Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 19 June 2007, Corrected Copy)

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 12 noon.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

The Speaker laid upon the table a copy of Budget Estimates 2007-08, Volumes 1 and 2 of Budget Paper No. 3.

Ordered to be printed.

Bills introduced on motion by Mr Morris Iemma.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, and Minister for Citizenship) [12.01 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now agreed to in principle.

Pursuant to resolution debate adjourned and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

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

The SPEAKER: Order! I advise members that the House has requested the attendance of the Hon. Michael Costa, MLC. In accordance with our practice on these occasions, the usual courtesies are to be accorded to the Treasurer, particularly that his Speech should be heard without interruption.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter) [12.04 p.m.]: It is a privilege to be back delivering the first budget of the re-elected Iemma Labor Government, a Government renewed and revitalised by the addition of so many new members.

On March 24 the people of New South Wales once again entrusted the Labor Party with a great honour and responsibility.

They did so because they recognised that only a Labor government can deliver the strong financial management needed to support jobs and economic growth.

And they did so because they recognised that only a Labor government can deliver improved services and better infrastructure.

This budget recognises the responsibility entrusted to us by meeting our commitments to the people of New South Wales.

Affordable, responsible and deliverable commitments.
We committed to expand and improve frontline services, not cut them.

This budget meets that commitment with record spending of $44.6 billion on services, including our innovative trade schools and after-hours GP clinics.

We committed to significant investment in the State's infrastructure.

This budget meets that commitment with a record $12.5 billion for capital works in 2007-08 and nearly $50 billion over the next four years.

We committed to continue Labor's proud record of reducing taxes.

This budget meets that commitment by cutting taxes yet again—by $343 million in the coming year and by $2.6 billion over the next four years.

And we committed to strong management of the State's finances.

This budget meets that commitment by delivering yet another Labor budget surplus, protecting the State's triple­A credit rating.

BUDGET OVERVIEW AND NET WORTH

The Government's strong financial management means the Budget result for 2007-08 is expected to be
a surplus of $376 million, with surpluses averaging $500 million in the following years of the forward estimates period.

This is after providing over the next four years more than $2 billion for priority rail infrastructure projects—including the planned expansion of the rail network—$2.6 billion in tax cuts, and fully funding all of our election commitments.

I also take great pleasure in reporting to the House today that the revised budget result for 2006-07 will be a surplus of $444 million.

This is an improvement of $941 million since the half-yearly budget review in December.

It means that since 1996-97 and including 2007-08, Labor will have delivered an unprecedented 12 consecutive budget surpluses—with more to come.

During 2006-07 payroll tax revenue from our exceptionally strong jobs market, transfer duty from a confident commercial property sector, and investment income have all been higher than was expected at this time last year.

Recognising the one-off nature of many of these revenue gains, the Government will pay off $960 million of rail debt accrued during the construction of the Epping to Chatswood rail line.

This is responsible financial management—using the dividends of the present to reduce liabilities for future generations.

Taking into account the one-off revenue gains and rail debt repayment, the 2006-07 budget result is an improvement of $1.1 billion since I last addressed the Assembly.

This result comes despite pressures in some areas of the State economy, the impact of higher interest rates, the continued GST rip-off, and the on-going effect of the drought.

And this result demonstrates the folly of the Opposition's uninformed speculation, made without adequate knowledge or experience.

We have worked hard for this result.

For the second year in a row we have brought public spending in on target, something few governments have achieved in recent history.
Last financial year the difference between budgeted and actual expenses was just 0.32 per cent; this year that gap is 0.44 per cent.

These are excellent results in budgets of this size, and reflect the Government's commitment to keeping a tight rein on expenditure in order to redirect taxpayers' funds to frontline public services.

This effort is underpinned by stringent efficiency measures, which have already delivered savings of around $300 million a year in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Further efficiency dividends of $300 million per annum will apply during the forward estimates period, meaning total savings of around $6 billion.

In addition, productivity savings will ensure that in coming wage rounds the net cost to Government will be 2.5 per cent per annum.

Stabilisation of the budget result at 2006-07 levels will be achieved by matching expenses and revenue growth, which are forecast to come together at an average of 4.2 per cent a year over the forward estimates period.

The State's balance sheet is strong.

The value of our physical assets is projected to increase from $183 billion to $218 billion by 2011, reflecting the impact of the Government's record capital works program.

Due to this record capital expenditure, debt will increase over the period but net financial liabilities will decrease as a percentage of gross state product.

All delivered while maintaining our State Plan commitment of preserving our triple-A credit rating.

NEW SOUTH WALES ECONOMY

The fundamental strength and resilience of the New South Wales economy is undeniable.

Since the last budget we have endured a drought that has reduced crop production by 70 per cent, two interest rate rises limiting the recovery of the housing sector, a higher exchange rate hurting local producers, and a spike in petrol prices hitting family spending and business profits.

But despite this—and in contrast to repeated and absurd claims New South Wales was heading towards recession—our economy has continued to grow and grow well.

In 2006-07 consumer spending and infrastructure investment were both robust.

The unemployment rate stayed at 30 year lows and the percentage of people of working age with a job reached record levels.

The outlook for the New South Wales economy in 2007-08 is bright.

The economy is expected to strengthen, with continued solid consumer spending, significant public sector investment, and a moderate recovery in the housing sector.

Housing construction is expected to contribute to overall growth for the first time in three years.

Business investment has grown by an exceptionally strong 53 per cent since 2001-02, and is expected to rise further in 2007-08.

In 2007-08 gross State product growth is forecast to lift from the current year estimate of 1.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent.

Overall spending in the State is expected to increase from the current year estimate of 2.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent.
All of these factors should see continued above-trend growth in employment, leading to a further decline in the already historically low unemployment rate.

This, of course, assumes a stable interest rate environment.

IMPROVING AND EXPANDING SERVICES

There is no greater priority for this Government than improving public services.

The result in March was an endorsement of this priority.

To meet our election commitments in Health, in 2007-08 total expenditure by NSW Health will increase by $831 million to $12.5 billion, an increase of 7.1 per cent.

Health expenditure now makes up 28 per cent of the State budget, up from 24 per cent a decade ago.

The Government will increase its focus on prevention and early intervention, including investments in breast screening, statewide eyesight screening for preschoolers, and the Healthy at Home Program to assist the elderly stay out of hospital.

The budget also provides for additional funding for nurse training and development, improved information systems, and additional ambulance staff.

The Government will also continue to invest in meeting growing demand for acute hospital services, dental services and cancer services.

The budget contains funding for 12 new after-hours GP clinics around the State, with clinics to open in the coming financial year in the Shoalhaven and at Dubbo, Broken Hill and Ryde.

For the first time spending on mental health will exceed $1 billion, an increase of $105 million or 11 per cent on last year's allocation.

Since becoming Premier and making mental health a key priority Morris Iemma has overseen a 23 per cent funding increase in this important area.

To meet our commitments to parents, students and teachers, $11.2 billion will be spent in the area of Education and Training, an increase of $517 million or 4.9 per cent.

Education expenditure closely follows Health at more than 23 per cent of the State budget.

Education and Training expenditure includes more than $5 million for five new trade schools at Penrith, Wyong, Sutherland, Tamworth and Nambucca Heads as part of the 25 trade schools to be established by 2011.

The Government will implement the Best Start Program with $82 million to provide new literacy and numeracy assessment for all new kindergarten students, additional reading recovery teachers, and new literacy and numeracy coordinators.

Other Education and Training election commitments met in the budget include:

¨ Connected Classrooms to provide every New South Wales school student with access to the new technologies that are transforming education;

¨ Improving the quality and retention of new teachers by providing additional support in their first year of teaching;

¨ The Transition to Year 7 initiative to assist students moving from primary to secondary schools; and

¨ An $8 million package to encourage physical activity and combat childhood obesity.

The New South Wales Government is undertaking the biggest-ever expansion of rail transport in our State's history, including Rail Clearways, 626 new metropolitan rail carriages under a public-private partnership, the completion of the Epping to Chatswood line, and further planned expansion of the rail network.
To meet the Government's commitments to commuters, total expenditure on Transport is $5.8 billion.

New projects include:

¨ The $100 million 'pinch point' strategy and the $100 million Victoria Road upgrade to improve the flow of traffic, including commuter bus services; and

¨ More than $120 million to purchase 265 new buses for the State Transit and private bus networks.

Spending by the Department of Community Services will increase by 11.6 per cent to a record $1.26 billion.

This will include the expansion of the Supernanny Hotline, a 24-hour parent advice line to provide additional support for parents and families, and the commencement of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program for parents of three to eight year-olds.

The Government will also provide $90 million for an extra 275 child protection, early intervention and out­of­home caseworkers, and expanded services for children in out-of-home care.

Expenditure by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care will total almost $1.9 billion, an increase of $136 million or 7.7 per cent.

Implementation of the Government's record $1.3 billion Stronger Together package will expand in 2007-08, including continuation of programs to assist families, promote community inclusion and improve existing services for people with a disability.

Record police numbers have seen crime being driven down in almost every area.

The latest independent statistics from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show 16 of the 17 major crime categories are either stable or falling.

Break and enter robberies, car thefts and muggings have all dropped in the past two years.

This is a great achievement for the NSW Police Force, who are being backed by the Government with the tough powers, equipment, resources and support they need to continue driving down crime.

To meet our commitments in the area of Law and Order, spending on Police will increase by more than $90 million to $2.27 billion.

$5.2 million will be provided for new CSI -style robotic technology to automate the DNA analysis process and speed up testing to catch and convict criminals using DNA.

$1.9 million will be provided to complete the computer aided dispatch system to improve recording of information.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Last week's devastating floods in the Hunter and the Central Coast were a grim reminder of how much we rely on our emergency services in times of natural disaster and other major emergencies.

In 2007-08 spending on Emergency Services will reach a record $831 million, an increase of almost 9 per cent.

This includes a record $51.5 million for the State Emergency Service, including more than $540,000 for 20 new floodboats and $800,000 to provide safe, reliable vehicles for our State Emergency Service volunteers.

The $310 million Climate Change Fund brings together and extends a number of existing water, energy and greenhouse related funds.

The Fund includes:

¨ A $100 million rebate fund for households purchasing water and energy efficient appliances;

¨ A $100 million Recycling and Stormwater Harvesting Program to assist the private sector to complete the Sydney recycled water grid;
¨ A $30 million Public Facilities Fund to help schools, hospitals, libraries and other community facilities save energy and water;

¨ A $20 million Energy Efficient Schools Program to install efficient lighting and provide grants of up to $25,000 for projects like solar power; and

¨ A $20 million program to install a rain water tank in every New South Wales Government school for general, non-drinking uses and to assist with other water efficiency related capital works.

Over the last five years the New South Wales Government has committed $325 million to assist farming communities to cope with the impact of the devastating drought.

The Government remains committed to assisting rural communities in need.

INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE

The recent Federal Budget allocated $5 billion for infrastructure nationwide.

But as part of the New South Wales Government's 10-year State Infrastructure Strategy, this year we will spend a record $12.5 billion on infrastructure.

This is 29 per cent higher than capital expenditure in 2006-07, which in turn was 16 per cent higher than in 2005-06.

It is more than $34 million invested in infrastructure every single day.

It is $1,800 for every man, woman and child in New South Wales.

And 46 per cent will be spent outside Sydney in rural and regional New South Wales.

This unprecedented investment is estimated to directly and indirectly support approximately 156,000 jobs.

Over the four years to 2010-11 total capital expenditure by the New South Wales Government is estimated to reach almost $50 billion—56 per cent higher than for the four years to 2006­07.

This is $50 billion on roads, rail lines, electricity cables, water pipes and dams, schools, hospitals and police stations.

The largest area of capital expenditure included in today's budget is $2.9 billion to enhance our electricity supply.

Infrastructure spending in 2007-08 in non-commercial areas includes:

¨ $1.9 billion on Transport;

¨ $1.9 billion on Roads;

¨ $657 million on Health;

¨ $617 million on Education;

¨ 627 million on Housing; and

¨ $388 million on Law and Order.

Infrastructure spending in 2007-08 in commercial areas includes:

¨ $2.9 billion on Electricity;

¨ $2.2 billion on Water; and

¨ $191 million on Ports.
Major new capital projects include:

¨ Securing our water supply with $1.9 billion to construct Sydney Water's desalination plant, and $298 million to construct Hunter Water's Tillegra Dam;

¨ $463 million for 31 new school projects, including new schools at Hamlyn Terrace, Ropes Crossing and Denison Secondary College Kelso Campus, and 11 new TAFE projects, including at Katoomba, Newcastle, Macquarie Fields and Randwick;

¨ Extending duplication of the Richmond Line beyond Schofields to Riverstone and Vineyard at a cost of $316 million;

¨ Almost $225 million on 1,378 units of general public housing, community housing and crisis accommodation;

¨ $63 million for the Department of Health's medical imaging project; and

¨ $47.7 million to build new police stations at Bowral, Camden and Leichhardt.

On-going capital projects funded in the budget include:

¨ $404 million for the upgrade of the Pacific Highway, $120 million for the upgrade of the Princes Highway, and $53 million for the upgrade of the Great Western Highway;

¨ $30 million for the M5 East Tunnel filtration project; and

¨ $30 million for the duplication of the Alford's Point Bridge.

Our infrastructure spending is economically sound spending, delivered within the triple-A framework for the benefit of generations to come.

REVENUE MEASURES

The New South Wales Government believes taxes should be as low as is possible to enable delivery of quality services and infrastructure, with budget surpluses over the economic cycle that maintain prudent debt levels.

Unlike the Federal Government, we do not rip tens of billions of dollars out of the economy, refuse to significantly invest in infrastructure and services—and then claim this as a virtue.

Looking at total revenues, in 2006-07 New South Wales received the second lowest revenue per person in Australia.

But the unfair redistribution of GST grants continues to penalise New South Wales and put pressure on our services and taxes.

In 2007-08 it is estimated New South Wales taxpayers will pay $2.4 billion more in GST than they will get back from the Federal Government.

There has never been a "revenue windfall" to New South Wales from the GST.

The average annual growth rate for New South Wales' total revenue has been the same in the five years before and after the introduction of the GST.

In the five years prior to the introduction of the GST New South Wales' total revenue grew at an average of 5.5 per cent a year.

In the five years following the GST's introduction our total revenue also grew at an average of 5.5 per cent a year.

I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that, despite the unfair GST redistribution, once again the budget does not raise taxes, it cuts them.
Today I announce four tax cuts to assist home buyers, property investors, and businesses—tax cuts worth $343 million in 2007-08 and $2.6 billion over the next four years.

To assist home buyers and the property market, mortgage duty on the purchase of owner-occupied residences will be abolished from 1 September this year, providing a saving of almost $2,000 on a $500,000 mortgage.

This change will benefit around 186,000 homebuyers each year, as well as giving additional stimulus to the property sector through reduced transaction costs.

To assist property investors and the commercial property sector, mortgage duty on the purchase of residential investment property will be abolished on 1 July 2008 and on commercial property on 1 July 2009.

The abolition of mortgage duty will be implemented at a cost to revenue of $138 million in 2007-08 and $1.36 billion over four years.

Last year I announced that mortgage duty would be abolished by 2011.

These measures bring forward the start of mortgage duty abolition by more than two years, with total abolition now 18 months ahead of schedule.

To provide immediate assistance to property investors, the land tax rate will be cut from 1.7 per cent to 1.6 per cent for the 2008 land tax year.

This will mean a saving of almost six per cent on most land tax bills, and will reduce revenue by $467 million over four years.

Changes to land tax announced today follow the introduction of three-year averaging for land tax assessments and the indexation of the land tax threshold in last year's budget, measures that will save taxpayers $618 million over four years.

In total, changes made to land tax by the Iemma Government will save taxpayers $211 million in 2007-08 and $1.32 billion over the four years to 2010-11.

Stamp duty on the hire of goods will be abolished from 1 July 2007 and on leases from 1 January 2008.

These changes will mean reductions to the cost of hiring a range of goods including DVDs and cars, as well as to the cost of leasing real property with a total rental cost of more than $20,000 per year.

It is estimated these changes will reduce revenue by $570 million over four years.

To boost work and training opportunities for young people and address the skills shortage, a full rebate will be provided for the cost of registering one work vehicle for every new apprentice hired by small businesses, at a cost of $5 million over four years.

The New South Wales Government is committed to removing red tape.

The 2007-08 budget implements measures announced earlier this year to harmonise payroll tax administration in Victoria and New South Wales.

This includes from 1 July 2007 a payroll tax exemption for maternity and adoption leave payments, making it cheaper for employers to provide leave for new parents.

Since the joint announcement Queensland and Tasmania have announced they will harmonise their payroll tax arrangements with those of New South Wales and Victoria, and all States and Territories have announced they will work towards harmonisation.

The budget also implements the Government's First Home Plus One Scheme, giving first homebuyers who enter into a shared equity arrangement access to a proportion of the stamp duty exemption available under the First Home Plus Scheme.
To assist those suffering hardship as a result of the recent floods in the Hunter and on the Central Coast, today I can announce the Government will provide a rebate of stamp duty for replacement cars where the insurance claim does not cover this cost.

Since August 2005 the Iemma Government has made 15 tax cuts and reduced workers compensation premiums four times, changes worth a total of $9.3 billion to 2010-11.

These tax cuts have put billions of dollars back into taxpayers' pockets to support jobs, growth and investment.

And they continue Labor's proud record of reducing taxes.

Since 1995 we have reduced the State tax burden in New South Wales by an average of $85 million
each year.

CONCLUSION

The 2007-08 budget meets our election commitments to the people of New South Wales.

It meets our commitment to provide responsible management of the State's finances with surplus budgets and a strong balance sheet.

It meets our commitment to provide support for continued economic growth by investing record amounts in infrastructure and by cutting taxes.

And it meets our commitment to improve and expand frontline public services with record spending in areas such as health, education and community services.

I commend the budget to the House.

Copies of the Budget Speech, Budget Statement and Infrastructure Statement tabled and ordered to be printed.

[ The Speaker left the chair at 12.34 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Assent to the following bills reported:

Commission for Children and Young People Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee) Bill 2007
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2007
Criminal Procedure Amendment (Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2007
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Bill 2007
Mental Health Bill 2007
Private Health Facilities Bill 2007
Professional Standards Amendment (Mutual Recognition) Bill 2007
Terrorism (Police Powers) Amendment (Preventative Detention Orders) Bill 2007

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Lieutenant­Governor:

J . J . S PIGELMAN Office of the Governor
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Sydney 2000

The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Assembly that he re-assumed the administration of the Government of the State on 17 June 2007.

17 June 2007
Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.18 p.m.]: Over the past 12 days we have experienced the full reality of the State Emergency Service's motto, "The worst in nature, the best in us". The Hunter Valley, Central Coast and areas of Sydney have endured the worst that nature can deliver, from howling storms to floods of enormous magnitude. We are advised there is more to come. But, at the same time, this terrible adversity has brought out the very best in the Australian spirit, as neighbours have reached out to lend each other a hand and the members of our emergency services and frontline departments have toiled heroically, day and night, to help those in genuine need. I extend, on behalf of the Parliament, our condolences to the families and friends of the nine people, including three children, who lost their lives in the storm and floods. This is a terrible toll and reminds us of the fragility of life in the face of nature's fury.

Today I pay tribute to more than 3,000 members of the emergency services—the State Emergency Service [SES], the Rural Fire Service, the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the New South Wales Police Force, the New South Wales Ambulance Service and the Volunteer Rescue Association—and the many agencies and organisations that have ably supported them throughout this emergency. This includes the Department of Community Services, New South Wales Health, port, maritime and transport authorities, the energy companies from around New South Wales and interstate, numerous charities, churches and community welfare organisations, local councils and members of the Australian Army. Many members would remember that in 2005 the State Emergency Service celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of its creation in the wake of the disastrous 1955 Maitland floods in which 14 people died, 15,000 people were evacuated and 5,000 homes and public landmarks disappeared under murky floodwaters.

Our emergency services have worked non-stop since 7 June when the weather deteriorated, leading to the severe storms that ripped down the coastline from the Hunter to southern Sydney. Newcastle, Wallsend, Cessnock and the surrounding region was particularly hard hit. As the storms eased and the torrent of water heading along the Hunter, Paterson, Williams and Myall rivers and around Tuggerah Lakes and Lake Macquarie became apparent, these hardworking personnel swung straight into flood combat. They were out doorknocking throughout the region, helping people prepare for the worst, evacuating residents, ferrying food and other supplies, and helping with the mop-up in this once-in-a-generation flood emergency.

I am pleased to be able to assure members that the State Emergency Service managed to avert even more certain disaster by ensuring the Hinton Hotel, sitting high and dry, did not run out of beer before the State of Origin game on Wednesday night.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Just as well Blackie wasn't there. He would have drunk it dry.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I would have helped them drink it dry. It is a pity the result was not better, although there was one Queenslander in the pub the day I was there. Today, they are still out in the field helping people put their lives and homes back together. As everyone is aware, this was a natural disaster of massive proportions. Estimates are that the damage bill will ultimately top $1 billion—larger even than either the Sydney hailstorm or the Newcastle earthquake. Today the weather bureau has issued a top priority severe weather warning for widespread, damaging and locally destructive winds, flash flooding and damaging surf.

Winds on the South Coast and in the Illawarra, metropolitan area, Hunter, mid North Coast, and alpine areas of the Southern Tablelands, west slopes and Australian Capital Territory are expected to average over 65 kilometres an hour, possibly reaching 125 kilometres an hour. Damaging surf conditions, with waves exceeding five metres, are likely to produce significant beach erosion south of Forster. Blizzard conditions are expected to develop this afternoon or evening in alpine areas above 1,200 metres. The Minister for Emergency Services has just received a briefing from Brigadier Philip McNamara, the head of the State Emergency Service, on the latest preparations. Additional resources and crews from the NSW Fire Brigades, the Rural Fire Service and interstate State Emergency Service units are being marshalled to ensure that the State Emergency Service is in a good position to respond.

The latest advice received from authorities this afternoon is that the storm is not likely to reach the South Coast until about 10 o'clock this evening. It is then expected to move gradually north, hitting the Sydney area in the early hours of the morning before moving on to the Hunter and back out to sea. While some rain is expected, strong and severe winds will be the feature of this storm event. The community is being urged to secure loose items in yards and on balconies, and boat owners are being encouraged to secure moorings. When the storm hits, the community is encouraged to stay away from windows and to not enter floodwaters under any circumstances. Because of the wet conditions over the past few weeks, downed trees present one of the greatest potential risks. As a result, people should stay away from trees, and especially should not take shelter under them if outside during the storm. All relevant agencies are keeping a close eye on this storm as it develops and will work together to provide support to those affected.

In the 12 days from 7 June, the State Emergency Service has responded to a staggering 18,000 requests for assistance—which is second only to the number received during the Sydney hailstorm. At one point on Saturday 9 June calls were pouring in at the rate of 240 an hour. By last night the emergency services had completed 94 per cent of those jobs. That is an outstanding achievement, particularly given the ongoing poor conditions. Those statistics give us the big picture, but they do not tell us the individual stories of heartbreak and hardship that the storms and floods have caused for those who have lost loved ones and others sorely tested. I am sure all members of the House will join with me in expressing our support for those who have lost or suffered during these floods and our everlasting appreciation for the heroes who waded waist deep into the terror to protect lives, property and their community.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [2.26 p.m.]: I join with the Premier in his expression of bipartisanship. That spirit of bipartisanship extends to all members of the House and their staff who represent communities affected by these storms. They also have a significant load to bear at this time. The real costs of natural disasters are human costs that governments and parliaments can do little to ameliorate. We may be able to take action that prevents such disasters from occurring or minimises their effect, but in natural disasters, the forces of nature will not be controlled. Similarly, governments can help people and communities to meet and recover from the financial costs and consequences of natural disasters. Indeed, governments must do so. But the real human cost, the dreadful impact on people and their families, is beyond the scope of anything governments try to do to lessen the pain and loss.

In the days after the storms wreaked havoc on the Central Coast and in the Hunter I visited the region. I was there on Sunday when 13,608 people regrettably saw the Knights lose to the Tigers. I was there the next day when the Prime Minister and Premier toured the Hunter. Their tours, separate but sending the same message, demonstrate the degree of bipartisanship that is expected at this time. My visit to Maitland, the Hunter and the Central Coast also demonstrated to me the resilience of the community in the face of tragedy and disaster. The people we met, despite what they have been through, were resourceful, determined and, above all, optimistic. At one level it is a reminder of how powerless governments can be and how powerful communities are in dealing and coping with such events. I am happy to join with the Premier to praise the efforts of the emergency workers from the State Emergency Service, Rural Fire Service, NSW Fire Brigades, police, the Ambulance Service of New South Wales and the Volunteer Rescue Association and others who were involved, such as officers from the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Community Services. They did a terrific job in the region, which our communities have a right to expect at such times.

I met with local volunteers from the Hunter region who, despite what was happening in their own communities, were more than happy to lend a hand to others who were similarly affected. I met with people from Broken Hill and Queanbeyan. The people from Queanbeyan told their wives they were going for a weekend in the Hunter. The bad news was they were not taking their wives. I met with crews from Mullumbimby, Camden and Inverell. The Inverell crew had just returned from national training. They finished their training on Friday and in the early hours of Saturday found themselves on the road to the Hunter. It demonstrates how poorer our community would be—our beaches, our forests, across the State—without the service of volunteers in emergency services and others who do so much within the communities they represent. I met with local volunteers from the Hunter region who, despite what was happening in their own communities, were more than happy to lend a hand to others who were similarly affected. I met with people from Broken Hill and Queanbeyan. The people from Queanbeyan told their wives they were going for a weekend in the Hunter. The bad news was they were not taking their wives. I met with crews from Mullumbimby, Camden and Inverell. The Inverell crew had just returned from national training. They finished their training on Friday and in the early hours of Saturday found themselves on the road to the Hunter. It demonstrates how poorer our community would be—our beaches, our forests, across the State—without the service of volunteers in emergency services and others who do so much within the communities they represent.

I also pay tribute to local government. During my visit I met with a number of local government mayors. I met the Lord Mayor of Newcastle and the Mayor of Maitland and I spoke on the phone to the Mayor of Lake Macquarie. At times like this the issue is not only the efforts of Brigadier McNamara and his crew but also how local governments bring together the resources available to them to serve their communities. From what I saw, all the local governments were extremely well led when one would hope for good leadership, and I pay credit to the member for Lake Macquarie and the other people involved.

While I am paying credit, I remind the House that extraordinarily the impact of the storm in Maitland was much less severe than it might have been. The first and foremost reason for that was made clear in the briefing given by Brigadier McNamara. The flood mitigation works carried out over the 50-odd years since the 1955 Maitland floods did a great deal to ensure that the same water levels did not produce the same havoc. We must give credit to the engineers who designed them, the people who had the foresight to find the funding required and the politicians at all levels who were prepared to back such projects, which come into their own only at times of disaster—they are not used year in and year out. Local, State and Federal governments must find the funding to carry out flood mitigation works despite all the other demands on their budgets.

I join the Premier—on a day of renewed storm warnings when we are fearful about what might happen along the coast of New South Wales later tonight and overnight—in sending a message of continued support and a determination to back any measures to help the affected individuals, families and communities in these regions.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [2.35 p.m.]: Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence on a point of privilege. In the context of statements made last week in another Chamber and by people outside this Chamber at the time this House was dealing with stem cell legislation, I ask what advice you sought in relation to the matter of parliamentary privilege.

The SPEAKER: Order! When the debate was under way at the previous sitting, I asked the Clerk to provide me with some advice in this regard. I am happy to read that out in response to the Leader of the Opposition and for the benefit of all members of the House:

High profile and eminent people often make comments on legislation before Parliament. That is the nature of a democratic society, which enables people of all persuasions to voice their views.

However, Members of Parliament, as the representatives of the people, should be able to express their views and vote in any way they deem appropriate. In this regard Members should not feel threatened or intimidated by others.

The House has a long history of dealing with privilege issues and one of the facets of a prima facie breach of privilege relates to indignities offered to the character of proceedings of Parliament; assaults or insults upon members; reflections upon Members' character or conduct in Parliament; or intimidation of Members.

Public debate about legislation before the Parliament does not necessarily insult the House or its Members. Comments directed at Members could be construed as reflecting on the character or conduct of Members in Parliament. However, for such comments to be a breach of privilege they must have dire consequences for Members, such as impeding Members in their duties in the House.

I consider in this case that the comments made about the legislation before the House have been made as part of the public debate on a controversial issue and have not affected the rights of Members to express their views and vote as they deem appropriate.

However, the intimidation of Members is a serious issue and people who attempt to intimidate Members to vote in a particular way in the House or to express a particular view are in contempt of the House.

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.


Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Why should the people of New South Wales believe the budget with regard to infrastructure when the Premier's own budget papers reveal that this financial year the Government has underspent the capital and maintenance budgets by almost $500 million, the equivalent of 25 new police stations or 19 new high schools?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yet again they have changed leader but they still have no leadership. That question sums up why members of the Coalition are sitting over there enjoying the wilderness. It is something they can enjoy for the next four years. Over the next four years the infrastructure budget will reach $50 billion, up from $46 billion—a one-year increase of 29 per cent on top of last year's increase of 16 per cent. Members of the Coalition have no understanding of the nature of capital or infrastructure and that is why they are sitting opposite. The Government can appreciate that they do not understand—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. He will listen to the answer.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: However, members on this side of the House cannot come to terms with the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, like his predecessor, shows no signs of wanting to understand. That is where he is entirely consistent with his predecessor. The Leader of the Opposition will not get away with laying all the blame for the election defeat at the feet of the member for Vaucluse. As the shadow Treasurer and shadow Minister for Transport he played a fundamental role—or lack thereof—in crafting an alternative infrastructure and finance program for the last election, let alone a transport policy, which happens to contain infrastructure. That question highlights that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129, relevance. The Premier should address the part of the question that relates to the half-billion dollar underspend in maintenance and capital works. Clearly, if the Government is allocating money but underspending it, there is an impact upon people—19 high schools, 25 police stations. The Premier should put up, not just talk.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition does not understand the nature of infrastructure spending and capital works. As I said, he shows no sign of wanting to understand.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the House about the Government's efforts to meet its commitments in this year's budget?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is a good question from a member who is interested in infrastructure and services improvements. The budget meets the Government's election commitments, with record spending on services and infrastructure, tax cuts worth $2.6 billion over four years, and the twelfth consecutive budget surplus. The budget contains record spending, $44.6 billion, on new and improved services and meets our election commitments in the important areas of trade schools and after-hours general practitioner clinics to cut waiting times for families.

