Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 20 September 2005, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In the absence of the Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business, the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast will answer questions on his behalf.

[During notices of motions]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn members that they will be called to order if their present behaviour continues, and those calls will stand throughout question time.

Petition opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

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

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 Bryce Gaudry and Mr Milton Orkopoulos.

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

Petition requesting a bus service from Blacktown along the Richmond line between midnight and 5.00 a.m., received from Mr Steven Pringle.

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

Petitions opposing same-sex marriage legislation, received from Ms Pam Allan, Mr Greg Aplin and Mr Malcolm Kerr.
Petitions opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Mr Steve Cansdell, Mr Andrew Stoner and Mr John Turner.

Petition requesting protection of whales in Australian waters, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petition opposing the addition of fluoride to the Kempsey and district water supply, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all classrooms and the library of Colo High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition opposing the closure of inpatient beds and the reduction in emergency department hours of Campbell Hospital, Coraki, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Petitions requesting funding for BreastScreen NSW, received from Mr Steve Cansdell, Mrs Judy Hopwood and Mr Andrew Stoner.

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

Petition opposing the proposal for the Somersby Fields Sandmining project, received from Ms Marie Andrews.

Petition opposing sandmining on the Kurnell Peninsula, received from Mr Barry Collier.

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 requesting affordable transport options for youth in the areas of Maraylya, Scheyville, Oakville and Cattai, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition requesting the withdrawal of changes to the rental structure of Crown land leases, particularly enclosed road permits, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.
Petition opposing genetically engineered canola trials, received from Mr Robert Oakeshott.

Petition opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in the mid North Coast waters, received from Mr John Turner.

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

Petition requesting a review of the water-access-only property policy, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting a regional traffic plan for the Pacific Highway at Willoughby, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.

Petition requesting a right turn arrow for traffic travelling west on Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, turning north onto Eastern Valley Way, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.

Petition noting the decision of the Minister for Roads, gazetted in February 2003, to abandon the construction of any freeway or motorway in the F6 corridor, and requesting preservation of the corridor for open space, community use and public transport, received from Mr Barry Collier.

Petition requesting that the Minister for Roads change the Roads and Traffic Authority's priority for Federal Austin funding for the Barton Highway to allow the construction of a dual carriageway, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

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

Petition requesting that the Macdonald River be provided with signage stating "4 or 8 knots, no skiing, no wash", received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Ms Virginia Judge, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 10 of 2005", together with minute extracts regarding Legislation Review Digests Nos 1 to 9 of 2005 and minute extracts regarding the report entitled "Annual Review July 2004-June 2005."

Report ordered to be printed.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Frank Sartor, has again proved that he is a foul-mouthed and arrogant bully, what advice is the Premier giving to Aboriginal people who have to work with this racist planning Minister?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The planning Minister made an inappropriate comment, which he rectified very quickly. His comments were inappropriate and he rectified them by making an apology, acknowledging the fact that he had made an inappropriate comment. He should never have made it. The Minister has been rebuked as a result of his comments in relation to the Aboriginal community of Redfern and Waterloo. The planning Minister has a long record of working with Aboriginal communities. He has fresh ideas and energy in his capacity with the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and in working with Aboriginal communities and other members of the Redfern-Waterloo area to address the issues facing Redfern and Waterloo, and will continue to do so.

Mr Andrew Tink: Point of order: Did Mr Sartor offer you his resignation and did you refuse to accept it?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Minister recognised the inappropriateness of his comments, apologised, and acted quickly to rectify what he had done. In his former capacity as Lord Mayor he had built significant relationships with the Aboriginal community and worked in the Aboriginal community.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Premier ought to get to the heart of the matter: Did he resign? Did he offer his resignation and did the Premier reject it? Is that the truth?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He has, without equivocation, withdrawn his comments and I expect that he will get on and work with the Aboriginal community in Redfern-Waterloo to resolve a number of the issues there.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information about the Government's plan to secure our freshwater supply for families in Sydney and the Illawarra?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The worst drought in a century is now in its fourth year. Our water supplies are at unsustainably low levels. That is why on 19 August the Government gave the green light to desalination. And two weeks ago the Government declared the desalination plant as critical infrastructure under our new planning laws so that it does not get caught in regulatory red tape. This is no longer a backup plan.

Mr Andrew Stoner: And no-one has the opportunity to object to it.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Do you support it or not?

Mr Andrew Stoner: What about the people of the Sutherland shire?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Do you support it or not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop interjecting. The Premier will address the Chair.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Do you support drinking water supply for Sydney or not? Tell us where you stand on this issue. Do you stand with us and the people of New South Wales?

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I am happy to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr Andrew Stoner: He asked me a question; I am happy to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is a good question because we would like an answer. There are two answers.

Mr Andrew Stoner: We don't support it.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is the third answer, because on 22 June, this is what the Leader of The Nationals had to say:

If the Government were fair dinkum, it would announce where the plant would be located and get on with the job of building it.

Now he is telling us he will not support it. But three weeks later, in a media release he said this:

Desalination was not the answer to securing Sydney's water supply.

He has three different positions. First he supports it, then he does not, and today he has told us that he does not support it. This is no longer a backup plan. Desalination is a reality and it will happen.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am not prepared to gamble with Sydney's water supply. In fact, expert teams are working out at Kurnell right now on retailed geotechnical and engineering studies. The House would be interested to hear that our desalination plans have moved to the next stage, with three consortiums short-listed to bid for detailed project plans to build the plant. A site within Kurnell has also been selected. The short-listed proponents are Freshwater Alliance, Sydney AquaSolutions and PureSolutions—all firms with proven international experience in constructing and operating seawater desalination plants.

Each consortium will be asked to submit project plans based on three desalination plant sizes: 125 megalitres per day, 200 megalitres per day and 500 megalitres per day. These teams now have until November of this year to provide detailed proposals, including milestones, methodology and proposed costs. We will assess each proposal, with the final two proponents to be selected in December. Planning approval is also expected by the end of the year. These two proponents will each proceed with plans to build pilot plants on the site to test the treatment process on a small scale using the seawater off the Kurnell coast. That means we will be ready to start construction within 12 months.

In terms of location, we have looked carefully for a site away from homes and schools, as well as big enough to include a large buffer zone. The Government has today announced just a site—a 45-hectare site consisting of two separately owned parcels of land next to the Caltex Oil Refinery, including a 15 to 20 hectare buffer zone, or one-third of the entire site. This substantial buffer zone will also serve to protect the natural environment on the site. The Government will immediately commence negotiations to acquire the two sites from their respective owners. I want to remind the House that the desalination plant is part of a wider water plan. The plan involves accessing the deepwater stored at the bottom of Warragamba and Avon dams, harvesting supplies from the Shoalhaven and massive new recycling schemes. I remind all honourable members of the fact that the largest residential water recycling scheme in Australia is up and running at Rouse Hill.

Currently, we are recycling some 15 billion litres of water each year. By the end of this year Australia's largest industrial water recycling scheme will be on line at BlueScope Steel at Port Kembla. With these projects, we are meeting our requirement to increase our commitment to recycling. The people of Sydney can be sure that the Government will make the hard decisions to ensure that our water supplies are secure. That includes a commitment to the desalination plant we have just announced at Kurnell.
Mr ANDREW TINK: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General giving consideration to prosecuting the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo under division 3A of the Anti-Discrimination Act for the offence of serious racial vilification for his racist comments on Koori radio directed at an Aboriginal community leader with whom he has ministerial dealings and which have also caused senior Aboriginal leaders serious offence?

Mr BOB DEBUS: No.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Utilities. What is the latest information about the Government's plan to protect families from unfair disconnection of their electricity supply?

Mr CARL SCULLY: As honourable members would be aware, we are spending about $5,000 million over the next four years on upgrading our electricity supply across New South Wales, that is, substations, poles and wires, and high-voltage transmission wires. It is not enough that we provide reliable electricity to the consumers of New South Wales, including industrial and commercial premises; we must do it in a way that is fair to the people of this State. Indeed, I told the honourable member for Mount Druitt that 650 homes in Mount Druitt, Shalvey, Bidwill and Tregear had their electricity supply disconnected in the past financial year because they failed to pay their bills on time. In fact, in the past year there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of customers who were disconnected for not paying their bills. In 2003-04 almost 21,400 households were disconnected; this rose to 27,000 in 2004-05. That is a 25 per cent increase.

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: A 25 per cent increase is unacceptable. Many of the people who had their power cut off live in disadvantaged areas, in public housing estates, and they usually live on low incomes such as Centrelink benefits. According to the Energy and Water Ombudsman, the vast majority of people who had their power disconnected actually wanted to pay their bills but could not do so because of financial pressures. They simply could not pay on time.

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: Why is the honourable member for Wakehurst still here?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order. The Minister will address the Chair.

Mr CARL SCULLY: People who need more time to pay due to genuine hardship must have the option to discuss their circumstances and be given the chance to agree to flexible payment arrangements before they get disconnected. We need to show them more compassion and offer them easier ways to pay their bills. Electricity is vital to everyone, including people who have difficulty paying their bills. That is why we have in place the regulation known as the Electricity Supply (General) Regulation 2001, which puts a number of obligations on electricity suppliers. They must operate payment plans for customers having financial difficulties; they must not disconnect customers without providing two notices; disconnections cannot occur on weekends or public holidays, or when the customer is being assessed for a government-funded rebate or relief system; and they must tell their customers about the existence of New South Wales Government rebate and relief schemes.

Some electricity suppliers have good programs to help people who are struggling to make ends meet. For example, Country Energy has one of the best proactive policies in place, including financial planners, to help customers experiencing financial difficulties. EnergyAustralia has introduced a program called EnergyAssist, which is a plan to help customers suffering financial hardship to better manage their payments. Some retailers now provide Centrepay, which is a voluntary deduction service to Centrelink customers.

[Interruption]
The Leader of The Nationals' view on desalination is disgusting. This allows social security recipients to pay for essential living expenses such as electricity, gas, rent or water before their Centrelink payment goes into their bank account. This Government spends about $80 million each year on assistance for pensioners, those relying on life-support machines, and emergency assistance programs for people experiencing difficulty in paying their bills.

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: The Energy Accounts Payment Assistance Scheme, run by the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability, provides $30 credit vouchers via community welfare bodies to those experiencing temporary difficulty in paying their electricity and gas bills. But more can be done. For example, in Victoria retailers must pay customers who are disconnected in error, that is, the appropriate procedures for disconnection were not followed, they cannot disconnect a customer unless the amount payable is above a prescribed amount, and they must offer customers a payment plan before disconnection.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Do you want a briefing?

Mr CARL SCULLY: A briefing from the honourable member for Wakehurst on what?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will address the Chair.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: If the Minister wants a briefing, why does he not address the request by Sister Vivian at Claymore to get Integral Energy to fund barbecues for the community, which needs somewhere to meet in Claymore Oval? The Minister should address that matter instead of coming out with all this hogwash today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the third time. The Minister has the call, and he will address the Chair.

Mr CARL SCULLY: The trouble is that a by-election comes and goes and it is up to the Labor Party to look after the people at Macquarie Fields. The honourable member had to buy a Gregory's to find his way. So don't come in here and give me that!

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: I have indicated that we need to do more. In the face of a 25 per cent increase, and in the face of the local member having 600-odd residents whose power was disconnected, we need to do more. And we need to do it in an objective, rational way. So I propose to establish an interagency working group, chaired by my department, as quickly as possible. It will have a number of stakeholders on board. I propose the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and the Public Industry Advocacy Centre, and I want the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, the Energy Ombudsman and the Energy Retailers Association to come to me as soon as possible with additional measures that could be put in place.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier, and Treasurer. Given that the Government is jacking up Crown land rentals for community groups, such as the County Women's Association at Bellingen from $170 to $9,900 and those operating from the boatman's cottages at South West Rocks from $170 to $12,075, will the Premier now admit that the budget crisis is hurting community groups in country New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: By the way, on that position on desalination, on 28 October last year the honourable member for Southern Highlands said:

Our water supplies need to make use of varied technologies, including bulk storage, treatment, desalination and networking.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The question is about community groups like the Country Women's Association—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair understands the point of order. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The honourable member is right—it is about relevance. What is his policy on water? Is it for desalination or against desalination? That is the relevance. What is his policy when it comes to guaranteeing Sydney's water supply? In relation to the budget—

Mr Andrew Tink: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. In the past—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I acknowledge the point of order. The Premier will return to the question.

Mr Andrew Tink: No, my point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have upheld the point of order.

Mr Andrew Tink: My point of order is relevance. The Premier should return to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that. I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will return to the budget. What the Leader of The Nationals can explain is the spendometer that has now reached $16.8 billion. With members of the Opposition, with every interest group that walks in their door they say yes, we will spend more on that program or we will reduce tax collections, and their spendometer has reached $16.8 billion. Members of the Opposition should speak about their own black hole and how they would pay if the taxpayers of this State had the misfortune of that lot sitting on this side of the House. The spendometer has reached $16.8 billion because they are running around the State saying yes to every request for increase in a program and saying yes to every request for a reduction in taxation. They would bankrupt the State if they ever sat on this side of the House.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for State Development, representing the Minister for Regional Development. Will the Minister please update the House on the latest information regarding the rehabilitation of derelict mines in New South Wales?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Mining has provided enormous benefits to the people of this State and to the development of the State for more than 200 years. Mining remains vital to the prosperity of the State and the economy of New South Wales, especially in regional and rural parts of the State. Thirty thousand people in New South Wales rely on mining for their jobs, so it is a significant employer. When one adds to that the jobs that are associated, the mining industry provides nearly twice that 30,000 in indirect jobs through related industries and services. So, about 90,000 jobs across New South Wales are dependent on our mining sector.

The Iemma Government wants those individuals, their families and their communities—again, especially in rural and regional New South Wales—to have confidence in our mining sector and its future. Part of that confidence rests on environmental sustainability. In the past that was not such a significant part of the mining industry, but it is today, particularly when it comes to caring for old, derelict mine sites within New South Wales. We should acknowledge that past mining practices were not regulated as rigorously as they are today. Old mines may have complied with the requirements of their times, but clearly standards have evolved since then, and so too have the expectations of communities right across New South Wales. They rely on their mines but they also expect them to be environmentally sustainable.

Through the derelict mines program the State Government has earmarked $1.7 million this financial year to help mediate environmental and safety issues associated with old mines. I can today inform the House of two new important rehabilitation projects in regional New South Wales that are scheduled to commence before Christmas. There will be a $300,000 investment at the Burraga copper mine near Oberon in the electorate of the honourable member for Bathurst, and also a $130,000 project at the Collisons silver mine near Glen Innes. These projects will be carried out with the help of the Soil Conservation Service, a division of the New South Wales Department of Lands.

At the Burraga copper mine in the Central West teams will seal four open shafts with steel grates and fence two others. A further five shafts will be backfilled and crowned, two entrances will be sealed with steel grates and an old chimneystack will be sealed off to improve overall safety. Contaminated areas within the site will also be contained to prevent the possible pollution of any downstream waterways. The Collisons silver mine near Glen Innes has not been used for mining since the 1960s but in that mine area upcoming rehabilitation work will include erosion and sediment control measures, filling a number of open shafts and providing fencing and grates to other areas of the site. Old buildings and storage bins will also be removed with the exception of the old engine and stamper. These are just two of several important projects planned for the coming year.

Others include a $280,000 project at Yerranderie silver mine in the Sydney catchment area. Proposed works at that site involve stabilising key areas of the site to help improve water quality and eliminate potential hazards to public health. Teams are also planning a $200,000 project at Webbs Consul near Emmaville in the seat of Northern Tablelands. Also, a $150,000 effort is planned for Oakdale Colliery near Picton. The State Government works closely with the mining industry to help identify priority projects. The Department of Primary Industries also works closely with other government departments, utilising all the expertise at the Government's disposal.

The Government requires all mines to meet strict environmental guidelines. It also retains substantial security deposits to ensure that all sites are fully rehabilitated when mining is completed. While they are an important part of the country's heritage, old and abandoned mines sites can pose a serious safety risk to the community. We need to protect community members from wandering in or around old mine sites, from possibly falling down a mine shaft or going into a mine shaft and becoming lost or injured in some way. The Government is dedicating significant resources to minimising those risks through projects like those outlined today.

I have visited Bathurst twice in recent weeks and I know how important mining is to that district. The towns of Bathurst, Oberon, Mount Victoria and Lithgow all resonate with the history of mining in the State, as do other centres such as Cobar and many mines in the Northern Tablelands. Mining will always be a part of these communities. It provides employment, investment and growth. These communities know how important remediation of those old mines sites are. We will do all we can to ensure environmental protection and safety for local communities.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is to the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo. Did he offer to resign in the past 24 hours?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: No.

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question is to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. What is the Government doing to stop hotels and clubs lending money to gamblers to play gaming machines?

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: Hotels and clubs are not to act as banks. I repeat that hotels and clubs in New South Wales are not to provide lending facilities to their customers. I cannot make it any simpler than that, even for members of The Nationals. Recently the Department of Gaming and Racing conducted an investigation into a Sydney hotel, the Markets Hotel at Flemington. Allegedly, the hotel had provided cash loans and credit advances to a problem gambler for almost a year.

Departmental officers visited the hotel, conducted an audit and served notice on the licensee requiring records and information. An on-site inspection of the premises last month also found that the hotel's EFTPOS facility was illegally located in the gaming room. As a result of these actions the Director of Liquor and Gaming is considering proceedings before the New South Wales Licensing Court in the next few months. I understand that it will be alleged that since April 2004 a patron was loaned about $30,000 cash by the hotel staff to play gaming machines. I am told that the patron was also allowed to put $23,000 on his credit card from an EFTPOS facility illegally located in the hotel gaming room.

The Iemma Government will not tolerate hotels or clubs lending money to patrons to play gaming machines. It is an issue we take extremely seriously. Hotels and clubs in New South Wales play a major role in providing leisure, recreation and entertainment. They are the focal point for communities to get together and have a good time. The vast majority are doing the right thing, and we all know that. But the Government will not tolerate any rogue operators. The State Government has worked hard to promote a culture of responsibility across this portfolio. In May the Government announced its response to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal report entitled "Gambling: Promoting a Culture of Responsibility". We adopted 109 measures from that independent study—109 measures that will help promote a culture of responsibility in gambling. Included are: accredited counselling services, blocking of indecent inducements to gamble, and clocks being placed on machines for the first time.

The report follows evidence-based research from an independent body aimed at promoting a culture of responsibility in gambling. The report has been supported and endorsed also by the other seven jurisdictions across Australia. The comprehensive report was initiated by the Government and its recommendations were accepted and universally adopted by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, people associated with counselling for problem gambling, clubs and hotels. The report has been used as a benchmark by all other States. Solutions to these social problems cannot be found by governments prosecuting people through the courts; the whole of the community has to work together to develop a solution. Government, problem gamblers, councillors and local communities have to come together to deal with this complicated social issue.

This Government has been a leader on this issue, not just for Australia but for the world. For example, the report is now being used as a blueprint for the development of a code of responsibility in Las Vegas. It has also being used in Canada and elsewhere. The Government realises that the issue has to be managed through the whole of the community. The Government has taken action. The Government has led every other jurisdiction in Australia. Every other jurisdiction is following the lead of New South Wales. One would think that Opposition members would applaud that. The Government is doing good work in the community. The Government has also introduced a whole range of other controls to enhance responsibility in gambling in this State. For example, we introduced a statewide freeze on gaming machines. When the issue was identified and the community demanded that action be taken we introduced a whole raft of recommendations, including a freeze on gaming machines. That freeze has existed since 2000.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Upper Hunter will come to order. The Minister will address the Chair.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: We have done real work and taken action to deal with the issue. We did not just carp about the issue, complain, whinge and carry on. We developed policies for a very complicated issue. I see a future Leader of the Opposition endorsing what I am saying.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Upper Hunter will come to order. The Minister will address the Chair.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: We introduced a trade-in scheme to reduce the number of poker machines. Machine numbers have fallen by more than 2,000 over the past three years. To explain how that works, every time entitlements are traded two are given back for three entitlements handed in: one is retired. In New South Wales, as distinct from other Australian jurisdictions, we are reducing the number of machines in the community. Before we introduced this policy there were more than 100,000 machines and now there are about 98,000 machines. In the last session of Parliament we introduced a regulation to increase the trading of the machines so that the number of entitlements would be reduced.

The Government has taken real action and devised policies to deal with the issue. This is a Government that actually does something. The Government has also introduced a ban on 24-hour gaming in pubs and clubs. We have banned advertising on gaming machines. All the other Australian jurisdictions have massive advertising associated with gaming machines in hotels and clubs. We have canned it: there is no advertising outside hotels and clubs. "Pokie Bar" and all those other signs urging people to go in and spend their money have been taken away. They are positive steps endorsed by the community. Other States are adopting these measures. Victoria and South Australia have serious issues with problem gambling.

Again I make the point that the New South Wales Government has been proactive: as issues have been identified we have responded to them. Stricter requirements have been introduced to make sure that gaming venues locate ATMs away from the gaming machines. In the case at Flemington the EFTPOS facility was located in the gaming machine area. That is against the law, as has been pointed out by the Opposition spokesman, and we are doing something about it. In addition, the Government has banned gaming venues from offering or supplying free or discounted alcohol as an inducement to play. That is another harm minimisation and responsible gambling initiative by the Government. The Government has also increased spending to help problem gamblers. In 1997 about $200,000 was spent on problem gambling. Now we are spending about $12 million annually on problem gambling.
Hotels and clubs lending money—as in the example I gave of the gambler at Flemington—is an issue we take very seriously. It forms part of a raft of initiatives that this Government has taken to deal with this issue. The message is clear: Anyone who breaks the law on this front will be caught, and will face the full force of the New South Wales Licensing Court if convicted. Licensees who lend money to patrons to gamble face possible fines of more than $22,000 as well as the loss of their licences. Department of Gaming and Racing officials are out there to make sure hotels and clubs are playing by the rules. Anyone who has any information about money being loaned to problem gamblers by the proprietors of licensed premises should contact the Department of Gaming and Racing.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that a six-year-old girl died tragically on the weekend despite 23 notifications to the Department of Community Services [DOCS], why has the culture of DOCS not changed, despite repeated promises by the Government to get it right?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is a terrible tragedy when a child dies, and I would remind the honourable member that the cause of death of the little girl is yet to be determined. I am advised that the investigation of this matter is in the hands of NSW Police, and that it will be subject to a full coronial inquiry. I am further advised that this matter, as a reviewable child death, will be independently examined by the New South Wales Ombudsman. While these investigations are taking place it would be inappropriate to make any further comments. Nevertheless, when the inquiries have taken place, whatever recommendations are made to improve, the Government will implement them.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I ask a supplementary question of the Premier. With respect to the investigation about which he just advised the House, will that include the resourcing of the Richmond DOCS office, which the Coroner in July advised and disclosed is unable to respond to 87 per cent of notifications of children at risk?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier provided no information that would give rise to the question asked by the honourable member for Davidson. There is no supplementary question.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: The Premier referred to an investigation—

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

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: The Premier referred to the investigation by police and I am asking a question arising from that. That was raised in his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is not a supplementary question. It is clearly a separate question.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: If you were listening, you would have heard his answer and you would have ruled it as valid.

