Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 7 June 2007, Corrected Copy)

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Andrew Stoner.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.00 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Government Schools (Infrastructure Register) Bill would require the Director General of the Department of Education and Training to keep a register of government school assets, including all buildings and demountables. The register would comprise school status reports that outline the status of the capital assets of government schools and three-yearly school building plans for building and maintenance work in those schools. These reports will be tabled in Parliament and made available to the public on the departmental website. The bill proposes good management practices and basic management principles in relation to schools, as are certainly followed in the private sector but not by the Government. The state of school assets in New South Wales, particularly classrooms, school grounds and the like, is a key issue.

I do not pretend for one moment that the bill I have introduced today is original, or even of my own design. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was formerly the shadow Minister for Education and Training and who did an outstanding job holding the Government to account in that portfolio, introduced similar legislation in 2003. But I think even she would admit that her legislation was not entirely original as it was driven by the recommendations of the Vinson inquiry into education. Good governments commission inquiries into issues of concern, collate the evidence, work with the community to develop solutions and then implement those solutions. Unfortunately, the Iemma Labor Government is not a good government. It did the hard work in terms of establishing the inquiry and receiving recommendations from it, but has done nothing more since.

The modus operandi of the Iemma Government is that any time there is a mistake or failure it commissions an inquiry to distract the public's attention. It then buries the inquiry's recommendations, and all its hard work is condemned to the dustbin of history. A fundamental finding of the Vinson inquiry highlighted the importance of school infrastructure. The report states:

Research suggests that the quality of physical space affects self-esteem, peer and student teacher interactions, parental involvement, discipline, attention, motivation and interpersonal relations … the quality of school buildings and their surrounds can also be a potent symbol of the regard (or otherwise) in which public education is believed to be held by governments and the community.

We must put in place a system that protects school infrastructure precisely because school infrastructure influences and motivates not just the students who study within its walls but the wider community who see it as a symbol of the importance that we, as a society, place on education. Professor Vinson made two key recommendations. Recommendation 6.1 states:

That two indicators covering unmet needs with respect to school buildings, and the maintenance of school buildings, be constructed using existing data sources, as described in the text. The indicators should be maintained and published as an annual statistical series and incorporated in submissions for asset acquisition and refurbishment funding.

As I said earlier, they are good, basic management principles. Recommendation 6.2 states:

That a formula be devised on the basis of schools' emergency maintenance expenditures over the past three years, for weighting the maintenance component of the global budget of those schools with the greatest need. The extent of the weighting should be sufficient to significantly reduce the need for applications for supplementary funding.

This bill will do what the Labor Government has refused to do: bring into effect the long overdue recommendations of the Vinson report. There has never been a stronger case for keeping an assets register. On the same day that the Iemma Government pre-briefed the media about its so-called big-spending Education budget, it was revealed that the Department of Education and Training has worryingly little understanding of where its assets are.

The Rock Central School, which is located in the electorate of the member for Wagga Wagga—it is a good school in a delightful community—and Young Public School, which is another good public school in country New South Wales that sadly lost a classroom to fire, were forced into a public brawl over the future of a demountable classroom. The Government sought to remove that classroom from The Rock Central School and send it to Young. Young Public School needed the demountable, but why should two country public schools be forced to haggle over a classroom?

Mr Daryl Maguire: Just appalling.

Mr ANDREW STONER: I agree. The Government finally resolved the problem by sending in the police on a dawn raid to allow the contractors to remove the demountable against the wishes of the school community. In the meantime we learned that there are 16 spare demountable classrooms at Belmont High School near Newcastle that local teachers have been requesting be removed. It is an absolute disgrace and symptomatic of the lack of any form of education assets register in New South Wales.

To make a ludicrous situation even worse, the Director General of Education and Training and the Minister for Education and Training cannot decide who is responsible. While Michael Coutts-Trotter has stuck up his hand to take the blame, the Hon. John Della Bosca is attempting to blame regional education directors. The Minister's feeble response to the situation is that there is a difference between secondary and primary demountables. I challenge the Minister to telephone the parents and citizens association at The Rock Central School and ask them whether they would prefer to have a secondary demountable or no classroom at all. It would be foolish for us to believe the situation is a one-off mistake. Since I took on the role of shadow Minister for Education and Training, I have heard many stories of bureaucratic bungling.

They include an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into the Department of Education and Training for irregularities in the closure and sale of Beacon Hill High School. The shortage of classrooms at Oxley High School in Tamworth has forced the school of nearly 1,200 students to use old train carriages with leaking ceilings as computer rooms and for senior studies. Facilities at Macquarie Boys High School are being so run down that the school is near the point of closure. And in April 2007, two staff members were injured when a ceiling collapsed at Putney Public School.

In my electorate, where public education is absolutely critical to the small rural communities throughout the mid-North Coast, I have observed leaky roofs, windows that do not open despite the stifling summer heat, peeling paint, putrid toilets, mildewed walls, poor drainage—which causes a safety problem for children—and dangerous sporting fields. I have been told of a snake in the sick room. I have observed a freight container being used as a sports locker, and the staff rooms for teachers are absolutely cramped and are totally unsuitable for the purpose. The Daily Telegraph education reporter, Maralyn Parker, could not have been more accurate when she described the Department of Education and Training as being like Fawlty Towers.

Many will recall president Reagan's famous words—the nine most terrifying words in the English language—"I'm from the government and I'm here to help." In a similar vein, principals, teachers a Many will recall president Reagan's famous words—the nine most terrifying words in the English language—"I'm from the government and I'm here to help." In a similar vein, principals, teachers and parents now shudder at the mere thought of the name of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. In past weeks we have heard about the department's heavy-handed approach to Crookwell High School, where it ignored the concerns of local teachers and parents. The department is sending an email to all principals to warn students not to engage in criminal behaviour, an action that reeked of the department trying to cover its actions rather than constructively resolving the issues.

The Premier has already indicated that the upcoming State budget will commit additional funds for education. If this is true I commend his decision. However, I warn the Premier that it is easy to spend the hard­earned tax dollars of the New South Wales public but it is much harder to spend it wisely. If the Premier wants to demonstrate his commitment to education in New South Wales, he needs to start down the long hard road of serious reform in the Department of Education and Training. He needs to institute proper business practices such as accounting for infrastructure and assets. There is no doubt that the Australian economy is strong and that the New South Wales Government will reap the rewards of its prosperity through record tax revenue. However, Australia's economic prosperity has little to do with the efforts of this Labor Government; it is the result of the tough decisions and responsible fiscal management of the Howard-Vaile Federal Government.

The onus is on the Premier now to be responsible with his largess. It is nothing short of fiscal irresponsibility to pour money into a department that is broken. No responsible leader would provide additional funding for capital and assets to schools when the department has no understanding whatsoever of the current capital and assets. The message is simple: If the Premier wants bipartisan support for his foreshadowed big spending budget in education, he needs to instruct his Labor members to support this bill so that the money goes to where it is needed, so it is transparent to the community that it is being well spent. Our local schools are screaming out for that sort of investment, even a catch-up in the $120 million backlog of school maintenance. There is an immediate $120 million, but we need to know where it is going and for what purpose, and so does the community.

The bill before the House is not radical. It does not propose sweeping overhauls of education but rather a basic reform to a department that is desperately in need of help. I tell the Department of Education and Training that I am here to help. I know that members on the Government side will see the merits of this bill and will be very keen to support it. I look forward to that support because this bill will substantially increase the transparency and accountability of the Department of Education and Training. It will give New South Wales taxpayers the confidence they need that their taxpayer dollars have been put to good use.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Noreen Hay and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry O'Farrell.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [10.15 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

This is a simple piece of legislation, which all members of the House should support. The Government side should support it, because former Premier Carr promised this legislation in the lead-up to the 1995 election. Yesterday we received through Freedom of Information the latest details of the State Government's advertising expenditure for the 10 months to the end of April this financial year—$90 million. In the lead-up to the election, $10 million a month was being spent by this Government using taxpayer funds to promote itself in the best possible light.

No doubt, many in the community, not just those on this side of politics, saw those ads for what they were—blatant political advertising designed to make people feel good about the Government, advertising designed to get Labor back across the line. In that sense, this legislation is all the more necessary because people will look back on this election campaign and the spending by this Government of $90 million over 10 months—$10 million a month—and say it worked. That is why in the first instance this legislation should be supported, because it will provide some comfort to taxpayers.

To give an idea of how big that media spend is, Coca-Cola reportedly spends around $30 million a year advertising its product. So, in 10 months the Iemma Government spent three times that amount. McDonald's, the all-pervasive fast food chain, spends in the order of $55 million a year in advertising its product, and the Government will in the course of this financial year spend twice as much as McDonald's in promoting itself. The Premier's priorities are wrong when he is spending more than companies like Optus, Fosters, all the major banks, Toyota, Ford, Sony, David Jones, Kellogg's and Qantas. He is only doing it to make his party look good.

This is an age-old debate in this place—it ought to be given some focus. It will be given some focus by this legislation. The legislation will allow members on the Government side an opportunity to support this proposal, which originates from within the Australian Labor Party. In the lead-up to the 1995 election Bob Carr vowed that:

… a Labor government would not allow the blatant use of taxpayer money to be used for political messages under the guise of government advertising.

He promised this legislation. He never introduced this legislation. On three previous occasions over the life of the past three parliaments the Opposition introduced the legislation promised by Bob Carr and each time it has failed to receive the support of those on the Government side. Throughout that time this Labor Government has spent a billion dollars of taxpayers' funds on government advertising, money that could have been spent on far more important processes. I made the point in the House yesterday that the $90 million spent in the first 10 months of this financial year would have completely eliminated the Government's priority list of railway level crossings. It could have upgraded the safety of those level crossings to active safety standards, the standard being sought by RailCorp, the standard that is being demanded by government. Instead, it decides to spend that money on its own political aspirations. This Government will never let the public interest get in the way of its own political and selfish self-interest.

This legislation deserves to be supported by those opposite because it is the same sort of legislation currently promoted by the Federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd. Labor members of this House will have an opportunity to send a signal to the wider electorate when this matter comes up for debate the next time Parliament sits as to whether Labor nationally in 2007 is going to be as good as its word in 1994-95. The former State Opposition leader, Bob Carr, promised legislation at his election campaign in 1994-95, with no intention of honouring that promise afterwards.

Labor members of the New South Wales Parliament can send a message to the wider community in New South Wales and across Australia to show that Labor really supports legislation that seeks to give the Auditor General a role in scrutinising and overseeing government advertising and handling complaints. This proposal does that, as does Kevin Rudd's, and Bob Carr's proposal in 1994-95 did. I am delighted to be able to give those opposite an opportunity to not only live up to a pre-1995 election promise but also to place on record before the 2007 Federal election campaign whether Labor genuinely supports its Federal leader Kevin Rudd in relation to controls on advertising.

From time to time, those opposite seek to duck this debate by talking about other jurisdictions. I was always taught that two wrongs do not make a right. If there has been misuse of government advertising in New South Wales for political purposes, as there was in the lead-up to the State election campaign, and if $1 billion has been spent on government advertising over the term of this Government, it speaks about the priorities of the Iemma and Labor governments over that period. It also speaks about a waste of money when this financial year, on current projections, we are expecting to receive a deficit. That money could have eliminated the backlog of school maintenance in schools across the State. That money could have addressed safety issues, in the railways or other areas. That money could have been used in myriad areas across State administration.

This legislation is simple: it seeks to give the Auditor General the power to monitor the guidelines in relation to government advertising. It enables the Auditor General to order a public authority to stop dissemination of government publicity in certain circumstances, and it may order that a political party pay back the amount of expenditure on government publicity for political purposes incurred by a public authority where that party is held to be responsible for the publicity. In other words, this legislation would save the Labor Party the $10 million a month spent on the lead-up to the State election campaign. Where is the money? The Government should give a cheque back to the taxpayers of New South Wales.

This legislation will enable the Auditor General to require a public authority to submit a report to him detailing expenditure on government publicity. The bill will enable members of the public who have complaints about government publicity in advertising to make complaints to the Auditor General in relation to that publicity and advertising and for the Auditor General to conduct an inquiry into the complaint. The Auditor General will be required to report annually to the Parliament in relation to these matters. The bill also sets guidelines for government publicity and those guidelines are reasonably simple. First, that government publicity should be accurate, factual and truthful; factual information should be outlined clearly and accurately, commented on and the analysis of the information to amplify its meaning should be indicated as such. Second, government publicity should be fair, honest and impartial, and the material should be presented in an unbiased and objective language and in a manner free from partisan promotion of government policy and political arguments. Third, government publicity should be lawful and proper; the material should comply with the law.

These are important safeguards; they put transparency and some accountability into the process. They are designed to ensure that New South Wales taxpayers' funds are not misused by any government of any political persuasion for purposes that are simply designed to suit the party in power. In bringing this bill I say again that it is not only a test of this new Parliament in relation to these matters but it is also a test of Labor members in this House as to whether they support their Federal leader who is proposing similar measures. Opposition or defeat of this bill in this Chamber will send a clear signal to New South Wales residents and to the whole of Australia about what could be considered hypocrisy of the Labor Party where a leader says one thing and does another. We got used to that in this State under Bob Carr, who always said one thing and did another, and we are seeing it with the current Premier. This will give us a chance to see whether these Labor members are prepared to back their Federal leader or whether they will repeat the mistakes of the past.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Joseph Tripodi and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Debate resumed from 31 May 2007.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [10.25 a.m.]: Rural communities in New South Wales are suffering as a result of poorly developed policies of the Labor State Government. This bill, which I certainly support, will provide the basis on which to understand the effects of legislation passed through this House that will impact on rural communities. This bill has been a long time coming and should be supported by every member in this House who calls himself or herself a representative of the community. The rural communities of New South Wales have suffered long and hard in the current drought. But members in this House must always remember that the rural communities of New South Wales were and still are to a large degree the pioneers of our great country.

These rural residents carry on traditions of farming and grazing, which were the backbone of this country's early success. Indeed, after the First Fleet landed in this country in 1788, the entire new colony was on the verge of starvation, and only because of the resourcefulness of a farmer by the name of James Ruse did the early colony remain fed. The Government at that time had no idea how to establish new crops—in some ways they had something in common with our current State Government in forming new policy for rural areas. They were lucky, however, to have a person with a farming background such as James Ruse. Just as the Government of those times lacked an understanding of farming techniques, the Government of today lacks an understanding of the many problems facing residents in rural areas.

Important areas of farming and grazing land have been removed from farmers in rural New South Wales and placed into national parks, severely impacting on rural residents who depend on their land for their livelihood. The adoption of protected species legislation has had a dramatic impact on the sustainability of farming land right across rural areas of New South Wales. Interestingly, in the past when farmers detected protected species, they were left alone to flourish by many who worked their own land. Now when unelected green decision makers endeavour to uncover areas where they believe certain species to be, they find that the species have been removed by landowners who are ever fearful of their land being locked up and sterilized from future farming.

Rural communities suffer the elements at every turn. They do not need to have insensitive legislation imposed on them continually without the law-makers first understanding the problems the legislation may have on the owners of the land and the communities who depend on each other for the viability of their towns' longevity. Recently, in the rural areas of the Hawkesbury electorate, more than 3,000 residents were covered with a landscape and rural lifestyle zone by the Minister for Planning, as part of the draft plan for the future north-west development area of Sydney.

Residents protested vehemently against the imposition of these green zones, which, in effect, would have placed restrictions on private property, such as limiting livestock and undermining their property's rural usage. The entire future of a rural resident's property was at threat of being locked up in a type of quasi national park, similar to the effects of protected species legislation imposed on their cousins across the Blue Mountains. These restrictions devalued these properties to such an extent that they have not yet recovered.

I have spoken recently in the House about the way rural residents already on tank water are treated by this Government. They are ignored. The rebates for tanks should, and must, extend to rural residents already on tank water. Those residents are the true water harvesters of this country. In areas such as Glossodia, Wilberforce and Freemans Reach, in rural areas of the Hawkesbury electorate, residents are still being denied sewerage connection to their homes. Those rural residents have to pay exorbitant fees for pump-out services because the State Government has ignored them in not providing basic sewerage services for their homes. However, in areas such as the Blue Mountains residents receive a rebate on the amount they pay for pump-out services. The good people of the Hawkesbury electorate are denied this help. They are discriminated against by the Government in that regard. They should receive the rebates available to other residents who have the same predicament. In nearby rural resident areas of Riverstone, residents face the possibility of having a one in 10,000 year flood restriction placed on their properties.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.

Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to postpone the resumption of the debate on the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007 until a later hour at this sitting.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [10.30 a.m.]: As I was saying, in the nearby rural areas of Riverstone residents recently faced the possibility of having a one in 10,000 year flood restriction placed on their properties. How on earth anyone could possibly impose restrictions based on a one in 10,000 year flood plan is beyond me. But that happened. Not even the flood Noah experienced was based on that time frame. Interestingly, when these issues were first made public the Valuer General had just finished applying an increase to rural properties in both the Riverstone and Hawkesbury electorates. While the market value of rural land in those areas was dropping the Valuer General was increasing them above the market value. This was an incredible contradiction in terms of appropriate land values, and another reason that the bill must be supported.

In some cases the increase in the valuations of those properties exceeded 150 per cent. This meant that council rates would be adjusted accordingly. A five-acre property in the electorate of Riverstone now has rates of $6,000 a year. The land is nothing special in terms of prime rural land, it is not even in the newly proposed development areas, but these massive increases have been imposed on those residents by the State Government's Valuer General. The Labor member for Riverstone has been silent in this House on these most important issues, adding further evidence to the neglect of rural property owners at the hands of this Government. The member for Riverstone, who incidentally is a landowner, does not own land in his electorate—surprise, surprise! Instead, he owns rural land in my beautiful electorate of Hawkesbury. And, guess what, the rates in my electorate are almost half the rural rates in his electorate.

Mr Joseph Tripodi: What's your point?

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: My point is that the member for Riverstone does not want to live on rural land in his electorate because he does not want to pay the expensive rates that his constituents have to contend with and for which his Government has been responsible. Instead, he prefers to live in my electorate of Hawkesbury and save himself money, while his constituents suffer massive council rates because of increases by the State Government's Valuer General.

Mr Joseph Tripodi: Point of order: I do not see the value to this debate of detailing the personal affairs of other members of Parliament. I ask that the member be asked to keep to the bill and not personalise the debate. The member can choose to speak about his own personal affairs, but he should leave the personal affairs of other members alone.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. I ask the member for Hawkesbury to focus on the subject matter of the debate.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: The bill relates to impacts on rural residents, and that is the exact point I was making. The impacts of decisions of the Valuer General on rural residents in those areas are severe. I am making the point that the member does not want to live in a rural area of his electorate because rates are excessive. I think the point is well made.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury may continue.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: When these increases determined by the Valuer General were applied, not a word was heard from the member for Riverstone to alert residents to their right to appeal those increases. In contrast, I notified as many residents as I could in my rural community, and together we achieved a small reduction in our valuations. I wonder what the people in the electorate of Riverstone really think of their elected representative when he chooses not to live on rural land in his electorate.

Mr Joseph Tripodi: Point of order: Mr Deputy-Speaker, you have already made a ruling on this matter. If the member for Hawkesbury wants to raise the level of support that he enjoys, he should look at the result at the last election, which was not too long ago. I suggest the member be instructed to abide by your ruling, confine remarks to the bill and keep the personal affairs of other members out of the debate.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The matter has now been discussed. I am sure the member for Hawkesbury understands that his remarks should focus on the bill and not on the private affairs of members.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I am certainly aware of the impacts suffered by rural residents, and that is exactly what I am focussing on. At the last Federal election the residents in these areas of Riverstone walked away from the Labor Party in droves. They supported a good Liberal representative in Louise Markus, a member of the John Howard Government who took the seat of Greenway from the Labor Party. The Liberal Party stole this part of Labor heartland, and it will not be returning any time soon. The swing away from Labor started in rural areas, by rural residents who have been dealt a savage blow by the State Labor Government, which has let them down time and time again. They let Labor know in no uncertain terms by supporting the Federal member Louise Markus.

The bill should also provide for the assessment of impacts of massive increases in land values by the Valuer General on all rural properties within New South Wales. All of the abovementioned factors impact on rural residents, and when they impact on rural residents they also impact on the many small businesses and the small business people across New South Wales. The comments on page 9 of Wednesday's Daily Telegraph that a mere 4 per cent of businesspeople support the Iemma Government's policies should ring alarm bells for this State Government and indeed the Minister for Small Business and Regulatory Reform, who sits across the table from me at this point.

The more this State Government ignores the rural residents of New South Wales the more it damages the many small businesses in those areas. We need only look to the success of our Coalition partners The Nationals at the last State election to see the frustration of rural residents right across New South Wales with the State Government. Those residents are leaving the Labor Party in droves because Labor has failed them. When they see Labor members living in other electorates they soon wake up that there are severe problems in their own rural areas. They probably say to themselves: If the member is leaving, things must be pretty bad. And they are right: things are pretty bad. Ignore rural residents and you also ignore small businesses in those areas. The two go hand in hand; one looks after the other.

In order to keep our rural residents and their properties sustainable, along with the many small business people in the rural areas of New South Wales, we must implement this bill so we can at all times gauge potential problems that may result when legislation is passed in this House regarding rural communities.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.37 a.m.]: I had not intended to participate in the debate, but the outrageous and untruthful comments made by the member for Hawkesbury must be refuted and addressed. He made a number of comments that are simply not true. One of those was about the issue of high valuations of land in the electorate of Riverstone and the adjoining electorate of Hawkesbury. The issue arises because, as we all know, on the fringes of Sydney there are people who hold substantial blocks of land that has been destined for release in the not too distant future. Recent sales of land in those areas at market value have resulted in high land valuations being brought down by the Valuer General. That has raised an issue relating to—

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order: The specific land that I spoke about has not been designated as future development area.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: Not only is it not a point of order, but it is another of the untruths put by the member for Hawkesbury in the debate. The area of my electorate to which he specifically referred in fact is land that has been earmarked for future development; it has been earmarked for future residential release. No time has been given as to when that will happen, but it is part of a growth centre and designated for release in the not too distant future. That is why that land has had a spiralling increase in value. The same people who, understandably, object to paying high land rates, and in some cases land tax, nonetheless anxiously await release of that land so that they may capitalise on their land, which in many cases they have owned for 30, 40 or 50 years.

These are rural communities—in some cases the people have been market gardeners for a number of decades—and people are waiting for their land to be released. However, in the meantime they have been caught with high valuations at a time when the market is depressed. There will eventually be a cyclical effect because the next round of valuations will no doubt show that the market has been depressed in that area, with few sales, and their land values will further decrease. The impression that the member for Hawkesbury has created is incorrect. He claims that I have not listened to the pleas of the residents, but that is wrong. The member for Hawkesbury was nowhere to be seen when I addressed a meeting of some 300 people at which the Federal member for Greenway, Louise Markus, and many councillors were present. I took petitions and made representations on behalf of the residents. In every case I succeeded in persuading the Valuer General to review and reduce the valuations so that ratepayers paid lower rates. I turn now to the outrageous lies of the member for Hawkesbury.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: The member for Riverstone is making a personal explanation. This is not the appropriate time to do so.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: To the point of order: I am referring to the rural impacts that the member for Hawkesbury raised and how my electorate is very much impacted.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The object of the bill is to require Ministers to consider the likely impact of certain legislation and other government proposals on rural communities. That is what the member for Riverstone is dealing with at this stage.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: The member for Hawkesbury made reference to the fact that I own a property in his electorate and implied that it is my place of abode. In fact, it is a holiday house; it is not the place where I am registered to live. I happen to like the Hawkesbury, it is lovely and I have a place close to the river. I was sorely tempted to change my address so that I could vote against the member, but I resisted that because I happen to like where I live in Blacktown, which is where I grew up. The member well knows that is my residential address and where I am registered to vote. I do not try to manipulate things the way the member for Hawkesbury has tried to manipulate things. He persuaded Baulkham Hills Shire Council to change the boundary of the suburb so that his property is not in Nelson but in the adjoining suburb so that it will increase the value of his land. He is accusing me of doing the wrong thing.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The debate is about the impact on rural communities. The member for Riverstone should return to the leave of the bill.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: One of the most adverse impacts on rural communities is the fact that the member for Hawkesbury has been elected. He likes rural electorates so much he supports major developers who want to subdivide his land and make subdivisions out of rural properties.

Mr Ray Williams: At least I live in my electorate.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I wonder whether the member for Hawkesbury was living in the electorate of Riverstone when he contested the seat against me in the 2003 election.

Mr Ray Williams: No, I was living in Rouse Hill, where I still live.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: Rouse Hill, outside the electorate of Riverstone, as it was then, as it is now.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call members to order so that we can hear the debate.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: The Government is addressing the fact that these properties are on the fringes of Sydney and they are being impacted upon. Over the past four years, as this impact became apparent, I have championed this issue on behalf of my constituents. I will continue to represent these people to ensure that their land is released for residential development within the growth centre where it is designated as the most desired outcome for that land. I will ensure that it happens quickly. I will not listen to the member for Hawkesbury perpetrate lies and make allegations against me when they are incorrect and deliberately mischievous.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [10.45 p.m.]: I remind the House of the objects of the Rural Communities Impacts Bill. One of the clauses of this extremely important bill to residents outside the Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong area provides that a rural communities impact statement is not valid for the purposes of the proposed Act unless it is written by the rural communities impact assessment unit in the Department of the Premier or the Cabinet. One of the likely impacts of the bill is that it will provide that a Minister or a Government member who intends to introduce a bill into Parliament must ensure, before the bill is considered by Cabinet, that a rural communities impact statement has been prepared which provides information about the likely impact of the proposed Act on the rural community and that the Minister or member has given consideration to that likely impact.

This bill also requires the tabling in Parliament of a rural communities impact statement in relation to a bill before the debate on the bill proceeds. That is what the bill is about. It is not about who lives where or who has been picking on whom. We should get the thrust of this bill back on track. The member for Riverstone was out of line in his contribution but I will continue to represent my electorate on communities impact statements.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! As the member for Burrinjuck has pointed out, this debate is about rural impact statements. Members should deal with that matter.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: If a rural communities impacts statement had been carried out shortly after the bill was first introduced in the last Parliament, would we have seen an impact statement done on hazard reduction before the State bushfires in 2003?

[ Interruption]

I hear the member for Monaro scoff at the fact that his electorate went up in smoke. Much of the electorate of Burrinjuck went up in smoke. Many were out fighting those fires. It was of grave concern; the electorate remembers those fires to this day and will always remember them because of their severity. If rural communities impact statements had been completed on funding for roads, would we have so many timber bridges in such parlous conditions throughout the State, including in my electorate, that B-doubles and other heavy vehicles are forced to traverse each day to get their loads of fodder, hay or other import materials from one destination to another?

Would we have seen the withdrawal of funding for the Junction Road from $1 million back to $250,000 after which there was the loss of life of a local lady on that road? Would we see the continuing lack of funding for Grabine Road? Grabine Park is a fantastic tourist destination near Wyangala, but it still has a gravel road leading to it. It is the only State recreation area in New South Wales that has a gravel road leading to it. If we had a rural communities impact statement on health before health bills were introduced would we have seen the massive forced re-amalgamations of area health services, which have now become so unwieldy that the Greater Southern Area Health Service has become the size of greater Germany? Would we have seen the closure of dozens of maternity units in country hospitals across the State by the Government in its last term? Would we have seen the closure of the maternity unit at the Yass District Hospital, where I was born? Would we have seen the closure of the maternity unit at Crookwell? Would we have seen the closure of the operating theatre?

These closures have had an enormous impact on my electorate. It is outrageous for members opposite to laugh, jest and call out slanderous allegations against me for raising this matter. They should take their duties much more seriously. Every time a demountable classroom is stripped from a country school it impacts on the community, especially as we fight the worst drought on record. Schools in small communities become community meeting places. Bendick Murrell, a small community between Young and Cowra, has a demountable classroom that was earmarked for removal by the Department of Education and Training. I have made representations to the appropriate Minister about its removal. The parents and citizens association was up in arms about its proposed removal because it was used not only as a library and school office but also as a community meeting place. It was also the only building in the village that had air conditioning and heating. Its removal would have had a huge impact on the local community.
If we had rural communitycommunities impact statements on small business, would we have the levels of payroll tax in this State that we have today? Compare it, as we often do, with rates in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland. Members whose electorates border other States—Burrinjuck shares a border with the Australian Capital Territory; Tweed, Barwon and Murray-Darling share a border with Queensland; and Albury, Murrumbidgee and Monaro share a border with Victoria—know that the those on the other side of the border have more favourable payroll tax enticements, and lower stamp duties and other taxes and, therefore, less to pay than their counterparts in New South Wales. We know that New South Wales is the highest-taxed State in the Commonwealth. If a rural communities impact statement was done every time an adjustment was made to taxes that affect rural communities and if bills were adjusted to reflect the concerns of rural communities we might see a growth in rural communities rather than a reduction. Business in rural New South Wales might improve. People in country areas are despairing because of the drought, taxes and this non-caring Government.

People in my electorate are concerned about not only the drought but also significant water restrictions. Earlier this year the Prime Minister spoke about further restrictions on water usage if there are no significant inflows of water to the Murray-Darling basin. On 15 May this year the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water hit the airwaves forecasting the introduction of drastic level 4 water restrictions on 1 July. Where is the Government's rural communities impact statement on this? The area is in the grip of a significant drought, the worst on record. There is a demonstrable need to conserve our increasingly scarce water resources. Many of my constituents, councils and water utilities have expressed their concerns to me not about the need for tougher water restrictions but rather the way in which the State Labor Government is going about implementing them. On 30 April a meeting was held in Leeton between representatives of the Department of Water and Energy and regional and local water utilities.

Reference was made at the meeting to the Murray-Darling Basin Dry Inflow Contingency Planning Overview Report to First Ministers, dated April 2007. The report forms the basis of the subsequent comments that Mr Koperberg has been quoted as making in mid May. I have been contacted by water utilities and councils that are concerned about the lack of consultation between them and the Department of Water and Energy prior to the formulation of the recommendations in the report. Where is the rural communities impact statement on this? Water is the lifeblood of rural New South Wales, as we all know. Its preservation and wise use has been championed by much of the rural sector. The best way to introduce increased water restrictions and minimise their impact is to consult widely with local providers. These are the only bodies with the expertise and local knowledge to provide this information, but instead we again see the preference of this very centralist Labor Government to try to fit a single solution on an area that covers the majority of New South Wales and has vastly differing conditions and needs.

A significant concern is the lack of information coming back to the water utilities and councils from the Minister. The first indication they had of what was happening was when they read about it in the newspapers. They have been unable to plan because they do not have the information. Seven days after Mr Koperberg made his statements about increased water restrictions, a major water provider in the Burrinjuck electorate had not received any written advice as to what restrictions were forecast. Where is the rural communities impact statement? When the provider sought verbal advice from the Department of Water and Energy as to what exactly were the criteria for the level 4 restrictions proposed by the Minister, the department was unable to provide that information. Water utilities take great pride in the responsible management of water demand within the available water resources. Yet they have been told that their expertise will not be tapped. They will have to implement unspecified blanket water restrictions that do not take into account local conditions.