The budget delivers an unprecedented $12.5 billion for capital works in 2007-08 and nearly $50 billion over the next four years—the biggest infrastructure investment in New South Wales history. The budget does that in the context of providing more tax cuts—$343 million in the coming year and $2.6 billion over the next four years, with the cuts targeted to help home owners, property investors and business. This all comes about as a result of the Government's strong financial management, delivering a budget surplus, with services averaging $0.5 billion in the following three years. In addition, the revised result for 2006-07 is a surplus of $444 million, an improvement of $1.1 billion. These are strong results that protect our triple-A credit rating, and allow us to make a $2 The budget delivers an unprecedented $12.5 billion for capital works in 2007-08 and nearly $50 billion over the next four years—the biggest infrastructure investment in New South Wales history. The budget does that in the context of providing more tax cuts—$343 million in the coming year and $2.6 billion over the next four years, with the cuts targeted to help home owners, property investors and business. This all comes about as a result of the Government's strong financial management, delivering a budget surplus, with services averaging $0.5 billion in the following three years. In addition, the revised result for 2006-07 is a surplus of $444 million, an improvement of $1.1 billion. These are strong results that protect our triple-A credit rating, and allow us to make a $2 billion down payment on rail infrastructure projects, including the expansion of the rail network.

[ Interruption]

The member for Willoughby is the last person who ought to be talking about costings.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Willoughby asks about costings. How would the Coalition have paid for $29 billion worth of unfunded promises if it had won the election? As I said, these are strong results that protect our triple-A credit rating and allow us to make a $2 billion down payment on rail infrastructure projects. Members opposite hate to hear that. Remember the Leader of the Opposition's prediction on 15 November last year that New South Wales was headed for a $700 million-plus deficit? No, Barry, the budget gets delivered in May or June—not November! Wake up! The budget also delivers on the Government's commitment to focus on new and improved services. In 2007-08 there will be record expenditure in key areas of service delivery. The Health budget is $12.5 billion—up $831 million, or 7.1 per cent.
[ Interruption]

Yes, the surgical units. Thank you to the member for Clarence. The Education budget is $11.2 billion—up $517 million, or 4.9 per cent; the Police budget is $2.3 billion—up 4.1 per cent; the Community Services budget is $1.3 billion—up 11.6 per cent; and the Emergency Services budget is $831 million—up 9 per cent. With all these increases the Government keeps its focus on Mental Health and Disability Services. The Ageing and Disability Services budget has increased by 7.7 per cent, whilst the Mental Health budget, for the first time in New South Wales history, has passed $1 billion, to $1.1 billion—an increase of $105 million, or 11 per cent. The biggest increase in human service areas is to Mental Health. For the second year in a row we have brought public spending in on target. Last financial year the difference between budgeted and actual expenses was just 0.32 per cent, and this year the gap is 0.44 per cent. Excluding drought assistance payments, in 2006-07 the Government reached its target smack on the button. These results reflect fiscal discipline and the Government's determination to ensure that expenditure is controlled so we have the flexibility and capacity to improve and expand front-line services and continue the record investment in infrastructure.

The budget also reflects the fundamental strength and resilience of the New South Wales economy. Since the last budget we have endured a drought that has reduced crop production by 70 per cent, two interest rate rises limiting the recovery of the housing sector, a higher exchange rate hurting local producers, and a spike in actual prices hitting family spending and business profits. Despite all this—and in contrast to the Opposition's repeated and absurd claims about the economy and the suggestion that New South Wales is heading towards a recession—our economy has continued to grow, and grow well.

[ Interruption]

Members opposite were not saying that when they were predicting a recession; they were laying the blame at the feet of the State Government. Whenever there is bad economic news, it is all the fault of the States; whenever there is good economic news, it is all down to John Howard. The Opposition has no interest in supporting New South Wales; it only ever wants to drag the State down. That is all the Leader of the Opposition has done since he became leader. Since he became leader he has just sat there, rubbing his hands with glee, waiting for bad news, so he can drag the State down. How he hates budget day 2007 when New South Wales delivers a surplus, tax cuts, the biggest infrastructure investment in the State's history, and a Mental Health budget that goes up 11 per cent. How he hates that.

[ Interruption]

Exactly. It is exactly what is happening. The Leader of the Opposition might spend some time thinking about some policies. He might spend some time thinking about doing some good for New South Wales—instead of just waiting for bad news so he can drag the State down. That is why he sits on that side. All he took to the people at the last election was criticism and negativity—nothing positive for New South Wales. That is why he is on the Opposition benches and why he will stay there for the next four years. So sit back in the wilderness, Barry. While you are doing that, you might actually do some hard work for once and come up with a policy!

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: The Premier should address the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title.

The SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is upheld.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As I was saying before I was so rudely distracted by the member for Cronulla, in 2007-08 economic growth is forecast to lift from the current year estimate of 1.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent. We should also see continued growth in employment, leading to a further decline in the already historically low unemployment rate. The outcomes of this budget are no accident; they come about through careful and disciplined management and a determination to keep the New South Wales economy growing strongly—all in the context of the biggest infrastructure program in the State's history, cutting taxes and improving services. On 7 June a Australian Financial Review headline read "NSW Back in Business". The following day a headline read "NSW Back on Track". May I respectfully suggest to the editors of the Australian Financial Review that a headline tomorrow might read "NSW Back in the Black".

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Epping to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Following the Premier's promises to rebuild the Parkes and Forbes hospitals during the Dubbo by-election in 2004 and again during this year's State election campaign, can the Premier explain why the budget documents reveal that these projects are still only at planning stage?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is a rather extraordinary question. The Leader of The Nationals seems to think you can pluck a new hospital out of thin air and it will suddenly appear. That question is a reflection of the time he has spent in moving to another Parliament.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order No. 129 and relevance. Members are getting bored with these bedtime stories about me moving to Canberra; they want to know about the Parkes and Forbes hospitals.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has only just started his answer. He has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals might think it is boring to allocate $1 million to redevelop those two hospitals, but we do not, and we are getting on with the job of delivering the hospitals.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. How is the Government meeting its commitments to public transport services and infrastructure in this year's budget?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am sure the member for Miranda will be pleased to see that the Government is delivering on its commitments in this area and across the State. I am sure that his local community will be pleased that another $115 million has been allocated to complete the shire's biggest infrastructure project in history—the duplication of the Cronulla railway line. The project will see more frequent and reliable services and a greater capacity along the line, with major upgrades at Woolooware and Kirrawee railway stations. I think the member for Cronulla also secretly believes it is a wonderful project. He just left question time to rattle off another press release to the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader , celebrating what a fantastic budget it is for his electorate—as it is. I thank him for the compliment.

Today's budget delivers a record $5.8 billion expenditure that will deliver on our commitments to expand and improve the public transport system to increase reliability and grow patronage. That is a massive amount of money to be spent in 12 months; one wonders how it can be done, but it can be. This record expenditure includes budget support of $3.3 billion—$1.3 billion through borrowings, $891 million from fare box revenue, and $310 million from other revenue. I am almost embarrassed to report that that is an 11.2 per cent increase in expenditure from last year. It is an unheard of increase in one year. Unlike those opposite, we took a comprehensive transport plan to the election and the public voted for improved public transport services and massive spending on transport infrastructure throughout the State—and this budget delivers that. The harvest is in; the crops are in the barn. This is a fantastic budget for public transport.

The Urban Transport Statement, which was released by the Premier in November last year, committed us to the biggest-ever spending program in rail. The 2007-08 Transport budget includes $1.9 billion in capital spending—a $382 million increase—to deliver some of the biggest rail infrastructure improvements in New South Wales in 30 years. We are building new lines in the north-west, the south-west and the Sydney central business district, with a record $345 million to be spent this year, including $289 million in land acquisitions, putting us on track to meet our commitment to accelerate the north-west railway line by two years to bring trains to the Hills district two years earlier, by 2015.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The budget also provides $297.3 million for the completion of the Epping­Chatswood rail link by next year, with its three new stations and upgrades at Epping and Chatswood. The member for Epping appears often in my local newspapers praising what we are doing in rail and public transport, and I thank him for that. Our Clearways program, which will bring a whole range of reliability and capacity benefits to the network, is funded in this year's budget by a massive $284.4 million, and that is just in one year. I am sure that even those opposite who cannot come up with a public transport policy of their own will acknowledge the value of the Clearways program, as well as the extra platform and stabling at Hornsby, the stabling and turnback at Macdonaldtown, and the Bondi Junction turnback.

What the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to grasp is that the enormous work undertaken to deliver these massive projects takes time, planning and expertise. A new rail line or a new hospital cannot be built overnight. But the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague the member for Willoughby just sit back criticising. They seem to think that infrastructure blossoms out of nowhere like a desert bloom. It does not. This criticism comes from the Leader of the Opposition, whose only contribution to New South Wales transport was the destruction of that innocent little station at Darnick.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Standing Order 129 relates to relevance. The monkey has been well behaved over the past couple of months but I ask you to bring him back to the leave of the question, which was about the Government's transport policies and what was announced today. Your objective at the beginning of this term was to lift the standards of the Parliament, and I am sure that the Coalition and the crossbenches very much support that strategy, but whenever the monkey goes off on a tangent that is when the Parliament becomes a raucous bear pit.

Mr John Aquilina: To the point of order: In that point of order the member for Murrumbidgee implores you to lift the standards of this Parliament, yet on two occasions he referred to the Deputy Premier as a monkey. I put it to you that that is insulting and offensive language and hardly purports to upgrade the standards of this Parliament.

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that members assist their points of order by referring to the Deputy Premier as a monkey.

Mr Brad Hazzard: It's unfair to monkeys!

The SPEAKER: Order! We all know the member for Wakehurst is in the Chamber. I place him on three calls to order. Members should not undermine their points of order by indulging in the same behaviour they are complaining about. The Deputy Premier has the call. I am sure he was making only a passing reference to Darnick. I urge him to ensure that the remainder of his answer is relevant.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I always thought I was much higher up the evolutionary scale than a monkey. I have always seen myself as a bit of a political gorilla. The other thing the Leader of the Opposition delivered to New South Wales—and let us not forget it—was the airport rail link, promised to come at no cost to the taxpayer but how much was it? The taxpayers of this State had to shell out $800 million because of the Leader of the Opposition—and the member for Manly's father was involved in the conspiracy also, but more of that later.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. In reference to the comments you made, Mr Speaker, in upholding the standing orders, my reference to the Minister for Transport being a monkey was clearly in breach of the standing orders, but it was to highlight his continual breaching of the standing orders. If you expect us to uphold the standing orders you must ask the Minister and Government members to uphold them also.

The SPEAKER: Order! I advise the Deputy Premier that there is a limit to the background information that can be canvassed in reply to a question. The Deputy Premier has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I was provoked. The Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation is the arm of government that delivers many of our major transport infrastructure projects. This year 19 projects are either under construction or in the planning phase. These project locations range right across the Sydney region, from Newcastle to Cronulla, from Rouse Hill to Leppington. They include upgrading works at 30 stations across the CityRail network, with a total daily patronage of over 250,000 passenger trips per day. We are constructing an additional 151 kilometres of track.

The construction of the Epping to Chatswood rail line alone has so far involved 10 million personnel hours, 195,000 cubic metres of concrete and 900 kilometres of communication cable. One hundred per cent of the rail track is in the tunnel. It has now being installed ready to be opened next year. When it is opened the Epping to Chatswood rail line will provide the capacity for an additional 12,000 rail passenger journeys a day. It is a huge project, which demonstrates how ludicrous the Opposition's claim is that one can somehow just pluck major infrastructure projects out of the air. You cannot. First, you need a policy, then a plan, and then a budget like the one we have just delivered to provide the funds to build it, and we are proud that we have done that.

The next massive injection of new trains is also delivered in this budget—$232.1 million, more than half of which is for the 626 new air-conditioned carriages, $50 million for the OSCars, $12.5 million for the upgrade of the long-haul XPT and Endeavour cars. It is not just those big rail infrastructure projects that make a difference to people; it is the many smaller ones scattered throughout the Sydney rail metropolitan network and beyond that actually make a difference to people's lives; existing projects such as this year the upgrades at St James, Newtown and Lindfield stations, and also big projects at North Sydney and Hurstville. We are planning easy access upgrades at Picton, Martin Place, Broadmeadow, Central's east entry, Burwood, Emu Plains, Windsor and Sydenham. Commuter car parks are being planned for Wentworthville, Bankstown, Macarthur, Windsor, Morisset, Woy Woy and Tuggerah.

As well as the rail projects, $122 million will be spent to deliver 265 new buses, $281 million for State Transit's operations, and $538 million for the private bus networks in the Sydney outer and regional New South Wales areas. The Government is committed to, and is, improving public transport through this budget. I am very proud that we are meeting the commitments we made to the people of New South Wales. It is a massive undertaking but we are on track to deliver to Sydney and to New South Wales a better, more integrated, more equitable transport system. It is a big, bold, beautiful transport budget that has been delivered here today and I am very proud of it.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: My question is directed to the Premier. In light of the Premier's claimed good economic management, how can he justify spending only $4 million extra on public dental treatment when there are over 115,000 people on the State's waiting list, including many children living in pain?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This from a shadow Health Minister who has never said one single word about the razor gang in Canberra that killed the national dental health program and when not one dollar went to any State Government when the national program was wound up!

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Was the program wound up because it was a failure? No. Was it wound up because the most needy were not getting dental care? No. It was wound up in 1997 just after John Howard won the 1996 election because the razor gang was let loose. Has the member for North Shore ever uttered one word in support of the people of this State to reinstate a national dental health program, which is the jurisdictional responsibility of the Commonwealth? No, not one word—not ever. Instead she gets up with her miserable excuses and criticisms and attacks the increase in funding delivered today that takes the funding to $138 million, targeted at children, the ones most in need. She attacks the State because it dares to fill the gap left by the Commonwealth, when it is the responsibility of John Howard. She will slide up to the nearest clinician like Mr Zoellner, who will say, "Send it all to Westmead", as if Westmead and the clinical services there—as important as they are—are the only issues when it comes to dental care in New South Wales.

We seek to spread the $138 million across the State to meet the need in rural New South Wales as much as the need in Western Sydney. When we increase the dental health budget we will not send it all to Westmead and one practice; we will distribute it across New South Wales. The budget does that. For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, these are some of the issues on oral health that this budget addresses.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Oral health?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes. That is what the professionals call it.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The funding will provide an additional 12 dental therapy teams to provide 14,000 additional services for 9,500 children.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Six additional regional and rural sites with specialist services, boosting the number of services by up to 600.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Our waiting list is only 1,500.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: You may not like it because we know what agenda you are on about. You want to get rid of the voucher scheme; that is why you keep promoting what has been put to you by Mr Zoellner. Tell that to every member in rural New South Wales, and we will see whether the new members for Murray­Darling or the Tweed want to interject.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: Twice during the answer the Premier insulted a professor of dentistry, who is not here to defend himself. I ask you to ask the Premier not to insult various respected members of the dental profession.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Not at all; he is a respected member of the clinical community. I make the point that dental services do not just revolve around Westmead. I am entitled to make that point, unlike the member for Coffs Harbour. We know what his agenda is. I look forward to the day when we get an interjection from the member for Clarence, the member for Tweed or the member for Murray-Darling should they ever succeed with their agenda with respect to dental health. We say that a government should spend the money across the State, that it should seek equity in the distribution of the dental health dollar and that it should pay recognition to the remote and rural communities that are entitled to their share of that dental health budget and the schemes that are run under it.

While members opposite are thinking about dental health, they might direct some attention towards Canberra. I am not talking about reinstating the national dental health program but about striking a blow for the medical benefits scheme [MBS]. Canberra made another change to deliberately skew the medical benefits scheme towards private dentistry. Members opposite have never said one word in this place about public dentistry. Not once have they defended public dentistry or got Canberra, through the medical benefits scheme, to provide some incentives for public dentistry.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is also the shadow Minister for Health, could have promised the earth but we know what would have happened as a result of her promise if she ever got a chance to implement it. First, she would never have been able to fund it and, second, rural New South Wales would today be in open revolt. Thank goodness she is not going to get the chance to implement her discredited policy over the next four years. The way things are going in Canberra, there will be a national dental health program under a Rudd government.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister update the House on how the Government is meeting its commitments in the Health portfolio?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Today's budget revealed record spending on the vital health services portfolio. This is yet another example of the Iemma Government's ongoing efforts to improve and expand public services. Today's record budget provided an additional $831 million over last year, which is a 7.1 per cent increase, as part of a record $12.5 billion. The Health budget now represents 28 per cent of the total State budget and continues to build on the achievements already made by the Iemma Government to deliver essential health services to the people of New South Wales. Perhaps more significantly, it marks an important shift towards early intervention services through health promotion, disease prevention, and health care services at home and in the community. This new focus represents a concerted effort from the State Government to keep people healthy and out of hospital. I emphasise that this new focus will not come at the expense of investment in acute care services.

Today's budget will ensure that our doctors, nurses and allied health professionals have the resources they need to respond to the increasing pressures on the health system. New recurrent initiatives outlined in this year's Health budget include $54 million for improved access to hospital and community-based treatment through 456 community-based bed equivalents and hospital beds and $6 million for five intensive care beds and three neonatal intensive care cots, including a new transportable "flexi cot" which can be moved to assist with the birth and care of premature twins and multiple births. This important new initiative will reduce the need for last-minute transport to find a facility that has multiple vacancies in specialised neonatal intensive care beds.

Today's budget also represents a record expenditure on health capital works—$714 million this year on capital works as part of a $2.4 billion commitment to health capital works over the next four years. To meet our State Plan commitments on access, today's budget allocates an additional $18.5 million for more elective surgery and $54 million funding for 456 community-based beds and bed equivalents. All these beds and bed equivalents require the employment of extra nurses and health professionals. That is why today's budget dedicates new funding of $35.8 million over four years for nurse recruitment and new training and retention initiatives. A further $46.5 million will be allocated to our ongoing Investing in Nurses initiatives, with new funding of $6 million over four years for 30 new nurse practitioners in nursing and midwifery and $8 million over four years for 1,600 scholarships for registered and enrolled nurses. The sum of $2.5 million will be provided over four years for 125 rural midwives to undergo additional education and for a further 125 scholarships to attract midwives to rural communities.

The budget includes $18 million in new funding over four years to keep elderly people healthy at home. It allocates an additional $105 million for mental health. The budget includes $8 million over four years to establish 12 new after-hours general practitioner clinics that were announced during the election campaign. These new after-hours general practitioner clinics are the way of the future and we look forward to seeing them ease the burden on emergency departments and give hardworking fa The budget includes $18 million in new funding over four years to keep elderly people healthy at home. It allocates an additional $105 million for mental health. The budget includes $8 million over four years to establish 12 new after-hours general practitioner clinics that were announced during the election campaign. These new after-hours general practitioner clinics are the way of the future and we look forward to seeing them ease the burden on emergency departments and give hardworking families across the State access to the services they need at any time of the day or night.

I am pleased to advise the House that today's budget provides an additional $8 million for oral health, bringing the annual allocation to $138 million. As we have heard from the Premier, $4 million will be put towards reducing waiting lists for children. Consistent with the new early intervention approach, the budget dedicates an extra $6.5 million over four years to fund obesity and healthy living campaigns. Today's budget also delivers on our commitment by providing $14.2 million over four years to establish the New South Wales Statewide Eyesight Preschooler Screening Program to check the eyes of all children before they start school. Today's budget will support the work of our clinical advisers who have worked so constructively to cut elective surgery waiting times and improve services in our emergency departments. Country Labor members will be pleased to hear that the budget will also improve access to health services in regional and rural areas.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I would have thought a question on health would be of interest to all members of the House.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Mr Speaker, 38.8 per cent of the budget will be allocated to rural and regional New South Wales ¾ that is, $3.7 billion is being spent on rural and regional health services. Rural and regional areas will benefit from $12.2 million over four years to establish the new one-stop shop primary and community health service called HealthOne. The first rollout will see a HealthOne located in Corowa, Cootamundra, Molong, Rylstone and Manilla, and will focus on health promotion, illness prevention and early intervention to ease the burden of ill-health, especially chronic disease. This is all part of the Government's commitment to improving health care services in this State. There is a strong new focus on early intervention, funding for general practitioner centres, funding for HealthOne community-based care, funding for doctors and nurses through the community-based bed equivalents, and funding for early intervention to treat chronic disease, accompanied by a record investment in capital works and equipment. I commend the Health budget to the House.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that in 2004 when he was health Minister he committed to funding the Hay Days Aged Care Hostel, is he embarrassed that his Government has yet again brought down a budget that fails to provide the necessary funding to deliver his commitment?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Is the member referring to Hay?

Mr John Williams: Hay Days.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There was no commitment.
Mr STEVE WHAN: My question is to the Premier. How is the Government meeting its commitments to rural and regional New South Wales?

The SPEAKER: Order! All members who have been called to order are now on three calls. There is some time remaining in question time, and it will be conducted in the proper way.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The budget makes a strong commitment to country families. This year 46 per cent of capital works funding is for projects outside Sydney. This funding goes directly to schools, hospitals and roads. We provide the money needed to improve and expand the services that hardworking country families rely on. Our Country Labor team has led the charge in getting this increased funding.

Mr Thomas George: Name them.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will name some of them later. Thanks to their hard work, 72 per cent of this year's Roads budget will be spent on improving the safety and efficiency of country roads. It includes $404 million to upgrade the Pacific Highway, $120 million to improve the Princes Highway and more than $150 million for improvements to the Hume Highway.

Mr Thomas George: Federal money.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am sure the Opposition does not want me to give a breakdown of Commonwealth and State funding. They may be embarrassed. Our massive investment will mean better and safer roads for country people. We are also building a world-class health system that all New South Wales families can access regardless of their postcode. The Broken Hill hospital project is complete. This year a record $3.69 billion will be spent on rural health services and facilities. That is an increase of $225 million, or 6.5 per cent, on last year.

The SPEAKER: Order! I place the member for Clarence on three calls to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Part of this massive investment will deliver on our commitment to open more beds, recruit more doctors and nurses, undertake more elective surgery and redevelop country health facilities. It will include $74.7 million to continue the redevelopment of hospitals outside Sydney. Earlier I was asked to name them. The member for Bathurst will welcome the $32.6 million in the budget to continue the redevelopment of Bathurst hospital. The member for Monaro will welcome securing $17.6 million to continue the redevelopment of Queanbeyan hospital. I am sure he is very proud of his efforts. We will also invest more than $56 million to redevelop or upgrade an additional 13 rural hospitals and health services in small towns across the State.

Mr Thomas George: Name them.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will name them. They are Guyra in the electorate of Northern Tablelands, Junee in the electorate of Wagga Wagga and Batlow in the electorate of Burrinjuck.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Murrumbidgee.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Murrumbidgee. The other town is Merriwa in the electorate of Upper Hunter. We will also deliver on our commitment to build a new emergency department at Maitland Hospital. In mental health we will spend $39.5 million to continue work on rural mental health projects, including the non-acute mental health units at Shellharbour, James Fletcher and Coffs Harbour hospitals. To deliver quality educational facilities for children in rural New South Wales, the budget stands at $4.5 billion, as the member for Clarence correctly points out. This funding will go towards trade schools at Queanbeyan and Nambucca high schools, an estimated $116 million, as the member for Clarence correctly points out, for maintenance programs in both rural and regional schools and TAFE colleges and, as the member for Clarence further indicates, $81.6 million for literacy and numeracy programs in rural and regional New South Wales. This investment will help give our young people the best possible start in life. A top-rate education in the best surroundings will open the door to future job and educational opportunities. This year's budget continues our commitment to working with our colleagues and rural communities in improving health and educational services.
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Can the Minister inform the House on how the Government is meeting its commitment to deliver police resources and infrastructure?

The SPEAKER: Order! I place the member for Murrumbidgee on three calls to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Iemma Government is today meeting its commitments to deliver record police resources and infrastructure for communities throughout New South Wales. This year's Police budget in New South Wales will top $2.2 billion. That is an increase of $90.2 million, or more than 4 per cent, on last year. The Iemma Government supports our hardworking front-line police. We trust them to keep our communities safe and they do an outstanding job. This year $2.1 million will be invested to start major new capital works projects at three police stations: Camden, Leichhardt and Bowral. I know the member for Camden, who has been a tireless campaigner for new police facilities in his electorate, will be pleased about that. I am also confident that the Minister for Women will be delighted about the police station at Leichhardt. I look forward to the member for Goulburn welcoming the announcement of the funds for the commencement of planning for a new police station at Bowral. Perhaps, for a change, she might get behind the police who work at Bowral police station.

Mr Richard Amery: Don't hold your breath!

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The member for Mount Druitt says, "Don't hold your breath!" Hope springs eternal. Another $49.3 million has been set aside for continued works on building new stations, as well as further work on upgrades already underway to 17 police stations. Rural and regional areas feature heavily in this year's budget. In fact, most police stations to receive funding are outside Sydney. Funding for new stations and upgrades to existing facilities this year are $12.1 million for Dubbo police station, $7.9 million for Orange police station, $6.6 million for Wagga Wagga police station, $5 million for Lismore police station, $1.3 million for Wyong police station, $1.3 million for Corrimal police station—the police who work there do a great job—$1.1 million for Kempsey police station and funding to continue the planning of a new police station at Lake Illawarra. I know the member for Shellharbour is looking forward to that project getting underway. In Western Sydney there is $6 million for Fairfield police station, $2.6 million for St Mary's police station, $1.1 million for Windsor police station and funding for Granville police station.

This ongoing investment in infrastructure will drive economic activity and create jobs in our regions and deliver on the Premier's commitment to improve and expand public services. Further, it will give the police the facilities they deserve. One of our key election commitments was to provide the New South Wales Police Force with more than $1 million to purchase 10 mobile police stations. The Iemma Government is meeting that commitment. Those mobile stations will be rolled out across the State this year to areas including the Central Coast, the Illawarra, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Lake Macquarie, the North Coast and Western Sydney. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that our front-line police officers have the resources, equipment and facilities they need to drive down crime.

A major focus of the State Plan is to reduce the incidence of violent crime against individuals and to target property crime. To tackle violent crime, advances in technology and smarter policing are a major focus of this year's record Police budget. The Iemma Government is meeting its commitment to boost DNA and forensic resources with an allocation of $9.2 million in this year's budget. Advances in DNA technology and improved investigative techniques are powerful weapons in the fight against crime. The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring that our crime investigators have the very latest technology they need to solve crime. That includes $1.4 million for a robotic DNA analysis platform, $3.9 million for a digital imaging system, $2.8 million for portable electronic fingerprint devices and $227,000 for a spheron imaging system.

In addition to the boost in forensic and DNA technology, the Iemma Government will invest $50 million in information and communications technology. By boosting police resources, the Government is providing the backing that the New South Wales Police Force needs to keep our community safe. I am sure the police officers at Kiama would like the member for South Coast to say something positive for a change about the work they do, instead of interjecting with mindless nonsense and pointing as she continually does.

New South Wales has the most highly paid and the best-trained police officers in Australia. The Iemma Government has delivered record police numbers, putting more officers on the front line to crack down on anti­social behaviour and to keep families safe. It has provided police with tough powers and the equipment and resources they need to continue to drive down the incidence of crime. As a result of the hard work of police and ongoing record funding, over the past two years crime rates have been either falling or stable in nearly all of the major crime statistic areas.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN: My question is directed to the Premier. Why has the Premier ignored the health needs of the Tomaree community by failing to provide any funds in this year's budget for the upgrade of the Tomaree Community Hospital?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: My response to the question I was asked about rural and regional New South Wales outlined very clearly the infrastructure expenditure on health services across the State. I understand that one of the pressures on Tomaree Community Hospital, which provides emergency services, is the shortage of general practitioners. That was also an issue when I was the Minister for Health. However, that is a Commonwealth responsibility. That shortage exacerbates the pressures on the hospital.

I never heard the member, when he was in local government or when he was a candidate, advocating for more general practitioners, or even changing the Medicare Benefits Schedule rates or improving bulk-billing to ensure an even distribution of general practitioners outside major metropolitan areas. That is a key issue on the Tomaree peninsula and it is the major problem for the local hospital. In relation to funding for infrastructure, I refer the member to the previous answer that I gave this House.

Question time concluded.

Mr MALCOLM KERR, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. The Deputy Premier said that I complimented the Government. Mr Speaker, as you would appreciate, this is a very bad government.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cronulla is out of order. He will resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No, I am simply making the—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member is out of order. He will resume his seat.

Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 78 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, of the report entitled "Report on an I nvestigation into Corrupt Conduct Associated with RailCorp Air-conditioning Contracts", dated June 2007.

Ordered to be printed.

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

Petition requesting that a bus shelter be constructed on public land outside Ballina High School to protect students from the weather, received from Mr Donald Page.

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

Petition requesting funding for Parkinson's-specific support services for people living with Parkinson's disease, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting funding for Hornsby's palliative care beds, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition praying that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting an increased number of police to address understaffing in the Tumut police patrol, resulting in Batlow police being unable to adequately service the community, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting increased resources and police numbers for the Griffith Local Area Command, received from Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Petition requesting dedicated bicycle facilities for the entire length of William Street, and on Craigend Street and Kings Cross Road, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [3.37 p.m.]: This motion should be accorded priority because the 2007-08 budget provides record funding for policing in New South Wales. It should be accorded priority because the Government is investing in policing in Western Sydney by providing new police stations and facilities. This motion should be accorded priority because the Iemma Government has increased spending on forensic and DNA technology. It should be accord priority because tracking down violent criminals is a priority for the people of New South Wales. This motion should be accorded priority because the men and women of the New South Wales Police Force should be congratulated on their hard work to keep New South Wales families safe.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [3.38 p.m.]: Since 7 June billions of litres of water have rained on Sydney and have flowed out into the Pacific Ocean. About 40 millimetres of rain has fallen on a single day although Sydney's average annual rainfall is only 1,200 millilitres. The issue that should be before the House is whether the Government should continue with its plan to spend $2 billion on a desalination plant instead of taking positive steps to introduce stormwater harvesting and rainwater conservation.

Today's budget allocates $1.3 billion to start the desalination plant. Not only would that amount build about 250 high schools, a major highway from Sydney to the Victorian border and at least two major hospitals, but it would also ensure a record budget surplus. However, the State Government, for reasons known only to the Premier, is determined to continue with a program to build a massive environmental disaster. Former Premier Bob Carr derided the idea of a desalination plant as bottled electricity because it would require the output of a power station to operate.

More evidence has since come to light of the devastating impact of a desalination plant. It would dump back into the Pacific Ocean water with a salt concentration of about six times that of the seawater. That would have a huge impact on whales migrating over the summer months between Australia and Antarctica and on other fish life. It would have such an impact that even the Greens—who gave their preferences to this Government—are opposed to its construction. We had the extraordinary sight of the Greens candidate for Miranda crying at the thought of what was going to happen to the whales, yet she gave her preferences to keep the member for Miranda in his ill-gotten seat. When he almost lost that seat he said that his community was very ungrateful.

Mr Kevin Greene: Priority?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: This motion should be accorded priority because it involves $1.3 billion which the Minister responsible for community services would be able to spend looking after the poor and afflicted in this State. The Minister has done nothing to stop the waste of $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money on a project that is unnecessary and environmentally burdensome and will result in an enormous waste of energy. The program is unnecessary, environmentally disastrous, and a financial drain upon the State of New South Wales. It was done only for the ego of the Premier, who originally said that he would not trigger the desalination plant unless the level of Warragamba Dam fell below 30 per cent of capacity. He then reneged on that promise, even though the level of the dam was at that stage at 38 per cent.