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

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: What are you covering up? What are you trying to cover up?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Davidson will stop his histrionics and resume his seat.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: My question is to the Minister for State Development. In light of the current petrol crisis slugging New South Wales families, what is the latest information on efforts by Sydney scientists to find alternative energy sources?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I would like to inform the House today about world-class research into solar energy that is being conducted right here in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government, through the Department of State and Regional Development, is a funding supporter of a team of world-leading solar cell technology research scientists based at the University of New South Wales. Researchers at this facility have now also won a prestigious $3.15 million grant from Stanford University in the United States of America. The three-year grant is from the Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Project, which is a collaboration between scientific and engineering communities to conduct research into more efficient and environmentally friendly energy systems.

The grant to the university will be used to undertake cutting-edge research into the design and fabrication of new generation solar-cell technology to produce electricity more efficiently and more cheaply. The title of the research project is "nanostructured silicon-based tandem solar cells"—something most of us are very familiar with. To the layman this means solar energy cells that are stacked on top of one another and are more powerful, more efficient and much cheaper than traditional solar technology. Professor Martin Green and Dr Gavin Conibeer will be the principal investigators on the project and will lead a team of 10 researchers. This team is aiming to improve the energy harnessing power of solar cells by using their invention to filter more sunlight and harvest energy from each of the colours of the solar spectrum. These stacks are known as tandem cells.

Other types of tandem cells have been developed in the past by other international researchers but the materials used are scarce and expensive so the fabrication processes have also proved to be very expensive. As a result, they have only been suitable for applications where cost is less of a driver, such as in space technology. The University of New South Wales researchers expect that the Stanford University grant will allow them to make a functional more cost-efficient prototype cell within three years, and that is good news for that industry. This is a world-leading technological advancement into alternative energy right here in our own backyard in one of our leading institutions. This new research project will build on previous work of the University of New South Wales centre, which involved the development of silicon on glass solar cells. These are also cheaper to produce than pure silicon cells.

This silicon on glass technology has led to this type of alternative energy production being taken to the market and it is expected to hit European markets next year. Australia, and in particular New South Wales, continues to be recognised as being at the forefront internationally in the field of silicon solar cell research. The announcement of the Stanford University grant to the University of New South Wales centre is further global recognition of the outstanding work being conducted in solar cell technology at that facility. The demand for solar technology has boomed, with an average 35 per cent growth over the past eight years, expanding to 67 per cent in 2004. I am proud to say that the this outstanding facility at the University of New South Wales has been supported by the State Government with a recent grant of $1.23 million. The New South Wales Government is helping to contribute to global energy and greenhouse solutions while investing in New South Wales science, research and industry.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [3.27 p.m.]: This matter is urgent for a variety of reasons. This matter is urgent because fuel price differentials in western New South Wales have reached levels that are without precedent. This matter is urgent because our tourism industry is under the biggest threat it has ever endured. This matter is urgent because of a dysfunctional Nationals party, and in particular a dysfunctional Federal member for Parkes, who is doing nothing to manage the differentials in fuel prices in western New South Wales. This matter is urgent because today the fuel price in Melbourne was 127.1¢, in Adelaide 129.2¢, and at Shell sites in Sydney, 130¢.

This matter is urgent because, although the average of the combined figures in the three cities is about 129¢, today in Broken Hill the price of fuel is 135.9¢, in Cobar it is 139.9¢, and in Bourke it is 138.9¢. This matter is urgent because in Hay the price of fuel has reached 141¢, and in Wilcannia the price reached 155.9¢ today. This matter is urgent because at Balranald the cost of fuel is 137¢ per litre and at Barham it is 139.9¢. These incredible differentials are being supported by the Federal National, who do not care. We continue to get the rhetoric. We should be spending part of our GST on subsidising fuel prices.

I will deal with statements made by the Leader of The Nationals later. He is not a bad bloke, but he was right out of line on this one. The fact is that for every 13¢ GST currently being put on fuel in Broken Hill, only 10¢ is being returned to New South Wales; 3¢ is going to subsidise motorists in other States. With respect to country issues, the voices of The Nationals and the Liberal Party, which also has seats in the bush, are absolutely zero; their silence is deafening. The Nationals are doing nothing.

In Hawaii, for example, the Americans have capped wholesale fuel prices since 1 September. Prime Minister Howard and Federal Treasurer Peter Costello have said they can do nothing, yet in America the price of fuel remains substantially less than in New South Wales. This matter is urgent because, notwithstanding the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer saying they know nothing about fuel prices—and the Federal member for Parkes, John Cobb, saying nothing because he is unable to be found—the price of fuel in New York today is $2.79 a gallon, which is equivalent to 62¢ a litre.

Mr Donald Page: Point of order: The honourable member for Murray-Darling is now debating the issue. We want to know when the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading is going to do something about petrol profiteering.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ballina will resume his seat. However, I take the point he has made in relation to the honourable member for Murray-Darling debating the issue.

Mr PETER BLACK: I will answer that in the debate, because I am quite sure that The Nationals do not wish to debate this argument.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murray-Darling knows that at this time he should not debate the substance of the motion. He must establish reasons why his motion should be given priority. I ask him to do so.

Mr PETER BLACK: The matter is urgent because today in western New South Wales we have fuel prices that are going to be prohibitive, affecting our tourism industry and our local industry, and we have profiteering going on. Today I have to report that even tins of dog food have gone up by 8¢ a tin because of this petrol price hike. That is absolute profiteering. That is what must be addressed, and it must be addressed now. We must address these fuel prices as a matter of urgency—not tomorrow, not a week down the track. [Time expired.]

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [3.33 p.m.]: Let us talk about the really urgent issues in New South Wales: the collapse of the budget, the collapse of State services in this State, and the collapse of the Minister for Redfern Waterloo. The motion of which I gave notice earlier asks the House to note the concerns of south-western Sydney demonstrated by the large swing in the recent by-elections, and calls on the Government to restore police numbers, rail services and hospital beds slashed by Labor. Let us have a look at the excuses that have been wheeled out in the last three days following the by-elections results—everything from Latham, to the weather, to anything one can think of.

Mr Steve Whan: The full moon.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The full moon is a new one being wheeled out. But let us have a look at what has happened on the ground.

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

Mr PETER DEBNAM: For weeks the people of south-western Sydney and Macquarie Fields wanted to talk to us only about State issues. What were the State issues they wanted to talk about? They wanted to talk about the 24 police who had been slashed from Liverpool and Macquarie Fields stations.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition must demonstrate relevance and not talk about lunar cycles in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the point of order, but the Leader of the Opposition has not been speaking for long enough for me to establish whether he is complying with the standing orders.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The message we were getting from the people of Macquarie Fields related to police numbers being slashed at Liverpool and Macquarie Fields stations, the number of beds in local hospitals being slashed, and the slashing of 162 train services on those lines between Monday and Friday. That is what the people of south-western Sydney were talking about. They were not talking about the full moon, as the honourable member for Monaro suggests. They were not talking about Latham, as the Premier suggests.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: Mr Speaker, a moment ago you said you had not heard enough from the Leader of the Opposition. I think you now have. The Leader of the Opposition is straying into the subject matter of the debate. He is presuming the motion has been put to the House and voted upon, and he has won the vote. That is not a fair presumption. I ask you to direct him to establish why his motion is more urgent than that moved by the honourable member for Murray-Darling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has heard what the honourable member for East Hills has said. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: This motion is urgent because last Saturday the people of Macquarie Fields sent a strong message to the New South Wales Labor Government, but it is still not listening. The people of south-western Sydney have asked the Coalition to put the message to the Government again. That is why the motion is urgent. They sincerely hope that if we repeat this message to the Government every day for 18 months, maybe the Government will understand it.

The people who regard this motion as urgent are those who voted at the Curran booth, where Labor's vote dropped by 23.74 per cent. The people in the Curran booth thought it was absolutely critical that this motion be debated today. The people at Glenfield East, where Labor's vote fell by 17.52 per cent, wanted us to urgently debate the issues on the ground. I can confirm to the House that there was no discussion about Latham or the full moon during the by-election campaign. It was all about State issues. It was about trains, roads, hospitals, schools, and crime. It was the people of Ingleburn, where Labor's vote dropped by 15.19 per cent, of Ingleburn High, where Labor's vote dropped by 15.15 per cent, of Ingleburn Military, where Labor's vote dropped by 14.93 per cent, of Macquarie Fields North, where Labor's vote dropped by 15.85 per cent, of Sackville Street, where Labor's vote dropped by 21.4 per cent, of The Grange, where Labor's vote dropped by 19.72 per cent—

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition is giving us all the Liberal Party votes in the electorate of Macquarie Fields. Can he just give us the Liberal Party votes in the seats of Maroubra and Marrickville?

Mr PETER DEBNAM: Even in the seat of Maroubra, where you didn't have any competition, your vote dropped by 4 and 5 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition should return to why his motion should have priority.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: In Hoxton Park the Labor vote went down by 11.33 per cent. Perhaps we should talk about the margins in Labor electorates and compare them with the drop in the Labor vote in Macquarie Fields. Do members opposite know why their vote will drop by the same margin? Because they will refuse to listen to the people of New South Wales over the next 18 months. They will refuse to listen, and therefore they will not hear about the hospitals, the roads, the crime, the schools—

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: In speaking about the margins in my electorate, the Leader of the Opposition has clearly strayed from demonstrating urgency. The fact is that the National Party vote has dropped by 20 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Monaro will not debate the motion under the guise of taking a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's time for speaking has expired.

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

The House divided.

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

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell

Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

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

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

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

Mr Price	Mr Armstrong
Mr Yeadon	Mr Constance

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [3.47 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the State and Federal Nationals for failing to address the higher cost of fuel for rural and regional communities; and

(2) calls upon The Nationals to ensure the Prime Minister attends the Fuel Summit and addresses the rising cost of fuel.

Earlier I referred to a list of fuel prices. I consulted the honourable member for Monaro in regard to the average price differential between the city and the bush. He scanned those figures and discovered that the price differential is in the vicinity of 8¢ a litre. That is an enormous impediment on people who live in the bush. I note that "the bush" includes the electorates of Barwon and Orange. We are all paying increased prices for petrol. When I gave reasons as to why my motion should have priority, I did not mention today's Agence France-Presse Business News. It states, "US oil prices surge on storm RITA fears …" It is feared that there will be another hurricane in the United States of America. Last night the price of crude oil increased by another $US4 a barrel. I do not know how that price rise will impinge upon Australia.
Earlier The Nationals were jumping up and down and screaming out something or other. However, I was making the point that in Hawaii, the United States, the Public Utilities Commission has capped wholesale prices for fuel from 1 September. In Honolulu the price is capped at $US2.1578 a gallon, or about $US2.74 a gallon when taxes are included. I repeat: Fuel prices are being capped in the United States. I note that one imperial gallon equals roughly 4½ litres. Today in New York the price of fuel is US62¢—that is $1 a litre in our currency. In Dallas the price of fuel is $US2.53 a gallon—that is, 4½ litres for $US2.53. In California the average price of fuel is $US2.79 a gallon, with a maximum of $US3.49. Those figures demonstrate the incredible difference between fuel prices in the United States and Australia. The Prime Minister is charging around the countryside—Costello is there too—saying that he will do nothing about fuel prices.

I have a chart comparing world fuel prices and the black line for Australia is quite long. Australia has a 38¢ per litre excise, which the Federal Government intends to increase by the end of the year. We also have the wretched tax on a tax—the GST—which adds 11¢ to fuel costing $1.10 a litre. The excise and the GST bring the cost of fuel at the bowser to $1.21. It does not take a scholar to work out why in Broken Hill we are paying 13¢ GST. Indeed, last week fuel prices were as high as $1.43. These costs cannot be sustained. I acknowledge that there is no love lost between the infamous Federal member for Parkes, John Cobb and me. He lost all credibility with New South Wales farmers when he referred to fairer fuel prices for regional New South Wales. By the way, Country Labor will be having dinner with the executive of the New South Wales Farmers Association on 10 October and fuel prices will be a subject for discussion. The senior Vice President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, Rob Anderson, stated:

The ACCC must take more action to penalise oil companies that abuse their market power. This must be done now.

I concur with that view. I referred earlier to profiteering, which is vastly excessive and improper. People are piggybacking on these fuel prices. One example is that the price of dog food—although I do not know why we need tins of dog food in Broken Hill when we have plenty of road kill—has increased, purportedly because of the increase in fuel prices. That is clearly profiteering. I do not know how many tins of dog food can fit on a pallet. However, the cost of transporting dog food out west on a 10-tonne truck would be a lot less than 1¢ a tin. Therefore, the argument that the cost has gone up because of fuel price increases cannot be sustained. The Victorian member for Rodney, Noel Maughan, who represents Echuca, across from the Murray-Darling, issued a media release stating, "Fuel respite needed." The Victorian Nationals, too, are calling on fuel price respite. The situation is bizarre in New South Wales. Last week's Dubbo Daily Liberal stated:

Australians are more frightened at the thought of high petrol prices and filling up their cars than being attacked by terrorists.

A new survey of consumer attitudes has found high petrol prices are the single biggest concern for shoppers, bigger than terrorism, their own health or the environment.

It further stated:

But Mr Costello said there was nothing that he or the Government could do to lower prices, instead urging the states to use their GST revenue to introduce fuel subsidies.

I have some regard for the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner—he is not a bad bloke. However, he has demonstrated with great clarity the schizophrenic nature of The Nationals. There are six members representing North Coast electorates and six out in the bush. Six clearly know what is going on, yet the other six are unsure. On 3 May the Daily Barrier stated:

Andrew Stoner said petrol prices could fall immediately if the State agreed to eliminate a fuel levy which is collected by the Commonwealth and rebated back to NSW.

That statement has never been withdrawn, despite the fact that in June 2000 the Commonwealth ceased paying any petrol rebate to New South Wales, following the withdrawal of the 3 x 3 levy. The Leader of The Nationals and the infamous John Cobb also referred to the $40 million that this State pays to areas in the north of the State near the Queensland border. We subsidise them to the tune of $40 million and Queensland is using our GST to subsidise its fuel to the tune of 8¢ a litre. The Commonwealth Government gives to Queensland over $3 billion of revenue from New South Wales. We have been told that the income to be received by the Commonwealth Government from the GST is a windfall of $503 million for the month of September alone.

It is unbelievable that the Federal Government chooses to ignore the upcoming petrol prices summit. It is not on! I urge every member in this place to demand that the Prime Minister and the Federal Leader of The Nationals attend the summit and say something. Gary Punch, my old comrade, a member of the NRMA, has called on both the Federal and the New South Wales governments to cut fuel taxes. He is wrong again—and his mother was a Black, which is somewhat embarrassing for me—because the bottom line is that there are no State fuel taxes. We have the Federal natural resources tax of $1.1 billion, the 38¢ per litre excise, the GST of currently between 11¢ and 13¢, and Federal levies on fuel companies. However, New South Wales gets none of that. For every litre that is sold in Broken Hill, 3¢ goes to some other State. The Nationals are ignoring people out in the west; they expect us to continue to subsidise people in Queensland to the tune of 3¢ per litre. It is absolutely disgraceful.

[Interruption]

I am glad that somebody in Sydney supports us! I turn now to a magnificent letter that appeared in the Inverell Times. It states that The Nationals look set to become an extinct race and it lists the reasons. The letter further states that The Nationals are set to join One Nation, the Democrats and the Greens— [Time expired.]

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [3.57 p.m.]: The honourable member for Murray-Darling and I have a quiet respect for each other. He loves to get up and knock The Nationals, but we often think his heart is not in it because he really loves us. However, his contribution today was just the same old, tired message. I acknowledge that today's fuel prices are hurting the man in the street and Australian farmers. However, we still have the fourth cheapest fuel in the western world, even though prices have escalated beyond what we would have dreamt years ago. However, most of it is beyond our control. Indeed, hundreds of inquiries have been held into fuel prices but none has come up with real evidence that people are profiteering.

The honourable member for Murray-Darling has made accusations of profiteering by fuel companies but there is no real evidence of it. If there is, I challenge him to refer the matter for investigation to the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading so that there can be proof that profiteering is taking place in New South Wales. I do not think that proof will be forthcoming. We are all hurting but there is little we can do about it. Past Federal governments of both political persuasions have been accused of not doing enough about fuel pricing. However, there is little we can do while ever we have an agreement with world parity pricing, which is about significant investigation, research and oil exploration. However, I acknowledge that more needs to be done. What can we do for New South Wales in terms of providing some relief on fuel prices? As members opposite know, last week the Leader of The Nationals introduced a private member's bill on ethanol blended fuel.

Mr Gerard Martin: The Federal Government won't wear it. It won't make it mandatory.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: New South Wales can take the lead and introduce ethanol in fuel. We have yet to see whether the Government will support our private member's bill. Such legislation would support companies such as Manildra Mills, which already produces ethanol but is having difficulty getting rid of its product. In fact, we use less ethanol now than we did some years ago, after a successful smear campaign by a small minority, supported, unfortunately, by several oil companies. Those same oil companies in America are now boasting that they put ethanol in their fuel. They are making that boast in the State in which ethanol in fuel is mandatory, and they are supported by the American public. Yet the same oil companies are failing to support ethanol in fuel in Australia. Indeed, they go so far as to state, "We do not use ethanol in our fuels", on the petrol bowsers.

When the Government supports the use of ethanol as strongly as the New South Wales Nationals, other companies in New South Wales will start to produce ethanol. That support would give companies the confidence to invest in ethanol plants. As honourable members know, ethanol is not only produced from wheat, as is the ethanol produced by Manildra Mills; it can be produced from sugar cane, sorghum and all sorts of other products. However, a market for ethanol is not guaranteed at this time. Why would a company invest hundreds of millions of dollars in an ethanol plant when there is no guarantee of Government support or encouragement for fuel companies to put ethanol in their bowsers, as happens in Queensland?

Queensland is leading the way in relation to ethanol in fuel. It has in place legislation similar to that introduced by The Nationals last week so that at least the government fleet will be encouraged to use ethanol. Indeed, there is so much confidence in Queensland that BP is putting ethanol through at least 40 of its petrol outlets, with huge success. One fuel outlet in Orange, Leewood Fuels, which is run by Tim White, sells E10. My Ford V6 runs beautifully on 10 per cent ethanol; indeed, one would not know it was there. I congratulate Tim White of Leewood Fuels, who has unleaded fuel and ethanol fuel side by side at his bowsers. He told me that 80 per cent of his customers request E10 because they know that it is environmentally friendly, that fuels containing ethanol produce 30 per cent less emissions than oil-based fuels. The Government does not support the provision of bio-diesel for trucks. Government members could do much more than simply run down The Nationals in this debate because of what we are supposedly not doing.
The Nationals are supporting the use of ethanol through our private member's bill. I call on the three Country Labor members in the Chamber—the honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Monaro and the honourable member for Murray-Darling—to support our bill and to encourage the Government to do so as well. If the Government will not support our bill, I encourage members opposite to cross the floor and vote with The Nationals. Our bill supports farmers; it will provide them with an alternative outlet for their grain, which they must export to volatile overseas markets. It will give them a guaranteed outlet for their grain within Australia, and it will help with our balance of trade.

As I said, ethanol has received a lot of bad publicity but there is no evidence that ethanol damages engines. Although ethanol received bad publicity and a bad name over the past couple of years, it was other contaminants in the fuel that caused damage to some engines. The honourable member for Murray-Darling had the audacity to criticise the Federal Government in relation to fuel prices, and he called on the Federal Government to provide some relief. I note that Britain has a Labour Government and the price of fuel there is roughly twice what we are paying in Australia. The honourable member should note that Australia has the fourth cheapest fuel prices in the OECD. Fuel prices are starting to hurt because they have increased dramatically in a short time, but we are subject to world oil prices. Although the major oil producers are taking advantage by charging market prices—and prices that the market will bear—unfortunately Australia is bearing the brunt of that because production in Australia is starting to drop.

I understand that Australia has only 10 years supply of known fuel reserves. The amount of Australian fuel we use is decreasing each year, and we are becoming more reliant on imported fuels. The New South Wales Nationals are leading the way with it's private member's bill, which would at least provide for up to 10 per cent of the fuels used in New South Wales to be ethanol based. The Government should support the bill, which would at least lead to some 25,000 government vehicles being run on ethanol based fuel, which is environmentally friendly. Support for the bill would enable the Government to show the rest of Australia the way, instead of rubbishing something over which we have no control while we are subject to world oil prices.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.06 p.m.]: Once again on an important motion before the House The Nationals leadership is nowhere to be seen, as happened during the important debate on Telstra last week.

Mr Thomas George: Where's your leadership?

Mr GERARD MARTIN: The leadership of Country Labor is here. This debate is sponsored by Country Labor. The honourable member for Lismore should go back to sleep. I point out to the honourable member for Orange that a Senate inquiry into ethanol has just concluded. The Federal Coalition Government had the numbers, but it decided that it would not legislate for the mandatory use of ethanol. The Federal Nationals got dudded. Two of the four pillars of Barnaby Joyce—Telstra and mandatory ethanol—were wiped out in one day last week, through a lack of leadership from The Nationals on this matter.

Mr Ian Slack-Smith: Point of order: The question we are asking is: Where is your leader?

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

Mr GERARD MARTIN: As the penny has not dropped with members opposite, I point out that this debate is sponsored by Country Labor members. I am the parliamentary leader of Country Labor. It has been like this for six years. The honourable member for Orange spoke about ethanol. In regard to ethanol use, I tell him—and it is the same thing we told members opposite about Telstra but they did not listen—to talk to his colleagues in Canberra. Country Labor made a submission to the Senate's ethanol inquiry, and The Nationals got dudded in the Cabinet subcomittee. Last week's Australian Financial Review reported that once again The Nationals had been dudded by the Liberal Party. One of Barnaby Joyce's four pillars—we saw him cave in on Telstra on the same day—was the mandatory implementation of ethanol in fuel. So Barnaby has now lost two of his four pillars.

If members opposite want to provide some relief to the people of New South Wales they should talk to the Federal Government about fuel prices. The Federal Government makes $13 billion to $14 million a year from fuel excise plus the GST, but it spends hardly anything on roads. That is what The Nationals should do to help people in country areas—mums and dads dropping their children at school, home care nurses, teachers driving to school and farm workers—who must travel greater distances, which uses more fuel. The costs to local businesses such as the pubs, supermarkets and bakeries are increasing because of petrol price increases. The Nationals should be taking heed of that and showing a bit of leadership to their Coalition partners. They should talk to the honourable member for Vaucluse. The honourable member for Lismore should get on the phone to his mates in Canberra. He has done it before and he was automatically connected. All we are saying is they should play a bipartisan role.

