for direct response.

The very same executive director of the office of the Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources replied to my representations in respect of the Old Pine Hill Partnership. The letter states:

As this matter falls within the administration of the Hon. F Sartor... Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister Knowles has requested that I refer your representations to Minister Sartor for consideration and response to you direct.

However, Minister Sartor's response to my representations states:

I am advised... [that] the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Ian Macdonald... has announced Lachlan Valley customers are eligible to apply for deferred payment... Accordingly your representations would be more appropriately responded to by Mr Macdonald.

Minister Knowles received representations, his staff referred them to Minister Sartor, and Minister Sartor in turn referred them to Minister Macdonald. Nobody wanted to own the problem or take responsibility for it. In the meantime, people are paying the Government for a service that the Government cannot deliver. It is not that the Government will not deliver the service—it cannot, because there is no water. I put it to this House that a milkman who is unable to supply milk cannot charge people for the maintenance of his truck. The Government maintains that it needs the revenue from the charges to maintain infrastructure, but that is the Government's problem. The Government is a service provider and it is unfair to expect the clients to pay for a service that the Government is not able to provide. After all, if a petrol station is unable to supply petrol, the owner of the petrol station cannot charge people for maintenance of the pumps.

The fixed water charges are iniquitous and constitute mismanagement because not one out of three Ministers wanted to accept responsibility. Their conduct makes the process of government a charade of the worst type at the expense of decent people who are battling one of the worst droughts ever to have occurred in the history of this country. The stupidity and incompetence of the Government is the only thing that exceeds the pervasiveness of the drought.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Peats) [5.53 p.m.]: It is with a great sense of pride that I report to the House that the New South Wales Junior, Masters and Senior Lifesaving Championships, recently hosted by the Ocean Beach and Umina Beach surf life saving clubs, were a resounding success. Much of the credit for that must go to the two local surf lifesaving clubs, which are located within the Peats electorate. There were literally hundreds of volunteers who contributed towards the smooth running of the championships, again demonstrating that the spirit of the Olympic Games 2000 is still very much alive and well. It is not generally known that the State Surf Lifesaving Championships are bigger than the Commonwealth Games.

A carnival atmosphere prevailed throughout the tournament and, on the whole, the weather was kind to competitors and spectators alike. As honourable members on both sides of the House would be aware, competitions of this scale require a lot of dedication, commitment and sheer hard work by a number of people. Preparation for the championships took a good 12 months. Although there has always been healthy yet strong rivalry between the Ocean Beach and Umina Beach clubs, on this occasion the two clubs worked well together to ensure that the championships were the best ever.

I congratulate the following organisers of the 2005 New South Wales Surf Lifesaving Championships. From the Umina Beach Surf Life Saving Club, Brett Harrod, chairman, who is also a vice-president of the State body; Bob Langford, who was in charge of gear and equipment; John Sharpe, who was in charge of beach management; Danny Cunningham, who organised the logistics at the back of the beach; and Garry Mensforth, who was the treasurer. From the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club: Bob Nash, who is a life member and deputy chairman; Maureen Nash, who was in charge of administration; Darren Moore, who was responsible for emergency services; Steven Smith, who was in charge of the work force and Warren Boyd, who is also a life member and was in charge of concessions and catering. David Unger, who is the President of the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club, and his wife, Elaine; Denise Lees and a number of other members of both clubs were very active in providing assistance in running the championships.

In all, well over 100 clubs operating from Cudgen Headland in the north to Pambula in the south, took part in the championships. The junior championships for youngsters ranging in age from seven to 14, were held from Friday 25 February right through to Sunday 27 February. The winning club was Cronulla followed by Terrigal from the Central Coast. The masters championship took place on Thursday 3 March and was followed by the seniors championship which was held over a three-day period from 3 to 6 March. For the first time there were four age categories in the senior championships with the introduction of under fifteens and under seventeens joining the under nineteens, opens and the old salts—the masters. Again, Cronulla came out the winners of the senior championships, but the local clubs and other clubs on the Central Coast put in a mighty effort and won a number of events during the championships. Prior to the commencement of these championships, some concerns were expressed about the environmental impact which the championships could have on the sand dunes.

The adoption of a flexible approach by the organisers resulted in changes being made to the championships program. Meaningful discussions took place between Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Gosford City Council and the Peninsula Dune Care Group and the outcome was that environmentally friendly championships were held. The statistics for the New South Wales championships are mind-boggling. The total number of competitors in the junior, masters and senior championships totalled approximately 7,500, with 4,251 nippers competing in the junior championships alone. There were 350 officials and a mighty army of 600 volunteers from both the Ocean Beach and Umina Beach surf lifesaving clubs and various local organisations. I especially mention the Ocean Beach Bowling Club and the local Rotary Club, whose members took over parking arrangements, and the local Apex Club, which organised the barbecue that were held throughout the entire championships.

The local organising committee was ably assisted by the chairman of the New South Wales championships organising panel, David Thompson, who is a very able member of the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club, as is Graham Lees, who was the financial director for the championships. The President of Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Peter Pearce, and the secretary, Phil Vanny, attended throughout the championships and were very gracious hosts to the large number of official visitors. I understand that the honourable member for Port Macquarie was a competitor. While Cronulla did well to win both the junior and senior championships, the Central Coast clubs achieved a great outcome. I convey my congratulations to everyone who was involved in any way with the holding of the 2005 New South Wales Surf Lifesaving Championships.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [5.58 p.m.]: I have sought advice from my local police at the Harbourside command about two issues. The first relates to the impact that the relocation of the Cremorne mental health service would have on policing. Constable Lyn Blaikie, Community Safety Officer, Harbourside Police Local Area Command, has provided the following advice:

I spoke to Carin Hamilton (Team Leader-Cremorne Mental Health) on 15/2/2005 in relation to this issue. The proposal is that the Cremorne Mental Health Clinic would be moved to Chatswood or to RNSH. She advised that they are still waiting on confirmation from the Dept of Health as to whether this will still go ahead.

Impact:

• Patients will have to travel to receive treatment (impractical especially for people who live as far as The Spit). This may result in patients not seeking regular treatment which may result in increased episodes, often involving police attendance to bring a situation under control.

• May impact on police resources ie: if a Mosman patient on a treatment order breaches their order, police will become involved and have to convey the patient from Mosman to Chatswood. This will generally be for a 5-minute injection. If the person is hostile, this may require extra car crews to assist in calming the patient down.

• There may be a substantial impact on carers and relatives who will have to find a means of transport.

• Home visits from medical staff of Cremorne Mental Health may decrease as the time taken to visit the patients will increase and they only have limited staff.

• The feedback from the patients has been that if the clinic moves to within the RNSH most would not attend the hospital as this brings back bad memories for a lot of patients.

• Parking at the hospital is difficult and is at a cost. This would also deter a lot of patients from attending the clinic.

• The clinic will also lose the passing business of local residents. Therefore people with problems who may need an assessment will not have that local facility.

The movement of the current health Team to Royal North Shore Hospital has the potential to impact significantly on Harbourside Police resource allocation. Increased calls for police intervention may occur and therefore tie up police crews for longer periods.

I call on the Minister for Health to take note of the views of the Harbourside Local Area Command on this matter. The second matter I raise relates to the impact of the closure of the North Sydney Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Scheme on the Harbourside police. In part, the advice I have received from the Domestic Violence Liaison Officer of Harbourside police states:

The Scheme is at risk of closure due to lack of funding. The service works closely with police from Harbourside, in particular the Domestic Violence Liaison Officer and is the only specialised Domestic Violence Service in the Mosman and North Sydney Area. Closure of the service could mean:

• An increase in the number of women withdrawing their AVOs. Many women are overwhelmed by the court process and potential intimidation by the defendant. As a result they sometimes withdraw their AVO. Court assistance is a holistic approach to helping women through the legal process that recognises that they also have many non-legal needs that require the help of an experienced support worker.

• Decrease in the attendance of victims at North Sydney Court. Victims are more likely to attend court for their AVO matters if they know that they will have a separate safe room to wait in and a professional support worker to accompany them.

• Loss of the Assistance Scheme would involve more police resources being placed into victim support specifically on Court days at North Sydney Court. Police will have more difficulty in fulfilling requirements under the Charter of Victims Rights to provide victims with information and access to welfare, health, counselling and legal services.

• The personal safety of women and children in the court precinct could be an issue. Currently the court assistance scheme provides a safe room with a panic button that goes directly to the police station.

• Victims will often disclose information to a support worker but not to police eg the presence of unregistered guns or abuse by the defendant of children. With the help and support of workers women are encouraged and empowered to inform police. This would be lost with the loss of the support officer from the Court

• NSW Police core business does not include police providing counselling to domestic violence victims.

• There is often a wait of around two months for a Hearing date in an AVO matter. It is a stressful wait for the victim.

• The Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officer who is present at court for AVO matters would not have enough time to speak to all the victims.