Now the level of Warragamba Dam is something like 45 per cent of capacity, yet the Premier persists in going ahead with his $2 billion waste of taxpayers' money. This is the largest single financial allocation for capital works in the budget—$1.9 billion. It is money that a real Minister for Community Services—a Minister for Community Services who was genuinely concerned about poor and afflicted people in the State, about neglected children, and about the need for better fostering of children—would be fighting for. But all the Minister does is call out in an echo, "Priority, priority", as if that somehow gives it a semblance of realism. The people of Cronulla have risen in revolt—

Mr Kevin Greene: Point of order: It is most inappropriate for the member for Terrigal to in any way say that the people of Cronulla are revolting. He should be brought back to the leave of the debate.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The only revolting person in this House is the Minister for Community Services.

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

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Morris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce 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 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 Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Mr Borger

Mr R. C. Williams

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to permit, at the conclusion of the matter of public importance, the introduction and the mover's agreement in principle speech on the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [3.49 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Government on its record police budget for 2007-08;

(2) congratulates the Government on recognising the importance of the growing Western Sydney region with spending on new police stations and facilities;

(3) notes the increased spending on forensic and DNA technology to deliver the technology police need to track down violent criminals; and

(4) congratulates New South Wales police on their ongoing hard work to keep families safe.

I congratulate the Iemma Government on its 2007-08 budget. I particularly highlight the funding provided for Western Sydney in the Police portfolio. I am delighted to inform the House that Western Sydney is a big winner in this year's record allocation to New South Wales police. As members heard from the Minister for Police earlier today, spending on police in New South Wales will rise by $90.2 million, or more than 4 per cent, to $2.27 billion in the 2007-08 State budget. I am pleased to inform the House that $11.2 million of this will be invested in new police stations or upgrades to existing facilities in Western Sydney. That includes $6 million for Fairfield police station, $2.6 million for St Marys police station, which services the people of the Penrith electorate, $1.1 million for Windsor police station, $0.8 million for Granville police station, and $0.7 million for Camden police station.

With funding for five local stations the Iemma Government has recognised the importance of the ever­growing Western Sydney region. It has recognised that hardworking police need the resources and facilities to do a difficult job, and it has delivered these resources. On top of the works to the police stations, local area commands in Western Sydney also will receive four mobile police stations. The mobile stations will be delivered to Camden, Penrith, Hawkesbury and Liverpool. That is a further investment of about $400,000 for police in our community, and it shows the Government is delivering on its electoral commitments.

When the Minister for Police came out to Penrith during the hard-fought election campaign and announced that a mobile police station would be delivered to the electorate, my opposition candidate's campaign director spent the time going around and around in a ute during the media conference. The people of Penrith looked at the policy and the funding proposed by Labor and voted accordingly. They knew that as the Labor candidate I made commitments to improve police services in our community and delivered on them, instead of spending time going around and around in a ute during a media conference.

The fantastic resources provided in the budget will allow police to maintain a highly visible presence around shopping centres, train stations and other areas where crime hotspots are identified. While police already do a great job protecting our community, the new mobile stations will be a valuable tool in cracking down on street crime and antisocial behaviour. The mobile stations will be rolled out this year to provide police with another resource to tackle criminals. They will help officers in Western Sydney, who have been focused on proactive policing, the top officers using new recruits to work on crime prevention.

To date this year 12 new police recruits have been allocated to my electorate of Penrith, with nine officers from the January graduation joining the ranks. They bring to the job many different life experiences which will be valued and which will assist them in their policing careers. I was proud to meet them a few days after they started at the Penrith police station, unlike members of the Opposition, who only had harsh words to say about their course and their ability to be effective members of the Police Force. These police officers commented that they felt they were being victimised by the Opposition at a politically sensitive time. They thought that their training, their expertise and their life experiences should have been valued rather than criticised by the Opposition.

Three more recruits from the recent attestation on 11 May 2007 have joined the local community at an exciting time for the New South Wales Police Force. We already have a record number of police on the beat, and the Iemma Government will increase police numbers to a record 15,956 by 2011. Those record numbers are paying dividends for Penrith. During a recent visit to the local area command with the new Minister for Police and the member for Londonderry, police advised me that the crime statistics for April show that break, enter and steal offences are the lowest since October 2005 and, even more impressively, assault, stealing and motor vehicle theft are at their lowest levels since the beginning of 2004.

While there is no doubt there is still more work to be done, the statistics show that there has been a great improvement locally. Police are on the beat and they are visible; they are cracking down on crime and they are doing an outstanding job. While the Opposition denigrates the hard-working police at every opportunity, the Iemma Government will continue to provide the resources, the tougher powers and the support police need to lock up criminals. In Penrith we also have three civilian scene of crime officers at the local area command. This boost to forensic resources has substantially increased the number of crime scenes being forensically examined and with more forensic examinations a growing number of offenders are being arrested where latent fingerprints or DNA have been located. This year the Government is backing those crime scene officers with more than $9 million in funding for forensic and DNA technology.

As well as providing police to local areas like Western Sydney we are giving police new technology to help them solve crimes. I am proud to say that as part of the State Plan the Government will continue to back Western Sydney police and those in the rest of the State in their crackdown on crime and antisocial behaviour. I thank the Penrith community, the community leaders and the community members of the Penrith State Plan Workshop who identified the need to crack down on crime and antisocial behaviour. I am pleased to say that the Iemma Government State Plan focuses on fostering the values of respect and responsibility to ensure high community standards, and it does so by targeting noisy neighbours, public drunkenness and hoon drivers.

The Premier has set crime reduction targets, which include a 10 per cent drop in violent crime and a 15 per cent drop in property crime by 2016. The New South Wales Police Force has been given record police numbers and a record budget to help achieve the Premier's State Plan targets. But we should also congratulate the men and women of the New South Wales Police Force and acknowledge that they do a fantastic job and work hard in very difficult situations. I note that Constable Matthew McDougall from the bicycle unit is Penrith Police Officer of the Year 2006. That inaugural award was given out on 28 March by Penrith Rotary. He was one of the many finalists: Senior Constable John Bongiorno, Constable Brett Collins, Senior Constable Kenneth Snyders, Detective Senior Constable Louise Delahart, Sergeant Scott Smith, Senior Constable Timothy Paul, Sergeant Kerry Smith, and Constable Mark Maclean from the protective unit.

Constable Matthew McDougall exemplifies the police officers of Western Sydney, particularly those in the Penrith Local Area Command. On 26 June last year he and another person were travelling in a police car to Cobham Children's Court when they noticed smoke rising from a house in Park Avenue on the other side of the highway. They had to do a U-turn and go across a rail bridge and then down to Park Avenue; it was quite a difficult place to get to. Constable McDougall was able to get a young child out of a blazing house, and the child was revived by a local nurse. Constable McDougall was also assisted by an off-duty fire officer, Carlos Henry. Constable McDougall is just one member of the Police Force who is doing a great job in Western Sydney and on that occasion it was in cooperation with a local nurse and local firies. It is interesting to note that during the last election campaign the Opposition said it wanted to cut front-line services, which would have meant a reduction in the number of police officers, nurses and firies. The police in Western Sydney do a fantastic job, and I again acknowledge the Penrith Police Officer of the Year.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [3.59 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) takes note of the police budget for 2007-08;

(2) calls upon the Government to upgrade police stations throughout New South Wales, including Western Sydney, the Hunter and the Central Coast; and

(3) congratulates New South Wales police on carrying out their duties admirably, despite being poorly accommodated in dozens of outdated, dilapidated police stations.

Prior to the 2007 State election the Iemma Government issued a policy statement on what it would do for police and about police accommodation. The statement was part of the document entitled "Heading in the Right Direction" under the subsection "Upgrading our police stations". I produce that document. The document lists the pledge by Premier Iemma, which says:

We will commence construction at nine new locations including Belmont, Deniliquin, Leichhardt, Liverpool, Manly, Moree, Quakers Hill, Tweed Heads Local Area Command and Walgett.

Only Leichhardt is mentioned in the budget. A promise—a solemn, written commitment—given by the Premier has been broken. He goes on to say:

We will commence planning and scoping work for new stations at Parramatta, Bowral, Coffs Harbour, Parkes.

Of those four only Bowral is mentioned in the budget. Again, that was a solemn promise made by the Premier so far as upgrading police stations is concerned, but only one station is mentioned in the budget. A promise was made that a total of 13 stations would be either constructed or have scoping work commenced, but only two of the 13 rate a mention in the budget. So much for the propaganda of the Minister during question time and the member for Penrith about what a wonderful job the State Government is doing to support police! The State Government does not even honour its own promises to the New South Wales community and to its police. The Premier continues:

We will continue minor upgrades, with $20 million allocated for ongoing upgrades of police facilities across New South Wales including improved lighting, fencing, facilities and electrical upgrades.

There is no mention in the State budget of that commitment. The crowning effort is a promise of mobile police vans for 10 areas. The member for Penrith did not know what the areas were because they are not spelt out in the budget, but they are spelt out in this document. The areas are Brisbane Water, Lake Illawarra, Camden, Penrith, Lake Macquarie, Hawkesbury, North Coast, Newcastle, Port Stephens and Liverpool. The amount allocated for those 10 mobile police stations is $1.1 million, or $100,000 each.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Caravans.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the member for Davidson so correctly states, they will be caravans. One cannot buy and fit out a good-sized truck for $100,000. One could only buy a few vans or perhaps a caravan towed behind a police car. That demonstrates the hollowness of this Government's promise. The member for Penrith gave a nice little scripted speech about what a wonderful job the Government is doing for police. One need only contrast the words of the Minister for Police during question time with the promise made by Premier Iemma during the March 2007 election campaign. That is how the Government treats New South Wales police. It makes promises but does not honour them.

It gets even better, because the Government underspent the 2006-07 police budget by $8.080 million. The Government promised to upgrade police stations, but it underspent the budget by more than $8 million. It is so incompetent that it cannot even spend the money it has allocated. For the benefit of the member for Penrith I produce the document. This is almost like a court case. The prosecution leads off with its prepared statement, then the defence shoots holes in the case by showing what the Premier promised. The defence then uses the budget papers to show how the Government was not even able to competently spend the money allocated in the 2006-07 budget. The document is produced and tendered as exhibit B, for the benefit of the member for Davidson, who is a trained lawyer. The Premier's list of promises, in which 13 police stations are mentioned but only two are honoured in the budget, can be exhibit A.

The member for Penrith gave a sorry performance in trying to justify the failure of the Iemma Government to look after its own and to provide for the 15,000 to 20,000 police in the State. I say "15,000 to 20,000" because the numbers vary wildly according to which political propaganda the Government is trying to get out on any given day as to effective and actual police numbers. The admirable work done by the police is reflected in the amendment. I invite Government members to indicate whether they will vote against the amendment, which commends the admirable work done by police. If the Government chooses to vote against my amendment, I am sure it will look good in the pages of the Police Journal— "Labor Government votes against admirable work done by New South Wales police".

We shall see what honeyed words the member for Penrith uses to try to get out of the hole she has dug for herself. It is probably not her fault that she was given this motion to move. The Minister for Police seemed to be smug and self-satisfied as he rattled off a list of police stations, but he was careful to avoid any mention of the commitment given by the Premier prior to the 2007 State election. In contrast the New South Wales Coalition proudly made its commitment available. We have a genuine commitment to police stations at a number of locations, including Mona Vale, in the electorate of Pittwater, and to a range of 24/7 stations at Cowra, Deniliquin, Five Dock, Forbes, Forster, Gunnedah, Kiama, Kingscliff, Menai, Mona Vale, Moorebank, Murwillumbah, Nambucca, Narellan, Picton, Raymond Terrance, Singleton, Tanilba, Walgett and Woy Woy.

Some of those police stations were built in the 1930s. The station at Wyong on the Central Coast was built in the 1890s. It has been added on to again and again over the years and is now just a mass of dilapidated, out-of-date, inefficient, poorly constructed buildings in which police are expected to carry out their duties. Indeed, $10 million is needed to build a new police station, yet only $1.2 million was allocated to Wyong police station, according to the Minister in question time. One cannot get anywhere near a $10 million project with a $1.2 million allocation. The sheer hypocrisy of the way this Government treats its serving police has never been so well demonstrated as is demonstrated by this budget. The dishonesty, the disingenuousness of the Government in presenting to the New South Wales community election promises that it has not honoured in its budget is something that I am sure that the New South Wales Police Association will be only too interested in finding out about.

Everybody had great expectations that this budget would finally right the wrongs of police accommodation in this State, that it would give police the decent standard of accommodation to which they are entitled under occupational health and safety laws, and that it would recognise the magnificent work they do for the community by providing a good standard of accommodation in which they can carry out their work. That has not been honoured by this Government and, accordingly, I have moved the amendment.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [4.09 p.m.]: I indicate from the outset that the Government will reject the amendment moved by the member for Terrigal. I am sure that in her reply the member for Penrith will deal with the four-year plan and with everything not being delivered in the first year. The Government has made commitments, and those commitments will be honoured. Today I congratulate the Iemma Government on its 2007-08 State budget, particularly the allocation to our hardworking policemen and policewomen for new facilities.

Our police do an excellent job in Camden, as they do around the State. When I visited the Camden Local Area Command recently with the new police Minister, David Campbell, and the member for Wollondilly, we passed that message on to those men and women who are out on the beat every day. To support those officers, the Iemma Government is this year delivering a record police budget. We are boosting police spending by $90.2 million, or more than 4 per cent. The total spending on police this year is more than $2.27 billion. In Camden our local police station will be upgraded. I note also that the Bowral police station will be upgraded. I am sure the member for Goulburn will be here shortly to take part in this debate and to congratulate us. There is $700,000 in this year's budget to start the project, which has an estimated final price tag of $14.6 million. Police have been calling for improvements to the station and the Iemma Government is listening and delivering on its commitments.

We have also recognised the need for high visibility policing in the Camden area. That is why during the election campaign the Premier committed the Government to delivering a mobile police station for Camden. I note the comments by the member for Terrigal. I will be glad to have a mobile police station in Camden; so will my community, and so will the police. The mobile station will help police to continue their efforts in driving down crime. I am delighted to find today that the mobile station will be delivered this year. The modern mobile station, worth around $100,000, will provide a base for police fighting crime across the Camden Local Area Command, which is one of the largest local area commands in the State. This fantastic new facility will allow Camden police to maintain a highly visible presence around shopping centres, train stations and other areas where crime hotspots are identified.

Police do a great job serving and protecting the community. This new resource will be another valuable tool in cracking down on street crime and antisocial behaviour, wherever it arises. That is one of the great concerns of our community, particularly in the Picton area, which is part of the Camden Local Area Command. The mobile station will ensure that police can continue their outstanding efforts in making the community a better place in which to live and work. If crimes like street racing, malicious damage, graffiti or public drinking become a problem in the area, the local area commander will be able move resources in and deal with it more effectively. This mobile police station will also help to make police more accessible at the grassroots level in our community where the public wants to see them.

I am advised that police will be able operate the mobile station seven days a week around the suburban areas within the Camden Local Area Command. Once rolled out, the mobile facility will include an ultra high frequency [UHF] police radio, emergency warning devices, a mobile data terminal, interview room, and two bicycles for mobile patrols. I must say how wonderful those bicycles are and how well received they are in the Camden area. In a semi-rural area like Camden, it is important for local police to know the people living and working in the local community. The mobile station will not only help police identify where the problems are but will also allow them to target those areas with resources at the most appropriate time.

Providing resources like the mobile police station and the work on Camden police station is one part of our effort to support police. The Iemma Government is also working hard to ensure that more officers are available on the front line to drive down crime in Camden. In the past 18 months, the Iemma Government has allocated 27 new officers to the Camden Local Area Command. Camden is one of 26 targeted local area commands announced by the Premier in which additional police resources will be committed to crack down harder on street crime and antisocial behaviour. The Iemma Government's record budget also includes $1.2 million for enhancements to the police motor fleet, another example of the New South Wales Government's commitment to ensuring that our front-line police officers have the resources, equipment and facilities they need to drive down crime. As the House would know, the major focus of the Premier's State Plan is to increase levels of respect and responsibility in our community, and the funding for police is focused on those goals. By boosting police resources the Iemma Government is providing the backing the New South Wales Police Force needs to keep our community safe. I look forward to the Opposition joining us in congratulating our police—sticking up for them and not running them down.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [4.14 p.m.]: The Iemma Government's 2007-08 State budget contains a great range of funding that will make a difference to our community. I start by congratulating the Government on investing a record $2.27 billion in our police this year. That is a boost of more than 4 per cent or $90 million. One of the most exciting parts of that spending is the boost to DNA technology. Advances in DNA technology and investigative techniques are powerful weapons in the fight against crime.

I recently had the pleasure to visit the cutting-edge, multimillion-dollar forensic science services laboratory at Pemulwuy in my electorate. The Minister for Police also visited the laboratory to meet with some of the new crime scene investigators. The Iemma Government has invested more than $9 million in forensics and DNA technology in this year's budget, including a 3-D crime-fighting system that will provide a major boost to the facilities at Pemulwuy. The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring that our crime investigators have the very latest technology they need to solve crime.

That includes $1.4 million for a robotic DNA analysis platform, $3.9 million for a digital imaging system, $2.8 million for portable electronic fingerprint devices, and $227,000 for a spheron imaging system. In addition to the boost to forensic and DNA technology, the Iemma Government will provide up to $50 million for information and communication technology as part of the New South Wales Police Force's overall information technology strategic plan. The budget includes a $750,000 for a second spheron digital imaging system to bring the crime scene to the courtroom. This is an exciting new use of technology.

The first spheron system has been deployed at more than 100 serious crime scenes, including murders, shootings, violent assaults, sexual assaults, explosions, arsons and motor vehicle collisions. Until now, the spheron has been mainly used in the metropolitan area, but the purchase of a second system will broaden its use throughout the State. The beauty of the system is that it captures the crime scene and creates an interactive walk­through, providing floor-to-ceiling coverage of the scene. All of the multimedia evidence relating to a crime can be stored on a DVD and referenced to its original location within the virtual crime scene.

Such evidence includes scene and fingerprint photographs, DNA samples, video footage, closed circuit television [CCTV] footage, statements, aerial photographs and plans. The final information can be distributed to investigators, prosecutors and defence counsel for review during an investigation and prior to and during court proceedings. Police advise that it is not only more efficient but more effective than the old system of printing out sets of photographs. Not only can the visual evidence be reviewed but spontaneous measurements can also be obtained at any time—well after the scene is no longer secure for investigation. Advances in technology and smarter policing are the focus of this year's record police budget.

The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring that our crime investigators have the very latest technology they need to solve crime. That fits perfectly with the Premier's State Plan target of reducing the incidence of violent crime against individuals. By boosting police resources the Iemma Government is providing the backing that New South Wales police need to keep our community safe.

These new resources provide the backup for the recruitment of 147 forensic investigators who have joined the front-line in the fight against serious crime, including homicides, armed robberies, house break-ins and shootings. The officers, who are located at police commands across the State, are trained in forensic investigations and will provide additional technical expertise in evidence collection and examination. The boost to recruitment has taken the number of NSW Police Force forensic investigators to 585. The demand for DNA analysis has grown. In 2006 the NSW Police Force submitted more than 32,500 exhibits for analysis. More than 70 vehicles have also been purchased so that the forensic officers can carry out their work responding to crime scenes and gathering evidence.

With this budget the Iemma Government is continuing to provide the resources, equipment and support police need to continue their excellent work driving down crime. By combining science and crime-fighting expertise the NSW Police Force can outsmart criminals who think they can escape justice. The people of Western Sydney are honoured to have the forensics laboratory in our local area, considering the important work that is being done there. The laboratory is helping police to solve crimes, lock up criminals and keep hardworking families safe.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [4.19 p.m.]: I will speak to the amendment and about policing in Lake Macquarie, which is a cause of great concern for our local area command and members of the NSW Police Force. The police in Lake Macquarie are hardworking, diligent and professional, but they are near breaking point as they struggle with what is geographically a difficult command area. They have poor facilities, including the station premises, and what I believe to be the lowest police-to-population ratio in the State.

Our general duties police have long sought additional strength. While I understand there has been a modest increase, the reality is that due to high workloads and stress, officers' short-term and long-term leave means that this command effectively has no more than its establishment number of 186. That figure is less than half the average number of police per head of population in New South Wales. This is for one of the largest local area commands in New South Wales, which encompasses the local government area of Lake Macquarie. Lake Macquarie is the fourth most populous local government area in New South Wales. Its population is approaching 200,000 people and is set to increase by another 65,000 to 70,000 over the next 25 years. I know that relying solely on averages can be deceptive, but when the discrepancy is of such enormity the argument is compelling.

Lake Macquarie is an area of high growth. Whilst it is pleasing that there is a decrease in some categories of crime in Lake Macquarie, the decrease is not across the board and there are very serious concerns about the more serious crime categories. Although I am happy to recognise that increased resources have been provided in this year's budget, I will not overstate praise for a response that does not provide equity in the provision of policing across the State.

Lake Macquarie's general duties police and detectives serve their community above and beyond the call of duty and they deserve our full support. To give some examples of the number of police per head of population—although my statistics are not quite up to date—Lake Macquarie has one police officer per 954 people. Brisbane Waters, to our south, has one police officer per 684, Lake Illawarra has one police officer per 699, Tuggerah Lakes has one police officer per 678, and the Lower Hunter one police officer per 741.

The number of detectives is another story altogether, and some very serious issues have recently been raised with the Minister for Police about this. There are 15 detectives stationed in the local area command of Lake Macquarie. Brisbane Waters has 18 and Lake Illawarra, which is comparable in population and size to Lake Macquarie, has 24. The Lower Hunter has 18 detectives. These issues need to be addressed. As I said, I am happy to recognise genuine efforts to address this matter, but Lake Macquarie is not receiving the resources it needs. Our police are under great stress and the Government needs to do more to support them. I know the community is very concerned about this issue and fully supports the police, as do I. I ask the Government to consider not only the provision of funds but also equity, and to distribute the work force across our community fairly.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [4.24 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members who contributed to the debate. The member for Smithfield said that the advances in DNA technology and improved investigative techniques are powerful weapons in the fight against crime. I note that the Forensics Services Laboratory is located in the electorate of Smithfield. The Government will invest $9 million from this year's budget in forensic and DNA technology, including a 3-D crime-fighting system, which is a great initiative. The member for Camden referred to the Government's commitment in the budget to mobile police stations. As I said earlier, a mobile police station will be allocated to the Penrith electorate. This project will identify hotspots and deliver a flexible and proactive response. The electorate of Camden has also been allocated a new police station. So there will be static police stations and the flexible arrangement of mobile police stations in areas identified as hotspots.

Proactive policing in those areas is a great innovation. I thank the Iemma Government for its commitment to policing in this year's budget. The member for Camden also mentioned 27 new police officers within his local area command. The Government is targeting crime and antisocial behaviour. Once again, increased police numbers support the State Plan's focus on fostering respect and responsibility in the community and assisting in dealing with violent offenders.

I refer to the contributions of the member for Terrigal and the member for Lake Macquarie. As the member for Camden indicated, the Iemma Government has been given a mandate for another four years. That is another four budgets in which the Government will honour the election commitments referred to by the member for Terrigal. This is the first of those four budgets. I can inform the member for Terrigal that the Iemma Government will invest almost $50 billion in infrastructure over the next four years. Part of that $50 billion will go towards the Government's commitments. The people of New South Wales, especially in the electorate of Penrith, spoke. They know the Iemma Government has carriage of the $50 billion investment in infrastructure. The 2007-08 budget contains a record infrastructure expenditure of $12.5 billion, which, as has already been noted, includes increased police resources in Western Sydney.

It is interesting to note the different tone of the member for Terrigal after 24 March. Prior to 24 March the Opposition criticised probationary constables and the work of the NSW Police Force. They said the probationary constables in the January cohort were not adequately trained to undertake their duties. For days the member for Terrigal rattled off the Opposition's unfunded commitments, except in the last 24 hours. He almost missed the last media cycle because their photocopier did not work. Delay, delay, delay. The Leader of the Opposition could not find a photocopier to copy their funded commitments. What happened during the media conference? The then Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, "Yep, maybe we will have to sack more of those front-line service providers to pay for these unfunded commitments." Not only was the original figure 20,000, they said they might have to sack a few more.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: The member is misconstruing this debate and the truth. She is deliberately misleading the House and making untrue statements. Mr Assistant-Speaker, I ask you to draw her back to the debate and direct her to wind up in a professional manner.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: The truth is that today's budget allocates a record $45 billion to meet the Government's election commitments to expand and improve vital public services, with increased investment in health, community services, disability, housing— [ Time expired.]
Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina 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 Judge Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lynch Dr McDonald Ms McKay Mr McLeay Ms McMahon Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity

Mr Morris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce 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 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 J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr J. D. Williams Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Mr Borger

Mr R. C. Williams

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [4.39 p.m.]: I wish to speak about a very important issue, the storms that hit the Central Coast in recent days. As members would be aware, 12 days ago the Central Coast and the Hunter region was hit by the most destructive storm in the past 50 years. The horrendous aftermath of Friday night, 8 June, and Saturday morning, 9 June, will long be remembered by Central Coast residents. This storm caused loss of life, significant property damage and stock loss in the region. On behalf of Central Coast residents I extend our condolences to the families and friends of the nine people, including three children, who lost their lives in the storm and floods. As a community we mourn those who lost their lives in such tragic circumstances.

The stories of community spirit, mateship and self-sacrifice during this event have given me a glimpse of the silver lining that proverbially accompanies every storm. Today we pay tribute to more than 3,000 members of the emergency services—the State Emergency Service, the Rural Fire Service, the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Volunteer Rescue Association—and the many agencies and organisations that have ably supported them throughout this emergency. In the 12 days from 7 June the State Emergency Service has responded to a staggering 18,000 requests for assistance—second in number only to the Sydney hailstorm. Amazingly, on Saturday 9 June calls were pouring in at the rate of 240 an hour, as the Premier referred to earlier. By last night the emergency services had completed 94 per cent of those jobs—an astounding achievement, particularly given the ongoing poor conditions.

There are many stories from such an event. At 2.30 p.m. on Friday afternoon a wall of water swept down the hill through Wyong central business district smashing into the local Centrelink building and the Oasis Youth Centre, flattening huge roller doors and smashing windows. Nearby cars, including a police highway patrol car, were swept away. Amazingly, over the next few days Centrelink staff continued to operate from the front of their storm-damaged building. As the Wyong River continued to rise on Friday night, 65 residents of the Wyong Nursing Home, on the bank of the river, were evacuated by State Emergency Service flood boat. These residents are very frail, and the State Emergency Service members must be commended for their work during the operation.

One of the hardest hit areas was along the banks of Ourimbah Creek, at Chittaway Point. On the Saturday of the storm event, more than 400 residents were asked to voluntarily evacuate because of rising water levels. At that stage the water was waist deep in some areas. Residents assisted each other. Some climbed over back fences to deliver food and supplies to more elderly residents. A helicopter was used in several rescues of people removed from properties in the Wyong area isolated by floodwaters. This included two children. I note that the member for The Entrance had his home flooded during the event. I wish him and his family well as they also recover from the storm.

Other statistics relating to the event include: 50,000 houses across the Central Coast, or one in three, were without power at some point; 500 homes were without sewerage; 10,000 homes were without telephones; 20 roads were closed due to flooding; 600 homes were evacuated; and in the last seven days 1,935 hampers containing immediate foodstuffs have been provided to people still experiencing difficulties.

I acknowledge the work of the Emergency Response Centre at the Rural Fire Service premises in Arizona Road. Throughout this terrible event the emergency coordination group, led very ably by Tuggerah Lakes Police Commander Geoff McKechnie, responded in excellent fashion to unfolding events. I was able to witness personally, along with the member for Gosford, Maree Andrews, the excellent coordination and cooperation between all services. It was very pleasing that the Premier and the Minister for Emergency Services, Nathan Rees, were able to visit the area and thank the volunteers in person.

Many other Ministers also visited local residents during the past 12 days, showing their support for the region and wanting to learn first hand of the hardship suffered by Central Coast families so their departments could better respond to the needs of the community. The Minister for the Central Coast, John Della Bosca, was especially involved, and together with the Minister for Emergency Services, Nathan Rees, went doorknocking in the Chittaway area to find out first hand about the difficulties residents were experiencing.

Last Saturday night I was honoured to address and thank members of the State Emergency Service, the Volunteer Rescue Association and the Rural Fire Service at a function hosted by Andrew Biggs at the Beachcomber Hotel. Andrew, the hotel licensee, kindly provided a free barbecue to say thank you to the volunteers on behalf of the grateful local community. I was pleased to have the opportunity to personally thank the emergency service volunteers. In particular, I was able to echo the words of the Minister for Police, David Campbell, who, when thanking Wyong police, acknowledged that these emergency service volunteers had been involved in acts of bravery, many of which we will never hear about. The Minister spoke about the fact that people in these positions are extremely modest about the job they do. They put their lives at risk to serve and protect the local community, even though in some cases their homes and families may have been affected.

As a community we must also say thank you to the families of emergency service workers and volunteers who support their family members through their training as well as when responding to disasters such as this. Each of them is a hero, and I feel humble and proud in thanking them today. Their contributions to our community are immeasurable. The way they responded so efficiently and effectively through the ongoing event is a credit to them all.

I acknowledge and congratulate the Premier on his quick action in declaring a state of natural disaster. This fast action ensured resources could be deployed effectively. The one-stop-shop recovery centres continue to be very successful. We receive daily reports on how the centres are performing. This initiative ensured a carefully co-ordinated reaction in responding to and assisting recovery from the disaster. The centre includes a range of government and non-government agencies that provide advice and assistance to people, ranging from the provision of welfare support and food packages, transport inquiries, accommodation issues, power supply and telephone needs, insurance claims, farming assistance, business support, financial advice, counselling, and other services.

Many people need to be thanked for their participation in the Central Coast one-stop-shop recovery centre. They include the Mayor of Wyong shire, Councillor Bob Graham, and Wyong Shire Council General Manager Kerry Yates. Their assistance was invaluable, particularly in terms of the offer to house the one­stop­shop Central Coast Disaster Recovery Centre in the function room of Wyong Shire Council chambers. Agencies that support the disaster recovery centre include Centrelink; the Department of Ageing and Disability Services; the Department of Community Services; the Department of Education and Training; the Department of Housing; the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, particularly Leonie Baldwin, who oversaw the operation of the recovery centre; Energy Australia; the Insurance Council of Australia and various companies; the Department of Health; the Office of Fair Trading; Telstra; and the Roads and Traffic Authority. I pay special tribute to Wyong and Gosford council workers who also support the centre and in many cases have been working 12-hour shifts during the storms.

Other organisations which I must acknowledge include St Vincent de Paul, which provided clothing, mattresses and blankets; volunteers from the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, who assisted with the provision of food parcels and made mountains of sandwiches for those attending the centre; and Anglicare Samaritans volunteers, who worked with the Department of Community Services doorknocking and assisting those who could not attend the centre or were unaware of it. In addition to the doorknocking volunteers, organisations such as Rotary, Lions, Coast Alive Christian Outreach and the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints assisted with coordinating volunteers to help clean up people's homes and properties following the damage.