A much better approach would be to provide a specific water allocation to each water utility, which would allow each one to apply its local knowledge to implement local restrictions to meet local needs. But if the Government provided a rural communities impact statement then they would know for sure. The Government has all the experts, the departments, the knowledge and the public servants at its beck and call. It could easily do this. More specific concerns that have been raised with me include the impact of the proposed blanket restrictions on domestic consumers, commercial businesses and industry, and the extensive rural customer base of many of the water utilities. This week I received a letter from Mrs Pavitt, who operates the Harden Nursery. She is very concerned about the impact of the forecast restrictions on the viability of her business, as she would be. When the allocation for stock watering was raised at the meeting in Leeton the only answer the Department of Water and Energy staff could give to representatives from water utilities was that, "This is a grey area at this point." Minister Koperberg is talking about the introduction of stringent water restrictions in rural areas, yet he is giving no consideration to how stock will be kept alive.

Apart from nurseries and livestock, I also flag the concerns of intensive agriculture businesses, such as feedlots, chicken farms and piggeries. Where was the rural communities impact statement for them? Again, the overview report presented at Leeton does not address the impact of water restrictions on these businesses. Severe water restrictions in rural New South Wales is a much more complex matter than banning the use of reticulated water outside of households. I have written to the Minister for Water Utilities raising my concerns about these issues and asking that they be properly addressed before any additional restrictions are introduced. Rural New South Wales has suffered more than enough during this prolonged drought without having to try to work with a one-size-fits-all approach from Sydney, whether it is health, education, business, water restrictions or any one of the many government departments and bureaucracies that impact on country people. I urge members opposite to vote in favour of this extremely important bill.

Legislation in similar terms to the bill has been introduced on previous occasions. Acceptance of the proposal to institute rural communities impact statements will seriously impact on all people who live in country New South Wales. All members of this House should be working together to pass this type of legislation. When decisions are made in Sydney that impact on rural people in my electorate and other rural electorates, parliamentary representatives of rural electorates feel the impact of those decisions very strongly. It may be all very well for some members who live in Sydney to listen only to Sydney constituents, but members who represent country communities feel very strongly that more could be done for rural communities. This bill is essential legislation. If every member votes in favour of this bill, we could have a much better economy for this State and a more prosperous rural sector. That would certainly make country communities better places in which to live.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.00 a.m.]: I lead in this debate on behalf of the Government. The Government opposes the bill, as was the case on two previous occasions when similar legislation was introduced.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The contributions of other members have been listened to with care. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to the member for Monaro.

Mr STEVE WHAN: When similar legislation was debated it was very sensibly and democratically voted down. This legislation is nothing more than a cheap stunt. The bill's only purpose, as anyone who reads Hansard would appreciate, is to create a forum for Coalition members to have a bit of a whinge about everything. Members opposite make outrageous claims in this House, and a good example is the claim by the member for Burrinjuck that the bill will solve problems. This bill has no capacity to deal with the issues raised by members of the Coalition. Even the Opposition's own bill does not address the issues that have been raised during the debate.

The key point to bear in mind in relation to this debate is that the Government already prepares rural community impact statements before Cabinet considers legislation that affects rural communities. The Opposition consistently ignores that fact. When the Leader of The Nationals introduced this bill he spoke about a whole range of matters that he felt should be the subject of rural communities impact statements. But there was no requirement in his own bill for governments to prepare rural communities impact statements. It is ridiculous for the Leader of The Nationals and the member for Burrinjuck to suggest a rural communities impact statement should be prepared on the drought. The Government knows that the drought has had a serious impact on rural New South Wales and that is why the Government is providing massive drought relief for country towns and rural producers.

The Government is working with rural communities to help them through the drought, not simply to score political points on drought in the way members opposite do. The Opposition suggests that a rural communities impact statement will assist with the introduction of water restrictions and restrictions on irrigation that have become necessary because, just in case no-one had noticed, major storage dams, such as Lake Eucumbene, have fallen below 15 per cent of full capacity. The dam has reached that low level not because the Government made a decision to reduce the level of the dam but, surprise, surprise, because it has not rained. That is why dams are at a low level. The member for Burrinjuck suggested that a rural communities impact statement might assist to address the problem. What an absolute load of nonsense!

I invite members opposite to read the bill carefully. They will notice that it does not cover the matters that the member for Burrinjuck suggests should be covered by a rural communities impact statement. Those matters are not the subject of legislation introduced into the Parliament and they are not subject to statutory rules referred to in the legislation. The member for Burrinjuck said that there should have been a rural communities impact statement on hazard reduction, but that is not mentioned in the bill. The bill is just another excuse for the member for Burrinjuck to make strange and ridiculous claims in this House, as she has on many times previously. I recall her claiming that the Kosciuszko National Park was destroyed by bushfires in 2003. I agree that bushfires are serious events that happen every 50 years or so in Kosciuszko National Park. They may occur more frequently now because of the serious impact of global warming on alpine environments. Anybody who spends any time in the Kosciuszko National Park would know that only a portion of the park was affected by the 2003 fire, and in large measure it is regenerating very nicely.

Mr Andrew Constance: How long are you going to speak?

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Bega is venting his frustration. He does not like it when I speak. Some species of trees that are affected by fire do not regenerate immediately, and some of those species are in the Kosciuszko National Park. They remain as a stark reminder of the fire. However, if the hazard reduction regime advocated by the member for Burrinjuck and others were implemented those species of trees would die out completely because they take 20 years to mature and produce seed that is later released by fire. They cannot survive in areas where burns occur every few years. Under The Nationals hazard reduction regime species such as alpine ash would cease to exist in the Kosciuszko National Park, so the suggestion is yet another example of the Opposition's penchant for simplistic rubbish. Let us not forget that fire is part of the Australian landscape. The Government has instituted coronial inquiries and all sorts of other inquiries to investigate how bushfires may be better managed.

The member for Burrinjuck suggests that a rural communities impact statement would have an impact on hazard reduction regimes, so why is it not mentioned in the Opposition's legislation? It is not mentioned because it would have no impact whatsoever. Has the member for Burrinjuck failed to read the bill? It seemed that the Opposition spokesman who introduced the bill had not even read the bill. He also referred to matters that were not covered by the bill and he also claimed that rural communities impact statements would address them. The member for Burrinjuck has suggested that if there were rural communities impact statements we would not have timber bridges in need of disrepair in country areas and that we would have funding for roads. Once again, rural communities impact statements would not cover additional budgetary allocations for more funding for roads. It is not covered by the legislation.

If the member for Burrinjuck and other members of the Opposition are concerned about country roads and timber bridges they should have the guts to raise the issues specifically. However, when matters are to be accorded priority in this House the Opposition does not raise country issues and is more interested in sleazy motions by the Leader of the Opposition involving personal attacks on individuals. It is Country Labor that champions the important rural issues in this House. That responsibility rests with Country Labor because Coalition members, particularly The Nationals, are too sleepy to address the issues.

Wake up, Geoff! I congratulate the member for Tweed, who is present in the Chamber, on the inaugural speech he made last night. I could not resist saying, "Wake up, Geoff!" because I heard about the ABC's morning radio program making a call to him when he was first elected. His response was that he was having a sleep-in and did not want to participate. The radio host's comment was "Wake up, Geoff!" I am pleased the member for Tweed is taking my remarks in good humour. I am sure he would acknowledge that the opportunity was irresistible.

The member for Burrinjuck also suggested that a rural communities impact statement may have prevented the closure of maternity units. Should we have a rural communities impact statement when a doctor decides to retire from a country town? The reason the Government is having trouble delivering health services in some country hospitals is that medical staff are not available. This Government tries to address shortages of staff in rural communities, but with very little help from the Federal Government, which for years has slashed medical staff training positions. Surprise, surprise, as the Federal Government is beginning to look as though it is under threat from the polls, only now is it beginning to address some of those medical staffing issues. The member for Burrinjuck also suggested that a rural communities impact statement would prevent demountable classrooms from being taken away from country schools. What absolute rubbish! Does she suggest to the parents of students at the Jerrabomberra school, which had 120 students five years ago but now has 720 students, that they should not get new classrooms because demountable classrooms cannot be taken away from other schools?

Does the Coalition, as patently demonstrated during the election, think that the Government runs an open cheque book; that it is okay to rack up $28 billion in commitments during elections without having to explain how the promises might be funded; that members of the Opposition can turn up in a town, listen to what the people want and okay that because after the election they will have lots of money? That is an out-there proposition that belongs in the Opposition's never-never land where the Opposition will have all the money it will ever need to do anything it wants to do. I note the hypocrisy of the Coalition. In the seven years of the Coalition Government, did we ever see a rural communities impact statement about the sacking of 2,000 teachers? I do not remember seeing a rural communities impact statement about that.

Mrs Shelley Hancock: You don't know what you are talking about—the sacking of 2,000 teachers!

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for South Coast said that I do not know what I am talking about with the sacking of 2,000 teachers. She was a teacher at that time. Did she turn out with her colleagues to protest against Terry Metherell in Macquarie Street and in Hyde Park? And what were they protesting about? Apparently we imagined the sacking of 2,000 teachers; it did not really happen and that is why class sizes were so high and why teachers were so upset. Did we see a rural communities impact statement on that? No, we did not. Has the Coalition given itself an out to be able to do it again if it wants to? Yes, and here it is. Here it is in its bill at part 8, cleverly titled "Miscellaneous". Clause 24 of part 8, under the heading "Rural communities impact statement not necessary in certain circumstances", states that a rural communities impact statement is not necessary if "the public interest requires that the Bill, statutory rule, environmental planning instrument or Cabinet decision concerned should be introduced or made without complying with this Act", and that the Premier certifies that in writing.

I am sure that Nick Greiner would have certified in writing that it was necessary to sack 2,000 teachers as it was the Coalition's strategy for saving money. What about when the Coalition Government closed 7,000 hospital beds? I did not see a rural communities impact statement on that. This Government has gone about reopening hospital beds in rural areas. I admit the Government did not do a rural communities impact statement when it decided to increase the number of beds in Queanbeyan District Hospital from 36 to 60. Guilty as charged on that one.

The Government is increasing the number of hospital beds and we are staffing them, in contrast to the hypocritical Coalition Government. We did not do a rural communities impact statement when the Wran Government rebuilt the Cooma Hospital, I acknowledge that also; or when Labor rebuilt the Delegate Multi Purpose Hospital, or for the new hospital we are building in Bombala. How many hospitals are there in the Monaro electorate? There are five—four rebuilt by Labor. We have not done rural communities impact statements but it is the record of delivery that counts. I am sure that the member for Bega will acknowledge that we will not do a rural communities impact statement before we rebuild the Bega hospital.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. This has gone on long enough. I think that Hansard has probably had enough.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): What is your point of order?

Mr Andrew Constance: The member opposite wanted to make a point in relation to health. I would like to know why he has not been able to secure any renal units for his electorate while I have secured two in the past two years.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! That is not a point of order. The point the member made originally was relevant. I ask the member for Monaro to deal with the bill.

Mr STEVE WHAN: On the leave of the bill, of course, the member for Burrinjuck ranged across a whole range of policy areas in country New South Wales, as did the Leader of The Nationals, who introduced the bill. I am simply responding to all the points they raised in debate. The member for Bega raised a point about renal units. I wonder why it is that every time he needs something done in Bega he comes to me and says, "Steve, can you come and see the Minister with me to try to sort this out?" I am always willing to help. The Bega hospital in particular is a very important resource for the people in Monaro as well: it is the centre to which many of us go to access the increased services in orthopaedics that this Government has introduced. People will have access to renal dialysis. If the member for Bega had paid attention he would know that the new Queanbeyan Hospital will have a room set aside for renal dialysis.

Mr Andrew Constance: Did you do a statement?

Mr STEVE WHAN: No, we did not do a rural communities impact statement on that.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Why are you putting the unit there?
Mr STEVE WHAN: Watch this space, as you might have heard before. Did the Opposition do a rural communities impact statement in 1989, having just won the seat of Monaro, when the local State member rolled over and agreed to the closure of the railway line to Cooma? No rural communities impact statement was done there.

Mr John Williams: What about a rural communities impact statement when you locked up Yengo for a national park? What about Balranald?

Mr STEVE WHAN: Members opposite are now interjecting on whether we should conserve valuable areas. We all know their attitude to the conservation of valuable areas of forest: It is to slash it down. The member for Coffs Harbour takes a matchstick to it, as we are all well aware. When the member for Burrinjuck was running through important issues such as funding for roads, she did not mention whether she wanted a rural communities impact statement done on the Federal Government's failure to rebuild the Barton Highway. I welcome the fact that she has introduced a general notice on that issue, but until this session she would not even talk about it. Recently in that area there was a fatal accident. For the decade that the Howard Government has been in power the people of Murrumbateman have been waiting for a bypass that has not been built. The Federal Government has now allocated $20 million for that Federal Highway. Is that for building the road? No, it is for planning and some land acquisition. There has been no statement at all on when work might start on that. Have we seen a rural communities impact statement from the Federal Government on its failure to fix that road?

Mrs Shelley Hancock: Point of order: I ask you to bring the member back to the provisions of the bill. He has taken us on an ancient history lesson and now he is condemning the Federal Government. He has drifted far from the bill. I ask you to call him back to discuss the bill, in a less raucous manner, if you please.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I am sure the member for Monaro was coming to the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I am drawing to a conclusion. However, I am intrigued by the member for South Coast criticising other people for raucous behaviour in this place. I appreciate lively participation in this place: I think it is excellent. We are considering what I described at the start of my remarks as a stunt. That is what it is. It is the third time that this matter has been put before the House, and on two occasions the House decided to vote it down.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Did Bob Carr promise rural impact statements? Remember Bob?

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Coffs Harbour asked whether we promised to have rural impact statements. We do have rural impact statements within Cabinet as proposals are dealt with. If Opposition members want to do something they should do it properly. This bill, which is not sensible, does not properly address these issues. Today I pointed out in great forensic detail that Opposition members used this opportunity to raise a number of issues that are not even covered by this bill. This poor piece of legislation is an attempt to divert attention from their inability to properly represent country New South Wales. On occasions Opposition members should join Country Labor in standing up for country New South Wales. If they did that people might give them due credit, but at the moment they cannot do so.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [11.20 a.m.]: I am pleased that the member for Bathurst decided to join us in the Chamber. Imagine the great battle that took place after the last State election when the member for Monaro and the member for Bathurst reconvened the Country Labor faction. At the last State election there was a 50 per cent swing against Country Labor. I say to the former member for Tweed and to the former member for Murray-Darling: If you snooze you lose; if you drink you sink. That is what happened to Country Labor. The member for Bathurst and the member for Monaro met in a telephone booth to decide on the next convener of the Country Labor faction. The big problem is that the member for Monaro got one vote, the member for Bathurst got one vote, and they could not work out who should be the leader.

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: For the record, I was happy to stand down and hand the baton to the member for Monaro. We would need a big telephone booth to fit in all our people, Andrew.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! There is no point of order. The member for Bega has the call.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The worst thing about it—
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! There is too much audible interjection on both sides of the Chamber.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The worst thing about it is that when they met they could not count the votes. The member for Bathurst and the member for Monaro are leading the charge for Country Labor in this Parliament. Since the State election neither of them has managed to climb onto the front bench. I am really disappointed that Country Labor members are not on the frontbench to represent rural communities.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Point of order: I ask you to draw the member back to the leave of the bill. He has been speaking for three minutes but he has not yet addressed the bill.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The Chair has shown great tolerance. I point out to the member for Bega that he has been speaking for about three minutes. I now direct him to the bill.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: For the benefit of the member for Camden I point out that the Opposition introduced this legislation because the member for Monaro and the member for Bathurst were not able to make the frontbench of the Labor Party. People such as Phil Koperberg—

Mr Gerard Martin: That is how much talent there is on this side of the House.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I cannot believe that the member for Bathurst just said that there is so much talent on that side of the House.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The member for Bega breached Standing Order 59, which refers to tedious repetition. I point out to the member that we are very proud of the three Country Labor members we have on the frontbench. We have talent on this side of the House. Unlike the Opposition, we also have talented people on the backbench.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I have heard enough. There is no point of order. I again encourage the member for Bega to deal with the provisions of the bill.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Because of the inadequacies and lack of skills of Country Labor members, as shown by the member for Bathurst, we introduced this legislation.

Mr Steve Whan: What swing did you get, Andrew?

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: It was a swing of 20 per cent on the primary votes. I was particularly disappointed by the contribution of the member for Monaro this morning when he described this bill as a cheap stunt. I am sure that the people of Bombala and all those communities affected by the proposed sale of Snowy Hydro would like to hear the member for Monaro stating that this bill is a cheap stunt. Let us face it, the Premier still has that proposal at the bottom of his drawer and he will pull it back out in the next 12 months. I do not think this bill is a cheap stunt. Earlier we copped an ancient history lesson from the member for Monaro. I remind him that Bob Carr, the former Labor Premier, promised to make it mandatory for Cabinet Ministers to produce rural communities impact statements and to make them public.

Through this bill we are delivering what Bob Carr promised. The member for Monaro has described this bill as a cheap stunt. I am happy for the member for Monaro to refer to Bob Carr as a cheap stunt—we know that he is a cheap stunt—but countless issues in rural communities need to be properly assessed, so it is appropriate for this Government to undertake that process. I remind the member for Monaro of the marine park issue. If this Government had b Through this bill we are delivering what Bob Carr promised. The member for Monaro has described this bill as a cheap stunt. I am happy for the member for Monaro to refer to Bob Carr as a cheap stunt—we know that he is a cheap stunt—but countless issues in rural communities need to be properly assessed, so it is appropriate for this Government to undertake that process. I remind the member for Monaro of the marine park issue. If this Government had been smart and it had sought a rural impact statement when the marine park issue came before Cabinet it would have realised the social and economic impacts of this proposal. When the member for Monaro was interviewed on the Kevin Gosper program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] radio in June last year he said that the Labor Party would not rule out the creation of marine reserves off Eden.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I ask you to bring the member back to the leave of the bill. I draw the attention of the member for Bega to his lack of local knowledge. There is a large marine park off Eden—a Commonwealth marine park that stretches from Eden right through to Victoria.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I uphold the point of order so far as it relates to the member confining his remarks to the leave of the bill.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: We are talking about marine parks and the need for a rural communities impact statement. It is the intention of the Labor Party to create a marine park from the south of the State to the north of the State. The Labor Party has not been honest. When it comes to making an announcement on that issue I hope it produces a rural communities impact statement. The member for Monaro said on ABC radio that he could not rule out reserving State waters and further extending Bateman's Marine Park to the Victorian border. Those were his words; they were not my words or the words of anyone else in the community. That is further proof that the Labor Party will continue with its marine park process through the south, the north and the Hawkesbury bio-shelf.

This bill will provide for appropriate rural communities impact statements for all these processes so that local communities know how their businesses and livelihoods will be affected when the Government goes down the green appeasement path, which it regularly does. Imagine how happy the Greens would be with the appointment of the member for Monaro as Parliamentary Secretary for forestry. We all know what that means for the forest industry: it means more reserves, more lock-ups, more wildfires and more CO ₂ emissions as a result of the wildfires. That is what the member for Monaro and his Greens mates stand for. This Government is doing everything it can to suck up to the likes of Lee Rhiannon and people of her ilk to destroy community after community.

If the Government had done an appropriate rural communities impact statement on situating marine parks off the Batemans bioshelf it would have discovered that local communities would suffer an economic loss of $30 million. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that legislation be introduced to make such assessments mandatory for government. The issues raised this morning have concerned highways, schools and rural infrastructure. It is beyond me why on earth the Government refuses to assess rural impacts properly. Bob Carr was obviously on to something when he raised the issue. The Coalition is looking to deliver—

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Business called on, and postponed by Mr Andrew Stoner.

Business called on, and postponed by Mr Gerard Martin, on behalf of Ms Tanya Gadiel.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [11.31 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the impact that the drought is having on New South Wales country communities;

(2) condemns the Government's failure to provide much-needed support to country communities when they most need it;

(3) calls on the Government to extend all State Government drought assistance schemes until the drought breaks; and

(4) supports the Opposition's proposed legislation that will ensure rural socioeconomic impact statements are part of the Cabinet decision-making process.

I will start with paragraph (4) simply because this morning we witnessed a fairly ordinary display from the member for Monaro, who tried to defend the Government. The Carr Government promised, by way of Cabinet minute, that rural communities impact statements would be written for every decision that affected any country community. We are in the middle of a drought. I remind members that the Government passed the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion legislation, which locked up viable forests within national parks and conservation reserves. That decision destroyed the town of Baradine and closed the mill at Bingara. It severely hurt residents of Coonabarabran and Gunnedah—towns that, as a result of drought conditions in the area, relied almost totally on income from sawmilling operations.

The Nationals' objections to that bill were howled down by the Government, which claimed that everything was sweet and fine. The conservation areas comprise cypress pines that grew after the farmers walked off their blocks between 1945 and 1950. Those blocks, which were managed previously by Forests New South Wales, were put under a moratorium by the Government and are now managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Leader of The Nationals, who is in the Chamber, the Hon. Rick Colless and I travelled to the area in November last year, in the middle of the drought. The management regime in the Brigalow Belt Bioregion is poor, to say the least. The forests have been locked up as national parks and conservation areas. On our visit we saw that some 100,000 hectares of white cypress forests had been burnt and that countless numbers of koalas had been barbecued.

The Government refuses to release details about how many koalas were killed. I spoke to a forester from Coffs Harbour who helped to grade roads in the area in an attempt to stop the fire spreading and he told me that there were burst koala carcasses all over the place—indeed, everywhere he looked. But the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Taronga Zoo released a single photograph of a koala up a tree in an area that was not affected by the bushfires and said, "The koalas seem quite okay to us". The koalas that were not in the path of the fire were okay, but the affected forest was absolutely ruined. When millers sought to harvest timber in the riparian zone that had been destroyed by fire the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Government refused to allow them to do so. The area is now a moonscape, littered with sticks of burnt timber. In the middle of the drought the Government refused to give the remaining loggers permission to harvest viable timber from the area, mill it and return some of their profit to the landowners and the community.

I draw the attention of the House to a media release issued on 27 April by the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, in which he said that drought transport subsidies would be extended until 31 August. I am a little amazed by that statement. We are in the middle of a drought. There have been welcome rains in certain areas from which some farmers have benefited. Last night I spoke to a Narrabri councillor who has planted 3,000 acres of wheat in the past week. If the rain continues it will be the first crop he has had in years. But Labor members fail to realise that, despite the rain, the drought has not broken. If the drought breaks tomorrow farmers will not harvest their crops until later in the year and rural communities will have no income until then. Yet the Minister has extended drought assistance only until 31 August. What about the fixed water charges? Not a single farmer is receiving a water allocation, yet farmers must still pay fixed water charges.

Mr Alan Ashton: So what have the Feds done, Andrew?

Mr ANDREW FRASER: It is a State Government charge. I am happy to bring the farmers to Sydney to talk to the member for East Hills about the fixed costs involved in running a property. Farmers must pay council rates and rural lands protection board [RLPB] rates and now the Government is charging them fixed water rates when they are not getting any water. That is abhorrent. Why on earth does the Government not waive those charges? In a week or 10 days the Treasurer will tell us that New South Wales has a brilliant $2 billion budget surplus. I do not know exactly what it would cost to wipe out the fixed water charges but it would be a minuscule amount compared with the surplus. What is the Government doing about that? Nothing. Why does the Government not waive rural lands protection board rates? Country councils are having troubling collecting rates from landowners who have no income. Why are those councils not receiving any government relief?

The member for Barwon is in the Chamber. At his invitation, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of The Nationals and I met 80-odd small business owners in Moree. They advised us that the farm dollar provides 80 per cent of their income. The cotton crop is about 45 per cent of its normal yield, yet the Government has done nothing other than offer a grant to businesses to consider restructuring. How can businesses restructure when the farmers are broke because of the drought, the Government is screwing them into the ground with fixed charges and they have no income? Rural town based businesses are suffering badly. Rather than paying farmers to destroy their stock, the Government should offer them subsidies to transport cattle to the tableland or to coastal areas, where there is feed.

The Government should open up some of these precious areas that have been national parks for only the past 12 years and were previously forest grazing leases, and allow these desperate farmers to keep their breeding herds. The farmers are desperate to keep those herds, but all the Minister has offered to do is continue the stock slaughter scheme until 31August. These farmers do not want to slaughter their breeding herds—cattle or sheep. They want to keep them in some reasonable condition until such time as the drought breaks, and ensure that they have something to move on with into the future.

As I said, the Minister wants to extend the slaughter scheme. That is bizarre and it shows an absolute lack of understanding by members opposite of the real issues that are hurting communities, not only the farmers, in drought-stricken New South Wales. Currently, 87 per cent of New South Wales is still drought declared, but this Government does not care. The Government is quite happy to fund a $2 billion desalination plant in Sydney, which will provide something like 7 per cent of the water needs of Sydney, yet it cannot waive fixed water charges for people in drought-affected areas. Members, particularly members of so-called Country Labor, should support this motion. They should go into their caucus room and haul Ian Macdonald over the coals. They should explain to the Premier and Treasurer that a very small percentage of the budget surplus about to be announced would do great things for regional New South Wales. I commend the motion to the House.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.

Debate resumed from 6 June 2007.

Ms VERITY FIRTH Ms VERITY FIRTH (Balmain—Minister for Women, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water (Environment)) [11.41 a.m.], in reply: I take this opportunity to thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I also thank those members of the Lockhart Review committee, Peter Schofield and Ian Kerridge, and the other members of the information panel who have given generously of their time to provide their perspectives on the bill to members. In particular I thank Joanna Knott and Paul Brock, who have been especially helpful in dealing with this complex area.

It has been a privilege to listen to debate from both sides of this House. Members' speeches have been informed by compassion, thoughtfulness and heartfelt belief. What has particularly struck me during the discussion of the bill is that although proponents and opponents may seem diametrically opposed, the motivations behind members' views are often closer than they appear. Those who will vote against the bill are motivated by what they regard as the ultimate protection and dignity of human life in all its forms. Parliamentarians who support the bill are motivated by a similar compassion for human life and a desire to relieve human suffering where we find it. Both these positions are moral positions and they both deserve respect.

Having said that, after listening to the debate I am more convinced than ever that Justice Lockhart and his committee got it right. The New South Wales bill, which mirrors the Commonwealth Act passed last year, is informed by the best science and underpinned by strong ethical safeguards. The cautious compromise envisaged in their report—scientific advance tempered by strong regulation—is embodied in the bill. I again stress that the bill will ensure national consistency and provide certainty for researchers and the community alike.

I will now make some comments on the bill and address some of the concerns raised by those in opposition to it. Importantly, the bill maintains the prohibition on human reproductive cloning. During this debate there has been unanimous agreement that human reproductive cloning should continue to be prohibited and that the strongest penalties should apply. I emphasise the Premier's commitment to ensuring this when he announced that the bill would be brought before the New South Wales Parliament. He said:

The strict ban on human reproductive cloning will remain in place now and forever under a Labor Government.

The bill acknowledges the special status that many in our community give to an embryo created through the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm, and ensures that the creation of these embryos can only occur for the purposes of reproduction. That is, the bill draws a clear distinction between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. The bill will allow certain practices such as somatic cell nuclear transfer, commonly known as therapeutic cloning—a process that does not involve the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm but for research purposes only The bill acknowledges the special status that many in our community give to an embryo created through the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm, and ensures that the creation of these embryos can only occur for the purposes of reproduction. That is, the bill draws a clear distinction between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. The bill will allow certain practices such as somatic cell nuclear transfer, commonly known as therapeutic cloning—a process that does not involve the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm but for research purposes only—so that we can better understand and eventually treat serious diseases and infertility. I also make the point that embryos are not able to develop unless implanted in a woman's uterus. Under the bill it is illegal to implant an embryo created by therapeutic cloning, and it is punishable by 15 years jail. I believe that the bill reflects the views of the majority in our community. I will return to this matter later. I will firstly address some of the more technical concerns members have raised in opposition to the bill.

Members have raised concerns about the possible commercial value of this research. I make it clear that under the bill commercial trading in human eggs, sperm or embryos is prohibited, with increased penalties of 15 years imprisonment. This means it is an offence to give or offer payment or to receive or seek payment for human eggs, human sperm or human embryos. We need to recognise that in any area of research commercial benefit may follow, along with the public good outcomes we all seek. This is true for adult stem cell research or, indeed, any scientific research. It is absolutely important that we take steps to ensure this research is available for the common good. The Commonwealth Government is examining the feasibility of establishing a national stem cell centre. One role a centre could provide is to create a bank of stem cell lines, thereby ensuring the research is shared and put to public good.

Opponents of the bill have argued that it should not be supported because the breakthroughs have not yet happened in this area of science. With all due respect, I believe this constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world of science works. The time lag that generally exists between early research and eventual therapies is clear. It took nearly 20 years for the current Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, who is a strong advocate for legalising somatic cell nuclear transfer research, to move from his initial research towards the production of a vaccine to protect women from the human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer. It was almost 30 years between preliminary research into heart transplants to the first successful heart transplant operation in the late 1960s. Breakthroughs take time.

There have been significant advances in research in the countries where somatic cell nuclear transfer is legal, countries including England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Sweden, some States of the United States of America, China, Singapore and Israel. Some members have expressed a view that embryonic stem cell research is not necessary as adult stem cells can provide the same results. Some members have also compared the discoveries that have been made using adult stem cells, a field of scientific endeavour that has been explored for more than 30 years, with that achieved by embryonic stem cell research, an area of science that has been pursued for less than a decade.

In response to that I would say that most scientists agree that research involving both embryonic and adult stem cells is necessary and that the secrets unlocked by this complementary research are likely to lead to insights in both areas. It is also widely acknowledged that embryonic stem cells have greater potential to develop into all types of tissue and that adult stem cells do not appear to have as great a potential in this regard.

Opponents to this bill ask, "Why is there greater research potential in using therapeutic cloning? Why do we need it?" In answering that question, I will borrow from a number of the scientists I have consulted over the past few weeks. Therapeutic cloning will allow us to study diseases in a way that has not been possible before. We will be able to create models of particular diseases using a patient's own cells to study how the disease really works. We will be able to test treatments and therapies on these cells at speeds and intensities not possible if we were testing it on a patient. This should allow us to find answers in accelerated time frames. For example, we have had a good understanding of the cause of diseases such as muscular dystrophy and Huntington's chorea for a long time, but have yet to develop cures or create suitable animal models to assist in their study. Stem cells derived using therapeutic cloning will let us undertake these important studies. I believe we should support our scientists in their research endeavours and acknowledge the potential of their work, and their commitment and dedication by passing the bill today.

Other members have been concerned that allowing practices such as therapeutic cloning will send us down a slippery slope, raising the spectre of human reproductive cloning. I would ask them to consider the fact that this practice is already prohibited and attracts a penalty of 15 years in jail. It is absolutely prohibited by the bill. Currently, research conducted in this area takes place within a rigorous regulatory framework. There have been no known breaches under the current scheme. If the bill is passed monitoring and licensing provisions, as well as penalties, will all be increased. The National Health and Medical Research Council Embryo Licensing Committee, which issues licences, must stay within this legislative framework. Obtaining a license is not a simple matter—only 10 have been issued to date. Amongst other things, one needs proper consent, protocols to ensure any restrictions on the research are adhered to and scientific and ethics approval from a Human Research Ethics Committee.