In relation to ethanol, three-year tenders for government contracts are already going out with the stipulation that they have an ethanol component. We do not need to play follow the leader on this issue; we have been up and running well before The Nationals. The initiative has come from Country Labor. We have walked through Manildra Starches; we have spoken to all the players in the industry. We know how important ethanol is, but we are specifically talking now about the price of petrol. We are asking members of The Nationals to do what they failed to do last week, to support us on the privatisation of Telstra, and to exert what influence they can with the Federal Coalition.

The Treasurer, Peter Costello, has now got cold feet and has decided to pull the excise that the Government was automatically going to impose from January next year. The Federal Government has a bucket load of money; it is ripping off motorists left, right and centre. Earlier the honourable member for Monaro told us that during the last Federal election campaign the Coalition said if we elected a Labor government we would pay 4¢ more a litre for petrol. Hallelujah, under the Howard-Costello the regime we are not paying 4¢ more a litre for petrol—we are paying 40¢ more! All I am asking members of The Nationals to do is to use their influence, if they have any. But obviously they have not, and they have sent their second eleven to the Chamber today. [Time expired.]

Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [4.11 p.m.]: The honourable member for Bathurst cannot correctly pronounce the electorate of his colleague the honourable member for Monaro—and the rest of his argument was superfluous anyway. Australia's record petrol price has one cause and one cause only: high world oil prices. The honourable member for Bathurst has completely refuted what his Federal Labor caucus economic committee chairman, Craig Emerson, was quoted as saying in the Age on 22 July:

Australia's record petrol prices have one cause and one cause only—high world … prices.

Irrespective of the price per litre of fuel charged at the bowser, the excise is 38.143¢ per litre. As prices go up, only the State governments reap the benefit of that through the GST. If members on the Government side are convinced that fuel prices are so bad, they should give back to the motorists of New South Wales the 10¢ per litre GST. The honourable member for Monaro raises his eyebrows to the heavens. It must be a full moon, like it was a while ago. Under the Trade Practices Act the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigates anti-competitive behaviour. It instituted proceedings against 16 respondents, alleging breaches in the Ballarat region, and in March 2005 the Federal Court imposed penalties totalling more than $23 million for unfair competitive practices.

I know that prices in the bush are high. Last week unleaded petrol at Wee Waa was $1.42 a litre. The day before, when I left Sydney, it was $1.42 a litre and further down the track at Narrabri it was $1.37 a litre. The following day it was $1.57 a litre at Wee Waa. The price fluctuates all the time. Again, only the State Government is getting any benefit from that. The Nationals in Western Australia have won Labor Government support for a proposal to have a working group look at using biofuels, which, of course, is ethanol. When I see a "No Ethanol" sticker on a petrol bowser, I drive past. However, before I do that I stop the car and tell the owner of the petrol station why I am driving past. As far as I am concerned, that is totally unAustralian. Those who use those stickers are victims of a lie, a totally inaccurate smear campaign that has been devastating to regional New South Wales.

W have oil reserves in this country that have not yet been developed. We have oil reserves in the Moree area of my electorate. The extent of the field is not yet known, but there are oil fields there, and in other parts of Australia, and the companies that lease the petroleum exploration licences only need a little encouragement to start drilling for it. Since the new tax system commenced in July 2000 the excise has been reduced by 6.7¢ a litre. In March 2001 the Government further reduced petrol and diesel by 1.7¢ a litre and abolished the half-yearly indexation of fuel excise. That translates into an annual excise saving of around $174 for a family using 50 litres of petrol each week. [Time expired.]

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.16 p.m.]: This motion is important to people in regional New South Wales. It is a great disappointment to them that The Nationals not only voted against debating this urgent motion, voting instead for a debate about the western suburbs of Sydney; they also failed to roll out the Leader of The Nationals. It is just like last week, when the Leader of The Nationals did not appear in the House to talk about Telstra. He seems far more interested now in things like Sydney Water and the matters he has been asking questions about during question time rather than issues of importance to rural New South Wales. Country Labor representatives, of course, including the chairman and vice-chairman of Country Labor, have spoken today. That shows our commitment.

In regional New South Wales petrol prices are hurting. Earlier a member of The Nationals said our prices are not high compared to the price in other countries. Certainly, there are countries where petrol prices are higher. England is one, but people in those countries drive much shorter distances. They drive nowhere near the distances that people in regional New South Wales travel. Therefore, the overall cost to families there is less. The Nationals consistently offer excuses in this place for the Federal Government and why it does not give a damn about country people in New South Wales. However, when it suits the Federal Government to do so it is quite happy to use petrol as a scare campaign. Earlier today I gave notice of a motion, which will no doubt be considered at some time in the dim future, about a campaign that was part of the last Federal election campaign in which a radio advertisement in which Ian Macfarlane, the then Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, said:

This morning on Melbourne radio the shadow treasurer Simon Crean let the cat out of the bag confirming that Labor will abolish the shopper dockets scheme. This means the price of petrol in New South Wales will go up by 4¢ a litre and—

and this is the bit he highlighted at the end—

motorists will pay more for petrol under a Labor government.

Yet again, like the interest rate campaign, a scare campaign that attempted to suggest to the people of New South Wales that petrol prices would go up under a Labor government had no basis in fact. As with the interest rate scare campaign, the implication was that under a Coalition government petrol prices would not go up. As the honourable member for Bathurst so ably pointed out a few minutes ago, petrol prices have gone up not 4¢ a litre but 40¢ a litre. In the electorate that I have the pleasure of representing recent petrol prices per litre have been approximately $1.39 in Cooma, $1.40 in Adaminaby, $1.45 in Berridale, $1.41 in Jindabyne and $1.42 in Thredbo.

Mr Russell Turner: You are a pretty poor State member if you let that happen.

Mr STEVE WHAN: That interjection was from someone who said a few minutes ago that petrol prices were completely out of the hands of anyone in Australia. Now he thinks resolving the issue is up to the member for Monaro. Again we see a willingness by the Coalition to use petrol prices for political point scoring, but not to take action when it is within its power to do so. The NRMA is holding a summit on 22 September. The New South Wales Government is participating in the summit but the Federal Government says that it will not attend because there is no point. The Federal Government should attend. The Australian Automobile Association wants to know why retail margins and margins at the bowser have changed so much. Such questions will not be answered because the Federal Government and Federal members of The Nationals are not interested in listening to the people of rural New South Wales.

They are not interested in the impact on tourism of continually rising oil prices. They just roll over all the time on these issues. Last week it was Telstra; this week it is petrol. Industrial relations is coming up. The tourism industry will be slugged again, and jobs and employees in regional New South Wales will be slugged. They roll over because they have lost any semblance of representing rural New South Wales. The Liberal Party is now directing them. I heard an interesting discussion in regional New South Wales about the Liberal Party deciding to run three-cornered contests in all rural seats. They are now popping up with their tents and the Liberal Party candidates are now champing at the bit to run against each other in Monaro against The Nationals candidate. The Nationals have failed to stand up for rural New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.21 p.m.], in reply: At the outset I thank the honourable member for Orange, the honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Barwon and the honourable member for Monaro for participating in the debate. I have known the honourable member for Orange Russell Turner, for some time, since our years together in local government and I respect him. But today he has been comprehensively wrong. He said the sole reason for the price of petrol being so high was world parity pricing. In my contribution I drew attention to the goods and services tax [GST], excise and all the other taxes. Today the United States of America has the lowest price for petrol of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In the United States taxes amount to less than one-third of those levied in Australia. That is the answer. That is how a litre of petrol can be sold in California for the Australian equivalent of 62¢, as opposed to the prices we are paying out in the bush.
Opposition members did not refer to the tourism issues I raised. Petrol prices are very important to western New South Wales because our tourism industry will be hurt if the current prices are maintained. I also note with interest that no attempt was made to defend John Cobb. Any attempt to defend John Cobb would be doomed to failure. He stated that the New South Wales Government gave rebates to drivers in north-eastern New South Wales and asked why rebates could not be given to drivers in the Far West. What an absolute joke! He is supporting a system with the incredible differential between what is being charged in the bush and what is being charged in capital cities. It is a nonsense. John Cobb has flip-flopped on this matter. He failed firstly on exceptional circumstances assistance. He failed secondly in relation to the Telstra sale. It was lucky that Barnaby Joyce arrived.

In two different columns John Cobb said that the price of fuel in regional New South Wales was a matter for the State Government and then, in another article, he went on to refer to the GST. Unfortunately, John Cobb is unbelievable. In a parting reference when standing down, John Anderson said that although the Government would consider GPS technology funding, roads and so on, when he was asked about whether the Government would change taxation on fuels he replied, as retiring transport Minister, "No, that is not part of our plan." In the Barrier Daily Truth the headline was "Petrol's record run". Another headline that appeared in the bush was "Nationals have 'lost touch'". The honourable member for Bathurst, Gerard Martin, made a good speech on the matter.

The honourable member for Barwon, Ian Slack-Smith, spent his time speaking about the GST. His people are being hurt as much as mine. They would love to have fuel at the Adelaide, Melbourne or Sydney price. I know many of the people in the Barwon electorate, particularly those connected with local government, and I know that they are hurting as much as the people in my electorate. The shires are bleeding. There is talk about declaring next year the year of western New South Wales to attempt to counter another Year of the Outback in Queensland. We are talking about promoting western New South Wales, particularly as a tourist destination, getting people to travel through Orange and so on to go out to the real bush. The bottom line is that we cannot sustain such programs if Opposition members continue in this way. The honourable member for Monaro, Steve Whan, spoke about three-cornered contests, which will be interesting, particularly at Dubbo, and the increase of 40¢ a litre that has occurred. The Federal Government has the answers. The Federal Government can do something, and surely, through its leadership, it must attend the fuel summit later this week. [Time expired.]

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

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

Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Mr Torbay Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Debnam Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher 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 Price	Mr Armstrong
Mr Yeadon	Mr Constance

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) [4.36 p.m.]: Last Thursday night fire destroyed the Norply timber factory at Kyogle, which is in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. As a result of the blaze, at least 140 people are out of a job. In a town of about 3,500, the loss of those jobs will have a significant economic impact. Today I visited Kyogle to talk to community and company representatives. This follows my initial contact last Friday with the Mayor of Kyogle, Ernie Bennett, to learn more about the situation and assess how we could help the town. I also talked yesterday to the honourable member for Lismore about this terrible event. I arrived back from Kyogle shortly after question time today and have again spoken briefly to the honourable member for Lismore. I have undertaken to him to work with him, where I can, to support the Kyogle community.

The fire is having a serious impact on Kyogle. In the short term, Norply has advised me it will pay its employees two weeks wages. That reflects the strong ethos of the company, which is also honouring its commitments, such as leave entitlements. A number of New South Wales government agencies have been in contact with the company and the community to discuss both interim and longer-term assistance measures. Those agencies include the Department of State and Regional Development, the Premier's Department and Forests New South Wales. I note particularly that the Commonwealth agency Centrelink has been helpful in securing ongoing income support for the employees. In addition, Kyogle Council has started an appeal to raise funds for local families suffering hardship.

As a result of our discussions with the community and the company, during my visit today I announced extra Government support for Kyogle. I advise the House that I have declared the town eligible for help under the Government's Regional Economic Transition Scheme [RETS], which helps regional areas that have experienced serious economic shock because of structural adjustment or the closure of the region's major employer. Given that Norply is the town's major employer, there is a strong case for Kyogle to be included in this successful government program. Staff from across a number of government agencies have held talks with the company to push ahead with RETS assistance once all the insurance matters have been clarified. In any event RETS will provide an umbrella for all government assistance.

The fire that affected Norply began at 6.45 p.m. last Thursday. The blaze was so intense that fire crews from around the region were called in to fight it. Thankfully, the 35 people who were working a shift at the plant were safely evacuated. Today the site is still smouldering. In my discussions today I was advised there had been a strong occupational health and safety culture in this company and plans had been put in place for an eventuality such as this fire. It is particularly pleasing to note that the 35 people who were working there at the time responded in accordance with those plans, which were clearly developed by the company in consultation with its employees and under the framework of our occupational health and safety legislation. As I said, today when I visited, the site was still smouldering. There was not only smoke but also flames in one section of the site.

Norply is the biggest employer in the town and the shire. The New South Wales Government has previously helped the company through its Regional Business Development Scheme. In addition to the jobs at the mill, other businesses rely directly on Norply. One such company is Euro Laminated Design, a Western Australian business that recently relocated to Kyogle with New South Wales Government support. Euro Laminated Design currently employs seven full-time staff and two working directors, producing moulded plywood seats and plantation timber products, including office furniture, chairs and bed heads, resulting in interstate investment in New South Wales. Like its assistance to Norply, the New South Wales Government's Regional Business Development Scheme helped Euro Laminated Designs set up in Kyogle.

Another local company, Greensill Brothers, relies on Norply, along with a swag of other companies involved in logging and timber-felling operations. The fire will impact on State Forests workers who are employed locally in forestry, the people who work in trucking companies and transport Norply's product to market, and the people who buy and sell the mill's by-products such as bark and woodchips. Tradespeople, such as electricians, who are on call to Norply, are also affected, as well as local distributors and people who work at various sales outlets. More than 200 local families rely directly on Norply for their pay packets. With Norply being the most significant employer in Kyogle, its loss will affect retail and services businesses across the region. For example, during today's visit I met Tom Rogers, President of the local Chamber of Commerce—a very positive and very dedicated man.

Mr Thomas George: Did he play you a tune?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: He did not play me a tune, but nice background music was coming from the store on the main street. Tom Rogers advised me that Norply's loss is already impacting on local buying power, and that local retailers will face a tough time. Until last Friday, Kyogle was sustained almost exclusively by its timber industry. However, the Kyogle community has been taking steps with the New South Wales Government to diversify the town's business base and that move has indeed proved timely. In June 2004 the New South Wales Government provided $110,000 to the town in a targeted economic development program. Of that funding, $50,000 was used to develop its Sense of Place Program and $60,000 will used to fund an economic development officer. Kyogle Council previously received New South Wales Government funding for regional development in 1996, 2000 and 2003.

Under the Main Street Small Towns Program the Government supported the Sense of Place Program, which was looking at an economic development strategy as a means of seeking new opportunities and starting to diversify the economy of Kyogle. Under that program, in conjunction with Kyogle Council, the second part of that funding, $60,000, will be made available to employ an economic development officer. The fact that some of that foundation work had been put in place is particularly important as we move through and bring on stream the Regional Economic Transition Scheme [RETS]. We will use the Regional Business Development Scheme to encourage existing businesses to look to some growth, but also to see if there are others that we can bring in. There will be a sense of partnership between the council, the Chamber of Commerce, the New South Wales Government and individual businesses.

Other local businesses in Kyogle have also received Government support. In July 2003, the New South Wales Government helped Ecosilk Bags of Kyogle upgrade its web site and promote its products under the Government's New Market Expansion Program. While Norply takes stock of this situation and plans its recovery, I assure the people of Kyogle and the members of this House that the New South Wales Government is taking quick action to encourage Kyogle and its community to survive these tough and uncertain times. We want to make sure that the Kyogle community prospers again in the future. By any measure this is a difficult situation for a community. A significant employer has disappeared overnight as a result of an accident. As I said, it is pleasing to know that the strong occupational health and safety culture that was in place in the business, sponsored under State legislation, ensured that no-one was injured or, indeed, killed in the fire.

There will be impacts across the economy and the community. What I did note in discussions with the mayor, the general manager of the council, the two gentlemen who are co-chairs of Norply, the general manager of the business and the Chamber of Commerce, and from chatting to people in the street, was the sense of local community. Yes, there is a problem and they will need some outside help, but they are going to stick together. They are going to stand shoulder to shoulder and look for opportunities and work together. That will receive a boost when people in Kyogle realise that the New South Wales Government is offering support. They will be confident. The local people will appreciate the fact that their local member of Parliament has been to Kyogle a couple of times in the last few day. They will realise that there is a deal of political support. But the sense of community will also get a boost once the formalities of insurance are out of the way and the opportunity arises for work to get under way on rebuilding the factory.

I was able to assure the local community that the Premier and the New South Wales Government and I, as Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Small Business, understand the implications for a community of such a catastrophe, and assure them that the Government will work as hard as possible to assist. Officers from my department who were in Kyogle on Friday when the fire was still burning started the process of working together with the community to move forward. I believe there is a constructive and positive approach in Kyogle and I look forward to continuing the work to help them through the difficult times ahead.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [4.46 p.m.]: I extend to the Minister for Small Business the thanks of the Lismore electorate for the concern he has demonstrated in respect of the devastation that occurred in Kyogle on Thursday evening. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Rural Affairs, who contacted me first thing on Friday morning about this incident. It is also pleasing to see the honourable member for Ballina, the shadow minister for the North Coast, in the Chamber tonight. He, too, was continually in touch with me during the weekend about the terrible devastation in Kyogle. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has highlighted his concern by raising this matter of public importance in the House today. And it certainly is a matter of public importance.

The effects of the fire have been devastating, not only for Kyogle, and for Norply and its employees, but also for the region. It will have an effect throughout the breadth of this nation because Norply supplies materials throughout Australia. As the Minister said, this loss suffered by Kyogle's biggest employer, Norply plywood factory, has directly contributed to the loss of 143 jobs. Norply has been very responsible in its attitude. I pay tribute to the co-chair of the board, Brian Allom, and to Alan Greensill, Peter Wintour, the manager of Norply, the management team and the directors of the company, whose first priority and first concern when I saw them on Friday morning was for their employees.

Since that time, to back up that concern, Norply has agreed to provide, out of the company's assets, an additional two weeks wages for every full-time permanent employee to assist them over the period while everything is being sorted out. That will be at a cost to the company of $250,000, and I pay tribute to Norply for doing that. Norply was originally established in Kyogle by a few local business people in an attempt to address unemployment in the town. They decided to set up the company, believing it would address the unemployment problem at Kyogle, and the company was built up over the years. The board has worked very hard, with the co-operation of the company's employees, to make Norply an outstanding company that is recognised throughout Australia.

When I arrived home from Sydney last Friday morning I went straight to Kyogle and visited the Norply plant. It was just like someone had put a blanket over the community; they were simply stunned by what had occurred. I am one of those people who have in the past criticised occupational health and safety practices, fire drills, and other safety measures. But I want to pay tribute to Norply for its insistence with regard to occupational health and safety training. Narelle Little was the shift supervisor on the night of the fire. When the fire was first noticed, within 10 minutes the whole place was alight. But everyone kept their cool, thanks to Narelle. The employees hailed Narelle as a hero, because within five minutes she knew that everyone was out of the place. On behalf of the employees I pay tribute to Narelle for her efforts. However, the next problem Narelle had to deal with was that all the workers wanted to get a fire hose to try to fight the fire. Narelle had trouble preventing the workers from doing this, but she did, and commonsense prevailed.

I also pay tribute to the emergency services, including the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, the New South Wales Ambulance Service, NSW Police, Kyogle Council employees, and the Salvation Army for their efforts in bringing the fire under control in very difficult circumstances. Country areas do not have the large fire engines that the larger cities have. This was a very large factory. As I think the Minister said, there are still flames in the building today, and the forensic team has not yet been able to get inside the building. The whole community is thankful that no-one was injured in the fire and there was no loss of life.

The other people in the area have been extremely co-operative. As the Minister said, Kyogle Council, led by Ernie Bennett, has been extremely supportive. I understand that last night the council tabled a motion relating to starting an appeal over the next few weeks to try to assist workers who are experiencing difficulties. Peter Jones lost his job of 13 years when the factory was destroyed. However, the Kyogle father of three is confident that Norply workers will be looked after. He said there is hope for his and his family's future, and for Norply. Peter said he will look for casual work until he finds out what is happening at Norply, but that he wants to go back to Norply and he is prepared to do anything to help the company get up and running again.

Norply has been very positive in its determination to get the company up and running. Regrettably, it will probably be at least two years before it is able to get back to full production. However, the major concern is how to keep 140 experienced workers in a small town like Kyogle. We cannot let those resources leave the community of Kyogle. I am pleased to hear the Minister say today that he is prepared to work with the council and other local organisations to provide support to encourage those experienced young people to stay in the Kyogle area.

I also pay tribute to the Federal member for Page, Ian Causley. I spoke to him last Friday when he was in Canberra. He got straight onto Centrelink and arranged for Centrelink officers to attend the area on that day. Centrelink has been able to fast track payments for permanent employees so there will not be a gap in benefits. I know both the workers and the company appreciated the news that once the entitlements are organised the workers will be able to go onto Centrelink payments, until further arrangements are sorted out.

Summerland Credit Union, a local credit union, led the field on Friday by coming out at about 9 o'clock and saying, "Anyone who banks with us, we will suspend your required payments for something like a month or six weeks until the situation is sorted out." The credit union's lead has now been followed by other banks. It has certainly raised the spirits of the local community. I have been honoured by the way everyone has pulled together. Kyogle's community support and resilience has always been strong.

Last Sunday, just to give the town of Kyogle a bit of a lift, its under-18 rugby league team made the group 1 rugby league grand final. Indeed, they not only made the grand final, they also won it. I think the fire and the loss of Norply was the motivation which spurred those young blokes on. The team had about 250 supporters at Murwillumbah, and they came away winners. That certainly put a little bit of spring back in the step of the Kyogle community. I felt a great thrill for Kyogle. I congratulate Wayne Lollback, who is a great supporter of the Kyogle rugby league team, on the team's achievements.

Once again I thank everyone who has been in touch with me since last Friday, including Minister Campbell, Minister Kelly, Ian Causley, the Hon. Duncan Gay, the honourable member for Ballina, and other members of Parliament who have offered their support. I can assure the Kyogle community and the employees of Norply that everyone on the North Coast and in the Northern Rivers region is behind them in this time of need.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.56 p.m.]: I join my colleagues the Minister for Regional Development and the honourable member for Lismore in supporting the New South Wales Government's efforts to help Kyogle's businesses and community recover from the devastating effects of the fire that destroyed the Norply timber factory last Thursday night and Friday morning. Any town or city in Australia would be seriously affected by one of its businesses losing 140 jobs. Certainly for a town the size of Kyogle, which I understand has a population of some 3,500, 140 jobs would form a large part of its entire economic base. As the Minister said, the New South Wales Government is working with the Kyogle community to help it recover from the terrible loss of its largest employer.

The 140 permanent and part-time jobs lost in Kyogle involved different skills and were critical to Kyogle's local industry and local economy. I understand that officers of the Department of State and Regional Development attended the Kyogle area on Friday morning to discuss with the company's board of directors and its manager, Peter Wintour, arrangements that may be put in place. I am very pleased that the Iemma Government is supporting the Kyogle community and it plans for the future of Kyogle. I point out that over the past 18 months the Department of State and Regional Development has been working with Kyogle Council and key community groups to develop an economic development strategy for the area. Because of the work that has already been done, Kyogle shire is in a much better position to move the strategy forward than it would have been if it had to start from scratch.