I also wish to thank the many local businesses that provided assistance. Andrew Biggs, the licensee of the Beachcomber Hotel, who provided accommodation to State Emergency Service crews and supplied cooked dinners for up to 185 volunteers nightly, is one that comes to mind. I also acknowledge Wyong Golf Club, and Diggers at Long Jetty, which provided emergency accommodation to families who were evacuated, as well as Camp Breakaway, which housed, and is still housing, interstate volunteers. I also applaud the wonderful cooperation that took place between Gosford and Wyong councils and all their staff.
I also congratulate all local members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, on their active support for their communities through this disaster. However, I was disappointed I also congratulate all local members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, on their active support for their communities through this disaster. However, I was disappointed ¾ indeed saddened ¾ that the member for Terrigal attempted to use the event to score cheap political points. Everyone else was out there supporting families and thanking volunteers, including the hardworking staff of Energy Australia who were trying to restore power in atrocious conditions. One last statistic from the disaster—which is welcome and is something we have definitely needed—is that Central Coast dam levels rose from 15 to 22 per cent, providing much­needed relief to the area. In conclusion, to all those who assisted in any way—there are far too many to name individually—we as a community pass on our heartfelt thanks.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [4.49 p.m.]: Not since the bushfires of 1994 has the Central Coast, in particular, been confronted with a natural disaster such as has occurred since 7 June. The same can be said about the Hunter region, which has been subject to both storm and flood. It is wonderful to see the magnificent work of volunteer organisations, spearheaded by the State Emergency Service and assisted by the Rural Fire Service, the Volunteer Rescue Association, the New South Wales Police Force, the ambulance service and the metropolitan fire brigades, as well as the general community, in coming to the aid of people who have been afflicted by the storm or by the resultant flood, and in cleaning up the damage caused to so many homes, roads and public areas of the Central Coast and the Hunter.

The people of Australia generally respond well to natural disasters, be it flood, bushfire or earthquake, as we saw in Newcastle in 1989. They rally round and help each other. It is a tribute to the Australian character that Australians respond so well to these emergencies. One can only express one's deepest sympathy to the families of the nine people who tragically lost their lives: the family of five who were swept away when the road collapsed on the Old Pacific Highway and others who were swept away, who drowned or who were electrocuted as a result of the storm. One can only express one's sympathy to the many businesses that have suffered as a result of flood damage or power failure and to the literally hundreds of thousands of people who were severely inconvenienced for so long due to either flood or power failure. I acknowledge the excellent work carried out by so many services.

Following the remarks of the member for Wyong, I pay special tribute to the staff of EnergyAustralia. They worked tirelessly, day and night, in extremely long shifts under what could only be described as very hazardous conditions. They worked in the wind and rain to restore power to many thousands of people and to many thousands of businesses. However, the State Government has a case to answer for the way in which it handled the storm and the floods. On 13 June the Sydney Morning Herald published an editorial, which began with the words:

The Premier, Morris Iemma, had a lot to say about the weekend's flood and storm disaster. Too much. At a time when communities needed reassurance, practical assistance and sympathy, Mr Iemma dragged politics into the maelstrom. The Old Pacific Highway, which was washed away at Somersby, sweeping a young family with it, "was not a state road", he said. His rush to position his Government a handy distance from the blame triggered a flurry of similarly unedifying buck-passing from the local council. None of it was necessary, and all of it distracted from the tragedy of the moment.

The editorial went on to say that, as is appropriate, the Coroner would investigate the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the road at Somersby and the tragic loss of five lives. Clearly, an audit of road safety is necessary as far as major roads are concerned. The Leader of the Opposition called for such an audit and, according to a later report on 16 June, the Roads and Traffic Authority agreed that it was necessary. On 16 June the Australian reported:

Calling for a safety audit of the entire 50km length of the Old Pacific Highway, on which the collapse occurred, Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell said: "Road safety is too important an issue to be put aside while two levels of government squabble over who is responsible." It was insufficient bait to get a rise out of the usually feisty Roads Minister Eric Roozendaal …

If there is any political lesson to be drawn from the floods at this stage, it is a two-step program.

The article goes on to make the important point that the cooperation of all levels of government is necessary. Politics was also introduced into this tragic issue by the way in which EnergyAustralia—the organisation, not the staff, who worked magnificently—refused to compensate tens of thousands of people who suffered as a result of the power outage. EnergyAustralia's customer code states that where there is a power outage of more than 12 hours people who suffer as a result of that power outage will be compensated. In this case EnergyAustralia said it would not compensate people because the cause of the power outage was a storm. That was the loophole whereby it was not obliged to compensate anybody.

However, at the very time EnergyAustralia was pleading the storm as its escape clause, the Premier was publicly urging the insurance companies to acknowledge liability for the damage and say that the damage was caused by a storm and therefore the insurance companies should not rely on clauses that excluded flood. Many insurance policies cover people for storm damage but not flood damage. The Premier is the leader of a Government which, on the one hand, was saying to people, "Yes, it is a storm and insurance companies should pay up" while, on the other hand, his agency EnergyAustralia was saying to people, "Yes, it is a storm, which means we do not have to pay up." That issue was never resolved. I rightly drew attention to the inconsistency and the failure of the State Government to assist thousands of people. That prompted the remarks made today by the member for Wyong, who I think mischievously misinterpreted what I said as some criticism of the staff of EnergyAustralia. Of course, it was not; it was a criticism of the management of EnergyAustralia. As I said, the staff of EnergyAustralia did a magnificent job, as I witnessed while driving along the roads to observe the damage and to see what assistance was being given to people.

I saw the staff of EnergyAustralia on cranes and in cherry pickers in high winds dealing with high­tension power lines and trees that had fallen at quite difficult angles against power lines. They were doing a very difficult job cheerfully. That was the spirit that went through the tens of thousands of people who responded to this flood on the Central Coast and in the Hunter. In his column in last Saturday's newspaper Mike Carlton reported how a tree had fallen in his street and the State Emergency Service came and chopped it up. However, before they left they knocked on his door and other people's doors to ask if any other assistance was needed. They were there to help; they were giving up their time and placing their safety at risk simply to be of service to the community.

One can only be humbled in acknowledging the magnificent work done by the various organisations and volunteer groups that came forward, be they church organisations such as Anglicare, the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Salvation Army, be they the service clubs such as Rotary, or be they local councils such as Wyong council in my area. I commend Mayor Bob Graham for the way in which he responded to this emergency. At every level the community has responded, and responded magnificently. However, that does not take away from the fact that it is appropriate for a legislator and member of Parliament to raise issues as to how these matters are dealt with by the Government. It does not take away from the fact that it is appropriate for newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald to criticise the Premier, as it did on 13 June in its editorial headed "Wallowing in the blame game".

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [4.59 p.m.]: I wish to speak about a series of events that occurred in the Hunter area beginning on Friday 8 June 2007 and continuing over the following 12 days. It does not go beyond the pale to compare the events to the 1989 Newcastle earthquake. The storm and rain left a trail of destruction in the areas of Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Swansea and Cessnock, with thousands of cars and millions of dollars worth of equipment floating down the streets. Thousands of homes were inundated with water and many people were dislocated. People in the Maitland area waited for the flood to arrive and then dealt with its devastation.

Out of this event came stories of great heroism, bravery and courage, with people helping one another. More than 3,000 State Emergency Service workers, members of the Rural Fire Service, NSW Fire Brigades and volunteers all worked together to protect the community. Representatives of all government agencies, local councils, police, ambulance, the Department of Health, the Department of Primary Industries, the Department of Community Services, the New South Wales Police Force, the Ports and Maritime Authority, numerous community groups and Telstra workers all worked together.

I went to Newcastle on Friday night to retrieve my relatives whose house was flooded. I saw a trail of destruction similar to the 1989 earthquake. I saw State Emergency Service officers, ambulance officers and police officers attending to the thousands of people who were dislocated. They drove around the streets to ensure that everyone was protected. Like my fellow members of Parliament, I was involved in the action. I visited emergency headquarters where the local area commander, Des Organ, and the head of the State Emergency Service, Bruce Varley, briefed me on what was happening and where I was able to witness the great work being undertaken. The decision was made to evacuate the suburbs of Lorn and Maitland in light of figures received from monitoring sources and the Department of Water and Energy, which did a fantastic job, that the levels would rise above the 11.35 metres, which is the cut-off point for inundation. Indeed, it was slightly lower at 10.7 metres. We were very lucky to avoid major inundation of water and I believe the correct decision was made.

During the evacuation process I visited refuges where people were being housed. The evacuation centres were overflowing with Department of Community Services workers, volunteers from community groups, police from Taree and volunteers from Sydney and elsewhere who provided support. Even evacuees dropped their bags and then helped others. I could pay tribute to so many people. In particular, I pay tribute to the following people: Jody Adams from the NSW Ambulance Service, Tom Percival from the gas company, Craig Perry from EnergyAustralia, Wayne Cone and Dave Evans from Maitland City Council, Bruce Varley from the State Emergency Service, Local Area Commander Des Organ, and duty officers Matt McPhee and Greg Lindsell. They performed well under difficult circumstances. I also thank ABC radio 1233, which did a fantastic job of covering the event and making sure that everyone was kept up to date with what was happening. Finally, this event has not been without tragedy. The House expresses its condolences to the family and friends of the nine people who lost their lives, in particular, the three children. Despite the great acts of heroism, we must always keep in mind the tragedies that have occurred.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [5.04 p.m.], in reply: Although everyone acknowledges that this was an unprecedented storm event and that part of the recovery process is to evaluate and reflect on the circumstances of the storm and to review processes so that there can be improvements in the future, this must be done in the appropriate fashion after the event, not during the event. That was my criticism of the member for Terrigal, who mentioned the road incident at Somersby. In fact, Gosford Councillor Craig Doyle mentioned the road and the Mayor of Gosford, Laurie Maher, and the Minister for the Central Coast, John Della Bosca, rightly said that was a matter for the Coroner and for police investigation and the matter should be left up to them.

I am disappointed also that whilst the rest of us have commended our local service personnel for the wonderful job they have done in an unprecedented situation, the member for Terrigal is still trying to play politics and confuse whether this was a flood or a storm. Over the past couple of weeks I have learned that it is important not to confuse the issue because many people are relying on the insurance money to recover from this event, and to play politics on who will pay for what is the wrong thing to do. We must make it very clear that this was a storm event, so that people are protected and covered. I reiterate the wonderful good job done by all the emergency service people during this event as it unfolded and I continue to wish them all the very best over the coming days as another low moves into the area and we face more potential storm damage. Emergency service personnel are the people doing the real work and we should be thanking them today.

Discussion concluded.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr David Campbell.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [5.08 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007. This bill amends the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 to ensure that a person who is subject to a sentence of imprisonment for a single class 2 offence is not excluded from reporting requirements under that Act merely because the person's sentence has been suspended and they are not subject to supervision. The Government has prepared this bill as a matter of urgency as the children of New South Wales deserve the best possible protection from people who have been convicted of child sex offences or other serious offences committed against children.

Since October 2001 we have had a system in place in this State which requires people who have been convicted of sex offences and other serious offences against children to report their personal details to the New South Wales Police Force for a fixed number of years while they are living in the community. I strongly support this system, which is legislatively underpinned by the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. Registrable offences are listed in two separate categories under the Act. Class 1 includes the most serious offences such as child murder and sexual intercourse with a child. Class 2 includes other offences such as acts of indecency against a child and possession of child pornography.

Persons who have been convicted of a registrable offence or offences and meet a minimum sentencing threshold are required to report to police and are defined as registrable persons under the Act. The information registrable persons provide means that police are told where these persons live, where they work, and what car they drive. Registrable persons are also required to let police know about any children they reside with or have unsupervised contact with and their affiliation with any clubs or organisations that have child membership. They are also required to inform police in advance of their intended interstate or international travel arrangements.

This information increases and improves the accuracy of child sex offender intelligence held by police. It also assists in the investigation and prosecution of child sex offences committed by recidivist offenders as well as in the police management and monitoring of child sex offenders in the community. The data held on the New South Wales child protection register is also uploaded to the Australian national child offenders register. This database, which is managed by CrimTrac, is used to assist police from other jurisdictions in monitoring child sex offenders. This national database also allows the NSW Police Force to receive alerts from the Australian Federal Police about registered persons travelling overseas who have not reported this information to police.

It was recently brought to my attention that a legal technicality identified in the case of Khanna v Commissioner of Police NSW has resulted in 26 people being removed from the child protection register. This followed a decision delivered by Justice Brereton in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the effect that while the applicant had been convicted of a single class 2 offence, he was not a registrable person as he had been subject to a suspended sentence without any supervision. This case has set a terrible precedent and it is essential that the Act be changed to close this unintended loophole.

Currently, section 3A (2) (b) of the Act provides that persons who have been convicted of a single class 2 offence are only registrable persons if the sentence imposed on them included, one, a term of imprisonment, including a term of imprisonment that is the subject of a periodic detention order or an equivalent order under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, or, two, a requirement that the person be under the supervision of a supervising body or any other person or body. His Honour Justice Brereton held that the wholly suspended sentence that had been imposed on the applicant was not a "term of imprisonment" for the purposes of the Act. I am advised that since this decision was delivered, the NSW Police Force identified 26 other persons in the same circumstances.

Acting on the advice of counsel retained by the Crown Solicitor's Office, the NSW Police Force wrote to each of these people in May 2007 advising them they could be removed from the register if they wished. The counsel's memorandum of advice referred to the amendment included in the bill which I am introducing today. The advice noted that, assuming the amendment is passed and has retrospective effect, the Commissioner of Police should write a further letter to those persons informing them that they are once again required to report to police under the Act. I am advised that the 26 persons have been convicted of crimes including possession of child pornography, acts of indecency and indecent assault upon children. These are crimes that Parliament saw as sufficiently serious to include as class 2 registrable offences under the Act.

Furthermore, it was Parliament's original intention that persons who committed such crimes would be required to report to police on at least an annual basis and have their personal details recorded on the child protection register. The fact that they have received a suspended sentence is not necessarily an indication their actions were at the lowest level of seriousness, as other factors involving the offenders' personal circumstances are taken into account on sentencing. Persons who receive a suspended sentence are technically sentenced to imprisonment. However, that penalty is suspended in whole or part. Misconduct during the term of the suspended sentence can lead to its revocation and incarceration of the convicted person.

I will now outline the provisions of the bill. Item [1] of schedule 1 amends the definition of an existing controlled person to include a person who immediately before October 2001 was serving a term of imprisonment, the subject of a sentence supervision order. This provision will capture any persons who were subject to a sentence supervision order immediately prior to the commencement of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 in October 2001. Item [2] of schedule 1 defines a sentence supervision order as an order under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Item [3] of schedule 1 amends the definition of a registrable person to include a person whose sentence is the subject of a sentence supervision order. This provision means a person is a registrable person even if the sentence that was imposed on the person consisted solely of a term of imprisonment the subject of a sentence suspension order.

Item [6] of schedule 1 clarifies that the bill extends to any person who has been sentenced in respect of a registrable offence at any time before the commencement of this bill. The provision allows that as soon as practicable after its commencement, the Commissioner of Police will give relevant persons written notice of their reporting obligations and the consequences that may arise if the person fails to comply with those obligations. This provision is essential so that the 26 persons who have been removed from the child protection register do not take advantage of the court decision to escape the appropriate scrutiny and monitoring by the NSW Police Force that their presence on the register mandates. The judgment in Khanna v Commissioner of Police NSW is an unintended consequence of the drafting of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, which can be simply remedied by the Act being amended to make clear that "imprisonment" includes a suspended sentence. I commend this bill to the House.

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

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.18 p.m.]: Today I advise the House of a wonderful and truly committed person, Joan Jones, who is currently the director of Wyoming Community Centre. I pay tribute to this very special woman, who has worked tirelessly for the local community for more than 30 years. Joan has lived at Umina on the Central Coast for most of her life, with her family's association going back before the 1900s. Joan has two grown-up children and two wonderful granddaughters. From 1976 to 1981 Joan worked at the Peninsula Community Centre organising activities and courses and arranging and supervising teenage discos, vacation care camps and programs. In 1982 Joan spent five years working with the Woy Woy Community Youth Support Scheme [CYSS], which catered for youth 15 to 25 years who were unemployed. Training courses, information, recreational activities and preparation of resumés and job skill training were provided.

During her time with the community youth support scheme, Joan instigated the establishment of Youth Angle Youth Refuge and acted as treasurer and chairperson over the next three years. The refuge is still operating today. Each Saturday night Joan worked at the under-18 discos that were held at the Peninsula Community Centre. Joan was a member of the Central Coast Youth Forum, which was set up to investigate the needs of youth on the Central Coast. She was also elected inaugural President of the Hunter Region Community Youth Support Scheme Projects Association, which is a testament to her dedication and commitment to young people in the area. In 1985 Joan was voted Apex Citizen of the Year for services to the community. In 1989 she was made coordinator of the Woy Woy Helping Early Leavers Program. She then returned to the Peninsula Community Centre as assistant director for 12 months. Joan was employed by Gosford Youth Services in 1990 to establish a youth group in the Kincumber Youth Centre and taught pre-release living skills to detainees at Mount Penang Training Centre.

The Wyoming Community Centre was established in 1991 and Joan was employed to establish and manage it. The centre started with one worker and a pink laminex table and a chair were the only furnishings. The centre now has 25 permanent, part-time and casual staff and its annual income has grown from $40,000 to over $700,000 in the last financial year. At the time Wyoming was a disadvantaged area with a large number of public housing tenants and very few services in the local community. Within 12 months Joan had established a before and after school care centre at Wyoming, an after school care centre at nearby Ourimbah and a vacation care centre. When I became the member for The Entrance in 1992, I became aware of the problems in Wyoming and it was not long before I met Joan. I have had cause on many occasions to refer constituents to the Wyoming Community Centre for information, advocacy, community development aids and referral. Joan and the people who work in that service are committed 100 per cent to the local community.

As a member of Parliament it is a joy for me to see people working in our community who are committed to their job and do such good work over long periods of time. Unfortunately, they do not get the recognition they deserve. I am sure other members of Parliament would agree with me. In 1993 Joan was approached by a group of cultural and linguistic diversity [CALD] people who were concerned with the lack of specific services for them on the Central Coast. After a lot of challenges, the needs of this diverse group were finally recognised and Joan set up the Central Coast Multicultural Project. It started small, but it now has two part-time workers who are funded by the Department of Community Services and the Department of Immigration Migration and Indigenous Affairs. The work of the project has resulted in large multicultural festivals, which have encouraged the people of the Central Coast to recognise the existence of culturally and linguistically diverse people living on the Central Coast.

In 2004 Joan was given an award by the multicultural community for the work she has done on behalf of this group over the last ten years. In 1993 Joan instigated the establishment and funding of the Central Coast Community Council, a peak organisation for local community services. Joan encouraged Central Coast Neighbourhood and Community Centres to take on the Central Coast Aboriginal Access Project, which was based at and managed by the Wyoming Community Centre. Research had identified a lack of knowledge by service providers of the Aboriginal culture and history and this led to the production of the tool kit known as Walking Together. This resource manual and related cultural training have been extremely popular with the local community. In 1999 Joan also established the Children's Reconciliation Group for Aboriginal and non­Aboriginal children.

This group, which was the only such group in New South Wales, gave children a better understanding of, and pride in, Aboriginal culture and history. In 2005 Joan was awarded a Children's Week award for special achievements for this program. Earlier this year I nominated Joan for the 2007 New South Wales Woman of the Year. Joan Jones is a special woman who has demonstrated a commitment to improving the quality of life of those less fortunate in her local community. Joan is the essence of community spirit, and the people of the Central Coast, especially The Entrance electorate, are truly blessed to have Joan as an advocate.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron—Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.23 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contribution of the member for The Entrance and his recognition of Ms Joan Jones. On behalf of the Government I recognise that Joan Jones has made a significant contribution to youth, particularly those at risk, Aboriginal young people and people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Because of her efforts the Central Coast is a better place.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.24 p.m.]: I speak about a matter of concern to a great number of people in my electorate and, no doubt, to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services, who is present in the House. The matter relates to ageing carers of disabled children, who are in desperate need of help. During the last election campaign I attended a meeting organised by the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Group. I attended the meeting with the member for Miranda and the member for Heathcote. I believe the member for Menai sent her apologies. We were all concerned to ensure that adequate help be given to these people. The particular matter of concern I speak of is the plight of ageing parents or others who care for what might be called eternal children, that is, children who are wholly dependent on their carers. One of the people who attended the meeting and was referred to in an article in last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald was Peggy Bowsher, who is 82 this month. Despite her age and having suffered a stroke she still cares for her son John, who is 42. The article by Mark Metherell stated:

There is an option of a place for John in a home some distance away.

"I don't want to be too far away from him but they say if I don't take this one, I will go to the bottom of the barrel," Peggy Bowsher says.

I understand her concern. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

After years of neglect in NSW, the Iemma Government last year pledged to put $1.3 billion over five years into disability services under its Stronger Together plan.

This has a hollow ring to parents such as Katrina Clark, a former lawyer who has done her own research into unmet need in NSW and estimates the state needs 20,000 beds—four times the current number, and many more than the 1400 additional places promised by the State. This has a hollow ring to parents such as Katrina Clark, a former lawyer who has done her own research into unmet need in NSW and estimates the state needs 20,000 beds—four times the current number, and many more than the 1400 additional places promised by the State.

This week the Herald asked the NSW Minister for Disability Services what the level of unmet need for disability accommodation in NSW was.

The Minister did not give a figure. Hopefully, she is in a position to give that figure now to the House. It is important for accountability and transparency that we are made aware of it. The shadow Minister said that if the Coalition won the election we would provide that sort of information to the people of New South Wales. That is commendable, and that is what the Minister should do. The Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Group is less than six months old but already has registered 150 families who are pushing for a place for their ageing children. We are indebted to these people. They are in a very difficult situation, one that requires all their time and energy. Yet they are prepared to come together to help themselves and others in the same situation get a fairer deal from the Government.

We are also indebted to the St and George Sutherland Shire Leader , which covered that election meeting and was able to bring before it facts relating to the problems confronted by people in the Sutherland shire. These people are in a desperate plight. The Government is prepared to spend billions of dollars on a desalination plant. If Government members were to look out the window they would realise that the desalination plant would become a soggy white elephant. It would be far better to spend—

[ Interruption]

This is a serious subject and members of the Government should not laugh. It is high time that some of those billions of dollars being spent on a wasteful project were spent on accommodation for the disabled.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron—Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.29 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Cronulla. He might like to know that last year the Government funded 791 respite places specifically targeted at older parents—that is, parents over the age of 65—who care for an adult child with a disability. That is in addition to 877 respite places funded last year and 810 new flexible respite places provided at a cost of $8.2 million in the 2007-08 budget. The budget also allocates $70.6 million for 340 new supported accommodation places.

I note the member for Cronulla's comments regarding what the shadow Minister said on the weekend about what he would do if he were miraculously made the Minister for Disability Services. He would commission a report. That will not deliver anything on the ground to people with a disability, their families or their carers. There is no need for a report. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has produced two reports in the past 12 months and the Commonwealth Senate has relied on the institute's data for its recommendation that all governments, State and Federal, should increase funding to disability services. This State has done that with a $1.3 billion commitment to disability services.

If the member for Cronulla wanted to do something for disability services, he would ask Minister Brough why the $925 million this Government has committed to accommodation is not good enough to satisfy his offer to match funding. He has ruled it out because it was announced last year rather than next month. He does not want to meet this Government's $925 million commitment to provide accommodation and respite. The member should get on the phone and put some pressure on the Federal Minister, who has a bucketload of money to spend but who is unwilling to support families in New South Wales. He could also do what the member for Miranda and the member for Heathcote have done, that is, make appropriate representations on behalf the families in his electorate.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.31 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the Gurnang Life Challenge Program. Last Friday, with my parliamentary colleague the Minister for Justice, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, I attended the 181st graduation ceremony conducted by the organisers at the Oberon Correctional Centre at Shooters Hill. The program has been running since 1993 and is aimed at young offenders, that is, offenders up to the age of 25. Over that time 1,600 offenders have graduated from the program. Its outstanding success is demonstrated by the 10 per cent reoffending rate of its participants compared with the close to 50 per cent rate for the general jail population. That underlines the importance of rehabilitation in the prison system. This program stands out like a beacon. It is always inspiring to attend these graduation ceremonies. The families of many of the 11 young men who graduated last Friday attended the function, and they were also supported by senior staff of the facility and the specialists who help with the program.

The program is designed to help young men when they complete their sentences. It addresses a range of issues and provides them with practical qualifications in construction techniques, such as backhoe and forklift driving, responsible service of alcohol and a host of other qualifications. Of particular importance are the many self-development courses they attend to assist them to deal with alcohol and lifestyle when they return to the community. The participants work as a team. They go camping and undertake activities such as abseiling. It is bad luck if they have a fear of heights; they have to stick with it. This is not a mickey mouse course in any shape or form. The success rate for the latest course was 58 per cent—11 out of the 19 participants got through. Those who do succeed have a great sense of achievement.

Over the years I have been to three or four of these inspiring graduation ceremonies at Shooters Hill. Each successful participant receives a certificate and then makes a speech to the assembled group. They can either read their speech or speak off the cuff. They all speak about their great satisfaction in completing the program and working with and trusting their mates. They carry out a lot of activities with high ropes, and they must work as a team. The graduates highlighted the self-development and motivational part of the program. They are all committed to living up to the aims of the program, staying out of jail and getting back on the straight and narrow when they are released. It is a very practical program, which makes the young men employable.

One of the great strengths of the program is the staff. Dennis Carey, who acted as master of ceremonies, is the manager of offender services and programs. He is a truly inspirational public servant—we have many of those in New South Wales. He goes above and beyond the call of duty. It was emotional listening to what the graduates said about Dennis and the other staff. From time to time we all stumble over the Minister for Justice's name. I have been practising it for a long time. All of the graduates referred to him by name, and they pronounced it correctly. Apparently they decided some weeks before to find out the Minister's name, and the challenge was to be able to pronounce it correctly at the ceremony.

As I said, this was the 181st graduation ceremony held by the Gurnang Life Challenge Program. I have four correctional facilities in my electorate and I am impressed with the management in all of them. However, every time I attend these graduation ceremonies I am reminded that we must use the right tools to achieve rehabilitation. There must be punishment, but more resources should be allocated to programs like this. I congratulate everyone who graduated and all those who contributed to the training.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [5.36 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House yet another case of the Sydney Labor Government ripping off the residents in my electorate of Tweed. About four years ago the New South Wales Labor Government was dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to build the Tugun bypass on the Pacific Highway. New South Wales agreed only when the Queensland Government and the Federal Government agreed to pay the full cost on both sides of the border. This is a $600 million project and one of the most expensive road projects ever undertaken. Unlike New South Wales road projects, believe it or not this one is six months ahead of schedule. It now looks like being completed in June 2008 rather than December 2008. However, all it will do is move the traffic congestion from the Queensland side of the border onto the New South Wales side because of the Government's inaction on the Sexton Hill bypass. This has been going on for too long.

The Sydney Labor Government has blood on its hands because of the high number of accidents in the area. It is one of the worst black spots in the State. I bring this issue to the attention of the House because I recently found out about another issue relating to the Tugun bypass. The Government agreed in all of its consultations that a certain amount of land would be purchased in New South Wa The Sydney Labor Government has blood on its hands because of the high number of accidents in the area. It is one of the worst black spots in the State. I bring this issue to the attention of the House because I recently found out about another issue relating to the Tugun bypass. The Government agreed in all of its consultations that a certain amount of land would be purchased in New South Wales as compensatory habitat. It produced a document stating that some endangered species would be severely threatened by the C4. That was ignored in today's budget. I have found out after intensive investigations that even though the document was prepared after lengthy community consultations, including with our friends the Greens and other environmentalists, these works will disturb the sensitive flora and fauna habitats of the long-nosed poteroo and the wallum sedge frog.

The New South Wales and Queensland governments came to an agreement on this issue in 2005. The Queensland Government agreed to pay the New South Wales Government to buy a nature zone to compensate for the clearing required for the bypass. Under the agreement the Queensland money, about $400,000, would be used to purchase a nature zone near Cabarita. Contracts were exchanged. However, it has now come to light that the New South Wales Labor Government does not want to purchase the land, yet it wants the Queensland Government to give it those funds. It is yet another grab for cash, at the expense of the environment.

On numerous occasions during my short time in Parliament I have heard about the amount of work the State Labor Government is doing for the environment. In this case it has simply let down the residents of the Tweed. We need that compensative environmental habitat, and the wildlife fauna and flora desperately need it. Despite this the $400,000 will go straight into consolidated revenue, and undoubtedly will be spent in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong.

This is a serious issue. The Tweed needs this new habitat to maintain precious natural assets. I have a very strong relationship with conservation and environmental-related community groups in the Tweed, including the Coastal Alliance and local resident groups. I will not stand by while the State Labor Government commits this act of gross environmental vandalism. I demand that the Iemma Government—which so often boasts of its environmental credentials—desist from this appalling behaviour and deliver on its original commitment. Labor's stance during the recent election campaign was about delivering services to the people of New South Wales, not about cuts.

This is a desperate grab for cash by the State Labor Government. It deprives the environment in the Tweed, which is a very special place; indeed, it is the only place in the whole of New South Wales surrounded by five World Heritage national parks. The situation should be fixed now and not left until later, because a number of Crown land sales are occurring within the area. The people of the Tweed and I will not stand for this type of environmental vandalism. I will continue to push this issue as hard as I can. We need that compensative habitat. In one of its documents the Iemma Government promised to deliver on its original commitment, but it has failed to do so. Indeed, it appears that it has no intention of delivering on that commitment. I have news for the Government: I will!

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [5.41 p.m.]: The Queen's Birthday long weekend in 2007 will long be remembered by the residents of the Central Coast and Hunter regions. Unfortunately they will not have pleasant memories of that weekend, for it was one of the most devastating weekends that residents of the two regions have ever seen. The good old Aussie spirit of helping one's neighbour certainly came to the fore over the recent period when devastating floods and storms battered the Central Coast and Hunter regions. To the hundreds of emergency services personnel involved in assisting those in need during the crisis I extend a very heartfelt thank you.

There were numerous brave acts by members of the emergency services and individuals who put their own lives at risk to help others. Many of these people will remain unsung heroes. I place on record the gratitude of constituents of the electorate of Gosford who received help in so many ways during this recent disaster. Sadly, there was the tragic loss of five lives, including three young children, at the site of a road collapse on the Pacific Highway at Somersby on Friday 12 June. To the relatives and friends of the Bragg and Holt families I extend my deepest sympathy.

I place on record my sincere appreciation and thanks to the superintendent of Gosford State Emergency Service, Rolf Garda, and the many units that came to the support of residents who were in dire straits. Many of the unit members live on the Central Coast, but units from outside the area also provided support. I pay tribute to the police involved, particularly Superintendent Max Mitchell of the Brisbane Water Local Area Command and Superintendent Geoff McKechnie of the Tuggerah Lakes Local Area Command. I place on record my appreciation and thanks to all the police officers who did such an outstanding and sterling job during the crisis period. Many of those police officers are now involved in gathering material for the coronial inquest into the tragic loss of lives at Somersby.

