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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 20 October 2005
______

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

CIVIL LIABILITY AMENDMENT (OFFENDER DAMAGES TRUST FUND) BILL

GAMING MACHINES AMENDMENT BILL

Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment.

SAVE ORANGE GROVE BILL

Second Reading

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.04 a.m.]: I move:

The Save Orange Grove Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council by the Hon. John Ryan and has passed through the Legislative Council with the support of the crossbench members. It now comes before the Legislative Assembly for its debate and consideration. How appropriate that this House should debate saving Orange Grove, at which 450 jobs were involved, only two days after the Iemma Government forced through both Houses of Parliament the Luna Park Site Amendment (Noise Control) Bill, because the rationale given for the Luna Park bill was that 600 jobs were at stake and that those 600 jobs had to be preserved. Labor has said, "Save the 600 jobs at Luna Park", and Labor now has a choice as to whether it believes that the 450 jobs at Orange Grove should be saved.

The Labor Party, we are told, is a party of consistency; the Labor Government, we are told, is a government that believes in preserving jobs in this State. Let it now ratify the decision of the Legislative Council and save the jobs that Orange Grove offers to the people of Western Sydney. Western Sydney is an area that has a high unemployment rate, an area that is heavily represented by the Australian Labor Party, an area where so many battlers live, and an area that is an important part of the life of metropolitan Sydney. Let the jobs that Orange Grove offers be saved.

The Australian Labor Party now has a chance to maintain its consistency, its integrity and, if it really believes that it is saving jobs at Luna Park, to save jobs at Orange Grove. The Orange Grove issue has been well examined by a number of bodies, by a Parliamentary committee of inquiry, by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and by debate in the Legislative Council. The main players in Orange Grove are, or were, members of this House. First, Mr Craig Knowles, a former member of this House, the honourable member for Macquarie Fields, opened the Orange Grove Centre. In his opening remarks, well reported in the local media at the time, he described Orange Grove as "an asset to Liverpool and part of the Government's plan to make Liverpool great"—to make Liverpool great!

Second, the Hon. Diane Beamer, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister for Fair Trading, who was then the Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. She made the final decision about the refusal to rezone Orange Grove, and she allegedly uttered the immortal words to the Minister for Roads, in the corridor, when she said, "Joe, I'll play it by the rules." Can anyone really imagine the Minister for Western Sydney being, shall we say, approached—if that is the softest word one can use—by the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Joe Tripodi, who represents the Fairfield electorate,.and her reply being simply, "Joe, I'll play it by the rules"? No-one believes that, no-one ever would believe that; everyone knows that that is just a good laugh.

If one believes that story, one believes in fairies and fairyland. The third player in the Orange Grove decision is the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Joe Tripodi, who was then the humble honourable member for Fairfield. In a famous coffee shop incident, Minister Tripodi, the Gazals, the Gazals' solicitor, and the town planner sat down to have coffee. Of the five people who were having coffee, four swore statutory declarations as to what was said at that meeting, all four of whom said that Minister Tripodi had told them that the rezoning would not go ahead because of the Premier's intervention. However, Minister Tripodi has said, "No, that never happened." It is Joe against four! It is amazing, is it not, that four people have a clear memory but Joe cannot remember clearly? Of course, Joe was not going to hang around until the issue erupted; he went off to Italy and could not be contacted for quite some time. Joe refused to speak to the media. Joe refused to attend press conferences. Joe refused to make any statement at all about the issue until he was dragged before the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC].

And we have the former member for Maroubra, the former Premier, Bob Carr, who was just above it all. He had nothing to do with the Orange Grove decision, yet his chief of staff was there! His office was involved, but the former Premier had nothing to do with it. The fact that the former Premier was on close personal terms with the proprietors of the main opposition, Westfield Holdings—the very organisation that fought the case in the Land and Environment Court—and the fact that the former Premier's staff were on close personal terms with staff employed by Westfield, was all somehow irrelevant.

The former Premier really had nothing to do with it; he was a long way from the action? No-one would believe that. Everyone knows that the former Premier had a very close relationship with the senior shareholder and chairman of Westfield and that his staff had close relationships with the staff employed by Westfield. Everyone knew of the relationship between Mr Wedderburn and Mr Ryan. It is impossible for any reasonable person to believe that there was not close and ongoing contact between Mr Carr and Westfield, directly or indirectly. Mr Carr, of course, left the New South Wales Parliament before the ICAC report was tabled. There are many who argue that his departure was precipitated by the fact that he knew the ICAC report into Orange Grove was imminent and he did not know for sure what it might contain.

Then we have the Gazal family. I had not met the Gazals until the issue of Orange Grove erupted. I have since met Mr Nabil Gazal, Mrs Gazal, Nicholas Gazal and Junior Gazal—four fine people who impressed me as people of integrity. Mr Gazal is from the Middle East and his wife is from Sweden. Their sons were born in Australia. They are a credit to our national immigration policy. Their business contribution has enriched our national life and I regard them with respect. Then, of course, there are the associated players from the council and from the New South Wales Public Service. The interesting point is that the public servants were of the view that the rezoning should go ahead. They supported the rezoning.

We have Ministers who act upon public service advice, and Ministers who do not. It is the Minister who makes the final decision. The Minister is accountable for the final decision and must inform Parliament of his reasons for that decision, if called upon to do so. Minister Beamer—who, interestingly, has been moved sideways to Fair Trading and is no longer Assistant Minister for Planning—had no consistent explanation as to why she made the decision she did. She did not say why she refused to act on the advice of her senior public servants. She was asked that question on many occasions in this House and she stated simply that she had followed good planning practice in refusing to approve the rezoning, despite the fact that she had approved many rezoning applications.

Minister Beamer is a member of the Government that introduced numerous special State environmental planning policies [SEPPs]—for example, in relation to coalmining in the Hunter Valley—to ensure that job creation programs went ahead. Yet in respect of Orange Grove, despite the fact that she was advised by her own department to approve a rezoning which would have saved 450 jobs, somehow that was inconsistent with good planning practice. Only two days ago this Government was prepared to pass special legislation, allegedly to preserve 600 jobs—the Luna Park site bill. But, with Orange Grove, where 450 jobs were at stake, no request for special legislation was involved, senior public servants advised that the rezoning should go ahead, a chorus of people wanted the rezoning, and despite the fact that the people of Liverpool would benefit if the rezoning went ahead and the only disadvantaged would be Westfield, suddenly good planning practice became the norm and the Minister refused the rezoning application. In his opening remarks in the Legislative Council the Hon. John Ryan said:

The Hon John Ryan went on to say:

The Land and Environment Court determined on 16 January 2004 that the development consent given by the council was invalid. However, the argument in court was limited to the legality of the approval. The planning merits were not considered. The appeal against the decision of the court was lost on 31 March 2004. However, Liverpool City Council planners saw great merit in the designer outlets remaining open and applied to the State Government for a spot rezoning to regularise the existing use. They resolved to do so on 8 December 2003—one full month before the Land and Environment Court had made any determination on this case.

This application was very similar to many actions taken by this and previous State governments in anticipation of court action.

I interpose to state that that rings a bell. Two days ago special legislation was passed by this Parliament to prevent court action going ahead in relation to the Luna Park site. The Hon. John Ryan then said:

One great irony of this matter is that Westfield Holdings was once the beneficiary of very similar action by the former Wran Labor Government, which rezoned land that used to be a tram depot in order to enable Westfield to build a shopping complex at Eastlakes which, at that time, was being hotly contested by its competitors. In April 2004 the Liverpool council administrator, Ms Gabrielle Kibble, forwarded an application to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR] for a change to the Liverpool local environmental plan to rezone the land at Orange Grove to enable the factory outlets to be approved. She recommended that the LEP be approved.

Gabrielle Kibble, one of the foremost planners in New South Wales and a former Director-General of Planning, made that recommendation. The Hon. John Ryan continued:

She has recently explained that she did so for social and economic reasons but she has also stated that the application had merit, and that if it had not, she would not have approved it.

So we have the council, Ms Gabrielle Kibble and then, within the department, we have the advice given to the Minister by senior departmental staff advising that the application by Liverpool council be approved. As I have already said, and it is well known, that did not happen. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning refused the rezoning and that led to the parliamentary inquiry and to the report by the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. I do not wish to canvass the report of the Independent Against Commission Corruption, but some points in the final report need to be noted. The report did not determine whether the Minister, the Hon. Diane Beamer, made her decision fairly or lawfully. An analysis of the report commences:

1 The report did not determine whether the Minister [The Hon. Diane Beamer] made her decision fairly or lawfully.

2 Notwithstanding the public perception that ICAC was examining whether Ms Beamer properly made her decision the Commissioner did not do so. He limited his consideration of the decision to the narrow terms of reference which only required him to assess if there was any corrupt conduct.

His decision was not a decision based upon planning; his decision was a decision based upon whether there was any evidence of corrupt conduct in the decision by the Minister. The analysis continues:

He did not consider whether Ms Beamer had made the right decision or whether she was entitled to ignore the expert planners in her department, the Council, and independent experts and rely on the submissions of Westfield, which were not made known to Gazcorp or Liverpool City Council who proposed the amendment to the Liverpool LEP.

3 Even within the limited terms of reference, the Commissioner failed to properly assess whether or not there was corruption.

4 Corrupt conduct in this matter related to whether Westfield through the Premier's office either did or could have improperly influenced the Minister in making her decision.

5 The only way to fairly assess whether there was corruption, (ie whether Beamer acted impartially or could have been influenced) was to determine:

a. The advice upon which she should have relied to make her decision.
b. Whether she properly considered all relevant advice.

c. The advice upon which she actually relied and the source of that advice.

d. The reasons she articulated for the refusal.

