Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 27 June 2007, Corrected Copy)

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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

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

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

1. That under section 64 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, a joint committee known as the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission be appointed.

2. That under section 67 (1) (a) of the Act, Ms Westwood, Mr Clarke and Revd Mr Nile be appointed to serve on the committee as members of the Legislative Council.

Legislative Council P ETER P RIMROSE
27 June 2007 (am) President

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

1. That under section 31A of the Ombudsman Act 1974, a joint committee known as the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission be appointed.

2. That under section 31C (1) (a) of the Act, Ms Voltz, Mr Lynn and Ms Hale be appointed to serve on the committee as members of the Legislative Council.

Legislative Council P ETER P RIMROSE
27 June 2007 (am) President

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

1. That under section 27 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, a joint committee known as the Committee on Children and Young People be appointed.

2. That under section 29 (1) (a) of the Act, Ms Griffin, Ms Cusack and Revd Mr Nile be appointed to serve on the committee as members of the Legislative Council.

Legislative Council P ETER P RIMROSE
27 June 2007 (am) President

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

1. That this House agrees to the resolution in the Legislative Assembly's Message of Thursday 21 June 2007 relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

2. That the representatives of the Legislative Council on the Joint Standing Committee be Ms Sharpe, Mr Harwin, Miss Gardiner and Ms Rhiannon.

3. That the time and place for the first meeting be Thursday 28 June 2007 at 10.30 am in Room 814.

Legislative Council P ETER P RIMROSE
27 June 2007 (am) President

The Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 38E of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Dealing with Household Burglaries: NSW Police Force", dated June 2007.

Ordered to be printed.

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Linda Burney.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [10.04 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2007. The bill introduces a number of changes to the record-keeping requirements for motor dealers and will cut red tape across the sector. The Iemma Government is committed to reducing red tape for small business. An important priority of the State Plan is to help business by cutting the regulatory burden wherever possible. Strong, profitable businesses, particularly small businesses, are integral to job creation and in powering the New South Wales economy.

To assist in identifying areas where excessive regulation could be cut, the Government established a Small Business Regulation Review Taskforce in 2006. The task force looks at a sector of the New South Wales economy and makes recommendations on where paperwork can be minimised. I am pleased to inform the House that one of the very first areas looked at by the task force was the motor vehicle retailing and servicing sector. This sector was selected as it contains a very high proportion of small businesses. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, more than 96 per cent of the 20,000 businesses involved in motor vehicle retailing and servicing have fewer than 20 employees, and nearly half are what are often termed mum and dad operations.

The retailing side of the sector employs more than 2,500 people. Its significance to the New South Wales economy is shown by the more than 300,000 new motor vehicles sold across the State in the year May 2006 to April 2007. For many people, the purchase of a motor vehicle is the second-largest expense they will incur after the purchase of their home. The cost of cars, together with the risks for consumers, requires that motor dealing be regulated. However, this does not mean that we should let the industry become crushed under the weight of unnecessarily complex paperwork and outdated regulation.

Under the Motor Dealers Act and Regulation, dealers are required to keep a number of prescribed forms. These forms include a variety of different registers of the vehicles they are buying, selling and transferring. These registers include information about the vehicle, its odometer reading, any defects where relevant, the vehicles identifiers and any other relevant information. The data stored in the registers is vital for investigating consumer fraud and to help stamp out the trade in stolen cars and spare parts. The legislation also requires dealers to attach certain prescribed forms to motor vehicles to provide important information to consumers about the vehicles, such as the vehicle details, whether they are subject to a statutory warranty and whether they have previously been written off.

Currently, there are 19 separate prescribed forms under the Act. The task force recommended that the Office of Fair Trading look at each of these to identify opportunities for simplification and reduction. I am pleased to advise that this process has indeed been fruitful. The Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2007 includes a number of changes to the law that will significantly reduce the burden for dealers, result in the abolition of four of the 19 prescribed forms and reduce the usage of one other. Under the current arrangements, dealers are required to complete a form each and every time they transfer a vehicle to another dealer, whether they are a retailer or a wholesaler. These inter-trade dealing forms contain information that helps Fair Trading and the police to trace a vehicle's history and includes information about its odometer reading, identifiers, where it came from and who it has been on-sold to.

During the work of the task force it was discovered that the Roads and Traffic Authority is collecting the same information when the registration of the vehicle is transferred. This means that, generally speaking, when a dealer transfers a vehicle to another dealer, he or she must provide this same information twice and complete two separate lots of forms. The task force identified this unnecessary duplication as an area for change, and the Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2007 will abolish the need for dealers to complete inter-trade disposal forms. The change will not impact on the law enforcement capabilities of Fair Trading, the Roads and Traffic Authority or the Police Force. Fair Trading has already been in contact with the authority about the information it collects to ensure that required data is collected and both the Police Force and Fair Trading will be able to access the authority's database when conducting investigations.

I am advised that each year dealers across the State undertake around 600,000 inter-trade vehicle transfers. A cut in the red tape associated with these types of transactions will have an immense impact on the industry. The Office of Fair Trading has indicated that the changes will bring about an estimated $1.17 million saving for dealers in processing, printing, handling, storage and retrieval costs associated with this high number of transactions. This change is a win-win for industry and consumers alike. Dealers will be free of unnecessary red tape and will be able to spend more time doing what they do best—operating their small business and getting on with the job. Consumers can be assured that the strong audit trail for motor vehicles in inter-trade transactions will continue, and they may also benefit from any cost savings passed onto them by dealers.

I turn to the other area of significant change for dealers under the bill—the forms prescribed specifically for demonstrator vehicles. Demonstrator vehicles are very popular among consumers and dealers. They offer the benefits of buying a recent model car at a reduced price. They are, however, essentially used vehicles and the Government sees no reason that they should be treated any differently from other used vehicles. Currently, demonstrator vehicles require their own separate forms. By treating them in the same way as all other types of second-hand vehicles these demonstrator vehicle specific forms can be abolished, and the costs of maintaining the demonstrator registers for dealers as well. The information collected on demonstrator vehicle specific forms is the same as that collected on the generic forms used for other types of used vehicles. This includes the odometer reading of the vehicle, its identifiers and any defects that the consumer needs to know about.

All of the forms also contain information for consumers about their warranty rights and important advice on a vehicle's title and whether it has been previously written off. By treating demonstrator vehicles in the same way as all other used cars are treated for the purposes of the prescribed forms and warranty provisions under the Act the whole process will be simplified for consumers and dealers and it will ensure that separate arrangements exist only for used cars and new cars. Dealers will still be able to market demonstrator vehicles, which as I noted previously are often considered favourably by consumers. The definition of a demonstrator will also be retained under the Act to prevent dealers from marketing any used car as a demonstrator and misleading consumers. Dealers will also still be able to access the stamp duty benefits associated with demonstrator vehicles through the Office of State Revenue.

The main change for consumers will relate to warranties. The arrangements for statutory warranties for demonstrator vehicles differ slightly from those in place for other used cars. However, in the main, used vehicles currently attract a statutory warranty of three months or 5,000 kilometres, as do those demonstrator vehicles that have travelled more than 15,000 kilometres at the time of sale. While there are differing statutory warranty provisions for those demonstrators that have travelled less than 15,000 kilometres at the time of sale, the manufacturer's warranty that is provided with demonstrator vehicles is far more generous than any statutory warranty that can be provided. In the case of three of Australia's largest vehicle retailers—namely, Holden, Toyota and Honda—the manufacturers warranty offered is three years or 100,000 kilometres. Others such as Mitsubishi offer even better terms.

I am advised that the changes will also bring the records required to be kept for demonstrators more in line with other jurisdictions such as the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, while still offering greater protections than those offered in other States such as Western Australia, where in certain cases consumers can rely only on the manufacturer's warranty for their ex-demonstrator vehicle, and South Australia, where there are no statutory protections for demonstrator vehicles. In consultation with the Office of Fair Trading about the bill the Motor Traders Association has indicated that it does not believe that dealers will move away from their current marketing practices involving demonstrator vehicles, including the use of manufacturer's warranties.

The changes set out in the Motor Dealers Amendment Bill will have a significant and immediate impact on reducing red tape for Motor Dealers. However, the Government is going further. Already changes to the Motor Dealers Regulation are being developed that will further reduce the forms that dealers are required to keep. These proposed changes include combining the separate registers that car market operators fill in when selling vehicles with or without title guaranteed. Under the current arrangements dealers must fill in separate forms when a Register of Encumbered Vehicles check has been carried out or when one has not. The simplified register will allow dealers to indicate on the form whether title is guaranteed and will cut printing, storage and retrieval costs in half as only one form will be used instead of two.