Obviously, the immediate issue is concern for the employees. As we have already heard, the company has been able to pay the workers for another two weeks and meet some of their leave entitlements. Most importantly, everyone is grateful that no injuries or loss of life occurred in this catastrophe. I echo the sentiments of the honourable member for Lismore regarding the attention to detail in terms of occupational health and safety and fire safety, which obviously stood the company in good stead during this time.

The company has expressed a desire to rebuild, and the Minister has indicated that the Department of State and Regional Development will do its best to ensure that the company comes under the Regional Economic Transition Scheme [RETS] to give the company a head start in making that particular progress. After all, our regional areas are vitally important to the New South Wales economy, and some 1.7 million people live, work and raise families in country areas. Kyogle is one of the major contributors to our economy.

It will be a significant contribution to business, industry and the wellbeing of this State if we can keep the Kyogle township functioning as it is and making good progress, particularly with other industries. The Minister has already mentioned companies with associated industries that have been set up in the area with the help of the Department of State and Regional Development. These companies include Euro Laminated Design, Greensill Brothers and other companies, such as trucking companies and so forth, all of whom contribute and add up to some 200 other local families who benefit just from this one particular industry. The desire to rebuild the factory is there and certainly everybody understands the need to rebuild it. I was very pleased to hear that officers from the Premier's Department, Forests NSW and other government departments have assisted people affected by the fire.

I would also point out that the inaugural Northern Rivers rugby league competition grand finals were played at Murwillumbah on Sunday. The Seagulls played in the A-grade grand final and won that, and they played in the reserve grade grand final and won that. But they played in the under 18s grand final and they lost to the Bush Turkeys from Kyogle. The team is known as "the Turkeys", as in Bush Turkeys, and it certainly deserves every accolade it gets. I do not know how many of the young fellows who played in the under 18s team on that Sunday were directly affected or even indirectly affected by this fire, but certainly some of them would have been affected, and it would have been a little bit of a boost to the town for people to come away from the match on Sunday afternoon with something to celebrate after this devastating fire.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [5.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Lismore and the honourable member for Tweed for their contributions to this debate. In a spirit of bipartisanship I can but imagine the concern and the stress that the honourable member for Lismore would have as the member representing Kyogle. If something goes wrong in any of our electorates we feel for our constituents, but when it is a whole town, and it is a disparate electorate such as Lismore, one can understand the additional pressure that is put on the particular member. It is obviously very important that he take part in the debate.

I noted in his contribution the honourable member said that when he was there on Friday it was as if there was a blanket over the community. I think we can all understand that. Although in my discussions this morning at Kyogle there was a tension, a concern and a worry, I picked up that there is also a strong determination and a real will to work together as a community to rebuild not only the business Norply but to make sure that there is a stronger community as a result of this terrible event. I think we can all understand and appreciate the drive of people living in rural communities, although the same spirit applies in metropolitan areas as well.

The interesting thing I found out about Norply this morning was that the predecessor business had some financial difficulties and was going to close in 1990, but about 30 local families and businesses came together and formed a consortium to continue the business. Some people have come and gone but essentially the same 30 shareholders exist. They are local people who have a lot invested in the business in a financial and emotional sense as well as in a sense of community. I think that is something that will stand them all in very good stead. As I said to some people today, the Government will offer some support. To date, the Government has built on economic strengths in the region and the regional economic transition scheme funding will assist, but there is no magic wand. I think the people of Kyogle understand that no-one has got a magic wand to wave and then waltz into town saying everything is fixed.

I trust that the insurance companies will come good and pay claims. The laminating equipment that is used in a business like Norply is not something one can buy off the shelf at the supermarket; much of it has to be manufactured and made specifically, so there is a lead time involved for that. Also, a lot of the equipment is sourced from overseas, therefore involving more lead time. Even if there were a magic wand that someone could wave, it will be some time before this business gets up and running. When talking to Peter Wintour, the general manager, and the two gentlemen who co-chair the business—and the honourable member for Lismore picked this up as well—I discerned a sense of propriety. Their decision to pay two weeks ex gratia payment over and above their salaries will stand those employees in good stead as they ponder their future. But the important thing is that the people in that community know that others from outside understand that they need support, and that is reflected in this debate.

Lismore and Kyogle are next-door neighbours. I noted in a conversation that a Lismore-based business, Hurfords, had suffered a fire in its business, and it was one of the first regional businesses on the telephone to Norply and to my department to say, "If we can help we will". So it is not only government, but it is also, in some ways, competitors or other regional businesses that are offering support. The honourable member for Lismore and also the honourable member for Tweed noted that officers of the Government were in Kyogle on Friday. I pay particular tribute to Frank Hay, Trevor Wilson and Terry Flanagan, three officers of various agencies in the Government, who have spent some time in Kyogle. Indeed, Frank Hay and Trevor Wilson from the Department of State and Regional Development were back in Kyogle today. I think they have been there every day since Friday to make sure that they are part of the meetings and discussions in regard to the plans for the area. There are two planning streams: one is, get the investigation finished, get the insurance paid out and get those plans under way; the other stream is to consider what other aspects for a strong, robust, diverse economy can be put in place for Kyogle. The Government's RETS program will support that. I wish the Kyogle community well as it recovers from this catastrophe.

Discussion concluded.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! It being almost 5.15 p.m., with the leave of the House I propose to proceed to the taking of private members' statements.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [5.06 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the difficulties currently being experienced by constituents of mine, Mr and Mrs Grubisic. The family are residents of Austral. In short, the Grubisic family want to subdivide their property. They have pressing personal reasons for this. But they seem to be striking a brick wall. I have made representations on behalf of the family to assist them. While I received a letter in response to my representations from the relevant Minister, I do not seem to have received a substantive response from Liverpool council. The property is, of course, located within the boundaries of Liverpool council. The pressing personal needs of this family are acute. Mr Grubisic works full time and Mrs Grubisic is a full-time carer for their son, Max, a three-year-old boy who suffers from cavernous angioma, which is a benign but very aggressive brain tumour. The tumour increases progressively in size, and in turn this impairs Max's bodily functions.

In January 2004, Max was forced to undergo major surgery, and then further surgery in March this year. Despite these surgical interventions he suffers very severe disabilities. He is not mobile, he is unable to swallow; and he has to be fed through a tube. This is a tragic story, but it gets even worse because the Grubisic family is now facing enormous medical bills. The family wants to be able to subdivide their current property to meet these costs and continue to survive. I quote from a letter from the family's surveyors, Clement and Reid:

The Grubisic family does not want to relocate from their current property, they do not physically have the energy or time required to undertake such a task.

The Grubisic's currently live on 5 acres and in order to meet the current and future medical expenses, the Grubisic's need to be able to subdivide this land into two, leaving them their main residence and a vacant lot in which to sell.

The proceeds of this sale would help alleviate their current (and future) financial position, it would allow them to stay in the area, and it would also maintain closeness to Max's extended family and friends which is important to the family.

Mrs Grubisic went to Liverpool council to try to commence subdivision for her five-acre property. To quote a recent letter of hers to me:

When I initially contacted Liverpool City Council in regards to a possible subdivision of our property, I was informed by town planning that any rezoning or even a one-off exemption would have to be primarily approved by Parliament.

She was told, in effect, that the matter had nothing to do with council but, rather, the State Government. That is not what the State Government said. In a letter from the relevant Minister in response to my representations the Minister said, in part:

I understand that Mrs Grubisic's property is currently zoned Rural 1(b) under Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 1997, and that the subdivision standard in this zone is 2 hectares. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the local council, in this case Liverpool City Council is responsible for initiating the type of rezoning proposal you refer to. Neither the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, nor I as the Assistant Minister responsible for planning administration, is able to do so.

Mrs Grubisic's property is in an area, which will be covered by special planning controls to be introduced for the South West Growth Centre that will enable the release of land for development for a new community in accordance with the Government Metropolitan Strategy. Details of these proposals are currently on exhibition and are available for inspection in various locations.

If anything is to happen to help the Grubisic's family, it must start with Liverpool City Council. I spent some time many years ago as an alderman and councillor on Liverpool City Council and I understand the logic of why one should not fragment blocks that may eventually be released. However, I also understand the need for compassion in decision making and retaining flexibility in what are truly exceptional cases. As the surveyor said, council's position is based purely upon minimum lot requirements. This case, in my view, ought to be based on much broader considerations. I am also particularly disappointed that I do not appear, as yet, to have received a substantive response from Liverpool City Council on the matter. The process to resolve this issue, if it is going to start, must start with the council. I urge Liverpool City Council to reconsider the position it has adopted in its comments to Mrs Grubisic. One can only have sympathy and compassion for the Grubisic family. I ask council to look at this matter again with compassion and sympathy for the truly exceptional circumstances that this family is in.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.11 p.m.]: I again raise the State Government's planning policies, the dealings of the Department of Planning with Ku-ring-gai Council, and the impact the ongoing impasse has for current and future Ku-ring-gai residents. I will not rehash the complete history of this affair. However, a few facts are important in understanding this matter. Labor introduced State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 53 to force councils to deal with Sydney's growing population. Under this planning instrument, local communities, through councils, lost control over dual occupancy developments. Councils that developed housing strategies providing for medium-density developments were granted exemptions from SEPP 53.

Ku-ring-gai has a sorry history of trying to develop a housing strategy. Earlier councils simply thought that by ignoring the issue it would go away; it did not. The last council, until electoral reality kicked in during the last year under the mayoralty of Ian Cross, engaged in antics that eroded any goodwill left amongst the State's planning bureaucrats and saw the planning Minister take direct control over six sites across Ku-ring-gai—sites where now up to eight-storey unit blocks are growing. Not surprisingly, the electors of Ku-ring-gai elected a new council at the last local government elections. Seven out of 10 councillors are new. The new council is determined to get on with the job, stop the procrastination, obstruction and deferments, and try to get the best possible deal for residents.

As a sign of its good faith, changes were effected and progress was made. Council's development application backlog was halved and its escalating legal bills reined in and cut by 25 per cent. Two months after the new council was elected in May 2004 former planning Minister Beamer rejected council's housing strategy and imposed her own. Despite the fact every other Sydney council was granted a SEPP 53 exemption immediately following a housing strategy being settled, Ku-ring-gai has been denied one. As a result, in Ku-ring-gai dual occupancies can occur on blocks as small as 225 square metres. Given that the average local housing block is 900 square metres the inappropriateness of the existing arrangements can be understood. Ku-ring-gai Council wants dual occupancies restricted to blocks of at least 600 square metres, but without a SEPP 53 exemption council is powerless to stop the current spread across Ku-ring-gai of these inappropriate developments.

In February this year former Minister Beamer told Ku-ring-gai Mayor Adrienne Ryan and Deputy Mayor Nick Ebbeck that an exemption would be granted. She publicly repeated this commitment in April. Council and residents are still waiting for the commitment to be honoured. In fact, the only effect of the Minister's repeated, unfulfilled commitments, has been a quadrupling—that is, a fourfold increase—in the number of dual occupancy applications being lodged with council. Dual occupancies have also significantly added to council's legal costs, an area of concern to residents and councillors alike. Last year council spent almost a million dollars—$900,000—trying to fight inappropriate dual occupancy developments.
Ku-ring-gai is being treated harshly and unfairly in all of this. It is being punished even though it has done what has been asked of it. This was highlighted in July when a State Government planning bureaucrat spoke to an officer of council. The Department of Planning officer said the SEPP 53 exemption would not be granted unless council acquiesced to the department's view on a completely unrelated matter. In other words, there was an attempt to use the exemption to leverage or force a favourable decision out of council on a separate and unrelated issue. At the very least, this attempt was, in my view, an inappropriate use of power. Others have described it as blackmail. It has been referred to the ICAC and it deserves vigorous investigation. However, I regret that in light of the ICAC squibbing an earlier complaint by residents relating to conflicts of interest during the planning stage overseen by the Department of Planning, I am not optimistic about the commission's vigour or attention to these matters.

To rub salt into Ku-ring-gai's wound, the Department of Planning now claims that the exemption is being held up by the ICAC investigation. Six weeks ago Frank Sartor was appointed as the new planning Minister. No-one bemoaned the move of Diane Blunder from the Assistant Planning portfolio. Regrettably, by failing to meet her private and public commitment on the SEPP 53 exemption, she exposed herself as less than honourable. Her other pronouncements on Ku-ring-gai developments also suggested she was more generally out of touch with reality.

I welcome Frank Sartor's appointment. His strong local government background, his understanding of the planning processes—and distaste for the Land and Environment Court—and general pragmatism should bring some much-needed commonsense to Ku-ring-gai and the State's planning imbroglio. Despite his behaviour over the past 24 hours, I maintain that hope. I have written to the new Minister inviting him to visit Ku-ring-gai and see for himself the impact of the planning decisions made to date. I want Minister Sartor to see the problems created by the lack of SEPP 53 exemptions. I want him to see the appalling impact that the absence of an effective interface policy is having upon neighbours adjoining multistorey developments. I want him to see the consequences of Labor's failure to match infrastructure and services to the new population densities the State Government is imposing. I await with interest Minister Sartor's response.

However, I note that two weeks ago he wrote to council in response to a letter from former mayor, Councillor Ryan. Minister Sartor asked council to supply in seven days details to support the claims of improvements and progress in council's operations so that he can determine the exemption matter. I make just two points about the letter. First, his departmental officers are well aware of these matters; they have been all over council and its dealings on development for the past three years. Second, it completely ignores the prior private and public commitments given by his predecessor to grant an exemption and it ignores the previous practice applying to all other councils—that is, once a housing strategy was settled, an exemption was granted.

Nevertheless, I am prepared to take the new Minister at his word: he wants to see the evidence before making a decision. At this stage as a new Minister he deserves the benefit of the doubt. However, I strongly urge Minister Sartor to grant the exemption as a matter of urgency. A stage one housing strategy providing for 9,000 new dwellings has been approved for Ku-ring-gai. A stage two strategy is underway. An exemption is warranted—indeed, an exemption is vital to prevent the spread of 225-square metre dual occupancies across the municipality.

The other matter of urgency I commend is the interface issue. Council put forward a sensible proposal; it has been rejected. Heritage homes and neighbours are being adversely affected. I congratulate Councillor Malicki on her election. However, I send a message to other councillors that any attempt to revert to past antics of procrastination, obstruction and deferral on these matters will see Ku-ring-gai residents punished further. I know the mayor understands this, but I am not sure her behind-the-scene supporters understand the damage they have previously done to residents or the consequences that a repeat is likely to have. [Time expired.]

Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [5.16 p.m.]: I refer to an incident that occurred in my electorate a few weeks ago. We were fortunate to have the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, visit Blacktown. The ceremony was held in the Salvation Army hall. Unfortunately, the official party failed to acknowledge the Dharug people, Blacktown's traditional indigenous inhabitants. It was only after an interjection by Aboriginal Elder Vilma Ryan of the Wiradjuri tribe that the oversight was realised. Mr Howard tried to defuse the situation by saying that such acknowledgments were usually made when the function had a specific Aboriginal or dominant indigenous element. He assured Mrs Ryan that he meant no disrespect. However, this response was not sufficient for the Mayor of Blacktown, Councillor Leo Kelly, who said that there was no excuse for this deplorable behaviour and that Mr Howard had a gall to come to Blacktown but then be discourteous to the Dharug community. He said that John Howard was a stubborn and ill-mannered man for refusing to observe protocol for the indigenous people of Blacktown. He said that John Howard is a disgrace and owes the Aboriginal people of Blacktown and the community an apology.

The Prime Minister was visiting Blacktown to announce grants for crime prevention. The day did not start off well for the Prime Minister, but it got worse for the people of Blacktown. In this round of funding $1.7 million was allocated, $1.48 million of which went to projects in the Federal Liberal electorates of Greenway, Macarthur and Lindsay. That is pork-barrelling at its worst. This was not a transparent process and politicians always need to be transparent. It is important that people have confidence not only in government but also in the system that we represent. Recently hundreds of Sudanese people have settled in Blacktown. They are lovely people and they have become part of the great city of Blacktown. I am certain that as the years go by they will become an integral part of Blacktown.

Unfortunately, Blacktown does not have the facilities and programs to look after them in terms of education, job opportunities and all other aspects. In the funding round Blacktown council—the third-largest council in this nation, looking after 300,000 people—made two submissions for grants. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister came to Blacktown and announced the successful grants in the city of Blacktown. Blacktown City Council, representing the third-largest municipality in Australia, got absolutely nothing—a big fat zero. However, it was intriguing that the Hillsong Church, or Hillsong Emerge as it is called, received a grant of $414,478. Hillsong Church is very big at Mount Druitt and Riverstone, but it does not cover the entire Blacktown local government area. Hillsong Emerge Ltd received $414,478 for crime prevention.

I do not know what crime prevention that is—the grant may be payback for the money that Hillsong spent to get Louise Marcus up as candidate at the last Federal election—but to give Hillsong $414,000, to give the Migrant Resource Centre, which looks after the Sudanese people, only $147,180, and to give Blacktown City Council, which first brought the problems to the Government, absolutely nothing is a total disgrace. It will rebound in the highest possible way. The people of Blacktown, the council, the Sudanese people and I will not forget it. As I said, transparency is everything in politics, but there was no transparency in the announcement in Blacktown a few weeks ago.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [5.21 p.m.]: I commend the honourable member for Blacktown for drawing these issues to the attention of honourable members, and for exposing the Federal Government's slush-fund approach to funding in New South Wales and, indeed, Australia. Clearly, what the honourable member said is a major issue about applying funds to areas of need. No-one could doubt the needs of Blacktown. We are talking about equality, parity and justice for the people of Blacktown. I commend the honourable member for Blacktown for bringing these issues to our attention. He is an outstanding local member and he deserves the applause of not only Government members but also members opposite.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.22 p.m.]: I was pleased to hear the heartfelt contribution of the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast in relation to equity in funding for all of New South Wales, because the issue I raise today is all about equity in funding. It is about a headline in the Coffs Coast Advocate of 20 July, which stated:

State Govt reneges on $45 million promise

This relates to the Government's promise of funding for the outfall at Coffs Harbour for the sewage reclamation and reuse scheme introduced by the then Minister for the Environment, the honourable member for Wentworthville, and the then Minister for Public Works, Michael Knight. They promised the people of Coffs Harbour that the Coffs Harbour City Council reclamation and treatment process at the Look at Me Now Headland outfall would not cost the ratepayers—in Michael Knight's words—"one extra cent". Yet the cost of this scheme has blown out to $170 million. The State Government promised to provide $45 million, and it has not delivered. The article in the Coffs Coast Advocate stated:

The NSW Minister for Energy and Utilities, Frank Sartor, yesterday announced funding of $7.8 million for the second stage of the 10-year $170-million Coffs Harbour Sewerage Strategy.

But Coffs Harbour City Council says this is $15 million short of the amount the State Government committed itself to in 1997 and is threatening to look at legal options if the State Government does not honour its obligations.

The Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast waxed lyrical on equity and fairness for the people of New South Wales. I challenge him—

Mr Grant McBride: Parity.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: Parity—whatever the Minister likes. I challenge the Minister to support country and regional communities—some areas in his electorate will also be spewing about this issue—in regard to the cutback in country towns water and sewerage supply schemes.

Mr Peter Black: All country towns.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I said regional and rural communities. I suggest that communities in the electorate of the honourable member for Murray-Darling will feel the same pinch because the Government has cut back on its promised $120 million a year. At the opening of the Mooney sewage treatment works the then Minister said, "We are giving away $1 million a week." That was a 50 per cent cut; we are now down to $32 million a year. Councils in my area and, indeed, throughout New South Wales cannot afford to complete these schemes on their own; the Government has let them down completely.

As I said, the Government promised that the Coffs Harbour sewerage scheme would not cost the ratepayers one extra cent. Coffs Harbour City Council made a submission for a rate rise, which was knocked back. I cannot say that I agreed with the enormity of the rate rise the council wanted. Much of the pressure put on council is a result of cost shifting and the fact that the State Government will not provide the funds that are vital to complete the necessary sewage and water augmentation in the Coffs Harbour local government area. If the Government cannot meet its commitments, if it continues to carry on like this, the Minister's statements in the House today are somewhat hypocritical. I look forward to the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast raising this issue with the Minister for Utilities and asking him to ensure that the commitment that the Government gave to Coffs Harbour City Council in 1997 is met.

The Minister for Utilities should speak to Coffs Harbour City Council and the citizens of the Coffs Harbour City Council area, and provide the funding that was promised. The Coffs Harbour sewage treatment scheme is second to none in Australia. Indeed, it is probably the best in the Southern Hemisphere. It is tertiary treated; the effluent is used on sporting fields and golf courses, across the board. Yet the Government has forced the council into this situation because it has reneged on its promise to provide funding. That is an absolute disgrace. I call on the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Utilities—

Mr Thomas George: He should back up his statements.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the honourable member for Lismore said, the Minister should back up the statements he made less than five minutes ago.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [5.27 p.m.]: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is highly respected by the Government, and I am sure he does not need me to make representations to the Minister on his behalf. He has never sought such assistance in the past, and no doubt he is proud of that fact.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: It is customary for the Minister at the table to bring to the attention of the Minister responsible any issue raised by a member during a private member's statement. It has been the custom in this House, in the 15 years I have been here, for the Minister at the table to raise issues with the relevant Minister.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: Even if the honourable member for Coffs Harbour had not made that point, I would not hesitate to take up this matter on his behalf. It will be my great pleasure to do so.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [5.28 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to an upgrade on Lawrence Hargrave Drive, which is a major construction taking place in my electorate on the section of road between Coalcliff and Coledale, which has seen mother nature at its best over the years. As honourable members are well aware, Lawrence Hargrave Drive suffered from rock falls from above and erosion from below, which led to closure of the road. The former Minister for Roads made a commitment to the magnificent and monumental rebuilding of the road, and the local community will thank him for that for a long time to come.

The $49 million road project is nearing completion. The Government is proud that it made this commitment and is sticking to it. The project is on schedule, on budget and is something of which we can all be proud. In the meantime, the community is rallying around the isolated communities with many shop local campaigns and buy local campaigns to keep local businesses sustainable. It has been tough for those businesses. They have experienced significant downturns in trade and are doing things to make the most of it until we are able to reopen that road.

Last month the new Minister the Roads came to inspect the progress of Lawrence Hargrave Drive. We gave him a comprehensive review of the project and he acknowledged the work that was going on. The final work on all four piers marks the completion of the first half of the cantilever bridge. The completion of the second half will be the last phase of the entire project. The Minister took the opportunity to meet with some students from Scarborough Public School—Gretel, Ruby and Reece—who told him about the activity they have been engaged in: the Lawrence Hargrave Drive bridge naming competition.

The former Premier, the honourable member for Illawarra and I launched the naming competition, which gives all schoolchildren in the Illawarra the opportunity to put forward names to their local members. Each member will select a number of names and put them to the final panel, which will determine the new name of the local bridge. This proposal has been warmly received and I encourage students to get their entries in before the end of term. This has caused some challenges within the community. Some older members and others feel they should have the opportunity to name the bridge, but the Government has said it will leave it to the children: they are the future and they will come up with the name.