I extend my sincere appreciation to Superintendent Steve Marsh of Gosford Rural Fire Service and to the many members of the fire brigades on the Central Coast and brigades from outside the area. I also thank Superintendent Keith King of the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the many brigades on the Central Coast and other areas who came to the fore. I also acknowledge and congratulate Superintendent Keith King on being awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal during the Queen's Birthday long weekend announcement of Australian honours.

I also pay tribute to the two councils on the Central Coast—Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council—their mayors, Laurie Maher and Bob Graham, and all the councillors and staff of the two councils, who also did a sterling job during the disaster. The setting up of the one-stop shop, which was an initiative of Premier Morris Iemma, was a great idea and the facility is well utilised. It is an initiative we should adopt as a government for dealing with disasters of this type. The one-stop shop was certainly very beneficial to the many residents who sustained losses during that dreadful period.
I congratulate the many departments involved in manning the one-stop shop, including the Department of Ageing and Disability Services, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Housing, the Department of Primary Industries, the Department of State and Regional Development—Business Assistance, and EnergyAustralia. I also wish to place on record my thanks to the many employees of EnergyAustralia and the other energy companies in this State for a sterling job done during the disaster period.

The Insurance Council of Australia, Northern Sydney and Central Coast Area Health, the Office of Fair Trading, and many charitable organisations, including the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, also provide support at the one-stop shop, as do Telstra Countrywide, Wyong and Gosford councils and Centrelink. As I said, the one-stop shop has been of great assistance to many residents affected by the disaster. The Minister for Police, David Campbell, visited the area, and together with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione, we visited Gosford police station to thank the police officers for a great job done during the crisis.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [5.46 p.m.]: Two Saturdays ago I visited the beautiful village of Taralga to meet constituents unable to travel the distance to my Bowral electorate office. Taralga was established in the 1830s and many of its existing buildings were constructed from local stones and rocks that are still to be found in the volcanic soils for miles around. With a village population of around 300, many of the residents can trace their ancestry back to the establishment of Taralga as a rural centre. Living in a small village, however beautiful, can have its drawbacks, of course. Everyone knows everyone else, and everything about them. Most of the time that is fine, and the closeness provides a great support network. But on Saturday I learnt what can happen to these relationships when outside influences are brought to bear.

In January last year the Government announced approval for the establishment of a wind farm of approximately l00 megawatts at Taralga. The result of this approval has been like an explosion in the middle of the village. Locals have scattered to various sides of the main street, shored up their positions, and now peer warily from behind their barricades. Such is the diverse response in the community caused by this proposal. Those who opposed the turbines took the issue to the Land and Environment Court, citing the risk to a number of endangered species and the damage to their landscape, as well as noise pollution. They raised about $100,000 to challenge the Minister's decision to approve the turbines. They lost. The judge's decision to increase the number of permitted turbines may well discourage other community groups wishing to oppose future wind farms elsewhere.

Jane Starr is a new resident in the area who has taken on the running of her parents' property. Jane came to see me on Saturday, arriving in her truck with an enormous bail of hay on the back. She has only been in Taralga for a matter of months but the point she wanted to make was how the proposed wind farm had driven a wedge through the middle of the community. Despite her short time in the village this had still made an impact on her. Jane believes, and I absolutely agree, that any proposal that has the potential to split a close-knit community into at least two camps should be handled very carefully by the State Government. People have told me that Minister Sartor breezed into Taralga late one Friday after visiting Braidwood. He sauntered into the pub, had a bit of a chat and left. To my knowledge, that is the sum total of his consultation with the people of Taralga, but if that is not so I am very happy to have that corrected.

The detractors do not object to sustainable energy but they are concerned about the negative visual and noise impacts on the village as well as the effect on land values and wildlife. The supporters believe it will bring work to the village and will benefit local retailers. Others, who do not live in Taralga, believe it will contribute to greenhouse gas abatement. There are, of course, other pros and cons, but in whichever camp you sit the fact remains that this has driven a wedge through relationships that have been the backbone of this community for many years—as I understand it does to any community in Australia dealing with a wind farm proposal.

The argument has been brewing since August 2004 when a public meeting was convened at the local sports club by RES Southern Cross to advise of a wind farm proposal. This was a bolt from the blue for most residents but it was clear that the host property owners had known of the project for several years. This was perhaps the first wedge. In December of that same year an open day and public meeting was held in the memorial hall, facilitated by the council and attended by approximately 300 people. In February 2005 the company engaged a consultant, who I am told targeted selected local organisations to attend a meeting where they were asked to put forward a virtual wish list of projects for possible company sponsorship if the wind farm was to get approval. Another wedge perhaps.
However, many of those present responded to this bargaining approach by saying that it was totally out of order until, and if, the project was approved. Unlike with the preparation for the Crookwell II wind farm, no staff of the Department of Planning were present at any of these meetings although they did attend tours of the proposed wind farm site with the developer. At the request of the opponents of the wind farm, staff from the department returned to the village, where they were shown the negative effect on neighbouring properties and landscape and the effect on the views from various vantage points around Taralga. The Government, meanwhile, has sat back and done nothing.

This is not a debate about the rights and wrongs of wind farms but about how a government, mindful that this is a contentious issue, deals with community discontent and disharmony. In country areas, where memories can be long and small community size makes community harmony a very personal issue for every single resident, there is an important role for Government in ensuring that developments like wind farms do not unduly strain that social fabric. This Government has manifestly failed to even understand this, let alone do anything about it. And it would not be difficult, or even costly, to do so.

The villagers should have a forum to voice their feelings so they are not left with a nasty taste in their mouth and resentment in their gut. Further, negotiation with local people with local knowledge might even produce better outcomes for the proposed wind farm. If the Government is to achieve its renewable energy targets we know it has few choices. It can dot the crowded coastline or it can fill up the interior with these turbines. I am sure the Government would not allow hundreds of wind turbines around Newcastle, Wollongong or Sydney without very close and careful community consultation. The people of country New South Wales, and particularly the people of Taralga, no matter whose side one is on, deserve the same respect.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [5.51 p.m.]: Mr Acting-Speaker, as this is the first occasion on which I have addressed the House while you have been in the chair, I take this opportunity to extend to you my very best wishes and congratulations on your elevation to the esteemed position of Acting­Speaker.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Thank you.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: In recent weeks I have met with a number of concerned residents from Kellyville Ridge in my electorate who have been extremely distraught over the sad death of five-year-old Connor Mark Greasby, who died when he was hit by a reversing garbage truck on Good Friday. This unfortunate tragedy shocked the local community and steered them into a resolve to act positively to reduce the possibility of the repetition of such an incident. On 24 April a meeting was held at Kellyville Ridge to prepare a plan for the future. I attended the meeting and was strongly impressed by the level of determination as well as the intelligent and professional approach taken by the residents present. Sadly, on that occasion I also met Connor's parents.

Arising out of the meeting several gatherings were held and a subcommittee was formed titled the Connor Committee for Child Safety and Education. This committee has put forward a detailed proposal for submission to Blacktown council entitled "Connors Park and Safety Improvements for the Kellyville Ridge Estate". The committee also gathered a petition for presentation to Blacktown council containing some 2,000 signatures on 104 pages. That petition was gathered in less than a week. The aim of the petition was to request a park in Kellyville Ridge containing a suitable playground area, safe play equipment and, if possible, bike tracks. On behalf of the committee I submitted the petition to Blacktown City Council. I also presented a petition to this Parliament and hope that the Minister for Local Government as well as other agencies will look at that submission and respond in due course to its detailed presentation.

I indicated to the committee that I intended to raise this matter today because of my concern for two things. First, in our local area there seem to be very narrow roads, which may be okay for an established community but is a dangerous situation in a community with a large number of children and where cars are parked on both sides of the street, leaving only a very narrow section in between and no adequate areas where children can play off the street. Second, I am concerned about the large number of trucks that use these local roads as through roads, particularly vehicles such as garbage trucks, which are often required to reverse in and out of the small streets and cul-de-sacs and create a danger to the many small children who play there.

I intend to request that this matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety for it to look at the whole issue of large trucks in community areas and the danger they can pose for small children. I would request especially, as suggested by the Connor committee, that the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety look at a number of minimum safety requirements that would need to be provided or amended on various large vehicles, such as security bars, reverse buzzers, cameras, pusher bars and the like. In its proposal, which I would like to have the opportunity to present, in conjunction with the Connor committee, to the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety there is a detailed proposal that outlines in very specific ways some of the recommendations that the Connor committee believes can be implemented to provide an effective outcome.

Finally, I will take a few moments to extend my sincere congratulations to the very professional constituents and residents of Kellyville Ridge with whom I had the pleasure of working, namely Angela Bishop, the committee project manager; Mr Alan Becken, the committee chairman; Tracy Becken, the media liaison officer; Stuart Forsaith, the treasurer; Leisa Greasby, the vice chairman; Teena Callander, the secretary; Jason Callander, the fund raising coordinator; and Danielle Ehrke, the research coordinator—fine people, doing an outstanding job with a very positive outlook in response to a very tragic case.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.56 p.m.]: Tonight I have the difficult job of trying to capture 290 years of life in five minutes. Last Saturday the Northern Star carried the headline "League of Gentlemen: The week we farewelled three of our finest", because last week the Northern Rivers area lost three great men. First we lost Frank Scarrabelotti, who was aged 109. His life spanned three centuries, as he was born in 1897. The member for Ballina will pay tribute to him later in the sitting but tonight I offer my condolences, thoughts and prayers to his wife, Nell, daughters, Mary and Helen, and their families on the loss of a wonderful man.

The area also lost Harold Richmond Fredericks, affectionately known as the Black Prince, who died on 10 June and was buried last week. Harold was a member of the famous Z Force during World War II. He had 36 years of distinguished service in the Police Force and was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the rescue helicopter service in Lismore.

Harold Fredericks retired from the police service and continued with community service. He was elected to the Lismore City Council in 1983 and became the mayor of the city in 1987 at the age of 64. Nora Vidler and Jack Mitchell paid tribute to Harold in their eulogies, recalling his distinguished service in the war, in the Police Force and in the community. I pass on my sympathy and that of the community to his wife, Colleen, daughters, Robyn and Gail, and his two sons, Peter and Paul. Paul has followed in his father's footsteps and is doing a great job in the Police Force in Lismore. I had the pleasure of serving on the Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter Service Board with Harold, together with the late Bruce Duncan, a former member for Lismore, and on the day of the funeral two lifesaver helicopters flew over as a tribute to Harold.

Last week Jack Hurley also passed away. He will be deeply missed by the far North Coast and Kyogle local communities, the Lions club locally and nationally, and the Australian transport industry. Jack is a founding member of Brown and Hurley, together with his great mate, Alan Brown. Whilst Jack's success in business has often been measured by record sales, number of staff and investment in eight locations, his true success lies much deeper. His achievements were built on the enduring partnership between himself and Alan Brown and the wider Brown and Hurley families. This partnership, which lasted more than 60 years, continues today with the involvement of a third generation of both the Brown and Hurley families in the running of the business. The perseverance, hard work, foresight and business acumen shown by Jack Hurley made him an integral part of the Australian road transport industry.

Jack was also widely recognised as one of the driving forces behind the Lion's Road linking Kyogle to Brisbane, the Summerland Way, and the Westpac Helicopter Service. He was the author of two outstanding books and he was a foundation and current member of the Kyogle Lions Club. I have stated in the House before that the Kyogle Lions Club was the third such club established in Australia. Indeed, there are three foundation members still active in the club today—there were four before the loss of Jack.

At all times Jack had the strong support of his wife, Thelma, and his wider family. On a personal level Jack was a man of great humility and generosity. He was down to earth, loyal, inventive and community spirited. Una and John, Jim and Clare, Jo, Doug and Sandee, Kev and Colleen, his 16 grandchildren and 26 great-grandchildren, our thoughts and prayers are with you. Eulogies were given by sons, Jim and Doug, Alan Brown's son, Rob, and Andrew Wright, a former managing director of Kenworth. This has been a very bad week for the Northern Rivers area, which has suffered the loss of three great gentlemen. However, we celebrate the life of those three gentlemen.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron—Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.01 p.m.]: I thank the member for Lismore for drawing the attention of the House to the loss that the Northern Rivers area has suffered with the departure of three gentlemen. The Northern Star paid Mr Fredericks, Mr Hurley and Scarrabelotti a fitting tribute. As Minister for Ageing, I acknowledge that older people make a significant contribution to their communities as carers, volunteers and active participants in the community. The Northern Rivers community has been enriched by the active and generous lives that these gentlemen led.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [6.02 p.m.]: Tonight I bring the achievements of Dalmeny Public School at Prestons to the notice of the House. Recently I was fortunate to visit Dalmeny Public School. The school only opened in 2003 and it has the motto of "Educating tomorrow's leaders", something dear to all our hearts. Dalmeny Public School has quickly developed a reputation for providing a positive climate for learning. It has quality teaching and it believes in caring and open communication—all based on a foundation of respect and responsibility. Teachers use a negotiation room to sort out playground disputes, an initiative I recommend to others. Already, the school has achieved success in the performing and creative arts as well as sport. An active student representative council and parents and citizens association provide a meaningful voice for students and parents.

The foundation principal of the school was Janet van der Wyk, who left last year, to be replaced by David Eggins. This State owes a debt of gratitude to Janet van der Wyk for her commitment, and also to Mr Eggins and his staff for their ongoing hard work for our children. Dalmeny is in a rapidly growing area of Prestons, where there are many new houses. Currently the school has 685 pupils, with an anticipated enrolment of 780 by 2009. One of Labor's great initiatives in recent years has been the reduction of class sizes in the early years. Dalmeny now has over five kindergarten classes—with only 20 students in each class. A feature of the school is the working multiculturalism that typifies the Liverpool area: 74 per cent of the children have language backgrounds other than English. There are 55 language backgrounds in total.

This school typifies what Labor is about: equality of access to quality education, creation of opportunity for all, and encouragement of an inclusive national identity. The teaching staff are young and motivated, with a blend of experience. This is similar to other areas of education and health in south-western Sydney. It will be part of the challenge for our Government to give these young teachers the opportunity and incentive to do as I have done and stay in our area for the longer term. Performance pay for teachers, as mooted by the Federal Government, was again raised. I see it as a problem, as it may impact negatively on the team building necessary among teachers for our schools.

When students are asked what makes a good teacher, they say someone who is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the students, enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the subject, and fair. We all know what impact a good teacher makes on the lives of students. We also know that good teachers are motivated by more than money. How these qualities can be transformed into payments is beyond anyone's guess. I feel this will adversely affect teachers who choose to work in more disadvantaged areas. If the Federal Government has money to allocate for education, why not allocate it to disadvantaged schools? The parents, staff and students of Dalmeny Public School do an excellent job for our community. I am extremely proud of them and I am privileged to be their local member. I commend this fine school to the House.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [6.07 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the proliferation of graffiti in the electorate of Wagga Wagga, in particular in the city of Wagga Wagga. A couple of weeks ago I took my camera around the city and in three hours I photographed no fewer than 192 sites of graffiti. They were mainly in the central business district and river area. I have never seen our city so badly affected by the incidence of graffiti than when I went around photographing those sites. I took it upon myself to write to the various departments responsible for infrastructure in the city. I wrote to the Wagga Wagga City Council, the Roads and Traffic Authority, StateRail and the Australian Rail Track Corporation. I wrote to property managers, being real estate agents and the Department of Housing, and anyone else I could think of. There are numerous graffiti tags around the city of Wagga Wagga. On some of the new bridges that have been constructed there is not one inch of space because of the writings of graffiti artists. Public buildings have been defaced. Toilet blocks in the public parks are now all covered in graffiti.

Having supplied 192 photographs to the people I mentioned I have had some responses. In my correspondence to them I asked that if they identified properties as theirs would they please implement their graffiti removal program to ensure that our city is cleaned up and the graffiti removed. We can then help track these graffiti artists. The responses have not been as prompt as I would have liked. I have written to the appropriate Ministers as well. The local area commander responded very promptly and very professionally, with a commitment to form a mini task force to attack this graffiti problem. I have had nothing but support from the local area commander and I commend him for that. As yet, I have not had a response from the Roads and Traffic Authority. The infrastructure that controls the traffic lights around the city is absolutely covered in graffiti, road signs are defaced with graffiti, bridges for which the authority is responsible are covered in graffiti and buildings along the rail corridors that StateRail manages are badly defaced.

The responses I will get will not be positive; people are accepting that buildings are regularly defaced and that it is a fact of life. I do not accept that and nor should any ratepayer or citizen in our community. I warn those departments that the responses I expect to receive from them should be more positive than the indications I have received verbally. I know there are big issues with regard to road safety and rail infrastructure, but the deteriorating situation with graffiti is a priority in my mind as well.

The Wagga Wagga City Council spends enormous amounts of money removing graffiti from around the city. I ask the Minister: How many graffiti artists have been caught for spraying their tags? How many have been made to clean off graffiti in the Wagga Wagga region? How many councils have taken up the Government's program to remove this stuff? What proactive measures is the Government going to take to limit access to textas now that spray cans have been locked up and are only accessible to older people—although I think most graffiti artists are over the age of 14, some being 27 and 30? What measures will the Government take to ensure that products are now water-based so graffiti can be more easily removed? Graffiti is a blight on our community and it is proliferating across New South Wales. The Wagga Wagga City Council spends enormous amounts of money removing graffiti from around the city. I ask the Minister: How many graffiti artists have been caught for spraying their tags? How many have been made to clean off graffiti in the Wagga Wagga region? How many councils have taken up the Government's program to remove this stuff? What proactive measures is the Government going to take to limit access to textas now that spray cans have been locked up and are only accessible to older people—although I think most graffiti artists are over the age of 14, some being 27 and 30? What measures will the Government take to ensure that products are now water-based so graffiti can be more easily removed? Graffiti is a blight on our community and it is proliferating across New South Wales.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.12 p.m.]: The term "excessive regulations" has been identified time and again by report after report into the current occupational health and safety regulations and associated workers compensation system. So too have those cases where, through the carelessness of employees, business owners pay the price through increased premiums. I have referred to such cases before, when honest, hardworking businesspeople have additional costs thrust upon them when the time comes for workers compensation renewals. One such business that experienced the workers compensation frustration is Midpro Engineering, owned and operated by Ian and Leigh Bartholomaeus in Forbes. A State training award winner in 2006, Midpro has learned hard lessons from liability claims and was unfortunately engaged in lengthy discussions with its workers compensation insurer after a series of incidents. The letter the company sent me reads:

[One worker] cut tip off finger in June 2006, in his admission was his fault, just wasn't careful enough. Total cost of [his] medical expenses $4498.22, as itemised by GIO.
Midpro has been charged an adjustment of $14165.07.

Midpro should have a creditable overpaid premium 2005-2006, which has not been noted or credited on our policy anywhere.

[Another fellow] went off work 2 weeks before our renewal was due with back strain. GIO put in a code to correspond with the injury and that comes up with an estimate of $34,000.00 for that particular injury. This amount is established by allowing 52 weeks of wages @ 80%, $3,500 in medical expenses, $3,500 in rehab (reports etc) $2,500.00 workers travel and $2,500 for investigations.

This amount is all charged in advance on top of the existing renewal fee.

When the owners queried what happens if the medical expenses claim comes in at only $5,000, they were told that it was bad luck, that they would not get the balance of the estimate refunded or credited. It took in excess of 10 hours of wasted phone calls to get any clarification or sense out of anyone at GIO. GIO kept telling them that it was government legislation and "We can't do anything about it". Finally, a few weeks down the track, the owners were told they could put in an appeal. It took nearly two weeks for appeal papers to arrive. After reading them they learned that the appeal has to be lodged within one month of the policy renewal and the excuse of not knowing about the appeal process is not acceptable. They then filled in the forms and sent them to WorkCover. This was followed up two weeks later and they were told they would not even get looked at for at least two months but they must pay everything Midpro has been charged in the meantime.

Meanwhile, the owners received another account from GIO. They have to pay $14,000 in two weeks as an adjustment fee to the 2005-06 renewal, with the actual cost in excess of $44,000 to be paid over the next three years. The owners just paid $7,300 for the first instalment of the renewal. They phoned the GIO to explain they were in the middle of the drought and asked where they would find that kind of money. Again they were told, "That's government legislation, we can't do anything about it". The owners then asked whether there were some payment terms they could work out with the GIO. They were given a maximum of three months and were told they could be charged interest on the full amount. Obviously this system is totally unfair and they cannot get any clear answers from anyone.

Last week the owners of Midpro were contacted by a local employment agency which asked whether they were interested in employing some people who had been out of work for quite some time. They were offered good incentives and cashback deals. They asked what happened with workers compensation. The agency said it would cover the payments if necessary. The owners of Midpro stated it was not the payment that was the concern, it was the liability. They were not going to take on someone who was inexperienced and run the risk of losing business due to a careless accident. Even though the company does inductions and takes every precaution possible, it is still liable when someone hurts themselves, even when they admit it is their own fault.

Approximately two years ago the company wrote a letter expressing its concerns about payroll tax on medium-sized businesses. The owners sent a copy to John Cobb, Bob Carr and Ian Armstrong. They received replies in due course, followed by a payroll audit. Was this a shut-up tactic or what? I followed up on this initial complaint when it came to me just before the election when the Hon. John Della Bosca was in Dubbo. I raised the issue with him and his office was most helpful. Since that time Midpro Engineering has received fairer treatment from WorkCover, but why should it have to get to the stage of going to a Minister to get justification?

On 4 June I was advised that during the course of this matter Midpro Engineering had been issued 15 different accounts by WorkCover and GIO. That was up until the insurer received correspondence advising of my representations to the Minister. GIO then offered to halve the $30,000 bill, admitting perhaps it had been a bit harsh in its dealings to that point. Midpro Engineering currently employs 17 people, 7 of whom are trainees. One of the trainees, Jeremy Grandson, won a gold medal for welding at the World Skills International competition in Helsinki. Delays in responses from WorkCover and inadequate information have been the most frustrating aspects. This is a ridiculous situation. I call on the Government to urgently inquire into this issue and investigate how WorkCover and other insurers can come up with a figure out of the air and then halve the amount when faced with ministerial representation.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [6.17 p.m.]: I reflect, as I have on previous occasions over the past couple of years, on the lack of coastal planning in New South Wales following the abolition of the independent Coastal Council several years ago and the formation of the super-department known as the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources under then planning Minister Craig Knowles. Several years down the track, the current state of play is that the mid North Coast, together with other coastal regions, is growing significantly. As a result of lifestyle reasons and improvements in technology and roads, significant growth is continuing throughout the coastal regions of New South Wales. In the Port Macquarie Hastings Council area on the mid North Coast, section 94s have slowed and cutbacks are occurring throughout many of the council's budget areas. In my electorate new land releases are expected in two areas where at least 20,000 new residences will be located. That is new land release areas alone. It would be fair to say that the general trend is significantly upwards. The region faces significant pressures.

The mid North Coast regional plan was the last plan released prior to the election. It is a land use document only. I understand that the regional plans when first initiated were to be integrated planning documents that included resource planning, service delivery planning, infrastructure planning and land use. For a number of reasons they were trimmed back to land use only documents. However, the mid North Coast document is of significance in that it highlights that over the next 25 years the area is expected to have 90,000 new residents, 50,000 new homes and supposedly 40,000 new jobs. The maps are yet to be released. I look forward to those maps being released by the Minister soon. I understand he has given an agreement to local groups to do so, and I welcome that action.

At the same time, the State Plan is part of the current environment. Anyone following government closely and talking with State agencies would know that at the time of its release the State Plan was viewed with cynicism as a pre-election document. However, nine months down the track the document has legs and is a guiding document within State agencies. We are in an environment where the Coastal Council was dismantled and the under-resourced Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources was formed. Now we have the Department of Planning, which is also significantly under-resourced and has many different priorities, such as part 3A applications. The coast, with its high-growth pressures, is lacking in detailed planning documents, other than just local environmental plans [LEPs] or regional environmental plan [REPs].

I call on the Minister for Planning and the Premier to combine the mid North Coast regional plan with the State Plan. In so doing the mid North Coast plan will be more than a land use document. It will be a genuine integrated planning document that provides detail on the broader principles that are written into the State Plan. As I understand it, that was the original intent of the regional plans. I am disappointed that that they have now been turned into land use documents. I hope the situation is recoverable and the Minister and the Premier will consider including the broader principles of the State Plan into the detail of the land use document that is now the mid North Coast plan. Without such principles the mid North Coast plan is largely irrelevant. For example, our hospital has a "house full" sign. Without the inclusion of a service delivery element to cover the expected growth, the planning documents are ad hoc and largely irrelevant.

Private members' statements noted.

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

[ Acting-Speaker (Mr Wayne Merton) left the chair at 6.23 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 7 June 2007.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [7.30 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose these bills. The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill will confer special powers on police officers providing security for any of the meetings of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group in Sydney. The bill will allow first bail appearances to be made by audiovisual link if the bail proceedings relate to an offence alleged to have been committed in metropolitan Sydney from 20 August until 28 September 2007. The bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act to require the Commissioner of Police to report to the Attorney General and to the Minister for Police on the operation of the Act and subsequently requires the Attorney General and the Minister for Police to report to Parliament on the operation of the Act. The bill amends the Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Warrants) Act to postpone the repeal of part 6B of the Crimes Act to 13 September 2008—it is due to be repealed on 13 September 2007—relating to the membership of terrorist organisations. It will also amend the Weapons Prohibition Act to include in the list of prohibited weapons certain articles or devices, such as caltrops, that are capable of puncturing the feet, paws or hooves of animals as they pass over them.

Metropolitan Sydney is defined in the bill as the local government areas bounded by Pittwater, Hornsby, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Penrith, Camden, Campbelltown and the Sutherland shire. The core declared areas of the APEC security area are included on a map attached to the bill. Additional parts of the Sydney metropolitan area can be gazetted as declared areas if the Commissioner of Police has made a recommendation to the Minister for Police and the Minister believes that safety or security will be improved for the APEC meeting or the public and the Minister has consulted Ministers he considers relevant to the area to be declared.

Police will be given broad powers including the ability to establish checkpoints, cordons and roadblocks; to stop and search vehicles or vessels which are seeking to enter an APEC security area or which are in such an area; to require a person, if requested, to submit to a search before or after entering an APEC security area; to seize prohibited items including spray paint cans, chains, handcuffs, poles of more than one metre, marbles and other round objects, smoke devices, flares, flammable or noxious liquids, laser pointers, communication jammers; to give reasonable directions to the public to close—at the direction of the Commissioner of Police—a road without notice for specified purposes and to order the removal of vehicles or objects from such closed roads; to search any premises, other than homes, in a restricted area without a warrant; to request identification, to have proof produced, if requested, by anyone seeking to enter a restricted area; and to remove any person within the APEC security area for failing to identify themselves, if they have in their possession or control prohibited items, or if they do not have special justification for being in the area. Special justification is defined in the bill.

The Commissioner of Police will be able to prepare lists of persons whom he is satisfied are persons who would pose serious threats to the safety of persons or property, or both, in an APEC security area during the APEC period. There will be a presumption against bail for any offence alleged to have been committed in an APEC security area that involves the assault of a police officer, or malicious damage to property, or throwing a missile at a police officer. It will be an offence for a person, without special justification, to enter any restricted area or any part of a restricted area. The maximum penalty will be six months imprisonment or, if circumstances of aggravation exist, two years imprisonment. The bill makes it an offence for a person during the APEC period to cause an aircraft to enter or to operate an aircraft within restricted air space without air traffic clearance. It provides that the onus of proof of lawful excuse or special justification is borne by the person who is accused of the offence or who makes such a claim. The bill permits a member of the police force of another State, New Zealand or a member of the Australian Federal Police to be appointed as a recognised law enforcement officer, while remaining under the command and control of their employing police force.

The Premier has stated that the State Government has been forced to put in place security measures that would "guarantee the safety of the visitors and citizens of Sydney". As the Opposition sees it, the arguments in support of the bill is that it provides police with additional powers to address any potential security or safety issue that may arise during APEC, particularly from the likely presence of protestors. Incidents such as those seen at the G20 meeting in Melbourne and various trade functions overseas have highlighted the need for an appropriate police response and the powers to be in place to allow that response. An argument against the legislation is that some sections of the community have naturally expressed concerns about stop, search and detain powers being used by police to stifle protests and protestors raising what they believe are legitimate issues. On balance, the Opposition does not oppose the bills.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [7.38 p.m.]: The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group event comprises a series of meetings culminating in Leaders Week, which will be held in Sydney between 2 and 9 September 2007. It is likely to bring to Sydney the heads of government of 21 countries, up to 5,000 officials and 1,500 international media personnel to report the outcomes of the meeting. The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill provides police with special powers that will help to ensure the safety of Sydneysiders, visitors and city landmarks and buildings. This significant international event will require enormous dignitary protection efforts and approximately 3,500 security personnel will be involved, including members the New South Wales Police Force, the Australian Federal Police, the defence force, interstate police and New Zealand police. The legislation will be administered by the Attorney General and will be in force from 30 August to 12 September 2007.

The legislation creates police powers in declared areas to establish checkpoints and so on, it allows for bag and other searches, it prohibits certain items and allows for their confiscation, it excludes certain persons, and it allows for the control of roads and traffic zones, for reasonable directions to be given and for the use of police animals. The bill also creates additional police powers in restricted areas to allow police to enter premises, but not private residential premises, to compel persons to provide evidence of identification, and to generally exclude persons.

The Government understands that these powers are significant, and it has, therefore, introduced a number of safeguards to ensure they are used appropriately and only when necessary. Some of these measures include the following. The bill will terminate after the APEC meetings are concluded. The powers will apply only within designated and limited areas of the city and will be mainly concentrated around the northern parts of the central business district. Over coming months police will receive specialist training in the use of the powers to ensure they are fully aware of their duties and responsibilities when using these laws. In addition, a review of the powers will be jointly conducted by the Attorney General and the Minister for Police.

These laws are not about stopping peaceful protests; they are about protecting the community, tourists and international visitors should protestors resort to violence during the event. The bill which is being introduced to support APEC—the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill 2007—is also designed to assist in the smooth running of the APEC event. Given the high level of security that will be in place around the central business district, the Government has taken on board the advice from security officials that keeping the Sydney metropolitan area open for workers will be too burdensome. To this end, a public holiday on 7 September 2007 will allow for the smoother running of the event.
Public holidays are not something new to the APEC event in Sydney alone. In Santiago in 2004 and in Shanghai in 2001 public holidays were enacted when those two cities hosted APEC summits. The Minister for Industrial Relations announced in February this year that a one-off public holiday would be declared for the Sydney metropolitan area for Friday 7 September 2007. The Minister for Police has already outlined the areas to which this public holiday will apply, but the Government is concerned that the declared APEC holiday may not attract the usual public holiday entitlements for workers without explicit action by the Government. The bill 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.