It is also proposed to merge two other forms into a single simplified document by way of regulation. Separate forms are used for motor vehicles that are sold without a statutory warranty depending on whether the vehicle does not attract a warranty or is exempted from the warranty provisions altogether. In either case, the information the dealer must fill in is virtually identical. As in the case of vehicles sold at a car market, the proposed merging of the two forms will create significant savings for dealers. An added advantage for consumers is that the proposed new simplified and merged form will include information about the title of the vehicle as well as advice on written-off vehicles and whether a pink slip is required. Not all of this information is currently contained in such detail across the two separate forms.

As I have mentioned, the proposed cuts to the recordkeeping requirements for licensed motor dealers has been discussed with the Motor Traders Association. The changes have also been discussed with the Road and Traffic Authority, the New South Wales Police Force, the Institute of Automotive Mechanical Engineers and the chairperson of the Motor Vehicle Industry Advisory Council. All have indicated support for the measures, which are designed to cut red tape without affecting the strong consumer protection mechanisms under the Act.

Ultimately it is proposed that the entire package of reforms will reduce the number of forms the dealers will be required to complete from the current 19 to 13. At the end of the process a number of forms will be streamlined and merged, while unnecessary duplication will be cut. I am pleased to note that this is the third announcement in recent months that the Iemma Government has made to reduce red tape in the Fair Trading portfolio, particularly for small business. The three-year licence renewal scheme for builders will commence in July. Changes to the continuing professional development arrangements for a number of licences, as well as these important cuts to red tape in the motor vehicle retailing sector, demonstrate the Iemma Government's commitment to slash over-regulation for traders. The changes let businesses get on with the job of providing services to their customers, creating jobs and helping to boost the New South Wales economy for the benefit of everyone. I commend the 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.
Bill introduced on motion by Ms Linda Burney.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [10.18 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the Associations Incorporation Amendment (Cancellation of Incorporation) Bill 2007. The bill seeks to amend the notification provisions for proposals to cancel associations under the Associations Incorporation Act 1984. The bill also introduces a provision that allows the incorporation of an association to be reinstated if it has been incorrectly cancelled. The Associations Incorporation Act 1984 was introduced to provide small non-profit community-based groups with a simple and inexpensive means of creating a legal entity separate from the individual members. Incorporation under the Act is voluntary and is significantly simpler and cheaper than incorporating as a company under the Corporations Act 2001.

Incorporating under the Act provides association members with a valuable legal safeguard in the form of limited liability, which members of unincorporated associations do not enjoy. The Act provides also a legislative framework to assist in the association's general administration. There are more than 39,000 registered incorporated associations in New South Wales. Associations typically fall into the categories of charities, sport, recreation, education, or community service clubs. They play a valuable role in bringing people together for a common cause, providing real benefits for their members and the larger community. Of those, approximately 60 per cent have a turnover of less than $100,000 and 2 per cent have a turnover of more than $500,000.

Some of those associations are no longer active but have not applied to the registry to have their incorporation cancelled. As a result of a review of the Act many recommendations have been made for reform of the legislation. The New South Wales Government is currently working on substantial amendments to the Act. However, one of the matters raised in the review was the number of associations that are no longer operating but that are still showing as registered. The current provisions for cancellation are overly complicated and are not in line with the requirements of other jurisdictions or the cancellation requirements for other forms of incorporation. Consequently the registry has not been able to carry out the requisite cancellation of the large number of associations that are no longer operating.

The amendments in this bill address those concerns. They are technical and administrative amendments that have been brought forward, in advance of the bulk of the amendments, so that they can be dealt with in the short term. Work on the majority of the amendments, which will affect the day-to-day operation of associations, can then be dealt with separately and in the longer term and with significant consultation with affected stakeholders. The current Act provides that the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading may cancel the incorporation of an incorporated association if the director general is satisfied of certain matters. These include associations that are no longer in operation; are engaged in trading or securing pecuniary gain for its members; were incorporated by reason of fraud or mistake; or that have not during the preceding period of three years convened an annual general meeting.

The association then can respond and advise whether the grounds for sending the notice are correct or incorrect. The bill seeks to streamline the processes for cancelling associations under the circumstances I have just described. These amendments will streamline the notice of cancellation and the cancellation provisions of the Act in line with similar provisions in legislation of other jurisdictions. Under the proposed amendments the director general must consider an additional three grounds: first, that the association has failed to lodge financial statements for the last three years, secondly, that the association no longer has at least five members and, thirdly, that the association no longer has a public officer who is resident in New South Wales.

Under the proposed amendment, before any cancellation occurs the director general must notify associations of the proposal to cancel the association and set out the reasons why the notice has been sent. The association then has 28 days to respond to the notice and the director general must give due consideration to any submissions made within that time. Under the current provisions, if an association's incorporation is cancelled there is no requirement for how the notice of cancellation must be sent to the association. This amendment bill, however, introduces an important requirement for the director general to send that notice by registered mail. This amendment bill also introduces a key safety net provision for associations whose incorporation has been incorrectly cancelled.

Currently the director general only has the power to reinstate the incorporation of an association if that incorporation has been cancelled as a result of an error on the part of the director general. This current provision is very limited, yet it is quite foreseeable that there could be many other reasons why an association was incorrectly cancelled. Accordingly, this amendment bill gives the director general the power to reinstate the incorporation of an association if satisfied that the incorporation should not have been cancelled. Under those circumstances the association is taken to have continued in existence as if its incorporation had not been cancelled, thus ensuring that there are no long-term effects on the association as a result of the incorrect cancellation.

There has been direct consultation on the final draft of the amendment bill with agencies that represent those members of our community who are most likely to be involved in associations. A number of organisations were directly consulted. They included: the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS], New South Wales Sport and Recreation, the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales [ECC], the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales [CRC], National Disability Services New South Wales, New South Wales Office for Women, New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet, New South Wales Department of Community Services, the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [ORAC], the Aged and Community Services Association of New South Wales; and the Local Community Services Association.

The Office of Fair Trading received five submissions in response to the request for comments. Those submissions that made comment on the content of the amendment bill provided their support and recognised that this amendment was essentially a technical amendment and would not affect the day-to-day operation of associations. The Government is continuing to work with stakeholders on developing a comprehensive package of amendments that have resulted from the recommendations that were contained in the final report of the review of the Act. I thank all the agencies and consumer and advocacy groups for their contribution to the amendment bill. I commend the 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.

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Linda Burney, on behalf of Mr Nathan Rees.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [10.27 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Nathan Rees: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill 2007. The amendments in this bill strengthen the protection of vital electricity infrastructure in New South Wales. The Government is committed to securing a reliable supply of electricity to the people of New South Wales. This includes ensuring the protection and security of electricity infrastructure such as transmission towers, power poles and distribution lines. In recent years, on several occasions, young persons have been caught climbing on high-voltage transmission towers. That is an extremely dangerous activity. Currently there is no criminal offence in New South Wales that prohibits a person from climbing on, or just being on, electricity works. That gap needs to be addressed in order to protect the safety of individuals and the vital electricity works that deliver the reliable supply of electricity in New South Wales.

The bill amends the Electricity Supply Act to create a new offence of entering, climbing, or being on electricity works. The maximum penalty is a $1,100 fine and imprisonment for up to three months. The new offence is designed to deter illegal and dangerous conduct involving electricity works. The new offence will apply to electricity works as defined in the Electricity Supply Act to mean any electricity power lines or associated equipment or electricity structures that form part of a transmission or distribution system. This means the prohibition extends from transmission towers to the distribution lines and poles that deliver electricity to residential and commercial buildings.

The maximum penalty for the new offence is consistent with the maximum penalty for climbing on, or jumping from, other structures contained in section 8A of the Summary Offences Act.
The new offence does not apply to persons authorised to be on electricity works, such as employees or contractors acting on behalf of the electricity businesses. The proposed offence explicitly states that a person must not enter, climb, or be on electricity works unless authorised to do so by the network operator or retail supplier concerned. This ensures that the offence will only apply to people committing illegal acts without any authority from the owner of the electricity works concerned.