6 The Commissioner failed to address the above issues fairly and on all the evidence. This is in fact what he did:

1 The Commissioner dismissed the fact that Minister Beamer had a preferred position to approve the amendment to the LEP as of 16 April 2004.

The Minister said she had not made a preliminary decision and she had not read the section 69 report, but no-one said she had. The analysis continues:

Further the s 69 report when she did read it should only have reinforced her preferred position as it wholly supported Orange Grove.
That is what this bill now seeks to achieve. The analysis goes on to state:

The evidence which the Commissioner failed to consider which overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Minister would have approved the plan—
but for the intervention of the Premiers office—

is set out at Part 4 of Gazcorp's submissions—pages 26 to 28.

2 The Commissioner accepted Minister Beamer's assertion that she was not influenced by the Westfield/Wedderburn briefings—

those briefings were organised by the Premier's office—

notwithstanding that all her reasons for refusal can be sourced to the ... briefings.

3 The Commissioner failed to consider why Minister Beamer did not require all the relevant material be placed before her in making her decision. This is capable of being evidence of bias when a decision maker knows that important reports favourable to an applicant are missing from a file and does not seek to have recourse to them and does not seek an explanation as to their absence. She would have known that the reports were missing from the file if she had read the s 69 report as she asserts she did.

4 The Commissioner failed to refer to the evidence of the missing reports. One would not know from reading his report the important indisputable fact that the file provided to the Minister—

that file was exhibit 33 at the ICAC hearing—

was seriously deficient in that the two main independent assessment reports commissioned by Council, (the applicant) were missing from the file and that the only reports commissioned by Gazcorp were also missing from the file.

AMP was one of the partners in the Westfield development. The analysis continues:

5 The Commissioner erred when he found as a fact that in relation to the s 69 report (at 53):

"Ms Westacott never contemplated not sending the Minister the s 69 report that had been prepared."

The evidence on this point was to the contrary. It can be summed up perhaps in the following sentence which appears in an email from legal Council, Mr Astill, to Ms Westacott dated 23 June 2004 (Ex "1" at 418):
"Contrary to our discussions yesterday I do not think it is within the DG's power to not submit a s 69 report to the Minister."

6 The Commissioner failed to consider evidence of secrecy.

The Commissioner, contrary to all the evidence, found inexplicably that there was no secrecy ... This wrong conclusion underpins his decision that there was no corruption.

The only evidence that in the early stages there had been meetings between the Premier and Westfield, or consultations or communications between the Premier and Westfield, were the remarks made by Mr Tripodi. The analysis continues:

The uncontested evidence was that the first time anyone conceded that meetings had taken place was in August only after internal emails came to light in the course of a parliamentary inquiry But for that inquiry the Premier's denials in July of any interest in the matter would have remained unchallenged. The meetings between Westfield and the Premier's office were not known to Gazcorp or the public even though Minister Beamer and the Premier were giving broadcasts (Laws, Jones) defending the decision to close Orange Grove.
When the Premier and Minister Beamer spoke initially to Alan Jones about this matter and said that the decision to refuse the rezoning had been made on good planning advice, they did not disclose to Alan Jones, or to the hundreds of thousands of listeners on Sydney radio, the fact that meetings had been taking place between the Premier's staff and the staff of Westfield. The analysis continues:

Although the Commissioner alluded to the importance of any evidence of secrecy in finding corruption … he failed to take into account the following evidence which demonstrated a conspiracy of secrecy ...
7. The Commissioner failed to test with other evidence the veracity of Beamer's explanations. Beamer acknowledged that she was forced to eat a "shit sandwich" because of the Westfield/Wedderburn briefings and yet claims that she was not influenced ... Commissioner Harrison said…:

"It was not, however, significant to her that Westfield was involved in the matter any more than any one of two parties publicly brawling over the issue."

In a proper assessment of her evidence why did the Commissioner not test her reaction to the Westfield/Wedderburn allegations which belied her assertions that she was not sensitive to them?
The Commissioner should have considered her conduct …

o She considered it necessary to take "a step back"
o She did not want to be lobbied by persons associated with Orange Grove
o She refused to speak to Mr Tripodi on her evidence yet she discussed the issue throughout this period with Wedderburn who is giving updates to Ryan and she authorises her chief of staff to meet with AMP who was lobbying against Orange Grove
o She was unable to explain her decision
o She did not communicate with the senior Minister, Minister Knowles.

8. The Commissioner failed to take into account the evidence of Premier Carr that he had directed Mr Wedderburn to tell the Minister that she must be in a position to prove that her decision was in no way affected by any lobbying on the part of Gazcorp. By the time Wedderburn warned Beamer of her task she had already been lobbied by Mr Tripodi. The evidence is irrefutable that he called Mr Meagher on 2 April about Orange Grove and steps were taken by the Minister as a result of the lobbying.

How extraordinary is it that the Minister is contacted by Mr Wedderburn, Mr Carr's name is not mentioned, and yet the Minister does not draw any inference that Mr Wedderburn is acting on behalf of Mr Carr, when Mr Wedderburn was Mr Carr's chief of staff? The analysis continues:

One must pose the question - why else would he have been there? If he was not there on Mr Carr's business then who was he representing? Given the subject matter of the briefing there were only four possibilities. He was there on the Premier's behalf, Westfield's behalf, Westfield's and the Premier's behalf or his own behalf. 9. The Commissioner says in relation to Ms Westacott …:

"There is certainly no basis for finding that Ms Westacott's actions were motivated by improper, irrelevant or otherwise collateral concerns."

10. Westacott's reasons for involving herself in this matter were unresolved by the Commissioner. He did not seek to reconcile the conflicting evidence in relation to the conversations between Westacott and Wedderburn which could have supported a finding of improper, irrelevant or otherwise collateral concerns.

11. Ms Westacott herself conceded that she became aware of 'appropriateness issues' which were collateral and irrelevant to the decision making process. The evidence is clear that she raised these irrelevant matters with the Minister… The Minister took these erroneous matters into account when she made her decision as is evidenced from the reasons she gave for refusing the plan.

Ms Westacott has left the Department of Planning, and she has never given an explanation as to why she did so. However, it is clear that she gave the Minister advice that was wrong in that she raised irrelevant matters with the Minister. The analysis continues:

12. The Commissioner erred in accepting at face value Ms Westacott's denial of any knowledge of corruption allegations in the light of all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

Clearly, Ms Westacott has some questions to answer. It continues:

So there are questions to be answered by Ms Westacott as to her role in this activity. They are questions that she now may seek to evade, having left the public sector for the private sector, but they are questions that need to be properly put to her. I would counsel anyone who employs Ms Westacott in future that they need to resolve the issues of her involvement in this whole sordid story of Orange Grove and her failure to properly advise Minister Beamer. The concern about the whole Orange Grove issue is one that many people have raised and it is one that simply will not go away. An enormous number of planners believe that the planning decision was wrong and was not consistent with good planning advice, even though the Minister claims she was acting on good planning advice.

Experts who supported the rezoning include Michael Everson of Hirst Consulting Services Pty Ltd; Peter Leyshon of Leyshon Consulting; Adrian Hack of Hill PDA, Peter Hamilton, senior policy adviser to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR]; Geoffrey Hunt, former senior development planner at Liverpool council; Phil Jeminson, planner at Liverpool council; Phil Tolhurst, manager of city development at Liverpool council; Mark Lamond, group manager at Liverpool council; Gabrielle Kibble, the former Director General of the Department of Environmental Planning; Laurel Cheetham, the senior environmental planner who prepared the section 69 report; David Birds, the team leader Sydney division west branch of the DIPNR; and Stephen Driscoll, the regional planning co-ordinator for the DIPNR.

Each of those people, all of whom are eminently qualified in town planning, believed that the rezoning should proceed. Although the Minister—who has no planning qualifications—said she was acting on good planning policy, the only advice she had was the dubious advice given to her by Ms Westacott. The reasons why the planners supported Orange Grove were that it would have beneficial impacts within Liverpool as people drawn to Orange Grove would visit the central business district; retailers have a need for shops both in the CBD and at outlets as they need to offload the previous year's lines and seconds; it would keep business in Liverpool by reducing escape spending being directed to other centres such as Homebush; it would provide badly needed employment for approximately 450 people; it was affordable for small entrepreneurs; it was home to about 60 businesses; it was positive to consumers in the area, eliminating long travel to other outlets; it was part of an existing retail cluster and all businesses in the cluster would benefit from it; it is a natural travel destination given the other businesses in the cluster; it has very good and safe access; there are no traffic problems and no congestion; it has excellent parking facilities; it has a food court, a coffee shop and toilet facilities; it is a pleasant place to shop; it was built on land which was already rezoned with a retail component, on the same site as a bulky goods store; and it is in line with State environmental planning policy.
This bill simply confirms State environmental planning policy, because State environmental planning policy requires an assessment of net community benefit. Ms Cheetham, the senior planner with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, said:

"The Centre's policy provides for us to look at certain forms of traffic generating development outside centres, using specific criteria."

She continued:

"The department

that is, the Government's department of planning—

considers that there should be equitable access to various forms of commercial retail development for all people, particularly within the metropolitan area of Sydney … it's part of our policy."