In the end, I believe that members of the House have to carefully consider the specific measures in the bill. It represents the careful compromise crafted from the Lockhart review process, which attempts to balance the moral and scientific arguments we have heard in this House over the past few days. I will also borrow an analogy from Dr Paul Brock, who argues that saying embryonic stem cell research would lead to human reproductive cloning is like saying that agricultural fertilisers should be banned because terrorists can use these products to make bombs. There is a further safeguard built into the legislation. Section 19A, proposed in schedule 1 to the bill, provides for a legislative review in three years time. Parliament will again get a chance to consider this issue and understand the sort of progress that has been made in that time and any concerns that have arisen.

I now address the concerns raised by some members who have focussed on the significance of not allowing somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos to develop beyond 14 days. For the benefit of members, I would like to clarify why this point of cell development is of such importance. At the point of 14 days after fertilisation, this bundle of cells—not an egg and sperm embryo—begins to become differentiated and develop into more specialised cell types. This is the stage where the "primitive streak" from which the central nervous system will develop can be seen. While the cells are alive prior to this point, the 14-day limit has been established since the early 1980s and is clearly the biological point at which the primitive streak appears. It is at this point that research must stop.

I will now return to the issues of morality and community support when it comes to this legislation. During the course of the debate on the bill it has been asserted that therapeutic cloning is not supported by the majority of Australians. There has also, as expected, been a strong and passionate response from various religious groups, particularly the Catholic Church. While I respect their right to comment, lobby and oppose the bill, I believe it is imperative that the most vocal voice does not drown out the opinions of so many others. A number of my colleagues have reflected specifically on Cardinal Pell's intervention in this debate, both its appropriateness, and in relation to some of his facts. I will not reflect on that further, other than to put on the record that my office offered to brief His Eminence directly on the bill, both before and after his comments, an offer that he did not take up.

We live in a multicultural, multi-faithed and secular democratic society. Ethical standards do not exclusively belong to any or one religious creed. The churches are entitled to their views as to what is moral and ethical in scientific research, but so are the advocate groups and sufferers of diseases such as motor neurone disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or spinal cord injury. No one group has a monopoly on morality. I would like to quote Pamela McCombe, a Catholic member of the Lockhart committee who initially opposed therapeutic cloning:

My conclusion was that those people who think that there is no moral problem with embryo research should be allowed to carry out this research, and should not be prevented from doing so by the power of the law. Those people who think this research is wrong should be allowed to say so, and to protest against what they believe to be wrong, and those who do not wish to participate in treatments that arise from stem cell research should be allowed to avoid such treatments.

I believe that this legislation represents an appropriate balance in this instance. Like other issues where public opinion is divided such as in-vitro fertilisation and abortion, government should regulate strongly and provide strong consent provisions to protect those who choose to opt out. That principle, opt out rather than rule out, is preserved in this bill.

In terms of what the majority of Australians believe, in June last year Roy Morgan Research undertook a survey into Australian attitudes about stem cell research. The survey found that more than 80 per cent of Australians were in favour of embryonic stem cell research, both in relation to stem cells derived from excess assisted reproductive technology [ART] embryos and embryos created by therapeutic cloning. As representatives of our community, we have an obligation to exercise our consciences not just in the context of our own values but in reference to the values of those we represent. I am convinced that the majority of the community support the balance struck in the bill.

I would like to conclude on a more personal note. I support medical research. I support the advances that have been made over the years that have relieved human suffering and prolonged human life. I support the fact that women very rarely die in childbirth any more in first world countries. I support the fact that children in Australia no longer die from polio and scarlet fever. The world that we know today is only possible because human beings used their ingenuity and their intelligence to push the boundaries of medical science, and I salute the scientists of many centuries for this. Scientific advances are often viewed with suspicion at the time they are discovered. Heart transplants were initially opposed by some on religious grounds, as were kidney transplants and early vaccination discoveries. In fact, when it comes to morality, the course of human history has shown that what is considered "moral" also changes over time. Look at how the role of women has changed over the centuries.

For me, as with so many other Australians, the key motivating principle is that it is wrong to allow illness and suffering to continue if we have a way to prevent it, and that we as human beings have a duty to relieve human suffering where we find it and to improve the quality of life of our fellow human beings. In fact, that is the reason so many of us in this House are involved in politics. For many Australians that motivation is tempered by this caveat: they want scientific advance within a strong regulatory and ethical framework; scientific hope tempered by a cautious respect for human life. The bill delivers both that hope and that caution.

For me, the real moral question is: If fate were to deliver to my family a terrible blow—if someone I loved was struck down by motor neurone disease, or involved in an accident that left them paralysed for life For me, the real moral question is: If fate were to deliver to my family a terrible blow—if someone I loved was struck down by motor neurone disease, or involved in an accident that left them paralysed for life—what would I want? I know that I would want every treatment that was humanly possible to be made available to our family. This is what I would want for my family. What right do I have to deprive another family of this opportunity? A conscience is a powerful thing and an informed conscience even more powerful. I thank the members of this House for their contributions to this debate. It has been an overwhelming display of conscience, intelligence and considered debate and I have been very proud to have been involved in it.

The SPEAKER: I add my congratulations to all members on their contributions to the debate.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Mr Aplin Mr Baumann Ms Beamer Ms Berejiklian Mr Borger Mr Brown Ms Burney Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Constance Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Ms D'Amore Mr Debnam Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Ms Firth Mr Fraser Ms Gadiel

Ms Goward Mrs Hancock Mr Harris Mr Hazzard Mr Hickey Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Ms Hornery Mr Iemma Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lynch Dr McDonald Ms McKay Mr McLeay Ms McMahon Ms Meagher Ms Moore Mr Morris Mr Oakeshott Mr O'Farrell Mr Page

Mr Pearce Mr Piccoli Mr Piper Mr Provest Mr Rees Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mrs Skinner Mr Souris Mr Stewart Mr Stokes Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr Tripodi Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr Watkins Mr Whan Mr J. D. Williams Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Maguire

Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Baird Mr Cansdell Mr Daley Mr Gibson Mr Greene Mr Hartcher Ms Hay

Mr Humphries Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Kerr Mr McBride Mr Merton Mr O'Dea Mrs Paluzzano Mrs Perry

Mr Richardson Mr Roberts Mr Smith Mr Stoner Mr West Mr R. C. Williams Tellers, Mr George Mr Martin

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [12.12 p.m.]: The Government acknowledges and supports paragraph (1) of the motion, but wishes to amend part of the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) with a view to inserting instead:

(2) acknowledges the Government's ongoing provision of much-needed support to country communities facing the most difficult drought conditions ever experienced.

Water security is one of the most important issues facing our State. Water shortages are causing significant financial hardship and social problems across New South Wales. The social and economic impacts are hitting rural and regional communities hardest. That is why the New South Wales Government has provided a range of drought assistance measures as the drought has progressed, and will continue to do so. Since the start of this one in 100 years drought, the State Government has spent more than $300 million to help our drought-stricken rural sector. At the beginning of the drought this Government made a promise that it will stand by our farmers and townships. The Iemma Government has done just that, and will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers while they face the daily grind of drought. Members present in the Chamber will not be surprised to hear that 83.3 per cent of New South Wales is drought declared, 9.8 per cent is marginal and just 6.9 per cent is considered satisfactory.

While the Opposition pays lip-service to the drought and its challenges each day, the Government has got on with the job of helping our farmers and providing relief. The Premier has made a commitment that the Government will look after farmers and rural communities while this drought continues to grip New South Wales. The Iemma Government has provided a range of drought assistance measures as the drought has tightened its stranglehold on New South Wales, and that assistance will continue while the drought persists. To date, the State Government has spent in excess of $300 million on drought assistance. I assure our farmers that there is no sign of this assistance letting up while the drought is biting hard across New South Wales.

Recently the Government announced an additional $20 million drought aid package to meet strong demand for assistance programs like the drought transport subsidies—a $100 million support package. While the transport subsidies have been well received, the Government has also extended funding of drought transport subsidies until 31 August 2007, continued the Drought Support Worker Program and Farm Family Gathering Program until 31 December 2007, waived the western land lease annual rents for 2007-08 and continued the stock to slaughter scheme until 31 August 2007. While the programs have expiry dates, I assure the House, as I Recently the Government announced an additional $20 million drought aid package to meet strong demand for assistance programs like the drought transport subsidies—a $100 million support package. While the transport subsidies have been well received, the Government has also extended funding of drought transport subsidies until 31 August 2007, continued the Drought Support Worker Program and Farm Family Gathering Program until 31 December 2007, waived the western land lease annual rents for 2007-08 and continued the stock to slaughter scheme until 31 August 2007. While the programs have expiry dates, I assure the House, as I stated earlier, that the Government will continue to provide assistance while it is necessary and at the appropriate time steps will be taken to extend the assistance packages.

The Government has also waived the 2006-07 irrigation fees on the Lachlan River, providing stock and domestic water to landholders in the Riverina, waived the outstanding debt on the ovine Johne's disease loan and deferred the 2007 pest insect levy. Contrary to the suggestion by the member for Coffs Harbour, who moved the motion, the Government has examined a whole range of ways in which to provide farmers with drought relief. We have introduced a new initiative addressing mental health issues among farmers that have arisen as a result of the stresses caused by the drought. In response to the continued emotional drain caused by the drought—all members would be aware of the impact that has had—the Government has continued the Drought Support Worker Program and the Farm Family Gathering Program until 31 December 2007 and implemented a special drought program to increase accessibility of mental health services to agricultural workers and farmers until 30 June 2007.

The State Government acknowledges that there is always more to be done to assist our farmers in these dire circumstances and is getting on with doing that. That is why the Government established under the direction of the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water the Murray-Darling Advisory Council made up of representatives from the irrigators, farmers, banking, industry, tourism and local communities. The Minister has requested the advisory council to consult widely with local towns and businesses that will be impacted by the extremely dire situation of zero water flows. The advisory council will report directly to the Minister on ways in which the New South Wales Government can assist local communities to get through this crisis, in particular in relation to how to prioritise water allocations. I make it very clear that its role is quite separate from the process that the Federal Government has in place to assume control of the Murray-Darling Basin.

In recent weeks the Minister met with councils and irrigation representatives in Deniliquin and Albury to discuss the options available. The discussions have been frank, open and inclusive. The Minister has also established stakeholder reference groups in specific locations along that river system. These groups will report directly into the overarching ministerial advisory council. The newly created Department of Water and Energy will work closely with these regional stakeholder groups to provide regular updates on water availability. The New South Wales Government stands side by side with rural New South Wales throughout this crisis, has done so from day one, and will continue to do so until the back of the drought is broken.

The Government also has provided more than $40 million in funding to help towns secure water during this crippling drought. The funding includes our $20 million commitment for the emergency pipeline for Goulburn. In addition, funding has been provided to more than 70 communities across rural and regional New South Wales for emergency capital works, such as accessing new bores. A few of the towns to which this Government has provided emergency drought relief funds for groundwater investigations include Bourke, Brewarrina, Bribbaree and Byrock. The Government also has provided more than $1 million to Lake Cargelligo, more than $2.3 million to Central Tablelands Water, which is responsible for water resources in a large part of my electorate and is based in Blayney, $400,000 to Condobolin, $400,000 to Deniliquin, over $750,000 to Eurobodalla, and $900,000 for Ivanhoe, Wilcannia and White Cliffs.

The funding includes over half a million dollars for emergency works at Copi Hollow to assist the residents of Broken Hill. I am sure that the member for Broken Hill would appreciate that. The Government has provided more than $950,000 for emergency works throughout the Yass district. As well as that direct financial assistance for emergency drought works, more than $40 million has been committed for 77 projects to date. The New South Wales Government also provides financial assistance to local water utilities—up to $5,000 each—to prepare drought management plans. So far more than 40 drought management plans have been either completed or are under preparation. Funding of almost $80,000 has been provided to local water utilities to assist in the preparation of these plans.

As I have said a number of times, and it is worth repeating, the New South Wales Government will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with councils and their communities to ensure that no town runs out of water. The Government has demonstrated that right from the start. As the drought has continued some of the major centres have run into problems with water supply. I am pleased to respond to the motion moved by the member for Coffs Harbour, as I said at the outset. The Government has moved an amendment to the motion, which is a fair and reasonable approach for the House to take. I believe I have demonstrated amply that the Government is committed to assisting with emergency drought works by providing more than $300 million, and the meter is still ticking.

All Ministers responsible for that funding have given that commitment to the communities and are consulting widely across rural New South Wales with people working directly on the land. We are all aware of the impact that the drought is having on regional towns and centres that draw their income largely from the agricultural industry. A strong and vibrant agricultural industry is vital to the regional economies of New South Wales. The Government has put forward its credentials in this manner. I commend my amendment to the House.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.22 p.m.]: I acknowledge the work of the Deputy Leader of The Nationals in moving this motion. As a member of The Nationals I have a responsibility to bring matters to the attention of the House that relate to country communities. I also have a responsibility to alert the Government to the issues country communities face in this changed environment due to the drought. I am sure that the Government would be keen to support The Nationals in fixing an anomaly faced by grain harvesters and producers who are charged with overloading their grain trucks.

I draw to the attention of the House and the Minister for Roads an anomaly that exists in the chain of responsibility provisions within the Road Transport (General) Act. Grain producers who cannot accurately assess grain truck weights during harvest time have an unfair liability risk placed on them by those provisions. The Act has no flexibility. If a truck is loaded just one kilogram heavier than it should be, it can put the grain producer in breach of the Act—and that has occurred. Drought-affected farmers across New South Wales have suffered economic and emotional hardship after receiving retrospective summonses to appear in court for overloaded trucks during the 2005-06 grain harvest. The summonses were received 18 months after the breaches occurred.

In 2006-07 many grain producers did not plant a crop, were drought affected and in receipt of drought assistance. Now, 18 months down the track, the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has summonsed them to court. Some of them had never received a fine in their lives and now face court appearances and expect fines of thousands of dollars for illegal loads. Under the Act, grain producers are liable if they overload trucks, but it is impossible for them to accurately assess grain truck weights on farms due to variations in grain weight. Grain weight is a function of predominantly moisture and density and can vary significantly. For instance, in the 2005­06 grain harvest growers' wheat test weights for the same volume—that is, 100 litres—varied by about 25 per cent. If those variations were extrapolated over a 42.5 tonne gross mass limit grain truck it would equate to nine tonnes, meaning that despite farmers' best intentions trucks could easily breach regulation gross vehicle mass limits under the chain of responsibility legislation.

At harvest, moisture levels of any grain type can vary substantially depending on season, time of day, level of humidity, temperature and grain variety. Density levels of a grain type at harvest can also vary substantially, depending on grain size, crop pests and diseases, protein and/or oil content. For instance, shrivelled grain is lighter, as are grains affected by rain, as water swells the grain making it less dense. Importantly, both grain moisture and density can vary across a district, a property, a paddock and even on an individual plant. As a result, due to variability of grain weight at any particular time or location during harvest, farmers can make only an educated guess as to total gross truck weights based on previous actual gross truck weights at the grain receival site.

Unfortunately, measuring actual gross truck weights on a farm is impractical and cost prohibitive as trucks are loaded in the paddock and portable scales are extremely expensive, at approximately $4,000 each. Will the Minister inform the House what the Government intends to do to reduce the risk of drought-affected farmers being liable for breaching the Act when they have no control over the exact weight of grain-loaded trucks? Will the Minister provide drought-affected grain producers with the same privileges as the Lane Cove Tunnel users and waive the court summonses and corresponding fines, if any? [ Time expired.]

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [12.27 p.m.]: I commend the member for Coffs Harbour, the Deputy Leader of The Nationals, for moving this motion. I commend the member for Murray-Darling for his contribution on rural matters faced by the people of New South Wales. There have been three major droughts in the past 100 years: at the turn of the century, in the 1940s and in the past five years in eastern Australia. There were significant wet times in the 1950s, 1970s and later in the 1990s. There were intermittent dry periods in the 1960s and the early to mid 1990s. Drought is a natural phenomenon, it is part of our landscape and it very much characterises Australia. We live in a dry continent, and during the last decade the weather patterns have shifted to more intense precipitation when rain falls. For farmers that has meant changing their regime to one of farming for and with moisture, which has been led by technology and greater agronomic understanding of how to work with soil and climatic conditions.

Further recent improvements in dealing with drought revolve around plant breeding and adapting varieties that suit our climatic conditions. In short, in most cases our farmers are at the forefront of farming technology, experience and practice in the world. The current drought has tested the best of the best in the farming and grazing fraternity. Many rural towns and villages across Barwon have experienced significant loss of income over the past five years. Farms that had employees have had to let go of many staff, leaving them without work or income to support their families. Machinery dealers, produce merchants, traders, fuel distributors and small shop owners have all had to cut their staff to the bone or close their doors.

Two years ago I surveyed a number of mainstream businesses in places such as Warren, Gilgandra, Narrabri and Moree. Most main-street businesses were down 30 per cent on their long-term turnover. That has now stretched to nearly 50 per cent for those who have been able to survive the drought. I notice that the Government, in its previous term, allocated payroll relief for those businesses located in areas of need. Not one area west of the Divide was allocated for that support. That is a disgrace!

The Federal Government has supported interest rate subsidies and income relief for farmers and frontline agricultural support services. The rural counsellor program has been expanded after local input and is now providing longer-term support for rural communities. I thank our Federal colleagues for that. Intergovernmental programs are supporting the area of rural mental health—a growing need—and rural drought support gatherings are now running under the bush banner of "Bugger the drought." I said earlier, this generation has not previously faced such times and the responses needed have to be thoughtful, measured and timely.

Contingency plans must be put in place for towns that are running out of water. State Water must work more closely with communities such as Cobar that draw their water from 200 kilometres away. Poorly constructed weirs along our rivers need upgrading, in particular, at Walgett and Bourke. Walgett's weir pool water supply on the Namoi is a disgrace. It was constructed one afternoon with a backhoe pushing dirt and rocks across the river. The whole issue of water storage, supply and delivery is a cause for extreme concern along the Barwon and Upper Darling rivers. We need greater storage capacity in the headwaters of our catchments. I cite the 1995 Mole River Dam project at the headwaters of the McIntyre, which would drastically improve the regulation and wellbeing of the Darling.

We need upgraded weirs along the system that will support drought-proofing our dams and provide much-needed storage for environmental flows and fish breeding. The do-nothing approach to upgrading infrastructure is not an option. We have a moral, social, economic and environmental obligation to improve water systems across all our electorates. I find it difficult debating a proposal to extend scientific boundaries when we cannot even get the basics right. Water is life. Water is now. We cannot sit on our hands. I call on the New South Wales Government to use its impending surplus to implement improved and upgraded drought­proofing water infrastructure; not to cut that teacher in a small school when times get tough; not to close down that bus run; not to cut back on nurses and police; not to continue to centralise health service delivery; and to remove incessant taxes such as water delivery charges when there has been no water to deliver—in some cases, for the past five years.

I call on the Government to help start rebuilding many of our communities following this drought. We need the services, a State responsibility, and infrastructure in water delivery, a State responsibility. Governments that truly understand the spirit of our country will listen and give country communities the breathing space that they need to get back on their feet.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [12.32 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the member for Coffs Harbour, which states in part:

That this House:

(1) notes the impact that the drought is having on New South Wales country communities.

I acknowledge the contributions of two of our newest members in this place—the member for Murray-Darling and the member for Barwon.

Mr Thomas George: A great improvement.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: As the member for Lismore said, they are a great improvement. That is certainly the case in relation to the seat of Murray-Darling. It is obvious that those members represent their electorates well and that they are on top of issues such as the drought, which is affecting their electorates. The member for Barwon referred to the impact that the drought is having on the mental health of farmers in his electorate. Nothing could have had a more significant impact on many communities in the Burrinjuck electorate than the drought, but there is a paucity of funding to provide farmers with rural and financial counselling.

The Government must get its act together and provide additional counsellors. A few counsellors who are working night and day have to travel, in some cases, thousands of kilometres a week to try to help rural people in distress. I "tips me hat" to them, but they can do only so much. I extend a heartfelt plea to counsellors—guys and girls—in the metropolitan area to come and work in the bush and to give us a hand, as many people in those rural communities are feeling the impact of the drought.

The member for Barwon and the member for Murray-Darling referred to weight loads and to the overzealous behaviour of government bureaucrats on the transportation of fodder on country roads. Major highways have different weight load limits from the limits that are applied to rural roads. A load limit could be as little as a kilogram over, which is well within the weight load limit for major roads, but there is no give. I organised for a forum to be held at Cowra Returned Services League [RSL] club on Tuesday 12 June at 11.00 a.m. I invited trucking organisations, members of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA], the Minister for Roads, and the Opposition spokesman on roads, the Hon. Duncan Gay.
The weight load limit has impacted on many people who have transported fodder during this severe drought. Members might be interested to know that this week is Gold Week, a fundraising event that is organised to support Randwick Children's Hospital—an excellent facility that is used by many country children. Country communities organised those fundraising events because the hospital is always short of funds. I thank Big W for promoting this major fundraising week for Randwick Children's Hospital. Last Saturday in Young I cut the ribbon for this fundraising event.

This week the shires conference will also be held. I met with representatives from many local shires on issues pertaining directly to this motion—drought and water. Representatives from Cootamundra, Gundagai, Boorowa, Cowra, Harden, Yass, Young and Upper Lachlan shires—forgive me if I have missed one—had a number of meetings with different Ministers. The Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Water Utilities met with council representatives and listened to their wide-ranging and diverse concerns. The Minister knows the issues about which we are talking. He knows what funds we need to install bores for Upper Lachlan council and he knows that the wall of Yass Dam needs to be raised by three metres to treble the Yass water supply. The Minister said that he was cognisant of those issues, issues relating to Woodstock and its level 5 water restrictions, and council's desire to reopen Woodstock well. I could go on ad infinitum referring to many issues pertaining to drought and water, but I know that my time has expired. [ Time expired.]

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [12.37 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the contributions of the member for Bathurst, the member for Murray-Darling, the member for Barwon and the member for Burrinjuck. However, I am disappointed that only one Labor member spoke on this motion. The current drought is substantially affecting the New South Wales economy. Labor is so focused on city-centric issues that it has failed to defend this Government's non-provision of drought support to country communities.

The member for Murray-Darling referred to weight load limits and to truck overloading and said that farmers were being fined 18 months after they had delivered grain to silos in New South Wales. This Government is prepared to fine farmers who are broke—farmers who have had no crops for a number of years—but it is not prepared to give them money, by way of rebates, from rural lands protection board fees or fixed water charges. As the member for Barwon quite rightly pointed out, this Government is not prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. This Government, which has record revenue gains, has not provided farmers in regional and rural New South Wales with basic services that people in Sydney accept as their right.

The member for Burrinjuck raised some mental health issues. Consider the number of suicides in drought-affected communities in regional and rural New South Wales. I remind the member for Miranda, who referred to Federal-State responsibilities, that the Federal Government has allocated huge amounts of money in this area. However, mental health funding and the provision of basic health services to regional communities remain the responsibility of the State Government. To be honest, I get a little fed up when Labor members blame the Federal Government for everything. The New South Wales Government has received enormous GST revenue and income from its taxation regime. Yet it is putting nothing back into regional and rural New South Wales by way of infrastructure to assist country communities, which, as I said earlier, are hurting badly. Last week I met Jock Laurie, President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, and he raised the issue of replanting assistance. But this Government is not interested.

Mrs Dawn Fardell: Neither is the Federal Government.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I must admit that I am disappointed with the attitude of the Federal Government on this issue. I have written to Peter McGauran about it.

Mr Barry Collier: Get stuck into him.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I have been. There are ways of providing this type of assistance. Perhaps the Government could introduce a scheme similar to the higher education contribution scheme [HECS]. It could give money to farmers to plant crops and then seek repayment when the crops are harvested. That would perhaps make farmers on the margins think twice about accepting the money and give those farmers with no cash in the bank the opportunity to sow a crop and make a profit—particularly in light of the recent rains—which would benefit the entire community. The New South Wales Farmers Association is extremely concerned about transport subsidies. In fact, the document supplied to me states:

… sustained lobbying is required, as demand for these programs remains extremely high, leading to upper limits being reached on some programs eg transport subsidies.

The peak farming body in New South Wales should not have to lobby the Government. It should be able to talk to the Minister, who should in turn agree to extend transport subsidies not until the end of August but until the end of the drought. Communities such as Parkes, Forbes and Dubbo in the electorate of the member for Dubbo, who is in the Chamber, are badly affected by the drought. I travelled to the region recently and saw how entire communities are suffering because the farms from which they derive great benefits in good seasons have no income. But rather than looking to relieve pressure on local communities by controlling council rates, waiving rural lands protection board [RLPB] rates and fixed water charges, and offering other general assistance, the State Government is looking to penalise our rural and regional communities. That fact was revealed today in the contributions of Opposition members.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Borger Mr Brown Ms Burney Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Ms Firth Ms Gadiel Mr Gibson

Mr Greene Mr Harris Ms Hay Mr Hickey Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lynch Mr McBride Dr McDonald Ms McKay Mr McLeay Ms McMahon Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Ms Moore

Mr Morris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Rees Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr Tripodi Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Baird Mr Baumann Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Mr Fraser Ms Goward Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humphries Mr Kerr Mr Merton Mr Oakeshott Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Piper Mr Provest Mr Richardson Mr Roberts

Mrs Skinner Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Stokes Mr Stoner Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr J. D. Williams Mr R. C. Williams Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Government on the outstanding result in the March 2007 election.;

(2) acknowledges the ongoing dedication and hard work of Government members, which resulted in the fourth straight Labor victory; and

(3) condemns the Opposition for its public statement and shortsightedness in relation to Port Kembla.

Clearly, the Morris Iemma Government achieved an outstanding result in the March 2007 election. The people of New South Wales expressed a resounding endorsement of Premier Morris Iemma and obviously overwhelmingly rejected the offer of the New South Wales Opposition to form a government in New South Wales. In my electorate of Wollongong people were horrified at the idea that they might finish up with the Liberal Party in government. I was there to reassure them that there was no fear of that happening whilst the Opposition was clearly confused and all over the place in relation to whether or not it had a policy and, indeed, whether or not it could swim. There was a clear distinction between the Morris Iemma team putting itself forward to form a government for a fourth successive term and a confused Opposition that was in disarray.

The people of New South Wales were obviously impressed and wanted to support Morris Iemma's plan to provide a safe and secure community. With the addition of 750 new police to be trained by January 2007, toughened laws on child sex offenders to stop them working with children, and the setting up of an organised crime squad in the Middle East to crack down on criminals, Morris Iemma presented a team with a plan and a vision that the people of New South Wales were happy to endorse. I note that since Parliament has resumed sitting after the March election members on the other side seem to be confused. Opposition members do not seem to recognise that they lost the election. When listening to them one could be fooled into believing that perhaps they won something.

I am very proudly a part of the Iemma Government and I am very proud of the fact that the people of New South Wales were not fooled by the promise of unlimited amounts of money from those opposite. The people of New South Wales were not fooled by the criticisms or the terrible advertising campaign run by the Opposition; they were obviously impressed with Morris Iemma's actions in putting people first, keeping the community secure, providing better health services, giving our children a better start, protecting the environment, securing our water supply, improving roads and public transport, and supporting rural and regional New South Wales communities at work and at home.

It was clear that Morris Iemma's vision to protect our environment was overwhelmingly accepted by the people of New South Wales. It was clear that Morris Iemma's vision for securing our water supply was overwhelmingly accepted by the people of New South Wales. It was clear that Morris Iemma's commitment to improving roads and public transport was overwhelmingly accepted by the people of New South Wales. It was clear that Morris Iemma's support for rural and regional areas of the State was overwhelmingly accepted by the people of New South Wales. Morris Iemma and the Labor Government time and again have shown that they are prepared to stand up for the people of New South Wales. It is a great shame that whenever it comes to standing up for the people of New South Wales the Opposition drastically fails to do so.

Clearly, the Iemma Government has a vision and it intends to pursue that vision, in spite of some comments made by the Opposition. A prime example of the difference between Morris Iemma putting people first in New South Wales and the New South Wales Opposition offering very little—and being confused about what it was offering—is the commitment by the Government in relation to the expansion of the port at Port Kembla and car imports through the port. On a number of occasions the Illawarra Mercury referred to this issue as "Coalition car woes". The member for Terrigal made statements on the local radio and in the newspaper that if the New South Wales Opposition won government there would be no expansion of the port at Port Kembla, thereby dousing any hope people had of the 1,000 promised jobs and the additional investment that the expansion of the port at Port Kembla would bring. On 10 February 2007 the Illawarra Mercury stated:

In a move that would not be out of place in a Dumb and Dumber script, Opposition planning spokesman Chris Hartcher yesterday revealed he would scrap a $140 million plan for Port Kembla.

I said shame on him and the Opposition then and I say it again now. Shame on the Opposition for its attitude towards the Illawarra, particularly the seat of Wollongong and the port of Port Kembla. According to the Opposition the car import deal would be scrapped. Then, despite the member for Terrigal telling both the Illawarra Mercury and ABC radio the previous Friday that the Opposition planned to scrap the car import deal, he did a backflip and said he would support the deal, as did the then Opposition leader, Peter Debnam. On 10 February the Illawarra Mercury also had the headline, "Region Unites Against Opposition Deal To Axe Import Berth—Port Plan Fury". That was the kind of great vision that the New South Wales Opposition offered for the people of Port Kembla and Wollongong and the surrounding area of the Illawarra. The New South Wales Iemma Government and the Illawarra Labor team have worked very hard over the past four years. Members and the Minister for the Illawarra have worked hard as a team to deliver benefits to the people of the Illawarra.

Mr Brad Hazzard: What have they done? Name one thing they have done.

Ms NOREEN HAY: We put a magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] machine into Wollongong Hospital, which your mates in Canberra will not give us a licence for, so the New South Wales Government has to fund it.

[ Interruption]

We are talking about a public regional hospital here, Shelley, and your mates are refusing to give us a licence for the magnetic resonance imaging machine. You ought to be ashamed to sit there and defend them. The facts of life are that the Iemma Government, through its investment in improved mental health services, is investing $81 million in the Wollongong Hospital. It has also invested $140 million in the port of Port Kembla. Yet Opposition members have the cheek to suggest that the Iemma Government has done nothing in my electorate. I am very proud of the Iemma Government's record in my electorate and of the Illawarra region members. I am very proud of their dedication and hard work, which is clearly supported by the people of Wollongong and the Illawarra, who overwhelmingly returned Labor members.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. After four years the member for Wollongong can only point to a magnetic resonance imaging machine that Col Markham started campaigning for eight years ago. What has the Labor Government done for Wollongong and the Illawarra?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! There is no point of order.

Ms NOREEN HAY: No wonder the people of New South Wales did not want more Coalition members; they do not listen and they do not learn. Voters overwhelmingly rejected Coalition candidates because they cannot cope with the facts regarding investment in the Illawarra and in Wollongong by the Government. Shame on them! I suggest the member read a little more before he comments.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Shelley Hancock and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

[ Acting-Speaker (Ms Diane Beamer) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m. ]

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Health) [2.15 p.m.]: I wish to speak about the tragic train crash at Kerang, Victoria. The accident has rocked entire communities in Victoria and across the nation. Details of the identities of the victims are slowly and painfully filtering through. It is with enormous regret and sorrow that I pay tribute to Ms Stephanie Meredith, a nurse from Balranald Health Service, and her two young children, who are among the victims identified. Of course, I offer my condolences to the family and friends of all those who passed away, but particularly to those of Stephanie Meredith and her children.