Needless to say, the Harbourside police support the retention of that service.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [6.03 p.m.]: Recently in Port Macquarie a meeting was held regarding the proposed workplace fatalities legislation at which the attendees spoke about the mid-term report card released by a New South Wales peak employer group, Australian Business Ltd [ABL]. On Monday ABL released that report card, which was based on substantial research carried out throughout regional New South Wales and in small businesses based in regional New South Wales, a sector of the marketplace and politics that is often ignored and forgotten. I can vouch for the fact that ABL spoke directly with small business employers in the Port Macquarie region, as I attended a meeting where it occurred. Surveys were carried out and one-to-one discussions were held.

The report card reviewed the performance over the past two years of the Carr Government and the Opposition. Overall, both have been patchy in meeting the needs of the business community and in delivering a healthy, sustainable and growing economy. The word "patchy" reflects poorly on both sides of this Parliament. The report card considered the performance indicators on issues including the economy, the budget, State competitiveness, crime, skills and workplace relations. The report card shows that New South Wales businesses have the highest payroll tax rates, workers compensation premiums and on-costs of any State. It also shows that infrastructure is not keeping pace with economic needs.

Importantly, the card shows that the size of government continues to increase—perhaps Michael Costa was right—with New South Wales Government taxation revenue up by 8.1 per cent, or $1.1 billion, above Government forecasts. The report card indicated also that many small businesses have given up on occupational health and safety compliance. It showed that the Opposition has advocated a lower tax position, yet has not detailed how that will be funded. The Opposition has failed to address in any real detail issues relating to labour market and skills shortages, occupational health and safety compliance issues, and WorkCover premiums.

The report card stated that a future Coalition government would be committed to benchmarking and focussing on outputs in the State budget. That is good. The report card gave the Opposition a pat on the back for opposing the draft workplace fatalities legislation. Australian Business Ltd, a peak employer group, talks with and represents small businesses in my area. I hope both sides of the House take this opportunity to engage with the small business sector in regional areas, rather than, as I suspect, treating the report card as just another threat from another lobby group.

In Port Macquarie two weeks ago I hosted a forum with business groups and employers in the area, to talk about the proposed workplace fatalities legislation. Without doubt, a lot of employers are desperately concerned about the draft legislation and its impact on their business. At a meeting attended by more than 150 employers, one said that he had been in business in the area for 80 years. He is approaching retirement and was hoping to hand the business over to future generations. But he will shut the doors to the business if the legislation goes ahead; his business will be all over. The draft bill is fundamentally flawed and will materially impact on plans for further investment in New South Wales.

In the unfortunate event of a workplace fatality arising from a breach of the proposed legislation, the new offence would expose many Port Macquarie companies, much of their management and many board members to the new penalty regime. The absolute duty of care proposed in the legislation means that a breach of it is almost inevitable. The problem is that the new offence is triggered by a workplace fatality, not by the serious disregard for safety by a company. That is considered to be patently unfair; it provides no assistance to employers and employees to develop safe and productive workplaces. I again urge the Minister to ensure that the proposed bill clearly differentiates between the two fundamentally different types of employers: those taking safety seriously and the small minority of rogue employers who treat safety lightly. [Time expired.]

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [6.08 p.m.]: Recently I hosted a forum at Town Hall on urban forests. The term "urban forests" does not suggest planting trees for timber in the city or large national parks on the city's fringe; it refers to the totality of trees in the urban setting and their proper management. In Australia we are not familiar with the term "urban forestry" or the concept of looking at urban trees cumulatively. There is a lack of understanding and appreciation of the systematic management of urban trees, unlike other countries, including the United States of America, where urban forestry is a recognised and established field.

Trees are an important feature in the urban setting. They provide shade, improve air quality, give visual stimulus and pleasure and help to reduce stormwater runoff. Without trees the urban setting is bleak, lifeless and unhealthy. In addition, there are convincing economic reasons for urban forests, in particular, significant cost savings as a result of reduced airconditioning. Tonight I briefly mention the benefits and need for a clear policy towards the planned, systematic and integrated management of urban forests. The United States is a leader in the field of urban forestry. It has convincing economic evidence that suggests that trees are one of the best ways to reduce the demand for airconditioning.

In New South Wales the biggest challenge facing the energy industry is the rapid growth of and peak demand from airconditioners. Airconditioners, which are energy intensive, are one of the main causes for the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. They have contributed to the fact that New South Wales's energy supply is now at a critical point. Trees are nature's airconditioners as they provide shading and act as windbreaks. Trees intercept up to 90 per cent of the summer sun and one tree is equivalent to five room airconditioners running for 20 hours a day. The savings are particularly high in the central business district because there are more buildings and concrete and less vegetation.

In the area of energy saving and demand management a lot can be learned from the Californian experience where people were forced to address these issues as a result of energy shortages and blackouts in the 1970s. The city of Sacramento and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power support tree-planting programs to reduce energy demand. They estimate that the existing urban forests in California save an extraordinary $490 million annually in airconditioning and 10 per cent or $780 million in peak load use. The economic and environmental reasons speak for themselves. I urge this Government to explore these studies in addressing some of the problems that we are facing in New South Wales. Increasing tree cover by 25 per cent will decrease summer temperatures citywide by three to six degrees.

At the same time urban forests help to address the greenhouse effect caused by energy consumption because they absorb carbon dioxide. The city of Sacramento concludes that each year six million trees provide a net removal of 304,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Trees also reduce air pollution because their leaves catch particulates such as smoke, dust, soot and metal particles that cause respiratory diseases, while the stomates or holes in leaf surfaces absorb gases such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Stormwater is also a problem in the city, and trees help to manage this problem. Trees act as mini-reservoirs. They catch rainfall, store it and reduce stormwater runoff volumes. In Austin, Texas, it was found that the urban forest reduced runoff by 7 per cent and in Sacramento County it was found that the urban forest intercepted annual rainfall by 11 per cent.

It is clear that energy demand, greenhouse gases, air quality and stormwater pollution are all related and that the planning and management of urban forests is a key tool to address these issues in an integrated, simultaneous and efficient way. Not only are there practical reasons to support urban forests; there are also important social and community reasons. Trees in the urban environment obviously increase the urban amenity of the city. People enjoy spending time in parks because of the shade, comfort and the wellbeing that trees provide. There are significant economic, environmental, amenity and aesthetic reasons to plan systematically for and to manage urban forests.

At the moment urban trees are considered individually rather than as part of a wider system or an urban forest. The urban forest is defined as the totality of trees and shrubs on all public places and private land in and around urban areas. Until urban trees are managed in the context of other trees and the surrounding urban setting, decisions will be piecemeal and not strategic. I call on the Government and on the Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration), who is in the Chamber, to develop a strategy to address how urban forests will be better utilised for economic, environmental, amenity and aesthetic benefits.

Private members' statements noted.

Motion, by leave, by Ms Diane Beamer agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Report of the State Emergency Service for the year ended 30 June 2004
Government Response to the Public Accounts Committee Inquiry into the NSW Ambulance Service: Readiness to Respond
Report and Determination of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal on fares for the State Transit Authority from 4 January 2005, dated December 2004
Report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal entitled "Sydney Catchment Authority Operational Audit for the year ended 30 June 2004"
Government Response to the Final Report of the Waterfall Special Commission of Inquiry, dated February 2005
Report of the Department of Community Services for the year ended 30 June 2004
Report of the State Emergency Management Committee for the year ended 30 June 2004
Report of the State Rescue Board of New South Wales for the year ended 30 June 2004
Government Response to the Recommendations Arising from the Final Report of the Public Accounts Committee Review of Fire Services Funding, dated March 2005
Report by P. Bodor, QC, entitled "Memorandum of Advice: James Investigation & James Report", dated 20 February 2004, together with eight volumes of documents from the Crown Solicitor's office in relation to the Review of the New South Wales Police "James" investigation.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Paul Lynch) left the chair at 6.16 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 3 March 2005.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [7.32 p.m.]: The Coalition supports the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill. We have been calling for legislation precisely like this since at least May last year. It is a matter of record that at that time both the Leader of the Opposition and I called publicly for action to be taken to produce a bill such as this. In May last year there was great public concern about the trauma suffered by victims of rape who have to give evidence for a second time. We formed the view then that the problem required the urgent attention of Parliament to avoid in any way possible, consistent with a fair trial, the need to put a victim through the ordeal of a second trial. It occurred to us at the time that the best secondary evidence of a trial was the full video of the evidence given initially by the victim at the first trial. This issue is relevant to the bill before the House, but it also touches on wider issues. It is a fundamental concern to me that when the idea was floated the Attorney General said in Parliament that this could not be done. On 11 May 2004 in answer to a question from the honourable member for Strathfield, the Attorney General said:

I requested specific advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions and others about the merits of those proposals from the point of view of practical prosecutions...

Those proposals related, amongst other things, to the use of video transcript evidence of the best secondary nature. According to the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] advised that those proposals:

… arise from a deep and uncomprehending ignorance of the criminal justice process at both the trial and appellate levels.

The fact that this bill is now before the House proves what a load of garbage that statement was. I am deeply concerned that it was based on advice obtained from the Director of Public Prosecutions. I cannot conceive of a more extraordinary example of the need for greater accountability on the part of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to this Parliament. The Director of Public Prosecutions is an officer of the Parliament in the sense that his office is created by Parliament. But I do not think he is accountable to Parliament in any way, shape or form, as evidenced by the material that the Attorney General put before the House last year. I am inclined to give the Attorney General the benefit of the doubt and accept that at the time he told Parliament what the Director of Public Prosecutions had advised him. I think that is probably correct. But that does not make me feel any easier or happier about what happened.