4. There is no policy that prohibits the location of outlet centres of out the CBD.

5. There were many factors that needed to be brought to the Minister's attention other than the obvious fact that the factory outlet was not in the CBD. Ms Cheetham explained that the Minister needed to be made aware of what the Centre meant for businesses in the area and jobs associated with these businesses and, most importantly, what had been and would be the impact of Orange Grove on the CBD. She stated:

"… My assessment of that was—and it was Peter Hamilton's assessment of it, and before that it was the consultant's assessment of it, Hill PDA, and every consultant's assessment of it, that there would not be a significant impact on the Liverpool centre, and … "

The planners examined carefully Westfield's position and determined that the outlet centre would not affect Westfield and the existing CBD. Notwithstanding that fact, the Minister refused the rezoning for that reason, overturning the advice of all the planners. This bill seeks to overturn her decision. The analysis continues:

6. The metropolitan strategy for Western Sydney emphasises the importance of taking employment into account. Ms Cheetham said:

"Well, planning is about economic, social and environmental consequences, certainly the economics and the—of an area are important, therefore, employment is important because of the social implications and the economic implications for an area."

7. It is DIPNR's position that factory outlets are not normal retail development. This is a position which must be taken on board by all planners in the Department and Ms Cheetham did so in relation to Orange Grove.

The analysis continues:

9. Further Ms Cheetham explained that the policy:

"provided for factory outlet centres to be treated in a different way as well. It didn't just say that factory outlet centres had to be treated the same way as other retail centres or other retail activities."

Upon assent, this bill will be known as the Save Orange Grove Act and its provisions will commence on the date of assent. It provides that the Orange Grove development is permitted with council consent. In other words, Gazcorp must lodge an application with Liverpool City Council, which may consider that application and make a determination upon it. Clause 3 of the bill will operate as a provision of an environmental planning instrument under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and prevail over any other planning instrument. The bill simply allows Liverpool City Council to be the consent authority and to determine whether there should be a factory outlet at Orange Grove.

The sad story of Orange Grove was laid only partially bare by the parliamentary committee of inquiry and the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. The ICAC terms of reference were narrow and limited only to evidence of corrupt conduct. The ICAC did not find evidence of corrupt conduct but the body of evidence before it indicated that there was an enormous amount of political activity between the former Premier's officer, Minister Beamer and Westfield staff. That was also the finding of the parliamentary committee of inquiry. It is clear that some people had more influence over this Government than others and that the jobs of 450 people were sacrificed on the altar of the Carr Labor Government's determination to look after its friends. The 600 jobs allegedly at risk at Luna Park are worthy of a special Act of Parliament but the 450 jobs at Orange Grove were jackbooted over by Minister Beamer and former Premier Carr.
But there is a final player in this sorry saga: the honourable member for Fairfield, the current Minister for Roads. Where was the Minister placed in all this? He was telling Gazcorp, its solicitors and its planner that Bob Carr had intervened on behalf of Westfield. The evidence against Bob Carr was provided by the Minister. When Bob Carr gave evidence to the ICAC and was asked why he was cautious about the Orange Grove matter, he made the magnificent statement that appeared in all the media reports: "The fact that Joe Tripodi was associated with the project was itself a cause of concern." That is what the then Premier had to say about a man who, through the factional system, later became one of his Ministers. That is the Minister's epitaph. The Orange Grove matter was the second ICAC inquiry involving the Minister. I am sure that all honourable members recall the ICAC inquiry in incidents that took place in this building on the night that the Olympic torch came to Sydney.

The Opposition supports this legislation, which has been passed by the Legislative Council. The Coalition parties commend this legislation for the consideration of the House. If we save Orange Grove we save not just 450 jobs but the important principle of justice for all. Gazcorp should receive the same consideration as Westfield. Gazcorp has the same rights as Westfield before the people and Parliament of New South Wales, but that principle has been denied throughout this episode. The Coalition parties support Gazcorp, the Orange Grove development and the jobs it provided. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Linda Burney.

GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ASSETS REGISTER BILL

Business called on.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the House that the Government School Assets Register Bill 2005 is substantially the same as the Government School Assets Register Bill 2003, which was introduced by the honourable member for North Shore and defeated at its second reading on 2 September 2004. Any proposed motion "That this bill be now read a second time" thus falls within the terms of Standing Order No. 164, which provides that a motion that is the same in substance as any question already determined in the affirmative or the negative in the same session is disallowed. Accordingly, I direct that this order of the day be discharged from the business paper.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: Standing order 164 states that the Speaker "may" disallow the motion. I am advised that there is no precedent in this Chamber for disallowing a second reading motion. I do not understand how you can rule on this bill without hearing what it contains. The Government School Assets Register Bill 2005 is not the same as the Government School Assets Register Bill that I introduced in the Legislative Assembly in 2003. I have spoken in debate on bills that the Government reintroduced that bore the same long title but a different year. This bill was debated in the Legislative Council, where it was supported by 20 members. By ruling in this way, Mr Speaker, you are denying those members the right to see the bill debated in this place. It is an outrage that you would allow the Government to hide behind a standing order when we should be debating this terribly important bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened closely to the point of order taken by the honourable member for North Shore. One bill bears the date 2003, the other is dated 2005. The contention of the honourable member for North Shore that the bill is different because there is a difference in the year is not valid. Standing Order 164 is specific. It provides:

I rule that the change in the year does not materially alter the substance of the bill. As the bill has already been defeated by this House during this session of Parliament, I rule that it is out of order to proceed with substantially the same bill with only a change in the date.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Even if members on the other side do not want to consider this matter in the detail and depth that it needs to be considered, I am sure you would be prepared to do so. You made a decision and you have now reasonably heard a submission from the shadow Minister on why this bill should be allowed to proceed. You are seeking to exercise a discretion before there has been any presentation to you by the Opposition in relation to the bill. You have a discretion and because this bill is particularly significant—it has had the full endorsement of the Legislative Council—the Opposition is asking you to exercise that discretion in favour of the democratic process rather than to the exclusion of debate.
It is in your purview to do that, as set out in standing order 164. However, the real issue here is that the standing order refers to any motion or amendment. The precedents in the House, within living memory anyway, have been only for amendment to motions, not in relation to the exclusion of debate about a bill, particularly a bill that has already had the full ratification of the Legislative Council. Could you indicate the basis for the exercise of your discretion and, in particular, could you direct the Opposition to the precedent that you are relying on where another bill has been ruled out of order by either you or any of your predecessors in recent memory of the Parliament? In the interests of democracy in New South Wales, we are entitled to that direction from you.

Perhaps if the issue requires your time and consideration rather your peremptorily ruling it out of order or indicating that we cannot proceed with the motion, you might allow the matter to stay so you can consider it in more depth and then exercise your discretion with the full benefit and opportunity of looking at whether there are any precedents upon which you are now exercising your discretion. We are not being difficult or unreasonable, but what you are doing today will set a precedent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not debate this matter further. However, I will allow the honourable member for Wakehurst to complete his remarks before I respond.

Mr Brad Hazzard: What you do, and what you are now doing, will set a precedent. You are not exercising a discretion based on a precedent; you are setting a precedent that there will be a direction in this House from hereon in that bills cannot come back, even when they have been fully debated in the Legislative Council. The Government School Asset Register Bill is important to the schools and the communities of New South Wales who are absolutely furious about the poor maintenance and poor capital works that are being provided to schools in New South Wales.

While we are looking at an issue that is so critical to the education of our students and which communities right across New South Wales are furious about, it would be within your purview, particularly as the former Minister for Education, to exercise your discretion in a broader sense rather than a narrow sense. If you are going to exercise a discretion, in the interests of democracy it should be interpreted broadly, not narrowly. What you are seeking to do at the moment is to exercise that discretion narrowly. If you are going to do that, at the very least the Opposition, on behalf of the community of New South Wales, is asking you to give us the basis for the precedent because if there is no sound basis for the precedent, you are setting one today, which would be very restrictive of debate in this place for years to come.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened at length to the honourable member for Wakehurst and I understand everything he has said. However, the issue is not the merits or otherwise of the bill. The issue is the standing orders of the House, which. provide that if a bill has been already defeated during the present session, it is not proper for this House to reconsider what is essentially the same bill. I am not making a judgment in relation to the merits of the bill. I have been guided by the standing orders in determining that the bill is, in substance, the same bill that has already been defeated in this House. Therefore, I have no choice but to rule that the bill cannot be dealt with further.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Further to the point of order: Could you indicate to us, in the interests of practice and procedure in the House, whether there has been a precedent for this decision to reject a bill in these circumstances?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure that research could be undertaken in relation to precedent, but the question is not one of precedent. The question is whether the standing orders are to be upheld. I am not aware whether these circumstances have arisen in the past and, therefore, there may not be any precedent. However, that does not allow the House to contravene Standing Order 164. I have allowed members a degree of latitude in discussing this matter. I have allowed the honourable member for North Shore and the shadow Minister for Education and Training to put forward reasons why they believe the bill should be debated. However, I rely on the advice of the Clerks of the House and on my own understanding of the standing orders to rule that to further deal with the bill would be a clear contravention of Standing Order 164.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter and I will not entertain any further points of order.

CROWN LANDS AMENDMENT (ACCESS TO PROPERTY) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 March 2005.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [10.57 a.m.]: The Crown Lands Amendment (Access to Property) Bill, introduced by the honourable member for Hornsby, seeks to amend the Crown Lands Act 1989. It has my full support and that of many hundreds of my constituents. Schedule 1 of the bill, if passed and enacted, will insert new section 35A into the Crown Lands Act 1989. It will require, when determining or redetermining rent under the Crown Lands Act 1989 with respect to a lease, licence or enclosure permit that provides water access to the lease, licence or permit holder's property, that consideration be given as to whether the lease, licence or permit provides the only reasonable means of access to that property. That is the key point: only reasonable access to that property.