I am advised that Ms Meredith was employed as an enrolled nurse at the Balranald Health Service in far western New South Wales. She had been with the hospital since 1987, caring for the community in which she was born and raised. Stephanie Meredith was known to be a dedicated nurse, always ready and willing to help someone in need, and with a passion for caring for our senior citizens. Her colleagues have advised me that she completed her training at Balranald hospital and was popular among staff and patients alike.
In the late nineties Ms Meredith changed to casual nursing work after she married and moved to Melbourne. But every school holidays she would return to the health service as a casual, while her children spent time with their grandparents. Balranald is a small, close-knit community and Stephanie's death has been felt by many people. I understand Stephanie Meredith was also survived by her husband and her parents. Our hearts and our deepest sympathies are with them.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [2.19 p.m.]: I would like to respond to the Minister's statement on behalf of the Coalition and the community of Balranald. There is no doubt that the train accident in Kerang has impacted on the lives of many. The community of Balranald is in shock at the loss of one of its own families. Stephanie Meredith and her two children were killed in this tragic train accident. Stephanie Meredith was much loved by the community of Balranald, where she had served the community as a State enrolled nurse, in a town where she was born and raised. Stephanie was returning to Melbourne from Balranald after a family visit, something she has done on a regular basis.

During this week of the shires conference I was in contact with members of the Balranald shire, who had concerns for the welfare of Stephanie and her family. They informed me soon after of the tragic news. I offer the condolences of the Coalition to Peter and Dorothy Blake, parents and grandparents of Meredith and her children. Unfortunately, this is another tragic accident faced by Peter and Dorothy after the loss of their 12­year-old son in a road accident some years ago. To Peter and Dorothy and the close-knit community of Balranald, the Coalition offers its condolences.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [2.21 p.m.]: I would like to express the Government's support for our hardworking police prosecutors. Once again the Opposition has trashed our police prosecutors, but not in a vague or ambiguous fashion. The member for Epping was very blunt. They should not exist, they should be eradicated—at least, that is what the Opposition says. For the record, the Government strongly disagrees. At the end of last week the shadow Attorney General stated Opposition policy quite forthrightly. On 29 May he said in this House:

… the time is long overdue for all prosecution matters that are currently run by the Police Force to be handed over to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

There is not much room for interpretation there! Our prosecutors work hard and prosecute hard, and the results are nothing short of outstanding. The Prosecuting Branch of the New South Wales Police Force is the oldest and biggest in Australia, with more than 60 years continuous service. There are now around 200 police prosecutors in this State, and their results are impressive. They handle more than 90 per cent of prosecutions in New South Wales, and they are successful in about 85 per cent of all offences they prosecute.

Not only do police prosecutors appear on behalf of police, they also act on behalf of people seeking apprehended violence orders [AVOs]—people who need real protection. Police prosecutors have a high level of independence in the New South Wales system and they are subject to stringent oversight. Like all police officers, they are subject to the New South Wales police code of conduct and oversight by the Police Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman. They are also required to comply with the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuting guidelines, Bar Association rules and court practice directions. Under Labor, police prosecutors are secure. We value their work and we commend their work. On behalf of the people of New South Wales I thank them for working hard to make New South Wales a safer place.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [2.23 p.m.]: The Minister for Police and his supporters seem to be running a campaign to denigrate me in this House. I am ready for it. I do not believe the comments were made in this House, even though the Minister claims they were. I was echoing the recommendations of the Wood royal commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption report of the Miloo inquiry that all prosecutions of criminal matters in this State should be dealt with by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is independent and not subject to political interference. Unfortunately, in recent times we have seen the Minister's department use a controversial prosecution for political gain.

His department has ignored the guidelines of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the ethics of the legal profession by using the prosecution of a man who was entitled to the presumption of innocence until he pleaded guilty to damage a possible future opponent who is now an opponent. The Minister will not explain to the House why the police case against Patrick Power was not dealt with in the District Court, where it would have attracted a five-year jail sentence rather than the two-year jail sentence it attracted before the magistrate.

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

Mr GREG SMITH: The Minister for Police has not explained why it took police officers two days to execute a search warrant on Patrick Power's house.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bathurst to order.

Mr GREG SMITH: He is not game to come forward. He does not have the competence to answer questions because he does not understand anything about the ethics of the legal profession, nor does his predecessor, the acting Minister for Police, or the Premier. [ Time expired.]

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the criticism from his water adviser, Stuart White, and in view of further torrential rain across the city, why is the Premier persisting with a $2 billion desalination white elephant instead of investing in large-scale stormwater harvesting and recycling?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The answer to the second part of the question about stormwater harvesting is a simple yes. We are investing in stormwater-harvesting projects. The most recent advice I have received is that there are 69 such projects. In part the Water Fund was all about councils and community organisations being able to make applications in relation to local projects, including stormwater-harvesting projects. The Government is supporting the efforts of those councils and community groups. The Government is undertaking massive recycling. When it comes to recycling the big difference between the Government and the Opposition, as we all discovered during the election campaign, is that the Government would force industry to use recycled water, whereas the Opposition would force residents to drink recycled sewage. They were the different policies that were taken to the people during the recent election campaign, and the people expressed their opinion so clearly.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Premier knows that the Opposition has never said it would force residents to drink potable water.

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

[Interruption]

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

[Interruption]

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

[ Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wakehurst to order for the third time. I have called the member for Wakehurst to order three times because he kept speaking after I had ruled on his point of order. We are at an early stage of question time and he could be the first member to be looking at the remaining stages from outside the Chamber.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I turn now to discuss water experts. Mr Campbell undertook work for the Government in the formulation of the Metropolitan Water Plan. That was very good work and the Government thanks him for it.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: The name was actually Stuart White.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Professor Stuart White and his colleague, Mr Campbell. Professor White undertook work for the Government and it was very good work. Since completion of the work by Professor White and his colleagues and associates, the Government established a panel of six of the nation's leading independent water experts to provide ongoing advice related to the implementation of the Metropolitan Water Plan. At the end of last year one of the key recommendations of the panel headed by Professor Langford was, first, that the plan was a sound one; and, second, that a single measure would not secure a city's water supply, but a range of measures would, including stormwater harvesting, recycling, using water more efficiently and, of course, desalination, as well as other infrastructure projects with which the Government is proceeding.

A key recommendation of that six-member panel was that the Government had to stick to the plan. The plan was found to be comprehensive and sound, but it must be adhered to. It is not possible to pick out parts of the plan and leave the other measures aside because the very strong advice of the expert water panel is that only a range of measures will secure a water supply, not a single measure. That is the position and the plan that the Government took to the people at the recent election, and that is the plan that the people endorsed. The people endorsed the Metropolitan Water Plan and action by the Government to secure Sydney's water supply in the face of the most severe drought in more than 100 years. Today we have had torrential rain. Guess what? Surprise, surprise, the Leader of the Opposition walks into this Chamber and asks a question about water.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition looked out the window. Yes, Barry, it has been raining. We want more rain, especially in the bush for our farmers. It is ludicrous for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that because rain fell in Sydney today, the Government can pick and choose and say to the rest of New South Wales that we do not want to move down the path of full implementation.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government took a comprehensive plan to the people at the recent State election. It involves a range of measures to secure Sydney's water supply and we are again getting on with the job of implementing it, which includes a desalination plant. I point out also that the desalination plant is not infrastructure that will be around for two or three years. Rather, it is infrastructure that will serve this city for the next 25 to 30 years. The Government is investing now to provide for the city's future water supply.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Seven per cent.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Cronulla says, "Seven per cent. " What did he take to the people at the recent State election? He did not go to the people with a proposition indicating that the Coalition is against desalination. He went to the people with the proposition that the Coalition is against desalination at Kurnell, but would like a desalination plant at Malabar. The member for Cronulla should not make comments purporting to take a principled stance on desalination. The Government knows that he is opposed to desalination only because the desalination plant was proposed to be sited in the Sutherland shire. There were two seats that the member for Cronulla thought the Opposition would win in a straight handover if he campaigned politically on the desalination plant. He placed base political needs ahead of the needs of the people of Sydney. He thought that the Opposition would pick up the seats of Menai and Miranda. But what happened? I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the Chamber of Alison Megarrity and Barry Collier. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question relating to the desalination project.

Mr ROBERT COOMBS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister update the House on mining proposals in the Upper Hunter Valley?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the member for Swansea for his strong interest and understanding of the mining industry in this State and I acknowledge that his interest relates to issues not solely concerning his electorate. The coal industry is at the heart of the international debate on climate change. The Iemma Government has led the fight to address climate change in Australia. Now our Federal Labor colleagues have forced climate change onto the national agenda, despite the consistent failure of the Federal Coalition to acknowledge the issue. The fight must go on at a national and international level to drive real, long-term global change.

However, in the meantime the New South Wales Government must consider coalmine applications rigorously and individually. The Government understands that the coal industry remains vital to the State's economy and to our power supplies. Unilateral action on climate change in the form of a black ban on new coalmine applications in New South Wales alone would devastate the economy, but, worse still, would achieve zero net benefit to climate change because our coal would be substituted with coal from elsewhere. For that reason, coalmine applications must be considered on their merits in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

But a further difficulty with all extractive industries is that industry has to go where the resources are located. In the case of other development applications, at times we may be able to refuse them or consider alternative sites to mitigate the potential impact on the local community and the local environment. But with extractive industries, we cannot decide to move the mine down the road or 10 kilometres away. Applications for mines, including coalmines, of course can be refused, and sometimes they are. But the lack of flexibility in the location of potential mines adds another burden to the assessment of any such proposal. When mining proposals are approved, appropriate and onerous conditions and safeguards are placed on them to mitigate impacts.

That leads me to the Anvil Hill coalmine proposal at Wybong, which is 20 kilometres west of Muswellbrook. I inform the House that after nearly one year of assessment, including extensive public consultation and public hearings, I have approved the Anvil Hill coalmine proposal. The mine will produce up to 10.5 million tonnes of coal per annum over 21 years for domestic and export markets, including local power supplies. The project will involve four mining pits and construction of a coal handling and preparation plant. It will have a capital investment value of $240 million and will support approximately 250 construction jobs and approximately 240 operational jobs. The total value of the coal resource at the site is estimated to be approximately $9.6 billion at current prices.

This decision was not taken lightly. The Department of Planning and I went to significant lengths to subject the proposal to a rigorous examination. I personally visited the site twice and have met with stakeholders including environmental groups, stud farm owners and vignerons. More recently, I met with representatives of about 13 of the most affected landowners to hear their concerns at first hand, together with representatives from Muswellbrook Shire Council and Centennial Coal. We set up an independent expert panel, which heard oral submissions from about 30 individuals or groups and considered about 2,040 written submissions.

The assessment process was also considered by the Land and Environment Court. It was time to resolve the issue and give certainty to affected landowners and others potentially affected by that mine. This week the Department of Planning submitted its final report to me recommending approval for the project, subject to more than 80 stringent conditions. After carefully considering the department's advice, I agreed to approve the project and apply those conditions. The conditions include requiring the company to secure and conserve at least 2,800 hectares of land in the surrounding area, including land of high conservation significance—significant land that will be upgraded—and to extensively rehabilitate the mine site to current best practice standard. When that offset is added to the mine rehabilitation there will be at least 4,100 hectares of land conserved and enhanced in the area.

The company must also work with more than 30 significantly affected landowners to resolve outstanding issues. The company is expected to have done everything possible to acquire those properties or reach agreement with those landowners before actual mining operations begin, which is expected to be within two years. There is, of course, an arbitration process available to the landowners. Further, other less significantly affected properties in the vicinity of the mine can request that insulation, double-glazing, or other noise­abatement measures be installed in their home. Centennial Coal must purchase existing water licences under the Water Management Act to supply the mine during dry periods, meaning that total consumption from the river will remain within existing sustainable limits. All coal will be transported from the site by rail.

Finally, the company must contribute $4.5 million, through a voluntary planning agreement with Muswellbrook council, to community projects and infrastructure. I inform members further that I have approved the Abel underground coalmine proposal, 23 kilometres west of Newcastle. That project will provide up to 4.5 million tonnes of coal per annum for 21 years. It is expected to have a capital investment of about $83.5 million and the coal resource is estimated to be worth about $4 billion. Notwithstanding the fact that this is an underground mine, Donaldson Coal must set aside 20 hectares of vegetation to offset the 12.3 hectares that will be disturbed by the mining operations.

More than 55 strict conditions of consent have been imposed on the Abel project, including, first, measures to address the potential risk of substance on homesteads, which significantly exceed those required under the Mining Subsidence Act. Secondly, there will be strict noise and dust control measures and ongoing monitoring. Donaldson must also contribute $2 million for local projects including a $1 million conservation trust and $250,000 to the Black Hill Public School Parents and Citizens Association. I thank everyone involved in the public consultation process for these mine proposals, including residence, other aspect of stakeholder groups, local councils and the Anvil Hill independent panel. I commend the projects to the House.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that a family in New South Wales pays more than $2,000 in land tax for a property worth $480,000—three times more than in Victoria, and a Queensland family pays absolutely nothing in land tax—will the Premier match the Victorian and Queensland governments' commitments in their budgets to cut land tax and offer tax relief that New South Wales families and small businesses desperately need?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I inform the Leader of The Nationals that we have. In 20 months there have been five tax cuts. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition can recite them; it obviously means that the message is getting through if he can recite them, given the number of times that he is asleep in this Chamber. He is right, there was the vendor duty, and reinstating the thresholds and bringing forward the last indexation rise.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Land tax.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, land tax, vendor duty.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There was the reintroduction of the thresholds and the new valuation system of averaging, which is designed to take out the spikes. They are some of the reforms in the area of land tax that the Government has already undertaken. Of course, I am not going to speculate on the budget; the Treasurer is bringing that down in two weeks time. Already the Government has taken four major decisions in the area of land tax to provide relief and to stimulate investment and activity.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: The other States have now taken it up.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is correct. Why did the Leader of the Opposition not say something positive about New South Wales yesterday, given that we had some positive news yesterday? New South Wales is back in business, according to the national accounts figures of yesterday. But the Opposition was sweating more than me with a fever on a recession during the election campaign—that is what members opposite were all hoping for. One of the interesting points about yesterday's national accounts figures is that they have revised the previous two quarters. Remember the quarter before last December that showed, supposedly, negative growth, and how the Opposition jumped on that?

The Opposition said that come 7 March, when the December quarter figures come out, that will show two negative quarters of growth, and the "R" word—recession. And the Opposition had its entire election campaign geared towards the 7 March figures bringing down a second quarter of negative growth. Well, guess what? Yesterday's national accounts figures revised the previous two quarters. We were never in danger of entering a quarter of negative growth on any recession. And why? Because of the underlying strength of the New South Wales economy, its diversity, maturity and ability to be able to ride out the booms and busts in commodity prices.

The Australian Financial Review article, which I just held up to the House, states that New South Wales is back in business, closing the gap on the resource rich States of Western Australia and Queensland. Yesterday's figures showed the New South Wales economy growing strongly. I inform the Leader of The Nationals that come budget day, the Treasurer will bring down a budget that is responsible, prudent and continues along the Government's path of stimulating activity. We started that 20 months ago and that is the job we will keep on doing.

While we are on matters relating to economic policy and the election, Ian Smith, Executive Chairman from the public affairs firm Gavin Anderson and Company summed it up very well in probably the best commentary I have seen on the election. Referring to the Opposition, and the Liberal Party, he said, "Were the Liberal Party a public company, shareholders would have launched a class action citing failed strategies, unmet forecasts, executives in turmoil and a brand in disrepute". Mr Smith also said, "Among the biggest problems is that the State Liberals rarely take realistic risks. When they do propose policies, they are frequently the ideas of the barking mad".

Mr PAUL PEARCE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister inform the House of the latest information regarding the future of the medically supervised injecting centre at Kings Cross?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Members are no doubt aware of the history of the medically supervised injecting centre located at 66 Darlinghurst Road, Kings Cross. The facility is operated by Uniting Care New South Wales and is ably led by Dr Ingrid van Beek. Many members, myself included, have taken the opportunity to visit the facility and see at first hand the outstanding and often difficult work undertaken by staff at the centre. Anyone who has visited the centre would be under no illusion about its raw functionality. The trial of this facility began as a result of the Drug Summit in 1999. It commenced operations in May 2001. The initial trial has been extended by this Parliament on two occasions following positive independent evaluations. Later today the Government will introduce a bill to extend further the trial for this facility for another four years. The choice to continue with the trial, as opposed to making the facility permanent, is based on the legal requirement for this facility to be one that is operated for medical and scientific research purposes.

The most recent independent evaluation undertaken by the federally funded National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research will be made public via the centre's website later today. The evaluation found that the centre has saved lives and avoided serious injury. The independent evaluator found that since it opened the centre has successfully managed more than 2,000 overdoses without a single fatality. The independent evaluation considered it likely that a substantial proportion of these overdoses would otherwise have taken place in public, resulting in additional ambulance callouts and the use of valuable police and emergency department resources. Without medical attention it is certain that many of these people would have suffered from severe medical complications and some would have died.

Since the centre opened in May 2001, 9,778 individuals have been as Since the centre opened in May 2001, 9,778 individuals have been assessed and registered, with about 109 new registrations occurring each month. Registered clients have made a total of 391,170 visits, with approximately 6,500 visits occurring in April this year. And 113 in every 1,000 visits resulted in the provision of health care, medical and social services by centre staff on a total of 44,082 occasions. To be clear, 11.3 per cent of people visiting this centre are referred for treatment, which is in stark contrast to some of the more sensational commentary on the subject. Of the 6,243 referrals, 2,801 were for drug treatment, 1,720 for health care, and 1,722 for social welfare services.

The number of referrals doubled in the 12 months following the appointment in November 2004 of a case referral coordinator at the request of the Government. A recent survey found that 73 per cent of local residents and 68 per cent of local businesses now support the trial. These same businesses vehemently opposed the centre when it was first established. Those who visit the facility and those who see that the local amenity has improved by not having the scourge of public injecting of heroin generally support its ongoing operation. Since the facility opened in Kings Cross, overdose deaths each month have fallen by 70 per cent.

Opioid poisoning presentations to emergency departments have fallen by 35 per cent. Ambulance attendances to suspected opioid overdoses have decreased by 63 per cent. Between January 2000 and January 2007 there was a 48 per cent decrease in needles and syringes collected within 500 metres of the centre. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found no evidence that the centre had a honey-pot effect, drawing drug crime into the local area. A further trial period will allow the establishment of a longer-term evidence base of the effectiveness of the centre. That is of particular importance, given the long-term drug use of its client group.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Minister will be heard in silence.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Taxpayers do not fund this facility; it is funded from the proceeds of crime. I again remind members that the Uniting Church runs this centre. In addition to providing a gateway for treatment, the centre also helps to reduce the problem of the spread of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. The medically supervised injecting centre is just one component of the Government's comprehensive response to the complex problems of drug abuse in our society. Law enforcement continues to be the first line of defence in the war against drugs. The heroin drought is evidence that these efforts are making an impact.

The second line of defence is education and early intervention to try to persuade people not to experiment with dangerous and addictive substances. But no government in the Western world has prevented drug use in its major cities. That is why the third line of defence must continue to be harm minimisation. We will continue to do everything we can to eliminate drugs from our society through tough policing and law enforcement. We want nothing more than to be able to close this facility because the demand is no longer there. So the bill to be introduced later today will, for the first time, establish a threshold for clients' attendance levels. If the centre's utilisation falls below 75 per cent of current daily levels, a formal review will be triggered into the economic viability and need for the centre.

No-one wants to have a facility for the purpose of injecting illegal drugs. Every member in this place would prefer that heroin and other injecting drugs were eliminated. But the evidence in support of this facility is strong. Drugs in major cities are a fact of life. This is a worldwide phenomenon. It is imperative that we ensure that the harm inflicted is minimised, and so too is the use of valuable police, ambulance service and emergency department specialist time. Stopping the spread of disease and preventable death is essential. I look forward to the debate on this bill in the near future.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. In light of the latest attack on a bus in Willmot, this time allegedly involving a home-made rocket which sent a projectile through two panes of shatterproof glass, why does the Minister continue to ignore repeated calls for more transit police to prevent such vicious attacks?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The event that has been reported is stupid and crazy—there is no other explanation to describe what occurred.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Wakehurst that he is on three calls to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I am advised that on 6 June 2007 Westbus withdrew its regular bus services from Willmot as a result of rock-throwing incidents. The bus company has advised that media reports of a rocket launcher striking a bus in Willmot were incorrect. The incident involved a rock breaking two bus windows on the evening of 5 June and a slingshot might have been involved. Police have taken possession of the rock for forensic examination and consideration. Westbus indicated that it would provide a morning and afternoon shuttle bus service for Willmot Public School students.

I am advised that a meeting is underway involving New South Wales police, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Housing, the Transport Workers Union [TWU] and Westbus to determine what action can be taken to safely reintroduce route services into Willmot. The Government is committed to making trains, stations and buses safer. The New South Wales Police Force is working cooperatively with State Rail and other agencies to achieve this. Deputy Commissioner Andrew Scipione is currently reviewing the operations of the New South Wales Police Force specialist Commuter Crime Unit and its deployment across rail, bus and ferry services. This unit has around 300 positions to assist RailCorp transit officers and State Transit protection officers.

The unit will be tasked with additional high-visibility, high-impact operations to protect commuters from crime and antisocial behaviour on our transport systems. Commuter crime officers target everything from transport and street crime to drug offences, robbery and assault. While the officers are primarily involved in high-visibility operations, they also undertake covert work. The Commuter Crime Unit has been involved in a number of Vikings operations since the inception of Operation Vikings. Transit officers were present at the Vikings operation I observed recently in the city.
I will remind the House of the results of Operations Vikings. This year alone Operation Vikings has deployed more than 7,000 additional police shifts and laid almost 2,500 charges. To further support public safety on the rail system the New South Wales Government has a policy of allowing police free travel on public transport in order to increase police presence on the system. As to the event to which the question referred, the member for Willoughby did not have her facts right—surprise, surprise. Opposition members rarely have their facts right. Nevertheless, an event caused risk to passengers and to the driver, and the police and other New South Wales government agencies are acting appropriately and responding strongly to stupid acts by particular individuals in the community.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Willoughby will come to order.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's efforts to increase support for families and carers of people with disabilities?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We know that being able to remain in the family home has a positive impact on the lives of people with a disability. However, we cannot overlook the additional strain that this puts on families. Families and carers throughout the State require additional services to support them and to help them care for their family member in the family home. The Government has made a strong commitment to supporting and improving the lives of people with a disability, their families and their carers. This commitment is expressed in our 10-year plan Stronger Together, which is backed by $1.3 billion in funding. We are building more flexible services that aim to respond better to people's needs and improve the range and quality of services available.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Jim Perrin can't wait 10 years.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I am happy that the member for Coffs Harbour is so interested in providing additional support to people with a disability. I would have thought that members of a party that went to the State election without a policy in this area might show a bit more interest in the subject. I will give an example of the supports that we are providing to families of people with disabilities.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will remain silent.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We are providing new support networks that are targeting children and young people with a disability, their families and their siblings. Research tells us that a combination of formal and informal support networks can help to facilitate connections between people in similar situations. This gives them encouragement and support when it is most needed. Support networks can also provide emotional, practical and social support to people with a disability and their families.

Last week the member for Marrickville and I visited a disability service in the electorate of Marrickville. There we met a family with a five-year-old daughter who was diagnosed with autism when she was two. They told us that being able to talk to other families with similar experiences was incredibly important. It gave them the opportunity not only to talk to people who were having the same experiences on a daily basis but also to share practical advice and support. We should remember that people with a disability often have siblings who are impacted within the family. Peer support networks can give support to young people with a disability that will assist in reducing their isolation and help them to develop friendships. Parents can benefit from speaking with other parents in similar situations, and siblings of young people with a disability can share their feelings and experiences with others.

The Government has allocated funding in the next financial year to establish three demonstration support programs to promote parent, sibling and peer networks. A total of $2.1 million has been allocated for seven demonstration projects, at $300,000 per project over three years. Tenders are to be advertised this month, with a view to the projects being operational from 1 January 2008. These demonstration projects will develop, test and implement flexible and innovative practices to address the needs of children and young people with a disability and their families. Two of these demonstration projects will be autism specific to ensure that children with autism and their families do not fall through the cracks. We know that without access to new and expanded services such as these kids could suffer significant social and economic problems. Through Stronger Together we will continue to provide more long-term help and practical support to children and families throughout the State. These projects are an important step in the Iemma Government's plan to improve the lives of children and young people with a disability and their families.

I know that there has been some community concern about a family who featured on the Channel 9 news last night, and I take this opportunity to thank the member for Burrinjuck, who has made representations to me on the family's behalf. Coalition members might like to listen as I am drawing attention to some effective representation on the part of the member for Burrinjuck. I am pleased to advise her that last month staff from the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care met with Mrs Marmont and her son Adam, and they will now be receiving both domestic and respite services. I thank the member for Burrinjuck for her effective representation on their behalf. However, I encourage the member for Burrinjuck to speak to her colleague the member for Goulburn about how best to represent her community in Parliament.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order—

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: As reported on the Channel 9 news last night—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume her seat. The House will come to order. What is the point of order?

Mr Andrew Constance: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. I had hoped that the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services would stand before members of this House and—

The SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr Andrew Constance: —apologise to Mrs Marmont, apologise for the 20 years that she has had no respite—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bega will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bega to order.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bega to order for the second time.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bega to order for the third time. If he repeats that behaviour he will be removed from the Chamber. The Minister has the call.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: That is not a surprising contribution from the member for Bega, who failed to tell the people of New South Wales before the last election what a Coalition government would do to support people with a disability, their families and their carers. His side of politics promised not one additional respite place, not one additional supported accommodation spot and not one additional day program. People with a disability and their families and carers know that this Government, through Stronger Together, will make an historic injection of funding—$1.3 billion—to support and strengthen families.

Given the policy vacuum that exists on the other side of the House, it is not surprising that the member for Goulburn does not know how to effectively represent her constituents. As reported on the Channel 9 news and in a letter that I received from Mrs Marmont, this is the advice that the member for Goulburn offered to Mrs Marmont, and I quote—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will remain silent. What is the point of order?

Mr Adrian Piccoli: I refer you to Standing Order 129, which relates to relevance. The question was about what the Government is doing with respect to respite care, not what comments the member for Goulburn or anyone else may have made. Mr Speaker, on the first day of this parliamentary sitting you said that you would crack down on members abusing parliamentary privilege. You and I know that what the Minister is about to say is using cowards castle and the protection afforded by parliamentary privilege to make allegations against the member for Goulburn. Once those allegations are on the record it is too late to withdraw them. The Minister should give you a copy of any letter that she intends to read and obtain a ruling from you on whether it is in order.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. I remind the Minister that answers must be relevant to the questions asked. I understand the Minister is about to read from certain correspondence. Consistent with many other previous rulings, I will allow her to do so. I ask the Minister to comply with the standing orders. The Minister has the call.

Mr John Turner: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: I have just ruled on a point of order. Is it the same point of order?

Mr John Turner: It is a variation.

The SPEAKER: The member for Myall Lakes will state his point of order.

Mr John Turner: Point of order: If the Minister is about to read from a representation that was made to her or her department it is in direct contravention to a direction given by the Premier's office or the Cabinet office, I am not quite sure which, that representations made to Ministers must not be raised in this Parliament.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will seek advice from the Clerk before I rule on the point of order. The Minister is in order. A member may read from a letter as long as the author of the letter is clearly identified.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Does the member for Coffs Harbour seek to take a different point of order?

[ Interruption.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will remain silent.

Mr Andrew Fraser: I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 94, which states, "When a member rises on a point of order the member who is speaking shall be seated." I would ask you to draw the Minister's attention to that standing order.

The SPEAKER: Order! I recall clearly asking the Minister to resume her seat. The Minister has the call.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: As reported on Channel 9 news—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Is this a different point of order?

Mr Adrian Piccoli: It is a different point of order. Last week, I believe in Parliament, the Minister for Police answered a question and made an attack on a member and it was ruled then that any attack must be made by way of substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. The Minister is yet to read from the letter. The member for Murrumbidgee may have a crystal ball that allows him to know what the letter says, but I will allow the Minister to continue.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I am getting my exercise today. And isn't it interesting that the member for Goulburn has not spoken in her own defence but has relied on the men on her side of the House to do it for her?

The SPEAKER: Order! It is Thursday and members are obviously keen to conclude question time. The remainder of this question time will be conducted in accordance with the standing orders. It is inappropriate for members to conduct themselves in the way they have. The Minister will conclude her answer when she has read the correspondence. Members will not take frivolous points of order merely to interrupt the flow of debate. Let us continue question time in the appropriate way.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Is the member for Wakehurst taking a point of order after my ruling? What is the point of order?

Mr Brad Hazzard: You indicated you were going to deal with the House impartially. The Minister has just indicated to the other side—in defiance of your ruling, I might add—that we are defending the member for Goulburn. The Minister has indicated that the member for Goulburn has had others speaking in her defence. By implication that means that the Minister is attacking the member for Goulburn. She is in a funnel-web in a silk glove, but she has to address the issue by way of a substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. Before anyone is accused of attacking anyone else, I will hear further from the Minister.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: As reported last night on Channel 9 news and in a letter I received from Mrs Marmont, this is the advice that the member for Goulburn offered Mrs Marmont:

I went and saw Prue Goward, who told me to contact the police and tell them that if I do not get help for my son and myself I will kill him and then kill myself.

I have no reason to doubt the claim, but I would like to think there was some misunderstanding. To provide that kind of advice to a family that is clearly in distress is unacceptable.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: This is clearly an attack on a member of this House. If an attack like that is going to be made it has to be by way of substantive motion, because, as was once famously said here, she has not got the guts to take 15 steps outside and say it again.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister made reference to a report in the media about comments allegedly made outside the House. If the member has been reported correctly, she will need to justify that action, given the comments she allegedly made. I ask the Minister to remember that attacks on members should be done by substantive motion. I call on the Minister to conclude her answer.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I would encourage the member for Goulburn to treat cases sensitively. In the future constituents should be put in touch with staff at the local agency of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care Services. Alternatively, I would encourage the member for Goulburn to contact one of the eight government and non-government organisations that provide vital support and services to people with a disability living in Goulburn. I am certain her colleague the member for Burrinjuck can put her in contact with them. I want the member for Goulburn to know that my door is always open, as it is to all members of this Parliament who would like support and advice about how to best support people with a disability and their families in their local areas.