I turn now to the other object of the bill, which concerns the theft of electricity. The bill amends section 64 of the Electricity Supply Act to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of theft of electricity from two years to five years imprisonment. It also provides for the offence to be an indictable offence if committed by an individual. The maximum fine for theft of electricity aligns with the maximum fine for larceny. However, the current maximum term of imprisonment of two years for theft of electricity is significantly below the maximum term of five years imprisonment for larceny. Theft of electricity is no less serious than theft of tangible goods. For this reason, the bill increases the maximum term of imprisonment for theft of electricity to align it with the penalty for larceny contained in the Crimes Act. The increase in the maximum term of imprisonment provided for in the bill will send a clear message to offenders that theft of electricity will be taken no less seriously than theft of tangible goods.

Lastly, the bill makes the offence of theft of electricity an indictable offence. Chapter 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act will apply to the offence. Chapter 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the summary disposal of proceedings for indictable offences unless an election to proceed on indictment is made. This approach is consistent with the approach taken for the disposal of larceny offences. I trust that members will support the protection of vital electricity infrastructure that is provided by the bill, which I commend to the House.

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

Motion, by leave, by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That this House directs the Speaker to join with the President to make arrangements for the reappointment of Mr Ian Dickson as Parliamentary Ethics Adviser, on a part-time basis, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed, from the period beginning 1 Jul y 2007, and as follows.

The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall have the following functions.

Advice to Members of Parliament

(1) (a) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser is to advise any member of Parliament, when asked to do so by that member, on ethical issues concerning the exercise of his or her role as a member of Parliament (including the use of entitlements and potential conflicts of interest).

(b) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser is to be guided in giving this advice by any Code of Conduct or other guidelines adopted by the House (whether pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act or otherwise).

(c) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser's role does not include the giving of legal advice.

Advice to Ministers on post-separation employment

(2) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser must on request by a Minister provide written advice to the Minister as to whether or not the Adviser is of the opinion that the Minister's:

(a) acceptance of an offer of post-separation employment or engagement which relates to the Minister's portfolio responsibilities (including portfolio responsibilities held during the previous two years of ministerial office); or

(b) decision to proceed, after the Minister leaves office, with a proposal to provide services to third parties (including a proposal to establish a business to provide such services) which relates to the Minister's portfolio responsibilities (including portfolio responsibilities held during the previous two years of ministerial office),

would give rise to a reasonable concern that:

(c) the Minister's conduct while in office was influenced by the prospect of the employment or engagement or the proposal to provide services; or

(d) the Minister might make improper use of confidential information to which he or she has access while in office.

(3) The Adviser must on request by a person who has ceased to hold ministerial office within the previous 12 months ("the former Minister") provide written advice to the former Minister as to whether or not the Adviser is of the opinion that the former Minister's:

(a) acceptance of an offer of employment or engagement which relates to the former Minister's former portfolio responsibilities during the last two years in which the Minister held ministerial office; or

(b) decision to proceed with a proposal to provide services to third parties (including a proposal to establish a business to provide such services) which relate to the former Minister's former portfolio responsibilities during the last two years in which the Minister held ministerial office,

would give rise to a reasonable concern that:

(c) the former Minister's conduct while in office was influenced by the prospect of the employment or engagement or the proposal to provide services; or

(d) the former Minister might make improper use of confidential information to which he or she had access while in office.

(4) If the Adviser is of the opinion that accepting the proposed employment or engagement or proceeding with the proposal to provide services might give rise to such a reasonable concern, but the concern would not arise if the employment or engagement or the provision of services were subject to certain conditions, then he or she must so advise and specify the necessary conditions.

(5) The Adviser's advice must include:

(a) a general description of the position offered, including a description of the duties to be undertaken, or the services to be provided, based on material provided by the Minister or former Minister but excluding any information that the Minister or former Minister indicates is confidential; and

(b) the Adviser's opinion as to whether or not the position may be accepted, or the services may be provided, either with or without conditions.

(6) Where the Adviser becomes aware that a Minister or former Minister has accepted a position, or has commenced to provide services, in respect of which the Adviser has provided advice, the Adviser must provide a copy of that advice to the Presiding Officer of the House to which the Minister belongs or to which the former Minister belonged.

Keeping of records

(7) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall be required to keep records of advice given and the factual information upon which it is based.

(8) Subject to clause 6, the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall be under a duty to maintain the confidentiality of information provided to him in exercising his function and any advice given, but the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser may make advice public if the person who requested the advice gives permission for it to be made public.

(9) This House shall only call for the production of records of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser if the person to which the records relate has: in the case of advice given under clause 1(a), sought to rely on the advice of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser; or given permission for the records to be produced to the House.

Annual meeting with committees

(10) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser is to meet annually with the Standing Committee of each House designated for the purposes of Part 7A of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act.

Report to Parliament

(11) (a) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall be required to report to the Parliament prior to the end of his annual term on the number of ethical matters raised with him, the number of members who sought his advice, the amount of time spent in the course of his duties and the number of times advice was given.
(b) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser may report to the Parliament from time to time on any problems arising from the determinations of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal that have given rise to requests for ethics advice and proposals to address these problems.

(12) That a message be sent informing the Legislative Council of the passage of the resolution.

Debate resumed from 21 June 2007.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [10.40 a.m.]: I am pleased to contribute to debate on the Labor Government's 2007-08 budget. I look forward to legislation going through the Legislative Council this week. Mr Speaker, I look forward to your contribution to the budget debate later this year. These days budget speeches and budget days are good for governments, but they are not so good for oppositions. However, that has not always been the case. In 1988 or 1989—the term of the Greiner Government—budget days and budget debates were a good opportunity for the Opposition to highlight the inadequacies of the Government. We had a dramatic reduction in rail transport, the Curran report, the slashing of government services in the north-western part of Sydney, and the cutting, mid-stream, of the electrification project between Riverstone and Richmond.

Budget days presented oppositions with an opportunity to highlight pretty tough and unfair budgets, but that has not been the case since 1995 with Labor budgets. This budget, like so many that have come before it, reinforces an objective view that the State's finances are being managed responsibly. We all have different priorities and we place a different emphasis on different aspects of the budget, but most commentators have given this budget a tick, which demonstrates that this State Government is managing the funds responsibly. I formally say, "Well done" to the Premier and the Treasurer. In the atmosphere of congratulation, I also congratulate the Premier on leading the Labor Party back into government for what I consider to be another well-deserved four-year term.

Each year it has been my role in the budget debate to comment on various portfolio allocations to my electorate. It might not be possible for me to mention them all, as there are far too many to mention in one brief speech to the House. Further, general allocations that do not relate specifically to various portfolios will benefit my electorate, as part of the wider community, and in particular the western suburbs of Sydney. Those areas have received record allocations for education, health, transport and ever-increasing numbers of police. In a general sense those budgetary allocations affect all electorates in New South Wales and, in particular, my electorate of Mount Druitt.

Before going through some of the budgetary allocations for my electorate, I would like to say a few words about the criticisms levelled at the Government by the Leader of the Opposition. The other day I listened to his speech on the audio monitor in my office. The main focus of his speech, which lasted for about 22 minutes, was to announce an infrastructure fund—which is hardly something new; Liberal leaders have talked about that in recent times—and to talk at some length about how that fund would be managed, audited and so on. To support the need for such a fund he fell back on tired and tried Liberal Party chestnuts and made references to an infrastructure crisis in New South Wales—in defiance of all the capital that is being spent on infrastructure—the run-down state of our schools, a lack of vision, and so on. He was then more specific but contradictory when he said that even though this Government was not building enough it should not build a desalination plant.

Let me comment briefly on that project, which has been the subject of much public discussion. The Premier has already given a firm commitment that he will continue with that project. I call on the Premier and the Government to ignore those knockers and those critics. Prior to the formal announcement of a desalination plant I could not count how many times someone said to me, "When will the Government consider a desalination plant as an option for Sydney's future water supply?" Before it became popular to knock the project, many in the community, including former Opposition leaders, said that a desalination plant should be considered as a means of addressing future water needs. I ask the Premier to put the Opposition's policy and its current comments on the desalination plant into the same file, historically, as Mr Menzies' opposition to the Snowy Mountains scheme and Mr Greiner's opposition to the Darling Harbour project were put—both, of course, are part of the Australian and New South Wales landscape.