But the situation became even worse. The catalyst for the introduction of this bill—I repeat that I am very glad it is before Parliament and will soon become law—was the specific and harrowing case of a woman who had suffered extraordinary trauma and who was, in some ways understandably, refusing to give evidence at a retrial. That case prompted the introduction of this bill. However, it also prompted the Director of Public Prosecutions to do what I can only describe as a complete about-face—or so it appears from the transcripts of two interviews that I have in my possession. The first interview was with John Stanley on radio 2UE at 12.25 p.m. on 4 February. Mr Cowdery was asked why legislation had not been introduced in this area before, given that the Opposition had been agitating for it. He replied:

It could have been a lot earlier and we've been agitating for it for a long time.

I was astonished by those comments—and I suspect the Attorney General might have been pretty amazed also; I do not know. It was an astonishing comment, given the history of the matter as I understood it dating back to May last year, when the Attorney General made his remarks in Parliament based on the DPP's advice. Mr Cowdery went on to say:

For many years my Office has been wanting an amendment of this kind to be passed, it's very regrettable that it requires such dramatic circumstances as these to put it on the books or at least to have it put forward.

That is a very important statement because possibly part of the reason no action was taken last year—and it is not for me to defend the Attorney General—is the advice received from the very same man: the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is a very serious business. I imagine no member of Parliament would consider any matter of criminal procedure to be more important than that which gives relief to a victim of rape when giving evidence. I invite any member of Parliament to identify a more important procedural issue in criminal law. So I am deeply troubled by the Director of Public Prosecution's involvement in this issue.

There was a practical consequence of his apparent advice to the Attorney General, which the Attorney General then relayed to the House—we got a spray, but that comes with the job. I am not whingeing about that. As a result of the advice given by the Director of Public Prosecutions probably the most pressing procedural law reform relating to the relief of a victim of serious crime was delayed for nine months. That is just disgraceful. It is absolutely disgraceful that while Parliament might have acted last May it did not. Obviously, it cannot act without the support of the Government in this House. It did not act because the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions was that it should not act.

Heaven knows when Mr Cowdery first found out about this. However, apparently all along—and well before May last year—his office had been lobbying for just such a change. If, in fact, this version is true, his office had been lobbying for just such a change for a long time. I am afraid to say that the Director of Public Prosecutions in this State bears personal responsibility for the failure of the New South Wales Parliament and Government to take up pressing law reform to ease the burden on rape victims giving evidence at a retrial. The Director of Public Prosecutions varied his tune a bit when interviewed by Steve Price on Radio 2UE at about 3.50 p.m. on 4 February. He said in answer to a question:

At that time, my best recollection is that the response was that it's not a matter that was high on the list of many other priorities that were being considered by the Criminal Law Review Division and the matter didn't proceed any further.

That seemed to be a significant variation from what he said on radio earlier in the day—that in some way the suggestion was sought to be put about that it was not really a high priority. It should have been a high priority because it was a high priority in this Chamber in May of the previous year. If it is a high priority here, it ought to be a high priority for the DPP. He should have seen that it was given a red sticker—or whatever was required to be given—to get the Criminal Law Review Division to consider it as a matter of urgency. That did not happen. The accountability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to this Parliament is a joke. It is abysmal. But it is more than that. It is a tragedy because it is putting at risk the victims who survived some of the most serious crimes on our statute books. I cannot think of a more serious crime where the victim survives to give evidence than the crime of mass rape. I cannot think of a more significant crime in respect of which this Parliament owes a duty of care and the best possible assistance to the surviving victim.

It is unforgivable that the New South Wales Parliament did not act because of this appalling advice given by the DPP. I conclude from all this that the current accountability arrangements are not working. This example is the best—and by parity of reasoning the most appalling on its facts—to come forward that requires us to not only pass legislation but to also finally come to grips with the fact that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be accountable to Parliament. That would involve a group of members of Parliament on a bipartisan basis being able to sensibly sit down in a public forum and ask questions of the DPP, for example, about this type of issue. I figured it would be a good thing for there to be that two-way accountability. It would be a good thing for a number of members of Parliament—it would be great for there to be some non-lawyers involved, by the way—to get a much better understanding of the system, from the prosecutor amongst others, so that we could all contribute to a bipartisan approach to changing the law.

The law needs constant change. I understand that another bill will come before the House in a few minutes. It is designed to improve the criminal law and procedure in this regard. It is yet more evidence that constant review and constant change is required to keep the law up to date and to provide victims with the best possible assistance while keeping that balance in place between prosecution and defence. It is high time that more of us had the opportunity to directly interact with the DPP in a controlled and sensible forum. I dare say if that were allowed to happen we would not have a repeat of the disgraceful performance of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this matter. Every member of Parliament was thrown off the scent. I readily admit that I was stranded off by the comments in May last year. I took a couple of steps backwards, as any sensible person would. When you get a strong response such as that from the DPP, you say to yourself, "Perhaps I have got this fundamentally wrong." It made us rethink the matter.

The Premier is constantly berating the Opposition, quite improperly, for not having any policies. The fact is that we have a policy right here. It has taken nine months for the Government to wake up and catch up with us. The Opposition pulled back and had cause to rethink where we were going on this policy—it has been our policy for more than nine months—because of the comments of the DPP. Did he know that his department had made recommendations on previous occasions? I am using the words used in answer to a question from John Stanley on 4 February. Did he know that "for many years" his office "had been wanting an amendment of this kind" to be passed? If he knew that, why did he cause the Attorney General to mislead Parliament in May last year? I would like to get an answer from him to that question.

If he did not know that his office had been wanting an amendment of this kind for years, and the Attorney General had asked him for advice back in May about the idea of trying to do something to relieve it, why did he not take the time to get someone to at least do an elementary check of the file—he could have done it himself on his computer, I am sure—to find out whether his office had a view on the matter? Did he go and ask anyone in his office whether anyone had done the work on it? Did he bother to find out? Whichever way you look at it, it cuts pretty badly for the DPP. I hope that as a result of this we do a lot better in future. I am not finished with the matter. We have freedom of information applications on foot and we will see how they go. I want to see the documents that led to all this. Failing that, we will consider doing something in the Upper House to obtain the documents.

We will consider doing something in an estimates committee hearing. If the only way we can get to ask this man questions is to have him present at an estimates committee hearing to answer questions, we will do that. I am not finished with this matter. This is conduct totally unbecoming of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is inappropriate, it is misleading and it has set the criminal law reform of this State back nine months. I am not yet convinced and I think it is time the DPP made a substantive statement on all this to clarify whether we are here nine months later than we should have been because of his incompetence or because he was dishonest. Did he or did he not know? If he did not know, he had better explain why he did not take the time to find out. If he did know, he might explain why he caused the Attorney General to mislead Parliament last year. It is pretty damned serious stuff.

I have trouble figuring out what other legislation would be before the Parliament, in any portfolio, that is more important than this legislation. While I cannot find legislation more important than this, I think we have a long way to go on this matter before we get satisfaction from the Director of Public Prosecutions. I strongly support this bill. But for the DPP's advice last year, I would have been strongly motivated to introduce a private member's bill in relation to this matter. I have introduced a number of bills on various policy issues. However, I took a step back because of what the DPP said last May. We have lost all that time. It may be difficult to know for some time whether someone else may be in difficulty because of this—a victim yet to surface as a result of an appeal that may yet to be heard somewhere that will result in another retrial. Someone may stand or fall because of the nine months' delay. I do not know.

Finally, and importantly, the Attorney General—he might correct me if I am wrong—was reluctant until very recently to encompass video evidence. As I understood the Government's initial announcement, it was going to focus on transcript evidence. As late as the end of February the Attorney General said that many prosecutors have major concerns about the use of video evidence. He said, "We will not be proceeding with this change". I am glad that there has been a change of heart since then. I think the bill is about right. The cascading of the different options that may be available is the right way to do it.

New section 306E (2) sets out the concept of the best available record of the evidence—audio visual, audio and then transcript. The onus is now on the Government to spend money so that courts in Sydney have such equipment available. The onus is now on the Government to act as quickly as possible to ensure that paragraphs (b) and (c) of new section 306E (2) are never used. We should never look beyond an audio visual recording of the evidence if possible. Major trials, with a few exceptions, would be able to take place in Sydney in courts set up to conduct the trials. One of the Government's top priorities should be to equip the courts with cameras at angles in the correct locations, et cetera.