Ms CLOVER MOORE: My question is directed to the Premier. As his Government is pursuing construction of the desalination plant, which involves constructing a new pipeline through Sydney suburbs, will he commit to providing in the tunnel adequate infrastructure to enable the distribution of non-potable recycled and reused water for Sydney residents?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Sydney might be aware that during the election campaign that Government committed to a water recycled grid for Sydney. The Government committed significant funds for that project as one of the significant infrastructure projects to provide for the future water needs of this city. She might also be aware that—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Clarence to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Clarence might explain to the House and to the people, given the election is over, how much he knew about Malcolm Turnbull's secret plan to send the water of the North Coast to Queensland. Why does the member for Clarence not come clean and tell everybody in his electorate how much he knew—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Coast will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: —about the secret plan of his colleague in Canberra to take the water from his residents, his farmers, his fishermen, his households and send it to Queensland.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for South Coast to order. I call the member for Clarence to order for a second time.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I confirm that the Government remains committed to that water recycling grid project for Sydney. The member would be aware that that is in addition to a significant number of industrial recycling projects to which the Government has committed. The pipes for the desalination plant are for the desalination project. The water recycling grid for Sydney announced during the election campaign remains one of the Government's water infrastructure priorities, to provide for this city's recycled water needs—for laundry, toilet and industrial purposes, and not for drinking purposes.

Mr DAVID HARRIS: My question is to the Deputy Premier, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister inform the House on the impact of vocational education and training in schools on New South Wales students and any recent developments in this area?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Research released today confirms that students who undertake vocational education and training courses in New South Wales public schools have better job prospects and are more likely to find full-time work than are other Higher School Certificate graduates. The vocational education and training destination survey conducted by the University of Melbourne vindicates the Iemma Government's investment in a network of 25 new trade schools and the introduction this year of school-based apprenticeships. That is why we will build five new trade schools in the coming financial year to meet our commitment to families, businesses and students.

This month's budget will include funding in 2007-08 for new trade schools at Penrith, Wyong, Tamworth, Nambucca Heads and Sutherland. The jury is back and the results are in; it is confirmed that this Government's policy of providing education for all, not just those who are heading to further study at university, is preparing a generation of students better for life and work. The independent study surveyed 6,000 New South Wales public school Higher School Certificate graduates about their work and study destinations and their satisfaction with vocational training. It found that 30 per cent moved successfully into work, 25 per cent went to university, another 25 per cent entered post-school vocational training, and 16 per cent became apprentices and trainees. Six out of 10 respondents said the option to study vocational subjects influenced their decision to stay at school to year 12. So vocational education and training in schools is improving retention rates. The majority said work placements as part of the course increased their self-confidence and provided useful on-the-job training.

Other key findings of the study included: graduates who studied automotive studies, engineering and construction made the strongest transitions to apprenticeships; information technology graduates made the strongest transition to further study; vocational education and training in schools enables high levels of achievement by students who otherwise may have struggled with the Higher School Certificate; and vocational education improves student retention rates, improves self-confidence and makes students more work ready.

In short, the New South Wales Government is delivering what students, employers and communities want and meeting the New South Wales economy's growing demand for skills. Strong industry support is demonstrated by the involvement of more than 17,000 New South Wales employers giving students valuable on-the-job experience that often leads to full-time work. Impressively, more than one-third of New South Wales students now undertake vocational education and training courses as part of their Higher School Certificate. New South Wales clearly has the best school-based vocational education and training program in the country, and students who have completed those courses are telling us that they have benefited from it.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Mr Speaker—

Mr Frank Sartor: Oh no! Not you!

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: You should be afraid!

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Planning to order.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Premier. On 14 December 2006 the Premier specifically instructed his director general to conduct an investigation into the conduct of the then Speaker in relation to the theft of $16,000 from the office of the member for Kogarah. What were his findings, and did he raise any concerns with the Premier about the conduct of the then Speaker?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I recall that the matter was one that was referred to the police. The instruction was for referral—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: No. You asked the director general to investigate.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will obtain the results of my director general's inquiries. It was a matter that was directed—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: And the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes. The police were requested to investigate the matter. When the police have concluded the matter, I am sure the results of their inquiries will be made available.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). Will the Minister update the House with progress on the Government's mental health capital funding program?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I note not only the longstanding interest of the member for Kogarah in mental health funding, but also her considerable contribution to it in government. Our mental health capital program is delivering a quantum leap in bed numbers. More importantly, we are putting those beds in the suburban and regional areas where they are needed most. Under our accelerated bed provision program we have provided 115 additional beds by refurbishing existing mental health units at Cumberland, Westmead, Nepean and Prince of Wales in Sydney, Sydney Children's Hospital and Westmead Children's Hospital, and in country New South Wales at Bloomfield, Macquarie, Albury and Wagga Wagga hospitals. We have also opened 20 more beds at St George, Sutherland, Morisset and Cumberland hospitals.

The Government has completed $67 million worth of new projects over the past four years, creating a further 160 beds at Sutherland, Wollongong, Newcastle, Kempsey, Wyong, Dubbo, Blue Mountains, Liverpool and Campbelltown, and also providing a new community mental health service and new research facilities. We are opening nine psychiatric emergency care centres where those with a mental illness in acute need can achieve fast specialist help instead of going to emergency departments better equipped to deal with physical injuries. We have opened five of those centres at Liverpool, Nepean, Hornsby, St George and St Vincent's hospitals with a total of 28 beds, with further units to follow at Wyong, Blacktown, Campbelltown and Wollongong.

There is a list of major events under way already to start within the next year: our new purpose-built mental health campus at Concord, a $58 million investment; a new 135-bed forensic hospital at Long Bay and 20 new mental health beds in Long Bay Jail hospital, together worth $73 million; a 12-bed psychiatric intensive care unit at Hornsby hospital; a new adult unit and a new child and adolescent unit at Lismore with 23 additional beds; a 15-bed older persons unit at Wollongong; four non-acute units at Shellharbour, Coffs Harbour, St George and James Fletcher at Newcastle, each with 20 beds; the new Mater mental health facility at Newcastle, a $35 million project that will deliver 96 beds; 82 extra beds at the new Bloomfield site currently under construction in Orange, a project worth $34 million; and the refurbishment of the Port Macquarie facility as a 12-bed gazetted acute unit with two additional beds.

I should also mention the future projects that have been ticked off to commence planning and design: relocation of the 30-bed Mandala unit at Gosford with 5 additional beds; construction of a new child and adolescent inpatient unit at Shellharbour hospital; construction of a new child and adolescent day unit, also at Shellharbour hospital; construction of a child and adolescent inpatient unit at Sydney Children's Hospital; and a non-acute unit at Sutherland hospital. Quite legitimately this could be described as nothing less than a mental health construction boom. It gives concrete reality to the commitment made by Morris Iemma on his first day in office and, most importantly, it brings real hope to those who have spent long enough in the too-hard basket of public policy in this nation.

One of the best things we do in this Chamber is provide resources and money for people who have few champions, for those who are not in a position to force attention on their situation, for those who do not always have the ability to exert electoral influence. For that reason I am particularly proud to be able to commend these facts to the House, because they establish that this Government has done more for mental health than any other government in the history of this State.

Question time concluded.

Petition requesting improved access to Hawkesbury River railway station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

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

Petition requesting that the Nioka Palliative Care Unit remain a stand-alone unit within Tamworth Hospital, received from Mr Peter Draper.

Petition requesting funding for breast screening to allow access for women aged 40 to 79 years, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

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

Petition requesting funding for a new bridge over Lake Mulwala, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [3.30 p.m.]: This matter should be accorded priority because Telstra intends to axe 10,000 to 12,000 jobs across the country when it closes its call centres in Wollongong, Newcastle, Lismore and in many other regional communities across New South Wales. Staff at the Lismore call centre are absolutely desperate to retain their jobs, but the member for Lismore has not even referred to its closure. The closure of these centres will have a major impact on the economies of the communities in which they operate. The Leader of The Nationals is so switched on to issues in the bush that he has been tugging the forelock to The Nationals and the Liberal Party at the Federal level to ensure he gets Mark Vaile's seat when he retires from Federal politics. Telstra intends to sack 88 regional field technicians in New South Wales. The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [CEPU] is outraged to the point that it is speaking to the media and issuing media releases about the impact of job losses on the economy of regional communities.

I am pleased to note that people will soon have a choice to support a Federal Government that looks after the regions and people in the communication sector. Telstra has had problems with black spots and broadband, and it will now be responsible for job losses in regional communities. But the Leader of The Nationals in his House does not care about regional areas. I was pleased to hear that staff at Newcastle are starting to band together to fight to retain the 219 jobs that Telstra intends to axe. Wollongong will lose 88 jobs. Launceston will lose 257 jobs. It is good to know that some Coalition members are fighting in the background. As Ian Causley, the member for Page, said, "Telstra runs a business and has to make commercially based decisions." Over the years regional New South Wales has done well out of Telstra. Its workforce in the country is very reliable, which means it does not have to be constantly retrained, which is a big saving for the company.

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

Mr KERRY HICKEY: Mr Ian Causley said—

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will come to order.

Mr KERRY HICKEY: Mr Ian Causley said, "I am very disappointed that they haven't been able to find work in other call centres. I am certainly speaking to Telstra about that." It is good to see that the member for Upper Hunter is on his feet and that he is concerned about this issue. But the Leader of The Nationals does not care one iota about the impact of these job losses in Lismore, Wollongong or regional New South Wales. They are the reasons this motion should be accorded priority.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.34 p.m.]: The motion for which the Coalition seeks priority is at the heart of State Government: education and kids in our schools. Recently New South Wales schools have experienced an epidemic of bullying. This motion should be accorded priority because the parents of New South Wales want this matter dealt with. This issue cuts to the heart of our children's education. Children need a safe and secure learning environment in a school provided by the State or perhaps the non-government sector to reach their potential. At the moment bullying in New South Wales schools is at crisis point. Recently we heard of a $1 million payout to a student who suffered psychological injury caused by bullying in the State school system.

We also heard of violent threats at public schools in Crookwell, Griffith, Ambarvale and Plumpton. The Crookwell incident involved plotting on the Internet to commit a United States-style massacre. These issues should be of grave concern to those opposite, which is why we are giving them an opportunity to support an inquiry into what is happening in our schools. Recently the Minister for Education and Training admitted that suspension rates had climbed by some 10 per cent, with 7,095 students suspended for a range of behaviour, including violence and criminal behaviour or weapons-related incidents.

[ Interruption]

Does the Minister for Community Services not think that a motion about bullying in schools should be accorded priority? Shame on him! He is a former teacher. He knows this is an educational issue.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will proceed.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Shame on the Minister! This week we heard reports of senior police warning of students being intimidated and harassed at bus stops and railway stations.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cessnock will remain silent.

Mr ANDREW STONER: We heard that their electronic devices, whether it is an iPod or a mobile phone, are being stolen from them on school premises and off school premises, such as at railway stations and shopping centres. Teachers have been forced to turn to the police to take out apprehended violence orders to protect themselves against their students. What will it take for the Government to admit that bullying is a problem in our schools? All we have heard from the Minister is, "No, there is no problem. It is not a problem." Initially he said that the number of expulsions in New South Wales schools had gone down. That is true, but he did not mention that suspensions had gone up by 10 per cent. When we raised the issue again a couple of weeks later the Minister said, "Yes, we're taking concrete action. Suspensions have gone up by 10 per cent." He cannot have it both ways. Either there is a problem or there is not.

Parents and teachers of New South Wales will tell you there is a problem. They are not getting support from the Department of Education and Training, they are not getting support through disciplined policies in this State and they are not getting support through resources for proactive programs, such as school counsellors. Least of all, they are not getting support from the Minister for Education and Training, who sticks his head in the sand and denies day after day that there is a problem. He sends out his spin doctors to say, "We don't have any bullying. We don't have a problem." How can he deal with the problem if he does not acknowledge it? His latest response via his spin doctors was to accuse the Opposition of beating up on teachers and students.

That statement is offensive and it is an absolute disgrace. The Minister's lack of action is offensive to the teachers and students of New South Wales who have to put up with this problem day in, day out. In one of the schools in my electorate a child tried to strangle another child. He was brought into the principal's office and while they were waiting for his parent to come to the school, in accordance with the department's discipline policy, the child bashed a chair over another student. The teacher has had to take stress leave. This is a major problem. It should be accorded priority.

Question—That the motion of the member for Cessnock be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Ms Beamer Mr Borger Mr Brown Ms Burney Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Ms Firth Mr Gibson

Mr Greene Mr Harris Ms Hay Mr Hickey Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lynch Mr McBride Dr McDonald Ms McKay Mr McLeay Ms McMahon Ms Megarrity Mr Morris Mrs Paluzzano

Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Rees Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Baird Mr Baumann Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Mr Fraser Ms Goward Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humphries Mr Kerr Mr Merton Ms Moore Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Piper Mr Provest Mr Richardson Mr Roberts

Mrs Skinner Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Stokes Mr Stoner Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr J. D. Williams Mr R. C. Williams Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.
Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [3.48 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the disastrous decision by the Telstra Corporation to axe 219 call centre positions from its Newcastle operation and 88 positions from Wollongong;

(2) condemns the New South Wales Opposition for standing idly by whilst the Federal Government dismantled and sold this Australian icon without the very jobs and services protections that the public acceptance of the sale was based on;

(3) notes the terrible impact of these cuts on these important regional economies; and

(4) recognises the broad range of business assistance and guidance the Iemma Government is directing at these areas to grow employment and reduce the impact of job losses on these regions.

It is both good that the Leader of The Nationals has taken up the issue of bullying in this House and sad that The Nationals have been bullied by the Federal Government into allowing regions across New South Wales to be adversely affected by job losses that will impact on local economies. Some areas that will be affected by Telstra's decision are the North Coast, where 88 regional field technicians will lose their jobs; Tweed Heads, where four positions will be lost; Ballina, where three jobs will be lost; Lismore-Casino, where three jobs will be lost; Grafton, where one job will be lost; Coffs Harbour, where three jobs will be lost; Taree-Forster, where two jobs will be lost; Port Macquarie, where one job will be lost; and Coffs Harbour-Forster, where six jobs will be lost from the region's maintenance group.

It is good to see such strong support from the Opposition during this debate. The member for Tweed is very concerned about the impact on his regional economy. The decision by Telstra to slash hundreds of call centre jobs is very disturbing. The Liberals and Nationals sitting opposite should hang their heads in shame.

Mr Chris Hartcher: How do you do that? How do you hang your head in shame?

Mr KERRY HICKEY: Just as the member for Terrigal does at times. This announcement is part of a broader plan by Telstra to axe between 10,000 and 12,000 jobs across Australia, a plan that has the Howard Government's fingerprints all over it. Communities in Newcastle and Wollongong will suffer for many years because of this decision. The human face of this decision involves 1,219 people losing their jobs in Newcastle. There will be 1,219 families without an income because of this decision. In Wollongong 88 people will lose their jobs—88 families that are dependent upon those pay packets. A total of 1,307 pay packets will be ripped out of those two key regional communities under the questionable guise of cost cutting.

However, the cuts mean more than the loss of 1,307 jobs; the knock-on effect of taking away those 1,307 pay packets will affect hundreds more people and businesses within those communities. Those workers spend money every week at a whole host of local businesses that will now have to go without that precious income. That is to say nothing of the impact on Telstra's already disappointing service delivery to country and regional customers. It is no wonder that country and regional people are turning their backs on The Nationals. They sat in silence and let John Howard flog the last remaining public share of Telstra for a pittance, betraying the telecommunication needs of rural and regional Australia.

When one walks down the main street of any country town and mentions Telstra and The Nationals one is left in no doubt at all about the public's view of the Coalition's deception and lies over this once great Australian institution. The Nationals have forgotten how to stand up for the interests of country communities. Fortunately, the Iemma Government is committed to the future of country and regional New South Wales and is working hard in those areas to generate the vital investment and jobs that they need.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 129 relating to relevance. I have something I would like to read for the Minister. Spokesman Lucy Wicks for Telstra said—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Lismore knows the standing orders well.

Mr KERRY HICKEY: The Iemma Government is committed to regional and rural New South Wales. We are committed to ensuring that we generate vital investment and jobs growth, and that investment will grow right across country New South Wales. Take the record of this Government: over the past four years the New South Wales Government has secured projects worth $3.29 billion in investment. That has delivered more than 14,600 jobs in regional and rural New South Wales. [ Quorum called for.]

[ The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, debate resumed.]

We are growing economies in the bush; we are creating jobs, and that is what a Labor government is about. We are also trying to save jobs in Newcastle and Wollongong. Recently Country Labor met with the executives of Telstra and conveyed their extreme disappointment about the proposed job cuts. Country Labor has urged Telstra to reconsider these decisions and the impact on the communities, particularly of Newcastle and Wollongong. Although we have no guarantees of jobs, Telstra has committed to contacting the local Labor members in Newcastle and Wollongong to further discuss the proposed changes and their local impacts.

The Iemma Government is currently working with a number of other companies to secure projects in regional and metropolitan areas of the State that could be utilised to place some displaced Telstra staff. The contrast is there yet again for all to see. The Opposition has failed to stand up to Canberra and failed to look after country areas. The Iemma Government is doing whatever it can to help the people it represents. Without Federal Government action it would be very difficult for us to save those vital jobs, but the Iemma Government is in there trying, and it keeps trying because that is what we are elected to do.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [3.58 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That", with a view to inserting instead:

this House:

(1) recognises the disastrous decision by the Telstra Corporation to axe 219 call centre positions from its Newcastle operation and 88 positions from Wollongong;

(2) condemns the Federal Opposition for standing idly by,

(3) calls on the New South Wales Government to immediately assist those who lose their jobs with real practical programs; and

(4) notes the failure of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia to protect its members.

How much does it cost to get priority in this House? It costs $60,000, and forget about those children being bullied in schools. The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [CEPU] donated $60,000 to the Labor Party in the last election campaign. That is what democracy with the Australian Labor Party costs.

Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: My point of order obviously is relevance. Clearly, the member for Lane Cove has no interest in the 88 jobs in Wollongong and the 200-plus in Newcastle. Either he speaks to the motion or he does not speak at all.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lane Cove has the call.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Mr Deputy-Speaker, as you would know, I am speaking to the amendment. Ten minutes of research will demonstrate exactly why the Government should be working with Telstra and investing in New South Wales instead of attacking it from the sidelines, undermining workers, corporations, and mum and dad investors. Telstra employs over 12,500 people in New South Wales. Almost 3,000 of those employees are located in approximately 100 regional areas throughout the State. Telstra is a major investor in New South Wales, with $1.4 billion in capital expenditure invested each year. If this failure of a State Government invested the equivalent amount, dollar for dollar, New South Wales would be a better place. We would have filtration in tunnels, a better hospital system and more nurses.

Mr Kerry Hickey: Point of order: I ask you to bring the member for Lane Cove back to the motion. He can talk about anything he likes at other times but this motion has nothing to do with filtration systems and nurses.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lane Cove is addressing the amendment.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Once again this failure of a State Government is attacking a wonderful employer and undermining its share price. Why do government members want to undermine Telstra? Telstra has a fantastic record in dealing with its employees. Telstra supports New South Wales businesses to the tune of $2 billion per annum.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ask members to exercise some commonsense and listen to the member for Lane Cove.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Telstra contributes $1 billion in wages and salaries to the New South Wales economy. There are over 470,000 Telstra shareholders in New South Wales—a further contribution to Australia's strong economy, thanks to the Howard Coalition Government. I commend all the mum and dad investors who have shares in Telstra and the Government members who are proud shareholders of Telstra for investing in a wonderful Australian company and supporting—

Mr David Harris: Profits before jobs.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Government members should not attack those on their own side.

Mr David Harris: Profits before families. It is your side that sold it off.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Government members should talk to people who own shares in Telstra. Members of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales understand these facts and figures because they have Telstra shares. I hope that they sent their staff to the library to find these figures on Google: it does not take a lot of time. Labor members know the truth but, once again, they are attacking a major corporate entity without justification. We know the truth. I state again for the record that the Telstra workers union funnelled tens of thousands of dollars into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party. That is the real reason we are debating this motion. Government members are not fighting for the rights of vulnerable children in schools who are being bullied; they are putting forward a ridiculous case on behalf of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [CEPU] because it paid $60,000 to its Australian Labor Party mates.

Mr Kerry Hickey: Point of order: The member for Lane Cove implied that $60,000 had been paid to the Labor Party, which is out of order. As the member for Lane Cove has a number of shares in Telstra he should declare his interest in this matter.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is out of order.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The honourable member for Cessnock is a good and honourable man. I would never challenge his reliability or honesty. I am proud to call him a colleague in this House. That is his preselection done! It is natural for companies to experience change. Telstra is a caring employer. In fact, members have been misled to some extent: the restructuring of Telstra will result in 260 new positions being based in Sydney.

Ms Jodi McKay: That's right. You don't know where Newcastle is.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Newcastle is a lovely place. As I said, 260 new jobs will be created. We do not live in the Soviet Union. I am not a neo-Marxist as some members on the other side of this Chamber are.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Name them!

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I have the list here. I will name and shame. Unfortunately, I do not believe, although some members do, that North Korea is a workers' paradise. Companies need to transform and exist in a competitive market. Telstra's transformation has already achieved service improvements. In October 2006 Telstra announced a 15 per cent improvement in the productivity of field staff. In October 2006 it announced that, through the consolidation of deployment centres, the amount of manual intervention would reduce by 80 per cent: getting the right person with the right skills to do the right job at the right time. More faults are being cleared remotely—something Telstra workers should be proud of. Forget about the bad old days when the Government ran Telstra, or Telecom. We used to wait three weeks to get a phone fault fixed and three months, or even longer, to have a phone connected. Telstra is competing well in a market economy and it does a huge amount for this State.
Ms Noreen Hay: How many shares have you got?

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: It always comes back to money. Just because the member's union could not afford as much as the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia to bring on the next matter afforded priority—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! It is important to focus on the subject matter of the debate.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I am sorry, Government members are misleading me. I am doing my best on a Thursday afternoon. On behalf of the Coalition I place on the record that, as a rule, Telstra workers are well trained and well regarded by other employers. I will not attack the efforts of Telstra to obtain new work for its employees. Earlier my colleague the member for Lismore referred to the fact that members have been misled with respect to what is occurring in Lismore. We are talking about the restructuring of Telstra. These employees, who are highly sought after, will find new jobs.

The Coalition is not in the business of running down one of Australia's most magnificent companies. It is not in the business of undermining the prospective employment opportunities of workers involved in this restructure, many of whom will gain new jobs within the firm. This is about ensuring that the rest of the workers in Telstra are able to compete on a global scale. If Telstra is not internationally competitive, which is what we have been told by the member for Terrigal, it will not employ 12,500 in New South Wales; it will not employ anyone. Government members should forget the neo-Marxist, Maoist and Stalinist approaches in their party room. We are living in the real world. If this State were run in the same way in which Telstra is run—

Ms Noreen Hay: It would be a far, far better—

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The honourable member for Wollongong agrees with me, for which I thank her. It would be a much better place. This motion is about the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the Federal Opposition failing the workers. They have no plan and no future.

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [4.08 p.m.]: It is with a profound sense of disappointment that I speak in debate on this motion that has been afforded priority. The member for Lane Cove astounded me by defending Telstra's decision to sack 1,700 people throughout this country—and all of them from regional areas. Does the member for Lane Cove know where Newcastle is? I doubt whether members of the Liberal Party have any idea where Newcastle is. The people of New South Wales should make no mistake—

Mr Chris Hartcher: Who holds Port Stephens?

Ms JODI McKAY: We are talking about Newcastle. It is quite obvious that members of the Liberal Party have no idea where Newcastle is. The people of New South Wales should make no mistake: the removal of these jobs by Telstra was entirely avoidable. It is a direct result of the decision by The Nationals and the Liberal Party to sell Telstra. Unlike those opposite, the Federal Labor Party took up the fight and placed the interests of regional communities first. As the member for Newcastle, I condemn the decision by Telstra to close its call centre in Newcastle. The member for Lane Cove is obviously unaware that Newcastle has a vibrant city centre, with some 16,000 people working in the central business district.

Our business and development organisations have worked hard over the years to entice large corporations to see the advantages of locating operations in regional centres such as Newcastle. Attracting call centres to Newcastle was a major focus of the Hunter Economic Development Corporation, so this week's announcement by Telstra that it intends to close the Newcastle call centre, with a loss of 219 jobs, is a significant blow to the city's business centre. But, more importantly, it is a tragic blow to more than 200 working families in the Hunter region.

It may seem a logical commercial step from Telstra's perspective—at least it may be justified as such—but there is an expectation that large corporations that seek the business and support of regional communities such as Newcastle should repay that with loyalty. My heartfelt empathy goes to the families affected directly and indirectly by this decision. The Iemma Government recognises that it will be difficult to turn the decision around but it remains committed to promoting economic growth in Newcastle and, indeed, in all areas of New South Wales. The member for Lane Cove will not find a definition of "Newcastle" in the Macquarie Dictionary . We do not abandon the fortunes of regional communities to the vagaries of market forces. This decision by Telstra is a timely reminder—
Mr Anthony Roberts: Point of order: "Newcastle" is in the dictionary. The member for Newcastle has obviously never read one.

Ms JODI McKAY: I ask the member for Lane Cove to provide a definition of Newcastle, because he has obviously never been there. The decision by Telstra is a timely reminder that it is important for regional communities such as Newcastle to diversify their economic base. This will help to underpin jobs and opportunities for people living in regional areas and ensure that all in our community share the fruits of economic prosperity. The Iemma Government is committed to working in partnership with regional communities to ensure that they continue to grow and prosper. In the Hunter the New South Wales Government's Hunter Advantage Fund is designed to do exactly that. The fund was set up following the decision by BHP to close the front end of its steel-making operations. To date, assistance has been offered for 78 projects. Those 78 projects are expected to create more than 2,500 full-time jobs and represent more than $375 million in new capital investment.

Mr Thomas George: Where?

Ms JODI McKAY: The member for Lismore must know where Newcastle is! The Hunter Advantage Fund has been successful in encouraging a more diversified economy for the Hunter region, as well as taking advantage of the region's existing manufacturing base. This financial year alone projects that received assistance include the establishment of a manufacturing and distribution facility to produce masonry building products by Kemp Australia, the relocation of its group finance division to Newcastle by SPT Telecommunications, and the expansion of H. L. Mullane and Sons contracting business in 2005-06. The expansion of the Bluetongue Brewery was also assisted by the fund, which helped increase employment there to 50. The Government's Hunter Advantage Fund is clearly working, as it continues to attract new investment and create new jobs in the lower Hunter region.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [4.13 p.m.]: Paragraph (4) of the amendment moved by the member for Lane Cove notes the failure of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [CEPU] to protect its members. That failure goes to the core of trade unionism in this State. The union is supposed to represent the 12,000 or so people who work for Telstra.

Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: Some 88 people are about to lose their jobs in Wollongong thanks to Telstra and the Federal Howard Government, and Opposition members are making a joke of this debate by refusing to deal with the motion before the House.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Terrigal may continue.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The member for Wollongong has illustrated my point. She exemplifies the union movement superbly.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Terrigal will direct his remarks to the motion.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The union movement put the member for Wollongong in this place. The liquor trade union did the dirty on the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] and took out poor old Col Markham and installed the member for Wollongong in his place. That was a tragedy. In this case, as in every case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia has failed to work on behalf of its members. Where is the union? What is the union doing about Telstra's decision? What applications has it made to the Industrial Relations Commission? How is it fighting for its members' jobs?

Mr Kerry Hickey: Point of order: My point of order goes to relevance under Standing Order 129. I ask you to direct the member for Terrigal to confine his remarks to the motion before the House. He should at least talk about it!

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is noted.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted, and motion lapsed.
Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to permit:

(1) At this sitting:

(a) Immediately at the conclusion of private members' statements, the introduction and the mover's agreement in principle speech on the following bills:

Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Mobile Phones in Places of Detention) Bill 2007
Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007
APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007 and cognate bill.

(b) At the conclusion of the above business the House to adjourn without motion moved until Friday 8 June 2007 at 10.00 a.m.

(2) On Friday 8 June 2007:

(a) At 10.00 a.m. the Premier to move a motion, without notice, in relation to terrorism.

(b) Government business, including the introduction, without notice, and the mover's agreement in principle speech, of the Children Criminal Proceedings Amendment (Publication of Names) Bill; and

(c) Private members' statements.

Ms PRU GOWARD , by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. During question time the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services purported to read from an alleged letter, which I have not seen. The import of her allegations is defamatory and misleading, and indicates an interest in playing politics rather than directing attention to assisting Mrs Marmont and her son Adam. I cannot say what the understanding was of Mrs Marmont regarding her recollection of discussions with me, now four months ago. But I can say that at no time would I have suggested anything other than strong support for her to achieve the assistance she needs with her disabled child. This is a very complex and distressing case. I will continue to make every effort to assist her to try to achieve a fair deal from the Government to help her in her efforts to support her child with disabilities.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [4.22 p.m.]: This evening I raise my concerns about the closure of the Moruya Coastal Patrol, and in doing so acknowledge Merl and Les Zeigler, who have been running the coastal patrol from their family home for many decades. This sad situation has arisen because the strict accreditation standards of the New South Wales State Rescue Board for rescue vessels and radio bases has led the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to reluctantly close its base at Moruya. This evening I want to try to oppose this closure in some way. The Minister for Emergency Services must review this decision and explore whether any additional resources can be forwarded to the coastal patrol to ensure that the Moruya base remains open.
There is a bar at Moruya which, as with most bars in the area, is an important focal point for the boating community. Because of the work that Merl and Les have done to provide support to the boating community, the loss of this important and vital community service is being felt right throughout the region. Every fisher up and down the coast in the area of Moruya knows both Merl and Les personally. Community gratitude towards them for the work they have done is enormous, and community angst at this decision is significant. I have received correspondence raising concerns about this closure and about the response time for boats from Batemans Bay, which, I might add, are still not in service because the Government has failed to provide the necessary resources and funding through to the coastal patrol.

There must be a way around this closure. I hope the Minister can review this decision and provide the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol with the necessary resources to meet the strict accreditation standards so that Merl and Les can continue their work and the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol can continue to have an important presence in Moruya. When the coastal patrol issued a press statement in relation to the closure it cited the significant cost of getting the patrol up to accreditation standard. That figure included the cost of providing a new rescue lifeboat in full survey of somewhere in the order of $90,000 to $100,000, and a further $350,000 to $400,000 to provide a base of the required standard.

In the last financial year the coastal patrol has received only $338,000 for capital and operations from the State Government. That is for the entire organisation of 26 bases up and down the eastern seaboard of New South Wales. That is why this type of decision has been made. The Government knows full well the community benefit that is derived from the coastal patrol in terms of saving lives and property. The Government fails to recognise time and time again that to provide this service, which the Government would have to do through the New South Wales Water Police, it is better to have a coastal patrol up and functioning with the latest equipment. That is especially so because of the volunteer help received by the organisation.

I hope that the Minister can address this situation by investing in the coastal patrol, particularly the patrol at Moruya. I hope there is a way that Merl and Les can continue the tremendous work they have done for the Moruya patrol for many years. As I understand it, Merl started out in radios back in 1967, joined the coastal patrol in 1982, and has been helping people at sea all of that time. Merl and Les have made an enormous contribution over that period. I am concerned about the closure of the patrol and the effect it will have on other support services, particularly the service from Batemans Bay, because it will take an hour and a half to get boats to the area that is currently served by Merl and Les. It is a pity the Government does not put capital funding into the coastal patrol so that the patrol is maintained and the boats can be back up and running. If funding is provided the volunteers will not have to continue to struggle and fight for every dollar to provide a vital rescue service that the Government would otherwise have to provide through the New South Wales Water Police.