There have been many arguments about why we need a desalination plant. One of the most short-term comments I have heard—it probably came from the Greens, who are supposed to have some sort of long-term environmental strategy, policy or vision—was that it has been raining for the past few weeks. We have all seen the rain and we have welcomed it. However, we must look at the bigger water supply picture. In 2004 I asked the Minister for Energy and Utilities the following question on notice:

In what year did the Warragamba Dam become operational?

I again highlight another great Labor Government project. I also asked:

How many customers are currently drawing water from the Sydney Water Supply ...

Of course, I was referring to 2003-04 statistics. The Minister's answer was quite interesting:

The population supplied as at 30 June 1961 was 2.34 million and the number of properties served was 620,944.

By 30 December 2003 no new dams had been built but there was a marginal increase in capacity. The Minister stated:

As at 31 December 2003, a population of approximately 4.2 million was supplied by Sydney Water and the total number of properties served is 1,653,911.

There was substantial growth in the number of people drawing water from storages in the Sydney catchment and pressures were being placed on our water supply. All members should support the Government's options—desalination is only one option—to ensure that we have more water capacity in the future. I also asked the Minister:

On average, what is the number of new customers connected to the Sydney Water Supply each month?

The Minister replied:

Based on a six month average, approximately 2,709 new connections are made each month.

So those new connections were being made in 2003. In my electorate, and in surrounding areas, there has been a population explosion. New suburbs are being created and in older suburbs large blocks of land are now being subdivided. Three or four homes are now being built on blocks where there might have been just one home. Land is being released on the old Wonderland site, which extends throughout the western suburbs of Sydney. Thousands of people and new businesses will be involved and each one will have to connect to the Sydney water supply. Opposition members are cutting off our desalination option, which is extremely short-sighted. As the Minister said, more than 2,700 new connections are being made every month. It does not really matter whether the recent rain makes our dams overflow, whether they are all at 100 per cent capacity, or whether they remain at 100 per cent capacity for the rest of this year: with more and more customers connecting to our water supply every month that water will be drawn down much more quickly.

The Government should stick to its guns, maintain its desalination, recycling and other water efficiency proposals, and critics with only short-term strategies should be put in their place. The Leader of the Opposition, as leader of the Liberal Party, followed the tradition of a long line of Liberal leaders of attacking Labor governments for not building enough. Yet, on the other hand, he opposed any major project that a Labor government proposed to build. Political watchers should get the message: if they want to know the policies of Liberal governments in the future they should look to the past. They contribute nothing and oppose and criticise nearly everything. These criticisms of the Government's expenditure on infrastructure are just politics. It is an historical fact that the Iemma, Carr, Unsworth and Wran governments allocated more expenditure in this area than did the former Coalition Government.

Mr Thomas George: Who wrote your speech?

Mr RICHARD AMERY: I wrote my speech. The member for Lismore has had record expenditure in his electorate. When Labor members find out how much is being spent in the Lismore electorate they will all knock on the Treasurer's door to ensure that similar amounts are allocated to Labor seats where constituents would appreciate such record expenditure. One of our formers Ministers called the member for Lismore an ungrateful sod for not appreciating the great funds that go to his electorate.

Like all members, budget day for me is to listen to the Treasurer's speech, get the budget kit and search it to see what is in it for my constituency. Like children on Christmas morning, we see whether promises have been kept and whether there are any surprises. I am pleased to report that the Mount Druitt electorate has done very well again—as has the electorate of Lismore. Of course, there are always projects that still need to be done and issues that need to be addressed, and that will apply this year as it will every year in every electorate. However, just because there is always more to be done does not mean that what is being done and has been done should be criticised. I certainly will not do that.

Over many years the Mount Druitt electorate has continued to get a fair share of the State budget. In the past I have been pleased to acknowledge projects such as the Mount Druitt courthouse, the Mount Druitt train­bus interchange and the easy access upgrade to Mount Druitt railway station. Those expenditures alone amounted to around $12 million. Issues outstanding include improving access to the Rooty Hill railway station and increasing the number of parking spaces at the Mount Druitt railway station. We will continue to lobby for those projects and acknowledge one fact: future projects such as these, and the past ones I have mentioned, will be achieved only by a Labor Government.

I acknowledge how well Mount Druitt has done in the Education budget. The Opposition has, unsurprisingly, highlighted the need for extra maintenance funding for schools. There are a large number of public schools around the State, some have been built in the past year and others were built in the 1800s. It is safe to say that we can spend more on schools. I suspect that regardless of which party is in Opposition in 100 years time, members will still make speeches highlighting funding for schools. My electorate, like many electorates, is made up of new schools, schools built over the past 10 to 20 years, and schools that can date their buildings back to before Federation, such as Colyton and Plumpton. Schools such as Rooty Hill Primary School, which has just celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, represent a large number of schools built between the 1950s and 1980s to address the expanding population of the local community.

Some schools were built at a time when halls, freestanding libraries and the like were not standard equipment. However, down the road we will see modern schools that have been built with such facilities. There will always be pressure to bring older schools up to the standard of the modern ones. It is just common sense. This coming financial year I will be happy to see the record amounts allocated to school maintenance being spent on a large number of much-needed projects in the electorate. These projects will include things such as pavement reconstructions, painting, refreshing classrooms, erecting security fences and the like.

The big item mentioned in the budget is the funding for the Rooty Hill High School library. The announcement of that project ended a long campaign by the school community going back to the mid-1990s. A makeshift library built from old classrooms many years ago will be replaced. Another long-running battle has come to an end locally: the Eastern Creek Primary School won its fight to have a demountable library replaced with a new library. This has come on top of a recent upgrade of the preschool section of the school.

On the subject of old battles being won, I congratulate Colyton Public School on its success in getting a hall for the school, which will be built during the coming four-year term. I acknowledge not only the Government but also the former Minister for Education and Training, the member for Marrickville, for getting these projects off the ground. I was very disappointed, as were the schools in my electorate, when I learned that the member for Marrickville was relinquishing her ministerial duties. Her decision to put her role as a mother and wife ahead of her career makes her a very special person in the world of politics.

As Minister for Education and Training, the member for Marrickville was a good friend to public education, especially in my electorate of Mount Druitt. Her personal involvement in the major issues I just mentioned is no doubt the main reason for the success of those local campaigns. Her actions in taking deputations, listening to the arguments and finally making positive decisions are very much appreciated. I, the school communities of Rooty Hill High School, Eastern Creek Primary School, Colyton Primary School and many other schools with smaller projects, record a very big thank you to the member for Marrickville for her role as the Minister for Education and Training. She was involved in many other issues in other electorates, but I  will leave that for another day.

The budget, which has been handed down with a surplus, once again has shown that the good management of the State's finances by a Labor Government is here to stay. There has been a general endorsement of the budget not only by those in the media and financial world but also by some members of the Opposition. We can always find faults with every budget but, generally speaking, most people believe that the Treasurer and the Premier have got things just about right with the 2007­08 budget. I commend the budget to the House.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [10.55 a.m.]: I speak in debate on the budget estimates and related papers 2007-08 with a great deal of concern. As I highlighted in the House last week, what the Government has espoused in relation to transport services and what is in the budget papers are two vastly different things. I place on record my extreme disappointment that when I raised the issue last week and asked the Minister for Transport to debate those issues—because there are broad discrepancies in what he is saying and in the interpretation in the budget papers—he refused to do so. That is a sad blow to commuters across New South Wales who are struggling to get to and from work on time. It demonstrates that the State Government has a totally arrogant approach to public transport issues. It also demonstrates that the Minister for Transport has purposely misled the community in relation to transport spending and allocated funds to transport.

Before the budget papers were released to members of Parliament, the Minister for Transport and the Treasurer publicly espoused that this year's budget has record spending in the Transport portfolio. However, when one looks at Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, page 3 – 1, the 2007-08 budget has cut nearly $93 million, or 2.7 per cent, in funding for operating expenses for transport services. This means that currently commuters who catch buses, trains and ferries should expect that services can only get worse when $93 million has been ripped out of the budget for transport services. That is not saying things will stay the same; it is saying things will get worse.

The one thing that concerns me is that because of the Labor Government's 12 years of mismanagement of the transport portfolio the public is being convinced that it should be able to put up with bad transport services and that it is appropriate to rip $93 million out of transport services in this year's budget. That is a huge act of dishonesty by the State Government. It has bandied around a figure of $5.8 billion. That is just an announcement—that figure does not appear in the budget papers—when everything the Government has purported to put in the budget papers is added up. What is worse, the Minister for Transport has not made any mention of the fact that he is ripping $93 million out of transport services.