A week ago I was in the electorate of Madam-Acting Speaker, visiting Woy Woy court. It has a sophisticated system for the recording of evidence by young people, many of whom regrettably are caught up in Kariong and so forth. Woy Woy court has an impressive system, which we need—or a variant of it—to give effect to legislation that allows a tape to be taken and used at a subsequent trial. Obviously, we have the technology. It is important that some money is spent to ensure that at least a couple of courts are equipped in this way. Therefore, when there is another aggravated sexual assault in company trial before the court it can be listed at a court where a video can be made. In an ideal world, there would be no other sexual assaults. However, history tells us that there will be. I commend the bill to the House. It is better late than never—and it would not have been late but for some extremely misleading advice given by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [7.53 p.m.]: I support the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill, which is part of an ongoing process of reform to assist victims of sexual assault. In many ways, this legislation will encourage future victims of this abhorrent crime to come forward more freely and in a more relaxed fashion. It will help achieve choice for them. When the legislation is ratified, in a case of a retrial they will have the choice as to whether they give no further evidence, give further limited evidence or give all their evidence afresh. It is about achieving a balance between the process of the fair trial principle and giving victims a process whereby they can minimise the trauma of giving evidence of what they have been through in a court.

Under this legislation a court will be able to permit the admission of the record of the evidence given by the victim in the original trial. The admission of a transcript of evidence in place of oral evidence from a witness, I believe, is not without precedence in this State. Prior evidence given, statements made outside court and hearsay evidence may be admitted as evidence in a trial when a witness is dead or unable to be located after all reasonable efforts have been exhausted under section 65 of the Evidence Act 1995. In prosecutions for child sexual assault offences a video recording of police interviews with the child is generally admissible as the child's evidence in chief. Clearly, the strength of the prosecution's case is weakened by the complainant failing to give evidence and prosecutors consistently maintain that the best evidence is that given by the victim in person. Nonetheless, there are genuine cases where it will be so detrimental to the wellbeing of an already vulnerable victim that, without question, it is simply best not to force that poor person through re-testimony.

Earlier I tried to imagine what it must be like, and how dreadful it must be, to be the victim of a sexual assault. For example, I refer to the physical effect of having one's person violated—often in very violent and frightening situations—the ongoing emotional effect, the psychological effect and for many people the spiritual effect. It would probably take a lifetime, if ever, to get over. Such an assault does not only impact on the victim, but also impacts on the victim's loved ones, family members, close friends and whole community. After the assault, a victim could be left beside a road, in a park or dumped in a paddock. She could be lying there, suffering horrendous physical injuries and, if she is conscious, hoping someone will find her. She then has to be taken to hospital and go through that process. She then has to be interviewed on many occasions, which must be absolutely shocking for her. The victim then has to go through the traumatic process of making a formal report and waiting for a hearing date.
Sometimes the day arrives and the hearing is cancelled because the judge or the defendant is not well. Of course, the victim might have to sit through lengthy adjournments, legal wrangling and unpredicted general delays. That is then followed by often substantive jury deliberations. Meanwhile, the victim is forced to relive her ordeal on a minute-by-minute basis, on an hourly basis, on a daily basis and sometimes on a weekly basis. She has to be in the same room as, and face, her attackers. Then, often due to a technicality, a retrial is required.

Unfortunately, a cultural gap has opened between the courts and the people they are meant to serve, as Paul Sheehan observed in the Sydney Morning Herald. However, our Government—the progressive Carr Labor Government—is doing something to rectify that situation. Such a mechanism will go a long way to help preserve the dignity of victims of sexual assault. For those who have used all their emotional strength to endure one trial, the prospect of having to do it all over again can be beyond their capacity. In such situations, the victim should not feel the added pressure that a prosecution cannot succeed. Indeed, when interviewed on the 7.30 Report the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, noted of one victim facing the prospect of a retrial:

There was a prospect of significant psychological harm if she was forced to come to court and testify again and her evidence, perhaps, would not have been of the same value as at the first trial.

The bill will allow the complainant to use just a transcript, give some new evidence, or give all new evidence. Importantly, the complainant has that choice. The bill recognises the need to balance the legitimate expectations of the defendant against the needs of a complainant of sexual assault, as well as the expectations of the community in general. In rape trials much has been made of the need for fairness towards a defendant. However, the law as it stands does not adequately recognise the need for fairness towards complainants. This fairness includes encouraging victims to report sexual assaults and minimising the re-traumatisation of multiple court appearances.

The bill provides significant benefits for the community. It increases the chances of sexual offenders facing the criminal justice system, as they should. If offenders were able to avoid trial simply because complainants were unable or, understandably, unwilling to face a retrial, it would offend community notions of justice. Indeed, as Emma Alberici said on the 7.30 Report to which I have referred, "Sometimes there's a feeling that commonsense should prevail."

The need for this reform cannot be denied. Many highly experienced people—much more experienced and much cleverer than I—have spoken in support of such measures. Indeed, Detective Superintendent Kim McKay made the valid point that "the fact that you've been through it once, I think really has an impact on their ability to do it a second time 'cause they now know what's involved". No blame or pressure can, or should, be applied to any victim who chooses not to give evidence again. One cannot imagine the trauma victims have already endured by living through an assault and then being required to relive the horrible experience in the witness stand.

The bill will allow cases to proceed and a jury to make a determination on the basis of evidence put before it where, without the amendments provided in the bill, the prosecution of the matter would cease. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill is a compassionate, legally sound bill that reflects our new modality and our community's condemnation of sexual offenders. Perhaps more importantly, the bill sends a strong and clear message to the brave victims that we congratulate them on their bravery and acknowledge their courage. I commend this progressive bill to the House, and I thank the Minister and his staff for their attentiveness in bringing it before the House in such a timely fashion.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [8.03 p.m.]: With respect to the honourable member for Strathfield's remark that this is a progressive bill, if it reflects progression in the Carr Labor Government I am glad it is not delivering pizzas. The Government's idea of delivering pizzas in 30 minutes would mean we would be waiting until next year! The bill has been a long time coming. It is certainly progressive. It was brought forward in this House by the State Opposition. Whilst I agree with the honourable member for Strathfield that it is a very important bill, we must still focus on the fact that it should have been introduced 12 months ago. I am aware that there are reasons for the delay in introducing it, and I will allude to those later.

The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill is a government bill with a purpose. It relates to such an important matter that members on both sides of the House support it. In 2004 the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] announced that he would not proceed with charges against the two brothers involved in a vicious gang rape after the victim, understandably, decided not to give evidence at the retrial. The purpose of the bill is to permit the admission of a record of evidence given by a complainant in a sexual assault proceeding in any new trail that is ordered following an appeal. As such, the record of evidence is admissible only if the prosecutor gives the court and the accused notice of his or her intention to tender the record. The record to which I refer must be the best available record of evidence, defined as an audiovisual recording of the evidence; or, if this not available, an audio recording of the evidence; or, if neither of those is available, a transcript of the evidence.

I and my colleagues on this side of the House wholeheartedly support such a measure. But the question must be asked: Why did it take so long for the Government to move on this issue? The Coalition is continually coming up with plans, new ideas and policies to improve the lives of the citizens of this State. Indeed, the Coalition suggested this policy in May last year. However, on 11 May 2004 the Government refused to adopt the Coalition's proposal to use video evidence, audio evidence and transcripts, claiming that it was legally unworkable. The Attorney General stated:

I requested specific advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] and others about the merits of those proposals from the point of view of practical prosecutions... during the course of a trial. His advice was that those proposals "arise from a deep and uncomprehending ignorance of the criminal justice process at both the trial and appellate levels".

The Attorney General continued:

I will conclude with some remarks about the proposal to provide evidence at retrials through the videotaping of witnesses from the first trial, which was one of the mad suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition. In the view of prosecutors, the use of videotaping presents considerable problems. The videotape is of most limited assistance to the jury. In relation to both transcript and audiotape, the jury is denied the considerable advantage of seeing the witness give his or her evidence. Verbal advice from experienced prosecutors and defence counsel is that this is likely to lead to more acquittals in sexual assault prosecutions rather than convictions on retrial.

The Attorney General refused to support the Coalition's policy, claiming that it was unworkable and that he had the support of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, as the honourable member for Epping—who is a fine shadow Attorney General and a great representative—said during an interview with John Stanley on 2UE on 4 February 2005, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, stated that allowing records to be used in a retrial is a measure that could have been introduced "a lot earlier and we've been agitating for it for a long time. For many years my office has been wanting an amendment of this kind to be passed." Nicholas Cowdery continued:

… it's been the subject of submissions from this Office in the past that we should expand the categories in which the deposition, the transcript of the evidence or a statement can be put in future proceedings.

Is this the same Director of Public Prosecutions who apparently said that the Coalition proposal was unworkable? Is it the same Director of Public Prosecutions who, as my colleague the honourable member for Epping said, caused the Attorney General to mislead Parliament? This is the crux of the matter. The Attorney General, who is, I am sure, an honourable man, received advice from the Director of Public Prosecution saying one thing, and the Attorney General said another. We have various forms of advice, some from the Director of Public Prosecutions and some from the Attorney General, with the DPP's advice conflicting with public comments he made shortly after the Attorney General's address.