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie—Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Water Utilities) [4.27 p.m.]: I thank the member for Bega for his interest in this matter. I am advised that the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol has operated a unit at Moruya for a number of years, initially as a small radio relay base and more recently as a marine rescue unit. The unit is enthusiastic but, as the member pointed out, it is based in a very small community and it has been heavily reliant on members of the Ziegler family. Unfortunately, there has been a decline in unit membership. I am advised that it is down from 15 to only four last year. While the unit has been active in radio work, it was only called out to three tasks throughout last year.

Last month the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol notified the State Rescue Board that, given its declining membership and likely inability to pass a pending accreditation inspection, the Moruya unit will close. That is a matter of regret, but I can assure the local boating community on the South Coast that it will continue to receive first-class emergency protection. The Volunteer Coastal Patrol operates major bases to the north and south of Moruya Heads at Bateman's Bay and Narooma, and the area will receive radio and marine rescue cover from those bases. I take the opportunity to thank Les and Merline, who have been the driving force behind the division at Moruya and who have provided a most valuable service for their community. I make the point that unlike the members for Barwon, Murray-Darling and Burrinjuck, who have been in my office this week making representations, the member for Bega did not front. My door is always open and he is welcome to come through with the Zieglers at any point and have a discussion on the detail.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.29 p.m.]: This evening I want to say a few words about the wonderful people and community of La Perouse, at the southern-most tip of my electorate. Being a peninsula, La Perouse is surrounded by water on three sides, the wonderful beaches of Congwong Bay, both big and little, Frenchmans Bay and Yarra Bay. Terrific golf courses border La Perouse. Most significantly, it is home to the very historical and beautiful Botany Bay National Park. One of the tremendous attributes of La Perouse is now, as it has been for many thousands of years, the presence of the Aboriginal people of the area. I wish to acknowledge the Dharawahl Aboriginal people, who are the traditional owners of the land, on which the seat of Maroubra and surrounds are now founded. The history of that ancient culture is still to be seen in La Perouse if one cares to look and, of course, there is still a significant Aboriginal community in La Perouse. They are wonderful people and I enjoy working with them very much.

La Perouse the suburb is, of course, named after one of the world's and history's great navigators, Jean­François de Galaup, Comte de La Pérouse, who was born on 22 August 1741 at Albi, France. Albi is a place with which Randwick City Council has a sister city relationship, and that has led to much interest in the La Perouse area by the French Government. In 1783 the French Government resolved to send an expedition to the Pacific to complete Captain Cook's unfinished work, and in particular to explore the passages in the Bering Sea, which had been a mystery to Europeans since the sixteenth century. King Louis XVI himself took a hand in dispatching this wonderful sailor La Pérouse.

His journeys were magnificent. His two ships, La Boussole and L'Astrolabe left Brest in 1785 and went to Brazil, Cape Horn, Chile, the Sandwich Islands, Alaska, California, Monterey, Macao, Manila and Korea. They then set off for New Holland, where in January 1788 they rendezvoused at the northern-most headland of Botany Bay with some of the ships that were part of the First Fleet, which settled Australia. La Pérouse camped on the northern shore of Botany Bay at a place now named after him, and sailed out on 10 March that year, never to be seen again. The wreck of his vessel has since been discovered. Not surprisingly, the French Government is very proud of the La Perouse area, named after one of their great men.

One of the members of the La Perouse expedition, Father Receveur, died whilst visiting Botany Bay—the first European to be buried on Australian soil. His grave and its wonderful monument are at La Perouse, and we commemorate his death each year by holding a mass, with officials of the French community in Sydney proudly coming to visit the site. Once a year they also gather in the area to celebrate Bastille Day, a very colourful event.

One of the things that mark the French flavour of La Perouse is the museum. This old building, originally a cable station built for a telegraph line to New Zealand, at one time housed the only link Australia had to the outside world. I encourage people to visit the museum. It still has relics of the La Perouse expedition as well as many artefacts that mark the early colonisation and sea exploration and also commemorates and celebrates the local Aboriginal culture. You can spend a lot of time in the museum and still not see everything there.

The Friends of La Perouse Museum are a group who have dedicated themselves over the years not only to making sure that this museum is maintained but, along with the French government, to continue to ensure it gains the recognition that it deserves. I thank the French Government for gifting many of the artefacts and displays that are there to the Australian people as part of our bicentennial. I look forward to working with the friends and with other local residents who are committed to the La Perouse area, such as Charles and Carol Abela, Lynda Newnam, Greg Bond, David Costello from National Parks and Wildlife, and Norma Simms and Barbara Keeley from the Aboriginal community.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [4.34 p.m.]: I wish to recognise this evening the passing on 26 May 2007 of David Douglas Kirk Bennett. Dave was born on 29 December 1926 in Scotland. He had three loves—family, friends and golf. As he was born into a poor coalmining area, a good education was out of reach of everyone in the area. Dave started school at five years of age and left when he was 14. He was 18 when he joined the British Army, and after one year was sent to Japan to serve with the Occupation Forces. At the end of his service he applied to be demobbed in Australia.

When the troop ship Westralia arrived in Sydney those on board were taken to Army barracks, where Dave was informed his papers had not arrived from Japan. Because of this they could not give him any pay. He was, however, told that they would give him a railway pass to anywhere he wanted to go. Dave wanted to go to Broken Hill, a mining town close to the South Australian border: he had the address of his relations. He arrived at the railway station with his kitbag, a railway pass, a couple of cookhouse sandwiches, and no money—the sum of his worldly goods to start a new life in Australia.
The night Dave arrived in Australia he went to the house of his future wife's parents, where his family were staying. Dave and Helen had never met before. Dave had not even been able to contact his family in Australia to let them know he was safe. He knocked on the door and Helen answered. There was Dave, standing there looking very handsome in his soldier's uniform. They were both immediately smitten. On 18 July 1952 they married. Next month they would have been married for 55 years. Dave always said that he thought he was the luckiest man alive to have found such a beautiful woman to spend his life with.

As with all things, once Dave had made a commitment he stuck to it. He had the ultimate Presbyterian work ethic. At one point, following a mine accident, Dave had major back surgery. His son can still vividly remember Dave dragging himself out of bed, with the help of his wife, so that he could get to work. He would not let anyone down, and he was not going to be beaten. This never-say- die approach to life was the mainstay of Dave's life in his new country. He was a talented sportsman, and his never-give-up approach to sport was obvious in all that he played. He could put his hand to most things, and was a talented soccer, billiards and snooker player. He was also a talented musician, playing the euphonium.

As all who knew him recognised, golf was his life's passion. I had the honour of playing with Dave Bennett on many an occasion. His skill at the game, his enjoyment of it and his fellowship were well recognised. The time that Dave was prepared to put in to help anyone who wanted to learn how to play the game was immeasurable. He worked very hard for the Broken Hill Golf Club, and was made a life member of the club for that hard work and his love of the game.

Very few people end up being recognised for their contribution to their particular sport, so Dave was very proud when he was awarded the Australian Sports Medal during the Sydney Olympics in 2000 for contributions to the sport of golf. This was awarded by the Federal Government through the honours system, was signed by the Prime Minister and approved by Queen Elizabeth II. At the Broken Hill Golf and Country Club he won 11 club championships, 10 West Darling championships, numerous individual competitions, including foursomes and mixed foursomes, represented the club as a permanent player and also played in Adelaide in the champion of champions for his club. Dave was also the captain of the club for two years and was on various committees. And he was very proud of his two holes in one. Dave's greatest saying was, "I've tried poor. I think I'd like to try rich next time." Vale, David Douglas Kirk Bennett.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [4.38 p.m.]: Tonight I want to talk about a matter that concerns me and many of my constituents who follow, and regularly attend, Sydney Swans football club games. Being a member of the Swans club, I have for many years watched home games with other local fans—I might say members of my Australian Labor Party branches. Last Saturday night we witnessed a display of umpiring in the Swans' one-point loss to Essendon that defied belief and credibility.

Poor and inconsistent umpiring in AFL or cricket, or poor and inconsistent refereeing in soccer, football, the NRL, rugby union or any other sport is not new. Criticism of referees and umpires at the senior coaching level can result in a fine of up to $10,000. As a member of Parliament I can say, and put on the record, my views without being intimidated by a fine. It will cost me nothing to say this. I am sure these views are supported by Swans fans who would contribute to any fine the coach of the Sydney Swans had to pay last week. Umpiring in Swans games has been very poor for years. Andrew Demetriou, boss of the AFL, attacked the Swans type of football at the start of the 2005 season, the year the Swans won the AFL premiership.

In a game against the West Coast Eagles last year one umpire awarded the Swans one free kick and 14 against in their game in Perth. This trend has continued for the past two years at least. On Saturday night whenever the ball went anywhere near Essendon champion, James Hird, he seemed to inextricably fall over and a free kick was awarded to him if a Swans player was within 10 meters of him. Barry Hall cannot get anywhere near the ball lately because umpires seem to be on automatic pilot to penalise him. Sydneysiders saw a photo of Dustin Fletcher's forearm disfiguring Michael O'Loughlin's face in the final critical moments of the game, but no free kick was awarded to the Swans player. The 27,000 fans at the game and the hundreds of thousands of fans who saw it on television are still stunned that an Essendon player could clearly be out of bounds—the ball out of bounds as well—and kick to an Essendon player, who fluked what was to be the winning goal.

How did the Victorian umpires award a point to an Essendon kick after the half-time siren when all the Swans had headed to the sheds? Two Essendon players remained in the goal square remonstrating with field umpires and goal umpires until a point was controversially awarded to Essendon. The hands in the back rule is a joke. I fear that with the direction the AFL is taking footy it will soon deserve the moniker given to it years ago by the Whip and others who regard it as aerial ping-pong. It is time the AFL tried to get umpires from Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. The suspicion at the moment is that while Victorian­based clubs struggle against the other States perhaps games can be evened out on the footy field by Victorian umpires.

I have never seen a Sydney crowd react with such loathing and bitterness after a game as I saw on Saturday. It is a pity the award of the Marn Grook Trophy, which celebrates indigenous players in AFL, was overshadowed by the reaction of the crowd. It was unique to see umpires in Sydney escorted off the field by security and police at an Australian Rules game. People could say, "It's just a game." But it is not. As anyone who is a "sportsphile" knows, and sport was a fanaticism and a passion of mine and many other people before John Howard tried to claim total credit for his love of cricket, it is more than that. It is not just a game. Kevin Sheedy, legendary Essendon coach and former Richmond player, said it was good to see Sydney supporters get passionate about the game.

I would not discourage young people from becoming umpires. It must be a tremendous thrill to umpire at senior level. However, if the way the Swans have been treated by umpires continues I fear that Sydney crowds will smell a very dead rat and question the honesty of umpiring in Swans games. Sydney crowds, which have been fickle, might give away their support. The effort to establish AFL in the league, union and soccer heartland could be lost for good. True sports fans know that their team winning is not a matter of life and death; it is more important than that. If AFL umpires continue to butcher the Sydney Swans by the incomprehensible, outrageous, seemingly inexplicable mythical decisions the AFL will die in Sydney. The umpires on Saturday night certainly could have done with the assistance of guide dogs. Hopefully they went to see their optometrists after the match. Umpiring, like justice, must not only be seen to be fair, it must be fair. Last Saturday night at the Sydney Cricket Ground it was neither.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I recognise the passion for sport of the member for East Hills, but I suggest that someone will seek a right of reply to his comments.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [4.43 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to Bill Bradley, a resident of Hornsby, and a recent Hornsby Lions Club fundraiser under the banner of Sailability New South Wales to raise funds to enable him to purchase a Skud 18-foot boat to participate in trials to achieve his dream of competing in sailing at the 2008 Paralympics. Sailability is a non-profit worldwide organisation that supports and facilitates sailing activities for everyone, regardless of age or ability. It began in Australia in 1991 and is a program of Yachting Australia, which is a member of the International Foundation for Disabled Sailing. Sailability caters for people with a wide range of disabilities and experience. It has the support of State sporting authorities and works closely with a variety of disability organisations around Australia to ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to sail in safety, and experience adventure and freedom by building mobility, self-confidence and pride through achievement.

The fundraising dinner was held on Friday 25 May at Asquith Leagues Club in Waitara. I congratulate the club on its continued support for local community ventures. Bill Bradley is a man with a mission who is to be absolutely admired. At the age of 71, when most people would have thought seriously about retiring, he is not only still working but he has taken on the next challenge in a long line of challenges by trying to qualify to represent Australia in the Paralympic Games in Beijing. At the age of 14 Bill Bradley contracted polio, which left him a quadriplegic. He was not daunted by the prospect of never playing elite sport, and decided to organise sport for the youth. Over many years he has held numerous positions in a variety of sporting and community organisations, thus helping to keep thousands of children off the street. He has been involved with junior rugby league, cricket, basketball and Little Athletics, to name a few. In 1983 Bill started mini harness racing in the metropolitan area. He has been a member of the Hornsby Shire Council's Access Committee for the past 10 years.

In 1995 Bill's life changed from assisting to participating. He told his wife, Clover, who supports him 100 per cent, that he would take up bowls, at which he was very successful. Three years after that decision, and against all odds, Bill won the 1998 International Paralympic Committee's World Championship, which was held in South Africa. The trip to South Africa was the reason he took up lawn bowls. He won four international events. Bill had the honour of carrying the torch in the torch relay in the Sydney 2000 Olympics. He was even more honoured by supporting the Sydney Paralympic Games by working in protocol in the athletes' village. Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about Bill's other pursuits. However, I inform the House that he will compete in the World's Access Class Championships to be held between August and September at Whitby Yacht Club, Lake Ontario, Canada and the Combined ISAF Access World Championships to be held in September at the Rochester Yacht Club, New York, United States of America.

Bill Bradley is an extremely keen person. He is a wonderful man. I commend the Hornsby Lions Club for taking on his cause. There are many people to thank for the fundraiser, including Barry Palmer, Kathie Comb, the Bush Telegraph Weekly, the Hornsby Advocate , Teresa and David Ashton, Tracey Fitzpatrick, Jane Li, Maureen and John Purcell, Ray and Dell Phillipson, Lance Murchison, David Thompson and Anne Cropper, Neil Wagstaff, Riet van den Boogaard, and Pauline and Ted Henebery to name a view out of a very long list. I wish Bill Bradley every success. I have written to the Minister for Sport and Recreation to ask for assistance with funding to help this amazing man realise his dream of purchasing a Skud and participating not only in the trials but also in the Paralympics. I conclude with the following quote taken directly from the fundraising program:

When discovering new oceans, one must first have courage to lose sight of the shore.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [4.48 p.m.]: Today I draw to the attention of the House a fledgling new business in the Wyong electorate that is tackling the e-waste problem, working hard to improve the environment and at the same time creating local jobs. Recently I had the pleasure of visiting this business, Blue Marble E-Waste Services, to receive a briefing on its important work. Our society is increasingly embracing the mantra of a throw-away culture. Recently in Electronics News Ry Crozier wrote:

As few as 18% of Australian companies have initiated an environmental policy addressing issues of E-waste while a similar percentage don't recycle any materials, an alarming survey has found.

The survey, a joint effort from Clean Up Australia and Kyocera Mita, found that 34% of the 290 businesses surveyed had recycling policies, but only 52.6% of these addressed E-waste.

This is the equivalent of just over 18% of the total respondents.

A report released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics provides a national snapshot of environmental issues and trends. It shows that Australians are recycling nearly half their waste, 46 per cent, but are facing a major electronic waste, or e-waste, challenge. The report indicates that in Australia in 2006 there were approximately 1.6 million computers disposed of in landfills, and there are another 1.8 million in storage in addition to the 5.3 million that are already gathering dust in garages and other storage areas. According to the Advancing Australia report of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, only half a million computers have been recycled.

E-waste in Australia is estimated to be increasing at more than three times the rate of general municipal waste, which comprises domestic waste from households and other council waste, such as litter from park and street bins. The total amount of waste generated by Australians increased from 22.7 million tonnes in 1996-97 to 32.4 million tonnes in 2002-03, of which just over one-quarter was municipal waste. Australians are some of the highest users of new technology in the world. Ecorecycle Victoria figures show that each year Australians buy more than 2.4 million personal computers and more than one million televisions. However, the stockpile of used or obsolete electronic products keeps growing.

Our local e-waste business is working to convert this material into a resource stream rather than a waste stream, and is creating a path to sustainability. Blue Marble E-Waste Services is primarily motivated by the effect that e-waste is having on the environment and therefore the community. Computers and other electronic equipment contain a number of hazardous materials, including mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chlorides [PVCs]. Disappointingly, Australia is behind Europe, Asia and several states in the United States in taking responsibility for the management of computer waste.

Since 1991 some overseas governments have been developing and implementing policies to make producers responsible for products that have reached the end of their working lives. For example, in the Netherlands the collection and recycling of old computer products and other household appliances by manufacturers has been in place for several years. More recently, European Union laws were passed to require manufacturers of electronic goods to take back old equipment and implement recycling schemes. In addition, from July 2006 the use of heavy metals such as lead has been banned in the production of all electronic goods, including computers and monitors.

One of the major stumbling blocks to the industry is the safe and environmentally sound disposal of cathode ray tubes [CRTs]. Currently they can be disposed of effectively only overseas. The result is that cathode ray tubes are being stored, sent to landfills or illegally dumped. Our local Wyong company is partnering with the University of Newcastle to seek local solutions to this problem closer to home. Blue Marble E-waste is working hard to develop its business and create jobs. It is working hard to inform business, schools and local government of the company's important service. As a community, we must pay closer attention to the growing problem of the safe disposal of materials.

The principals of the company reliably inform me that there is great potential for money to be made from recycling electronic items if the volume is sufficient and if local facilities become available. Currently this small company provides its service to over 700 schools in the Central Coast, Hunter and Australian Capital Territory regions. It also provides a service to corporate and local government clients as well as to the general public. One of its newest initiatives to help to raise public awareness is the e-waste challenge for schools in the Gosford City Council's local area. The aim is to encourage school communities to drag out all those old and unwanted computers as well as other bits and pieces for safe and secure recycling. The school with the highest average weight of recycled equipment wins a prize. The company hopes to soon extend this initiative to the Wyong shire. I was able to facilitate contact between the company and the Wyong Shire Council's environment staff to assist. I commend this local Wyong company for its commitment and work in providing solutions to address this important issue of e-waste.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [4.53 p.m.]: In drawing to the attention of the House the issue of 000 calls and response times I do not in any way suggest that our ambulance officers are responsible. They do an excellent job under great pressure and deal with situations on a daily basis that some of us would never wish to come across in our lifetimes. I strongly record my appreciation for the work they do. However, ambulance officers and the general community are being let down by a system that has been centralised and does not adequately serve the residents of regional New South Wales. As recently as last week a constituent phoned my office regarding his daughter who had suffered a fit. As a result of miscommunication between the central dispatch service and the local ambulance service an ambulance arrived in 40 minutes when it should have arrived in 15 or 20 minutes. While my constituent accepts that there was a bad fog in the area, his home is in an easily locatable street. He believes the ambulance would have arriv ed earlier if the dispatch service had had a greater knowledge of the local area.

Another constituent called an ambulance after a guest in her home had an extreme allergic reaction to something she had eaten. As it appeared that the patient was in severe anaphylactic shock, the constituent's husband commenced driving the patient to hospital with the intention of meeting the ambulance on the single road to their home. This information was communicated clearly to the dispatch service. The patient arrived at the hospital in the private car 12 minutes later without meeting the yet-to-be-dispatched ambulance, which arrived at the constituent's front door 40 minutes later, looking for the patient. In this case my constituent believes that the patient's life would have been in grave danger if they had waited for the ambulance. She is concerned about the amount of time it took to advise the non-local dispatcher of their location prior to an ambulance being dispatched.

Given that lives and future health are at stake, the situation is very serious. It is beyond belief that ambulances must rely on street directories or two-way radio and mobile data terminals to communicate with dispatchers who have little local knowledge. In my electorate alone there have been far too many instances of delays in reaching patients because of the uncertainty of their location. This issue needs urgent consideration. However, the problems are not restricted to the ambulance service. The 000 service needs to be updated. I am embarking on a campaign to have the service updated. I am pleased to note that a presence in the Chamber of the Minister for Emergency Services because I wish to highlight a problem involving emergency services.

I refer to three towns in my electorate. The township of Drake receives police services from Tabulam and hospital and ambulance services from Bonalbo. Drake has a different telephone prefix from Tabulam and Bonalbo. Tabulam and Bonalbo have the 02-66 telephone prefix whereas Drake and Tenterfield have the 02-67 telephone prefix. A call from people who telephone 000 from a 02-67 telephone code will be received at Tenterfield. The local station is 10 minutes away at Tabulam but, because of the boundaries, an ambulance, a police officer, a doctor or an emergency service unit will be sent all the way from Tenterfield. The 000 call centre must have similar problems in other areas across this State because telephone prefixes do not marry with the nearest service centre in responding to calls for emergency assistance.

I have taken up this issue with Telstra because it operates 000. I suspect that this is a national problem, but certainly I know it is a problem in my electorate. I know of other people in the border districts who have had problems because ambulances have been sent from a centre corresponding to the caller's telephone prefix area which is much farther away than a centre in a different telephone prefix area. Each emergency service ¾ such as medical services, state emergency services, fire brigade services and police services ¾ is located in a different town but calls for emergencies assistance are distributed according to telephone prefix codes. This has to be rectified before any further casualties are caused. I appreciate that it will take a long time to correct the problem, but I hope a bipartisan approach will be adopted. The Government should highlight the concerns I have expressed to the 000 service operators. I have already dealt with the Telstra hierarchy in attempting to have the problem resolved. I have no doubt that this is a major problem that needs to be addressed urgently throughout New South Wales.

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie—Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Water Utilities) [4.58 p.m.]: I am happy to look into the matters raised by the member for Lismore as they pertain to emergency service access for the towns of Drake, Tabulum, Tenterfield and Bonalbo, in particular the emergency fire services. Where an issue needs to be resolved I am happy to raise it with my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for police and ambulance emergency services and, if necessary, take it up with Telstra.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour) [5.00 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the success of some local schools in my electorate. As members may be aware, World Environment Day took place earlier this week with a number of colourful events and activities staged throughout the world in an effort to encourage individuals and communities to pursue sustainable development. I am greatly encouraged to see the increasing levels of public involvement in environmental issues and I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House a number of exciting projects that are building upon the principles showcased through World Environment Day.

I recently had the pleasure of attending a planning meeting for the Climate Change and Sustainability Project involving a number of Dapto primary and secondary schools in my electorate. This initiative, in conjunction with the Illawarra Environmental Education Centre, aims to engage as well as educate students about the environmental impacts of the choices they make in their lives, both at school and at home. This innovative program represents a continued commitment by those schools to actively engage in addressing the critical issues of climate change, and it is a great source of motivation to see the youth of New South Wales enthusiastically thinking about and seeking to implement solutions to one of the most significant issues facing their generation.

The Climate Change and Sustainability Project builds upon the success of Dapto High School and its feeder schools in introducing innovative strategies to tackle climate change and promote environmental education. Over the past two years those schools have achieved outstanding results in securing State funding for a wide range of environmental projects. These projects include the Solar In Schools Program, which involves the installation of solar panels, educational resources and a portable solar panel, at an approximate cost of $25,000. Dapto High School contributed $1,000 to that project. The solar panel enables the school to generate electricity and to save approximately $350 per annum as well as allowing students from year 7 to year 12 to investigate clean energy sustainability.

The second project was the installation of rainwater tanks—two 10,000-litre water tanks for the primary purpose of irrigating Dapto High school's agriculture plot. The third project was the introduction of energy-efficient lighting at Dapto High School, which was selected as one of three pilot schools in New South Wales to trial a new, efficient lighting system. The system is designed to save money and conserve energy. The approximate cost was $180,000 and the program will be monitored over the next three years.

Dapto High School was successful, in conjunction with Wollongong City Council, for a fisheries environment conservation project, which involves the continued improvement to the habitat of Mullet Creek, which runs alongside the high school. The project involves the removal of noxious trees, stabilisation of creek banks and installation of an electric fence to keep animals out of Mullet Creek. That was an investment of $17,500. The dedication shown by these schools to begin the process of environmental protection and sustainability provides an excellent example to the local community of the practical measures that can be adopted in order to reduce the negative impact upon our environment.

I congratulate the students and teachers at Dapto High School, Dapto Public School and Mount Brown Public School on their participation and enthusiasm in taking the initiative to reduce their environmental footprint and to encourage a more sustainable future through education and positive action. As a mother of three, I worry about climate change and the impact it will have for my children and those in the future. I am proud to be part of a government committed to addressing the issue of climate change with the ongoing implementation of a vast number of practical initiatives designed to tackle the environmental challenges facing New South Wales.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [5.05 p.m.]: A few weeks ago I received a letter from Mrs Jan Marsden of Albury advising me that she had been associated with the Country Women's Association [CWA] for quite some years and was surprised that, to her knowledge, no national or State recognition has ever been given to Country Women's Association volunteers for their efforts in establishing and maintaining the baby health care services throughout Australia. She made reference to the recent ABC television program, Not only tea and scones , which reminded past and present members of the camaraderie that lies at the heart of the association and she confirmed that tea and scones did indeed finance and maintain many buildings that catered for the needs of country women, that housed baby health care centres and that provided places for friendship, mutual help and support long before it was recognised that those services were needed.

Mrs Marsden noted that as a national body the membership would be as powerful as any union and while the Country Women's Association has been referred to as the "Cranky Women's Association" and more recently as "Chicks with Attitude", the association has been a thinking and doing group of ladies and their contribution to the building of this nation deserves recognition. This year the Albury branch of the Country Women's Association celebrates its eightieth anniversary, on 12 June, and I am pleased to be attending a luncheon in the CWA Hall to celebrate the achievements over the years. The Country Women's Association of New South Wales, the first group in Australia, was founded in 1922 at a Bushwomen's Conference held in conjunction with the Royal Agricultural Show in Sydney. So it was no surprise that a group of Albury women met in the show society's room in Albury on 5 April 1927 to form the Albury Branch of the Country Women's Association. Mrs Norman Welsh was the first president, and Mrs Thompson was the secretary.

The branch had 55 members at the outset and its first venture was to establish a rest and tearoom, like that in Wagga Wagga. The rest and tearoom was located in Amp Lane, but within a short space of time, it moved to the main street, Dean Street. Early in 1928 Dr Cleaver Woods spoke to the branch on the need for a baby health clinic. This was no easy task. The branch had to get approval from the Department of Health and had to employ a baby health sister. But, by the end of 1928, the baby health care clinic was up and running. Socially the tearoom was a good thing, but financially it had its problems.

When the Depression hit, the tearoom function ceased and fundraising ensured the continuation of the baby health clinic. Card parties were held and stalls were good money raisers, as were balls and an annual fair. The branch also conducted a rest room at the Albury Show. They made lots of money through catering for the annual motor show in Albury in those days and other fundraising efforts were instigated. The health clinic had immediate popularity. In 1929 it registered well over 5,000 attendances. In 1931 the Albury branch had 181 members who participated in the wider affairs of the association throughout the State. A motion to the State conference promoted the practice of purchasing Australian-made and Australian-grown produce. A Country Women's Association Younger Set was formed soon after the parent branch. This comprised of young women, usually until they married, and they would help in the more adventurous and youth-orientated functions. Younger sets were indeed very active, but they tended to fade away in the 1970s.

In 1933 negotiations began with the Department of Lands to purchase land in Kiewa Street to build a baby health centre. Seventy-five per cent of the funds had to be on hand before the building could begin. Dr Cleaver Woods laid the foundation stone on 18 December 1934 and the Albury Country Women's Association supported and maintained the baby health centre right up until 1981, when it was taken over by the Department of Health. During the Second World War members made jackets, socks, mittens, caps and also camouflage nets for the services. With the end of the war came the immigration scheme and maybe the first friendly contact these newcomers had with Australian women was via the Albury Country Women's Association.
As Albury-Wodonga housed Australia's largest migrant reception centre at Bonegilla, ladies from the Country Women's Association took on the activity of entertaining busloads from Bonegilla. As the restrooms proved to be too small an extension was proposed and that came to fruition by the end of 1956. Members later took on the task of delivering meals on wheels when that service began in Albury in 1963. These days activities include knitting and sewing garments for premature babies and sick children and making up emergency toilet packs, amongst other things, for emergency services and people in hospitals. I look forward to attending the luncheon on 12 June and welcoming two of the oldest members—one aged 94 and one aged 90—of the total current membership of 32 of the Albury Country Women's Association. I congratulate it on its eightieth anniversary.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn—Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.10 p.m.]: Today I honour the late Roy Mundine senior, who lived in my electorate of Auburn for many years. In the Chamber today are the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Paul Lynch, and the Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering, the Hon. Linda Burney, who is proud of her Aboriginal heritage and descent. I have no doubt that Roy would be embarrassed by such attention—a testament to his humility, which inspires us all. Because of time constraints I cannot in this statement do justice to Roy's vast achievements and his vibrant spirit. However, I would like to highlight some aspects of Roy's life and character that to me identify him as an extraordinary human being.

Roy Mundine senior, affectionately known as "Fardi" by his extended family, was born around 14 January 1919. The very uncertainty of this date is not only a reflection of the treatment of Aboriginal Australians at the time but also a sign of the humble nature of his beginnings. Roy was brother to five sisters and he was the youngest of seven sons. His brothers spent their youth working in the unmitigated harshn Roy Mundine senior, affectionately known as "Fardi" by his extended family, was born around 14 January 1919. The very uncertainty of this date is not only a reflection of the treatment of Aboriginal Australians at the time but also a sign of the humble nature of his beginnings. Roy was brother to five sisters and he was the youngest of seven sons. His brothers spent their youth working in the unmitigated harshness of asbestos mines. Sadly, all six of Roy's brothers died during their forties and fifties. However, destiny held a different course for Roy, who became involved in major construction projects as a worker and operator of grading machines. Whilst working on the Darwin to Alice Springs Road in 1939, as a young man aged 20, Roy was engaged on the frontline as a spotter of incoming enemy aircraft. His bravery in the face of imminent danger subsequently resulted in the granting of a civilian service medal.

This selfless patriotism in spite of the intensely cruel rejection of his very identity as an indigenous Australian was an early sign of the outstanding character and nature of the man to come. Around that same time Roy, being Aboriginal, was forced to apply for an exemption certificate, or dog pass, as it was casually known, if he wanted to continue working. He carried that pass with him until the day he died as a deeply personal reminder not only of the injustice that once was but as a symbol of his commitment to ensuring equality for all. By then Roy was married to his dearly beloved wife, Olive, also known to many as Dolly. Together they tackled life and all its challenges head on, marked by honour and sheer hard work, which in hindsight almost defies imagination. For decades on end, and without thought for himself, Roy worked seven days a week, 16 hours a day. Roy was a loving father, friend and counsel to his 11 children as well as many others whom he also embraced out of the goodness of his heart.