From where is this money being ripped out? We get a clue to that when we look at Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 19 - 17, where it is foreshadowed—in black and white—that the budget for passenger rail services will decrease by 11 per cent. The September 2005 train timetable had 416 fewer daily rail services than the previous timetable. Train commuters have to face the prospect of overcrowded carriages, particularly at peak times; no air-conditioning on trains in summer; and no public toilet facilities when they travel from the Central Coast, the South Coast, the Blue Mountains or Penrith. They have to put up with record numbers of skipped stops because trains are so overcrowded they bypass stations. The community suffers as a result of poor rail services. It impacts on people's quality of life, on the time they spend with their families and on their ability to get to work on time. I have talked to people who must rise at 4.30 every morning in order to get to work at 9.00 a.m. because they do not know whether the scheduled train will arrive. That is tragic. The Government's message to rail commuters is that it will not make things better; in fact, in this budget it has reduced funding for rail services by 11 per cent.

The new 2005 rail timetable slashed 416 daily rail services—no questions asked—and this budget does nothing to address that issue. In the lead-up to the last State election the Opposition announced that it would reinstate the peak services that were slashed. We saw what was happening to the rail network and on rail platforms around the State at morning and afternoon peaks. Yet the Government continues to limit rail services, and the 11 per cent cut will make the situation even worse for commuters. It is interesting to note that even though the Minister for Transport has slashed 416 daily rail services—purportedly in order to slow down the system—he still fudges the figures for on-time running. But even those targets have not been met. This year alone train services across the entire CityRail network met their monthly on-time performance target only in January, when the system is quietest. The State Government cannot meet its own fudged on-time running figures. The rail network is slower and less safe. There are 416 fewer daily services, fewer air-conditioned carriages and huge ticketing problems. Yet the Government's response is to slash the transport services budget.

The Government has severely slashed other transport services. It continues to announce so-called transport infrastructure projects but it must draw a distinction between announcements and actions. The Minister and the Treasurer raise expectations in the community with these announcements. If people from elsewhere in the universe heard them they would assume that the transport system is to receive a huge boost in infrastructure spending and services. But nothing could be further from the truth. If there is one symbol of this Government's dishonesty and mismanagement of transport services it is the Tcard, or integrated ticketing, project. In 1997 the State Government announced that by the Olympic Games Sydney and New South Wales would have an integrated ticketing system, that commuters would be able to use one ticket to catch different modes of transport and that an integrated ticketing system would provide smoother, more efficient transport services.
Seven years later that ticketing system is nowhere to be found. In fact, before the State election the Minister postponed the Tcard trial five times because he was worried about what it would reveal. I call on the Minister to tell the people of New South Wales when the Tcard system will be in place. When should commuters expect to be able to use in Sydney the sort of integrated ticketing system that operates in many cities around the world? The budget papers reveal that last year the Government spent $75 million less than it promised on the Tcard project. The project was supposed to be completed seven years ago but there is still no indication as to when it will materialise.

As to rolling stock, the Government has been talking for many years about replacing 600 non­air­conditioned train carriages. But the budget papers reveal that that replacement has been delayed by a further two years. So rail commuters will have to endure at least another six hot, sweaty summers without air­conditioned carriages because the State Government has once again failed to deliver on its promise. Instead of delivery in 2011—which was bad enough—the budget papers reveal that that date has been pushed back by two years. Buses are another area of concern. The budget contains no funding beyond 2008 for the project to replace 505 buses in Sydney and Newcastle. How will the Minister make that commitment materialise? As to rolling stock, the Government has been talking for many years about replacing 600 non­air­conditioned train carriages. But the budget papers reveal that that replacement has been delayed by a further two years. So rail commuters will have to endure at least another six hot, sweaty summers without air­conditioned carriages because the State Government has once again failed to deliver on its promise. Instead of delivery in 2011—which was bad enough—the budget papers reveal that that date has been pushed back by two years. Buses are another area of concern. The budget contains no funding beyond 2008 for the project to replace 505 buses in Sydney and Newcastle. How will the Minister make that commitment materialise?

Let us consider the rail links that have been announced. The State Government has failed to allocate any capital funding in the budget for the commencement of work on the proposed central business district rail link, the north-west rail link or the south-west rail link. The Government has allocated a meagre total of $56 million to these projects for investigations and feasibility studies. Some money has been set aside for land acquisitions but not one cent has been allocated for rail link construction. The Government announced the north­west rail link project 10 years ago but the budget papers allocate not one cent for it.

The budget also confirms that there have been massive funding blow-outs in other critical infrastructure projects. The cost of the important Clearways project has blown out again. The Government continues to provide no details about how far it has progressed and when it will be completed. We know only that the estimated cost of the project has been revised up to almost $2 billion. The budget papers confirm also that the cost of the outer-suburban train carriages has blown out by $37 million and that the project will be delayed by another two years. Regrettably, this means that commuters who travel to Sydney or the regions—whether it is the Central Coast, the South Coast, the Blue Mountains or Penrith—must do so in carriages with inadequate facilities. Time and again we hear heart-wrenching stories of people with medical conditions who are embarrassed because there are no facilities on trains. The Government has not provided the outer-suburban carriages that it promised so inappropriate carriages are used to carry people long distances to and from Sydney.

The Hunter rail carriages project has suffered another cost blow-out of $41 million and a delay of two years. The total cost of the Epping to Chatswood rail link has increased from $1.39 billion to $2.28 billion and will be completed two years late. The project has doubled in cost but has halved in size because the extension to Parramatta has been shelved indefinitely. These are but some examples of the Government's dishonesty in relation to public transport services. The Minister refuses to debate the issue in Parliament. He claims that everything is fine and that people who rely on the provision of effective public transport have nothing to worry about. But time and again the system lets commuters down. Rather than injecting more money into the system and providing better services, the State Government is slashing transport funding. This affects every member in this place, and it affects my constituents in the Willoughby electorate.

Peak hour queues at bus stops in the Willoughby electorate are a huge problem and my constituents are turning their backs on public transport. Constituents in the Willoughby electorate are between 5 and 10 kilometres from the Sydney central business district, yet at peak hour every morning excessively long queues of people must wait to catch buses. I have watched as buses have gone past bus stops and not picked up commuters. As a regular user of those bus services, I know how unreliable they are. I often rely on bus services to get from my electorate office to Chatswood for meetings or to come to the city, and I know it has become the normal practice for residents of this State to have to factor in that their bus or train is likely to be late and therefore they have to leave home an hour or an hour and a half earlier. I am sure many in the gallery today who catch public transport have to factor in that their transport will be late. I see some heads nodding. Public transport users must factor in extra time because of their concerns that buses and trains will not arrive on time.

The Willoughby electorate suffered the slashing of a number of services last September, notably the 272 and 273 routes, which were very popular and well patronised routes that bring commuters to the city. The State Government slashed express services on those routes between 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. each day. Willoughby electorate residents no longer have an express service from Willoughby to the city each day between those hours. The Government is telling students, part-time workers, pensioners and independent retirees around the State and in Willoughby electorate who need to use public transport during the day: You can take the long way, you can afford to waste time on public transport, we do not care.

In relation to transport issues affecting the Willoughby electorate, I am concerned that this year the Government has not provided money for easy access at Artarmon railway station. Artarmon is a fast-growing community in close proximity to the Royal North Shore Hospital, Chatswood and St Leonards, yet easy access is not provided at Artarmon railway station. The community has been fighting for easy access for a long time, and I am proud to have brought their concerns to this place. Regrettably, Artarmon still has not been included in the Easy Access program.

I am extremely concerned by cuts in daily rail services, particularly in peak times, and the impact of those cuts on residents in the Willoughby electorate. I have seen commuters who caught a train in peak hour from St Leonards station, which I do occasionally, with their faces against windows. That is how crowded conditions are. More often than not, trains do not stop at the platform because of the Government's cutting of services and the unreliability of services. [ Extension of time agreed to.]

A number of other issues impacting bus and train transport in the Willoughby electorate have not been addressed in this budget. I raise yet again the Chatswood to Epping rail line and the redevelopment of the Chatswood railway station. Residents in the Willoughby electorate deserve an upgraded railway station. We look forward to it. Chatswood is one of the largest stations on the North Shore or north of the harbour. But the community is being asked to pay a high price for a new railway station. The State Government will be imposing 500 extra apartments on the Willoughby electorate, without providing associated infrastructure.