As my colleague the honourable member for Epping said, the Attorney General must look into this matter and the Director of Public Prosecutions must be made more accountable. We need to know whether the Director of Public Prosecutions gave misleading information at the time and, if so, why. We need to know where the confusion lies and who is controlling the DPP. If it requires a group of parliamentarians to oversee the DPP, so be it. We will get to the bottom of this, even if we have to pursue the matter at estimates committee hearings. We had better get something from the Director of Public Prosecutions, otherwise in those estimates hearings we will make Bronwyn Bishop look like his fairy godmother getting the answers out of him, if required. I move on. Ten months later—

Mr Bob Debus: Point of order: The House needs a more complete explanation of that reference to Bronwyn Bishop and fairy godmothers. It is unintelligible, but interesting, and I would like to know more about it.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member may proceed.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: We will pursue at all levels the truth in this matter. It is no laughing matter that the Minister possibly has been misled, or that the Minister has misled the Parliament. If the Government is not prepared to find out what happened, Opposition members will pursue it, get to the bottom of the matter and find out what is the truth. I move on. Ten months later the Government has had to do an embarrassing backflip and introduce a bill similar to one that it had attacked as mad and unworkable, personally vilifying those who supported it. The bill before the House proves that the Coalition policy was workable, and begs the question: Why was the Coalition bill ridiculed by the Attorney General and the Government when it was first floated? There is an old saying that truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and, third, it is accepted as self-evident. That is very much the case with the bill now under consideration.

I go further and say that the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Attorney General, in fact the Coalition, are well deserving of an apology from the Attorney General regarding the comments he made when the Coalition brought its bill before the House. Whether or not the Attorney General has to seek an apology from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the apology to this House rests with the Attorney General, who is a gentleman and a man of his word. I think an apology for his comments is warranted. The people of this State deserve a proactive government, one that makes decisions in their interests rather than one that plays party politics. It is a well-known fact that this Government continually stumbles over the truth, picks itself up, goes immediately into a spin cycle of ever-decreasing size, then scurries on as if nothing happened.

The Government, through its actions over the past 10 years—in this case the past 10 months—has proved it is not up to the task of managing and governing New South Wales. The bill is a vindication of Coalition policy and leadership. It vindicates the efforts of the Coalition to do what is best for the people of New South Wales. It is a shame that the Government does not share the notion and belief that the role of government is to protect people. I note the interjections from Government members when I mention protecting the people of New South Wales who are least able to protect themselves. If the Government were serious about protecting those who cannot protect themselves, it would have supported the Coalition bill presented a year ago. It failed to do so—another failure, in a litany of failures over the past 10 years. I urge all honourable members of this House to support this very proactive and progressive legislation, which was brought forward by The Nationals-Liberal Coalition.

Ms MARIANNE SALIBA (Illawarra) [8.14 p.m.]: I support the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill. The rhetoric from Opposition members never ceases to amaze me. In this instance they claim this is Coalition legislation. I remind them that they are not in government, Labor is. The Attorney General has put forward this bill to protect victims of sexual assault. The Government has taken a number of steps in the past two years to reduce the level of distress caused to victims of sexual assault during the prosecution of sexual assault offences. Already, the Government has created a presumption in favour of all victims in sexual offence proceedings being allowed to use alternative arrangements for giving evidence, such as closed-circuit television, or some other form of video link or screens, to prevent victims of sexual offences from having to come into direct contact with accused.

Also, the Government has stopped unrepresented accused persons from personally cross-examining complainants in sexual offence proceedings and exempted child complainants from being required to attend committal proceedings to give oral evidence in any circumstances. This bill is yet another step forward to protect victims. It amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide four things. The first is that where a new trial is ordered on appeal in a sexual offence matter, the prosecution may give notice to the court of intention to have admitted into evidence in the retrial the tape, where available, or otherwise the transcript, of the complainant's evidence, including evidence-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination, given at the original trial.

Second, the court must admit the tape or transcript, except such portions of the tape or transcript that detail statements that would be inadmissible had the complainant given the evidence orally in person. An example would be where the Court of Criminal Appeal has indicated that a portion of the evidence was inadmissible. Third, the complainant cannot be compelled by the defence to attend and give evidence where the transcript or tape is tendered. Fourth, a complainant can agree to answer limited further questions to clarify matters relating to the original evidence, or to canvass information that has become available since the original proceedings.

I know that the House is aware of cases where a prosecution has not proceeded after a retrial was ordered because the victim was unwilling to be subjected to further harrowing questioning. Like the honourable member for Strathfield, I take my hat off to those who attend the court in the first instance to give evidence. That, having to come face-to-face with those you are accusing, and facing cross-examination must be harrowing experiences. That is why the Government is doing what it can to protect victims. That is in stark contrast with the accusations that were made by the honourable member for Lane Cove.

While the application of these amendments will extend to only new trials ordered before the commencement of the amendments, the case in point has highlighted the difficulties faced in highly charged and emotionally draining cases. I congratulate the Government on taking the steps contained in the bill. Members of the Opposition should get behind the Government and support the bill. Instead of whingeing and moaning about this measure, they should be speaking wholeheartedly in support of it and showing the community that they support the concept of protection of victims. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [8.18 p.m.]: The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill is regarded by the Opposition as of great importance. It is a measure that the Coalition, quite fairly and without any doubt whatsoever, claims credit for. This is a bill that the Coalition some time ago suggested the Government should introduce. Of course, that stance taken by the Opposition was met with ridicule from the Government. At that time the Government said the Coalition's proposal was not feasible, and it simply would not work. The Government seems to have had a road to Damascus experience, and now introduces legislation that the Opposition is very pleased to support. The Opposition is pleased to support the bill because it believes this measure will address a problem that exists in our criminal courts. There can be no doubt whatever that the giving of evidence in a sexual assault case is horrific for the victim, who for all practical purposes is the complainant or informant.

One could understand the distress of giving evidence-in-chief and then being cross-examined by counsel acting for the accused person, although it is also fair to say that that counsel is only discharging his or her responsibility to the accused person. Nevertheless, that does not diminish in any way whatsoever the pressure, the distress and the inertia that the victim of the alleged offence must suffer in court. We all know that in criminal cases it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. For that reason it is unnecessary to say that the evidence of the victim of the alleged offence is of paramount importance. Without that evidence, a conviction cannot be obtained. The reality is that after undergoing lengthy and detailed cross-examination, many victims would undoubtedly have left the witness box in a state of despair and depression, feeling they never want to undergo the experience again. I can well understand that, being a legal practitioner of some years standing, although I have not practised recently.

Mr Paul Gibson: And a very good one.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: I thank the honourable member for Blacktown. On the other hand, the Opposition realises that, in circumstances where the law permits it, accused people are entitled to appeal against their convictions. No-one would deny a convicted person the right to lodge an appeal if there are grounds do so. That means that in some cases in which an appeal is successful it will be necessary to have a re-run of the evidence. In such circumstances, and for the reasons I have previously outlined, the pressure again placed upon the victim is horrendous. The Opposition believes the victim should be spared that trauma, if it is at all possible. The bill clearly makes provision for the evidence of the complainant in any previous proceedings involving the parties to be tendered and become evidence in the retrial. However, the bill also provides that the record of evidence of the complainant tendered in any retrial must be the best available record of that evidence, which is defined in the bill in the following way:

(a) an audio visual recording of the evidence, or

(b) if an audio visual recording of the evidence is not available, an audio recording of the evidence, or

(c) if neither an audio visual recording nor an audio recording of the evidence is available, a transcript of the evidence.

Before audiovisual and audio recordings there was only the transcript. In the days when I was involved with the court process a transcript of evidence was often tendered and that was it. In appeals to the District Court from decisions of magistrates in courts of petty sessions—or Local Court decisions, as they are now known—the transcript would be read by the judge and would become evidence in the appeal. The wheel often turns slowly in the judicial process, but that simple process that existed so many years ago in the lower courts of tendering the transcript—or the depositions, as they were known—before the District Court judge will now apply in appeals to superior courts in serious criminal cases. This will apply to the retrials of sexual assault charges.

The history of this matter is that the Opposition proposed the use of videotaped evidence from the first trial in any retrial in sexual assault cases to protect the victim from having to again face his or her attacker and the court. On 11 May 2004 the present Attorney General suggested that proposal was mad and that a videotape would be of limited assistance to the jury. The Attorney General may well have held that particular belief at that stage. I do not say this in any patronising way, but we all have to move on. Clearly, the Government has moved on and accepted that this is a realistic way to go. I sincerely commend the Government for coming to that decision. As I have indicated before, giving evidence in front of one's attacker must be absolutely horrific for any person. The glare, the look, the stare, and all those kinds of things would make the victim relive the moment that often has changed his or her life forever. It would be relived every moment the victim is in the witness box, sometimes for a whole week. It is a seemingly never-ending reliving of an incident that was a blot on one's personality and a shackle that would envelop one's whole personality for the rest of one's life.

The Opposition believes that if victims can be spared that experience, they should be. The bill has a fair balance between addressing the rights of a person who wants to appeal against a criminal conviction and the rights of the victims of sexual assault. It gives victims a realistic way in which they can continue within the judicial process and assist in the presentation of their cases by the prosecution. The situation will not arise in which a victim finds the process too difficult and says, "I don't want any more, I can't do it again", and decides not to co-operate and will not participate in a retrial. That must be avoided at all costs.