I will put on the record some of the exciting names, not because they are my favourites or will make the list but to show the capacity of the young people to take the matter seriously and do some research on it. They have come up with some fantastic names. For example, some have suggested Lawrence Hargrave Drive—to keep what it has always been known as and not change it just because a new bridge has been built. Others have suggested the Jet Bridge, the Cliff Bridge, Mateship Bridge, Rocky Road Bridge, the Wodi Wodi Bridge—an acknowledgement of the original inhabitants and a continual cultural connection to the area—Illawarra Link Bridge, Illawarra Ocean Bridge and Great Ocean Bridge.

Mr Grant McBride: The McLeay Bridge?

Mr PAUL McLEAY: Humility prevents me from acknowledging that interjection. Other suggestions included Whale Bridge, Rock Fall Bridge and Ocean View Bridge. One of my favourites is the Dharawal Serpent Bridge. The engineering of the bridge complements the coastline and gently weaves its way around the escarpment. In conjunction with the construction of the bridge, we have launched the oral history of the project, which has proved to be very popular. The Government continues to support local businesses and activities. It recently announced $10,000 for the Festival of Flight, a fete that is coming up as part of the Lions Club of Helensburgh and surrounding districts fair.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [5.33 p.m.]: I have inspected this bridge twice during its construction. It is one of the great road engineering achievements in Australia. The road will challenge the Great Ocean Road in Victoria for its magnificence. The pavement will be something like 50 metres above the seawater level. It will be a major tourist attraction for the Illawarra. I congratulate the honourable member for Heathcote for bringing it to the attention of the House.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [5.34 p.m.]: Many honourable members might be concerned about the future of our State's youth and the impact that computer games, the media and materialism are having on their minds and morals. If so, be encouraged. Over the past eight months I have had the pleasure of seeing firsthand the work of a non-profit Christian youth organisation in my electorate that is doing quite amazing things. Since 1930 the Crusader Union of Australia has actively worked amongst the youth of this State. From small and humble beginnings to contact with more than 30,000 students annually today, the Crusader Union has changed young lives for the better through a combination of camping and school-based programs.
Young lives and minds can sometimes be easily swayed to negative behaviour and influences. Crusaders, through its CRU holiday camps and summit school camp programs, is helping young people to choose a positive path in life by modelling positive behaviours and ensuring that campers have a great time without drugs or alcohol. Each year more than 100 school and holiday camps are run with more than 7,000 students in attendance. On Crusader camps kids discover gifts and talents they never knew they had because they are best able to test their limits in a safe and controlled environment. Through various outdoor activity challenges young people learn to work in teams, develop leadership skills, effective communication and life skills and, most importantly, to look out for one another. There is true mateship.

What is more remarkable is that the majority of the 600 or so leaders on these camps each year are young adult volunteers between the ages of 16 and 28 who willingly give a week of their time to come away and be positive role models for the children under their care. Even more amazing is that these volunteer leaders pay between $100 and $400 each to sponsor school-age campers so they can attend. It is a great youth-driven venture, but all of this could not take place without campsite facilities that are safe, comfortable and full of exciting activities.

In March this year I was honoured to take part in the reopening of the recently upgraded Crusader site at Galston, aptly named the Galston Gorge Conference and Recreation Centre. It has been redeveloped largely from generous individual donations and also from grant contributions from the Department of Sport and Recreation. It now holds up to 220 campers in ensuite accommodation—double the previous capacity of the facility. It features a full-sized gymnasium and auditorium, with all multimedia facilities and a wide range of activities such as ropes, BMX, indoor rock climbing wall and lots more. There was considerable consultation with neighbours of the Galston site as part of this redevelopment, and a committee involving site management and neighbours is being established to ensure that site usage is a positive experience for local residents as well as the campers. This facility is now being widely and extensively used by schools, churches and community groups from around the State.

Crusaders is committed to building high-quality youth programs. Almost 100 New South Wales schools have a Crusader group that meets each week at lunchtime and resources for these meetings are written by the organisation itself. This is a part of Crusaders' significant investment in training the leaders of tomorrow. Week-long leadership training camps are run in January and July of each year and students from years 10 to 12 are involved. Crusaders recently sponsored several students to attend a youth summit in Canberra. Crusaders, most importantly, is also a registered training organisation and, as such, offers a year-long fellowship, training young Australians in youth ministry, first aid and outdoor education—vital skills.

I commend Gary Hill, the chief executive officer, and his team of Anna Wood, Peter Crawford, Len Hodges, John Doherty, Diana Robertson and lots of others who have contributed so much to the success of Crusaders. I acknowledge the chairman, James Miller, and the visionary David White of Jungle Doctor fame, who established the facility in the first place. I acknowledge the Braga family, particularly Carolyn Braga who provided much of the funds for the upgrading of the current facility. May Crusaders continue to provide a first-class facility. I congratulate Crusaders on its seventy-fifth anniversary. May it continue to make a difference in young people's lives in a positive and caring environment.

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Georges River) [5.39 p.m.]: Today I raise a matter of significant importance to a large portion of the community in my electorate. I refer to the proposed development at Mulga Road, Oatley. In 1995 it was proposed that 54 units with underground car parking be built on this site in Mulga Road. It was a most inappropriate development and was therefore refused by council. During the 1999 election campaign I met Mr Ted Cooper, President of the Oatley Residents Association. His group was concerned about continued proposals for the site in Mulga Road. At that time I made a commitment to him that if elected I would support LEP amendment 13, which Hurstville council had taken to the Department of Planning and which had been sitting there for some time, being adopted and signed by the Minister. Once elected I fulfilled the commitment. LEP amendment 13 proposed a two-storey limit on small neighbourhood shopping centre sites such as Mulga Road at Oatley. It also involved a commercial component in any development.

The LEP was signed off and ultimately Hurstville council extended the LEP to the Hurstville and Penshurst wards, with a significant focus on the small neighbourhood shopping centre element. The desire was to maintain small shopping centres rather than having extensive development. In February 2003 a proposal was put to council for 25 townhouses to be built in a three-storey complex on this site. That proposal was also rejected by council as LEP amendment 13 precluded such development. The strength of the amendment was upheld by the council.
In December 2004 another development was proposed, this time for a supermarket and townhouse development. Council, having received 827 individual submissions, including mine, decided that the development was completely out of character with the area. That was specifically because of the size of the development, the proposal for a regional supermarket, which was inappropriate for the site, and also the amount of traffic that would be generated. It was estimated that at least 30 trucks a day would arrive to service the supermarket facility, including large semitrailers, which are completely inappropriate for the suburban streets servicing the area and most inappropriate for Mulga Road. The developer appealed to the Land and Environment Court against the decision.

The commissioner gave as one of the reasons for overturning the decision of Hurstville council that LEP amendments 66 and 60 would not necessarily be signed off by the Minister. That generated a great deal of appropriate outrage in the community. The view of Hurstville council and considerable public opinion against the development were overlooked by the Land and Environment Court. Since that time LEP 66 has been signed off by the Minister for Planning, as is appropriate as it was only reinforcing what the council had already proposed through previous LEP amendments, including LEP 13. Community outrage has increased since the decision and last Sunday week I attended a No Coles in Oatley rally, because Coles is the supermarket chain that will potentially undertake the development.

About 1,000 people attended the rally to protest against Coles. I compliment Ted Cooper for continuing to lead the campaign. I also compliment Bernie Maguire, Secretary of the Oatley Residents Association. More recently Louise Radcliffe, Anne Wagstaff and Carol Strebel have been involved. I encourage the Oatley residents to maintain their rage to ensure that this inappropriate development does not take place in Mulga Road. The Land and Environment Court will decide this Thursday on a date for the appeal lodged by Hurstville council. I hope that the Land and Environment Court will determine that this is a totally inappropriate development for Mulga Road. I support the residents.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [5.44 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House matters concerning my constituent Mr Stephen Quintano and investigation into the disappearance and assault of his two children, Ashley and Luke, in the 1980s. In 1986 Mr Quintano's then seven-year-old and two-months-old children were taken by his then wife to live with a sect known as the Traditional Catholics, whose beliefs included strict discipline—beating of children—and colonic irrigation. At that time Mr Quintano frantically searched for his children and sought help from Green Valley police. Through his own inquiries Mr Quintano established that a Veronica Smithers, also known as Veronica Keane, and a Martin Gwynne were involved with the sect and with the disappearance of the children. He also established that Veronica Smithers had been in the Wauchope area. Mr Quintano immediately notified Kempsey police.

However, he felt initially that the matter was not being taken seriously. After repeatedly contacting Kempsey police he learned that the police had contacted the address where the sect members had been staying and that as a result they had packed up and left the area. Subsequently, Mr Quintano found proof that his children had been at the house concerned. He was then threatened by police with being charged with break and enter for visiting the property and retrieving some of his son's possessions. Mr Quintano also learned that his children had been erroneously moved from the police missing persons file at Green Valley. Through continuing pressure on the police, including then Minister George Paciullo, warrants were eventually issued for the arrest of Veronica Smithers and Martin Gwynne. Finally, in late 1987, 17 months after the disappearance, Mr Quintano's children were located at Kempsey. He was shocked at their emaciated and unkempt state. He learned that they had been beaten and sexually abused.

Veronica Smithers was subsequently sentenced to four months gaol on a plea bargain. However, other suspects—Martin Gwynne, the founder of the sect, and a John Daly—were never brought to justice as they left the country and returned to the United Kingdom. Warrants are in existence for their arrest. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] has told Mr Quintano that the brief of evidence has disappeared and the case is now too old. I have attempted to get justice for Mr Quintano and his family. Mr Quintano initially sought meetings with the Minister for Police. I asked the Minister on notice when he would meet with Mr Quintano, who had being seeking a meeting for 18 months. The Minister replied that he eventually did meet with Mr Quintano on 10 February 2005. On 5 May I asked to the Minister for Police:

In relation to charges relating to the children of Mr Stephen Quintano, Luke and Ashley Quintano, arising from the incidents at Kempsey in 1986:

(1) Are there warrants in existence for alleged offenders in this matter, John Daly and Martin Gwynne?

(2) If so, what is the status of efforts to apprehend these alleged offenders?
Answer—

(1) Yes.

(2) The current whereabouts of the alleged offenders are unknown.

On 24 May I asked the Attorney General:

In relation to charges relating to the children of Mr Stephen Quintano... arising from the incidents at Kempsey in 1986:

(1) Does the Director of Public Prosecutions plan to prosecute alleged offenders John Daly and Martin Gwynne?

(2) If so, what is the status of efforts in this regard?

(3) If not, why not?

Answer—

(1) No.

(2) Not applicable.

(3) The Director of Public Prosecutions provided advice to Police in February 1999.

So it is clear that there are warrants out for these offenders but the DPP does not intend pursuing the cases. Since I received those answers I have received information as to the whereabouts of one of the alleged offenders. I do not intend revealing that information here because it may prejudice any subsequent investigation and extradition of the person. I will pass information to both the Minister for Police and the Attorney General. I ask that investigations recommence, the warrants are executed for the arrest of these people, and that the DPP proceed with prosecutions of these offenders so that the Quintano family can receive justice.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.49 p.m.]: Yesterday I met with Mr John Coyle, the Chief Executive Officer of the HunterNet Co-operative Limited, to get an update on the Innovate the Hunter program, which is run by HunterNet, and several other activities undertaken by HunterNet. I want to point out to the House how important a group like HunterNet is to the ongoing development of industry, particularly manufacturing industry, in the Hunter, and to the collaborative work that is undertaken by many small- to medium-sized enterprises to ensure that the Hunter is competitive locally, nationally and in the export market. HunterNet is a co-operative of Hunter-based small- to medium-sized manufacturers, engineering and consulting companies. It is a not-for-profit organisation that was formed in 1992 for the express purpose of providing strategic leadership and a single voice to represent its members. HunterNet now has 37 members, 9 patrons, 18 sponsors and 4 associates, and 68 enterprises are involved.

If members remember the major structural changes that have occurred across the region—the withdrawal of BHP as a major manufacturing firm, the change in shipbuilding, the growth of a myriad of new small enterprises, the introduction of aerospace industries into the Hunter region and the growing complexity of manufacturing—they will realise HunterNet has played an important role. Clearly, HunterNet thought it was important to combine the skills, expertise and power of a group working together to ensure the future of the region. I will refer to a couple of programs with which HunterNet has been involved. First, its Model for Action Program was designed to promote knowledge-intensive manufacturing in the Hunter. Its aim was to say to small- and medium-sized, and even to larger firms, that they needed to upgrade their accreditation to the top Australian standards so that they could tender collaboratively for major projects, both nationally and internationally.

Second, HunterNet has also been involved in a program called Innovate the Hunter, which was designed to promote awareness of innovation among engineering and manufacturing companies and to highlight its benefits and value to industry. In that program HunterNet drew together not only its members but also the University of Newcastle, the Australian Industry Group, the Department of Regional Development and its expertise, and participating companies across the region to ensure that Hunter businesses were focused on innovation and its importance in upskilling business and making them more competitive.

HunterNet has also taken up the cudgels in relation to skills gaps, particularly in manufacturing industry, and has worked closely with both the Federal and State governments, and particularly with the Hunter TAFE. It has set up the successful HunterNet Group Training Company to alleviate the shortage of skilled labour in industry. HunterNet, together with the Australian Industry Group, has also looked at the barriers to entry for training, and focused on the problems confronted by small- to medium-sized enterprises not only in carrying out training within those enterprises, but also in accessing skilled labour. HunterNet is innovative and forward looking; it is very willing to collaborate to ensure that our manufacturing industries in the Hunter, as well as nationally, remain extremely competitive both at the national and international levels. I congratulate HunterNet for the way it has worked to improve business and industry in the Hunter.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.54 p.m.]: I raise planning matters in relation to the Ku-ring-gai council area of my electorate. I extend an invitation to the Minister for Planning to visit Ku-ring-gai and meet me and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to discuss planning proposals for the area. There are two reasons for the invitation: first, to stress to him the importance of being a little more sensitive in the way the State Government’s planning powers are imposed on Ku-ring-gai and, second, to make it clear to the council that it is becoming increasingly irresponsible, almost bordering on idiotic, in the manner in which it is dealing with development proposals. It is being unconstructive in the way it is resisting the planning powers that the State Government is seeking to apply to Ku-ring-gai. The former Minister visited most, if not all, North Shore councils, except Ku-ring-gai. It would be appropriate for the current Minister to get an understanding of the situation and indicate what his expectations are.

I have received a number of representations from local residents voicing their concerns at what is proposed for St Ives, a five-storey development with little or no transition in height, overshadowing other properties and affecting privacy in existing residential areas. There is a good case to tone down what is proposed and to make it more acceptable. Responsible councillors realise that change is inevitable in the St Ives area with the introduction of some medium-density housing development. However, there is scope for managing these matters more sensitively.

Some of the expectations of local residents are unrealistic. They cannot expect the council to reject every application. That has to be seen through the prism of responsibility and having regard to the State Government’s planning powers and expectations in Ku-ring-gai. One or two councillors and one or two resident groups have raised unreasonable expectations. They believe that objecting to the developments and asking council to reject applications is a good thing. It is not a good thing. It is irresponsible and will lead, first, to a delay in getting exemptions to certain planning provisions. Second, if that trend continues, particularly under a new mayor—given that some of the difficult councillors have been behind a change of mayor in the last few weeks—it will lead to the likelihood of council losing control of planning. If that occurs those councillors will clearly be responsible. The local community has to understand that not all power resides with councillors, and some medium- density development has to be accepted. Let us do it in a constructive way, rather than being silly and expecting that there will be none in St Ives.

I note that the council has received a letter from the Minister for Planning dated 8 September. It was received eight days later and gave council only seven days to respond. More time needs to be provided. The letter cites an example in Roseville, which probably highlights the irrationality of some councillors. Approval for a development at 8 Nola Street, Roseville was rescinded and, as a consequence of that decision, rejected. The Minister asked some valid questions. Those sorts of decisions reverse all the constructive work that has occurred with Ku-ring-gai Council over the past 18 months. There is too much at stake in managing the council’s planning powers and having some control over what happens in Ku-ring-gai to play silly games, which the previous council did for four years, to Ku-ring-gai’s long-term detriment. If we are going to wind the clock back under a new mayor, and with the support of some councillors, I fear Ku-ring-gai will be much worse off.

I invite the Minister to clarify the situation because a number of Ku-ring-gai councillors are taking a foolish approach to these matters. It is simplistic, superficial and expedient. If they keep going down that track residents in all parts of Ku-ring-gai will be far worse off. I invite the Minister to meet the two State members who represent the area and the councillors, together or separately. I impress on him the need to take a more sensitive approach. I also impress on him that he should make it clear to the mayor and to the councillors that they should stop being silly.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [5.59 p.m.]: Tonight I want to talk about a range of issues affecting the Harrington-Crowdy Head community. Many of them relate to funding and to a significant increase in population growth, not only in the Harrington-Crowdy Head community but right along the mid North Coast and the North Coast. Once again I bring before the House my concerns about the lack of funding from the three levels of government that is necessary to deal with the significant population growth in our region. Before I go into detail, there are three funding areas for the three levels of government to consider. First, at a local government level, the rate variation requested by the Greater Taree City Council was rejected and only a 3 per cent rise allowed. For some time the Greater Taree City Council has claimed that it is significantly underfunded from its rate base. I respect that claim, and I believe there is an argument for allowing a rate variation of some kind given the population growth in the area. I hope the Minister and the Government accept that.

Second, from a State Government point of view I am concerned about the current debate surrounding possible public sector staff freezes. That was one of the first policies announced by the Coalition. The first place to suffer as a result of those sorts of announcements is regional New South Wales and high-growth areas, such as the mid North Coast. The last thing we need is a policy of staff cutbacks or staff freezes. All areas of government services are underresourced and understaffed and we desperately need more staff and resources. I encourage members of Parliament of all political persuasions representing electorates on the North Coast to continue to argue for more resources and more staff for the mid-North Coast and North Coast of New South Wales.

Finally, at a Federal level, at the time of the proposal for the first Telstra sale the then Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, stood on the Harrington headland and said that fixing the break wall would be a great example of work that could be undertaken by the Commonwealth Government if the sale of Telstra was allowed to proceed. That work has not taken place and we are now in the lead-up to the sale of the remainder of Telstra. It may be that the current Deputy Prime Minister—and, ironically, the local Federal member of Parliament—will perhaps be able to deliver a more favourable outcome than his predecessors.

There are broader funding issues to be addressed that are of direct relevance to the Harrington-Crowdy Head community, but there are also some particular issues. The local community believes the lagoon dredging and backwater problem is one for government, as the problem is being caused by unfinished government work. The whole estuary and the unfinished work needs to be addressed as a priority because the ability to draw tourism to the area is being significantly affected. Currently at low tide one can almost walk across some of the affected areas. I hope the Government will acknowledge and address that problem.

With regard to the new bypass through Coopernook and the provision of an overpass, although private contractors say they are undertaking road works that would allow for a flyover, the Government continues to say that it will not proceed with it. I hope the work that is being done by the private contractors on the highway is positive and that we simply need to push Government across the line to put that flyover in place. I will continue to run the campaign to achieve that objective, and it is to be hoped that it will not take a series of accidents, or fatalities, at the intersection to push the Government to do what everyone acknowledges needs to be done.

The community is also concerned about aged-care services and funding for an aged-care complex, for which plans are in place, and the employment opportunities associated with it. I urge the Government to support those plans and not hold up that much-needed service. The local population in the area has increased to such an extent that consideration needs to be given to additional police and ambulance services. It is not acceptable for anyone to have to wait 20 to 30 minutes for an ambulance in an emergency. I refer also to the dredging of Crowdy Head boat harbour. It is one of the few safe ports on the east coast and mid North Coast. I call on the Government to acknowledge that and to fund and support it in an appropriate manner.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [6.04 p.m.]: Today I wish to detail the work of the Gunnedah and District Historical Society and the largely unrecognised role it plays in recording the history of the Gunnedah region and its people. The society comprises a dedicated band of about a dozen voluntary members who take an extremely proactive approach to providing the community with an invaluable historical resource. What makes the work of the society unique is the fact that it has chosen to house its collection in a decommissioned water tower which early last century held the town's water supply. The establishment of the Water Tower Museum can be attributed to the vision of a small group of people who recognised the importance of preserving and housing an extensive collection of historical information relating to the life and times of people in the district.

The society was formed in 1963 at a public meeting called by the then mayor of Gunnedah, Alderman Frank O'Keefe, who was quite visionary and very proactive. It was apparent to the society that as its collection grew a suitable alternative the old Schools of Arts building would be required to house it. By late 1967 the group's interest centred on land at Gunnedah's Anzac Park due to its close proximity to the town centre and passing tourist traffic. Council held a meeting on site with society representatives and members of the council's Works Committee and the idea was hatched to explore the conversion of the old water tower into a museum. The cement tower was originally constructed in 1908 and used as a water storage reservoir until 1948, when it was superseded by a larger facility. The tower had stood empty for many years, with the initial conversion work starting in August 1968.

Three local men—Lionel Erratt, Garvice (Massey) Mazitelli and Arnold Worboys—took to the cement tower wall with hammer and chisel. Working in their own time, the trio pounded through 30 centimetres of solid concrete which was reinforced with steel bars at seven centimetre intervals. When they eventually broke into the chamber they discovered the tower was in excellent condition and the conversion was able to go ahead. Many society members helped with the project, with much of the early work done by the late Colin Clegg, Curley Nowland and Athol Palmer. The bulk of the work, however, was carried out by Mr Erratt and his loyal gang, which included Bill McMorran and Evan Palmer. All labour was voluntary and costs were met by generous donations from the town's service clubs. Today the tower features timber floors, windows and four levels of displays with staircases leading to a rooftop observation deck.

I am told the consistent temperature inside the chamber favours the preservation of archived material and, while very chilly, the basement is ideal for storage. Many visitors to the museum are amazed by the conversion and the unique characteristics of the round room displays. In terms of resources, the Water Tower Museum features the best-recorded history of the 8th Division and the Second World War outside of the Australian War Memorial. It also contains profiles of local identities, a collection of historic photographs and a display of historic films and technological relics, such as gramophones, wirelesses and cameras. Volunteers regularly respond to many local and overseas inquiries, while school groups and neighbouring historical societies are regular visitors. The local newspaper makes frequent use of the archived material.

Gunnedah is celebrating its sesquicentenary next year and, to celebrate, the society is gathering material to publish in a book detailing the town's 150-year history. The society has published a book featuring death notices and cemetery plot locations, which members meticulously sourced from newspapers, and is also working towards compiling individual histories of local schools and other services. It is a credit to society members that they work so industriously toward providing the community with better and easier access to their resources, especially when one considers that, despite its conversion, the museum does not have running water or plumbing, has limited heating and relies heavily on donations and entry fees.