One of the associated infrastructure issues is public education. Across the road from the site of the proposed towers of 500 extra units is Chatswood Primary School, which for many years has been fighting for funding to build permanent classrooms. Chatswood Primary School is an outstanding school, with an outstanding principal and teachers. The students excel in academics and sports, and the school has a number of chess champions, maths champions and computer champions. It is a diverse school; at home, 68 per cent of children speak a language other than English, primarily Chinese. The school has gone to great lengths to boast proudly about its wonderful diverse community. However this growing community needs permanent classrooms.

At the moment, playground space is taken up with demountable buildings. Space that children and teachers would use for education is taken up with demountables. The school has requested capital works funding on a number of occasions, but regrettably this year that is not on the list of new projects. I implore the Minister for Education and Training to look at this issue and to make sure that Chatswood Primary School is included on the list next year.

I also want to speak about Chatswood High School. As a person who has attended a comprehensive public education high school, I know the benefits of such institutions. Chatswood High School is a great school. It fought off the State Government's closure plans. We are extremely happy and proud that the school is growing. It has an excellent principal and great teaching staff, with a strong parents and citizens association and a great school community. For stage one funding, this year the State Government has allocated only $110,000. I am relieved that the school has now been listed for stage two funding; it has lobbied for stage two funding for the past three or four years. This was promised, and it is finally in the budget papers. But there is a catch: there are no dollars for stage two funding. The Government has listed the school for stage two funding without allocating any money for it.

Mr Ray Williams: They have to wait an extra hour to get a bus.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: Exactly. Whereas Chatswood High School and the community were promised vital stage two capital works funding, in this year's budget papers, after three years of announcements and no action, the Government finally listed the school for that funding. But, guess what? No money has been allocated. I will be working with the school community and continuing to advocate on behalf of Chatswood High School. The State Government purports to be an advocate of public education, but when it comes to supporting comprehensive high schools and high schools that need capital works funding it turns its back. This is yet another example of that. I will continue to work closely with the school community to get that funding very soon.

In addition, I have raised concerns relating to health services in the Willoughby electorate. Regrettably, once again, the budget does not contain an allocation of any money for the reinstatement of mental health services to the centre in Hercules Street, Chatswood. Yesterday I was appalled to learn of Minister Sartor's announcement to close Roselle Hospital and Callan Park, because what is happening at Callan Park and in Chatswood is happening to mental health facilities all round New South Wales. The Government is closing down community-based facilities, and this is putting many communities in a difficult situation.

I speak from personal experience when I say that when the Chatswood mental health facilities were relocated to the hospital sites, parents, families and friends of those who use those facilities came to see me in my electorate office and told me about their personal anguish because the State Government has done the wrong thing in closing down such vital facilities. We now have a working party in the Willoughby electorate comprised of Willoughby council officers and many concerned residents. I urge the State Government to reconsider its position in relation to mental health facilities in Chatswood. Such community-based facilities are vital for people who are not in acute care. We need to ensure that people in our community have appropriate facilities to deal with their illnesses. Regrettably, again, the State Government turns its back on such an important policy area.

Another health issue in the Willoughby electorate that I want to raise in my budget speech relates to the redevelopment of Royal North Shore Hospital. This redevelopment is behind schedule and over budget, as is every other major project in this State. Most concerning is that the new plans do not include provision for a hydrotherapy pool on the site. Many people have contacted my office and expressed concerns that their medical condition and their health will be dealt a huge blow because this facility will not be on the new site. Area health services are now much larger than they have been, and the Northern Area Health Service extends to the Central Coast. Though I have pushed the area health service and the Minister about the future of the hydrotherapy pool, the only response I have received is that there will be one in the area. Well, that could be anywhere between the Harbour Bridge and the Central Coast. That is not good enough.

Another issue about redevelopment of the hospital site that is of major concern is parking. Many staff members, physicians and nurses have contacted my office and said how difficult it is for them to get to work, park their cars and get about their businesses, as have patients, families and friends of patients. Parking is a basic issue and should not cause so much grief for so many people, but again this demonstrates that the State Government does not care about getting the details right in these important projects. Transitional arrangements impact on the lives of so many people, but the State Government's response is nonchalant. It disregards the concerns many people have raised.

I am proud to be the shadow Minister for Citizenship, an important folio responsibility that has always been dealt with in a bipartisan fashion. However, I am concerned about the lack of funding for community schools, which is an area in which the State Government must provide funding. I attended a community school every Saturday for 11 years and I know the benefits of such schools and the support they provide families who utilise mainstream services, particularly families who are new to Australia. I am concerned that the future of community schools is compromised because the State Government has not provided them with adequate funding for many years, which means that many communities and many families will not benefit from such a facility.

Volunteer teachers currently run community schools. They give unstintingly of their time to their respective communities and they deserve some support. Why will the Government not support community schools? Why will it not support communities that wish to learn a second language? In addition to the social and cultural benefits provided by learning a second language, it is a great boost for tourism in Sydney and New South Wales, and also our relationship with other cities and countries in our region of the world. I ask the State Government and the Minister to reconsider the funding of community schools.

I return to where I began, transport services. I am absolutely appalled by what the budget papers do not offer for public transport. I am appalled that the State Government's message for rail services is that nothing will get better. In fact, things will get worse. The Government has projected an 11 per cent drop in funding to rail passenger services. I am concerned that no funding has been provided beyond 2008 for the new bus fleet that has been announced. I am also concerned that there is no prospect of resumption of the 1,500 weekly bus services that were slashed last year because the Government has failed to provide any additional funding. In fact, it has cut funding for buses. None of the 1,500 bus services that were slashed will be resumed, which will affect all commuters who relied on them, especially in peak times.

I have recently spoken about ferries at length in this place. The budget does nothing to improve the safety record of Sydney Ferries, which is currently under question. It is important to place on the record at every opportunity that the State Government purposely put a line in the terms of reference within the current commission of inquiry into Sydney Ferries to exclude discussion of the two fatal accidents. It is outrageous, especially given that Minister Watkins and the State Government have ignored so many recommendations of the Office of Transport Safety Investigation. In fact, the Sydney Ferries maintenance budget was cut by 27 per cent in the last budget. There is no prospect of any of that money being provided, given that slash in transport services.

On average, every ferry in the ferry fleet breaks down at least once a month. It is little wonder that every week 4,500 people decide that they will no longer catch Sydney ferries. Recently, when the Cremorne wharf ferry sank during the storms, the appropriate agency put up a notice saying that the ferry would resume normal services within seven to 10 days. Unfortunately, the people who use that wharf are still waiting. There is no doubt that commuters who use buses, ferries and trains have been getting a raw deal from the Government for 12 years. The concern is that the budget does nothing to address the problems. The budget slashes money from the delivery of transport services. The State Government has failed to be honest with the community on major infrastructure projects.

The State Government makes record announcements, but what is in the budget papers is extremely different. According to the budget papers, what the Government says it will do and what the Government is doing is a different matter. It is extremely concerning that every major infrastructure project is way behind schedule and that announcements the Government made 10 years ago have not received one cent of funding in the budget papers. When I put forward a motion to debate these issues, every person on that side refused to debate it. Notwithstanding the major problems in the State budget, the State Government has an obligation to be honest with the people of New South Wales. It should tell people how bad things are and how it will fix them, instead of providing inappropriate budget funding [ Time expired.]

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.25 a.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Government's budget, which is a very positive budget for the people of the Monaro electorate and the people of New South Wales. I will highlight some of the benefits for Monaro and also analyse the rather meagre response from the Opposition, a response which saw it offer a single initiative—a $4 billion infrastructure fund funded through asset sales. The Opposition then went on to promise $7 billion worth of spending. Already in this parliamentary term the Opposition is taking the same approach it took during the election campaign: promise everything, but fund nothing. It is a prescription that the people of New South Wales know cannot be delivered upon. This year Premier Morris Iemma and Treasurer Michael Costa brought down a $45 billion budget. I am pleased to say that it has delivered on the commitments I made to the Monaro electorate prior to the last election, and it continues to deliver on the important projects I have been working on in the years since my election.