It is fair to have that balance, but victims should be spared indignities when there is a realistic, alternative way of undertaking the court process. The bill does exactly that. The Opposition is pleased to support the legislation and we congratulate the Government on having a road-to-Damascus experience, as I termed it earlier. The bill will allow criminal cases to proceed with audiovisual or audio evidence or simply by the tendering of the transcript of evidence of the previous proceedings. We commend the bill.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [8.27 p.m.]: This debate is not really a debate as everyone here would agree with the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill, the purpose of which is to permit the admission of a record of evidence given by the complainant in a sexual assault proceeding in any new trial that is ordered following an appeal. This bill is undoubtedly the result of significant public pressure that has been brought to bear on the Government, as previous speakers on this side of the House have said. Obviously we do not want to politicise this issue, but the point is that it has obviously taken some time to reach the point where we have an amendment that will provide support and relief to those who face the difficult prospect of giving evidence in a sexual assault retrial. In May last year the Opposition proposed that videotape evidence from the first trial be used in any retrial of a sexual assault case to protect the victim. For the benefit of the honourable member for Illawarra, who made all sorts of silly political statements, I remind the House that on 11 May last year the Attorney General of New South Wales said that the Opposition's proposals were unworkable. He stated:

I requested specific evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] and others about the merits of those proposals from the point of view of practical prosecutions … during the course of a trial. His advice was that those proposals "arise from a deep and uncomprehending ignorance of the criminal justice process at both the trial and appellate levels."

The Attorney General continued:

I will conclude with some remarks about the proposal to provide evidence at retrials through the videotaping of witnesses from the first trial, which was one of the mad suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition stands free of the political prejudices of the governance of this State by the Carr Government, which, 12 months ago, could not recognise a good and sensible proposal by the Opposition. The silly politics surrounding debate on the bill is a sad indictment of the Attorney General. He should apologise for his behaviour. This debate is about ensuring the confidence of the people of the State in the judicial process, particularly in cases such as the Bilal Skaf case. It was disappointing to hear members on the other side of the Chamber accuse us of somehow being nagged. It has taken the Government 12 months to respond to the Opposition's proposal, which is important in gaining the confidence of all sexual assault victims in this State.

The bill provides that the record of evidence of the complainant tendered at any retrial must be the best available record of the evidence. The best available record is defined in the bill as, first, an audiovisual recording of the evidence; second, if an audiovisual recording of the evidence is not available, then an audio recording of the evidence; and, third, if neither an audiovisual nor an audio recording of the evidence is available, then the transcript of the evidence. This is sensible legislation. It is a great shame that when the Opposition put forward its proposal the Government was not able to adopt it. The Attorney General obviously did not realise that the Opposition is just as serious as the Government about dealing with the fundamental problems of retrials of sexual assault offences. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [8.33 p.m.]: I support the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill, which goes a long way towards meeting community expectations of the justice system in relation to helping victims of horrific sexual offences and ensuring that those who perpetrate such crimes do not avoid retrials and punishment because complainants are unable, due to distress, to give evidence again. It is a shame that, a little over 12 months ago, the Government did not support the Opposition's suggestion and introduce these amendments. It has taken the Government too long to amend the legislation. In the interim many people have suffered unnecessarily and have had to endure the trauma of either giving evidence again or seeing those who have perpetrated crimes against them get off because they have not been able to give evidence again.

The object of the bill is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act in respect to evidence in criminal trials, including retrials of sexual assault proceedings. The bill will permit the admission of a record of evidence given by a complainant in a sexual assault proceeding in any new trial that is ordered following an appeal. This record will be permissible only if a prosecutor gives the court and the accused person notice of the prosecutor's intention to tender the record. The bill states that the record of evidence of the complainant tendered at retrial must be the best available record of the evidence, which is defined in the bill as an audiovisual recording of the evidence, or if an audiovisual recording of the evidence is not available then an audio recording of the evidence, and if neither an audiovisual recording nor an audio recording of the evidence is available then a transcript of the evidence.

The bill is the result of significant public pressure following the decision of a gang rape victim in the notorious Skaf case. Last year the Opposition proposed that videotape evidence from a first trial be used in any retrial in sexual assault cases to protect the victim from having again to face his or her attacker and the court. It is regrettable that on 11 May last year the Attorney General told the House that the suggestion was mad and that a videotape was of the most limited assistance to the jury. The Attorney General also stated that he had received specific advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] that the Opposition's proposal was unworkable. However, that is at odds with what the DPP said publicly earlier this year. It is regrettable that the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make this amendment, which will result in justice for the innocent victims of the most horrific crimes. I support the bill, but I place on record my absolute disgust that it has taken the Government so long to accept the Opposition's initial proposal. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [8.36 p.m.], in reply: The bill grapples with the difficult question of what is the best evidence to lead in a sexual assault prosecution. It balances that against the desire to protect complainants from what is universally acknowledged to be a most stressful and psychological destructive ordeal. There are also considerations of the right of an accused to face his or her accuser, and the paramount imperative of ensuring that a trial is fair. The one particular issue of which the Government has been acutely aware, something that has never been raised by the honourable member for Epping or any speakers on the Opposition side, is that if other forms of evidence are allowed in sexual assault prosecutions as distinct from evidence given in person and, for whatever reason, that evidence is less persuasive or holds less credit with the jury, there is a distinct possibility that the use of that type of evidence will result in an increase in the acquittal rate in sexual assault trials.

The acquittal rate in sexual assault trials is a matter of concern that everyone is aware of. The Government is so concerned about the result of prosecutions in this area and their potential to cause psychological harm to complainants that in December 2004 the Government established a high-level sexual offences task force specifically to look at these issues. We look forward to the further report of that task force at the end of 2005. I do not intend to provide a list of the possible legal and other challenges that may be made to transcript evidence. Even the legal experts on the Opposition benches should be able to imagine that for themselves. But it is the best evidence that is available and the Government intends to give the prosecution tools to mount that case. After weighing up all of these policy considerations and examining the practical obstacles, the Government has come out on the side of protecting the complainant. The Government's track record shows that it has consistently introduced innovative mechanisms aimed at achieving that goal when it is confident that the accused can continue to be assured of a fair trial.

I will now address some of the issues raised in debate. The Government has been consistent in its approach, and I refer the House to statements in which I have repeatedly put matters on the record. The advice of every experienced prosecutor, including those who specialise in this area, is that every possible step should be taken to obtain the direct evidence of the victim. That has been the strategy of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Government has supported prosecutors in their work with victims of sexual assault. I am on record as stating that in May 2004 and I restate it now. The honourable member for Epping has never mentioned this point—not in May 2004, not to the media, and not during this debate. The honourable member for Epping and the Opposition bring nothing of value to this debate when they merely speak in conclusions. I stand by my comments of 14 May 2004 and repeat what I said in this House on 22 February. I said:

It is clearly the case that the best evidence in any prosecution case is the direct evidence, in person, of the victim.

The bill acknowledges that and allows all complainants to appear in person to give evidence if they are able to do so. As a last resort, it is better for cases to come before a jury rather than failing to proceed because a complainant cannot face giving evidence again. However, the complainant must have the choice. It is not a perfect solution to rely on a transcript alone. It is always desirable that complainants appear in person to give evidence. However, it is necessary to have the option of tendering a record of the first trial as a last resort. The possibility that the transcript or recorded evidence will be less compelling, however, needs to be balanced against the interests of justice and the interests of the community in having a retrial take place, despite the inability of a complainant to appear and give evidence in person.

The advantage of tendering previous evidence on retrial is that it is evidence given under oath and evidence that has been tested by cross-examination. The Government acknowledged these hard questions and decided that some evidence-based policy making would be the best course of action. That is why, on 31 August 2004, the Premier announced that the Government was engaging the Australian Institute of Criminology to undertake research into the use of video technology in sexual assault matters and to determine the effect that such evidence might have on jury deliberations. This study is aimed at determining whether the use of video evidence will have any effect on witness credit issues in the eyes of the jury.

New South Wales has been a leader in innovative ways of protecting victims of crime, and there is no doubt that this work by the Australian Institute of Criminology will benefit and inform decision making not only in New South Wales but in other jurisdictions that are considering similar mechanisms. The honourable member for Epping suggested that I misled the House in relation to advice that I received from the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] regarding this matter.

The proposals made by the Opposition last year, along with other proposals being floated in the media by various interested parties, were forwarded by me to the DPP for analysis and comment on 7 May 2004. The DPP replied on 10 May 2004 in what can only be described as unequivocal terms. I shall be happy to table his letter. In fact, I would go so far as to say that his tone was scornful. He expressed explicit concern about the consequence of using evidence other than the direct evidence of the victim. Those concerns are shared by a great number of experienced prosecutors. His precise words were:

… these proposals [made by the Opposition] arise from a deep and uncomprehending ignorance of the criminal justice process at both the trial and appellate levels. It is a matter of abject dismay that the Government should give them more than a moment's passing attention; but I can see that if they are said quickly, they may, just for an instant, have a superficial attraction to the uninstructed.

They were the unequivocal words of the DPP. His letter illustrates that there is an acute awareness in legal circles of the potential practical ramifications associated with the proposal to give a complainant's evidence in some way other than in person. Unfortunately, it is an awareness that the Opposition does not seem to comprehend. The Government has taken into account the potential ramifications and believes that the protection of the complainant and the overriding public interest lies in allowing the possibility for these cases to be retried, should that ultimately be the only way in which a matter can proceed.