The society recently approached me with a request for assistance to buy a new photocopier for visitor use and to enable their archiving work to continue. The current second-hand machine is failing and, with replacement costs posing a substantial impost on the society's limited budget, I hope the Government will support the request. It is obvious to me that the work being undertaken within the Water Tower Museum and the society's contribution to community life in Gunnedah are going largely unrecognised. I intend meeting with members in the near future to discuss what can be done to ensure their work is indeed supported and better recognised at a State level. I look forward to working with the Premier to ensure that the society has a financially certain future and is able to continue to contribute to the fabric and wellbeing of the Gunnedah community.

[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marianne Saliba) left the chair at 6.09 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Motion, by leave, by Mr Kerry Hickey agreed to:

That Barry Joseph Collier be appointed to serve on the Public Bodies Review Committee in place of Milton Orkopoulos, discharged.

Debate resumed from 14 September 2005.

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [7.32 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes this bill for a number of reasons, which I will outline. We have significant concerns about some of the unknown aspects of the bill, which I will address shortly, in particular the reliance on the regulations and the method by which it is proposed that the charge will be set. However, the principal reason we oppose the bill is that it imposes yet another tax by the highest-taxing government in Australia. It also imposes a further cost shift, right through the realms of local government to the hip pocket of the ratepayer. When will this Labor Government assume some fiscal responsibility? It blames the Federal Government for its economic woes, calls on the Federal Government to pay for what are clearly State Government responsibilities, or cost-shifts to the third tier of government, local government—in this case, straight into the hip pocket of the taxpayer.

The Government set up the Stormwater Trust Fund, which is administered by the Environment Protection Authority. It was a $60 million fund, although other figures have been used, and it was later cut to $40 million. It was then cut completely, with just a few million dollars left in this year's budget to finish off some projects. The Government must tell the people of New South Wales who will pay these charges—the businessmen and women who will pay this fee and who already labour under an incredible State tax burden—why it stopped the Stormwater Trust. It appears obvious to the Opposition why the trust was closed down: because the Government is broke. Members need not believe me that the Government is broke. It was the Premier, and Treasurer who said the Government was in the red.

So what better way to dig itself out than by shutting down the trust, or stopping funding to the trust, letting the basic infrastructure of Sydney and New South Wales continue to rot and decay, and making councils and the citizens of New South Wales pay for the infrastructure directly. Surely one of the Government's core responsibilities as a State government is infrastructure maintenance. Surely the provision of a water supply and alternatives to reserve potable water is a basic core responsibility of government. But this Labor Government makes someone else take responsibility for it. It blames someone else, and passes the responsibility to someone else. That is the trademark of this Labor Government.

The documentation for the establishment of the Stormwater Trust sounds remarkably like this bill. Why? Because the Government's answer to withdrawing the Stormwater Trust is that it wants the residents to pay. In 1997 the New South Wales Government released the waterways package, which contained a range of initiatives to improve the quality of the State's waterways. A key initiative of the package was to improve the management of stormwater quality. This was to be achieved by requiring councils to prepare stormwater management plans and by implementing two kinds of projects, innovative and remedial, that are linked to the plans.

The establishment of the fund was also a response to the recommendations of the Waterways Advisory Panel. Under the proposal funding could be allocated to assist councils and certain State Government agencies, either individually or in groups, to pilot innovation in stormwater management or undertake remedial activities; to provide assistance to councils for the preparation of stormwater management plans; and for a state-wide education program to be co-ordinated by the Environment Protection Authority.

Stage one of the Stormwater Trust grant scheme was for early-action works. Its focus was to provide funds for piloting innovative technologies and undertaking remedial actions that were already sufficiently developed for early commencement to be possible. With regard to stage one, grants of between $50,000 and $1.5 million were generally available. The trust would even consider exceptional projects for funding of up to $3 million. Proposed stage two of the fund was to be primarily for implementing actions programmed in stormwater management plans that have been approved by the Environment Protection Authority. Priority was given to showing potential for significant environmental benefits to New South Wales urban waterways. The focus was to be on the waterways experiencing significant urban stormwater pollution problems.

Priority was also given to providing an opportunity for valuable innovations in stormwater management, by piloting innovative and cost-effective technologies under a range of catchment conditions, the results of which could be used in the development of stormwater management plans for remedial actions under those plans. Priority was also given to addressing stormwater pollution at or close to the source, and to demonstrating partnerships between local government and other public authorities that own or administer land and the private sector and/or appropriate research organisations. Priority was also given to ensuring demonstrable community support. It is noted that the then Minister for the Environment, Pam Allan, who is in the Chamber, said at an estimates committee hearing in 1998:

The waterways package released by the Government in May this year highlighted the need for a whole-of-government approach to stormwater management … Establishing the Stormwater Trust Fund was one of the key measures introduced to support local government to reduce stormwater pollution at its source. The objective of the Stormwater Trust is to encourage and support improved urban stormwater quality management practices that will improve the condition of the State's waterways.

However, as with everything the Labor Party does, when a project is seen as a success the Labor Party closes it down. But we know why: because the Government is in the red; it is going into debt. Instead of looking at its mismanagement and bloated public service it closed down what was a real asset to the community. On 23 June 2004 the Sydney Morning Herald reported:

Stormwater plan sunk

A project hailed as a world first in cleaning up stormwater before it reaches the ocean has been scrapped.

The axing of the $82 million Stormwater Trust came as the Department of Environment and Conservation took a 20 per cent funding cut, as outlined in April's mini budget. The $30 million reduction will result in up to 300 job losses over the next two years.

Although funding to buy land for new national parks and nature reserves has been assured, there will be reduced funds to manage those additional purchases.

The Government needs to re-establish the trust and properly fund it, carry out its core duties as a government, and provide local government with the funds to carry out the work needed to harvest stormwater. This will go a long way towards relieving the chronic shortage of water we are experiencing in New South Wales. The Government can, in virtually a few moments, say it will spend $2 billion on a desalination plant yet also ask ratepayers to pay $25 for stormwater management to fill the cuts made to the Stormwater Trust. If proper reuse programs were addressed with the $2 billion that has been allocated for the desalination plant there would be no need for the plant and no need for the $25 and $100 levies. The Minister should put the Trust back in place, put the $2 billion for Carr's fantasy—the desalination plant—into reuse projects, including stormwater harvesting, to provide water for non-drinking purposes, and show his responsibilities to the people of New South Wales before he asks them to cough up and bail the Labor Government out of its budget deficit.

The State Government is always bellyaching that the Federal Government should pay for this or pay for that, which nine times out of ten is a State Government responsibility. But, in the case of funds for stormwater harvesting, why does the Premier not go to the Federal Government and seek to access some of the $2 billion from the National Water Saving Fund? At least the Federal Government understands and accepts its responsibilities and has provided real funds, while the New South Wales Labor Government has unbelievably wound back a vital stormwater initiative in closing down the Stormwater Trust Fund.

I consulted the Local Government and Shires Associations on this bill and I thank them for getting back to me. The Local Government and Shires Associations support in principle the proposal for councils to levy additional stormwater charges in consultation with their local communities. Obviously, the Coalition does not have the same view as the Local Government and Shires Associations. That is no disrespect to the position of the Local Government and Shires Associations, it merely reflects that the Coalition has approached this matter from a different direction. That is, the Coalition considers these charges to be a tax and it believes that there are alternatives to these charges, alternatives that the Government is in the process of closing down.

The Local Government and Shires Associations have other concerns about the bill, in relation to the proposed charges and regulations, both of which are topics I intend to address specifically. I might add that the Local Government and Shires Associations have highlighted that although there have been ongoing discussions over the past 5 to 10 years on the subject matter they were disappointed that they were not contacted on the contents of the bill. That is not a very good start for a new Minister. More and more bills are being introduced in which the greater part and the real meat of the content of a bill will be spelled out in regulations, which do not come before the Parliament and can only be looked at by way of a disallowance debate.

I note that the Minister also stated that there have been seven independent inquiries or surveys concerning willingness to pay, and apparently these surveys showed a significant willingness to pay $25 to $40 annually. It appears that the Government has introduced this bill on the strength of those surveys, and I would like to know who carried out these surveys, what the questions were and what the percentages were that showed the willingness to pay. The bill will provide councils with an option to charge $25 for residential blocks and $100 for businesses for stormwater management at and around where those charges were levied. That alone will be a micro-economic management nightmare. The Opposition has some concerns about those figures and how they will be applied. The Local Government and Shires Associations also have some concerns in that area, but for different reasons, and I will come back to those concerns later.

However, having said that, it is pleasing to see that the Government has again adopted another Coalition policy, that is, the re-use of stormwater. The difference though is how it is paid for. The Opposition has clearly stated a number of times that rather than build a desalination plant, the re-use of stormwater and wastewater is the way to go. Presently Sydney Water, for instance, recycles only 15 billion litres of water. This is less than 3 per cent of Sydney's yearly demand. Compare this with Adelaide, which recycles 19.2 per cent of its water, and Melbourne, which recycles 11 per cent. It is a pretty poor comparison for New South Wales. Additionally, 75 per cent of Sydney's water supply ends up as wastewater. This is equivalent to 450 million litres.

I know this bill is about stormwater harvesting but the figures I just cited show how the New South Wales Labor Government is simply not interested in alternative strategies. With the potential to harvest 360 billion litres of stormwater in Sydney alone, compared with 180 billion litres created from desalination, the re-use of stormwater is clearly the way to go. Add into the desalination versus recycling debate that desalination will produce 945,000 tonnes of CO² a year—equivalent to 220,000 more cars on the road—and the folly of the Labor Government's desalination policy is evident.

The proposed charges are vague and ambiguous. For instance, in the briefing note the Minister kindly gave me he states that the $25 charge will be $25 per household, yet in his second reading speech he states that the charge will be $25 per average residential block, and the bill refers to an annual charge for each parcel of rateable land. So if the charge is to be as it appears in the briefing note it is a charge per household, and that means every house would pay it. But the Minister's second reading speech, which can be relied on for the interpretation of statutes, states "residential block". There is a vast difference between "household" and "residential block". For instance, a residential block might have ten units on it. If "per block" is the appropriate criterion for the charge, then I presume the body corporate of such multidensity housing would pay the $25 and, effectively, the households would pay $2.50. But if the "per household" criterion is used the Government would get $250 from the one "residential block". Is that fair? It is certainly ambiguous. And it would certainly seem that the intention of the Act is to charge per household because the bill refers to "each parcel of rateable land". I presume that means that, in multidensity housing, units are parcels of rateable land.

So in the first instance the Minister must clear up this ambiguity, especially as he says in his second reading speech that councils are expected to be transparent in the levying of the charge. He is hardly being transparent. Secondly, the Minister must explain why, when this bill is predicated on the assumption that a block of land contributes to X amount of stormwater runoff, he may be collecting 10 or 20 times the amount from one block with 10 or 20 units on it as he would from the block next door which is the same size but has only one household on it—if the household test is used, or if it is one single rateable piece of land if the definition in the bill is used.

Also, what happens where there is a development of many hundreds of units, but it is a controlled development with strategic rainwater and stormwater measures already built into it? Will each of those blocks be liable for $25? This could potentially be a windfall for councils, and the way in which the fee is to be applied must be very clearly spelled out. Likewise, what is the situation with pensioners? Are they going to be slugged the whole $25, or will they be entitled to a discount? Bearing in mind that the fee is collected outside rate pegging, I am almost certain that councils would impose a full $25 fee. I could not imagine any council that would not. Therefore, I think the Government should have a watching brief to ensure that there are no windfalls.

As I have mentioned previously, the Local Government and Shires Associations have indicated support for the bill but they have strong reservations concerning the arbitrary level of the upper limits of $25 for residential properties and $100 for commercial properties, which appear to have been determined without criteria or rationale. I do not agree that there should be flexibility in the upper level, but clearly there has been a haphazard way of determining the charges. There does not seem to be any logic at all. I mentioned my concern about the heavy reliance on the regulations to spell out the fine print of how this legislation will be put into effect, and my concerns about the reliance on regulations.

I note that throughout the Minister's second reading speech there are references to the regulations: "To support this bill, the Government is preparing amendments to the regulations under the Act"; "Under the proposed regulations council will be required to separately report revenue raised by the charges and activities funded"; "The bill and the proposed regulations reflect these community views"—allegedly, the community's willingness to pay a stormwater charge; "The proposed regulations will cap the annual stormwater management fee at $25 per average block"; "The regulations and supporting guidelines will require council to seek community support", et cetera; "The proposed regulations will specify the maximum stormwater charges that can be applied to commercial property", et cetera; and "Regulations have also prevented council from applying the charge where they already have a stormwater related environmental levy or drainage charge in place".
When the Government brings in bills which will impose further costs on the community that should be clearly spelled out in the bill. The Government should not rely on vague references to regulations that will come into effect some time after the passing of the bill—regulations which are not usually understood or even read by the average person if they are tucked away in a Government Gazette. We know that transparency has not been one of the strong suits of the Labor Government in this State and we see quite a deal of blurring in this bill. Again I refer to the concerns of the Local Government and Shires Associations about the process of regulation. The Local Government and Shires Associations have asked to be fully involved with the Department of Local Government in the drafting of the regulations if this legislation is successful. That is not unreasonable and might build a bridge and enable the Minister to rectify his lack of consultation with the Local Government and Shires Associations on the contents of the bill.

Unfortunately, neither the Minister nor the Government has shown much imagination in leading the way in how harvested stormwater will be used. The only visions that the Government seems to have are a few vague thoughts about watering golf courses and parks and stopping dozens of houses being flooded. The reuse of stormwater could be applied much more widely, particularly in an industrial area, instead of using perfectly good potable drinking water for industrial purposes. Councils, and indeed State government instrumentalities, must think outside the square when considering the use of stormwater run-off. For instance, I have been made aware of one couple who were obliged to put a stormwater dispersal tank under their front lawn. On asking council whether they could use the water for their garden, they were told that they could not. Why? If that were to be the attitude of local government to commonsense usage of stormwater run-off, it would be collecting the $25 under false pretences. I hope that is an isolated incident and that councils will think outside the square when implementing stormwater-harvesting initiatives.

I am concerned that the Department of Housing and the Aboriginal Housing Company are exempt from paying this levy. As I said earlier, the Opposition sees this charge as a tax and a cost-shifting operation. Indeed, where there are large Department of Housing or Aboriginal housing holdings in areas that might have high stormwater run-off it is definitely a cost-shifting exercise, straight across to other ratepayers, to cover those estates. The Government should pay a fee to the relevant councils on a pro rata basis for the Department of Housing and Aboriginal Housing Company landholdings in that particular council area. It is quite unfair to expect council, and directly the other ratepayers in the area, to bear the fee to mitigate stormwater run-off damage in those estates. Many new developments have significant stormwater mitigation measures in place and I do not believe that they should be burdened with a fee, either on a commercial property or on a residential property.

Perhaps the Minister can tell me in reply whether he will take a proactive stance to reduce the amount payable by individuals where mitigation strategies have been put into place. The legislation also seems to be silent on whether the Minister can set the rate or whether it will be optional for councils to set it, up to $25. I think it is the latter. If it is the latter, will the department or the Minister have to sign off on such fee before it is imposed? Will the relevant council have to satisfy the Minister or the department of the need for the fee and that it has satisfied any criteria for levying the fee? Again, it is all very vague and ambiguous. I note that the legislation and regulations will require councils to spend the revenue raised in a transparent way, and apparently there will be public consultation on how it is spent. In that regard I further note that the Minister said in his second reading speech:

The regulation and supporting guidelines will require councils to seek community support for the charge in an open and accountable way.

Would this be similar to the rate-pegging legislation, which requires councils to hold public meetings to tell the community what they will do with the rate increase, but does not allow the community to veto the charge? Reading between the lines, the same sort of activity will occur with this charge. The bill does not state that if the community does not support the charge the charge will not proceed. What happens if the community does not want to pay the $25, or thereabouts, for a stormwater levy? I ask the Minister in reply to address the way in which the formal community consultation process will occur. I also note that the Minister in his second reading speech said that councils will be required to provide communities with a summary of the activities that they propose to undertake using the income from the charge. What costs will be involved in supplying communities with that information, and how will it be supplied?

Quite obviously, it will be a costly exercise if the information is supplied to every household, and will certainly eat into the $25. Councils already spend huge amounts of money because of State Government requirements to report to ratepayers about their activities on a regular basis. Whilst the Opposition does not for one minute suggest that councils should not be open and transparent and report to their ratepayers, the level of reporting now involves a huge mounting cost. Although it is probably not within the leave of the bill, the Minister should consider some of the reports put out by local government to ascertain whether this is merely a competition between the glitziest, shiniest report or the report providing what it should provide, that is, information to ratepayers.

I expect that councils, through their annual report, would advise ratepayers of what they intend to do with the fees raised in relation to stormwater management. If that is the case, the report should be written to allow people the opportunity to provide feedback on how the fee should be spent. I note that under this bill catchment management authorities have a role to play, in particular, on a regional basis. The Government set up catchment management authorities and I hope that there will not be a flexing of muscles between councils and catchment management authorities in relation to any of these programs.

Again, the Local Government and Shires Associations have concerns about the involvement of catchment management authorities. I might add that if the Minister had consulted the Local Government and Shires Associations my comments on their behalf might not be necessary. The Local Government and Shires Associations have told me that although they acknowledge the importance of consultation with catchment management authorities on stormwater initiatives they strongly believe that councils and their communities should determine the quantum of levy. The bill is fundamentally flawed. On the basis merely of the ambiguity and vagueness I have outlined the bill does not deserve support. The Coalition believes that it is fair, equitable and reasonable to reject the imposition of this new tax and cost-shifting exercise on the people of New South Wales.

Ms PAM ALLAN (Wentworthville) [7.56 p.m.]: I was disappointed to hear the contribution from the honourable member for Myall Lakes, a member who has been in this Chamber for as long as I have. He was a member of this Chamber when a number of environmental issues, including stormwater pollution, were raised as matters of concern in the wider community. He referred to initiatives taken in the mid-1990s, for example, the creation of the stormwater trust, which tried to deal with problems that this bill seeks to further address.

However, his conclusions are completely erroneous and he is urging the Coalition to oppose the bill. That is the joke. Honourable members opposite should go back to the drawing board and examine their objectives on behalf of the New South Wales community. I am surprised that honourable members opposite are not aware of the importance of this bill. The honourable member for Lane Cove was mayor of Lane Cove and the honourable member for Cronulla has been involved with local communities in his electorate, both electorates at the cutting-edge of stormwater pollution in their various catchments. They know that local communities perceive stormwater pollution as the most pressing urban pollution problem in this State, with the exception perhaps of air emissions from roadworks.

The Government has introduced this bill as a solution, yet the Opposition spokesperson has rejected it. Not only did he reject it; he stood up on behalf of the Local Government and Shires Associations and attempted to proselytise that the association would not seek to raise a levy of $25 per household in relevant constituencies to solve this problem. Someone at the Local Government and Shires Associations is leading him astray. Local councils want this power to ensure that they can raise the levy. If I had any reservation about the bill, it would be that it should monitor councils to ensure the money is spent wisely, although that is not its main objective. The Opposition should support this bill in principle. Indeed, the Opposition can move amendments in Committee if it believes the bill can be improved.

I truly believe in this legislation. In the mid-1990s when we had the Stormwater Trust we exhausted $100 million of taxpayers' money to try to solve what is still a major urban pollution problem. Although we were partly successful, because we managed to empower many councils, through direct grants, to do something about stormwater pollution, the problem still exists. We are in drought in Sydney and in other parts of New South Wales, and we all know that when it rains we have major stormwater pollution problems. Indeed, the Department of Environment and Conservation identifies stormwater pollution as the major problem in Sydney when it rains. This bill is another important initiative to deal with the problem.

Listening to the honourable member for Myall Lakes, one imagines that local government authorities will be compelled to impose the levy. That is not the case. Members opposite should check the legislation: The levy is optional. If the honourable member for Lane Cove, who is a former mayor of Lane Cove, cannot trust his council and his constituents to do the right thing by the good burghers of Lane Cove, what will we achieve? We must trust councils to raise money and to report back to the Department of Local Government on how they consulted their local communities to get approval for the levy in the first place and then finally down the track how they managed to spend the money.
As a former member of local government I am prepared to give local councils the opportunity to do that. Imposing the levy is not compulsory. A number of local government authorities in the metropolitan area can do this job responsibly, and this legislation empowers them to do so. What are members opposite afraid of? It is crucial that we continue to address the problem of stormwater pollution. As members opposite continue to point out time and again in question time, the supply of money is not inexhaustible. We must find ways to raise money to solve the problem. One specific point made by the honourable member for Myall Lakes was that we should recycle stormwater more sensibly. Guess what? We are already on that path. Within the current programs, the urban stormwater program funds—as a result of government initiative—10 stormwater harvesting projects.

Councils are already trying to utilise stormwater. They are succeeding, but they need more opportunities. And to do that more capital revenue needs to be invested in the problem. These projects are continuing. Through this legislation, local government authorities have the opportunity to impose the levy, with the support of their local communities, to tackle the problem. If I had one criticism it is that not all the communities in Sydney are equally concerned about the stormwater problem. Indeed, some communities, such as Lane Cove and Manly, might be more concerned than the Parramatta and Blacktown communities. Nevertheless, the Government is not walking away from its final responsibilities on this issue. Through the proactive Department of Environment and Conservation, the Government will continue to raise awareness of the issue and give local councils the opportunity to apply for projects.

Another leadership model we have in place to ensure that councils and communities address the problem is catchment management authorities. Frankly, I was appalled when the honourable member for Myall Lakes mounted an attack on catchment management authorities. He quoted the Local Government and Shires Associations as if it were biblical script that somehow we should not support catchment management authorities. The Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority has been made up over the years of a number of other authorities that have been working hard on flood mitigation and urban stormwater programs in the Sydney area. That group is respected by existing councils. It is made up of people from councils, and it works with councils to ensure that they address the issues.

Members opposite are afraid to give councils the opportunity to raise more resources within their local communities to deal with the problem, to the extent that they are seriously contemplating opposing the legislation. Frankly, I do not know how some North Shore representatives will be able to say to their councils and constituents, "We are not prepared to raise any more money to deal with your problems." In case members opposite have not noticed, rivers run through their electorates. Their communities have identified stormwater as being of primary conservation concern. However, they are prepared to oppose in the Parliament the opportunity for local government authorities—and most of them are of the same political persuasion as members opposite—to support this levy.

The Government is doing the right thing in this regard. Certainly, we tried the proactive approach in the past. We sunk money into the stormwater problem. The supply of money is almost inexhaustible. The Government can spend as much money as it likes on stormwater management; the problem will exist for a number of years to come. We can build on what we have already done. What we have done has not been irrelevant; it has been constructive. However, we must build on it, and the way to do that, given that we have tight budgetary considerations, is to get local government directly involved. Local councils should talk to their constituents. Some constituencies on the North Shore are the most active constituencies I have ever observed. These people want to be engaged in dialogue with their local members, such as the honourable member for Lane Cove and the honourable member for Manly. They want to be involved. Members opposite should talk to their councils, which will grab this opportunity to try to deal with the problem.