The central purpose of the bill is to insert an element of fairness and equity into the management of waterfront access rights for property owners whose only access is by the waterways. It is hardly a controversial issue. These people do not have road access. Before the bill can be considered properly we need to look at the history of the issue and how, incredibly, we have arrived at the point where the only recourse open to the affected property owners, whose sole access to their land is via our waterways, is the passage of this bill. In October 2003 the former Premier asked the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] to review and report on the rent that the Government should charge for the use of public land in relation to waterfront usages. The key recommendation contained in the IPART report is:

The Tribunal recommends that the minimum rental be set at $350 per year and indexed each year using CPI as an escalation factor. This minimum rent will be payable where the rent calculated from the formula is less that $350.

On the surface that seems okay. One could argue that New South Wales waterways are public facilities and that appropriate rental should be charged for their use as access to properties but, unfortunately IPART has not taken into account the full consequences of its recommendations. On the surface it seems a reasonable proposition that rental fees should be charged for access on public waterways and for the use of public lands and seabeds, pontoons, jetties and marinas and for the owners' ongoing use. Unfortunately, not all property owners have access to their land via an alternative means, in other words, across land. These are water-access-only properties. Many of them do not have a driveway and their owners do not have a car or a bike parked at the property.

Ms Linda Burney: They live on the water.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: They live on the water and they deserve the same sorts of facilities enjoyed by people who do not live on the water. As it commonly does with other areas of public policy, the State Government appears to have arrogantly assumed that all these waterfront properties are owned by silvertails, that they are the domain of the rich and famous and as such their owners deserves to be slugged an extra $350 a year. But that is not the case. Since the introduction of the $350 rental charge in the 2003 mini-budget, the State Government, particularly the Minister for Lands, has continually ignored the arguments put by the Water Only Access [WOA] group and the Waterfront Environment Access Reform [WEAR] organisation.

In May 2004 Kevin Cooper, a resident affected by the changes, raised issues on behalf of WEAR. This group has been battling for ages and I know the honourable member for Hornsby has been trying to have this bill debated in this House, where we know it takes a long time to get issues dealt with properly. Mr Cooper recommends that waterfront owners whose sole access to their property is via the water need to get a fair deal and be considered as a whole. On behalf of WEAR, Mr Cooper presented a paper detailing objections to the recommendations in the IPART report and requested support from the members of this House, including the Government—something that is not unreasonable. He wants a guarantee of the most basic of Australian principles: the right of access to one's own property without being charged by the Government.

Since the meeting I have been flooded with phone calls, emails, letters and interviews from affected constituents who are angry at the imposition of yet another annual charge on Australian households. I am sure that people in Macquarie Street would agree that it is not a reasonable charge as against the right to free and fair access to one's place of residence. It is abundantly clear from submissions to the IPART review, as well as feedback from constituents, that the IPART review was rushed and carried out in what appears to be a secretive manner. A member of a well-known team that has been integral to the success of the Australian Labor Party, the famous Blanche d'Alpuget, Bob Hawke's partner, is concerned—and if she is concerned, everyone in the Government should be concerned. Mr Hawke may not have got it right in the past but clearly Blanche, I am sure on behalf of Bob as well, has got it right. She wrote:

That is bad—

It remains uncivilised and unacceptable. Even the Government's strongest supporters are concerned. If it is good enough for Blanche d'Alpuget to be concerned, it is good enough for honourable members opposite to be concerned, as she is right. In June 2004 I received a lot of correspondence advising of a public meeting, organised by affected residents, to be held at the Mooney Mooney Workers Club—workers, the people that Labor pretends to represent, if only that were the case. The notice at the club said that Government representatives and relevant departmental representatives would be present at the meeting. But, lo and behold, the Government and the department were not present, which is what happened at my recent meeting about green zones in north-west Sydney, when a government representative phoned five minutes before the meeting was due to commence and said, "Terribly sorry, we are not coming." Yet again the Government has ignored the legitimate concerns of local, fair dinkum people meeting at the workers club, if only the Government cared about workers.

On 22 June 2004 the then Leader of the Opposition arranged a meeting with the Minister for Lands but it was cancelled by the Minister without any reason—another cancellation to try to avoid a major issue. On 24 June a two-hour meeting was finally held at Parliament House with the honourable member for Peats and Graham Harding and Stephen Francis from the Department of Lands, at which an agreement was reached that Graham Harding, the General Manager of the Department of Lands would review the wording of the licence document, the term of the licence and the amount of guarantee renewal of the licence by 31 August 2004. Later the Minister agreed to meet the then Leader of the Opposition only—not a delegation of affected waterfront property owners. Yet again the Government would not meet with stakeholders. What sort of representatives are they? It is disgraceful that this Government will not meet with ordinary everyday people. Surely a delegation of half a dozen people would have been acceptable.

The then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Hornsby and I then consulted with a lot of stakeholders. Indeed we have received many representations and continually meet with affected people. Our duty as members of Parliament is to take up the concerns of our constituents—and it is hardly some great thing we are doing. Negotiations took place. But unfortunately the time for rhetoric from this Government is well and truly over in relation to this issue. Members of the Government need to put up or shut up. The clear-cut option in relation to this bill is to give ordinary everyday residents a fair go. Waterfront-access-only property owners are already paying too much. Mr Cooper said:

Generally these people do not have a car or a driveway but have boat-access-only property in areas in which in the past the battlers of Berowra Creek lived. Residents have worked hard during their lives, and now they may have moved out of suburbia and want to enjoy their retirement on the water. As members can clearly see, the State Government already charges water access only property owners for the use of Crown land and now it is adding this cost under these new rental arrangements. Like many of the Government's decisions, this is about short-term revenue raising. These people should be given a fair go. We know this Government is cash-strapped, but ordinary people should not be the ones who have to plug deficits that are created entirely as a result of the waste and mismanagement of members opposite.

Members will recall the advertisements that heralded Mr Iemma's ascension to the premiership—Morris Iemma, yes, that Iemma, not I-amma. Do members remember that? "The new guy who got rid of the vendor tax—a fresh start". Here is the opportunity for the Government and Mr Iemma to scrap the inequitable tax that is being placed on water-access-only property owners. The Government scrapped the vendor duty—about time, as the Opposition benches urged—and now it is time for it to scrap this iniquitous tax. So far the Government has backed down on land tax and vendor duty and we are hearing more positive comments about the green environmental overlay that was slapped on thousands of my constituents in the North West some months ago.

Like land owners affected by the imposition of this now infamous landscape and rural lifestyle zone, water-access-only property owners stood up and fought against the State Government—450 residents at Berowra Waters and 3,500 residents at Rouse Hill. These people are very angry with the Government and are demanding changes that are fair and reasonable. Changes should and can be made to the rental charges for water-access-only property owners. The bill amends the Crown Lands Act 1989 to bring fairness and equity to people who can only access their land by water. The bill is for a relatively small number of people. It will not hurt the Government to agree to it. The number of people affected may be small but the impact on their lifestyles is very severe indeed. The Government does not yet charge people for driving across their driveways, but maybe that is on the agenda. Perhaps the Government will charge people to drive across their driveways into their houses. In the meantime, do not put a similar charge on water-access-only property owners.

I commend local leaders Denis Nobbs, Carol Joy, Kevin Cooper and their team for their dedication and research skills. They have fought a particularly solid fight and have presented logical arguments in a fair, well-reasoned and well-thought-out manner. This is clearly an issue worth fighting for. I call on the Government to get its act together and listen to local residents who have a very serious problem. It is time for a fresh start. The Government should give local people a fair go and the right of access to their properties that it has unfairly taken away.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.12 a.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Hornsby, in particular, who sponsored this private member's bill, and the honourable member for Hawkesbury, many of whose constituents are affected by the Government's changes to the way charges are levied on Crown land leases. Both members have vehemently stood up for their constituents. This issue may not affect tens of thousands of people, but it is an important issue for every individual who is affected.

It is a testament to the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Hornsby that they stand up for every constituent in their electorates. This bill is no exception. They have made a very strong case to me as the Opposition spokesman for Lands and to the shadow cabinet and our joint party room to make this Coalition policy. That is what being a member of Parliament is about: standing up for your constituents. It is easy to do it when thousands of them are coming through your door, but the real test of a good member of Parliament is to stand up for a relatively small number of people. That is what the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Hornsby have done. Other members of the Coalition have constituents with water-only access and they have been strong advocates as well.

I want to echo the words of the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Hornsby about the Government. The Government is extremely greedy and will do anything for money. A lot of Labor members think that anyone with a water-access-only property is a multimillionaire who can afford these sorts of increases. Nothing could be further from the truth for many of the people affected by these changes. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, a lot of people have worked damn hard to get a house, as all of us do, but these people happen to have houses that have access only by water. They will be penalised by the Government for having bought such a house. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, the Government has not yet charged people to back out of their drive and onto their road, but one never knows with this Government. There is no tax that it would not be interested in levying. Why does the Government think it is fair to levy this sort of a tax on someone with a water-access-only property?

The only explanation I can think of is the Government's financial mismanagement of New South Wales. Despite the billions of dollars of revenue that has flowed into the Treasury through the property boom and the GST—one billion dollars a year more than forecast when the GST was introduced—the Government now finds itself with a budget deficit of at least $700 million. The Government cannot do anything about the burgeoning bureaucracy because it is beholden to the unions. I often wonder who runs New South Wales. I have some doubt that it is the Government; rather, it is the unions that run this State. When the Government was talking about restructuring the health boards and the area health services it said, "Oh, well, we're still working it out because we are trying to get agreement from the unions." The question every taxpayer in New South Wales will be asking is: "Don't we elect members of Parliament to represent us and run New South Wales?" I wonder about that sometimes when we hear about the power the unions have over the Labor Party.