I refer particularly to suggestions made in the debate tonight that somehow or other the DPP has contradicted me or previous advice he had given in interviews, especially on radio 2UE on 4 February 2005. It is very important to indicate that I am not speaking of anything remotely resembling a contradiction of evidence or advice given to me, or anything resembling an error of principle in advice given to me. This is something much simpler—an error in the DPP's recollection of some historical facts. I have received a letter from the DPP dated 8 February and I shall be happy to table that letter.

In that letter the DPP indicated that many years ago there was, in fact, discussion about a possible amendment to allow the admission of a transcript where the witness would suffer serious emotional or psychological harm if he or she gave evidence directly. However, this discussion was not conducted in the context of a sexual assault prosecution. After a good deal of research, I have been able to establish that the discussion to which the DPP referred occurred in 1994. I do not know why the Attorney General of the day, Mr Hannaford, did not pursue the matter at that time. Possibly members opposite are in more frequent contact with him and they may care to ask him. Like me, the DPP has a strong interest in reform that will reduce trauma suffered by victims of sexual assault and will improve the chances of convicting guilty offenders.

As evidence of his commitment to that process, the DPP participates in meetings of the sexual offences task force and is a frequent participant in conferences and forums on this subject. In his zeal to pursue reform in this area, he has conceded that in the media interview of 4 February he gave a wrong impression of the position of his own office. When he realised his error, he rang radio 2UE, to clarify the situation. He has also formally written to me setting out what he believes to be the true history of the matter. He has been gracious enough to apologise to me and set the record straight in a timely manner, an example that those opposite perhaps should emulate.

I seek leave to table the advice given to me on 10 May 2004 by the DPP in response to suggestions made by the Opposition at the time, and two letters written to me on 8 February 2005 in which the DPP explains that he inadvertently misled a radio audience, at least those people listening to the John Stanley program on radio 2UE, concerning the circumstances in which he had, in the past, given consideration to matters that concern the use of alternative forms of evidence tendered at a retrial.

Leave granted.

Documents tabled.

In reply to the number of remarks made during the debate I mention that the complainant in the retrial of the matter loosely referred to as the Skaf case decided quite recently not to give evidence. Of course I respect that decision, but the bill ensures that the transcript of a former trial will be submitted as evidence in the retrial. The consequence is that no significant delay has been caused to the Skaf retrial by the Government's introduction of this bill today instead of at some earlier time. No disadvantage has been caused to anybody by the introduction of this bill today.

The bill specifically provides that the best available record of evidence will be tendered by the prosecution when it relies on the record in a retrial. The bill provides that audiovisual evidence is the best record, followed by a audio recording, followed then by transcript evidence. The main criticism of transcript and audio evidence is that the jury cannot see the complainant give evidence and therefore that the jury will not be able to assess the demeanour of the complainant. In an attempt to ensure that the best available record is able to be tendered in sexual assault retrials, my department has already been progressing improvements in this area. Within the next two years I expect that facilities will be available for the audiovisual recording of a complainant's evidence in sexual assault trials. We will prioritise the rollout of facilities and ensure that the trial complexes that hear the greatest number of sexual assault trials have priority in the installation of recording facilities.

This bill is part of the Government's long-term project to improve the circumstances of the victims of sexual assault at trial. At the conclusion of this bill I will deliver the second reading speech on another bill that introduces a package of reforms. That bill will impose a duty on a court hearing any criminal proceeding to disallow improper questions that are put to witnesses in cross-examination. It will prevent the circulation and unauthorised copying of sensitive evidence. It will require any part of proceedings for a sexual offence in which evidence is given by the complainant to be held in camera. It will confer an entitlement on a complainant in such a case to have one or more support persons present near the complainant when they are giving evidence. It will simplify and standardise various provisions of the Act that relate to the protection of the complainant in sexual offence proceedings, and it will make it clear that a complainant in a sexual offence proceeding is entitled to give evidence by way of alternative arrangements, such as screens or closed-circuit television, whether or not closed-circuit television facilities are available in the proceedings.

Unlike the Opposition, the Government went to the last election with a clear policy of reforms in this area. Those reforms are progressively being implemented. As I said, it has established a sexual offence task force with representatives from the Rape Crisis Centre and women's groups, legal experts, and representatives of the police and other government agencies. The task force is working on a range of reforms to how sexual assault is responded to. The Government has always resisted knee-jerk responses in this area of law; they only result in appeals and legal challenges, and the ever-present risk of a reduced conviction rate. In May 2003 the Carr Government legislated to prohibit unrepresented accused persons from cross-examining complainants in sexual assault proceedings. The Parliament passed legislation to create a presumption in favour of all victims in sexual assault proceedings being allowed to use the alternative arrangements I mentioned, including closed-circuit television, when giving evidence.

The Government also acted to exempt child complainants in sexual assault proceedings from being required to attend committal proceedings. In March 2003 the Government launched a pilot specialist child sexual assault jurisdiction in Sydney West and Dubbo. That required the upgrading of courtrooms and a new generation of technology that will allow children to give evidence from remote witness suites. It involved improved case management of child sexual assault matters. Of course, we must deal with any expected situations as they arise from time to time, not the least of which are the recent and quite horrific gang-rape trials, which have received more attention than any other trials in recent memory. The bill should be viewed in that context; and the chest beating and triumphalism of members opposite—those who seem to think they have had some type of policy victory because a few months ago they made a suggestion that somehow or other was vaguely related to the material in the bill—should also be viewed in that context. All that having been said, I take pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion by Mr Bob Debus agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the introduction, and progress up to and including the Minister's second reading speech of the following bill:

Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [8.58 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill. The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to expand the protections that the Act provides to sexual assault complainants, thereby ensuring that complainants are accorded a measure of privacy and respect and are able to give the best evidence they can, and that the court process does not revictimise these courageous people. The bill is part of the Government's ongoing process of legal reform in sexual assault prosecutions. The Government made a number of election commitments in relation to sexual assaults and has fulfilled those commitments—and more—by the introduction of the bill. This will not, though, be the end of reforms in this area because the Government is committed to improving the criminal justice system's response to sexual assault crimes, and is committed to doing this without sacrificing any of the principles, such as the right to a fair trial, that we as a society hold dear. And with this package of reforms, the Government, after wide consultation, has improved the system for sexual assault victims and at the same time has upheld those cornerstone legal principles.

There can be no doubt that the prosecution of sexual assault is one of the most difficult areas of the law. Sexual assault is a difficult event to come to terms with, to report, to investigate and to judge. And by its very nature, giving evidence of a sexual assault is like no other evidence. Sexual assault complainant evidence must include precise and explicit details of sexual acts and of intimate sexual violence. Evidence may include swear words, slang usage for body parts, name calling, derogatory terms or remarks of a personal nature. It is embarrassing and humiliating evidence to give. It can come as no surprise that many victims feel reluctant to come forward and report sexual assaults and, of those who do, their efforts to have their day in court are nothing short of heroic. There are many reasons for the low rate of reporting by sexual assault victims: a fear of reprisals; a wish to protect the offender; to keep the family together; shame; embarrassment; and, in some cases, fear or suspicion of the criminal justice system.

By making it easier for complainants to give evidence, which is what this bill does, these reforms will encourage reporting and encourage those victims who do choose to report to see the legal process through. The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 as follows: it imposes a duty on a court hearing any criminal proceeding to disallow improper questions that are put to witnesses in cross-examination; it prevents the circulation and unauthorised copying of sensitive evidence; it requires any part of proceedings for a sexual offence in which evidence is given by the complainant to be held in camera; it confers an entitlement on a complainant in such a case to have one or more support persons present near the complainant when giving evidence; it simplifies and standardises the coverage of various provisions of the Act that relate to the protection of a complainant in sexual offence proceedings; and it makes it clear that a complainant in a sexual offence proceeding is entitled to give evidence utilising alternate arrangements such as screens instead of by the use of closed-circuit television, whether or not closed-circuit television facilities are available in the proceedings.

The bill amends the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, the Crimes Act 1900, the Evidence Act 1995 and the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 consequentially. It provides for savings and transitional matters, and makes minor amendments by way of statute law revision. I now turn to the detail of the bill. New section 275A of the Criminal Procedure Act deals with improper questions. At present, section 41 of the Evidence Act gives the court the power to disallow a question put to a witness in cross-examination, or to inform the witness that the question need not be answered, if the question is misleading or unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive or repetitive. The application of section 41 is inconsistent. Some counsel are reluctant to object each time they think a question is improper because they believe it may place them at a forensic disadvantage, such as appearing to be trying to hide something; and although judicial officers have the power to intervene, some judges are reluctant to take this up.