In today's world, unfortunately, there is a real threat of terrorism. We need to be prepared, and by mobilising our police officers and law enforcement agencies we are certainly ensuring that we eliminate as many of these threats as possible. New South Wales has an international reputation that is second to none when it comes to running successful major events. As a government we must ensure that all measures are taken to provide a safe and incident-free environment for the heads of government of 21 countries, the 5,000 officials, the 1,500 media personnel, our infrastructure, and, importantly, our community. I ask members to support this legislation, as I know it will greatly assist in the organisation of APEC 2007.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [7.42 p.m.]: The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007 confers special powers for police providing security for any of the meetings of the heads of the APEC group of economies in Sydney. It allows first bail appearances to be made by audiovisual link if the bail proceedings relate to an offence alleged to have been committed in metropolitan Sydney from 20 August until 28 September 2007. The bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Acts to require the Commissioner of Police to report to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police on the operation of the Act, and requires the Attorney General and the Minister for Police to report subsequently to Parliament on the operation of the Act.

The bill also amends the Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Warrants) Act to postpone the repeal of part 6B of the Crimes Act, relating to the membership of terrorist organisations, to 13 September 2008. Currently the provision is due to be repealed on 13 September 2007. Further, the bill amends the Weapons Prohibition Act to include in the list of prohibited weapons certain articles or devices, such as caltrops, that are capable of puncturing the feet, paws or hooves of animals as they pass over them.

Police will be given broad powers, including the ability to remove any person within the APEC security area for failing to identify themselves, or if they have in their possession or control prohibited items, or if they do not have special justification for being in the area. Special justification is defined in the bill. Police will also be given the power to request identification and to have proof produced, if requested, from anyone seeking to enter a restricted area; to search any premises, other than homes, in a restricted area without a warrant; to close, at the discretion of the police commissioner, a road without notice for specified purposes and to order the removal of vehicles or objects from such closed roads; and to give reasonable directions to the public.

The bill will enable police and security organisations to seize prohibited items, including spray paint cans, chains, handcuffs, poles of more than one metre, marbles and other round objects, smoke devices, flares, flammable or noxious liquids, laser pointers and communication jammers. Police will also be given the power to require a person, if requested, to submit to a search before or after entering an APEC security area, and to establish checkpoints, cordons and roadblocks, and stop and search vehicles or vessels seeking to enter an APEC security area or vehicles or vessels that are in such an area.

Importantly, the bill permits a member of the police force of another State, New Zealand or a member of the Australian Federal Police to be appointed as a recognised law enforcement officer, while remaining under the command and control of their employing police force. This will ensure that the APEC summit is conducted without a hitch. In speaking in support of the bill I take this opportunity to commend the wonderful work of our security forces, both State and Federal, in the lead-up to the summit. A large amount of training has been undertaken, and we are all grateful for that.

The bill provides police with additional powers to address any potential security or safety issue to arise during the APEC summit, particularly from the likely presence of protestors. The Commissioner of Police will be able to prepare lists of persons who would pose serious threats to the safety of citizens or property, or both, in an APEC security area during the APEC period. That is to be commended. I certainly support the bill, and once again wish to place on record the debt and gratitude we all owe to our security forces.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.46 p.m.]: The APEC Leaders Week meeting to be held in Sydney between 2 and 9 September represents the most important gathering of world leaders to ever take place in Australia. It will involve an estimated 21 heads of government, up to 5,000 officials, and 1,500 representatives of the international media. It is fair to say that the planning and carrying out of such a large and important international event is a huge undertaking, but it is one that the New South Wales Government is certainly up to. With so many world leaders present, obviously a range of security concerns have needed to be addressed in the bill.

The security operation will involve around 3,500 military and law enforcement personnel, including members of the NSW Police Force, the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, New Zealand Police, and law enforcement agencies from other Australian States. The New South Wales Government has extensive experience in hosting important international events, including most notably the 2000 Olympics. The bill draws on our experience from such events, and recognises the need for police to be provided with special powers to ensure that those attending from overseas and Sydneysiders are kept safe during the course of APEC. The Government intends these special powers to be in force only during the APEC period, specifically from 30 August until 12 September.

I now turn to the provisions of the bill. The bill provides that specific areas, generally in the north of the central business district, are defined as declared areas or restricted areas. In the outer declared areas, police will have a range of powers to identify people who may present a security risk. I understand that people will generally be given access into and out of these areas, subject to search if requested by police, and certain prohibited items may be confiscated. In the areas defined as restricted areas, police will be given a number of additional powers. These additional powers are necessary because restricted areas include the areas in which the heads of state will be staying and conducting their meetings.

Police will be able to search premises that are not private residential premises, compel people to provide identification, and generally exclude people from access unless they can prove they have business there. While these are significant powers, the Government has put appropriate safeguards in place. These changes are based on the need to ensure the safety and security of APEC leaders and the community. They are not designed to prevent peaceful protests from taking place. Through the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill the Government wants to ensure that police have the power to stop or deter acts of violence and criminal damage that may be directed against APEC. The bill reflects the ongoing cooperation between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government in planning for APEC and ensuring it is a resounding success for all who attend. I commend the bills to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [7.50 p.m.]: The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill creates extraordinary police powers in the lead-up to, during and after the APEC meeting. There has been some criticism on the choice of Sydney as the venue for the APEC meeting because of the disruption, particularly to transport, that it will create. But Sydney is Australia's only global city and it should be able to take global events of this nature in its stride. We held a world-class Olympic Games and we should be able to manage a three-day meeting of world leaders. Coordination and communication will be the key. The City of Sydney is committed to working with the New South Wales Government and the APEC task force to ensure safety and to minimise impacts from the event, which will be held in the central business district. We are providing banner poles and flower displays and will provide access to our Street Safety Camera Program for the event, including police presence in the city's control room.

I agree with the Minister for Police, who, when announcing the bills, stressed the need to ensure safety for Sydneysiders and participants, and I acknowledge that a gathering with such high- profile leaders certainly presents an extraordinary security challenge that we must address. During the APEC meeting we need to ensure that Sydney is safe and secure and that we can readily respond if the need arises. I note that the New South Wales Law Society considers the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill draconian, due to police stop-and-search powers and the presumption against bail for certain offences. Its view highlights the importance of ensuring the balance between ensuring security and maintaining civil rights. For many years there has been a broad acceptance in the Australian community of a reasonable balance between law enforcement and individual rights. Striking the right balance is what matters now. The bill limits police powers to a specified period and to within the APEC security area, and I welcome the accountability measure that ensures that the Minister for Police and the Attorney General report to Parliament on the operations of the Act six months after it is repealed.

I have concerns about the impact the bill will have on residents, businesses, services and visitors to the area. Some of these concerns relate to the absence of requirements to publicly provide information. There are already reports that the APEC task force does not have an adequate communications strategy for residents and businesses. The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill provides for the creation of declared areas and restricted areas for which there are new police powers and where specific prohibitions will apply. Police will be able to set up barricades, search vehicles and people, and confiscate items such as laser pointers if there is no reasonable excuse for their possession. The bill indicates which areas are designated core declared and allows additional declared areas to be determined before or during the event. While I understand the need to give the Minister for Police the ability to designate declared areas as safety and security threats arise, I am concerned that the bill does not require the Minister to inform affected local government, services, residents, businesses or communication networks, including newspapers and television.

Within declared areas police may stop and search people, confiscate certain items, and exclude people identified on an excluded persons list. While these police powers are being created to ensure safety, they provide reason for many to actively avoid declared areas, which will be difficult if their location is not publicly announced in advance. Residents could be significantly disrupted and would need reasonable notification if they live within or nearby declared areas. People listed for exclusion from declared areas do not need to be informed that they are listed. This prevents them avoiding APEC security areas from which they can be forcibly removed. Should the Commissioner consider it appropriate, he may or may not publish the list.

I share the concerns of the Redfern Legal Centre that publication provisions of the list could be defamatory and could result in discrimination against protesters in the future. I share its call that the bill should require that excluded persons be privately notified. There are heavy penalties for entering restricted areas without special justification. Those penalties are increased if prohibited items are taken. I stress that residents, businesses and service providers, including the City of Sydney, in and around restricted areas will need to be informed about access well in advance.

The impact on homeless people who normally live in APEC security areas is a particular concern. Will their presence in a restricted area be justified or will they be moved on? If the latter is the case, where will they be moved to? I ask the Minister to address this issue in reply. I ask him to ensure that homeless people living in and around APEC security areas are treated humanely and respectfully, and that their safety is ensured. The City of Sydney has appointed a Public Space Liaison Officer who will inform homeless people about APEC, and we have discussed operations with the Homeless Interagency. However, we are limited by the information we have. I am concerned that road closures and motorcades could impact on essential services that would not be deemed emergencies, such as services for disabled and elderly residents needing food and care, and services for those with a mental illness needing medication.

The bill allows for road closures and motorcades without notification. I call on the Government to ensure that service providers such as Home and Community Care [HACC] are informed of how to work around road closures and motorcades. Similarly, residents and workers will need information on road closures and motorcades to make travel allowances and reduce inconveniences. I have reports from City of Sydney staff that residents and businesses believe they do not have enough information on road closures and that public transport and private vehicle access are matters of concern. In conclusion, I reiterate that City of Sydney staff are cooperating with the State Government and the APEC task force to manage the APEC meeting, and I call for strong communication lines so that the city is able to effectively manage impacts.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [7.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping, the member for Smithfield, the member for Lane Cove, the member for Parramatta and the member for Sydney for their contributions to the debate and for their support of the legislation. I also thank them for their support for the direction the Government is taking to ensure, as I have said many times—and I note the member for Sydney picked this up and agrees with it—the safety and security of Sydneysiders, first and foremost, our international visitors, and the city's assets and icons.

I will comment on some of the issues raised by the member for Sydney. Communication is important, and the Government has indicated that it will implement a strong communications plan with the broader community and with those involved in restricted and declared areas. I am aware of the need to make sure that both the Sydney community and the community of New South Wales understand those aspects. Police will, of course, treat homeless people sensitively and with appropriate care. That is as it should be. These people are often referred to as homeless, but their home is the public domain in the city. They need to have the same sense of protection for their safety as other Sydneysiders have. Police will take their individual concerns and safety into account.

I have been reported elsewhere as saying, and I am happy to repeat it to the House, that those who will be on the list of excluded persons are those who have been involved, as the member for Epping said, in very serious and disruptive protests and violence in other locations. They do not need to be told they will be on the list; they know they will be on the list because of their previous activities. It is important to point that out. I invite anyone who thinks they might be on the list to contact the APEC command. As the member for Sydney said—and I am sure that all members would agree—there is a balance between those who take part in reasonable and appropriate protests in a democratic society and those who want to go over the edge, create havoc, violence and mayhem, attack people, attack police officers as they go about their work, attack police dogs and police horses and attack public or private property.

The legislation aims to get the balance right. I appreciate the support of the Opposition and the member for Sydney for the direction the Government has taken. I express confidence that APEC will be successful for Australia and Sydney, that it will allow people to have their say and will be conducted safely for both Sydneysiders and international visitors. I commend the bills to the House.

Question—That these bills be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bills agreed to in principle.

Bills declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bills.

Debate resumed from 7 June 2007.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [8.02 p.m.]: At the outset I indicate that at The Nationals annual conference in Singleton last week and over the weekend the membership of The Nationals raised the injecting room as a matter for urgent debate. There was almost unanimous agreement that the extension of the injecting room trial should be strongly opposed. The Nationals overwhelmingly represent electorates in country New South Wales, so that vote is a fairly strong voice for the views of country people about the injecting room and extension of the trial. The Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party will allow a conscience vote on the bill but The Nationals will follow the lead of their membership and oppose the bill as a party.

The matter was discussed in The Nationals party room this morning and the decision was made to take a strong stand on it. This is not inconsistent with the stance taken by The Nationals following the Drug Summit in 1999, when the injecting room was first proposed. The Nationals opposed the establishment of a medically supervised injecting centre at Kings Cross. The stance is also consistent with the subsequent legislation prior to this bill that extended the trial. The Nationals have been consistent from day one in opposing the concept of an injecting room, not only in Kings Cross but anywhere else in New South Wales.

We oppose the injecting room because of the message it sends to young people that by establishing, maintaining, administering and funding a facility in which addicts are allowed to take illegal drugs the Government is tolerant of drugs. We believe that is not appropriate. We would prefer a strong message that drugs damage and destroy lives and families and that drugs are responsible for crime. Governments should send a strong message, not a weak message, against drugs. They should not support the concept of harm minimisation, which may for some young people translate into a belief that the taking of hard drugs is, in some way, acceptable.

Another reason The Nationals have consistently opposed the injecting room concept is because the resources that are directed towards this facility ought to be directed towards detoxification and rehabilitation. In combination, the view of my party is that we should send a strong message to young people not to get involved in drugs in the first place and that if they do become addicted to these substances we will help them to get off those drugs. The injecting room does not achieve either of those goals. It sends a message that government will tolerate drugs and that if people become addicted, government will help to maintain their addiction, rather than help to get them off drugs or break their habit.

If this position was some unproven or untested theory on the part of The Nationals I would be less confident in my strong opposition to the bill. However, the idea has been trialled elsewhere in the world, most notably Sweden, which established a similar harm minimisation principle and facility. Having decided that that approach did not achieve the goals sought, Sweden now has a strong anti-drugs message, and it does not have harm minimisation facilities. Sweden looks after its addicts and is compassionate, but it is also tough—firm but fair might be the best description. Sweden has been down this road and has rejected the concept. We should heed that lesson.

As I indicated, The Nationals opposed the legislation relating to the medically supervised injecting centre the first time round following the 1999 Drug Summit and the subsequent extension of the trial. Nothing has given us a reason to alter our position. In fact, if anything, the original reason for the establishment of the medically supervised injecting centre has become less compelling in that it was set up for heroin, which now features less and less in the drugs used by clients of the injecting room. The drug methamphetamine or ice, as it is colloquially known, is now being used by increasing numbers of the facility's clients.

Originally we were told that the injecting room was designed to enable addicts to use heroin in a safe environment. Addicts are now taking advantage of the facility to use and experiment with high doses and dangerous mixes of illicit drugs, and I will cite statistics in support of that contention. Heroin now accounts for only 26 per cent of the injecting room's total injecting capacity and 38 per cent of all drugs used in that facility. Other drugs such as cocaine and ice, which are highly addictive, account for the other drugs used in the injecting room. In the Sunday Telegraph of 10 December 2006 an ice user was quoted as saying:

I just don't tell them. They don't care. They just write you down on a piece of paper. You just say "I'm doing hammer" (which means heroin) and go boom, boom quickly. Just keep it quiet.

Here is a person using ice but telling the centre he is using heroin. So, this figure that we have been told of ice being around 8 per cent of the drugs used in the centre may be understated or underreported. Late last year the Premier spoke in this place about the evils of ice, and rightly so. It is a highly addictive drug. It is linked strongly to mental illness, psychosis, violence and all forms of crime. It is a drug that drags users down. We have all seen the images of long-term ice users. The drug leads to an almost inevitable physical, psychological and spiritual decline of people who become addicted to it. The Premier told us how evil this drug was, but at the same time he is happy to provide taxpayer dollars to a facility that helps people use it. The hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking.

The raison d'être for the establishment of these facilities was to prevent overdoses, particularly of heroin. We are told from the statistics that the injecting room records an overdose every 129 injections. Based on statistics, that is almost 25 times the rate of overdose in the community. That tells us that those people using this facility are using it in the knowledge that they can push the boundaries, administer higher doses, and get involved in multiple drug use; but outside the facility there is some commonsense about the level and number of drugs they would willingly administer. Having this facility encourages somewhat dangerous drug-taking practices.

We have also heard from a variety of groups ranging from chambers of commerce and police through to the general public that there is some evidence of a honey-pot effect. The Government will deny there is any such thing but I would like to read from the Government's own evaluation in 2003. A City Rail worker said:

We've got problems at the entrance [of the train station] with people just hanging around. We've got members of the public complaining about drug users, homeless and drunks hanging around the entrance on Darlinghurst Road.

It was also stated in the Government's evaluation report:

The police who participated in the twelve-month discussion group commented that they had received complaints from the public and the City Rail staff about the increase in the number of people loitering at the train station. They noted that, while other factors, such as police operations, would have contributed to the increase in loitering outside the train station, there was a notable correlation between the loitering and the MSIC opening times.

The same evaluation also stated:

The increase in loitering was considered to be a displacement of existing users and dealers from other locations.

Another quotation from that same report was:

The train station never featured as a meeting place before. It used to be Springfield Mall and Roslyn Street.

The Government may try to deny that dealers have sought to exploit the existence of this centre, which draws users towards it to use its drugs safely and free of police attention, but according to its own report this is happening. Another statistic I should draw to the attention of the House is that statistically approximately 1 per cent of heroin users die each year from heroin overdose. Everyone would hate to see that happen. We are told that dependent users inject at least three times a day. Combining these statistics, that means the injecting room would have to host 300 heroin injections per day each year before it could claim to save one person from a fatal overdose. The records of the injecting room show that it hosts 87 heroin injections per day, a long way short of 300.

In my contribution to debate on earlier legislation I pointed out that during the Drug Summit I visited the Kings Cross area and the metropolitan ambulance service headquarters, which, prior to this facility, had a team of very well-equipped ambulance officers using motorbikes equipped with medical packs that included the drug Narcan. These ambulance officers were highly effective in getting down laneways and alleys where users would overdose. They would give them a shot of Narcan and they would recover. Nowhere in the Government's report have I seen any comparison of the cost effectiveness of that approach verses this approach. At no stage has the Government told us whether this is a more cost-effective way to save the lives of addicts. As I say, no­one wants to see one young person die as a result of drugs.

As to the cost, which I mentioned earlier, we have seen considerable government and taxpayer money spent on this injecting centre—more than $15 million since the facility first opened. If this trial is extended it will be at least another $10 million, a total of $25 million. During the Drug Summit I also visited a number of rehabilitation centres in metropolitan Sydney, and all the people there said to me they are screaming out for funds to help in the process of detoxification and the process of rehabilitation.

How many rehabilitation beds would $25 million buy? The question for the community and for this Parliament as representatives of the community is whether this facility is the best use of $25 million? Is there a viable alternative to prevent overdoses? Is there a better way than this injecting room to help stop young people getting involved with drugs in the first place and to help those who are addicted to get off their habit? I contend there is. The extension of the trial will be used as an excuse by others to seek either the establishment of further injecting rooms elsewhere in the State or similar facilities. The member for Lismore has told me that people in his electorate are calling for cannabis cafes in Nimbin.

Mr Paul Pearce: They have them already.

Mr ANDREW STONER: We know there is a green cloud around Nimbin, but they are using this as the thin end of the wedge to seek those allowances in that community.

Mr Daryl Maguire: They all vote for Thomas.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The farmers around Nimbin vote for the member for Lismore, who is a very good representative. People may say to me, "You have no compassion. You do not care about young people overdosing and dying." I do. But I believe there is a far more cost-effective way to address the issue. I believe it is more compassionate to put resources into preventing young people from becoming addicted in the first place and to help those who are addicted to become free from their habit. This facility achieves neither of those goals. It sends a message that drugs are okay and that the Government will not treat addicts but it will help them maintain their addiction. The Nationals strongly oppose this legislation.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [8.20 p.m.]: I support the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007, which extends the trial of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Kings Cross for a further four years to 31 October 2011. I reaffirm my strong support for the centre, which has been operating in my electorate for more than six years. The centre has saved lives by managing more than 2,100 overdoses that could have otherwise resulted in death or serious organ damage. Should an overdose occur at the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, nurses provide immediate treatment. The increase in methamphetamine use over recent years has also meant that the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has successfully prevented the development of ice-induced psychosis, which could have caused serious injury to self and others if it occurred on the street.
The latest National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research report shows that almost 10,000 people have registered with the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre since 2001. The report reinforces the success of the centre, with figures indicating that the centre has prevented over 191,000 public injections, made over 6,000 referrals for medical consultations, drug treatment and social welfare assistance, and helped reduce local needle syringe collections in public places by 50 per cent. The national centre report demonstrates that overdoses are being treated more quickly and effectively and that the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has significantly reduced demand on ambulance services.

While the national heroin shortage has decreased the number of overdoses occurring across the country, ambulance callouts to heroin overdoses in the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre's main catchment area—the 2011 postcode area—have dropped by 80 per cent since the opening of the centre. This demonstrates that the centre has had a significant effect on ambulance callouts well beyond that of the heroin shortage. The centre also benefits the rest of the community by freeing ambulance services so they are able to respond more promptly to other emergencies.

The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has not increased crime or antisocial behaviour, as was initially feared by some people. Drug-related crime in Kings Cross has in fact declined since 2000, with major robberies down by 40 per cent and major stealing incidents down by nearly 30 per cent. Kings Cross police report that the centre has helped to reduce drug-use-related problems so that police resources can be directed at targeting drug supply. Local area police commanders have unequivocally supported this facility. There has been strong local support for the centre, and this support continues to increase.

Independent surveys show higher levels of support from those who live closer to the facility. They also show that support reaches 80 per cent among those living in the area for more than five years. Those people remember what it was like before the establishment of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. There is also increasing support from business. The overwhelming majority of local people see what the centre has achieved and support its work.

Most Medically Supervised Injecting Centre users have long-term entrenched drug addictions with no previous contact with health services. The average time frame for drug use is 14 years. Drug experts say that we must take services to the most marginalised drug users and build trust so they can address their addiction. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has done that, with evidence suggesting a 90 per cent penetration into the local drug-using population. The average client is 33 years old with a 14-year history of drug use.

I wish to comment on the terms used in this debate, particularly the incorrect term "heroin injecting room". While most medically supervised injecting centre clients use heroin, they also inject cocaine, methamphetamines and other drugs. Many clients are polydrug users, making their addictions more complex and difficult to tackle. The centre also provides valuable early warning alerts to the increasing use of temazepam "gel-cap" formulation, which the centre helped get taken off the market.

The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre aims to reduce all injecting-related harms, including harm from blood-borne infections such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. This is a medical facility with professional staff, including nurses and drug counsellors, who are trained to help people prevent transmission of serious blood­borne diseases and help users deal with the health and social problems associated with addiction. Importantly, the centre is funded by the confiscated proceeds of crime, not from the budgets of other health programs. It does not divert funding from other drug programs, as has been claimed.

I have long argued that we need more resources for drug and alcohol detoxification, treatment and rehabilitation. I again call on the Government to expand these programs, so that those seeking help with their drug problems can get help when it is needed. I am pleased to say that part of my Lord Mayor salary goes toward a detoxification centre in my electorate, thereby ensuring that it remains open seven days a week. I will read comments from two Medically Supervised Injecting Centre clients, which illustrate the importance of the facility for the people who use it. One client says:

Too many people die in the gutter … It's good to see that people do care about us—the supposed "dregs of society". We are real people too—with mothers and fathers and people that love us.

Another client says:

When you are a drug user, it's often a lonely lifestyle. No one sets out to be an intravenous user, you sometimes feel alienated, dirty and alone, so when I discovered MSIC I felt safe, safe to know there was help if I needed it.
As legislators we must remember that injecting drug users deserve help to get their lives back together. They are someone's son or daughter, brother or sister, or partner. Inner-city constituents support progressive solutions to complex and tough inner-city social issues, such as the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. They understand that the centre saves lives. It reaches out to marginalised addicts living chaotic lives, often on the street. It gives an early warning system for drug trends and it reduces public injecting and the disposal of needles on the streets of Kings Cross and Darlinghurst.

As the Independent representative on the Special Resolutions Committee of the 1999 Drug Summit I pushed for policies and reforms that would address the growing drug-related problems in the inner city. I promoted a trial of a supervised injecting room on the basis of evidence given at the joint parliamentary select committee. At the request of the then Minister for Health I moved a motion for the trial, and I received overwhelming support from delegates.

I believe that the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has provided a way forward in dealing with drugs and I commend the Government for its ongoing support. The way forward now is to use the opportunities presented by the centre for public health research to learn more about illicit drugs, linking this work to better prevention and treatment. I would like to see the centre operating as long as it is needed so that it can continue to provide real help to people who have serious health problems and to protect the amenity of residents by taking injecting off the streets and out of the back lanes.

I understand that some people question whether a medically supervised injecting centre contravenes the United Nations drug control treaties. However, 76 other facilities have been operating in eight countries, the first being established in 1986. The Legal Affairs Section of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime reported in 2002 that supervised injecting facilities do not contravene United Nations treaties. This report identifies that the intention of medically supervised injecting centres is to provide healthier conditions for injecting drug users, reduce the risk of infection, and reach out to drug users with counselling and other therapeutic options. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has demonstrated its effectiveness. I conclude with the comment I made when I moved the motion to establish the trial after the 1999 Drug Summit:

Much has been said about sending the wrong message, but I would like to say on behalf of those who support this proposal that the message we really want to send is one of tolerance, compassion, help for survival and keeping young people alive long enough for them to be able to come off drugs.

I commend the bill to the House.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [8.30 p.m.]: I thank the member for Sydney for her contribution. The independent evaluation of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has found that the centre has been successful in preventing and reducing overdose deaths and related injuries. I find it unusual that The Nationals would argue for the closure of a unit and the resultant increase in the death rate for some people in our society. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre does not send a message that drugs are okay, just that it can help. I recommend a visit to the centre by anyone who disagrees with its operations.

Since the centre opened in May 2001 more than 2,100 drug overdose incidents have been managed without fatality. The evaluation estimated that a substantial proportion would likely have occurred in public if the centre had not been available, with obvious significant health risks for the individuals involved. Because heroin overdoses are unplanned, not only the patient but also the bystanders are at risk. I have spent many years working with people who have a heroin addiction and I know that none of them plan to overdose and that the overdose is often unexpected and random.

The evaluation also found that the centre has had a direct impact on reducing the need for ambulance services for opioid overdoses in the area, with an 80 per cent decline in the Kings Cross area compared with a 45 per cent decline in neighbouring suburbs. In addition, the average number of opioid-related overdose deaths per month has declined by 70 per cent in Kings Cross, and there has been a 35 per cent decrease in the number of opioid poisoning presentations at emergency departments in Kings Cross.

Most importantly, the independent evaluation found that the centre has been successful in providing clients with a gateway to treatment. Since the centre opened in May 2001, 17 per cent of clients have received a referral to drug treatment, health care or social welfare services. That is almost double the rate of 9 percent at the Insite injecting facility in Vancouver, Canada. More than 2,800 referrals have been made to drug treatment services and more than 3,400 referrals have been made to health or social welfare services. I remind members that the centre is trying to reach a group of long-term injecting drug users who are frequently marginalised and who face significant social disadvantage. One lady said to me, "Andrew, my life is one of violence and betrayal, and it is so nice to see that someone cares."

This is a group that is often unwilling to consider treatment of their addiction during initial visits. In situations of poverty one of the major reasons for success in treatment is continuity of care. Trust takes many visits to build up. As confirmed by the first independent evaluation of the centre, it may take several visits before the centre can refer clients to services because it takes time to build the necessary rapport and clinical relationship. In fact, the first evaluation found that the centre's clients were three times more likely to act on a referral to treatment once they were more frequent attendees at the facility. Trust takes time. To further target this vulnerable group, the centre has established a brokerage referral scheme to compensate drug treatment services for accepting additional referrals. That will help to overcome financial barriers to accessing drug treatment among those assessed as unable to pay.

Evaluation results suggest that the new scheme is particularly effective with 84 per cent of brokerage clients attending the referred service. That is a very impressive result for that population. The evaluation results suggest that there is now a stable pool of approximately 800 regular clients who are increasingly using the centre. That provides the centre with a unique opportunity to engage with a particularly difficult-to-reach target group. These people would not receive our help in any other way. This strategy enables the building of the rapport and clinical relationship necessary to persuade clients to accept a referral to drug treatment and medical and social welfare services.

The Government will continue to encourage and assist the centre in its efforts to engage clients in necessary drug treatment and welfare support. Many of these people will eventually be able to forgo their drug use as they grow older, but only if they are still alive. The independent evaluation also found that the centre has been successful in helping to reduce the spread of infections such as HIV and hepatitis C. Australia leads the world in dealing with the transmission of these diseases. The centre has provided nearly half of its registered clients with injecting and vein care advice on nearly 22,000 occasions. That is very important, given evidence of the link between unsafe injecting practices and the incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection.

We know from an October 2005 survey that 77 per cent of centre clients reported an improvement in their injecting practices, including a 54 per cent reduction in the likelihood of sharing injecting equipment outside the centre. In addition, the centre has also provided more than 200,000 clean needles and syringes to clients to ensure they are able to continue to use safe injecting practices outside the centre's opening hours. Consequently there is strong evidence that the centre has helped to reduce the burden and costs of health care in preventing the spread of these diseases. Recent research has found that for every dollar spent on needle and syringe exchange programs there is a saving to the health care system of $51. Later treatment of established diseases costs big bucks.

Most importantly, for the benefit of our colleagues opposite, these people need and deserve our care, rather than to be condemned to an uncertain future. I can state from personal experience that many have a history of abuse in childhood. In fact, I found that to be almost universal. Their life is one of violence and betrayal. They are someone's son, they are someone's mother, they are someone's friend. I do not believe our Parliament should fail them in their time of need.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [8.38 p.m.]: It is with some concern that I speak tonight about the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007. The bill 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 that started on 1 May 2001 and finishes on 31 October 2007. The object of the bill—and this concerns me most—is to amend the principal Act to extend the trial period so that it will finish on 31 October 2011 and to require a review of the economic viability of a licensed injecting centre in certain circumstances. The bill makes a consequential amendment to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation 2006.

An evaluation of the centre was undertaken in 2003, when a trial officially concluded. The trial was completed four years ago when the report was released. At that time the evaluation should have been sent to the International Narcotics Control Board and the centre should have been closed. The trial was declared to be in breach of the United Nations drug treaties by the control board in 2001 and the ongoing operation of the facility under the guise of the trial means that that breach continues.

The evaluation dispels some of the myths about the injecting room. There was no evidence of any impact on the number of overdose deaths in the area; there was no evidence of any impact on ambulance overdose attendances in the area; there was no evidence of any impact on ambulance overdose attendance during the hours the injecting room was open; and there was no evidence of any impact of overdose presentations at hospital emergency wards. HIV infections among interjecting drug users actually worsened during the evaluation period. There was no reduction in hepatitis B infections, and notifications of newly diagnosed hepatitis C infections also worsened.

The report stated that injecting rooms resulted in no advantage over a nearby needle exchange facility. There was also no improvement in the reuse of someone else's syringe or injecting equipment other than syringes. There was no improvement in the number of tests taken for HIV and hepatitis C, and the number of tests taken for hepatitis B improved up to 2001, but continued to worsen after that. The report further stated that referrals to drug rehabilitation and treatment were extremely poor, that 8 per cent of clients were referred to methadone or buprenorphine maintenance and only 4.7 per cent were referred to abstinence-based detoxification or residential rehabilitation.

The incidence of publicly discarded syringes declined and increased in line with the number of distributed needles during the heroin drought. The perception of public nuisance caused by drug use decreased only in line with the heroin drought impact. With respect to public injections sighted, residents reported less in line with the heroin drought impact, and businesses reported no improvement. With respect to various crimes, including break and enter, there was no improvement. Drug dealing at the rear door of the injecting centre was continual. Drug dealing at Kings Cross station worsened. The report further stated that injecting-related health and vein care had improved, but that this could be viewed as teaching people, via the injecting room, how to be better junkies.