In the next financial year more than $140 million will be invested in infrastructure in the Monaro electorate, which is an impressive figure for infrastructure investment in a rural electorate. More than $30 million will be invested in important road maintenance and important new roads projects. The Lanyon Drive duplication, which is one of the key issues I campaigned on prior to the last election, was funded in the budget. Plan In the next financial year more than $140 million will be invested in infrastructure in the Monaro electorate, which is an impressive figure for infrastructure investment in a rural electorate. More than $30 million will be invested in important road maintenance and important new roads projects. The Lanyon Drive duplication, which is one of the key issues I campaigned on prior to the last election, was funded in the budget. Planning money was allocated and $8 million was committed to duplicate the road. The project must be carried out in cooperation with the Australian Capital Territory Government because the road goes across the Australian Capital Territory Government border. The Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth governments will also supply funding for the road. I am pleased to see that this commitment, which I promised some time ago, has been delivered on in the budget.

The Kings Highway has been allocated funding for pavement resurfacing and for the continuation of work at Black Gully, which is in between Braidwood and the Clyde Mountain. This work will improve alignments and safety on that part of the road. Funding has been allocated for roads in the Snowy Mountains. Safety work is being done in areas that have been taken over by the Roads and Traffic Authority in recent years, such as improvements to safety barriers, alignment and surfaces. The Queanbeyan Hospital, a $50 million project, is well underway. A large slab of that money will be spent over the next financial year to provide a great new hospital for Queanbeyan, which will increase the 36 beds in the current hospital to 60 beds in the new hospital. The fact that construction of the new hospital has been, and is, underway makes it even more amazing that prior to the last election the Opposition ran television, radio and telephone campaign advertisements trying to tell people that nothing was happening, even though those who bothered to visit the area could see it being built.

The Bombala Hospital continues to be funded in the budget. The new hospital will be completed by the end of the calendar year. It is a great boost for a small town. The State Government office block is well underway and continues to be funded, as is the Queanbeyan TAFE. One of the initiatives with which I am particularly pleased is that the Minister for Housing, Matt Brown, is delivering $4.2 million for public housing in Queanbeyan, which is important for reducing waiting lists and providing more appropriate housing, particularly for older people. It is part of Premier Morris Iemma's commitment to public housing to encourage older people to move out of larger houses in which they have been living. Work is still underway in Cooma on new extensions to TAFE and to the jail. The Government also has announced funding for a new bus stop in Cooma for CountryLink and other coach services. Forestry is vitally important for the future economic strength of the Monaro region. Funding in this year's budget will enable State Forest roads to be constructed in Bombala and second-row plantation will be undertaken in State forests.

Jindabyne fared very well in this year's budget as $3.5 million, which is a huge boost, will be spent over the next year on Jindabyne's sport and recreation centre. The centre is the home of the Winter Academy of Sport and, therefore, is the home of some of Australia's potential Olympic and Paralympics skiers who train there regularly. They must be very excited about the near-blizzard conditions in the Snowy Mountains currently that have dumped a lot of snow in mountainous areas overnight. New teacher accommodation has been built for the Jindabyne Central School. Gaden's trout hatcheries extensions are well under way and have been funded from the Government's fishing levy. The funding will enable a new hatching room to be constructed and that will be used to grow trout to a larger size than is currently the case, making them more viable when they are released into the lakes. That is a fantastic initiative and it supports a multimillion-dollar recreational fishing industry in the Monaro region.

One of the most important parts of the Perisher Range work that has been funded by park entry fees is the sealing of roads around the Perisher resort, particularly at Smiggin Holes and in parts of Perisher itself. Sealing the roads will reduce erosion and run-off from dirt roads, which can lead to degradation of the precious alpine environment. The sealed roads enable us to reduce environmental impact and will be easier to maintain over the long term while allowing scope for the expansion of accommodation and tourism. The other important investment in the Perisher Range this year has been on sewerage works. Recycled but fully treated water will be used for snow-making so that when the temperature falls below zero, lots of white snow will be pumped out.

The entry station to the Alpine Way heading up to Thredbo will be upgraded over the next financial year so that queues will be reduced. In Jindabyne a new town fire truck worth over $330,000 will soon be delivered. Over the next four-year term the Government will deliver on a number of other election commitments made by the Premier to my electorate, including promises to upgrade classrooms and science laboratories at schools such as the Karabar High School, Monaro High School, and Bombala High School, to name just three. Upgrades will also include food technology and toilet block renovations at Karabar High School as part of the Government's budget response to the needs that have been conveyed to me by the local community. That is a very positive way in which to provide resources for electorates.

However, the Opposition seems to think, as the former Leader of the Opposition used to say, that facilities should be delivered on "day one". As a member of a political party that is in government, I point out for the information of the Opposition that a budget must be drawn up for the provision of resources, facilities and services, and improvements are delivered over a four-year period of government. The budget sets the right conditions for increased prosperity in rural and regional communities. The overall budget figures show good economic management and sound leadership by the Government for the State. Net worth in New South Wales will increase from $136 billion in 2007-08 to $146 billion in 2011. It is interesting to compare the net worth of the State under this Government with the net worth of the Federal Government, which this year will hit zero. However, the Opposition seems to think, as the former Leader of the Opposition used to say, that facilities should be delivered on "day one". As a member of a political party that is in government, I point out for the information of the Opposition that a budget must be drawn up for the provision of resources, facilities and services, and improvements are delivered over a four-year period of government. The budget sets the right conditions for increased prosperity in rural and regional communities. The overall budget figures show good economic management and sound leadership by the Government for the State. Net worth in New South Wales will increase from $136 billion in 2007-08 to $146 billion in 2011. It is interesting to compare the net worth of the State under this Government with the net worth of the Federal Government, which this year will hit zero.

An indication of the good economic management by the New South Wales Government is that the value of New South Wales assets compared to liabilities continues to increase. I mentioned earlier the infrastructure spending in the Monaro electorate, but overall in New South Wales in the next financial year the Government will spend $12.5 billion on infrastructure, which represents 2.5 times more than the Howard Commonwealth Government will spend on infrastructure for the whole of Australia. It is worth repeating that during the next year in New South Wales, 2.5 times what is spent by the Federal Government for the whole of Australia will be spent by this Government on infrastructure. When one considers that the New South Wales State budget is one-sixth the size of the Federal Government's budget, that is a really impressive indication of infrastructure investment in New South Wales.

As usual, we have heard Opposition criticism of New South Wales taxes and complaints that the Government should spend more money but reduce taxes. One of the interesting features of the budget papers is that taxation paid per capita in New South Wales, including the goods and services tax and Federal Government taxes, is the second lowest in Australia. That gives the lie to the Opposition's claims that New South Wales is a high-taxing State. What should be taken into account when one examines the taxation burden in detail is that New South Wales is still disadvantaged by the goods and services tax revenue distribution arrangements. New South Wales people pay a larger share of the goods and services tax but receive a lower return than residents of other States. Some State taxes are imposed to make up for the shortfall in goods and services revenue distribution to this State.

How much does New South Wales receive from the Federal Government from goods and services tax revenue disbursements on a per capita basis? New South Wales receives $1,721 per capita from the Commonwealth Government from the goods and services tax. I live in Queanbeyan, which is adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory. About four or five kilometres away from where I live, people from both Queanbeyan and Canberra live in similar houses, have similar incomes and have similar interests. It is highly probable that people from Queanbeyan and people from the Australia Capital Territory work alongside each other because people from Queanbeyan travel to Canberra to work and vice versa. Residents of the Australia Capital Territory receive $2,466 per person from the Commonwealth Government in goods and services tax revenue distribution, whereas Queanbeyan residents receive $1,721 per capita. Is that a fair distribution of goods and services tax revenue, especially when New South Wales is contributing a larger share of the goods and services tax through its large population?

The distribution of goods and services tax revenue is even more unfair relative to Queensland because that State is faring extremely well economically. The Queensland Government can afford to subsidise petrol prices by 8¢ a litre because the goods and services tax revenue that is distributed to Queensland provides an additional $300 per capita more than the per capita revenue distributed to New South Wales. That proves that the revenue distribution from the goods and services tax is very unfair and makes it tougher for New South Wales to put together its budget. The Federal Government is raking in massive additional revenue this year. Even taking into account the tax cuts announced by the Commonwealth Government, Commonwealth revenue will increase to more than $289 billion, of which New South Wales receives $19.1 billion.