The amendment in relation to improper questions sets a new standard for the cross-examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings, including by referring, for the first time, to the manner or tone in which a question is asked. It is an important amendment because improper questions asked of them in cross-examination are one of the most distressing aspects of the court process for sexual assault complainants. This amendment will also apply to our most vulnerable witnesses—child complainants. Under the amendments, a court must disallow a question put to a witness in cross-examination, or inform the witness that it need not be answered, if the question, firstly, is misleading or confusing; secondly, is unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, humiliating or repetitive; thirdly, is put to the witness in a manner or tone that is belittling, insulting or otherwise inappropriate; or, fourthly, has no basis other than a sexist, racial, cultural or ethnic stereotype.

This amendment places a positive duty on judges to act to prevent improper questions, thereby ensuring that witnesses are able to give their evidence free from intimidation and fear. It also allows a party to the proceedings to raise an objection if they so wish. The factors that may be taken into account by the court in determining whether a question should be disallowed have been extended to include the ethnic and cultural background of the witness, their language background and skills, and their level of maturity and understanding. The amendment provides that a question is not a disallowable question merely because it challenges the truthfulness of the witness or the accuracy of their recollection, or because it requires a witness to discuss a subject that could be considered distasteful or private.

The amendment also allows a question to be asked if there is some basis for asking it—such as the fact that the issue was raised in evidence-in-chief—other than to reinforce a sexist, racial, cultural or ethnic stereotype. These are sensible safeguards that will ensure that every witness's evidence can be fairly tested. A failure by the court to exercise the duty placed on them will not affect the admissibility of any evidence given in response to a question. This amendment therefore does not open a new stream of appeal points for defendants. Section 41 of the Evidence Act 1995 will no longer apply to the cross-examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings but will continue to apply to civil proceedings.

Item [5] of schedule 1 to the bill creates new sections 281A to 281F, which deal with sensitive evidence. As I have already mentioned, one reason the Government is undertaking this on-going process of reform to sexual assault laws is to ensure that the court process does not re-victimise the victims. The possession and dissemination of sensitive material by an accused—sometimes as a form of "gaol porn"—is another cause of distress and humiliation for sexual assault complainants and another reason for them to fear the court process. As such, the Government has introduced new part 2A of chapter 6 which contains provisions preventing the circulation and unauthorised copying of sensitive evidence. This amendment takes the protection of sexual assault complainants in New South Wales to a new level.

Under new section 281B, a thing that contains or displays an image of a person—referred to as the protected person—is sensitive evidence, first, if the image is obscene or indecent; secondly, if providing a copy of the image to another person without the protected person's consent would interfere with the protected person's privacy; or, thirdly, if the image was taken after the death of the protected person. Under new section 281B (3), the fact that the thing, such as a photograph of injuries suffered by a complainant, was only created to provide evidence is to be disregarded when determining whether the thing is sensitive evidence. Even if created by the police or the Coroner, it may still be sensitive evidence and must be treated as such.

With this amendment, the Government is concerned not only to prevent the re-victimisation of sexual assault complainants and to prevent them from feeling further embarrassment and shame but also to protect the privacy and dignity of all other victims, including those who have tragically lost their lives. The amendments will prevent the unauthorised circulation or reproduction of sensitive evidence. The prosecuting authority is not required to provide the accused person, which includes his or her representative, with a copy of any sensitive evidence under section 281C. However, new section 281D sets out the procedures which will provide an alternative means for the accused person to be given access to view but not copy the sensitive evidence. This will ensure that an accused person is able to access all the relevant evidence the prosecution has compiled and, therefore, be fully informed of the case against them.

New section 281E allows the prosecuting authority to retain or regain possession of sensitive evidence, or copies of sensitive evidence, tendered in criminal proceedings. New section 281F creates offences for the unauthorised or improper copying or circulation of sensitive evidence. Item [7] of schedule 1 amends section 291 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. At present, section 291 of the Act gives a court the power to close the court when a sexual assault complainant gives evidence. However, not all complainants receive the benefit of being able to give their evidence in camera. This provision will ensure that when complainants give their evidence it will be free from the stress, trauma, embarrassment and humiliation of having to recite the minute details of their sexual assault before a court full of strangers, the accused's family and friends or teenage boys on school excursions.

In assisting to reduce the stress and humiliation complainants face when giving evidence, closed courts also assist complainants to give best evidence; that is, accurate, reliable, coherent and complete evidence. Assisting complainants to do this also serves the interests of justice. The amendments replace the existing section 291 and will ensure that courts are closed as a matter of course. They will give greater certainty and privacy to sexual assault complainants and, as mentioned, assist in the giving of best evidence. The new provisions require that any part of proceedings in respect of a prescribed sexual offence in which evidence is given by a complainant are to be held in camera; that is, in a closed court, unless the court otherwise directs. This applies even if the complainant gives evidence by means of closed-circuit television or other technology, or under any alternative arrangements available to the complainant.

This is important, because the embarrassment and humiliation associated with giving evidence arises from the presence of the listening public—whether or not the complainant can actually see them. Also, complainants using closed-circuit television can still hear and often see the public. New subsection 291 (3) provides that a court may direct the evidence to be given in open court only if a party to the proceedings requests it and the court is satisfied that:

(a) special reasons in the interests of justice require the part of the proceedings to be held in open court, or

(b) the complainant consents to giving his or her evidence in open court.

That last subparagraph is important, because it empowers complainants by allowing them a choice in how they give their evidence. The courts will retain their current discretion to direct that other parts of the proceedings, or the entire proceedings, be held in camera, and the amendments do not affect the existing requirement that the proceedings for certain incest offences must be held entirely in camera. Item [18] of schedule 1 creates a new section 294C that improves the previous support person provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. An important part of giving evidence for a sexual assault complainant is the right to have a support person or persons of their choice present when they give evidence. Support persons provide emotional, logistical and other support to sexual assault complainants. Such support throughout a trial can help reduce the trauma of the court experience and its intimidating and alienating effects.

The amendments confer on a complainant who gives evidence in sexual offence proceedings an entitlement to have one or more persons chosen by the complainant present near the complainant, and within the complainant's sight when the complainant gives evidence in the proceedings. This is an improvement on the current provisions, which give the court a discretionary power—which is not universally applied—to exempt a person supporting the complainant from a closed court direction. The entitlement applies even if the complainant gives evidence by means of closed-circuit television or other technology or under any alternative arrangements available to the complainant, and even if the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings in which the complainant gives evidence, are held in camera.

The amendments limit the right of the accused person to object to the suitability of the person or persons chosen by the complainant to be with the complainant when giving evidence. This means that taking tactical objection to a complainant's choice of support person at the door of the court will no longer be allowed. But the amendments also provide a safeguard if the complainant's choice of person is likely to prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial; for example, if the person chosen is a witness or potential witness in the proceedings. Of course, the complainant's choice of a support person or persons will continue to be guided by the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The entitlement conferred by the new provision extends to a complainant of any age, and to cases heard in the Children's Court, so that all sexual assault complainants, regardless of their age and regardless of what court they appear in, receive the same rights in relation to support persons, just as these amendments mean they do in relation to giving evidence in a closed court. Item [1] of schedule 1 provides for a revised definition of prescribed sexual offence and a number of other minor amendments relate to this definitional change. At present, there is no standard definition of the types of offences to which the various legislative provisions providing sexual assault complainants with special protections, such as those provisions I have already outlined, apply.

Each of the relevant provisions contains its own definition of the types of offences to which the provision applies. As a consequence, the provisions do not apply uniformly to all complainants in all sexual offence proceedings. Therefore, the amendments address this issue by providing for a new, comprehensive definition of prescribed sexual offence. The definition is intended to cover all offences of a sexual nature, including repealed offences, under the Crimes Act and various related offences. These amendments do not affect the validity of anything already done in proceedings already instituted or part heard.

Item [15] amends existing subsection 294B (3) of the Act to improve complainants' choice in how they give evidence. This amendment will give greater choice to complainants so that they can choose to give evidence by use of alternative arrangements—such as screens that restrict contact between the complainant and the accused—whether or not the technology is available for the giving of evidence by closed-circuit television. At present, complainants can use screens only if closed-circuit technology is not available. The savings and transitional provisions make it clear that where appropriate the new requirements extend to criminal investigations already instituted and criminal proceedings already instituted or partly heard.

Schedule 2 to the bill makes consequential amendments to other Acts, including the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 in relation to the closed court and support persons amendments. This consequential amendment makes it clear that the new provisions extend to proceedings to which a child is a party, generally heard by the Children's Court, and that the support person or persons chosen by the complainant cannot be directed to leave the court. The Evidence Act 1995 is also amended consequential on the proposal to require the court in criminal proceedings to disallow improper questions put in cross-examination of a witness. The Evidence (Children) Act 1997 is consequentially amended in relation to the support person's proposal. If the complainant is a child, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 apply instead of the provisions relating to support persons that might otherwise apply under the Evidence (Children) Act 1997.

The schedule 2 amendments are important in that they give all sexual assault complainants, irrespective of their age and irrespective of the court in which they give evidence, the same protections. I know that all members of the House are impressed by the courage shown by those sexual assault complainants who report horrendous crimes and who follow the court process through to its conclusion. And I know that all members wish to assist these complainants to give their evidence free from additional stress, trauma and humiliation. Therefore, I am sure that the amendments will be welcomed by all members. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Thursday 24 March 2005 at 10.00 a.m.

`