Raising such a large family and having an open home required some degree of security, so in the early 1950s Roy attempted to buy a house with the assistance of a bank loan. However, as he was Aboriginal he was denied even such a simple commercial service. But Roy's immense love for his family and for those in need invigorated him with a fresh resolve to realise his dream. Eventually he was able to track down a local moneylender who agreed to provide the money at a higher rate of interest. Without a second thought Roy accepted the offer. In the meantime, Roy's life was to take on added dimensions of service to the Aboriginal and wider communities. His passionate involvement as a union member proved instrumental in cutting a path of equality for other workers. Roy was instrumental in ensuring that Aboriginal Australians were entitled to fair rates of pay on par with white workers.

Beyond these many selfless pursuits Roy became deeply immersed in the activities of the Catholic Church. His deep faith was marked by a love for justice, reconciliation and compassion for the poor and vulnerable. Roy's spirit burns bright to this very day in the lives of his children, grandchildren, great­grandchildren and the many others who were touched and inspired by him. In the spirit of their father, Roy Mundine Jnr, Anne, Olive, Kaye, Charles, Djon, Peter, Phillip, Warren, James and Graeme make significant contributions at the very highest levels of the civil service, academia, human rights, politics, the arts, the armed forces, pri Beyond these many selfless pursuits Roy became deeply immersed in the activities of the Catholic Church. His deep faith was marked by a love for justice, reconciliation and compassion for the poor and vulnerable. Roy's spirit burns bright to this very day in the lives of his children, grandchildren, great­grandchildren and the many others who were touched and inspired by him. In the spirit of their father, Roy Mundine Jnr, Anne, Olive, Kaye, Charles, Djon, Peter, Phillip, Warren, James and Graeme make significant contributions at the very highest levels of the civil service, academia, human rights, politics, the arts, the armed forces, private industry and the church. His example of a life so marvellously lived over almost 90 years lays down an undeniable challenge to us all—one of selflessness, strength and devotion to just causes.
Roy remained until the end free from cynicism and bitterness that easily could have consumed lesser men had they walked in his shoes. I extend my heartfelt condolences to his children, extended family and friends and the Aboriginal community on their loss. Roy was an outstanding person who made an immeasurable mark on the New South Wales community. His legacy will remain with us for a long time to come and his memory lives on in those who love him. I thank those members who are present today to hear this tribute to Roy Mundine.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [5.15 p.m.]: I acknowledge that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Paul Lynch, is in the Chamber. I thank all members who are present to listen to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, the Hon. Barbara Perry. I pay attribute to Roy "Fardi" Mundine. The member for Camden, who is in the Chamber, knew Roy and is a great friend of the Mundine clan. I thank the Minister for her beautiful statement and I echo her sentiments. Mr Roy Mundine was a great man and his legacy is greater still. As a Bundjalung elder he was greatly respected and loved. I note that the Acting-Speaker, the member for Lismore, is from Bundjalung country.

Roy Mundine was a man with strength and fortitude and a man concerned with bettering the lives of his fellow Australians who were held back by discrimination. Roy was tall, straight, handsome and funny. Roy carried that dreadful dog tag from the time it was issued to him until the time of his death. Some things have changed but too many have stayed the same. But Mr Mundine's efforts and his life are an inspiration to all Australians, no matter what their background. Mr Mundine loved his family, his football, the union movement and the Labor Party—a true Bundjalung warrior.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George) : I extend my sympathy to the family of Roy Mundine. I am sure that I speak for all members of this House.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [5.17 p.m.]: When I was a child my father often got calls from Yass police station to advise him that he would need to fix one of our fences along the Barton Highway in the hills and curves section between Yass and Murrumbateman because another vehicle had come off the highway and gone through the fence. Throughout my adolescence and into my adulthood my father continued to receive these calls and, until his death in September 2005, he continued to fix the relevant fences, which was always a grim task. Together we lobbied community groups, governments and anyone we thought could help to achieve the construction of the Murrumbateman bypass, which was first proposed in the 1970s.

This week Mr Graham Madge visited my electorate office to express concern about the delay in starting work on the duplication of the Barton Highway. On 25 May this year Mr Madge's 74-year-old mother was killed in a fatal accident on the Barton Highway and his father, who was in a critical condition in Canberra Hospital for some time, tragically also passed away. A 47-year-old woman from Canberra who was travelling by car to Yass was involved in the accident and died at the scene, so it was a triple fatality. Mr Madge's comments underline the human impact on the lives of everyday people due to delays in upgrading this dangerous stretch of road. This terrible accident occurred on a part of the Barton Highway near the Gounyan Road intersection—the site of two earlier fatalities, in February 2004 and May 2005. A further 27 people have been injured in this area.

The Barton Highway covers a distance of only 54 kilometres between the Hume Highway near Yass in the north and its intersection with the Federal Highway inside the Australian Capital Territory. Over this length it also passes through the growing community of Murrumbateman, which has been waiting for many years for the commencement of the bypass. The preferred route was finally announced in 2001 after much community consultation, of which my family and I were very much a part. About four kilometres of the northern part of the highway and all 12 kilometres of the highway in the Australian Capital Territory are of modern, separated dual­carriageway construction. Accidents rarely occur on these sections of road. The remaining 38-odd kilometres of the Barton Highway are narrow, winding, single-lane, undivided road. There are few overtaking opportunities, distant sight lines are poor and vehicles pass each other barely a metre apart at a potential impact closing speed of about 200 kilometres per hour—often much faster. This is a dangerous road.

The most recent official accident statistics released for the Barton Highway finish at the end of 2005. In the five years between 2001 and 2005 there were 139 crashes on the Barton Highway, including 7 fatalities, 50 injury crashes and 82 non-injury crashes. Remember, those accidents occurred on a 38-kilometre length of single-carriageway road. Some 57 kilometres of the Hume Highway, which is another Federal Government road, are in the Yass Valley shire. The entire length of the Hume Highway in Yass Valley shire is separated dual carriageway. Although the Hume carries much greater traffic volumes there have been only four fatalities on the road during the same period. The six-year average of fatalities per kilometre makes the Barton Highway statistically the second most dangerous major highway in New South Wales. It is second only to the Pacific Highway.

During my past eight years in the New South Wales Parliament I have made frequent representations about the need to start the Murrumbateman bypass immediately and upgrade the whole length of the Barton Highway. Following my representations to the State Minister for Roads on 2 April 2004 he recommended the commencement of the Murrumbateman bypass to the Federal Government as a priority in the "New South Wales National Highways Forward Strategy Report for 2004-5 to 2008-9". When the Federal Government released its AusLink white paper in June 2004 it contained no funding for upgrading the Barton Highway to separated dual carriageway. The current round of the AusLink program provides funding of $108 million for the Newell Highway, $102 million for the New England Highway and $463 million for the Hume Highway. They are all worthy projects but each one of those major highways has fewer fatalities per kilometre than the Barton Highway.

Since 2004 the Federal Government has budgeted $20 million for initial planning and land acquisition for the Murrumbateman bypass. But the Federal Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads has stated that a commencement date for the Murrumbateman bypass will not even be announced until after 2008­09. This is not acceptable to the residents of the Yass area and the many Canberra and regional users of the Barton Highway. In June 2005 I presented to the New South Wales Parliament a petition bearing almost 2,500 signatures calling for the early start of construction of a dual carriageway on the Barton Highway. Following yet another fatality in 2005 the Mayor of Yass Valley Shire, Nic Carmody—who, like me, is frustrated at the delay—sent me a copy of a letter that he wrote the Federal Roads Minister. In part, it said:

Deaths and injuries on the highway continue to occur. These are costly for the general community and painful for the local community as the victims are often local residents.

I derive no satisfaction from seeing my prediction of continuing tragedy and trauma on the Barton Highway being realised. Simply put, construction work on the duplication of the Barton Highway must get off the starting blocks without delay, otherwise this dangerous stretch of road will continue to claim more lives.

Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [5.22 p.m.]: I will update the House on matters pertaining to a proposed development at Catherine Hill Bay. Members will be aware that a proposal by development company Rosecorp to develop 600 new dwellings at Catherine Hill Bay has been a source of significant controversy for Catherine Hill Bay residents and the entire Swansea electorate. It is with great enthusiasm that I report to the House that the original concept plan, as proposed by Rosecorp, has been set aside and arrangements have been put in place to develop another. I hope that a new plan, which will be available for public scrutiny in the near future, will better take account of community concerns and recognise current planning provisions in the Government's coastal policy and design guidelines, particularly section 1.6, "New Coastal Settlements: Villages and Hamlets", of "Coastal Design Guidelines for NSW (2003)".

Of particular importance to the House is the interim report of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel. The panel is chaired by Dr Gabrielle Kibble, former Director General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. She is accompanied by two other members, Andrew Andersen and Mike Collins. The panel was established at the behest of Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, and its role is to consider and advise the Minister of:

1. (a) following impacts of the project in relation to:

· Heritage Conservation
· Built form and Urban Design
· Visual Impact
· Appropriateness of the proposed Urban Footprints
· Access to coastal and recreation areas
· Vehicle and Pedestrian circulation on site and in the locality

(b) relevant issues raised in submissions in regard to these impacts, and

(c) adequacy of the proponents response to the issues raised in submissions, and

2. Identify and comment on any other related significant issues raised in submissions or during the Panel Hearings.
The panel reviewed the concept plan and found that it was unacceptable in the form submitted. The panel's major concerns related to non-compliance with the Government's coastal policy and design guidelines and best­practice coastal planning; the impacts on the scenic, aesthetic and cultural heritage qualities of Catherine Hill Bay; the lack of a clear, considered design approach that responds to the environmental attributes of the sites; the failure of the development to provide for high-quality access by the public to the beach front, open­space areas, coastal walkways, cycle paths and so on; the incorporation of significant unsympathetic developments on the headland, ridgelines and so on; the inclusion of a significant number of tourist beds in a highly visually prominent location on the ridgeline of Catherine Hill Bay; and the limited consideration of adaptive reuse potential for existing structures. Similar concerns were also expressed in relation to a proposed development at Gwandalan.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the work of the independent panel so far. I record my appreciation for its hard work, impartiality and capability in consulting the reference group and community members, and perusing more than 2,000 written submissions that detail community concerns. I also state my appreciation for the mature contribution by the Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association—especially its President, Brian Cogan, and Secretary, Sue White. They have had to manage a difficult situation. On the one hand the Government is enthusiastic about transferring a large tract of private land to the national estate but, on the other hand, major changes are proposed to an idyllic, small hamlet with a wonderful history and heritage. They have done well in the circumstances. I implore the developer to continue to work with the local community and the independent panel. I am sure that if genuine negotiations continue in this vein a position of mutual conclusion can be reached. I look forward to continuing my involvement with the project and hopefully securing a satisfactory conclusion.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast) [5.27 p.m.]: I feel compelled to convey to the House many of the comments and concerns of the Shoalhaven Mental Health Fellowship. I will also share my views on what I regard as a serious shortfall in mental health resources in the Shoalhaven area. I am extremely grateful that members of the local mental health fellowship in the Shoalhaven meet regularly with me to discuss mental health matters in the community and to report whether any progress at all is being made in this area. The latest comments from the fellowship suggest that service provision in the Shoalhaven is inadequate to meet community needs. Unlike in other similar regional areas, there is a comparative need locally for increased funding of mental health infrastructure.

The fellowship raised four specific concerns with me. The Shoalhaven needs a 20-bed acute mental health unit—I have spoken about this issue many times in this place—that is located at Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital. Local people must currently use the acute ward at Shellharbour Hospital, which means a two-hour drive for some residents and their families. The Nowra and Ulladulla community mental health teams need significant enhancement, including separate acute assessment teams and case management teams. The teams need to be doubled in size as their number of case managers has not increased for two years. The teams should be considered key infrastructure in the provision of mental health care.

There must be a functional working partnership between public mental health and drug and alcohol services, as many people with mental illness need to access both services. A working partnership would require dual assessments, co-case management and routine case reviews as the two services currently do not communicate or share information. Finally, the fellowship points to the need for more supported accommodation places in the Shoalhaven for people with mental illness as part of the Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative [HASI]. There are currently two Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative places in Ulladulla and four in Nowra, but we need more places locally. We must have quality partnerships between the community mental health team and non-government organisations if this initiative is to succeed.

The philosophy of the fellowship underlines all the issues raised above. It states that people who have a mental illness should have access to individualised and holistic care in the community in which they live. The provision of adequate mental health services in the community can help these people to progress in their recovery and achieve a more satisfactory and productive life in their community. This level of support in the community, in addition to helping people who have a mental illness attain a degree of wellness in their preferred living environment, can also aid in preventing relapse into illness and expensive and unnecessary hospital admissions.
I certainly appreciate the efforts of the Mental Health Fellowship on behalf of those suffering mental illness in the Shoalhaven community. These issues have been prepared and conveyed to me by Jon Strang, the group leader, Matthew Sproule, the secretary, and Tony Turner, the treasurer. I urge the relevant Ministers to take note of the growing needs of the mentally ill in the large, growing area of the Shoalhaven, and support the efforts by groups such as the fellowship to provide assistance and advocacy to those in need. I also congratulate the fellowship on the organisation of the recent Schizophrenia Fellowship fundraising dinner, which was, as always, a fantastic evening and enjoyed by all.

Again I remind the relevant Ministers of the State Labor Government's promise in the lead-up to the 2007 State election, and announced by the former Minister for Housing, that there would be a further eight Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative places allocated to the Shoalhaven. I urge the Government to keep this promise. Finally, I reiterate the four major needs in the Shoalhaven relating to mental health: a 20-bed acute mental health unit, about which I have spoken many times in this place before; enhanced staffing for Nowra and Ulladulla community mental health teams; a partnership between mental health and drug and alcohol services; and more supported accommodation places in the Shoalhaven.

The inadequacy of mental health resources—about which I have just spoken, as I have many times before—also affects the electorate of Kiama, since the southern part of the electorate also needs to access resources at Shoalhaven Hospital, which are severely limited. I hope that the member for Kiama will join me in trying to pressure the Government into recognising the need for additional places at Shoalhaven Hospital and the need for other resources that are severely limited within the Shoalhaven area.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [5.31 p.m.]: Mr Acting-Speaker, as this is the first occasion I have spoken while you have been in the chair since your elevation to your esteemed position I take this opportunity to extend to you my sincere congratulations.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Thank you.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: Today I recognise a very significant event in the community of north-western Sydney—a very major part of my electorate—the Rite of Dedication last Saturday 2 June of the new church for the parish of Blessed John XXIII. In 2002 Father Paul Venticinque, a young priest, was given the opportunity to become parish priest of this new parish. He started with nothing in an area which in those days had lots of open space and very few homes. Today the situation is vastly different. It is a thriving location. There were two polling booths, with a total vote of more than 5,000, for this year's election; nothing existed in the area during the 2003 election. That is an indication of just how fast the area is growing—and of course the parish is growing with it.

Father Paul had a very challenging task in establishing a new parish and a new congregation, and he has done an admirable job. The church is now the focal centre of a number of suburbs within my electorate: Glenwood, Stanhope Gardens, Acacia Gardens, Kellyville Ridge and the newest of the suburbs, known as The Ponds. In all of these suburbs almost every week a new street establishes itself. Just to give an indication of how fast the area is growing, the new church of Blessed John XXIII is also the focal religious centre of three schools that have been established in the area over the past five years, namely, Holy Cross Primary at Glenwood, the Blessed John XXIII Primary School at Stanhope Gardens and St Mark's High School, also at Stanhope Gardens.

The Rite of Dedication was a beautiful ceremony that lasted about two hours, but for those of us who were privileged enough to have been there it felt like five minutes. The Rite of Dedication of a new church is a very significant step in the life of any community, but it is also a beautiful ceremony and people, whether Catholics or non-Catholics, thronged in their hundreds to the church. There were more than 1,000 people present within the congregation for this very important event. In the foreword to the official booklet that was printed for the Rite of Dedication Father Paul Venticinque made a point of saying:

Business enterprises come and go, but that is not the case with parishes. Once a parish is established it can easily exist for 500 years, even 1000 or more.

With a name like Venticinque one can forgive him for thinking in the context of something that dates back to the foundation of the church 2,000 years ago in some of the parishes of Italy. He continued in the foreword:

The same is true of a parish church, once built, it can be there for hundreds of years.

Obviously, these are very laudable ambitions and expectations. I am very proud to be the representative of an area that is so closely knit: a multicultural community representing many persons from many different parts of the world—the Filipino community, the Korean community, the Sikh community, the Hindu community and, of course, indigenous Australians. The church is a very important cultural centre as well as a religious centre for everyone.

I conclude by recognising the fact that tomorrow is the first anniversary of the dedication of the statue of St Thomas More in this Parliament, in the Speaker's garden. This has been a very significant week for a number of us as we have had to debate an issue that very much impacted upon the conscience of individuals. I also take great pride in the fact that we have at Parliament House the statue of St Thomas More, which is there to permanently remind us at all times the reasons why he was made the patron saint of statesmen and politicians by the late Pope John Paul II on 31 October 2000. Pope John Paul II stated:

Precisely because of the witness which he bore, even at the price of his life, to the primacy of truth over power, Saint Thomas More is venerated as an imperishable example of moral integrity.

We saw that very much this week, and I once again take this opportunity to thank Cardinal George Pell for bestowing the statue to Parliament House. I congratulate Father Paul Venticinque on the establishment of his parish and the Rite of Dedication of his church.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [5.36 p.m.]: I am pleased to make a private member's statement concerning the impact of changes to the north-west rail link as they affect the Epping electorate. On Tuesday 5 June the Minister for Transport informed the House that a preferred proposal had been lodged with the Department of Planning seeking approval. He stated that the proposal includes a direct tunnel connection between Epping station and Franklin Road station at Cherrybrook. This is a significant change from what the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation had proposed last November, which greatly upset residents of the Beecroft and Cheltenham area in particular.

That proposal would have done great environmental damage to Cheltenham and Beecroft, including a dive tunnel going under the Beecroft tennis courts, the village green and the Beecroft Public School, and also probably causing the destruction of the scout hall, sleep disturbances and traffic congestion, and needing four extra train lines from Epping to Beecroft, plus an additional two crossover lines. It would have required the rebuilding of Cheltenham station and Cheltenham Road Bridge and a widening of the rail cuttings.

It is a great victory for people power. Like thousands of residents of those suburbs, I strenuously opposed the proposal of the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation, which had involved little or no public consultation. I commend the Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust for its magnificent campaign on behalf of the residents in that area, particularly its president Caroline Watt and Malcolm Powell.

I commend the more than 800 residents who made written submissions against the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation proposal. In its environmental assessment, released late last year, the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation referred to another option. That option was to have the railway proceed by tunnel from Franklin Road to Epping and to use stub tunnels already in place at Epping as part of a discontinued proposal to build a link from Parramatta to Chatswood via Carlingford and Epping, a broken promise of the Carr Government.

I strike a note of caution. The Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation had said in its assessment that the tunnel option required a separate environmental assessment to establish what the impact would be for residents of Epping. That does not appear to have been done, although submissions are now being invited on the new proposal. The Epping Civic Trust, which I have consulted, is concerned that no consultation has been had with residents in Epping who may be affected by the new proposal. It is also concerned as to the potential impact of the north-west rail link tunnel on what the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation has claimed will be a future Epping to Parramatta rail link, and whether it jeopardises the link. Epping Civic Trust president Graham Lovell has worked very hard for his area, and he is naturally concerned that the residents closer to Epping station, who are already greatly inconvenienced by the Chatswood-Epping rail link, on which building has been going on for years, may again be the subject of interference and noise and other types of pollution.

I also commend the member for Riverstone for his contribution by noting the first anniversary of the dedication of the statue of Sir Thomas More to this Parliament. I am the president of the Sir Thomas More Society of Lawyers, and wish to announce that on our patronal feast day, 22 June, there will be a special function at the Notre Dame University, where our patron, His Eminence Cardinal Pell, will speak on whether Australia or New South Wales needs a bill of rights. He will speak against the need for such a bill.

We are very honoured to have His Eminence as our patron. He has been the subject of considerable attacks over the past few days. His words have been misinterpreted and his reputation has been sullied. I support His Eminence to the hilt. I believe what he said was guidance for members of Catholic persuasion who were to vote on the bill. I support what he said. I was not in any way suborned by what he said, and do not believe that he was threatening or in any way implying threats to anyone. It is a matter for all individual members whether their conscience allows them to continue to practise their faith.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [5.41 p.m.]: I make this private member's statement today to draw the attention of the House to a group of residents in my electorate of Marrickville, including Jo-Anne Sharkey, Eddie Corrigan, Grant Kennewell and Steve McGoldrick, who are actively campaigning to save the Henson Park Hotel. The historic Henson Park Hotel has been the much-loved local hotel for the surrounding residents for many years and, of course, it is just down the road from the home of the mighty Newtown Jets. The pub has had a close association with the club, its fans and players for many years. It is a great hotel, with a great atmosphere—a real local where people gather to have a drink and a meal and meet friends and neighbours.

The Henson Park Hotel was built in 1936 on the original site of the Town Hall Hotel. The current owners, the Waugh Hotel Management Group, have indicated their desire to relocate the hotel to new premises further along Illawarra Road in Marrickville. Marrickville council is currently considering a development application from the hotel management group to use the Illawarra Road premises as a hotel with gaming facilities. The Waugh Hotel Management Group had also lodged an application with the Office of Liquor and Gaming to move the Henson Park Hotel's liquor licence to the new premises on Illawarra Road. While the hotel group have now withdrawn this application, its development application is still being considered by council and the Waugh group have given no indication that they have revised their desire to relocate the Henson Park Hotel.

The patrons of the Henson Park Hotel have been running an active campaign to save their local. The residents are concerned not just about losing their local pub but also about the suitability of the proposed new site. I share their concerns. The proposed new site is in the heart of the Marrickville shopping centre and within a few hundred metres of three other licensed premises. The Marrickville shopping centre does not need what has been described by some as a shopfront gambling outlet. The patrons of the Henson Park Hotel are an extraordinary bunch. This is truly a community hotel, with many long-time patrons. As Jo-Anne Sharkey, one of the residents campaigning to save the hotel has explained to me, there is a caring community spirit amongst the patrons. I give two examples.

The first is the fund-raising done by patrons and their physical support to the local charity, the "Fighting Father Dave" Youth Centre, which is well known to Marrickville residents. On three occasions the patrons have held an annual event that showcased Father Dave's work with disadvantaged young people and have raised more than $40,000. The children in Father Dave's scheme and their families have come along and enjoyed barbecues and entertainment in a welcoming environment at the Henson Park Hotel. Of course, the hotel has benefited from the fund-raising undertaken by patrons.

The second example is the support provided to a very elderly member of the community who has been coming to the hotel for most of his life. He manages to make it up the road to the hotel from his home, where he now lives alone since his wife died some years back. All the staff and patrons keep an eye out for him. They escort him across the road and back home if he is unsure in the dark. One patron mows his lawns for him and when he recently found himself in hospital due to a fall, patrons gathered around to help out with transport and other needs. These types of people and relationships are not nurtured in the modern style of hotel that has rapidly been replacing the local. That demonstrates just what the Henson Park Hotel provides for its local community. It is much, much more than a pub; it is a meeting place, a venue for people to come together in a comfortable environment. It has a great outside garden, where parents can come along with their children and enjoy a meal and convivial company. It has had a lot of support from local residents.

It is unfortunate that in this day and age, for a whole range of reasons, we are seeing the demise of the local hotel. Often these hotels are being refurbished and replaced with modern, shiny chrome and steel facilities. I am the first to admit that there is a place for such hotels. Nonetheless, many local communities prefer their pub to be a truly local pub, if slightly scruffy. They want their local to be a place where they can have a drink, have a meal and play a game of pool without breaking the bank. I support the residents of Marrickville in their campaign to save the Henson Park Hotel. I hope we are successful. They are working very hard to have this community hotel remain at the heart of the community and continue to provide a wonderful environment, much­needed entertainment and support for local residents. I support them in that campaign.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [5.46 p.m.]: I want to speak about the proposed Wallarah 2 coal project. In doing so I acknowledge the member for Wyong, who also has an interest in this matter. Lake Macquarie and the Central Coast have a long history of coalmining, but there is increasing opposition to new coal and gas projects throughout the region. On 17 November 2006 an application was lodged by Kim In-sik on behalf of the Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture. The applicant seeks to extract coal by longwall mining for a period of 28 years. This application can be viewed as the first stage of a proposal launched last year for a 42­year project. The application states that the project will provide 300 ongoing jobs.

The energy extracted from five million tonnes per year over 28 years, were it sourced from renewable energy technologies, would also provide significant jobs. It may not be the role of the proponent to assess the employment available from alternative energy sources, but I believe it is the responsibility of the New South Wales Government to do so. Whenever coal projects are being considered more attention needs to be given to our energy future, our employment and sustainable use of land and water resources.

There will be a chain of events in our transition to energy efficiency and renewable energy. The first domino has already fallen. In late 2006 the New South Wales Land and Environment Court ruled that the climate change impacts of new industries, including burning of coal from New South Wales mines, should be considered in the approval process. This court decision is a powerful message that coalmines do not exist in vacuo. Our collective experience shows that longwall coalmining has serious effects on our land, water and air. The current proposal offers the same assurances as its predecessors and, therefore, threatens the same failures and impacts. The second domino is falling.

Climate change is almost universally accepted as a real threat with an imminent impact on our lifestyle and the opportunities for future generations. If the term "intergenerational equity" ever referred to an abstract idea without practical application, that time has gone. If there is a choice between 300 jobs in the coal industry for less than one generation's working life or a similar number of jobs in a clean and sustainable future, I believe our community would choose the latter. The Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 confirmed a legal requirement to consider intergenerational equity. This is clearly a case for its application. Now is the time to embrace an orderly change to energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Under the Government's development strategies, Lake Macquarie and Wyong will be increasingly urbanised. This urban development must be delivered with adequate and timely provision of services. It also must be delivered with empathy to its sensitive natural environment and free of impacts from incompatible developments. The Wallarah 2 coal project website contains confidently expressed statements that groundwater will not be affected. These are the same sorts of statements made for other longwall mines. Property owner Peter Quist of Wakefield in the Lake Macquarie local government area found that his land suffered a complete loss of flow in Diega Creek after it was undermined. The Australian Coal Alliance, based on advice from a mining engineer, has publicly stated:

We do have substantive and compelling evidence that the mine will impact on the integrity of the water catchment. Throughout Australia, longwall coalmining has had a destructive impact on water systems.

The particular risk to surface water is that the project site occupies a significant portion of the catchment that collects 68 per cent of the water in Wyong and Gosford local government areas. This proposed longwall mine only has to deliver the same result as those before it and it will be an unnatural disaster. One crack in the Dooralong and Yarramalong valley floors could result in much of the water supply of the area disappearing. The Central Coast is on long-term level 4 water restrictions and this longwall mining proposal is simply too much of a risk. Another risk is the coal loader proposed for Tooheys Road, 2.4 kilometres from Warnervale, which is the Central Coast's largest proposed growth centre. The PMIO zone, the identified dust risk area for respiratory ailments and cancer, would cover much residential development within the local government areas of Wyong and Lake Macquarie.

The Wallarah 2 coal project has been proposed by the Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture. This, in turn, is 82.5 per cent owned by the Korean Government through the Korea Resource Corporation and 12.5 per cent owned by other Korean interests. The major benefit from this project accrues not to the people of New South Wales but to a foreign government that does not share the risk. The benefits to the Korean Government would be huge. The benefits to New South Wales would be questionable. Our local communities are telling the Government that they believe the risk is not worth it and that this type of development is no longer compatible with our heavily populated and ecologically fragile coastal strip.

Private members' statements noted.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry Collier, on behalf of Mr David Campbell.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Mobile Phones in Places of Detention) Bill 2007 amends the Summary Offences Act 1988, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 to make it an offence for an inmate to use a mobile phone in a place of detention—that is, a correctional centre, correctional complex or periodic detention centre within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. Mobile phones represent a serious threat to the security, good order and discipline of a correctional centre. An inmate can use a mobile phone to contact and intimidate correctional centre staff and their families, to contact and intimidate prosecution witnesses, or to organise an escape from custody. In addition to correctional centre-related concerns, an inmate can use a mobile phone to organise or otherwise engage in criminal activity inside or outside a correctional centre. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Mobile Phones in Places of Detention) Bill 2007 amends the Summary Offences Act 1988, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 to make it an offence for an inmate to use a mobile phone in a place of detention—that is, a correctional centre, correctional complex or periodic detention centre within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. Mobile phones represent a serious threat to the security, good order and discipline of a correctional centre. An inmate can use a mobile phone to contact and intimidate correctional centre staff and their families, to contact and intimidate prosecution witnesses, or to organise an escape from custody. In addition to correctional centre-related concerns, an inmate can use a mobile phone to organise or otherwise engage in criminal activity inside or outside a correctional centre.

Mobile phones continue to be trafficked into New South Wales correctional centres despite the fact that the Summary Offences Act 1988 provides significant disincentives to people possessing mobiles in places of detention, as well as bringing, or attempting to bring, them into places of detention. Section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988 states that an inmate must not, without reasonable excuse—proof of which lies with the inmate—have in his or her possession in a place of detention a mobile phone or any part of it, a mobile phone system integrated module [SIM] card or any part of it, or a mobile phone charger or any part of it. It provides for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years or 50 penalty units, or both. Under section 27E (2) of that Act a person also faces the same maximum penalty if found guilty of bringing, or attempting to bring, anything into a place of detention when he or she does not have lawful authority to do so.

However, in many instances when a mobile is discovered in a correctional centre, the phone is found in a common area of the centre. This means that any number of inmates may have had access to the one phone and may have operated it using their SIM card. Mobile phones are deliberately placed in common areas by inmates to make it difficult to determine to whom the phone actually belongs. Therefore, the Act makes it difficult to prove a charge of possession. The need to expand the possession offence to also prohibit an inmate from using a mobile phone is illustrated by the example of an inmate contacting a person outside the correctional system at 7.00 p.m. when the inmate was locked in his cell, without access to the centre's controlled telephone system.

The assumption in this case was that the phone call was made by the inmate using an unauthorised mobile phone. When the person who received the phone call from the inmate contacted the Department of Corrective Services to advise of the telephone call from the inmate, no charges could be brought against the inmate under the current legislative provisions because no mobile phone was found in the inmate's possession. It is plausible that an inmate may contact a witness or a victim in a similar manner.

I now turn to the detail of the bill. This bill amends section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988 to enable an inmate to be charged with a criminal offence for the use of a mobile phone, a mobile phone SIM card, a mobile phone charger, or any part of any of those things. The bill amends section 56A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and clause 113B of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 to enable an inmate to be charged with a correctional centre offence for the use of a mobile phone, a mobile phone SIM card, a mobile phone charger, or any part of any of those things
The bill now means an inmate must not, without reasonable excuse, use a mobile phone in a place of detention. This covers the use of a mobile phone, a SIM card or any part of it, and a mobile phone charger or any part of it. In other words, the bill provides that it is no longer necessary to prove possession by an inmate of a mobile phone or part thereof to prove the offence. It is now sufficient to establish that the inmate has used a mobile phone or part thereof which has been found within a place of detention for the inmate to be guilty of the offence. The penalty for the criminal offence of use of a mobile phone or part thereof in places of detention will be the same as the penalty for the existing offence of possession under section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988, that is, an additional custodial penalty of two years or 50 penalty units, or both.