What we are looking at is harm minimisation. The Government will need to spend $25 million to not only keep the facility open but continue its operations. When one looks at the drugs that have been used in the injecting room from January to June 2006, heroin accounted for 38 per cent, ice 6 per cent, cocaine 21 per cent, and prescription opiates such as morphine 31 per cent. As a concept the injecting room has been a failure, as has been proven in independent reports. Whilst we must care for those who are most vulnerable in our society, to turn a blind eye and accept that harm minimisation is the best way forward is not the best way to go. Zero tolerance and a strong law and order package is certainly the best way forward. More than $15 million has been spent running the facility since it opened, and another $10 million will be spent running it if the trial is extended to 2011. That $25 million could go a long way towards fighting the issue head on. Whilst I commend the good people who believe that this may be the way forward, in my opinion we should not vote in favour of the trial being extended.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [8.42 p.m.]: I support the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill. As the Minister for Health outlined in her agreement in principle speech, the effect of the bill will be to extend the current trial period of the medically supervised injecting centre at Kings Cross. The Minister has recognised that to date the trial has enabled a group of marginalised long-term drug users to be put in contact with medical professionals. It must be recognised that this profile of drug user has a range of significant health and social problems that have to be addressed through the health system, not the legal system. The principle behind the facility is that a legal approach alone will not be a successful formula to deal with drug addiction and abuse. Drug usage in our community has many levels of impact.

Major importers and manufacturers of illicit drugs and their supply networks are appropriately targeted by the law enforcement agencies. In my opinion the policing focus must be on addictive narcotics and designer amphetamines, such as ice. These two categories of drugs clearly cause the most significant harm within our community, as well as significant harm to the user. Other categories of drugs—such as cannabis and the so­called party drugs, such as ecstasy—are in many ways better addressed by community education targeted at specific user groups. In any event, criminalising the user—either the addict or the recreational user—does little to address the social harm caused by drugs in our community. It is the recognition that there is a need to address the underlying health and social problems of long-term addicts and users that underpins the community benefits that arise from this trial.

An evaluation of the injecting centre produced by the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research for the New South Wales Department of Health, dated June 2006, looked at the community attitudes towards the centre. Neighbouring residents and businesses were surveyed, and the results were compared with similar surveys carried out in 2000 and 2002. A high response rate was achieved, being 82 per cent of residents and 79 per cent of businesses surveyed. Of those responses, a significant reduction was noted in the proportion of residents who had seen public injecting or a discarded syringe in the previous month.
Between January 2000 and January 2007 there was a 48 per cent decrease in needles and syringes collected within 500 metres of the centre. Less than 1 per cent of residents reported that having access to the centre would increase their likelihood of injecting heroin. The proportion of residents who agreed with the establishment of the centre remained high, at 73 per cent. Amongst longer-term residents, this percentage rose to 80 per cent. Amongst business operators the level of agreement increased to 68 per cent. This was also reflected amongst longer-term business operators. The conclusions of the evaluation are telling:

Residents and business operators in the Kings Cross area perceived a decrease in the level of public drug use and publicly disposed syringes seen in the previous month; The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has not been perceived as an inducement to inject drugs amongst those living locally; nearly ¾ of residents and businesses locally continue to support the establishment.

This demonstrates that harm minimisation to the broader community from drug abuse is an outcome of the centre. Of course, the benefit to the broader local community is but one aspect of the centre. The other aspect, and in many ways the more important aspect, is the impact on the long-term user. The evaluation referred to above, complemented by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, bears out the arguments in favour of the centre when assessed against the impact on users. Taking into account that the centre caters for long-term, socially marginalised users, 11 per cent of clients have been referred to drug treatment. The centre has managed 2,032 drug overdoses without fatality since May 2001. It should be noted that without the centre a substantial proportion of these overdoses would likely have occurred in a public place. In the Kings Cross area overdose deaths have fallen by 70 per cent, opioid poisoning presentations to emergency departments have fallen by 35 per cent, and ambulance atte ndances to suspected opioid overdoses have decreased by 63 per cent.

The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has concluded that there is no evidence that the centre had had a honey-pot effect of drawing crime into the local area—contrary to the statements of some of those opposite. It is interesting to compare the above assessment by reputable bodies with the claims of Drug Free Australia, which is opposed to the centre and appears to be referred to in the bulk of the opposition to the bill on the part of members opposite. One of the criticisms of Drug Free Australia is that only 26 per cent of the injecting capacity is being used by heroin users, with other opiates use increasing the percentage to 48 per cent. I am puzzled as to what this statistic is meant to demonstrate. The objective surely should be to lessen community harm and save the lives of users. Whether the drug being used is an opiate or another substance is, I would have thought, fairly irrelevant.

Similarly, Drug Free Australia claims that statistically the centre is not capable of saving even one life per annum. What a load of nonsense. Given the profile of the users frequenting the centre, they are a group who are likely to overdose with fatal results. That there have been no fatalities arising from overdose for the seven years of operation would, to my mind, indicate a success. It is almost as if Drug Free Australia is upset that the statistical death rate amongst longer-term users is not occurring. Drug Free Australia's petty criticism of the design of the facility, especially the cubicle design, is not worthy of comment. The dismissal of the protocol which requires a nurse to intervene if one partner tries to physically assist the other to use, is quite extraordinary. In short, Drug Free Australia is allowing ideology to obscure the real social and health benefits to both the broader community and the individual user arising from the facility.

Interestingly Drug Free Australia argues for the expenditure to be redirected towards other programs. This totally ignores the reality that addressing drug abuse in our community requires a multipronged approach. As the Minister indicated, law enforcement remains the Government's first line of defence, followed by education and early intervention. The third line of defence is harm minimisation—reducing disease and saving lives.

The bill contains a number of performance benchmarks to ensure that the benefits of the past are maintained into the future. The bill applies to a single centre. Whilst a number of people feel that there are sound arguments to expand the program, this is not envisaged within the bill. The program is subject to continued review to ensure that it meets its medical objectives. Section 36B of the Act is amended accordingly. New section 36K (2) addresses issues of financial accountability with the provision of regulations to prescribe a level of service activity for the centre. The levels of service are prescribed under schedule 2 of the bill. I echo the comments of the Minister for Health in recognising and commending the efforts of Reverend Harry Herbert, UnitingCare, and especially the director of the centre, Dr Ingrid van Beek, and her staff. I call on the House to support this bill.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [8.50 p.m.]: I oppose the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007. I am philosophically opposed to the bill not only because, as the Leader of The Nationals said, it sends a message that the Government condones drug taking; I am also opposed to it on the basis of evidence from reports of the University of New South Wales on the injecting room. The fact is the injecting room has not done what it was supposed to do. The title of this bill is the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007. That title is a misnomer. One can scarcely describe something as a trial when it has been going for seven years. The bill seeks to extend the trial for another four years. The trial was originally supposed to last for 18 months. When he introduced the bill that established the injecting room, the then Special Minister of State, John Della Bosca, described it as a one-off trial. It has been going for seven years now. Plenty of government programs do not last five years, let alone seven or 11. Why does the Government persist with the sham that this is a trial when it is clearly a permanent program and it has been institutionalised? The answer appears in Mr Della Bosca's speech in 1999. He said:

The Government has received advice from the Attorney General's Department that the 1961 UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended, to which Australia is a signatory, allows the possession and use of illicit drugs for medical and scientific research purposes, including controlled clinical trials.

The New South Wales Government has embarked on a limited, scientifically evaluated trial of an injecting facility precisely under this aegis.

The Government has to maintain the fiction that this is a trial. If it did not do that the centre would be illegal and it could never become a permanent fixture; it has to be a trial for as long as we are a signatory to that United Nations convention. There is a parallel to this. The Japanese Government has a similar program: scientific whaling. The Japanese Government keeps statistics on what it does; it knocks out the old research paper based on those statistics and it maintains the fiction that it is carrying out scientific whaling. I challenge Government members to look at the quality of some of the papers the Japanese have produced on whaling. They are translated into English. The Minister for Health claimed in her agreement in principle speech:

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.

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.

What did the report she referred to from the National Centre on HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research at the University of New South Wales actually say? There were 391,170 visits for the purpose of injecting made from 2001 to the end of April this year. In addition to the supervision of injecting episodes, staff provided 44,082 other occasions of service broken down into drug and alcohol information on 5,000 occasions, representing 1.3 per cent of visits, advice on drug and alcohol treatment on 3,000 occasions, representing 0.8 per cent of visits, and 2,809 referrals for drug treatment, or 0.7 per cent of visits. But there were only 947 referrals, which represents 0.2 per cent of visits to rehabilitation programs that would wean the drug user off heroin. Therefore, 99.8 per cent were not referrals to rehabilitation programs that would wean the drug user off heroin.

When introducing the legislation that gave us the injecting room Mr Della Bosca said it would provide a gateway for referral to treatment and counselling. He described the injecting room as "a centre for rehabilitation, a centre for treatment, a centre for counselling and referring". It clearly has not achieved that objective. The most significant area of assistance ¾ we heard this from the member for Macquarie Fields ¾ was in vein care and safe injecting advice: that is, how to shoot up. There were 21,779 occasions when this advice was offered, or on 5.6 per cent of visits. The Government is showing people how to shoot up an illegal substance, which is essentially equivalent to the Government showing people how to steal a car or burgle a house.

I ask the Minister—the University of New South Wales researchers have not carried out this research—how many kids who have never injected before have gone to the injecting room to learn how to do it. How many people have been encouraged to inject drugs because of the advice being offered by Ingrid van Beek and her team of so-called professionals? The situation is worse because of the types of drugs that are bein I ask the Minister—the University of New South Wales researchers have not carried out this research—how many kids who have never injected before have gone to the injecting room to learn how to do it. How many people have been encouraged to inject drugs because of the advice being offered by Ingrid van Beek and her team of so-called professionals? The situation is worse because of the types of drugs that are being injected now. Initially the idea was that this would be a heroin injecting room but, as we have heard, only about 38 per cent of users inject heroin, while some 8 per cent of users inject ice. Last year the Leader of The Nationals raised that issue during question time. As we know, ice is the new drug scourge. The Prime Minister has launched a $150 million, four-year offensive against this scourge.
Long-term methamphetamine—or ice—abuse can cause addiction, anxiety, insomnia, mood disturbances and violent behaviour. In addition, psychotic symptoms such as paranoia, hallucinations and delusions ¾ such as the sensation of bugs crawling under the user's skin ¾ can occur. Methamphetamine addicts may lose their teeth abnormally quickly—a condition known as meth mouth. One-third of Australia's estimated 70,000 ice users are said to be addicted and the psychotic symptoms can last for months or years after methamphetamine use has ceased. We know that this is a significant contributor to violent crime. The director of the injecting room, Dr Ingrid van Beek, had this to say in the Sunday Telegraph on 10 December last year:

Ice changes people's behaviour in such a dramatic way and can be quite scary.

People become incredibly strong and quite aggressive, and that's what makes the impact of this drug greater.

One of the greatest problems with the injecting room is that the staff do not necessarily ask the addict who comes in what he or she wants to inject. The article continues:

The Sunday Telegraph approached several addicts outside the injecting centre who admitted to using ice inside.

One man said staff did not check the type of drug he injected.

"I just don't tell them. They don't care; they just write you down on a piece of paper," he said.

"You just say, 'I'm doing hammer (heroin)' and go boom, boom quickly. Just keep it quiet."

This facility is encouraging the taking of this drug. I would have thought it had no place in anything being run by any government, but this Government is encouraging the injection of ice in the injecting room. The Minister also claimed that the centre has managed more than 2,100 drug overdoses without death or serious brain or vital organ damage. Many users may have been encouraged to experiment with higher dosages in the knowledge they would be resuscitated if they overdosed or, indeed, may have used a mixture of drugs in the knowledge that if they overdosed they would be resuscitated.

In the past some members of Parliament have suggested that a life was saved when someone overdosed in the injecting room and was resuscitated, but that is totally untrue. I understand that the fatality rate for heroin overdose is around 4 per cent, not 100 per cent. Moreover, statistics suggest that the rate of overdose in the injecting room is up to 50 times higher than it is in the general intravenous drug using population, which tends to bear out the claim that people are experimenting with higher doses and polydrug use in this facility and being encouraged to do so by the Government.

One of the Minister's most contentious statements was that "since the trial started local business support for the centre has increased and there is high and sustained support from the majority of business owners, with about 68 per cent support." That was a quotation from a University of New South Wales evaluation in June 2006. That sits rather oddly with a media report of 8 July 2006 in the Australian , stating "Retailers battle to kick out injecting room", which suggested there were 63 vacant shops in Kings Cross. The businesses have been chased away. In fact, the 68 per cent of business owners who allegedly support the injecting room do not include those who voted with their feet. Indeed, the methodology used, according to last year's University of New South Wales report on community attitudes to the injecting room, was to ring only existing businesses. They did not survey people who had left Kings Cross and ask them why they had left. They only surveyed the survivors—the last man standing.

Indeed, the number of businesses surveyed in Kings Cross dropped from 34 in the 2002 evaluation to 28 in 2007. If the number of businesses shrank to three ¾ for example, a sex shop, a brothel and a nightclub ¾ and two of the three supported the injecting room, the percentage would be the same. The first University of New South Wales report on the injecting room, published in July 2001, contains similar figures to the June 2006 report—63 per cent of Kings Cross business people supported the injecting room. In 2003 the local chamber of commerce carried out a survey of 48 shopkeepers—which is a larger sample than the University of New South Wales evaluation and therefore more statistically reliable and valid—and 47 of the 48 said that they disapproved of the facility. Who has the University of New South Wales been surveying? One wonders whether its evaluations of the injecting room are worth the paper they are written on.

A story in the A story in the Sun-Herald of 21 December 2003 suggested that businesses were suffering financial losses of up to 50 per cent. It is pretty clear why there were 63 vacant shops in Kings Cross ¾ they could not survive. The University of New South Wales and the Minister also made the claim that addicts were shooting up in the injecting room rather than on the streets outside. However, a Drug Free Australia report said that addicts use the injecting room for only one hit out of every 35. It also estimates that overdose rates inside the injecting room are 36 times higher than on the streets outside and 49 times higher than the estimated national overdose average, which bears out once again the contention that addicts are using the facility for risky experimentation.

The projected cost of the facility is $2,679,000 this financial year. It costs taxpayers the same for the nurses and doctors to help addicts shoot up the drugs they use, around $30 a hit. It has cost $15 million to run this trial over the past six years. One wonders whether that money could not have been much better used in treatment and rehabilitation, as the Leader of The Nationals said. More lives could have been saved had that money gone into treatment and rehabilitation.

There is one bright spot in this bill. The best thing in this bill is the escape clause. New section 36K provides for a review of the viability of the centre to be conducted if service levels fall below 75 per cent of the base level of 208 visits a day. However, I am willing to bet that some of those working at the centre will be trawling the streets for addicts to get their numbers up because, after all, it is their livelihood. Indeed, when I pointed out the escape clause to my wife she immediately suggested that staff would pull people in off the street and get them to inject inside the injecting room so that they could maintain their jobs. In conclusion, I do not support the injecting room. A number of Opposition members will speak against the bill. The case is well made out for closing the centre and putting the money into treatment and rehabilitation. It should happen sooner rather than later.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.04 p.m.]: I speak proudly in support of the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007, as I supported the previous bill. Before I give my reasons for supporting the bill I will respond to some of the outrageous comments made by the member for The Hills. He said, "People are going to the injecting room to learn to do it or are encouraged by the staff to experiment with higher dosages."

Mr Michael Richardson: I didn't say that.

Mr STEVE WHAN: You did say that. Look at Hansard . Prior to that he implied that they were encouraged by the staff to actually try it out. The accusations he made are disgraceful and outrageous. They are an insult to the people who are working there trying to protect people's health. He made another amazing statement: he tried to compare the injecting centre to scientific whaling. Where was the member going with that? I have not noticed lately a whale voluntarily asking for a harpoon. The Opposition has attempted to depersonalise this, to turn the debate into figures and how much it costs.

Mr Brad Hazzard: It is not the Opposition.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I apologise to the member opposite. Some members of the Opposition are participating in the conscience debate. We have heard comments to try to turn this debate into one on how much it costs and to depersonalise it. I support the bill because if it saves one person's life it is worth it. Some years ago when I was a Federal candidate I had the opportunity to speak to a number of members of Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform. Among that group were a number of parents of young people who had died of overdoses. It was very moving. They were not lesser beings and it was not as if their children were not worth saving. They were normal, middle-class people. They loved their children and had brought them up well.

Unfortunately, they had had the tragic circumstances of their children becoming addicted to heroin and, in some cases, dying. I quote from a submission entitled "A Mother's Story" from Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform that was given to a Federal parliamentary inquiry. I do not know the person who wrote this. I do not know her name, nor do I know where she came from. The submission is consistent with the stories from the group that came to see me about their children. The lady said it was August when she discovered her son was using heroin and in September, just two weeks later, at the age of 24 her son was dead. She said:

He accomplished so much in his short life including having a book of computer programs published at the age of 16. He was Captain of his Primary School, he received distinctions in the Australian Mathematics Competition every year from year 7 to year 12, he was an accomplished cross-country runner, played the organ, worked on a paper run, did all the things most kids do. Who would have thought this could happen to him? He was baptised and confirmed in the Christian Church. He attended Sunday School, youth group and church for many years.

Just six months before he died he graduated with a degree in computer science, he had a good job and his later hobbies were playing chess and doing the daily cryptic crossword.

The mother then said in her submission:

Did he fit the stereotype that many people have towards young people who use drugs? I think not! I know that many do not deserve the stigma that is placed on them and their families by society.

In her submission to this inquiry she said:

The ambulance took my son to hospital (after he overdosed the first time) but he awoke to find the police at the end of his bed. He discharged himself and for the next two weeks we saw little of him—he was afraid the police would call. He then took a hurried, unplanned holiday. He overdosed and died while on that holiday. He was alone at the time.

Members opposite can giggle about it if they want to, but this is a person's son. The submission is consistent with what I was told by a person who came to see me from Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform. She and her son lived in Bungendore in the electorate of Monaro. They were a normal, middle-class family. One thing she made very clear to me was that she provided the love and support that she felt her son needed. Of course, she did not want him to be on heroin. She had tried to help him get off heroin, but the point she got across to me was that that would not happen until the young person was ready to get off heroin. The parents from Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform said to me: Just keep our children alive until they decide they are ready to get off.

That is what this initiative, the medically supervised injecting room, is all about. It is about keeping somebody else's child—because, hopefully, it will never be one of our children—alive long enough for that child to make the decision to get off drugs. Some of the comments have sought to depersonalise the argument. Members claim that it is about people we do not know. Perhaps by implication it is about people who are not as deserving as others. But each person is someone's child. I know the Leader of The Nationals has a number of children. I have two teenage children. Like the Leader of The Nationals and every other member, I fervently hope that none of our children will ever get caught up in any sort of drugs. But if they do, I want them kept alive. We would not want them—or anyone's son or daughter—to be left on a street corner to die because no­one was there to help when they overdosed.

The Government has a multi-stringed approach to drugs. We have the toughest law and order policies ever in the State. We have record numbers of police around the State to enforce them. We spend a lot on rehabilitation as well. I come back to the point: Why, on what I believe is a misguided principle or a desire to appear to be tough on drugs, are members opposite willing to let some kids die when they get hooked on drugs?

Mr Thomas George: You missed the point.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I have not missed the point. That is the point. That is why the medically supervised injecting room is so important. For the most part members on the other side have talked seriously about their views on drugs. If they are serious about this, why is it that in the last election campaign they sought to make my vote in favour of the heroin injecting room part of a scare campaign in the Monaro electorate? That is one of the reasons why I decided to speak on this bill. I am proud to support it. The Opposition can try to turn this into a campaign that says I am soft on drugs, soft on heroin, but it will not wash. Some things are more important than silly, trivial campaigns that seek to demonise people. As I said before, when I read from that mother's story in a submission to a Federal parliamentary inquiry—

Mr Thomas George: Who was she?

Mr STEVE WHAN: As I said before, this is a story included in a submission to a Federal parliamentary inquiry and it is consistent with the stories I was told personally by members of Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform. This is about children who, unfortunately and tragically, have got themselves hooked on a drug. It is about keeping them alive long enough to try to get off that drug rather than leaving them alone and saying they do not deserve to be supported when, for the most part, through no fault of their own, they have a major problem that they want to deal with as long as they can get to the stage of making the decision to do so. That is why I support the bill and why I urge the House to support it.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [9.15 p.m.]: Like members on the Government side I acknowledge that those addicted to drugs are people's children, but, unlike the member for Monaro, my hope for those children goes beyond their simply staying alive. My hope for those children is that they get off their terrible addiction. I start with this legislation where I finished with it in 2003, and that goes back to the original aims established by the Special Minister of State for the trial—and it is continuing to be a trial all these years later—of the medically supervised injecting centre at Kings Cross. I quoted from the Minister's second reading speech that he delivered on 21 October 1999, in which he said, amongst other things:

… the Government remains committed to the view that self-injection of addictive substances cannot be normalised, and must be rejected as a behaviour on social, health and moral grounds.

That is a statement with which I agree. The Minister said:

There will be medical supervision in clean and hygienic conditions.

That certainly occurred during the first trial, and there is no evidence that it has not occurred since then. I have visited the medically supervised injecting centre. It is clear that the Minister's claim has been implemented. He also said:

The model that will be trialled for 18 months—

And it has gone much longer than that—

aims to save lives and reduce the spread of disease …

When I last spoke on this matter I disputed, on the basis of the report provided then, whether that aim had been achieved. I am happy to say tonight that on the basis of the latest report I believe it has been achieved: there are fewer deaths. However, I will make a point about that and about the heroin drought in a moment. The Minister went on to say:

… but especially focuses on providing a gateway for referral to treatment and counselling.

This is where I have a problem. Clearly, two goals were set for this centre. One was to keep people alive. The second was to offer them the hope of getting off their addiction. From the report I have seen tabled in relation to the bill, I remain concerned that the evidence of referral is as weak as it was four years ago. The Minister went on to say:

Its effectiveness will be clinically assessed on all those grounds.

This report is far weaker than the last report in trying to demonstrate to me and to others outside the Chamber that referrals to provide people with a gateway to treatment are being effectively monitored. At least the last report, through a process of cards being sent and returned, sought to try to assess and report on how many people turned up. The report now before the House does not even go that far. It talks about the number of referrals. It does not say whether a single one of those referrals turned up for treatment. In October 1999 the Minister said:

This is a centre for rehabilitation, a centre for treatment, a centre for counselling and referring—it offers a gateway to treatment.

I say again: on the basis of the report tabled by the Minister that cannot be said. On the basis of the report here today one cannot judge the Minister's 1999 goals in relation to "a gateway for referrals". At the time the Minister finished his statement by saying:

It offers to those who have reached the extreme end of injecting drug use a continued option for rehabilitation and treatment.

Again, it was clear in what Minister Della Bosca said at the time that there were two goals: To provide a safe injecting centre to keep people out of alleyways, and to keep them from overdosing and dying on our streets. I think there has been success with that, but, as I say, and as the evaluation report says, the period of this trial has coincided with a significant heroin drought that has resulted in this drug drying up across our streets and suburbs. That raises the question as to how the reduction in the number of deaths and overdoses can be attributed to the heroin drought as opposed to the medically supervised injecting centre.

I want to refer to a point that Minister Della Bosca made in 1999 about empirical assessment of the trial. There is no empirical evidence provided in this report or in the 2003 report that fills me with any confidence that the second major goal the Government established for the centre—that is, a gateway into treatment; the goal of parents that their children will get off drugs—is being met. I accept that between 2003 and today a referral manager has been appointed to the centre. There is still no evidence in the report that has been tabled that the centre is having a greater impact in ensuring that people get off their terrible addiction.

It is extraordinary that the Minister for Health, in introducing this legislation, talked about a further trial period enabling a longer term evidence base to be established as to the effectiveness of the centre. It is now 2007. The centre was established in 1999. It has been operating for a number of years. We have been promised, since the original introduction of the legislation in 1999, empirically based evidence to demonstrate that it was meeting the twin goals the government set for it: safe injection as well as a gateway to referral and treatment in the hope of getting people off drugs. The first goal is being met.
I am distressed and concerned that the second goal is not only not being met but seems to have been downgraded by those on the other side who at the time of the introduction of this legislation were keen to trumpet it and keen to claim that it was part of the process. I am also distressed about comments from those involved in the centre seeking to downplay the importance of that part of the system. I will continue to exercise the vote I did in 2003 on this legislation and vote against it. I do not believe it has met the twin goals and I do not believe that we are giving any hope to those whose children are affected by drugs. When we say we just want to keep them alive our goal should be to get them off drugs.

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

Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to permit:

(1) at this sitting the introduction and the mover's agreement in principle speech on the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow:

Energy and Utilities Administration Amendment (Climate Change Fund) Bill 2007
Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Waste) Bill 2007

(2) on Wednesday 20 June 2007 the resumption of the debate and all subsequent stages on the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Philip Koperberg.

Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG (Blue Mountains—Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) [9.23 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The consensus of scientific experts is that climate change is a global problem with potentially devastating consequences for New South Wales. In our State climate change will mean more extreme heat and, as a consequence, more bushfires. It will mean less rainfall—although that is difficult to believe if we step outside the House at the moment—and reduced river flows and water availability. Climate change will also mean more increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as storms and flooding. The Iemma Government has been a leader in responding to the threat of climate change. The Premier, with his interstate counterparts, has been the driving force that has finally convinced the Prime Minister to make a belated, and as yet incomplete, commitment to a national emissions trading scheme. Within New South Wales the Government is also acting very powerfully to help our citizens make their own changes to help reduce future impacts. Through this legislation the New South Wales Government will establish a Climate Change Fund.

This $310 million initiative will help us respond to two key challenges of climate change: water scarcity and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. The bill will extend the Water and Energy Savings Funds we established in 2005 and expand a very successful program to help business, government, schools, industry and households save water and energy. Today the first $70 million was allocated to the first year of implementation of the Climate Change Fund. In saving energy the Climate Change Fund will save electricity, reduce peak demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the contribution they make to global warming. Through improving water efficiency we will save drinking water in every town and region across New South Wales and better manage an increasingly precious resource. The bill will create the $310 million Climate Change Fund to be used to support water and energy saving projects across New South Wales. It will extend the opportunities for water funding to all of New South Wales and it will provide, for the first time, a helping hand to all New South Wales householders to make their homes more water and energy efficient.
A residential rebate program will provide rebates for rainwater tanks, insulation and hot water systems. The rainwater tanks rebate will provide up to $1,500 for householders. To maximise drinking water savings the rebate will be scaled to provide the highest level to people who connect the tank to toilets and washing machines. By enabling householders to harvest their own water to flush toilets and wash clothes the rebate program will help to save town water in every centre in New South Wales. The insulation and hot water system rebates will help householders reduce greenhouse gas emissions and electricity bills. Like the Water and Energy Savings Funds, this support will help overcome one of the major barriers to water and energy efficiency, which is the upfront cost. Most families realise that investment in energy savings such as with solar hot water systems saves money over time, but many families cannot afford the initial establishment costs. This fund will be available to help the whole community respond to those savings challenges.

The Climate Change Fund will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by supporting renewable energy technologies. The New South Wales Renewable Energy Target Scheme demonstrates the Government's commitment to stimulating the renewable energy industry in New South Wales. The Climate Change Fund will provide a further $40 million stimulus by helping to get clean energy ideas from the drawing board into the marketplace. Schools, schoolchildren and their parents will also be given the opportunity to save water, energy and emissions through two programs under the Climate Change Fund. The Schools Energy Efficiency Program will offer high schools the chance to have their lighting retrofitted to improve energy efficiency and provide participating schools with a fund to spend as they choose on identified water and energy saving projects. By 2011 every government school in New South Wales will also be harvesting its own water and using it, where possible, to flush toilets.

Local councils and managers and owners of community facilities and public buildings will be able to establish showcases for water and energy excellence through a Public Facilities Program. This funding will support water and energy saving projects in public or educational facilities that demonstrate the potential for savings to a wider audience. The Climate Change Fund will extend this existing program to include water as well as energy saving projects. As I mentioned before, the Water and Energy Savings Funds upon which this new program builds have provided financial support for savings projects which would not have proceeded without it. The funds bridged the gap between the cost of investment in energy and water savings and the business case for investment. The Climate Change Fund will enable the Government to continue to develop its programs to drive reduction in energy and water usage as the State's highest water and energy using industrial and commercial activities.

I now turn to the details of the bill. The Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987 will be amended to replace the Water Savings Fund and the Energy Savings Fund with the Climate Change Fund. The purposes of the Climate Change Fund are to provide funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change associated with water and energy activities, to encourage water and energy savings and the recycling of water, to reduce the demand for water and energy, including addressing peak demand for energy, to stimulate investment in innovative water and energy savings measures, to increase public awareness and acceptance of the importance of climate change and water and energy savings measures, and to provide contributions made by the State for the purposes of national energy regulation.

These purposes include those of the current Water and Energy Savings Funds and add new climate change related objectives. Given the Government's commitment to establish the Renewable Energy Development Program under the fund, the Act will no longer specify that it is not a purpose of the fund to provide funding for low-emission power generation. The aims and expenditure of the Climate Change Fund are not restricted to reducing water demand in water savings areas as was the case under the Water Savings Fund. This will allow programs to be delivered statewide rather than restricted to water savings areas. Under provisions already in the Act and a subsequent regulation the Minister can require certain water utilities—Sydney Water, Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council—and the electricity distribution network service providers—EnergyAustralia, Country Energy and Integral Energy—to make annual contributions to the fund by order published in the Government Gazette.

If any other water agencies are to contribute to the fund the Minister must prescribe the agency by regulation following consultation with the Minister for Water Utilities, if they are State-owned corporations, or the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, if otherwise. Other functions established in the Act when the Government first introduced the water and energy savings initiatives in 2005 will be retained. These include provision for funds to be sourced from other mechanisms, and the ability for the Minister to establish committees to advise him on the fund. The bill will preserve the second initiative introduced by the Government in 2005 requiring high water and energy users to prepare saving action plans that set out measures to save water and energy. These measures will continue to be driven strongly by the Government.
The bill provides for a very practical approach in New South Wales. It provides for the customers of energy and water utilities to contribute the resources needed to transform our approach to how we use and conserve energy and water. It builds on the very successful separate energy and water savings funds provision, expanded to help tackle climate change. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

[ Quorum called for. The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, business resumed. ]

Debate set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Bill introduced on motion by 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)) [9.39 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The bill continues the Government's substantial track record of environment protection through the use of effective market-based instruments to deliver environmental improvement in New South Wales. The bill delivers one of the Government's election commitments, announced in March 2007, by extending the existing waste and environment levy to liquid waste disposal. When Labor introduced the Protection of the Environment Operations Act in 1997, it revolutionised pollution control legislation in New South Wales. It has delivered environmental improvements across New South Wales by using economic instruments such as load-based licensing, tradable credits and financial assurances to complement conventional environment protection regulation. The Government also has a very strong record in driving improvements in the field of waste management, helping to deliver the sustainable solutions to waste and recycling that the community wants.