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: The member has completely strayed from the bill. If he would come back to it, it would probably help everyone.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order. I remind the honourable member for Murrumbidgee that he should confine his remarks to the bill.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I believe my comments are relevant to the bill because it is about the State Government earning additional revenue through charging these people additional lease payments. My point is that if the Government ran the finances of New South Wales properly, it would not have to make these sorts of decisions and put its hands in more people's pockets to get more money out of them. Part of the problem is that the Government has its hands tied to some degree in making reforms that would save money because it is beholden to the union movement. Unions donate about $6 million per electoral cycle to the Labor Party. They do not do it out of generosity and because they are terrific people. They want some payback for the $6 million, and that is what we are seeing. That is a great tragedy for New South Wales.

We have had a great opportunity to do good things with the revenue New South Wales has been earning, but the unions are holding us back. That is the reason the Government has changed the rentals on Crown land, particularly in this case. I call on the Government to stand up to the unions. Okay, they give it $6 million every electoral cycle, but the Government is elected to run New South Wales the way the taxpayers want it run, not the way the unions want it run. Take the burden off people who have water-access-only properties; take the burden off people who use our roads and pay tolls. Honourable members will recall Bob Carr's famous promise to abolish the tolls on the M5 and wherever else. The Government has broken a thousand promises relating to tax cuts. That is why New South Wales finds itself in this financial mess.

The Labor Party thinks that anyone who has a water-access-only property is rich and therefore should be taxed. It is interesting to note that that is how it develops policy. But it does not mind taking donations from some very rich people. It charges people $1,000 a head to attend fundraisers. It takes money from Macquarie Bank, Westpac and all the so-called rich people, but it does not miss an opportunity to whack people whom it regards as being rich. But, according to what the honourable member for Hornsby and the honourable member for Hawkesbury have told me, it is off target. The Labor Party still suffers from class envy, which is one of the reasons why it does not want to do anything for people whose property can be accessed only by water.

I commend the honourable member for Hornsby and the honourable member for Hawkesbury for the way they stand up for their constituents. I wish the Labor Party would stick up for the taxpayers of New South Wales and get its house in order. About 18 months are left before the Labor Party will be kicked out of government. It still has time to do the right thing for the taxpayers of New South Wales by getting off their backs, taking its hands out of their pockets and starting to run the State the right way. I hope the Government supports the bill, which supports hardworking people who happen to have properties that are accessible only by water.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.21 a.m.]: On behalf of the Government I oppose the bill. I am not sure who on behalf of those on the other side does the research or who monitors what is going on in this House, but this private member's bill was made redundant by the Government's recent legislation that recognises the particular circumstances of water-access-only residences and makes available to eligible residents a rebate on rent. We oppose the bill because it is redundant.

Mrs Judy Hopwood: Point of order: The honourable member for Canterbury is misleading the House. Obviously, she has not done her homework. If she had bothered to read my second reading speech she would have realised that the Government's bill does not alter the content or relevance of my bill or supplant it.

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

Ms LINDA BURNEY: In the last session of Parliament the Crown Lands Act was amended to recognise the particular circumstances of waterfront property owners whose only access to their homes is by water. This stemmed from last year's Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] inquiry into waterfront rents, which accepted the Government's position that the taxpayers of New South Wales deserve to be compensated appropriately—a key aspect that those on the other side should remember. The Government asked IPART to examine the rents charged for water-access-only properties.

Recent amendments to the Crown Lands Act reflect IPART's recommendations that owner-occupiers of water-access-only residences are eligible for a $250 rebate on their annual rent subject to the minimum rent of $350. Both the minimum rent and the rebate will be linked to the consumer price index. The rebate builds on an automatic rental concession to water-access-only residents. The IPART-approved rental formula that is used to determine the rent is limited to the statutory land value of the adjacent property. It is important to note that considering that average land values for water-access-only properties—
Mrs Judy Hopwood: You don't even live on a waterfront. How would you know?

Ms LINDA BURNEY: No, I do not live on a waterfront, but that is not the point. Considering that average land values for water-access-only properties are significantly lower than properties with road access, their rents have an automatic concession—considerably lower. I was interested to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. It is fallacious and hypocritical for him to somehow weave into the debate how New South Wales is reaping the enormous benefits, so-called, of the GST. I will not go over the numbers because people in this House understand the incredibly inequitable distribution of the GST.

Mrs Judy Hopwood: What's that got to do with this bill?

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Exactly!

Mrs Judy Hopwood: Point of order: I ask you to draw the honourable member for Canterbury back to the leave of the bill, which has nothing to do with the GST.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! The honourable member for Canterbury should confine her remarks to the bill.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: That is absolutely correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with the GST. I am pointing out that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee spoke extensively about the GST. So I agree with the honourable member for Hornsby. She is correct. It is not about the GST. That is the point I was trying to make. I reassure the honourable member for Hawkesbury that the Government, not the unions, is running the State. There are partnerships and synergies, but I can assure him that he can rest easy tonight: We are running this State. I oppose the bill on behalf of the Government.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.26 a.m.], in reply: I reiterate that the object of the bill is to amend the Crown Lands Act 1989 to require that when determining or redetermining rent under the Act with respect to a lease, licence or enclosure permit that provides water access to the lease, licence or permit holder's residential property, regard is to be had to whether the lease, licence or permit provides the only reasonable means of access to that property. I thank the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee for their contributions, but I am not sure that I can extend my thanks to the honourable member for Canterbury, even though she made some salient points.

Where is the honourable member for Heathcote, who represents people who have water-access-only properties? In conversations with me he cried crocodile tears about the concerns of residents in his electorate with water-access-only properties. He is supposed to represent those people and take their concerns to the Minister. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Heathcote did not contribute to the debate. I hope that his constituents, whom he purports to represent, find out that they have not been represented to the extent that they should have been represented.

The honourable member for Canterbury said my bill is redundant. I reject that: my bill is not redundant. Amendments to the Crown Lands Act to cover water-access-only properties did nothing but insert the term into the Act. Nothing changed. The amendments to the Crown Lands Act already reflected recommendations of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. Residents who have water-only access to their properties do not want to be assessed by the same formula as those with land and water access. The rebate is irrelevant to them because their minimum cost is $350, which is much more than some of them have been paying thus far.

I recommend that the honourable member for Canterbury look at the real estate values of water-access-only properties. They are not the lower echelon; they are very much in demand. Properties for sale in my area—Brooklyn, Milsons Passage and Berowra Creek—are not considered secondary to those in the eastern suburbs. I take the response by the honourable member for Canterbury as a total insult. I also take as an insult to the owners of water access only properties that the honourable member for Heathcote, who could have made a contribution to this debate, has not done so.

This Government is totally greedy. It is unfair that this Government imposes recommendations by IPART onto people whose only access to their homes is by water and who suffer all the problems associated with not having road access to their homes. The Government's policy is yet another example of its financial mismanagement and is extremely poor form because it imposes a substantial burden on so few people that one wonders what difference the revenue derived from that policy would make to the coffers of the Government. I am at a loss to understand the response from members on the Government side of the Chamber. I urge Government members to rethink the issue.

The Minister will probably alter the conditions applying to water-access-only properties as a reaction to what the Opposition has had to say and the Opposition's taking the lead in addressing the inequity suffered by water-access-only property owners. I expect that those property owners will be given due consideration in time. I also mention that during a meeting between the Minister, a departmental officer and me the Minister promised to inspect some of the Hawkesbury River and Berowra Creek properties, but I note that the Minister has totally reneged on that promise. That is another appalling example of a Minister not taking an interest in matters affecting his portfolio. I urge all honourable members to support the bill.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 34

Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
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

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

Noes, 46

Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Mr Daley
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson

Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
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
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon

Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Pairs

Mr Hazzard	Ms Gadiel
Ms Seaton	Mr Price

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! It being after11.30 a.m. the House will now deal with General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).

HELICOPTER RESCUE SERVICES

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [11.40 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I move:

(1) acknowledges the commencement on 14 June 2003 of Helicopter Awareness Week;

(2) recognises the contribution to the community by the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service based at Sydney and Wollongong, the Westpac Hunter Region Service based in Newcastle and Tamworth and the Westpac Northern Region Service based in Lismore; and

(3) congratulates and thanks the staff and voluntary crew members who continually place their lives at risk to save lives.

What motivated this motion some 2� years ago was that in 2003 the Northern Region Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service, based at Lismore, celebrated its twentieth anniversary. At the time I congratulated the service on that achievement. I am especially proud of the service based at Lismore, of which I was honoured to be a director prior to coming to this House as the member for Lismore. Although the helicopter service is based at Lismore, it covers eastern areas from Kempsey north to the border, and western areas from Glen Innes and Inverell north to the border. The service covers the electorate of Ballina, and the honourable member for Ballina gave a very good private member's statement in June 2002, recognising the 20 years of the Northern Region Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour would have liked to pay tribute to the service, and its full-time employees, in Coffs Harbour. I will give a brief summary of the life of the service in the northern region. In December 1982 the service commenced at Ballina using a Hillier piston engine aircraft. In 1983 the service became permanent in Lismore with the leased Bell Jet Ranger helicopter, based at Lismore's St Vincent's hospital. In 1984 Surf Life Saving Australia Ltd took full control of the service and provided another Bell Jet Ranger helicopter. In 1985 major sponsorship of the service came from the Northern Co-operative Meat Company and Casino Hide Traders, based in Lismore. Those companies are major employers in the Northern Rivers area, with 1,800 members of the co-operative working on the land at that time. The companies realised the need for a helicopter service should there be a disaster at the company and/or on any of the properties in the region.