Finally, I congratulate the Minister for Local Government. He is a relatively new appointee to the portfolio, but he is showing himself to be extremely proactive. Obviously the speech of the honourable member for Myall Lakes, who is the shadow Minister, was written for him because he has never made a more coherent speech, and I have been here since 1988, when he was elected. Obviously it was written by someone in the Local Government and Shires Association because basically it mirrored the association's concerns. I am surprised that the association feels the way it does. The current Minister has an open door policy with the Local Government and Shires Associations. If the association has concerns about such issues it should pick up the telephone and talk to the Minister.

The Minister is giving councils more powers, not fewer powers. That is why I am surprised by the Opposition's position. Fancy opposing an opportunity for local councils to have a direct revenue-raising opportunity to solve what is probably the most important pollution problem identified by constituents! I congratulate the Minister for Local Government. I certainly congratulate the Government on this initiative. Although we had the experiment in the mid-1990s with the Stormwater Trust, it is great that we are continuing to provide strategies to deal with the ongoing problems of stormwater pollution.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [8.07 p.m.]: The object of the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to allow councils to levy an annual charge for stormwater management services. I congratulate the honourable member for Cessnock on his promotion to the position of Minister for Local Government. Let us hope that this brings with it a new era of transparency, openness and support for local government. I take the opportunity to mention the honourable member for Myall Lakes, who spoke well on this issue and is a great supporter of local government. As honourable members know, many stormwater assets such as pipes and drains, particularly in Sydney, are nearing the end of their life. The Government estimates the upgrade costs to be about $1.5 billion.

Local councils have a primary responsibility for stormwater management and drainage asset ownership, although some government agencies, such as Sydney Water, have stormwater management responsibilities. This bill will provide for a capped annual charge of $25 per household, although we have been told that it could be per residential block—the intention of the legislation seems to be per household but again it is ambiguous at best—and $100 per business, which will be outside the rate- pegging component of rates. As honourable members know, in the past councils could draw on a $30 million State Government Stormwater Trust Fund. However, that fund has been sunsetted due to the financial difficulties imposed on the people of New South Wales by the New South Wales Labor Government. The State budget is in crisis so the money obviously is not there. In addition, Federal Government funds are available under the National Water Savings Fund, a $2 billion fund that could be accessed in lieu of this charge.

I thank the Howard Government for the leadership it has shown in regard to environmental issues. It is well ahead of any Labor government in the past, and it should be commended for that. The honourable member for Myall Lakes noted that the Department of Housing and the Aboriginal Housing Company are exempt. I share his view that it if this bill is successful the Government should pay the fee to councils for Department of Housing and Aboriginal Housing in those council areas.

It is the view of my local council and my constituents that the Government should reintroduce the abandoned $30 million stormwater trust. Federal funds are available, so there is no need for this charge. This is a new tax. This is more cost shifting by the State Government to local government. Suppose you were arrogant, greedy, mean and financially inept and suppose you were the New South Wales Government—but I repeat myself! I draw the attention of the House to a paper by Councillor Ian Tiley of the Maclean shire on cost shifting and underfunded mandates. The paper intended to analyse the nature and impacts upon local government of cost shifting and underfunded mandate practices by State governments to address difficulties such practices are occasioning to local government roles, responsibilities and resources. The paper states:

In recent years there has become an awareness and ample evidence that a practice has developed in Australia whereby [for example] … State governments have resorted to passing increasing functions and responsibilities to local government. Local Councils have argued that the devolutions have amounted to unfair and unacceptable imposts, because they have usually been arbitrary and not satisfactorily matched with provision of adequate financial resources by the devolving spheres of government.

The paper states that it has been noted:

… that States proportion of grants to councils have declined over time as Financial Assistance Grants (FAG's) and Special Grants from the Commonwealth have increased.

As the honourable member for Cronulla will know, the difference between the State Government and the Federal Government is that the Federal Government is able to manage its budget well. It has been able to lead this country through some difficult times. It is able to provide assistance, whereas the State, through its level of financial ineptness, continues to look at cost shifting and discovering new tactics to make up for more and more black holes. That begs the question: Where has the money gone? Was it put on race 3, No. 8? Was it left in the back of the car going home? All is forgiven—just tell us where it has gone. The paper further states:

Whilst the roles and responsibilities of local government have undeniably broadened in recent years, councils remain under the direct control of the states by virtue of State Local Government Acts and specific references to local government under State Constitutions. Legislative review in the last decade in all states has broadened the general competency powers of local government and provided councils a wider role, mandate and service provision responsibility.
The dissertation examines Commonwealth and State funding assistance to local government with particular focus on the role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in determination and distribution of FAG's, and taking into account the issues related to Vertical Fiscal Imbalance and the Commission's obligation to provide Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation.

The paper further states:

Greater recent public engagement, participation and expectations by local communities in local governance issues, for a variety of reasons has exacerbated pressure for a wider range and better quality services provision, causing major resultant resourcing issues for councils. It is suggested that this situation has occurred at least partly because of the inaction of other spheres of government.

I bring the attention of the House—this is very important—to the paper, "At the Crossroads", an inquiry into local government and cost shifting. The paper was put together by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. Members on the Government side may not realise that the simple definition of "cost shifting" from the local government perspective is an increase in the cost to local government without an offsetting benefit. This paper states some pertinent points:

Overall, the level of State grants to local government has failed to keep pace with changing responsibilities and cost increases;

Government members who have been in local government know the full story. The paper goes on:

States … have legislated for local government to assume additional responsibilities, or changed regulatory frameworks in such a way as to impose additional costs on councils, without providing matching resources. Many councils are given the responsibility of enforcing State regulations without commensurate funding;

Some States levy considerable charges on local government—

such as New South Wales—

States … have reduced or withdrawn financial support for services leaving local government to deal with community expectations that those services will be maintained;

Rationalisation of public and private services in rural and remote regions has forced local government to fill the gap; and

Local government across Australia has faced major increases in accountability and compliance requirements without adequate recognition of the cost implications.

I ask honourable members to note the increases in accountability and compliance requirements, something we do not see from the New South Wales Labor Government. The paper continues:

Some submissions also consider limits imposed by some States on the level of local government rates and/or fees and charges to be a form of cost shifting …

Newcastle City Council's submission documents a long list of additional responsibilities imposed in recent years, particularly as a result of actions by the NSW State government.

This is not North Sydney Council; this is Newcastle City Council. The paper further states:

These include new or more demanding roles in the areas of planning, environmental management and public health, as well as increased levies for waste disposal and fire brigades. Newcastle Council estimates the total ongoing cost of its increased responsibilities at some $2 million per annum.

That is $2 million worth of cost shifting. The House of Representatives committee further states:

… notes that steps are being taken in at least two States (Tasmania and South Australia) to review financial relationships between State and local government, and that these reviews could facilitate resolution of complaints about cost shifting. Negotiation of partnership agreements between State governments or individual State agencies and local councils can also provide an opportunity to address local government's concerns.

While we are looking forward to a level of transparency, openness, assistance and support between State and local government in New South Wales, we can see it does not seem to be occurring. This is just another case of financial mismanagement and we see further cost shifting. I draw the attention of the House to the local government revenue base in this House of Representatives report. The report states:

… local councils on average raise about 80% of the revenue they require, principally from property rates and service fees and charges. However, this level of financial self-sufficiency varies greatly between councils: amongst larger councils in metropolitan areas own-source revenues may fund 95% or more of expenditure, whilst small rural and remote councils may depend on grants for over 50% of their revenue.

Those on the Government side who have been in local government know that, being so close to the community, councils are highly sensitive to complaints about a high level of rates, quite often not assisted by the high level of rate pegging and lack of support. I draw the attention of the House to the changes in local government revenue sources in constant 1997-98 prices contained in the report. In 1974-75 rates were 54.1 per cent; user charges were 13.4 per cent; others, 7.2 per cent; Federal transfers were 10.5 per cent and State transfers were 14.8 per cent. In 1997-98 Federal transfers were 12.1 per cent as opposed to 7.1 per cent for State transfers.

When one looks at the annual growth for those, one sees Federal transfers have increased by 4.3 per cent whereas State transfers have grown by 0.4 per cent. Since the mid-1970s the Commonwealth Government has supported local government with financial assistance grants. It recognises the diversity of local government, and its primary aim is to equalise the capacity of different local councils to provide an adequate range of services. Honourable members with a local government background know what it is like as the State pushes more taxes on to local government, as it continues to levy local government and as it continues to legislate that local government should carry more of a burden.

I again draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Federal Government is most supportive. Money is available from the Federal Government to assist rather than burden taxpayers. The State once again will use this issue as a brickbat to knock local government about the head, urging it to impose the levy, which it is all for. The State Government is not prepared to put the money up but once again it is prepared to bash up local government. Local councillors do a fantastic job; local government does a fantastic job. However, they need the State Government off their back. It is about time they got the monkey of the New South Wales Labor Government off their back.

The House of Representatives report refers to the steady growth in financial assistance grants and other forms of Commonwealth funding to local government being accompanied by a relative decline in State support. Over recent decades the Commonwealth has dealt increasingly more directly with local government on matters of mutual interest. Councils receive substantial special-purpose funding in addition to financial assistance grants. Many local councils and community leaders in my electorate rely incredibly heavily on support grants from the Federal Government because there is a financial black hole in New South Wales into which money has disappeared.

It is great that new childcare centres and environmental projects are being built with money from the Federal Government. The expansion of the role of local government over the past 30 and 40 years has not been matched by a commensurate increase in revenue. Local government revenues have grown at a significantly slower rate than those of the Federal and, particularly, State governments. One has only to look in New South Wales to see how State revenue has increased. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga will tell honourable members that there are more taxes, and hidden taxes, in this State than one would find anywhere else in the world.

Ms Linda Burney: We are talking about stormwater.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: And stormwater is very important. Federal money is there. We had the National Water Savings Fund. We have been there. We had the State Government Stormwater Trust Fund. However, the State Government wants to throw another hidden tax onto the people of New South Wales. You are happy to sit there and bash your local council. I recommend that you go and have a talk to the general manager and some of the councillors to see what they have to put up with from this State Government. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The very fact that the House of Representatives inquiry took place, with its broad terms of reference, indicates that the Commonwealth has taken an interest in the viability and effectiveness of Australian local government. Once again we must congratulate the Howard Government on taking such an active role in local communities.

Mr Kerry Hickey: Point of order: The remarks of the honourable member for Lane Cove should be brought back to the bill, which is about stormwater management and its impact on residential land and councils. It is not about the Bible. I know that the Liberal Party is very interested in the Bible nowadays. The honourable member should be brought back to the bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I have the gist of the point of order. All speeches must be relevant to the bill. I uphold the point of order.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: My remarks are pertinent to the bill because the State Government Stormwater Trust Fund worked well. The Government effectively is now trying to get local government and ratepayers to pay for this when the State Government should be paying for it. I think that is pertinent. Who is going to pay for this? It is cost shifting. That is very much at the core of the matter.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Federal money is available.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Yes. All the Government has to do is pick up the phone and talk to the Feds. I am sure they would be more than happy to assist. The financial assistance grants system has specific program grants from the Commonwealth. It is the largest provider of funding to local government. It is not the State Government; it is the Federal Government. Let me quote from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Ratepayers across Australia are suffering from cuts to recreation, entertainment and community facilities [including things such as stormwater] because councils are being underfunded by the states, local government's lobbying body has claimed.

Residents also have to endure "extremely fragile" infrastructure such as roads, pavements and water pipes because of the funding shortfall, according to the Australian Local Government Association.

The association claims cost shifting by the States is adding $500 million to $1.1 billion a year to councils' costs, because the states are failing to allocate additional funds for extra responsibilities placed on councils.

It says that in NSW the hardest-hit councils are Sydney and the inner suburbs, as well as municipalities on the northern and southern coasts, where population pressures are increasing.

One thing we have to give this Government is imagination. It cannot run the economy, the trains, the health system, the police service—it could not run a race. However, this Government has a great imagination when it comes to finding new taxes and ways to offset taxes to various community groups—in this case local government. We should be supporting local government, not levying local government more. The State Government should get off the back of local government and approach the Federal Government for assistance under the National Water Savings Fund or go back and initiate once again the State Government Stormwater Trust Fund. The Opposition will oppose the bill as alternative sources of funding are available. We should not be secretly putting our hand in the pocket of ratepayers, as the State Government usually does. If it were not for the financial crisis that the New South Wales Government has found itself in, and put itself in, it would not now be in the position of having to force local government to collect more taxes on its behalf.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [8.27 p.m.]: I listened with significant interest to the honourable member for Lane Cove. For someone who has been involved in local government, that was an extraordinary performance. He is fully aware that the drainage systems, particularly in the city areas, are largely the responsibility of local government, and have been the responsibility of local government for a long time. Some drainage systems and some catchments are remnants of the old Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board days, but these are few and far between. Due to increased requirements from the communities, local governments have had to upgrade crumbling infrastructure in many of the inner areas. Historically, local government has not been good at maintaining its infrastructure, particularly when that infrastructure is under the roadway. Local government traditionally has been very good at maintaining the infrastructure of buildings, parks, roads and gutters. When it comes to the underground, where it is very complicated, where a cut-and-cover exercise is necessary to get into the drains, it tends not to have been done. As a result there is a significant rundown of the infrastructure.

With Australian Accounting Standard 27 in place, local government generally is now required to make allocations towards the maintenance of that infrastructure. The problem confronting most local government areas is that they do not have the revenue base to deal with the maintenance on a regular basis. Therefore, there is an ongoing rundown of infrastructure. When it comes to drainage and stormwater issues there is an additional problem with the urban run-off from the road surface and pollution of the water with significant amounts of hydrocarbons and other dissolved toxins going into waterways or, as is the case in my electorate, beaches.

Local government in the eastern suburbs, with which I am familiar, has put significant amounts of money, generally through borrowings, into installing pollution traps and other stormwater pollution control devices of varying designs and efficacy. However, in many instances the program has been haphazard. It depends on the individual council’s budget, the capacity to raise revenue or the borrowing capacity and, in some instances, being able to tap into individual State or Federal programs. In addition, the approach so far has been to clean up the pollution to prevent it entering a particular waterway or beach, rather than look at utilising a significant amount of stormwater run-off for beneficial purposes. It is acknowledged that in some instances a significant amount of that stormwater run-off has a high level of toxicity, particularly where there is a parallel sewerage line and overflow points in high-intensity rain periods. That creates problems with what the water may be used for. Therefore, there is a need to install sand filters and holding tanks if the water is to be reused in parks and reserves. There is a limitation to using it on playing fields if sewage pollution has entered the system.

Local government has significant responsibilities. It also has a desire to reuse the water where possible. For example, about three or four litres a second go down the drain at Bronte Park, with which I am very familiar. About 80 per cent of the time that water is reusable, but currently it finishes up at Bronte Beach. The same applies in Tamarama. There is a higher level of contamination in the drainage systems at both Coogee and Bondi. There is a real capacity for local government to deal with that. The hamstringing of local government’s capacity to raise revenue has had a detrimental effect on infrastructure. I listened to the honourable member for Myall Lakes give a description of the bill and how it would apply. The bill cannot be read in isolation; it has to be read in conjunction with the existing provisions of the Act. That is where one finds the various responsibilities relating to public consultation and the specific use of revenue raised by this type of levy or how it is locked in. It is not simply an exercise of putting it into general revenue.

The bill will give councils the opportunity to raise a stormwater management service charge. Councils in my electorate now have a further option to help with the cost of providing stormwater services. Flooding by urban stormwater in Sydney causes about $70 million in flood damages annually, when we actually get some rain. Up to 5,000 houses and 1,500 businesses in Sydney could be flooded during a major storm. I am familiar with the catchment at Beach Road, Bondi, which regularly floods that area when it banks up. That is a result of the raising of the water table that runs across Royal Sydney Golf Course. While Sydney faces water supply shortages, stormwater run-off is an underutilised resource that could add to current water supplies.

The volume of stormwater run-off from Sydney is approximately equal to Sydney's annual water consumption. Many stormwater assets such as pipes and drains are nearing the end of their life and require replacement. Upgrade costs have been estimated to be $1.5 billion. Our local councils provide frontline services in environmental management in many areas, especially in country towns and cities. The bill will reinforce local government's key role in environment protection and natural resources management, giving it extra resources to deal with a major responsibility. Most councils fund these activities through their normal rates or through environmental levies. The bill will allow councils who have the support of their community to raise additional revenue for stormwater management works and programs.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Point of order: The Minister has left the House.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr PAUL PEARCE: That process is in keeping with those provisions of the Act that require councils to consult their communities when determining revenue-raising options and to put out for public discussion revenue and expenditure proposals. It is a normal procedure under the Act. There have been a number of surveys across the State on the community's willingness to pay to address stormwater problems. These surveys have found a strong desire by the community for money raised locally to be spent locally and for that to happen in a transparent and accountable way. The bill and its proposed supporting regulations will reflect the desire of the community. Revenue from the stormwater management service charge will be spent in the local council area. In the metropolitan area more than 20 councils of varying sizes participated in the surveys. They are representative of councils across Sydney: in the north-west, the south-west, the northern beaches and inner city. Two regional councils participated in the willingness-to-pay surveys and many councils consulted their local communities in the preparation of their stormwater management plans.

We will also ensure that councils are required to report back to the community on how the revenue was spent. There will be no double dipping. If a council already has a drainage charge or environmental levy targeting stormwater, it will not be able to levy the charge for the same purpose. If a council wants to raise funds for stormwater management, that has traditionally been through a special rate or an environmental levy. For the past four years Waverley Council, which straddles both my electorate and the electorate of Vaucluse, has had in place an environmental levy targeting stormwater and urban run-off management. After an extensive public consultation process the residents of Waverley agreed the objectives would be beneficial.

The funds raised from the levy are specifically hypothecated to stormwater management. The current environmental levy will finish on 30 June 2006. In utilising the funds generated by the levy, a multipronged approach was adopted by council that combined capital infrastructure, cleaning processes and education. One of the educative processes was utilisation of a citizen’s jury to determine priorities for expenditure within a single catchment. That was both incredibly valuable to council’s professional staff, given the quality of debate and ideas that arose from a cross-section of our community. It was also empowering to members of our community, both to those who were part of the jury and to the many members of the community who became involved in the discussion through the precinct structure in Waverley. One could say it was an example of the beneficial role of participatory democracy at a local level.

The proposal in the bill gives councils the certainty and flexibility to deal with stormwater outside the Government's annual rate-pegging limit. Provided a council meets all the conditions designed to safeguard the community's interests, it will be able to raise the charge. That will give more certainty to councils, enabling them to forward plan their projects based on a predictable revenue stream. I have discussed this with the council officers in Waverley and they feel very comfortable with that approach. The bill also represents the continuation of the Government's commitment to helping councils with their stormwater responsibilities. It is an indication of the priority the Government gives to the co-ordinated and effective management of our water supply. That commitment to assist councils began with the Stormwater Trust in 1997. The success of that program will now be continued at the local level by councils, using the knowledge gained from the trust programs.

The bill provides councils with the opportunity to fund projects that address key stormwater issues for their communities. The projects could include improving stormwater quality, healthy waterways, flood mitigation works, stormwater harvesting to irrigate a park or golf course or the replacement of ageing stormwater pipes. To maintain Bronte Park the local catchment group is keen on the possibility of council putting in a stormwater storage tank, complete with sand filter, at the request of the local community, with a view to utilising the stormwater that comes down a drain that was formerly the creek in the park, which is a major subregional resource. That process enables councils to respond to their communities' wishes and work in conjunction with catchment management authorities. Councils throughout the State can consider raising the charge, which is likely to be particularly popular in the metropolitan coastal areas where many of the waterways, which are valued by local communities, are stressed. I commend the bill to the House and compliment the Minister on bringing it forward.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [8.40 p.m.]: I welcome this bill, which allows councils to levy for vital stormwater works, and I congratulate the Minister on its introduction. The bill has several important features. The most notable are that it allows local councils to break out of the straitjacket of rate pegging so they can act responsibly to meet the needs of the community, requires community consultation over stormwater schemes and any levy to be imposed and encourages councils to co-operate with catchment management authorities so that works can be developed on a catchment basis. However, there are some aspects of the bill that are of concern and warrant amendment. I will move those amendments at the Committee stage.

My general concern is that consultation has been inadequate. That is ironic, given that the bill requires councils to be consultative. I note, as other speakers have already done, that the President of the Local Government and Shires Associations, Genia McCaffery, has stated that the associations, whilst strongly supporting the proposal to enable councils to levy additional stormwater charges in consultation with their local communities and commending the Minister for taking this important initiative, are disappointed that they have not been consulted on the contents of the bill. Ms McCaffery said that there have been no negotiations with the associations in the immediate lead-up to the tabling of the bill.

I am also concerned about the basic inequity of the bill. That inequity arises because the bill imposes a maximum levy of $25 per dwelling. This will be a flat rate tax. It should, in fact, be a proportional tax so that those in more valuable dwellings can pay more than those on lower incomes with less valuable properties. The levy should also be set so that the maximum is expressed as either a proportion of rates or an average cost per dwelling, allowing councils to have a tax that is fair. In my electorate Woollahra Council recently resolved to apply for an infrastructure levy outside rate pegging to undertake a backlog of works. It is notable that council resolved that any such levy should be ad valorem, with a minimum level.

It may not happen often that Woollahra Council teaches a Labor Government about fairness and equitable taxation, but on this occasion it has something to teach and the Government may have something to learn. There is, of course, the broader question of whether it is fair and appropriate to have funds for stormwater works levied at a local level when catchments, the best basis for water planning and management, are generally regional or larger in scale. In some situations, councils have had to amplify their stormwater works, not because there has been any change in their rainfall or drainage, but because urban development upstream has led to stormwater flows that downstream systems cannot handle. I call on the Government to match the responsibility it is shifting onto local government by increasing its funding to the Stormwater Environment Improvement Program. I give notice that at the Committee stage I will move amendments to require stormwater levies to be proportional to the rates paid. I urge the Government to adopt this approach, which allows the initiative it has taken to be implemented in a fairer way.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.43 p.m.]: I support bill. I do so because two weekends ago, in the electorate of Canterbury, I supported the holding of a community forum on the Cooks River. If honourable members want to see evidence of pollution caused by stormwater, the Cooks River system is one of the best examples. Approximately 100 people attended the forum and much of the discussion centred around stormwater pollution and the way to remedy it. It was obvious from that forum that people in the community want to become involved in dealing with this major issue.

In a couple of weeks time I will visit the Hawkesbury Catchment Management Authority. Clearly, catchment management authorities [CMAs], together with local government, will play an important role in dealing with stormwater management and the improvement of our waterways. CMAs are locally driven organisations with boards that report directly to the Minister for Natural Resources. There are 13 CMAs across New South Wales. Some people may suggest it is a jaundiced view, but I believe the creation of catchment management authorities has been a revolution in natural resource management. Catchment management authorities will play a leadership and co-ordination role in suburban stormwater management. Clearly, the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, which is chaired by Bob Junor, will be absolutely critical in the implementation of the legislation. This bill will help councils and CMAs work more effectively together to improve our natural environment.