The waste and environment levy is the Government's key economic tool to drive waste avoidance, and promote resource recovery and recycling. In an environment where the State's economy is growing strongly, waste being disposed to landfill has actually reduced on a per capita basis since 2000. In 2000 it was 1,201 kilograms per person and in 2006 it was 1,131 kilograms per person. The levy has provided the incentive to return resources to the productive economy of New South Wales. For example, the levy has driven a significant increase in the processing of construction and demolition waste. Timber and metals are being recovered from demolition waste, and used bricks and concrete are being used in road making. These materials are no longer being lost to landfill.

New South Wales is also leading Australia in investment in alternative waste treatment technologies. Put simply, the levy makes disposal to landfill more expensive. By putting resource recovery on an equal footing, the levy is encouraging innovation and helping business think about alternatives to landfill. The alternate waste technology plant at Eastern Creek would not have been built without the economic framework that the levy provides. The waste and environment levy is also a key element in providing major funding for the Government's City and Country Environment Restoration Program. The program was announced by the Premier in November 2005, and is investing $439 million over five years to tackle our most significant environmental challenges in New South Wales.

Some of the initiatives include the RiverBank Project, an Urban Sustainability Fund, environmental trust funding for environmental community projects, and funding for waste compliance and enforcement programs. Under the current regulatory scheme, the waste and environment levy is only paid on the disposal of solid waste to landfill. Waste facilities that transport waste to another place for legitimate reuse may claim a deduction from the levy. In this way the levy provides the financial incentive for industry to make resource recovery options possible. There is currently no equivalent incentive for recovering resources from liquid waste.

The bill amends the Protection of the Environment and Operations Act and associated waste regulation to extend the waste and environment levy to liquid waste. These changes build on the success of the current levy framework and provide consistency in waste regulation by applying the levy to the more hazardous liquid wastes across New South Wales from 1 August 2007. Extending the waste and environment levy to liquid waste provides an incentive for generators of liquid waste to reassess their environmental performance. Many industries are already being proactive and moving in this direction as sustainable business practices are becoming more common. By using this economic instrument, businesses that improve their environmental practices will effectively reduce their costs.

The levy will commence at $38.60 per tonne and increase annually until 2010-11. The liquid waste levy will only be paid on liquid wastes that are required to be tracked in New South Wales, as agreed under the National Environment Protection Measure. These are the most hazardous of the range of liquid wastes in New South Wales. The bill introduces deductions from the levy where liquid waste is transported to another place for legitimate reuse. These deductions are a direct incentive for industry to recover any reusable components of this liquid waste. For example, it will encourage the recovery of grey water for industrial and agricultural use, and the recovery of other valuable resources such as acids, oils and solvents.

Importantly, the bill will ensure that dangerous liquid wastes are not being excessively stockpiled or stored across New South Wales. By encouraging industry to recognise the inherent value in liquid waste, operators and generators will have a greater incentive to move these wastes off site for treatment. Whilst the levy is paid on receipt of wastes, deductions are provided when that waste is sent off site for legitimate recovery, recycling, processing or disposal. The levy will discourage unscrupulous operators from accepting hazardous liquid waste and creating large, dangerous stockpiles. This will help reduce the risk to the community and the environment. The extension of the levy is also expected to return a modest level of revenue—up to $16 million over four years to fund important environmental initiatives.

In summary, there are three key aims of a levy on liquid waste disposal: to provide a financial incentive for industry to reduce the generation of these liquid wastes in their businesses; to provide a financial incentive to push hazardous liquid wastes that are being stockpiled on site, out of storage and to an appropriate facility for treatment; and to provide a financial incentive for the development of treatment technologies, and create markets that can facilitate reuse and recycling opportunities for liquid wastes in New South Wales.

The levy has evolved since its introduction in the 1970s to reflect the community's changing expectations for greater resource efficiency through waste avoidance and resource recovery. Aligning these principles across all wastes sends a clear message that resource recovery is a key priority in all waste management practices. By using economic tools effectively and consistently, the Government will continue to demonstrate its commitment to environment protection, and will help deliver on the community's desire for improved sustainability outcomes in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Debate resumed from 8 June 2007.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [9.45 p.m.]: At the outset I indicate that I support the Constitution Amendment (Speaker) Bill 2007, the stated aim of which is to amend the original Act of 1902 to enable the Speaker to take part in debates and discussions, and to have the right to vote when not presiding in this House. The bill, though of only a few pages, is significant and represents a major change in the way our Speaker can operate in this Parliament.

Whilst the focus has been on the current Speaker, the member for Northern Tablelands, being an Independent member and, as the argument might go, not having a party machine to assist in his ambitions for his electorate and so on, I believe the benefits of the bill go far beyond his role as the current Speaker. Indeed, I believe they apply even more so to a Speaker who may be a member of a political party. For those who do not support this change, or feel that it is an unnecessary change to a traditional role, I believe we have to look at the broader picture and state some obvious facts.

When one looks at how our Speakers are elected, the question should be asked: Why did we not make this change many, many years ago? The reason is to state what we already know—that is, the Speaker of this House is an elected member of Parliament. He or she represents an electorate. He or she takes part in public debate, and argues against opponents in the media and in the public arena. In the lead-up to an election a Speaker who is a member of a political party—such as the former Speaker, John Aquilina—would make announcements on behalf of his or her government or party, whichever applies. In other words, like the rest of the members of the House, the Speaker is a politician elected to represent his or her community in this Parliament.

Because of that fact alone, the question is: Why is it that, having gone through that election process and upon becoming the Speaker, the member virtually becomes a non-person, a non-member in this place? This bill will at least go some way towards addressing that anomaly. Having allowed the Speaker to make speeches as set out in the bill, I would ask that the Speaker ensure that his contributions are recorded—not only in Hansard but also on the Parliament's website—as being made by him as Richard Torbay, MP, member for Northern Tablelands.

Up until now it would appear that it is no easy task to find out what a member holding the Speaker's position says in Parliament, and I am not lamenting that because of my own limited knowledge of the computer process. I will give an example. One time when I was being interviewed by TAFE students undertaking a politics course, they mentioned they had checked the web page for my contributions and one asked, as an aside, why Mr Aquilina, the member for Riverstone, does not speak in Parliament. I laughed and said that he speaks every day; I thought the comment was quite amusing. However, the web page entry on Mr Aquilina as the member for Riverstone did not support my view.

I checked the web page and found that from the time Hansard was listed on the web page against the member's name, Mr Aquilina had spoken more than 700 times since 1991 but not once between 2002 and 2007. One has to go on a search around the web page to find listings under daily Hansard and speakers and so on. The same situation would apply to Speakers Murray, Rozzoli and Kelly and all previous Speakers. This is important because if one day all members' contributions back to 1856 are put on computer we must ensure that all previous speakers' contributions in the House are recorded against their name.

Of course, I am not saying that every comment concerning the business of the House should be listed, but substantial contributions—rulings and contributions at the end of motions, such as condolence motions—should be recorded and listed against the member's name and his electorate. The Speaker's ruling today on the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill just prior to question time is a good example of a contribution that should be recorded as not only a contribution by the Speaker but also as a contribution against his name as a member of Parliament in this place.

The Speaker has made a number of comments, both in the Chamber and in the media, about how he hopes to conduct himself as Speaker. In this process he might like to consider the situation that applies in the Federal Parliament. If the Speaker is to bring in a new era of accountability he should note that in the Federal Parliament the Speaker takes questions without notice and on notice. I quote from House of Representatives Practice , 5th Edition. On page 538 it states, in part:

Originally it was not the practice for questions in writing to be directed to the Speaker. In order that Members might obtain information relating to the Parliament, the practice had developed for a question in writing to be directed to the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister requesting that the information be obtained from the Presiding Officer(s). In 1980 Speaker Snedden, commenting on the inappropriateness of past practice, introduced a procedure whereby requests for detailed information relating to the administration of the parliamentary departments could be directed to the Speaker. The current practice is that such requests are lodged with the Clerk in the same way as questions in writing addressed to Ministers. However, any question to the Speaker, if in order, is printed in the daily Hansard rather than the Notice Paper. Answers provided by the Speaker are also printed in Hansard.

I quote also from page 537, again only in part:

At the conclusion of Question Time, Members may ask questions orally of the Speaker about any matter of administration for which he or she is responsible.

I think it is important for those who argue that we are making some dramatic changes here today to note that in every Parliament around Australia and throughout the Commonwealth there appear to be different procedures governing the role of Speakers. This bill brings the role of our Speaker into line with the role of a local member in this place. As we have gone down the reformer's path with the role, perhaps we should also look to the position where members can ask a question of the Speaker, either on notice or without notice, about the running of the Parliament—though not, of course, about rulings.
In the past couple of years there has been much controversy about the running of this place; for example about the loss of staff like the head of catering, David Draper, and others. Rather than leave these issues to corridor gossip, party room jibes and the like, a more open process would be to allow members to ask a question with or without notice of the Speaker and bring about a more open process in the running of the Parliament as if it were any other department or agency.

For those who think we should not change great traditions that go back many, many years, I believe this bill is quite refreshing and common sense. I am sure some members will reflect on you, Mr Speaker, as the member for Northern Tablelands and as an Independent member of Parliament, and that is the reason why this bill should be passed. I am very pleased to support the bill and I hope all members will support this very worthwhile reform.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [9.55 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Constitution Amendment (Speaker) Bill and appreciates the notice and consultation it has been given about it. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move an amendment that the Act, if it is passed, will expire at the end of the fifty-fourth Parliament, for a very important reason. We support the current bill because we are in a unique situation here in New South Wales of having an unaligned member as the Speaker, a position that was supported by the New South Wales Coalition with the objective of improving the standards of Parliament.

Because Speakers in the Westminster system are meant to be independent, whether or not they are otherwise aligned with one of the major parties, historically that is why Speakers have not been able to speak on legislation. But, given the unaligned nature of our Speaker we think it is appropriate that from time to time the Independent Speaker should have the opportunity to speak on legislation or other matters that come before the Parliament. If in the future we do not have an Independent Speaker, and assuming that the current Speaker's tenure remains until the end of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, we believe, contrary to the considered view of the member for Mount Druitt, that the Constitution Act should revert to its original form because of the importance of tradition. There is a necessity to have some continuity in the way the New South Wales Parliament is run. It is the mother of all parliaments in Australia and for 151 years we have operated without the Speaker having these kinds of powers.

We look around the Chamber walls and see the names of illustrious members of this Parliament who have been Speakers and who have abided by the rule that, although they are aligned with a major party, they remain as much as possible independent of the political processes that occur in Parliament. It has been a tradition in this Parliament and it is a tradition of the Westminster system that Speakers who have been aligned with major parties in the past have not attended party meetings, have not been overtly political in their day­to­day activities, and have not spoken on legislation, so as to at least provide some level of independence, as is meant to be the case with the Speaker. The Speaker is meant to sit in the chair and adjudicate on matters that come before the Parliament—particularly rulings in relation to the standing orders—in a fair and unbiased fashion. That is why Speakers have not been able to freely speak on legislation or other matters that come before the Parliament.

We have an Independent Speaker and that is why we support the bill, but I foreshadow that the Opposition will move this amendment:

Page 2, insert after line 12:

5 Expiry of Act

This Act expires on the day following the day on which the Legislative Assembly is next dissolved or next expires by the effluxion of time.

The Opposition is more than happy to have this legislation in effect for the duration of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, but at the end of this Parliament the legislation should expire. In the event that the Speaker is reappointed in the Fifty-Fifth Parliament, I am sure the Coalition would be very favourably disposed to having the bill reintroduced and passed. In the event that the Speaker is not an Independent and is aligned with one of the major parties, the Coalition believes that we should revert to the original Constitution Act and uphold the standards, practices and procedures that have been an important part of this Parliament for 151 years. I commend the bill and the foreshadowed amendment to the House.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [10.00 p.m.]: I will not try to emulate the great historical research done by my colleague the member for Mount Druitt.
Mr Daryl Maguire: That is because you have not done any.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: The member for Wagga Wagga knows that he should not test me on history or we could be here for the full 15 minutes.

Mr Daryl Maguire: But you did not do the homework, did you?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I made some notes as I was listening very acutely to his words. I want to make the point that the Speaker in this House, going back to 1856—

Mr Thomas George: I was not here then, and neither were you.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: No, but I read about it. The Speaker in this House has always been a member of the Parliament and although he has always not been involved in public debate, the Speaker does not get elected by not being involved in the political process in New South Wales. Going back to Speaker Kelly and beyond, through to Speaker Rozzoli, my former teacher John Murray, John Aquilina and now Speaker Richard Torbay, the Speaker has always just ruled on debate. To be elected into Parliament in the first place they have had to play an active role, either in a political party for the Government or the Opposition, or as an Independent, but they have still been critically involved in the political process. When they take their position as the Speaker, on the one hand they have the great power of being able to make rulings in this great House but they also have to justify and maintain their position in the Parliament as an ordinary member of Parliament.

If this bill is carried either with or without amendment, the Speaker will not have it easy, because on occasions he will address the House in a partisan way, as he has done for the past eight years. Therefore, he can be challenged or praised for his views. This Parliament is not like the British Parliament, where there is a tradition that the major parties do not contest the seat of the Speaker. From time to time some Independent will run against the Speaker in the House of Commons, and people with those funny names and titles have put their name up in the past but, generally speaking, it is a convention that the Conservatives do not oppose a Labour Speaker and the Labour Party does not oppose a Conservative Speaker. Speakers know they can maintain their seats and even excise themselves from their party-political caucuses, and consequently there are probably fairer rulings in the House of Commons. Both parties in Canberra have talked about having Independent Speakers but that has not happened so far.

The present Speaker will not be immune to what happens. The Speaker will occasionally be able to speak in the Chamber, and this is referred to in the amendment moved by the member for Murrumbidgee. If the Speaker chooses to speak on something that is popular and may help his cause in the Northern Tablelands, well and good. If he speaks on a losing side on some subject, equally well and good. It does not matter. The point is that he has the ability to do it. He can also be opposed in an election.

Despite what the member for Murrumbidgee said, there is no way that at the next election the Coalition will not try to reclaim Northern Tablelands. That is its right. I am sure the Speaker has some intention to not allow that to happen. The point is that, come a general election, the Speaker can hardly go out to the public and say, "Look, I am the Speaker. I am very important. I make rulings and occasionally entertain guests from around the world in the Chamber and in the Speaker's Dining Room. Therefore, re-elect me to the seat of Northern Tablelands." It does not work that way. He will not get credit in the electorate for being the Speaker. People want their local member to represent them; they are not interested in whether they are the Speaker, the Deputy­Speaker, the Whip or the Deputy Whip.

Mr Thomas George: You got elected.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: So did you. Members have to play an active role in the Parliament and it is important that on occasion the Speaker take part in debate and put forward a view, not just on governing debate in the Parliament but on major issues in New South Wales. Country members of Parliament are also at a disadvantage because they serve an electorate that is a long way from Sydney and they have the demands of being in Sydney more often than they may like. That is why we have a Deputy-Speaker and two Assistant­Speakers to assist. The Speaker has also appointed temporary Speakers and they are doing quite a good job. I support the Constitution Amendment (Speaker) Bill. I am always happy to change something that is 105 years old: It is a modern thing to do. I understand the amendment, although I do not know the Government's view on it. No doubt we will hear that in due course. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [10.07 p.m.]: I did not intend to speak on the bill as I thought it would be a fait accompli—and, for the information of the member for Wagga Wagga, I have not done any homework on the history. The member for Murrumbidgee spoke about tradition and I can say that, as a woman, 150 years ago I would not have been standing here in the Parliament. Indeed, the original Parliament was formed by Independents, but that is no longer the case. I speak on the bill not to support the Speaker as a fellow Independent and friend but to support future Speakers who will be here long after we have left this place.

The traditions, protocols, formalities and parades of this Parliament are very important, but we must move on with our thinking. If they had not done that 150 years ago, I would not be here today. It was presumptuous of the member for Murrumbidgee to say that this legislation could be put in place for the next four years, until 2011, but then repealed. With the Speaker's proven track record he may well be in the Speaker's chair for the four years following 2011. I firmly believe this is the way forward for all future Speakers. Our community, no matter whom we represent and what role we play, have the right to hear us in this place.

Since my election in November 2004 I have noticed that at question time shadow Opposition spokespersons often do not have the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of their electorate. Often the Leader of the Opposition asks questions of the Premier and the Ministers. Certainly shadow Ministers have the opportunity to ask questions on notice and raise matters in private members' statements but they do not seem to have the same opportunity that I have to ask questions of the Government during question time.

However, I notice that many Opposition members do not have the opportunity to ask questions. I acknowledge that they belong to a political party in accordance with their beliefs, and I do not decry that, but they consequently are denied an opportunity to speak effectively on behalf of their electorates. It is my belief that a Speaker, no matter what party he or she represents, should not be denied the opportunity to ask questions and represent his or her electorate. I would like the current Speaker, as well as future Speakers, not to be denied the opportunity to represent his electorate, so I firmly commend this bill to the House, but I oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [10.10 p.m.]: I will speak briefly to draw the attention of members of this House to the Constitution Act, which states in section 31:

(1) There shall be a Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who is the Presiding Officer of the Legislative Assembly and is recognised as its independent and impartial representative.

It is pleasing to note that this House has an Independent Speaker. I feel sure that your rulings will be far better than the previous rulings of Labor Speakers. Section 31 also states:

(2) The Members of the Legislative Assembly shall upon the first assembling after every general election proceed forthwith to elect one of their number to be Speaker, and in case of his death, resignation, or removal by a vote of the said Legislative Assembly, the said Members shall forthwith proceed to elect another of such Members to be such Speaker.

The amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business requires the Minister for Housing, and Minister for Tourism to indicate during his reply the position should something untoward happen to you or should you resign. Were you to leave the position of Presiding Officer, would the provisions of the amendment be invoked by the Government during the term of this Parliament?

The other matter I am greatly concerned about and wish to see addressed is the position when you leave the chair to speak on legislation and then a division on the legislation is called for. If you vote with the Opposition the member presiding in the chair should be either the Deputy-Speaker or an Assistant-Speaker, not an Acting-Speaker. I appreciate that Acting-Speakers have been appointed by you to provide a more equitable distribution of presiding roles, but in the circumstances I have outlined Acting-Speakers who are Opposition members would not be afforded the same representational rights that would be extended to you by this bill and they would not be able to vote with the Opposition. That would place Acting-Speakers in the same situation that you are endeavouring to remedy—a member being denied the right to represent his or her electorate.

If Opposition members vote against legislation that you, as the member for Northern Tablelands, also vote against, the member for Lismore may be presiding as an Acting-Speaker and also may wish to vote against the legislation. In those circumstances, the member for Lismore, as Acting-Speaker, would be disadvantaged by not being able to vote. Even though the Constitution Act states that the Speaker may cast a deciding vote, the Opposition requires assurances from the Government that at any time you leave the chair to speak or vote the person presiding will not be an Assistant-Speaker from the Opposition benches. Consistent with your desire to create more equitable representation, it is only fair that the rights that are being sought for the Speaker should also apply to Assistant-Speakers.

If more time were available to discuss this legislation and present amendments, it would be fair for the bill to provide that when the Speaker leaves the chair to participate and vote on a bill the person who presides should be a Government member, the Deputy-Speaker or an Assistant-Speaker.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [10.14 p.m.]: I will speak briefly in support of the bill.

Mr Thomas George: As the Whip?

Mr PETER DRAPER: As the member for Tamworth. I support the bill simply because I do not believe when somebody is appointed to a presiding role their community, which they have represented in their role as a member, should be disenfranchised. I share the same media footprint as the member for Northern Tablelands, who also is the Speaker—although I do not get as great a share of it—so I am aware of the Speaker's vigorous and frequent representations on behalf of the communities in the Northern Tablelands electorate. I have heard his representations on behalf of individuals, communities and community groups and I know that people and communities appreciate that representation. I do not believe that the role of Speaker was designed to disenfranchise people and disenfranchise a community represented by somebody who, for example, has spent eight years working very hard for them.

The irony of the situation is that the Deputy-Speaker and the Assistant-Speakers and the Acting­Speakers all have the right to raise issues in the House on behalf of their communities, so why should the Speaker be disenfranchised and prevented from exercising an exactly similar right? I believe that it is a right that is accorded to all democratically elected members of Parliament—the right to represent their communities—and in my opinion the Speaker should have the right to speak up on behalf of communities that have faith in him. Why would the Opposition want to disenfranchise the communities of future Opposition Speakers? I dare say that at some time in the future there will be a Speaker elected from the Opposition side of the House. Surely the people who elect that Speaker would want their local members to go in to bat for their communities on issues of concern and to take opportunities to convince Ministers to provide funding for important projects.

I strongly support the bill. I oppose the amendment because I believe it unintentionally will disadvantage some communities at some stage. In conclusion I point out that the independence of the Speaker is something I am appreciating more and more as time goes on. In my opinion the behaviour in the House has improved in the time that the current Speaker has presided—but I would like to see him wear the gown!

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Minister for Housing, and Minister for Tourism) [10.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who made a contribution to the debate on this bill. I remind the House that this bill is very simple: it amends the Constitution Act 1902. The two primary focuses of the bill are, first, to enable the Speaker to participate in debates and discussions and, second, to enable the Speaker to cast a deliberative vote when another member is presiding. The latter point seems to be lost on the Opposition, judging by the amendment that has been moved. I do not think that arguments against the amendment could be better articulated than they have been by the member for Tamworth.

The member for Coffs Harbour presented quite a convoluted argument in support of the amendment, but the effect of the amendment in future parliaments will be to deny democratically elected members of this Parliament a say and an opportunity to represent their communities. Like every other member of Parliament, the Speaker represents an electorate. It is very important for a member who is the Speaker to be able to give a voice to that electorate. The Speaker also has a strong responsibility to the very people by whom he was elected. Enabling a Speaker to vote when not presiding should not affect his or her capacity to exercise the functions of a presiding officer at other times. I point out that the Deputy-Speaker and the Assistant-Speakers already have that right, which highlights the fallacy and falsehood of the argument advanced by the member for Coffs Harbour. The Speaker also used to be able to do this under the previous arrangements, which allowed the Speaker to participate in proceedings in the Committee of the Whole.

For the member for Murrumbidgee to move an amendment that this legislation expire on the day following the day that the Legislative Assembly is next dissolved or expires by the effluxion of time is another way for the Liberal Party and The Nationals to say they do not want future Speakers to be able to speak on behalf of the communities that elected them. The Government wants to empower voters who elected those members into Parliament. The member for Tamworth gave an eloquent argument, as did the member for East Hills. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Adrian Piccoli.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [10.21 p.m.]: I move:

Page 2, insert after line 12:

5 Expiry of Act

This Act expires on the day following the day on which the Legislative Assembly is next dissolved or next expires by the effluxion of time.

No notice was given to the Government of this amendment because we were given only about five minutes notice that this bill was to be brought on. This points to the way the House is being managed at the moment. The Opposition was given very little notice of any alterations to the program, so we could not give the Minister responsible the courtesy of some notice of this amendment. A couple of members who spoke on the bill talked about the need for the Speaker to speak on behalf of his electorate. Any member of the 93 members of this House who is offered the position of Speaker—as has been the case for 151 years—knows the Constitution Act, the rules, the procedures and the practice of the House. Anyone who accepts the nomination knows he is obliged to follow the forms and practices of the House, which restrict his ability to speak on matters affecting his electorate and his ability to vote on legislation. Anyone who does not like the rules is entitled to not accept the nomination of Speaker.

In this case, the Coalition, as an act of good faith and because we support improving the standards of Parliament—the Coalition has made a good attempt to improve the standards over the past few months—has supported this legislation. The Speaker spoke to the Leader of The Nationals and the Leader of the Opposition ahead of this bill being introduced. The bill was supported by the Coalition and we continue to support it. However, the procedure that has been in place for 151 years is that when the Speaker is a member of one of the major parties he not be involved In this case, the Coalition, as an act of good faith and because we support improving the standards of Parliament—the Coalition has made a good attempt to improve the standards over the past few months—has supported this legislation. The Speaker spoke to the Leader of The Nationals and the Leader of the Opposition ahead of this bill being introduced. The bill was supported by the Coalition and we continue to support it. However, the procedure that has been in place for 151 years is that when the Speaker is a member of one of the major parties he not be involved in the day-to-day debates in the Chamber so as to display some sense of independence; some separation from party politics that inevitably ensues in Parliament.

As I said during the agreement in principle debate, it is different with an Independent Speaker. That is why we are happy to support the legislation. However, if after this Parliament the Speaker belongs to one of the major parties the Coalition believes we should revert to the rules as they were prior to the inevitable passing of this bill. That is why I have moved this amendment. In the Fifty-fifth Parliament the person who is asked to be Speaker will have to think about the practices and procedures of the House. That person will know what the rules are and if he or she accepts the nomination for Speaker that person will be subject to those rules. The right to make a contribution is entirely a question for the person nominated. I would think historically very few people have refused the nomination to be Speaker in this Parliament.

The last thing to consider is why historically it has been the case that the Speaker has refrained from contributing in any significant way to debates in the Chamber. I cannot imagine a National Rugby League game between the Roosters and the Rabbitohs where, at half-time, the referee decides he will play the second half for the Rabbitohs. Sometimes one might think they do! At the recent election 93 people were elected to this Chamber and that will occur again in 2011. Each member represents a major party or is unaligned, but everyone has his or her own political agenda. We have to select an impartial referee and that person cannot make a political contribution from either side of the Chamber, nailing his colours to the flag and aligning himself to whatever political party he is a member of, and then return to the chair and pretend to be impartial. The situation in the Fifty-fourth Parliament is different and that is why we have no problem supporting this bill. However, I commend the amendment for the reasons I have given in this contribution and in my contribution to the agreement in principle debate.
Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Minister for Housing, and Minister for Tourism) [10.27 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment for the reasons I gave in my previous contribution.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [10.27 p.m.]: Members need to understand the Speaker's role in the Westminster system. I have to say how disappointed I was with the lack of understanding or arrogance and ignorance of the Minister for Housing earlier, which he is displaying again. This is important legislation to amend the Constitution Act of the State. There are two ways to run a Parliament. One is to run it under the auspices of the Constitution Act and the sections of that Act. I read section 31 into the record earlier. In the second case, standing and sessional orders can dictate how Parliament is conducted. In the past, the Speaker in the Westminster system has always had his or her seat protected in a two­party system. In the British Parliament the Opposition parties would not actively campaign against the Speaker of the House because of his or her limited ability to participate in debates and represent his or her electorate in that way. The Speaker was basically on neutral ground. That was the history of it.

Mr Alan Ashton: I said that.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I am glad that you did. The Legislative Assembly Hansard will show that both Speaker Murray and Speaker Aquilina did, at times, vote with the Government on legislation when there was an Acting-Speaker, Deputy-Speaker or Assistant-Speaker in the chair of the House when a vote was taken. The record will show that. On a voting basis, that has happened historically. I admit that when the member for Northern Tablelands indicated publicly that he was considering taking on the role of Speaker, I suggested that The Nationals would be quite happy to take up the concerns of his electorate on his behalf because he would be unable to represent their interests in the House. I know he responded to that on ABC radio. I suggest that the genesis of this bill was his looking at the situation and deciding that maybe he did not have the full representation that he would have had if he were not the Speaker.

The Nationals have said that we support the bill in principle. However, we want to amend it to ensure that when the House no longer has an Independent Speaker we revert to 151 years of history and the Constitution Act that has been in place since 1910. The Minister for Housing wants to bag The Nationals for moving to amend the bill, but the reality is that if the amendment is such a big hit on the Government's behalf why did it not do so during the past 12 years of office and allow one of its Speakers to leave the chair to contribute to a debate? I would like an answer to that question, but I will not get one.

The Minister for Tourism, who has carriage of the bill, totally misrepresented what I was saying. I said it is totally unfair if a Temporary Speaker—that is, an Acting-Speaker or an Assistant-Speaker from the Coalition—is in the chair when a vote is taken and the Speaker is allowed to vote with the Opposition on legislation, yet the then occupant of the chair is a Coalition member and is unable to vote. We can all count. We know that even with the support of the Independents we will not be able to win a vote in this House. However, we need the same protection that the Speaker is seeking through this bill: if a vote is taken about which he feels strongly, that he be able to vote against it. The Coalition needs that protection for its Acting-Speakers who have been appointed under this new regime of independence.

It is only fair that the Minister gives an assurance or, alternatively, a further amendment is moved to the bill to ensure that Coalition members are not unfairly disadvantaged by the Speaker leaving the chair to speak or vote on legislation. It is pretty simple. I believe the Minister in his comments has grossly misrepresented me. The Hon. Matt Brown is no longer a clown on the backbench; he is a Minister of the Crown. He should listen to the arguments that are put forward in debate and respond to them in a sensible, apolitical manner. That is what this bill is all about. He should not play games in the House.

I would like an answer to my question. Do we have to bring forward yet another amendment in another place to ensure that the Opposition's concerns are dealt with? Or will the Government give an assurance, in the second reading debate, to ensure that the Opposition members who have been appointed as Acting-Speakers are not unfairly disadvantaged if the Speaker comes down from the chair to vote against government legislation? That is a fair question. I do not appreciate the way that the Minister tried to turn my question around. Hansard will show that what I am asking for is reasonable. If the Minister is man enough, he should give a positive response and stop playing games.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [10.34 p.m.]: I understand what the Opposition members are saying. However, in the unlikely event that the Coalition wins government in four years time, this bill will mean nothing: they could throw it out! We are having a very simple debate. The amendment moved by the member for Murrumbidgee has no real standing, because the Government will not support it. However, if the Coalition is elected to government it will throw it out and do what it likes, and the Labor Party will then complain. That is the bottom line to this argument. The Coalition will have its chance in four years time to completely change the bill.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [10.35 p.m.]: The member for Coffs Harbour referred to the voting records of previous Speakers, which is a valid point. Previous Speakers have voted on matters before the House. One matter that has not been raised in this debate is the very effective mechanism for local members to represent their communities through a private members' statement. That has been lost in the argument. Under the current Constitution the Speaker is not able to make a private members' statement. The Constitution Amendment (Speaker) Bill will open up an opportunity for individuals, groups and communities to be represented in the House; to have their voices heard. I admired the generosity of the member for Coffs Harbour in offering that The Nationals look after the constituents of Northern Tablelands. However, as The Nationals received less than 15 per cent of the vote there, that would disenfranchise 85 per cent of constituents. I offer my support for the contention by the member for Coffs Harbour that the Opposition should not be disadvantaged through having an Assistant-Speaker in the chair. He raised a very valid point.

Question—That the clause proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put.

The House divided.

Mr Aplin Mr Baird Mr Baumann Ms Berejiklian Mr Constance Mr Fraser Ms Goward Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson

Mrs Hopwood Mr Kerr Mr Merton Mr O'Dea Mr Page Mr Piccoli 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 Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Brown Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Mr Daley Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Ms Gadiel Mr Gibson

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

Ms Megarrity Mr Oakeshott Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mr Rees Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr R. C. Williams

Mr Borger

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.

Consideration in detail concluded.

Motion by Mr Matt Brown agreed to:

That this bill be now passed.

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