I pay tribute to the Northern Co-operative Meat Company for its sponsorship. I was honoured to be the director of the company at that time. In 1988 the late Robert Bruce Duncan, MP, was appointed to the position of chairman of the board. I need not elaborate on the contributions of Robert Bruce Duncan and Harold Fredericks to the success of that company. In 1991 the Westpac Banking Corporation became the major sponsor of the service throughout New South Wales. In the restructure, the service appointed a general manager and company secretary, Perry Wells. In 1996 the service purchased a second twin-engine aircraft. In 1997 major extensions were carried out to the hangar complex. In 1998 Warren Tozer, a prominent citizen and representative for Grafton and the Clarence Valley, was appointed as chairman, to take over from the late Robert Bruce Duncan.

In 2000 a reorganisation of the administration complex and extensions at the base took place. In 2002 the company celebrated 20 years of dedicated service to the community. In 2003 the Coffs Harbour office was launched as an extension of the Lismore operation, with a view to placement of a helicopter service at Coffs Harbour. In June 2005 the latest addition to the service's fleet was launched and brought online. I acknowledge the proud record of the Northern Region Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service, which has been strengthened by the involvement of NSW Health, the co-operation and input of the New South Wales Ambulance Service, Surf Life Saving Australia Ltd and other agencies around our region involved in rescue and emergency work in the community.

Much credit must go to the invaluable role played by the people of the region served by the helicopter through generous and continuing financial support and the professionalism and commitment of the staff in the maintenance and operation of the service. The staff accept without question the extra demands required when working for an organisation of a charitable nature. Aircraft used in the service are twin-engine, single-pilot Eurocopter Dauphins. The cabinet layout allows for two patient stretchers. What I have described is typical of the much-needed services provided across the State in conjunction with the New South Wales Ambulance Service and NSW Health. I pay tribute also to Ron Rankin, Chairman, and Greg Nance, Chief Executive, of Surf Life Saving Australia Ltd for their support over the years. They have provided the mechanism and the expertise required in the initial years and they have continued their association. I thank them and all the team for their support.
The chief executive officer of the Sydney service is Doug Menzies. He and his team have provided a wonderful service for the Sydney-based Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter service. In the Hunter region, based in Newcastle and Tamworth, the chief executive, Richard Jones, and his team do a fantastic job. I know that other honourable members will recognise services throughout the State and the job that they do. The service has a proven track record of efficiency and co-operation with NSW Health and the New South Wales Ambulance Service. It successfully, efficiently and professionally fulfils all the requirements under the health department's rotary wing aeromedical retrieval services funding agreement. In my area the service has unqualified support from the community throughout its flight area. Various voluntary committees located in Lismore, Casino, Grafton Coffs Harbour, Macleay, Tenterfield and Ballina shire co-ordinate and promote events.

In accordance with the funding agreement with the New South Wales Ambulance Service, assignments also exist to provide assistance and support to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Aus SAR, the State Emergency Service, NSW Police, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Surf Life Saving Australia, bushfire services and the volunteer coastguard. This service, which provides security to country, coastal and regional areas, is an organisation we love to support but we hope and pray we never have to use it. When people in rural areas suffer any form of tragedy it is comforting to them to know that specialist staff on board that helicopter will provide the expertise and support services they need. It is with great pleasure that I move this motion today.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.50 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Lismore. I acknowledge and thank all the personnel involved in helicopter rescue services across New South Wales. In particular, I note the dedication and efforts of various non-government organisations involved in the provision of helicopter services. Their hard work and commitment in providing a safe and timely service for the community are highly valued. These organisations include CareFlight, Child Flight and Surf Life Saving Australia, with their bases distributed across the major population centres of New South Wales.

I am informed that the first civilian helicopter rescue service was started in 1973 in Sydney by the Surf Life Saving Association. That was a pioneering achievement. While substantial funding is provided by NSW Health to non-government organisations for the operation of helicopter services, an immense amount of time and effort are dedicated by each non-government organisation towards community awareness and, in particular, fundraising. Helicopters, understandably, are very visible in the community. They can be used for search and rescue missions such as rescuing a hiker lost in the bush, or inter-hospital transfers when critically ill patients are transferred to hospital in a timely fashion.

I emphasise that the vehicle, that is, the helicopter, is only one component of the helicopter service. The pilots, ground technicians, doctors, nurses and paramedics are the crucial human resources required to mount an emergency response. I therefore acknowledge the NSW Ambulance Service and the State's medical retrieval unit for their role in co-ordinating emergency retrievals of critically ill or injured patients. Co-ordinating the tasking of helicopter missions is not simple, as the cases are often urgent and life threatening. I commend all the clinical and paramedic staff who work with the helicopter and non-government organisations to deliver timely emergency care to the people of New South Wales.

I want to refer to some of the things happening locally in my electorate—an electorate in which we receive fantastic service. There have been some ongoing issues in relation to the Illawarra-based medical retrieval service. Currently a firm has been contracted to provide that service. Because of an overwhelming community desire to have a high-profile local medical retrieval unit a consortium of businesses—the Illawarra Business Chamber, the South Coast Labor Council, various businesses, organisations and trade unions—put together a proposal for Guardian Air. I was recently at the launch of that scheme.

A community-based organisation will provide a helicopter service if NSW Health issues a contract for the southern region, and I am encouraging it to do so. It is a great organisation and there is much community participation, which goes to show that the community is well and truly behind such a service. People love a locally based, high-profile and visible project such as one involving a helicopter. I will watch with interest to see which parties tender for that contract. People who tender for such a contract tend to be passionate. They want to provide those services for many reasons, most of which are esoteric. They desire to have cutting-edge specialist skills and to be involved in modern and dramatic employment. It is a fantastic job to be able to save lives in such an exciting way.
The Southern Region Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service has operated from Prince of Henry Hospital in the eastern suburbs since 1990. The Surf Life Saving Association runs a 24-hour medical retrieval service, and 20,000 rescues have been carried out by that service since it was founded. The helicopter service provides emergency rescue and basic medical assistance for patients en route to hospitals. The primary emphasis is coastal and offshore areas, though inland rescues are also available. The emergency rescue service covers my electorate of Heathcote as well as other southern Sydney areas.

The Prince Henry landing base is now within 250 metres of residential development and must be moved. Investigations have revealed a suitable location, that is, Cape Banks. That site meets nearly all the requirements, in particular, the fact that it is located on the fringe of controlled air space, the land is already cleared, and it is located about one kilometre from any residential development, thus reducing intrusion from noise. The service, which will be located in Bundeena, where I live, which is just across from Port Hacking, will assist in response times to those coastal areas. So the good people in the electorate of the honourable member for Cronulla will receive faster service.

Retrievals often need to be carried out in the Royal National Park. It is good news that the helicopter will be located so close to the Royal National Park, the world's second oldest national park. Some people argue that, technically, it is the oldest national park, but it is the only legislated national park in the world. The helicopter service will be able to work in co-operation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The helicopter can be used in firefighting, water dropping, fire spotting, fire plotting, winching in of fire teams—particularly remote area firefighting teams—and evacuation of personnel and communities.

These services already perform regular rescues from national parks in the Sydney Basin, the Central Coast and the South Coast. That service will now be enhanced, as it is so close to the national park. It can assist in the evacuation of communities and in times of emergency. A number of isolated and small communities are located along that coastal stretch. The helicopter can assist in searches and be a point of contact for medical and search operations within the National Parks and Wildlife Service network. In congratulating and supporting our volunteers and service providers I commend the clinical and paramedic staff that work on these helicopter services.

Finally, I highlight the collaborative and co-operative approach taken by the New South Wales Government and these organisations in the provision of rescue helicopter services. New South Wales leads the way in the provision of safe, timely and high-quality helicopter rescue and medical retrieval services. I am told that the medical retrieval systems recently introduced in other States have been extensively modelled on the New South Wales system, which demonstrates best practice. I commend the motion.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.59 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lismore on moving this important motion that recognises the contribution of all those involved with lifesaving helicopter services. Rural New South Wales—indeed, rural Australia as a whole—depends on the efforts of the many people who are instrumental in providing air rescue services. In turn, these services depend on money, which is critical to keeping the helicopters in the air. I congratulate and acknowledge the many people who raise the funds that keep our air rescue services operational. The electorates of Wagga Wagga, Bega, Murrumbidgee and Burrinjuck are served by the Snowy Hydro SouthCare Helicopter Service. The service was established in 1998 and is the only primary service provider of aeromedical and rescue helicopter services in south-eastern New South Wales.

The service is based in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory and serves our region 24 hours day, 365 days a year. The service is a charity and is committed to encouraging individuals, groups, businesses, organisations and the community to help it to continue saving lives. The primary role of the service is to fly directly to the scene of accidents and transport patients to hospital as quickly as possible while providing the highest standard of pre-hospital care. The service performs this role time after time in our region. Last year the Snowy Hydro SouthCare Helicopter Service completed 331 missions, or an average of six to seven missions per week. Last year it helped 328 local friends, families and visitors. Since its inception in 1998 the service has accomplished more than 1,700 missions in the southern region alone.