The penalty that a visiting magistrate or general manager of a correctional centre can impose for the correctional centre offence of use of a mobile phone or part thereof will be the same as the penalty for the existing correctional centre offence of possession under section 56A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, that is, an inmate may be deprived of withdrawable privileges for up to six months. The expanded offence prohibiting inmates from using mobile phones in places of detention created by the bill will strengthen efforts to reduce the trafficking of mobile phones and contraband into New South Wales correctional centres, thereby improving the security of the New South Wales correctional system. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Geoff Provest and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Linda Burney.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [5.59 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007. The bill introduces an amendment to the Fair Trading Act 1987 to provide an information standard for funeral products and services to be prescribed. The Government has been concerned about aspects of the funeral industry for some time, not because of the level of complaints it receives, which is very low, but rather because of concerns that people who are organising funerals of loved ones are often in a vulnerable state and may not be in a position to uphold their rights.

The Government believes that on the whole the funeral industry is run by professional people who are committed to providing an excellent and caring service. However, research by the Office of Fair Trading has shown that while the majority of consumers are generally satisfied with funeral services, almost half had concerns about money issues. In particular, there were concerns around being billed for unexpected charges or unauthorised services, or being refused a breakdown of various charges. When a person is organising a funeral, he or she is likely to be under the twin pressures of bereavement and limited time. The person might also feel that it is disrespectful to compare prices of funerals when organising the funeral of loved ones.

The Government believes that at that difficult time consumers are entitled to be given sufficient information to make an informed choice. In fact, it can be argued that when people are feeling vulnerable and distressed, it is even more important that they be given clear information on the products and services they are purchasing, including pricing information, as this information is likely to make the decision process easier. Members may recall that in 2005 the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an inquiry into the funeral industry. The Government welcomed the inquiry and provided a whole-of-government response to the inquiry report, which supported many of the inquiry's recommendations.

The inquiry examined, among other matters, the issue of transparency of costs of funerals. In providing evidence to the inquiry, many people noted the need for clear explanations of the costs involved and a more detailed breakdown in the bill for services. In particular, consumers were concerned that the funeral director's professional fee, which was usually the most expensive item, was not itemised or clearly defined. The committee concluded that clearly displayed prices for regular products such as services used in funerals, including the funeral director's professional fee, would be beneficial to consumers.
To achieve this goal the inquiry report recommended the introduction of an information standard for funerals. The Government supported this recommendation. It is clear from the Government's research and the inquiry report that there are problems within the industry in regard to the type of information that is given to consumers when organising a funeral. I believe that most funeral directors in New South Wales are extremely professional and want to do the best for their clients. However, there seems to be a very small minority who may not provide information about the costs and services of the funeral in a transparent manner.

I understand there have been cases of funeral directors in New South Wales refusing to provide written quotes and providing final invoices that are not itemised. There also appears to be a lack of consistency across the industry about the definition of items that are part of the funeral service. This is especially the case with regard to the funeral director's professional fee. This can mean that it is impossible for consumers to compare the products and services provided by different funeral directors. This bill provides for an information standard that will ensure that funeral directors provide all the necessary pricing information in a format that is easily understood and will allow for comparisons to be made between the products and services provided by different funeral directors.

To develop an information standard for funeral products and services it is necessary to amend the Fair Trading Act 1987 as the Act presently allows only for the prescription of information standards about goods. There is currently no power to prescribe an information standard about services. In effect this means only the coffin or casket would be covered by a standard made under the current Act. Funeral services, such as the transportation of the body to the cemetery or crematorium or the funeral director's professional fees, would not be covered. An amendment to the Act is needed so that an information standard can deal with both funeral goods and services. The bill, therefore, will amend the Act to allow an information standard to be prescribed for funeral goods and services. The information standard will stipulate the type and form of information to be provided to the consumer and the way in which the information is to be communicated.

The details of the information standard are still to be finalised, and will be included in a draft regulation which will undergo a regulatory impact statement involving extensive consultation. The Office of Fair Trading has already done some preliminary consultation with the industry and consumer groups about the kinds of matters that need to be included in the regulation. Under the proposed information standard funeral directors will need to provide certain information to the consumer. Although the details have not been finalised, I can give an overview of what is being proposed, based on consultations so far. For example, when a consumer first comes to see a funeral director to make an inquiry, the funeral director will have to give them written information about a basic funeral, if the funeral director offers that service. A basic funeral is a simple, dignified funeral that provides a relatively low cost option for consumers.

This information will need to include a definition of a basic funeral as well as a definition of each component that makes up a basic funeral, including the funeral director's professional fee. The funeral director will need to provide the consumer with information on the components and the fees for each component of a basic funeral as well as the total cost of the basic funeral. In addition to those details a funeral director will need to provide the consumer with a list of the coffins or caskets that the funeral director has for sale and their prices. If the consumer does not want a basic funeral, the funeral director will need to give the consumer written information on the cost of all components of the funeral that is proposed to be supplied, and a description of what each component covers. A total cost of the funeral also must be included.

The information on the funeral service is to be given to the consumer in the form of a written quotation. The written quotation is to be given to the consumer at the first meeting between the consumer and the funeral director. Once the funeral service has been supplied, the funeral director will need to issue the consumer with a final invoice detailing separate costs of all components and a final total price. The details of the information standard I have just described are the ones we have identified as being the most important to consumers in giving them enough information to make an informed choice. However, other information requirements may be considered after the consultation process on the draft regulation. It is important to highlight that the information standard will include information on the cost and make-up of a basic funeral.

I know that consumer groups, such as Council of Social Service of New South Wales and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales are very supportive of the proposal that the information standard include a basic funeral. I understand that the Legislative Council's inquiry also recommended that the basic funeral be included in the information standard. The industry has advised that it also supports this proposal. It is clear there are many people in New South Wales who want to provide their loved ones with a dignified funeral but are concerned about the possible cost. There has been much debate and confusion as to what constitutes a basic funeral because until now there has not been a previously agreed definition within the industry or the community.

The Government has worked hard with the funeral industry and consumer groups to reach consensus on what constitutes a basic funeral. I am pleased to say that agreement has been reached. A basic funeral will consist of a single service at the point of interment, whether this is at the cemetery or the crematorium. Charges will include the funeral director's professional services fee, the cost of basic transportation and mortuary services, all necessary legal disbursements, such as a death certificate, and the cheapest coffin the funeral director has for sale. There is no intention to compel the funeral industry to provide a basic funeral. The Government's view is that this approach would be an unnecessary overregulation of the market. I understand that most funeral directors in New South Wales provide a basic funeral option. However, as I have previously mentioned, under the proposed regulation a funeral director that offers a basic funeral service will now have to provide information to consumers about the service whether the consumer asks about it or not.

The information standard will assist consumers by clearly defining a basic funeral. It will also ensure that funeral directors provide detailed information on the cost of the basic funeral they provide, allowing consumers to compare prices. I now turn to matters of remedies and enforcement provisions of the bill. It will be an offence for a funeral director when supplying funeral goods and services to fail to comply with information standards. Many of the current enforcement and remedy provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1987 will apply to the supply of funeral goods and services. This means, for example, that funeral directors who do not comply with the information standard can be liable to penalty of up to 1,000 penalty units—currently worth $110,000—if they are a body corporate, or 200 penalty units—which is currently $22,000—for an individual.

The Office of Fair Trading can also apply to the court for an injunction against a funeral director that could result in the funeral director not being allowed to trade for a period or only under specific conditions. Clearly these actions would not be taken lightly and action by government to impose these penalties would depend on the seriousness of the offences. The bill also allows consumers to make a claim for loss or damage against the funeral director in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal or the court if they have suffered a loss as a result of non-compliance with the information standard. It is also proposed that under the regulation Fair Trading inspectors will be able to issue penalty notices of $550 if a funeral director is found to be not complying with the information standard.

The bill has been developed in consultation with the funeral industry and consumer groups. The Government is committed to continuing to work with stakeholders in further developing the funeral information standard and ensuring compliance by the industry. The Government will also continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that consumers are aware of what they can expect from funeral directors under the information standard. I thank the funeral industry and consumer groups for their contribution and commitment to the bill and the development of the funeral product and services information standard.

The bill reflects excellent consumer protection policy by providing for an information standard for funeral goods and services that will make sure consumers receive sufficient information to make an informed consumer choice at a time when they are distressed and vulnerable. It will also promote greater choice, competition and transparency within the industry. Importantly, it does not burden the funeral industry with too much red tape and overregulation. Organising a funeral for a loved one is a stressful and difficult situation. The introduction of an information standard as outlined in the bill will help consumers by making sure that they have enough information to make informed decisions at a very difficult time and not be subjected to unexpected charges when the final invoice arrives. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Geoff Provest and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it agrees to the request of the Legislative Assembly in its Message dated 6 June 2007 for the Honourable Michael Costa MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure and Minister for the Hunter, to attend the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 19 June 2007 at 12 noon to give a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the New South Wales Budget 2007/2008.

Legislative Council P ETER P RIMROSE
7 June 2007 President

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Reba Meagher.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Health) [6.13 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to bring before the House the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007. The bill provides for the continuation for a further four years of the trial of the medically supervised injecting centre, which commenced in Kings Cross more than six years ago, in May 2001. The bill enables the centre to continue providing a service for a group of marginalised long-term drug users with significant health and social problems who have either failed drug treatment or never sought it before. A further trial period will also enable a longer-term evidence base to be established as to the effectiveness of the centre. This is of particular importance, given the long-term drug use of its client group and will inform any future decisions on permanency of the centre.

Members will be aware that the medically supervised injecting centre arose from the 1999 New South Wales Drug Summit, which called for the trial of this sort of facility in an area of high drug use. It is clear from the independent and final evaluation report released today by the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research at the University of New South Wales that the trial of this facility has clearly met the Government's objectives to decrease overdose deaths, provide a gateway to treatment, reduce discarded needles and drug users injecting in public places, and help reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C.

The report states that the evidence shows the centre has provided a service that reduces the impact of overdose-related events and other health consequences of injecting drug use, reduces public injecting and community visibility of injecting drug use, provides access to drug treatment and other services to highly socially marginalised people and has not led to an increase in crime or social disturbance in its immediate vicinity. In addition, on 21 December 2006, the Director of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research reported that there is no evidence that the centre has had an adverse impact on drug-related crime. It is clear also from this independent evidence that without the centre and its services this group of drug users would be at extreme risk of drug-related death and morbidity.

The centre has managed more than 2,100 drug overdoses without death or serious brain or vital organ damage; made more than 2,800 referrals to drug treatment and more than 3,400 referrals to health or social welfare services; helped reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C, with advice on safe injecting practices provided on more than 21,700 occasions; and distributed more than 205,000 needles and syringes. I am sure I do not have to remind members of the great cost and burden such adverse outcomes would have for the individuals involved, their families, the community and services in increased policing and health system costs, and diminished public amenity in the Kings Cross area.

As members would know, there were significant local business concerns amongst some operators when the trial was being developed. They were concerned about the possible adverse impact of such a facility in Kings Cross. I am pleased to report that the independent evaluator has also found that since the trial started the support of local business for the centre has increased. In fact, there is now, to quote the evaluator, "high and sustained" support from the majority of business operators, with support now at about 68 per cent. In addition, since the centre opened in May 2001 9,778 individuals have been assessed and registered with the centre; there has been a total of 391,170 visits by registered clients, with approximately 6,500 visits in April 2007; and 113 in every 1,000 visits have resulted in provision of health care, medical and social services by centre staff on a total of 44,082 occasions.

Residents and business operators in local areas have reported that there are fewer discarded syringes and less public injecting. Between January 2000 and January 2007 there was a 48 per cent decrease in needles and syringes collected within 500 metres of the centre. The Government believes it is crucial to maintaining the positive outcomes that have been identified to date for this marginalised group by continuing to operate the centre, while at the same time striving to improve their likelihood of accessing and remaining in drug treatment and associated social welfare support. These good outcomes are confirmed in the report on the statutory review into the centre and its legislation required under section 36B of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. I seek leave to table the report on the findings of the review by the responsible authorities for the centre—the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Mr Ken Moroney, and the Acting Director General of NSW Health, Mr Bob McGregor.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

The report concludes that the centre is operating well, that it is conducted to an appropriate standard and is regulated and monitored to a high degree, as is appropriate for a service of this nature. I remind members that the medically supervised injecting centre is just one component of the Government's comprehensive response to the complex problems of drug abuse in our society. Law enforcement continues to be our first line of defence in the war on drugs. As just one example, in 2006 New South Wales police laid more than 20,000 drug-related charges. Almost 1,000 of them related to heroin.

Education and early intervention is our second line of defence. Since the 1999 Drug Summit the Government has invested more than $406 million in two dedicated drug budgets on a range of anti-drug initiatives across the areas of treatment, education, prevention and law enforcement. The third line of defence is harm minimisation. Programs such as the medically supervised injecting centre and the needle and syringe exchange program are both reducing disease and saving lives. While demand remains we will provide these services but we would like nothing better than for demand to decrease. That is why the bill will include, for the first time, a threshold for client attendance levels. If client attendance falls below 75 per cent of current daily levels, a formal review of the need for the centre will be triggered.

I turn now to the provisions in the bill. The bill amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Part 2A of the Act currently permits the operation and use, under licence, of a single medically supervised injecting centre but restricts the period during which such a licence can have effect to a trial period to conclude on 31 October 2007. The primary amendment in the bill is to change the period during which such a licence can have effect to a trial period to conclude on 31 October 2011, under section 36A. The provisions allowing only a single centre and single licence will not change. The Government recognises that the programs should be subject to continued review, not least to ensure that it is meeting its medical objectives. To this end, section 36B will be amended to provide for ongoing review of the centre. This will include review of the relevant provisions of the Act and review for the purposes of medical and scientific research into the treatment of drug addiction.

The Government is also mindful to ensure accountability for public moneys provided to operate the centre and to ensure it remains financially viable. To this end, the bill also includes provision, in new section 36K (2), to enable the regulations under the Act to prescribe a level of service activity for the centre. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation 2006 to set the level of service activity as 208 client visits per day averaged over any one-month period. This figure is based on the average client visit levels reported over the last four years of the operation of the centre in the review report.

As I mentioned earlier, amendments to section 36K will require the responsible authorities to conduct a specific review of the viability of the centre if service levels fall below 75 per cent of this figure. If, after such a review, the responsible authorities consider there is no longer a need for the centre, or it is no longer economically viable, the authorities will be entitled to revoke the licence. The Government has taken a cautious approach with this initiative and it will continue to do so. We will continue to strictly regulate and tightly control the program by retaining the existing legislative framework and licensing system with the Commissioner of Police and Director General of NSW Health remaining as the responsible authorities.

We will continue to closely monitor and rigorously evaluate the program to ensure its ongoing effectiveness against the Government's objectives. We will continue to review all available research and evidence to help the Government make informed decisions about how to deal with the drug problem. Research as to the medical and scientific effectiveness of the centre will also provide information critical to support such decision-making. In closing, the Government would like to recognise the efforts of Reverend Harry Herbert and Uniting Care as well as the director of the centre, Dr Ingrid van Beek, and all the dedicated staff at the centre over the past six years. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Bills introduced on motion by Mr David Campbell.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [6.24 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007 and the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill 2007. The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill provides a range of powers to assist police in securing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Group [APEC] while the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill supports the public holiday which has been declared for the first metropolitan region on 7 September. APEC will be the largest and most significant international meeting in Australia.

We need to ensure that the New South Wales police have the necessary powers to keep the event and Sydneysiders safe. The APEC group 2007 comprises a series of meetings culminating in the APEC Leaders Week to be held in Sydney between 2 and 9 September. The planned events will involve the heads of government of 21 member economies and are likely to be attended by up to 5,000 officials and 1,500 international media. APEC venues will include Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay, Farm Cove, the Sydney Opera House and Government House. The NSW Police Force and the Commonwealth have carefully considered the security threat to APEC.

On the basis of this assessment, about 3,500 security personnel will be posted in Sydney at this time, including members of the NSW Police Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Defence Force, interstate police and New Zealand police. Such a security force will help to minimise the risk of an act of terrorism directed against APEC leaders. Based on the experience of other APEC meetings overseas and other similar events in Australia, the NSW Police Force has also identified the threat of large organised and sustained violent protests during Leaders Week. I am not talking here about citizens expressing strongly held views by protesting peacefully in public places. We all have the right to do that. However, it is not acceptable when violence is used.

We have all seen footage of extremely violent and organised protestors who engage in planned attacks on police, destroy property and terrify the public. We need to ensure that our police have sufficient powers to prevent or to stop such violence. At the same time we need to ensure that any such powers do not prevent the legitimate exercise of our civil rights. And we need to remember that APEC is occurring in downtown Sydney, where many people live and work. While clearly a meeting the scale of APEC will be disruptive to residents and other users of the central business district [CBD] we must try to ensure that any security operations create the minimum possible inconvenience to law-abiding residents.

The Government believes that the police powers bill strikes the right balance between police powers, the lawful right to protect and the needs of residents and workers in the central business district. If the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007 is enacted, the Government will roll out a communications plan. This will inform affected people of the impact of the proposed powers. This will involve liaison with residents and businesses. In summary, the bill creates extraordinary policing powers around the duration of the APEC period ¾ namely, 30 August to 12 September 2007. APEC itself is from 2 September to 9 September. However, it is desirable that the powers be available to permit physical security measures such as the putting up and dismantling of barricades to be taken over this slightly longer period on either side of the meetings.

The legislation will be administered by the Attorney General, and there are a number of safeguards in place to ensure that police use these extraordinary powers responsibly. These safeguards include, first, that the bill will apply only to this APEC meeting and will then terminate automatically. Secondly, the powers will apply only within designated and limited areas, essentially in the northern central business district. Every effort has been made to keep the areas as small as possible. To ensure that people are in no doubt as to where the powers will apply, the bill contains a map and a description indicating the main security area. Any variations to this area that must be made to ensure the safe running of APEC will be notified to the public. Thirdly, police will receive specialist training on the use of the powers over coming months. Finally, a review of the powers will be conducted jointly by the Attorney General and the Minister for Police.

I will now outline in more detail the provisions of the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007. The bill creates various special police powers and two categories of security zones in which they apply. These are described in part 2 of the bill. "Declared areas" essentially serve as an outer perimeter. They therefore cover more than those places that are actually to be used for APEC meetings. Persons will generally be free to enter these areas subject to security screening when required. The bill describes the declared areas as they currently stand, and an indicative map is attached to the bill. Clause 6 of the bill requires that any alterations or extensions to the declared areas must be approved by the Minister on the basis that the change will substantially assist in promoting the security of APEC or preventing or controlling public disorder.

"Restricted areas" are much smaller and will be inside the larger declared areas. Typically, restricted areas will be established at places such as actual APEC venues or accommodation used by delegates. Security restrictions at restricted areas will be much higher than in the declared areas. Additional powers will be available to police and there will not be an assumption that any person has a right to enter the restricted areas. Pursuant to clause 7 the location of restricted areas will be determined by the Commissioner of Police. He will need to be satisfied that the proposed zone is directly related to APEC events or administration and that the applicable powers are necessary to promote the security of APEC facilities and/or participants. Restricted areas will not include private residential premises.

The following specific powers will be available in both declared areas and restricted areas. Under clause 10 police will have an express power to erect barricades and fencing and to establish checkpoints to assist in controlling entry to the area. Pursuant to clause 11 police may stop and search vehicles that are seeking to enter, or that are already inside, the area. Pursuant to clause 12 a similar power is created to search persons, which may include a search of any articles in that person's possession and the possible removal of coats or jackets, shoes and hats. A person can be searched in this way upon seeking to enter the area or if they are present in the area.

Under clause 13 certain items will be prohibited, and police will have the power to confiscate these items upon detection unless the person has a lawful excuse for possessing them. Prohibited items are listed in clause 3. They are: spray paint, in order to minimise the risk of large-scale defacing of property; chains, handcuffs and lock-on devices because in the past protesters have chained themselves to immovable objects that can obstruct roads and if police have to cut the person free to remove them there is a chance that the person may be injured, which we wish to avoid; poles longer than one metre because long poles have been used as clubs in the past and poles longer than an arm's length can be used to fend off police who may seek to make an arrest; marbles or ball bearings that can be thrown under the hooves of police horses with the intention of unseating and injuring the rider; smoke devices and flares that can be used to frighten horses or otherwise hinder security forces; flammable or noxious liquids; laser pointers that can be used to blind police or police horses; and jamming devices that can be used to disrupt police communications.

I wish to make it clear that such items will be confiscated only when the person seeking to enter the declared area or restricted area, or who possesses them in such an area, has no special justification for possessing them. Clause 37 defines "special justification". Special justification includes having an object for the purposes of employment or trade. For instance, a shop owner who has spray paint for sale will not be affected by the seizure provisions, nor will an office worker who needs a laser pointer for their employment. These search powers will assist police in removing dangerous items from the possession of persons intending to use them in violent protest. As long as a person agrees to surrender the item they will be allowed to pass. As I said before, the general rule is that, subject to submitting to a search if required and surrendering any prohibited items held without a special justification, persons will be able to enter declared areas.
There is one exception to this. Part 5 of the bill creates a power for police to exclude certain individuals from the declared areas on the basis that they pose a serious threat to the safety of persons or property within the area as identified by the NSW Police Force. These persons will be identified by police on the basis of intelligence information. I would not expect that police will take lightly the decision to categorise people in this way. This exclusion power also applies to the higher-security restricted areas. Under clause 14 police will have the power to give reasonable directions to persons for the purpose of substantially assisting in the reduction of risks to the security of APEC, its participants and the public. Police will have the power to take action to reduce the risk of large-scale public disorder connected with APEC, with persons disobeying a reasonable direction able to be removed from the declared area.

Pursuant to clauses 15 to 18 police will have the power to establish motorcade and clearway routes and to clear or remove vehicles, people or other things blocking these routes—which is similar to the powers already provided for in the World Youth Day Act 2006. Under clause 31 any person who commits an offence of assault police, malicious damage, or throw missile at police within a declared or restricted area will attract a presumption against bail. While the presumption does not normally apply for these offences, it will apply only for APEC such that the maximum time that a person would be in custody would be 14 days. The purpose of this special restriction on bail is to ensure that people who commit offences such as throwing missiles at police during APEC are not arrested, charged and released on bail simply to return to the APEC zone to repeat their violent actions.

To facilitate the hearing of bail matters during APEC the bill also provides for the use of an audiovisual link so that bail hearings can be heard over this link rather than face to face, which will reduce the logistical burden if significant numbers of persons are arrested during APEC. Police animals will be able to be used on Sydney Opera House or Darling Harbour foreshore premises under clause 33 of the bill to assist in the maintenance of law and order. The liability of the NSW Police Force in respect of actions in nuisance and negligence will be limited under clause 35, in the same way as is already provided for in the World Youth Day Act 2006. Pursuant to part 6, officers from other Australian jurisdictions and also New Zealand police will be able to be recognised as New South Wales police officers. This will ensure the sufficiency of police numbers. In addition to the above powers, which apply to both declared areas and restricted areas, special offences are created and police will have additional powers in respect of restricted areas only.
Pursuant to clause 19, it will be an offence during APEC for anyone to enter a restricted area without special justification, the maximum penalty being six months imprisonment. And if the person does this while in possession of a "prohibited item" the maximum penalty will be two years imprisonment. Under clause 21 police will have a power of entry into any premises within a restricted area, except private residential premises, to ensure the security of conference and accommodation venues. Persons entering a restricted area will be required to provide evidence of identification under clause 22 to ensure that only those persons who have a need to enter the area gain access. As I said before, this bill creates extraordinary policing powers that will be available temporarily during the APEC period. While they represent a departure from normal policing powers, they are considered necessary for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the security of APEC participants and the maintenance of law and order in Sydney during September.

Finally, the bill makes a number of amendments to other Acts. The bill makes caltrops prohibited weapons under the Weapons Prohibition Act. Caltrops are spiked balls that can be used to injure humans and animals, such as police horses, and damage vehicles. The bill also extends the sunset clause of the covert search warrants regime under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. The regime will be retained for a further 12 months, until 13 September 2008, so that the Ombudsman's review of the scheme can be fully considered.

I now turn to the second bill, which is being introduced cognately to support APEC, the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill 2007. Based upon advice from security officials, the New South Wales Government accepts that keeping the Sydney metropolitan area open for workers will be too burdensome. A public holiday on 7 September will allow for the smoother running of the event. Public holidays were declared in Santiago, Chile, in 2004 and in Shanghai, China, in 2001, when these two cities hosted APEC summits.

To avoid undue speculation regarding arrangements during the summit period the Minister for Industrial Relations announced on 28 February that a one-off public holiday would be declared for the Sydney metropolitan area for Friday 7 September. The statutory vehicle for the appointment of an additional public holiday is the Banks and Bank Holidays Act 1912, which is within the administration of the Minister for Industrial Relations.
Section 19 (3) empowers the Minister to make an order appointing a day or part thereof as a public holiday or half-holiday in any local government area, part of a local government area or other part of New South Wales. On 28 February the Minister made an order under section 19 (3) of the Banks and Bank Holidays Act appointing 7 September as a regional public holiday for the metropolitan area and local government areas of Ashfield, Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Botany Bay, Burwood, Camden, Campbelltown, Canada Bay, Canterbury, City of Sydney, Fairfield, Holroyd, Hornsby, Hunters Hill, Hurstville, Kogarah, Ku­ring-gai, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Liverpool, Manly, Marrickville, Mosman, North Sydney, Parramatta, Penrith, Pittwater, Randwick, Rockdale, Ryde, Strathfield, Sutherland, Warringah, Waverley, Willoughby and Woollahra. These are referred to as the designated holiday areas.

Section 19 (7) of the Banks and Bank Holidays Act merely stipulates that such an appointed holiday requires the closure of banks. It is left to the holiday clauses of industrial instruments to specify the days on which people are entitled to be absent from work or to payment of penalty rates in lieu of a paid holiday. It is through this mechanism that public holidays under the Banks and Bank Holidays Act are recognised and entitlements enforced under the New South Wales industrial system. Generally, major New South Wales private sector awards only sanction worker absences for holidays proclaimed or gazetted for or throughout the State.

For the most part awards do not recognise localised holidays, and employee absences on those days are often permitted by local custom. Many public sector industrial instruments make provision for regional public holidays; however, entitlements vary markedly. The Government is concerned that confining the declared APEC holiday to the designated holiday areas may not attract the usual public holiday entitlements without explicit action by the Government. That is the principal rationale for this bill.

The Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill will deem 7 September as a paid public holiday under State industrial instruments for those employees who would otherwise be required to work on that day in the designated holiday areas. This will ensure that the public holiday entitlements set out in State awards and enterprise agreements will be available to workers who are employed under those instruments in the regions covered by the declaration. I take this opportunity to clarify that the public holiday takes effect in relation to businesses, schools, workplaces and other services within the designated holiday areas. It does not operate on the basis of a person's place of residence. If you live outside the designated holiday area but work inside it your workplace will be subject to the public holiday. And if you are employed under a State industrial instrument you will either get a paid day off or get penalty rates if you are required to work on that day. But if your workplace is outside the designated holiday area your workplace will not be subject to the public holiday; your workplace will still open and you will still be required to work, even if you live inside the designated holiday area.

A minor consequential amendment is proposed to the Long Service Leave Act 1955 to ensure that the APEC public holiday is treated in the same way as other public holidays falling within an employee's period of long service leave. This will ensure that where an employee in the designated holiday areas is on long service leave during the time of the APEC summit, that employee's period of leave will be extended by one day. Constitutional limitations preclude the amendments to State industrial instruments from applying to those employees who are subject to Federal industrial instruments.

For those workers who are engaged under Federal instruments, the entitlement to the APEC public holiday will be governed exclusively by the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. That Act creates a wide range of different types of industrial instruments, including awards and different kinds of workplace agreements, and there may be some uncertainty as to whether workers under these instruments will get public holiday entitlements on the APEC holiday. For employees who were previously on State awards but whose awards were converted on 27 March into so-called National Agreements Preserving State Awards [NAPSAs], it seems clear that their entitlement will be subject to the same concerns as for workers still on State awards.

While the bill I now introduce will protect the latter group of employees, it cannot protect the entitlements of those who have been forced into the Federal system. It will require legislative or executive intervention at the Federal level to ensure uniform entitlement to the APEC public holiday under those instruments. The Premier will write to the Prime Minister to invite him to consider similar legislative action if required at the Federal level to ensure that workers in New South Wales who work under the WorkChoices legislation are not disadvantaged as compared with their colleagues under the State system. I stress that the declaration of a public holiday does not amount to a requirement that businesses or other services actually close on the designated day.
Therefore, the appointment of a regional public holiday and the enactment of special State legislation granting a holiday entitlement under State industrial instruments may not be sufficient to reduce crowd levels in the Sydney central business district during the APEC summit. While security planning is still underway, this bill also contains provisions that will enable the Minister for Industrial Relations to declare the closure of general shops in the central business district, should this be required to assist in achieving the optimum level of security. The proposed amendments will have the immediate effect of deeming the APEC day to be a closed holiday for all general shops in the designated holiday areas under the Shops and Industries Act.

However, in line with the framework of the Shops and Industries Act, and in keeping with usual practice well understood by those in the retail industry, the Minister for Industrial Relations will be issuing orders under section 85 (2) of the Act to suspend that effect. Those orders will be published as closely as possible to the time of the commencement of this bill. In other words, despite the bill providing that APEC day will be a closed holiday under section 85 (1) of the Act, orders will be published under section 85 (2) of the Act to ensure that general shops can indeed trade on that day. If developments in the security area later demand it, the Government will be able to vary or revoke those orders to suit those requirements.

It is to be noted that the Shops and Industries Act deals only with what are termed "general shops" and the hours and days on which they may trade. It does not regulate the opening hours of small shops or "scheduled" shops: these include the local corner shop, newsagents, chemists, video shops and the like. But it is the larger shops, such as the department stores, that attract the crowds and raise potential security issues. It is my understanding that the present position is that shop closures in the central business district will not be necessary. However, it must be appreciated by everyone that security is a fluid thing, and the Government cannot ignore genuine concerns about such issues that might arise in the future. If the security settings change, and shop closures are required, this bill means that the Minister for Industrial Relations will be in a position to take action to assist in ensuring that those security outcomes are achieved.

The final aspect of the bill acknowledges that there are a number of other legislative and statutory instruments which may be affected by the declaration of the APEC public holiday on 7 September. These are not laws about industrial relations or shop closures but a range of statutes in various portfolio areas that use the term "public holiday", "business day" or "working day". For example, there are many statutes that require things to be done or actions to be taken within a prescribed number of "business days". "Business day" is usually defined to mean "any day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday".

The bill inserts into the Banks and Bank Holidays Act a regulation-making power that the Minister for Industrial Relations will be able to exercise to make regulations that clarify whether the use of such terminology in a particular piece of legislation should be taken to include the APEC public holiday or not. The Minister for Industrial Relations would only make such regulations on advice from the Minister who is responsible for the relevant statute. The Minister for Industrial Relations will be writing to his ministerial colleagues to inform them of this power and to invite them to consider whether any relevant regulations need to be made. This power will also be able to be exercised in retrospect should it later become apparent that there was confusion or uncertainty in a particular area about how the APEC holiday should be treated. I commend these bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.