In relation to the comments made by the honourable member for Lane Cove, I point out that catchment management authorities have a close working relationship with local government, which is represented on those bodies They are statutory bodies and will be the primary means for the delivery of funding from the New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments to help land managers improve and restore natural resources across the State. As I have already said, for many CMAs, particularly the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, this will involve a strong focus on stormwater management.

As honourable members will be aware, we had some rain last night. When I walked out of my house this morning the problems with stormwater management were evident in the street in which I live. The stormwater management role of the CMAs is expected to relate to regional planning and project management of regionally significant programs. It will be similar to the current role of the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust. The stormwater-related responsibilities of the CMAs are likely to include the preparation of catchment action plans (CAPs), the co-ordination of those projects across council areas and the provision of support for council staff. I note that there has been little mention from our colleagues on the other side of the House about the important role that CMAs and the CAPs will have in the successful implementation of this initiative.

Catchment management authorities will also be responsible for partly funding stormwater projects under the CAPs. The co-ordination role of the CMAs across councils for stormwater management projects can build on the experience gained by the stormwater extension officers, hosted by regional organisations of councils or groups of councils and funded by the Stormwater Trust. While many council stormwater projects funded by the stormwater management service charge will help achieve the CMAs' river health objectives outlined in the CAP, councils' stormwater responsibilities are broader than those of the CMAs. Councils are responsible for flood management activities, stormwater harvesting and asset management, in addition to improving river health.

Many people who have spoken in this debate have much more expertise and understanding of local government than I do, but I understand, and have a significant involvement in, the CMA process. It is important that councils' stormwater management activities that relate to the CMAs' natural resource management roles are consistent with the CAP. As the honourable member for Wentworthville said, co-ordination between CMAs and local government regarding distribution of the funds raised will be absolutely critical in ensuring the success of the CAP. Councils will be required to consult with CMAs on actions to be funded by any proposed stormwater charge to ensure that the proposed projects are consistent in addressing regional priorities.

These requirements will be included in the guidelines to be issued by the Department of Local Government with the input of the Department of Environment and Conservation. The bill gives councils extra support in dealing with their stormwater responsibilities, while ensuring links between our key local natural resource management authorities. It is extremely important that there is co-ordination on this major issue, which probably has a higher profile in urban areas than other areas. I am sure anyone who walks along the Cooks River at any time of the day would see the need for this important bill, which I commend to the House.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [8.51 p.m.]: I have been interested to hear the arguments put forward by members in this debate. I have not heard the honourable member for Wentworthville so excited since someone suggested that John Brown was a good bloke. The honourable member spoke at length about the importance of stormwater to the built environment. However, it was disappointing that the honourable member did not address the Stormwater Trust Fund, which local government could previously draw on. Everyone acknowledges that stormwater management is an extremely important issue. Indeed, people who live in the city and the suburbs are very concerned about it. Enabling councils to draw on a $30 million State Government Stormwater Trust Fund is one of the ways in which the issue could be addressed. However, the Government included a sunset clause in the legislation, and the Stormwater Trust Fund is no longer available to address the problem.

A seminar on stormwater management was held under the chairmanship of the former Chief Justice, Sir Laurence Street. I am sure members will be interested to hear the Minister's comments in reply as to how many recommendations from that seminar have been addressed by the Government. The seminar, which was representative of councils and people who had concerns about stormwater management, made a number of sensible recommendations. A further criticism of the bill is that the Government has put local government at the centre of addressing stormwater management, yet it has not sought to consult meaningfully with local government.

The Government has been in office for 10 years. Stormwater management has been a problem for not just the last few months but for the last 10 years and, at various times, depending on rainfall, it has been a major problem. Yet when it comes to seeking to address the problem the Government simply engages in cost shifting. It says, "We will give local government the power to tax its ratepayers and it can resolve the problem of stormwater management for us." After 10 years, that is hardly an adequate approach to dealing with a major urban problem, the significance of which has been acknowledged tonight by Government members.

As the honourable member for Lane Cove said, the bill represents cost shifting on the part of the Government, which seeks to impose additional responsibilities upon local government. As has been said, many stormwater assets such as pipes and drains are nearing the end of their life. That is a big problem for councils throughout the State. The issue causes some concern in relation to the revenue base of councils. The honourable member for Coogee spoke about the revenue base of local government. The honourable member for Lane Cove spoke about submissions received from councillors across the State concerning the way in which the State Government has sought to pass responsibility for stormwater management onto councils and yet it does not provide adequate funding. The honourable member for Lane Cove referred to Newcastle City Council's submission, which documents a long list of additional responsibilities imposed on council in recent years as a result of the actions of the New South Wales Labor Government.

I would be interested to hear about a similar submission from Sutherland Shire Council in relation to the long list of additional responsibilities imposed on that council without the Government providing adequate funding. Other members representing electorates in the Sutherland shire undoubtedly feel the same way. The bill is simply a cosmetic exercise to enable the Government to say, "Stormwater management is not our responsibility, but we will take full credit for whatever councils do in imposing an additional tax on their ratepayers." The bill is simply not good enough. It is a long way from what the people of New South Wales, and particularly the people of Sydney and the Sutherland shire, are entitled to expect from any State government.

Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [8.57 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill, the object of which is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to allow councils to levy an annual charge for stormwater management services. Schedule 1 provides a definition of "stormwater management service" as follows:

Stormwater management service means a service to manage the quantity or quality, or both, of stormwater that flows off land, and includes a service to manage the re-use of stormwater for any purpose.

I am delighted to speak to the bill because over the past two weeks I have spent a lot of time dealing with drainage problems, levee bank problems and pollution problems in the Port Stephens area. Some 10 years ago Port Stephens Council applied for a drainage levy, which it achieved after a couple of years. At that time the council was putting $600,000 a year into drainage, but it was not enough, so it applied for an additional $500,000 a year. Over the past 10 years the council has spent about $1.1 million per annum on drainage. The amount of work it has done over that time is enormous. Obviously, under this legislation Port Stephens Council would not be allowed to have a second bite of the cherry. However, I encourage other coastal councils to use the bill to get a drainage levy in place if their community so desires, as was the case in Port Stephens.

During a private member's statement in this place some years back I spoke about a levee bank along Marsh Road in Port Stephens. In the past couple of weeks I have spoken to Mr Ric Barker and Mr Eric Holliday, OAM. Eric helped build the levee bank along Marsh Road around about 1932. I cannot remember the date but a few years back that levee bank was topped by a nine-inch tide greater than the height of the levee bank. It was not a full moon, there was no storm surge, and for all intents and purposes there was absolutely no reason to get a tide nine inches higher than the levee bank. We put it down to the early effects of global warming. As a result, about 10 kilometres of Marsh Road went underwater and all the housing and agricultural land on the other side of Marsh Road were flooded. There are ongoing problems with the levee bank.

I then went down the road to Williamtown. Williamtown used to have a drainage union, and that drainage union was in charge of keeping the drains cleared for the dairy farms in years gone by. Once the dairy farms went, the drainage union became defunct, but the drains are still there. RAAF Williamtown, a Federal RAAF base, now drains into those former drainage union drains and, without a doubt, there is a huge problem in maintaining the drains and keeping them clean. I had a recent meeting with Mr Brian Antcliffe and Mr Wayne Sansom and we discussed what could be done there.

Another issue that has been taking a lot of my time in Port Stephens is the present water quality at Tilligerry Creek. The creek is closed at present due to high pollution levels, which prevents the taking and selling of oysters. Two young oyster farmers, Glen Brown and Mark Shepherd, have between them about $1 million worth of oysters sitting a short distance away from them, ready to be cropped, which they cannot bring in. The oyster farmers are responsible for water quality testing, yet the pollution problems they are measuring are not caused by them. There is a whole series of issues about equity and community responsibility in that the pollution is stopping the taking of the oysters and yet the oyster farmers have to spend a lot of their income to address the problem of the polluted river.

Drainage, levee banks and water quality are all major issues in coastal areas of New South Wales, including Port Stephens. The reason I support this bill so wholeheartedly is because I realise the amount of time and effort it took for Port Stephens Council to get the drainage levy that is in place now. The bill will short-cut that process for many councils. I have just referred to some of the areas on which that money could be spent. Downstream drainage and upgrading downstream drainage of new developments is one of the biggest issues facing coastal areas. Medowie State Forest in the Port Stephens area has experienced large storm events causing huge flooding from the forest going into the urban areas of Medowie.

Water flooding from the State Forest into the residential area needed to be controlled, but the council could not fund it. The levee, established at that time with the Government's help, allowed Port Stephens to build what was basically a dam between Medowie and the Medowie State Forest. By having the dam and the containment, flooding going into Medowie was stopped. It was a great boon to the whole of the Medowie area. These are the sorts of things that this levy can do and it has my wholehearted support because we had to go to the community and put to the community that this is what we wanted to do; these were the goals that we wanted to reach; and we asked the community for its support. We got that support and therefore we could move forward.

I conclude by speaking about the urban stormwater program. Port Stephens, being a very important tourist area, obviously had a stormwater pollution problem with stormwater coming out of the hinterland. At Nelson Bay, stormwater from the township drained into the local harbour and in storm events it took up to five days to clear the harbour of the pollution that was going into it. With the help of the urban stormwater program, the council spent $300,000 and put in a centrifugal stormwater pollution trap. That pollution trap took the grease out of the system that used to flow from the service stations into Port Stephens, and it also took out the litter. Something like 2,000 kilos of litter have been taken out of the waterways by this great program. A centrifugal stormwater pollution trap was also put into areas such as Boat Harbour, Shoal Bay and Raymond Terrace, to prevent litter going into the river systems. I commend the bill and the stormwater program to the Parliament.

Of the $82 million funding for the urban stormwater program, $67 million was allocated to the stormwater trust grants. Four rounds were offered across the State and they involved a stormwater management to deal with stormwater hotspots and problems identified in the different council management plans. As a former councillor and Mayor on Port Stephens Council I highly commend the fact that now councils can go out, talk to their communities, put in management plans to look at levee, drainage and pollution problems, and come up with solutions that suit the needs and wishes of those communities, but obviously the funding is not there. I congratulate the Minister and commend the bill to the House.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [9.07 p.m.]: I have listened intently to members' contributions to debate on the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill. I seek from the Minister in his reply an explanation about the ceiling for the amount that is to be charged. I note that it is $25 and understand that there are amendments to be put by a member in this place which could adjust that $25 charge. What I want to know—and I think the ratepayers and the councils deserve to know too—is the procedure that will take place and the powers that rest with the Minister to adjust that $25 charge.

I ask a hypothetical question. We have just listened to the honourable member for Port Stephens talk about some projects that his council undertook. My understanding is that a council, if it has a project, such as a dam for water retention or a stormwater project that it wants to implement, could apply to the Minister to amend or change the regulation to enable the particular council to lift the amount of contribution by landholders from $25 to whatever the Minister may determine. I think that we need to get an explanation of that in the Minister's reply. If I have got it wrong then I would appreciate the Minister correcting me.

Mr Kerry Hickey: It is capped.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: It may be capped, but I want to hear a categorical "No, the cost will not rise above $25". I think that is what all ratepayers and all landholders would like to hear: a categorical "No, it will not happen. It is impossible. I will not do it, whatever the reason". The other matter that prompted me to speak is the reference to projects that have been undertaken. The real admission is that local councils have insufficient funds for councils to complete the necessary work to protect the environment and other issues that they grapple with daily. Councils now receive less funding than in previous years for stormwater, sewerage and waterworks. Local councils grapple with rising costs and the extra responsibilities placed upon them. Time and again councils make representations about underfunded mandates and extra responsibilities legislated in this place. One example is the Companion Animals Act, which councils have to administer without any form of funding.

Over the 10 long years that Labor has been in office, a whole raft of mandates have been introduced in this place without a full and true explanation of how the regulations will work or a categorical guarantee that there will not be increases if councils put to the Minister proposals on environmental issues. There is a little bit of green in all of us. We all care about the environment, perhaps to differing degrees—some are more passionate than others—but, basically, we all want to protect and enhance the environment. That comes at a cost, but ratepayers and councils deserve the Minister's assurance that the $25 will not increase. They need that assurance from this Minister and any future Minister or Premier, especially over the next 12 to 18 months, that $25 is the maximum that will be charged. Ratepayers need that assurance because they take statements by this Government with a grain of salt. That is certainly the view of councils after having experienced 10 long years of legislation in this place.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.12 p.m.]: In my former role as shadow Minister for Local Government one of my greatest concerns was cost shifting to local government. Indeed, the Federal Government instigated a report into cost shifting, which was fairly damning of the way this State Government has shifted costs onto local government. One need only refer to the septic tanks legislation, which the Government approved prior to a State election but did not approve its implementation until after the election. The bill was purportedly out there for public discussion, but it has become a great albatross around the neck of local government. Councils cannot recover the costs of policing and inspecting the septic tank installation or their ongoing management. In the past the Government set up a $60 million trust fund for stormwater, which is in the process of being absorbed into general revenue, and the Government is forcing local government to manage stormwater on its behalf. The Minister has been conned into introducing this flimsy piece of legislation. New section 510A states:

Insert after section 510:

510A Maximum annual charge for stormwater management services

(1) The regulations are to prescribe the maximum annual charge that a council may levy for the provision of stormwater management services for parcels of land in respect of which such a charge may be levied.

The regulations stipulate the maximum amount that can be levied, even if a council finds that it is necessary for the levy to be $35, $45, $50 or even $100. Councils do not have a guarantee that they will be able to recover the costs. In fact, councils could find that they have an actual charge well and truly above what is allowed under the regulations. Once again, the responsibilities for the $60 million trust fund have been shifted back to councils and a regulation will determine whether they can recover the funds.

I stated earlier that a spate of councils on the North Coast, from Myall Lakes north, now seek huge rate increases. I would suggest that the majority of applications for rate increases have been forced on councils by the Government, which has increased charges and rendered councils unable to operate economically. The majority of local members do not support the rate increases and, as a result, we are abused for opposing them. However, the real problem is that this failed State Government has raided every hollow log it found in New South Wales to prop up its deteriorating budget. It seeks to make local government the bogeyman.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a housing forum in Campbelltown. The people who attended were rabid over the water charges to be levied against them by the Government. Those water charges are yet to be defined. The former Premier and the former Minister for Housing suggested that the charge would be in the order of $4.80 to $5 a week. One man said, "We have 29 units in our block. Most of us are either single or pensioners. We don't believe we use that amount of water." The question was asked whether the Government would meter these areas and, if so, whether tenants would be charged for minimum water usage, as everyone else is entitled to, or charged for excess water. No answers were forthcoming from the local member, the honourable member for Campbelltown. Even though 30 per cent of their income is levied as rent, they are concerned that this water charge will tip them over the limit. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Housing will be liable for the stormwater charge. If so, will the Government pay it or will it be levied on the tenants, who are already screaming because of changes in their rent structure and the Government's water charges. The Government claims it is the last bastion of the battler, and Government members claim they are the ones who help the battlers in New South Wales. However, when I have travelled around this State and raised Department of Housing and local government issues, I have found that Government members are regarded as hypocrites.

Mr Daryl Maguire: The battler bashers.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga says, the battler bashers. There are Department of Housing problems in his electorate, as there are in every electorate in New South Wales. Local government, too, has experienced problems in Wagga Wagga because of the Government's forced amalgamations. Where are the savings that were promised? The Clarence was promised $5 million worth of savings in the first 12 months. Those have not eventuated and councils in the area wanted to increase their base rate to ensure that ratepayers are not unfairly disadvantaged. The Government has not allowed those rate increases and services have had to be reduced. Despite the promised savings not happening, under this bill the Government will force councils under a charges regime to improve stormwater facilities, funded again by ratepayers. It is bizarre that the Government, which is purportedly the last bastion of the battler in New South Wales, is hitting the battlers on every aspect of local government.

The Minister for Local Government comes from Cessnock. I grew up in Newcastle and I know the battlers in Cessnock. I do not think those voters would be pleased with the Minister for Local Government forcing extra charges on them just because the Government has allowed the Treasurer and Premier to raid the hollow log and take back the $60 million that would normally be used to resolve the problems proposed in this legislation. Once again this legislation demonstrates the Government's uncaring nature, especially in growth areas. The Minister may smile and shake his head but I tell him to come back in 12 months time and tell us what the legislation has achieved, who has paid and at what cost.

Although the Minister for Local Government does not sit in Cabinet, he should tell us whether he raised his concerns. Also, did the Minister for Housing, who also does not sit in Cabinet, raise housing issues or express concern about how the legislation would affect the battlers of this State? The Opposition cannot support this legislation because it is yet another sleight of hand. I strongly recommend that the crossbenchers in this place not support the legislation. They should look at the legislation's social impacts on the battlers, those who can ill afford such an impost, under a regulation that can be re-regulated whenever the Minister sees fit. The charges can be increased and the battlers will have to pay the increased rate. That is unacceptable to me, to the people of my electorate, to the people I represent under the Department of Housing regime, and to small business people in regional and rural New South Wales.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Local Government) [9.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the honourable member for Wentworthville, the honourable member for Lane Cove, the honourable member for Coogee, the honourable member for Bligh, the honourable member for Canterbury, the honourable member for Cronulla, the honourable member for Port Stephens, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour for their contributions to this debate. The management of stormwater is a key responsibility for our local councils, and in this bill the Government has made arrangements to build on the great work already undertaken by the Stormwater Trust. The Opposition has raised many issues, most of which have been political. Members opposite expressed concern about a charge that councils can utilise to bill for stormwater.

A new section 496A will be inserted in the Local Government Act to allow councils the option of levying the stormwater management service charge, subject to regulations. This section also ensures that Department of Housing or Aboriginal Housing properties are not subject to the charge, as these properties are rateable. Other minor amendments to sections in Chapter 15 are required to exclude revenue raised from the charge from council's general income, which is subject to rate pegging. It is proposed to amend the Local Government (General) Regulation to cap the stormwater management service charge at $25 per average residential block. A pro rata charge will apply to commercial land, with the average charge being approximately $100. The regulation under the bill will provide details for councils regarding the cap on the charge for businesses and for non-standard residential blocks, including flats.

The amendments will also ensure that the charge only applies to developed urban land and cannot be levied where an existing environmental levy, special rate, is focused on stormwater management for the same purpose. Under section 404 of the Local Government Act, councils are required to include details of proposed charges in their draft management plan, which is subject to community consultation. This arrangement would apply to the stormwater management service charge. Requirements for effective community consultation and reporting of the charge in councils' annual reports would be established. This will include consultation with Catchment Management Authorities [CMAs] on the magnitude of the proposed charge and to ensure that projects of regional significance are consistent with a catchment management authority's action plan.

As I said in the second reading of the bill, the charge is optional. A council that can fund all of its stormwater management activities from its existing revenue will not need to raise the charge. Councils can charge an average residential property up to a maximum of $25, but need only charge $10 if that is what its stormwater projects will cost. It is also up to councils whether they choose to give a discount to pensioners. The charge, if implemented by a council, is outside the rate pegging limit and is not part of the mandatory pensioner rate rebate system. The Local Government and Shires Associations were represented on the Stormwater Trust and were part of the development of this proposal. Their representatives have indicated that many councillors believe their local communities are willing to pay a small stormwater charge, provided the spending is transparent. In their letter to me today, the presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations stated:

Whilst there have been no negotiations with the Associations in the immediate lead up to the tabling of the Bill, the matters included in the Bill have been the subject of ongoing discussions over the last 5-10 years.

The Associations strongly support the proposal to enable councils to levy additional stormwater charges in consultation with their local communities, and commend the government on this important initiative.

I take this opportunity to thank the associations and councils around the State for their input and their ongoing work and commitment to stormwater management. Community consultation is a key part of the stormwater management charge. Councils must demonstrate that they have consulted their local communities and show they have ongoing reporting standards in place. The community can rest assured that this charge must appear as a separate line item on the rates notice. The stormwater charge must also be part of the council's annual draft plan of management which, by law, must be put on public display for 28 days, usually in May each year.

Any resident or ratepayer can comment on the draft plan of management, and the council must take those comments into account. Another way communities can be confident of transparency is through the annual report of the council and its audited financial statements, which are available at the end of November each year. Both the annual report and the financial statements must include the details of charges, including stormwater. As I outlined in the second reading of the bill, the regulation will provide tough accountability measures that will ensure that all money raised in any stormwater service charge will be reported and made available to the community. Every dollar raised from a stormwater charge must be reported separately to the community under the regulations.
Under this bill, when a council introduces a stormwater charge it must consult with its local catchment management authority. The CMAs are an important link for councils to make sure that projects funded by the stormwater service charge consider the impacts across the catchment. Since the Government's decision on the future of stormwater management arrangements, the Department of Environment and Conservation has had regular discussions with Bob Junor, Chair of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, on the bill and the implementation of the new arrangements. The most recent meeting was on 1 September. I am advised that, as the Sydney metropolitan CMA covers the largest urban area of all the CMAs, it has taken the lead in discussions on behalf of other CMAs.

Detailed consultation has occurred with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, the Department of Environment and Conservation, Bob Junor and the Department of Local Government throughout the development of the bill. I am advised that the Department of Environment and Conservation has also held recent discussions on the bill with the coastal CMA chairs. The Government has made a commitment to consult further with the CMAs. The Government will continue to consult with the Local Government and Shires Associations, CMAs, local councils and the community in the development of the regulations and guidelines. The Government will continue to consult with the Local Government and Shires Associations, the catchment management authorities, local councils and the community in the development of regulations and guidelines. The stormwater trust was the biggest program of its kind in Australia. The Coalition's bashing of councils will not improve stormwater pollution. The Coalition needs to get behind local councils and help address the problems that our communities want fixed.

The honourable member for Lane Cove spoke about how this Government is doing the wrong thing in regard to taxation issues. Under the GST distribution deal, New South Wales taxpayers send $13 billion to Canberra and get back $10 billion. The downturn in the property market happened because of the Reserve Bank interest rate rises, despite the promise during the Federal election that there would be absolutely no interest rate rise. The downturn in the property market placed pressure on the State's revenue. Net debt as a proportion of the gross State product is 1 per cent. In 1995, when we came to office, it was 7.5 per cent.

The Coalition needs to think back to what it put us into in 1995. The honourable member for Lane Cove needs to get out of his cocktail set and look after his constituency. He needs to get behind this bill to ensure that pollution controls are put in place and to ensure his council can implement a productive program addressing stormwater issues. The honourable member for Cronulla stated that this was the third initiative this Government put forward. It introduced the trust in the initial stages, it extended that trust and now it is putting forward another proposal that addresses many of the councils' issues and those of the constituents we represent. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

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

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Morris

Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Oakeshott Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Draper Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard 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 Torbay Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Mr Price	Mr Armstrong
Mr Yeadon	Mr Constance

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 21 September 2005 at 10.00 a.m.

_______________