As I said before, the service relies on donations from organisations and individuals to keep its helicopters in the air. This vital service is known as "the angel of mercy", which is a fitting accolade for a service that we embrace and love and upon which we all depend. It responds speedily to emergencies and accidents in the remote regions of our electorates, transports newborn babies and provides primary care. Let us not forget that many visitors come to our area. Snowy Hydro SouthCare serves an area comprising 800,000 men, women and children but the five million people who visit the region on business and on holiday also benefit from the service. Although I support the motion, I shall move an amendment to it. I move:

"Snowy Hydro SouthCare based in Canberra"

I move that amendment in recognition of the wonderful service that Snowy Hydro SouthCare provides. The honourable member for Lismore is a board member of his local helicopter retrieval service. He is a great local member who works with his community. He continues to fight for his constituents and to move motions such as this that recognise the efforts of vital services in his electorate. I am sure that the honourable member for Heathcote will join us in supporting this motion. It is a non-political motion that seeks simply to record our thanks and acknowledgement of the worthwhile work of rescue retrieval services and our communities' dependence upon them. I congratulate all helicopter rescue services and the honourable member for Lismore on bringing this matter before the House. I support the motion.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.04 p.m.]: I join the honourable member for Wagga Wagga in congratulating the honourable member for Lismore on moving this motion. I support the motion but will speak to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga regarding the Snowy Hydro SouthCare Helicopter Service. The honourable member for Lismore is a board member of a voluntary organisation that provides helicopter rescue services in rural and regional New South Wales and he congratulated all such services on their wonderful work. The health system in regional New South Wales is critically dependent upon rescue helicopter services. I live near Bega hospital so I am well aware of the volume of helicopter traffic to and from that facility. The service ferries patients—many of whom are knocking on heaven's door—to hospitals in Canberra and Sydney, where better medical treatment is available. The work of the staff who fly and maintain the helicopters is underpinned by that of volunteers, who raise both funds for and awareness of helicopter rescue services throughout regional New South Wales.

Snowy Hydro SouthCare was established in October 1998 and is the only primary service provider of aeromedical and rescue helicopter services in the Australian Capital Territory and south-eastern New South Wales. The service performs several roles but its primary function is to fly directly to the scene of accidents and transport patients to hospital as quickly as possible, where they can receive appropriate medical assistance. The service has the secondary role of transferring patients from regional to metropolitan hospitals, as I alluded to earlier. I am fortunate in that one of my staff members, Ian Duff, is an ambassador for Snowy Hydro SouthCare. Ian is a true champion when it comes to raising awareness of and funds for the service in the Eurobodalla community in particular. People such as Judy Vardon and Jan Carter from Narooma have been instrumental in the ongoing success of the Eurobodalla chapter of Friends of SouthCare. I note that the chapter will hold another fundraising event, "A Night of Note", in late November on behalf of Snowy Hydro SouthCare. I encourage local people to support that fundraising effort. There is no doubt that many magnificent people work in a volunteer capacity to provide fundraising support to SouthCare, and it is a privilege to recognise them in Parliament today.

The 750,000 people who live in the south-east corner of the State depend on the service provided by Snowy Hydro SouthCare. We reflect from time to time on the family members and friends who have benefited from the service. I know of a five-year-old whose life was saved by a helicopter rescue service. I can only pay tribute to the men and women involved with these services. Regional New South Wales depends on helicopter rescue services and the money that funds them. These services save lives and help our hospitals to serve the community better. I commend the motion to the House. I support it fully and congratulate the honourable member for Lismore on moving it.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [12.09 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Lismore, which commends rescue helicopter services. In particular, I refer to the northern region Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service. Perry Wells, its Chief Executive Officer, has overseen a lot of tragedies the service has been involved in. Warren Tozer and Stuart Messer are two hardworking staff who raise thousands of dollars annually for the service in the Clarence and northern New South Wales. It costs approximately $3 million a year to run the northern region Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service. The average cost for one mission is $3,000 an hour, it costs $10,000 to train a new crew member, $3,500 for a crew helmet, $450 for a chopper tyre, $120,000 for a new winch and $5,000 to replace the winch cable.

Helicopters have to be serviced regularly to provide a safe and efficient service, at a cost of $5,000 for a 50-hour service, up to $25,000 for a 400-hour service, $60,000 to overhaul the winch and $250,000 to service a gearbox. That funding comes from a lot of chook raffles, trivia nights, bingo days run by the ladies committee and deductions from the payroll of people who put their hands in their pockets to help this vital service. I am sure all honourable members know someone who has been helped by the rescue service. Fortunately, in the Clarence area the Rotary Club of Maclean has raised funds for a new helipad. The old helipad was located on a hill, five minutes away from the hospital, and unprotected. It was untenable to land the helicopter in extreme weather conditions. The combined Maclean, Yamba and Iluka Rotary clubs conducted a fundraiser. The money was raised in six months. On 5 March 2005 the helipad was opened, an amazing feat by the rotary clubs. Virtually minutes after the opening, the service was needed. On 11 March the Clarence Valley Review reported:

The patient could not be transferred to the Gold Coast by ambulance because of spinal injuries. Some three months ago on my way to Sydney, on one of the few sections of divided road on the Pacific Highway, an accident occurred with traffic travelling north. The rescue helicopter landed on the highway to take severely injured patients to hospital. It is more than likely that it saved their lives, as they got to a hospital a lot quicker. The missions of the helicopter service include an elderly male transported to Nimbin Hospital, early morning transfer from Maclean to Brisbane for a burns victim, a missing plane located south-east of Tenterfield, and an inter-hospital transfer from Lismore to Brisbane. We should commend our helicopter rescue services in every way. I congratulate the honourable member for Lismore on moving this motion.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members representing the electorates of Heathcote, Wagga Wagga, Bega and Clarence for their contributions to this debate. I am shocked and disappointed that the honourable member for Newcastle and honourable member for Tamworth did not contribute to this debate in support of their rescue services. All speakers highlighted our concern for providing the services across the State, especially in rural and regional areas. Those areas do not have ambulance stations, so the helicopter services often save lives in country and regional remote areas.

The honourable member for Clarence referred to a plane that was missing. We need to maintain and continue to support rescue services in remote areas and areas away from the coast. Along the coastal areas employees and volunteers of the rescue helicopter services put their lives at risk, as do the staff of all emergency services in New South Wales about whom we are always complimentary. I am concerned that some areas in the State are not covered by an aeromedical service. The Department of Health has issued contracts to provide rotary wing aeromedical retrieval services under its funding agreement. I term some of those areas as black spots. I make a plea to the Minister for Health to look at those areas when providing services.

I know that efficient and professional services are being provided in the northern region, including the Hunter and the Newcastle areas, and in the Sydney Surf Life Saving service. I want the service expanded to Coffs Harbour. The northern region would be more than happy to have a helicopter based there to cover the grey area—rather than a black spot—that needs to be looked at. Contracts are being looked at across the State. The service should be extended to grey-spot areas. The CareFlight, Westpac and SouthCare services provide a wonderful service and I compliment them for doing so. They provide the Government with a professional service across the State. Community support has been second to none, as has been emphasised by other members in their contributions to the debate.

The communities overwhelmingly support the helicopter services and believe that they have an ownership and partnership with them. Country and coastal communities bend over backwards to provide financial support to the rescue services, which they hope they will not have to use. It is comforting for the regions to know that the service is available. I compliment all aero medical services in the State. In particular, I compliment the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service in the northern region, the Hunter and Newcastle, and the Sydney service, which operate a professional service. They are backed by boards of directors that do a magnificent job in New South Wales.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

WATER AND SEWERAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that thousands of litres of partially treated sewerage poured into Berowra Creek as a result of overflows of the sewage treatment plants in Hornsby and Hornsby Heights during recent high rainfalls;
(2) notes that cracked pipes and unmaintained related infrastructure allowed rainwater to enter the system, straining the ability of the sewage treatment plants to adequately treat raw sewage; and

(3) calls on the Government to increase funding for replacement of archaic infrastructure and improve maintenance so that sewage treatment plants can cope when it rains.

The bottom line of this motion relates to asset management and the blatant lack of maintenance of vital assets over a decade of this Labor Government. Two-and-a-half years have passed since I gave notice of this motion, but nothing has changed in relation to asset management and lack of maintenance. Rainwater still seeps into cracked pipes and, conversely, cracked water pipes allow water to escape. This affects not only my electorate but also other regions across New South Wales. I refer to the Auditor-General's performance audit report entitled "Implementing Asset Management Reforms", dated October 2005, in which he says in his foreword:

This is really not the case when it comes to managing our broken water pipes. The greedy acquisition of funds from Sydney Water Corporation has seen not only a lack of adequate asset maintenance but also delays in construction of many other assets that Sydney Water looks after, including connection to sewerage systems. The Brooklyn-Dangar sewerage system has been delayed, as have the Cowan and Galston sewerage systems. They are some sort of blip on the screen in the future. I refer to page 2 of this morning's Daily Telegraph and an article titled "End of the road for Scully's transitway". It refers to the Minister who now looks after utilities and says:

I just hope that this will not be replicated with the maintenance of water pipes, replacement of cracked pipes and connection to sewerage systems. In 2002 Sydney Water Corporation decided to axe its customer information and billing project. That was more than $50 million down the drain. It was well recognised as a financial disaster and an indication of mismanagement at Sydney Water. The $50 million would have bought a number of communities access to sewerage. In 2003 it was again acknowledged that the Government's failure to manage Sydney Water had been directly responsible for Sydney Water's $61 million IT billing system loss. The Auditor General warned the Government that Sydney Water had been haemorrhaging money as far back as 2001 but the Government has done nothing to avert that loss.

A number of comments were made about the Labor Government's cash raid on Sydney Water. It was noted as being absolutely outrageous that Sydney Water customers were to be billed big but would not receive a better service, and that much-needed infrastructure would not be built and part-treated sewage would still be pumped into the Harbour and onto the beaches. This was said to be absolute proof that the Government was using Sydney Water customers as a cash cow to prop up its budget. Sydney Water infrastructure was said to be crumbling and money was much needed to remedy the situation. In 1998-99, $91.8 million went into Government coffers from Sydney Water. In 1999-2000, it was $129.2 million; in 2000-01, $53.4 million; and in 2001-02, $110 million. So it goes on. Crucial sewerage projects have been cancelled and others have been put on hold and remain unfunded after the Labor Government's razor gang slashed Sydney Water's budget.

An article titled "Fixing all leaks not possible" in the Daily Telegraph of 22 October 2003 referred to Minister Sartor, the then Minister for Utilities, and said Sydney Water had no plans to increase spending on plugging its daily 188 million litre torrent of wasted water despite the tough mandatory restrictions it was imposing on its customers. The Minister conceded there was still plenty of work to be done on fixing leaks, but there would be no expansion of the leak reduction programs. He estimated the corporation would spend $65 million in 2003 to fix old pipes, including $2.95 million on an active leak reduction program. The water is still leaking. In 2003 it was noted that the $380 million in dividends paid by Sydney Water over the past four years should be returned to it to allow the corporation to do its job.

We flash forward to 2005 to a media release from Andrew Stoner, now the shadow Minister for Utilities, in which he said less than 1 per cent of our ageing water pipes were to be upgraded. He said the Labor Government's announcement that 80 kilometres of our fragile and leaking water mains would be renewed across Sydney Water's network involved merely routine maintenance and was inadequate. Mr Stoner said:

It is about time Labor got serious. The Government's promise to spend $57 million on replacing water pipes across the Sydney Water network cannot be believed when the budget papers show that over the past three years Sydney Water failed to spend $97 million allocated to improve water distribution and treatment systems. In 2004 Sydney Water lost 9.3 per cent of its water, almost 60 billion litres, because of leaks in the network and dilapidated water pipes and mains. It was reported in the budget that the Government would spend $250 million over four years to renew 300 kilometres of water mains, including 80 kilometres this year. I could keep going. The Barton Group reports Labor's neglect of water infrastructure. The Government should pull up its socks and maintain its assets so we do not lose water through cracked pipes, so rainwater does not fall into sewage treatment plants and cause them to overflow, and so our precious environment—the Berowra Creek and Hawkesbury River in my area—is not compromised by failing sewage treatment plants.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.30 p.m.]: As the Parliamentary Secretary for Utilities and on behalf of the Minister I note the concerns of the honourable member about the performance of the Sydney sewerage system, especially during wet weather. However, I will put her concerns in perspective and not misconstrue the situation. The rainfall event referred to by the honourable member for Hornsby occurred between 25 May and 27 May 2003 and caused an intermittent bypass of the biological process at both the Hornsby Heights and West Hornsby sewage treatment plants [STPs]. It is important to point out that no raw sewage was discharged by the plants, nor did any raw sewage bypass the plants at any time. All flows received full disinfection. The plants performed in accordance with the design and all licence conditions set by the Environment Protection Authority, which is now the Department of Environment and Conservation. It is important to note that no non-compliance issues were associated with this wet weather event.

The Minister at the time relayed this information to the honourable member for Hornsby in answer to her question on notice No. 349, which was published on 3 September 2003. In 2002 Sydney Water completed a $25 million upgrade of the West Hornsby and Hornsby Heights sewage treatment plants. The STPs were upgraded to provide ultraviolet disinfection and improve the biological nutrient removal to complement tertiary treatment processes. Part of the upgrade was the new storm flow treatment facility at West Hornsby STP, which detains wet weather flows until they can be treated. In wet weather stormwater flows into the sewerage system and may exceed the capacity of the system, which can result in overflows from the pipe network and/or the diversion of one or more treatment processes and treatment plants. These events are recognised within the environmental protection licences set by the Department of Environment and Conservation.

Sydney Water operates a large sewerage network consisting of 28 sewerage systems with pipes spanning 23,247 kilometres and an amazing 662 sewage pumping stations. About 1.6 million properties are connected to this system by another 22,000 kilometres of house lines, which, as the honourable member knows, are the responsibility of property owners. Analysis of stormwater inflows into the sewerage system shows that the rehabilitation of private sewers can reduce considerably the amount of stormwater entering sewers. Given the span and complexity of Sydney's sewer network it is unrealistic to expect that the entire system is waterproof, given that when it rains in Sydney it is usually with some intensity. That said, the Government is committed to improving the reliability of the system overall and will continue improvement programs. Field verified wet weather overflows have decreased over the past three years from 608 in 2002-03 to only 168 in the 2004-05 financial year.

Mr Michael Richardson: It hasn't been raining.
Mr TONY STEWART: That is the reality. If those opposite cannot face reality they should not be here. The northside storage tunnel is 20 kilometres long, from Lane Cove West to Tunks Park and from Scotts Creek to Tunks Park and converging on North Head Sewage Treatment Plant. Sydney Water has spent $150 million to date to reduce wet and dry weather overflows, including the northside storage tunnel. Since it opened in September 2000 the tunnel has captured more than 17.6 billion litres of effluent from 78 separate capture events. Five years ago all that effluent would have gone directly into Sydney Harbour, which is what happened under the previous Coalition Government.

We have dealt with the problem. Sydneysiders now enjoy whales in the harbour and improved conditions around Sydney foreshores and the greater New South Wales coastline because of government initiatives put in place to deal with concerns raised by the honourable member for Hornsby. However, those concerns must be put into perspective by considering the facts that sustain them. Sydney Water has been at the forefront of ensuring that those concerns are dealt with effectively and efficiently.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.36 p.m.]: I support the excellent motion moved by the honourable member for Hornsby because this issue has been important to me and my electorate going back to when I was first elected to this place in 1993, when the Coalition was in government. The extreme contrast between the attitude of the former Coalition Government and this Government to cleaning up Berowra Creek was evident when the Parliamentary Secretary said that wet weather overflows in the sewerage system have improved when it has not been raining; and when he talked at length about the northside storage tunnel and Sydney Harbour.

This issue relates not to Sydney Harbour but to Berowra Creek, which is a very important waterway and inlet of the Hawkesbury River and one in which the Coalition Government took extreme interest in the early to mid 1990s. Longer-term members of this place might recall the establishment of the Berowra Creek community contract, which was signed off in 1994 by the then Minister for Planning and Sydney Water, Robert Webster, and Hornsby Shire Council on behalf of the local community surrounding Berowra Creek. This pioneering agreement was designed to improve the water in Berowra Creek while, at the same time, allow development to go ahead.

One of the important issues that needed to be addressed was the upgrade of the West Hornsby and Hornsby Heights sewage treatment plants. Neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor the Government can take credit for this upgrade because it was in train going back to 1994. The Parliamentary Secretary may not remember, but the Labor Party came into government in 1995. One problem is that the Government's so-called SewerFix program is not working. Indeed, the northside storage tunnel is not working when there is heavy rain, which, fortunately for the Government, has not happened on too many occasions recently.

I know the Government is very enthusiastic about filling the dams to bail itself out of its problems of providing an adequate supply of water to Sydney, but at times I believe the Government would prefer to have less rain so the weaknesses of the sewerage system will not be exposed for all to see. In a single year under the SewerFix Program, Sydney Water renews just 135 kilometres of sewer pipes out of the 23,000 kilometres of pipes in Sydney. At that rate it will take a couple of hundred years to fix all the sewer pipes in Sydney. That simply is not good enough.

In common with Hornsby and Hawkesbury constituents, many of my constituents in The Hills electorate are paying $160 a year for a special catchment remediation levy to assist in fixing the problems that confront Berowra Creek, such as red algal bloom. We should keep in mind that the oyster industry in the Hawkesbury was wiped out as a consequence of this Government's neglect of issues such as stormwater and sewage run-off that flows into Berowra Creek. The Government stands condemned for its failure to take action on this important issue.

It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Police and Utilities to refer to the northside storage tunnel and to claim the Government has allegedly done a wonderful job with Sydney Harbour, but what about people who live in areas to the north of Sydney? What about the people near Berowra Creek who are paying the extra levy and expect it to be applied to cleaning up waterways in their area? The honourable member for Hornsby quite deliberately has brought this important issue to the attention of the Parliament because she understands the issues and the impact they are having on her constituents.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [12.41 p.m.]: The Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Police and Utilities has dealt with the substantive aspects of the motion moved by the honourable member for Hornsby, so I will deal with some of the issues that have been mentioned by other speakers during this debate, and correct some of the false information that has been given. Sydney Water is continuing to work at reducing wet and dry weather overflows. During 2005-06 Sydney Water will spend approximately $80 million on sewer maintenance and $63 million on renewals and upgrades.

Sydney Water's SewerFix Program involves the rehabilitation, amplification and upgrading of sewerage assets. SewerFix will improve the health of the waterways by reducing overflows and leakage from the sewerage system. SewerFix consists of two key programs: the sewage pumping stations program, which delivered a program of upgrades to 258 sewage pumping stations over the past four years, and an upgrading program, on which a further $22.8 million will be spent in 2005-06 to upgrade 168 pumping stations across Sydney, including $12 million for telemetry improvements to ensure ongoing station performance.

During 2005-06 $13 million will be spent on the pipes hot spots program, which involves the rehabilitation and amplification of sewer main catchments that affect water quality at swimming sites, separation of combined sewers in the city to improve water quality in Black Wattle Bay, Darling Harbour and Circular Quay, and detailed sewer catchment management plans. Key targets of the SewerFix Program are to a