Since the goods and services tax was introduced and since the High Court struck out a whole lot of New South Wales duties, New South Wales and the other States have been placed in an amazing situation. Of the tax revenue that is collected in Australia and redistributed to New South Wales, the Commonwealth taxation component is 82 per cent, the New South Wales component is 16 per cent and local government accounts for the remainder. However, New South Wales is responsible for spending approximately 40 per cent of its budget on infrastructure. The tax revenue sharing distribution arrangements have developed in a very unfair way. The fundamental reason for the very annoying blame game that continues between the Commonwealth and the States is the vertical fiscal imbalances in the Australian Federal system.

Local government is even worse off than the States because the Federal Government has failed to ensure that its funding for local government keeps pace with increases in revenue. This year increases in Federal revenue outstrip the increases in grants distributed by the Federal Government to local government. That means that ratepayers in local government areas are burdened with higher rates. Local government, like any other level of government, has to face increasing costs, such as increases in petrol price and in infrastructure construction costs. I turn now to the Coalition's alternative proposals outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals.

Mr Richard Amery: This'll be brief.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I would be brief if I talked only about their policy initiatives. There is no doubt about that. I will analyse their contributions. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for 20 minutes. He spoke about the need for leadership and vision but failed miserably to show that. He did not announce any policy initiatives, except for the Infrastructure Fund, which I will refer to later. Fifteen minutes of his speech was criticism, offering no alternative. That summarises the Opposition. The one suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition was for a new Infrastructure Fund, which he said he would be funded through the sale of New South Wales retail electricity businesses. He said that would raise $4 billion.

The Government is investing $50 billion over four years, but the Coalition thinks that $4 billion is enough to invest in infrastructure forever. That is the Coalition's whole policy. The Coalition said that the $4 billion fund, which is to be funded by asset sales, would be managed by an independent board. That might sound familiar to people who have heard about the funds set up by the Liberals. It is similar to what the Commonwealth has done with the Future Fund. A lot of money from the sale of Telstra and other assets has been put into the Future Fund, and it is managed by an independent board. What does that mean? Recently it was revealed publicly that the independent board was seeking investment advice from overseas, that is, it was not seeking Australian advice or creating Australian jobs. The Commonwealth Government threw up its hands and said that decision had been made by an independent board, it had nothing to do with the Commonwealth Government and that the Commonwealth Government could not tell the board how to do things.

That is what we heard from the State Opposition as well. It said it will set up an fund to be financed by asset sales and managed by an independent board. Where will the money go? It was interesting to learn what could be done with that $4 billion. The Leader of the Opposition said that $2 billion would be spent on schools. The Leader of The Nationals went further. He jumped up and said it was terrific that the Coalition would have $4 billion that it could spend anywhere. Typically, during the election campaign he went around the countryside and promised to spend more and more. He said that the Coalition would invest $2 billion in schools and reinvest in alternative assets such as education, water and roads and iconic projects such as the Bells Line of Road Expressway. That proposal alone is worth about $5 billion, so $7 billion of the $4 billion that they propose to have in the bank had already been allocated. [ Extension of time agreed to.]

Once again the Opposition has demonstrated a complete lack of economic knowledge. Members of the Opposition remind me a little of a famous American, former President George Bush, who said, "It is clearly a budget, it's got lots of numbers in it." The Opposition's analysis of the budget seems to have the same depth as that erudite comment from the then leader of the free world. The Leader of the Liberal Party, in his budget reply speech, criticised the Government, and no doubt we will hear that repeated by all Opposition members. That seems to be what they do: regurgitate their leader's speech. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government has had a $15 billion windfall over many years, which should have been spent on infrastructure.

It is true that government revenue, including the Federal Government's revenue, does increase over time. That is what happens when an economy grows. Receipts come in and some of the money is given back in tax cuts and some is spent on improving services. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government should not have spent that $15 billion the way it did. The Government spent it on increased pay for important people such as nurses, teachers and police. New South Wales currently has the highest paid teachers, nurses and police in Australia, and that increased pay helps us to attract and retain those important public servants. However, the Leader of the Opposition says that is a waste of money. Let us not be distracted by any of his silly denials. That is what he really means, and that is where the money has gone. He cannot say it has disappeared into an invisible bureaucracy somewhere; it has gone into the bulk of the New South Wales public sector workforce. The Government has spent more money on those people. Members on this side of the House are proud to have spent more money on paying them the wages that they deserve.

The Leader of The Nationals gave a speech similar to that of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that it was no achievement to get record revenues in a time of unprecedented prosperity. What a turnaround that is! During the last election campaign one of his candidates was quoted as saying in local media that New South Wales was in recession. That was not true; he clearly did not understand what a recession is. It turns out that New South Wales was not even in negative growth, which is what is needed before we are anywhere near a recession. When it was convenient for Coalition members to talk down the economy during the recent campaign, they claimed the State was in recession. Only a couple of months later they claim that the Government is not doing anything good because the State economy is growing so well. People can see through that double standard.

The Leader of The Nationals, as one would expect, gave a grovelling, ringing endorsement of the Commonwealth's industrial relations changes. Most people think that those changes have gone too far and need to be wound back by a Rudd government. He overcommitted the $4 billion to be spent on infrastructure and spent the remainder of his speech in a silly personal attack on the Premier, right down to criticising his choice of ties. Can members believe that the Leader of The Nationals spent the last few minutes of his budget reply talking about whether the Premier's voice sounded good in Parliament, whether he got good grabs, and his choice of ties? What a waste of time! More than anything, that shows the irrelevance of The Nationals to country New South Wales.

Despite bragging about their election gains at a time when they thought they would do well, they gained only a 0.4 per cent swing. And why was that? It was because they spend their time whingeing, being irrelevant and not delivering for their constituents. I predict that in their responses to the budget The Nationals members will list all the things that they have failed to deliver to their electorates. In contrast, Country Labor members are able to list the things that we have gained for our electorates by being assiduous in our jobs of lobbying Ministers and taking positive and constructive views to our ministerial colleagues.
I turn now to the State Government's superannuation performance. Recently the member for Manly spoke about superannuation. He is a new member of this place. He came into the House with his colleague from Pittwater. I label them the Umbilical Brothers: they always seem to be together and they have an amazing similarity. They seem to be happy fellows, and that is nice. The member for Manly talked about the Premier's rainbow, referring to a graph he had found on page 4-16 of Budget Paper No. 2. He said that the graph was terrible, because superannuation liabilities will increase over the next couple of years. If he had bothered to read the section on superannuation from page 4-13 onwards he would have learnt that the $5.4 billion increase in unfunded superannuation liabilities in 2006 is due largely to a change in accounting rules; it was a change in the way it is measured.

The most important thing the member for Manly did not mention when talking about the rainbow graph was that the Government has moved from pay-as-you-go superannuation, that is, paying people their benefits as they become due. It will be very expensive as the bulk of the baby boomer workforce will retire over the next few years. The Government invested the money and by 2030 that entire superannuation liability will be fully funded. That is another example of the excellent economic management of the Government. Revenue that has been raised over the past few years has been put to good use: the superannuation liability is proof of that. The Treasurer acknowledged in his Budget Speech the Government's continuing desire to help people who are still suffering because of the drought. Over the past few weeks there has been some good rain but, in the inland areas of New South Wales, the drought is nowhere near over.

Members should compare the Treasurer's remarks with the budget reply speech of the Leader of The Nationals, who, apart from a throwaway line, failed to mention the drought. That is a sad indictment of the state of The Nationals. This budget acknowledges the impact of the severe drought; it has reduced crop production by about 70 per cent and there have been cuts in farm output. Importantly, the Treasurer acknowledged in his speech the Government's continuing willingness and desire to help people suffering from the effects of the drought. Overall, this is an important budget for New South Wales. It delivers on the commitments made by the New South Wales Government and, once again, reveals the paucity of Opposition policy.

I predict that we will hear from Opposition members in this budget debate a litany of whingeing, a lack of positive comments and no positive plans for their electorates. That comes down to a failure of the Opposition and not of the Government, which is delivering. It comes down to a failure of the Opposition to have properly developed policies and alternatives for the people of New South Wales. As they did at the last election, the people of New South Wales will judge Opposition members when they promise $29 billion worth of unfunded expenditure, make silly promises about a $4 billion infrastructure fund and promise to spend $7 billion straightaway. It is not viable or sustainable and the people of New South Wales will judge Opposition members for that. I commend the budget and thank the Premier for delivering on his commitments to the people of the electorate of Monaro.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.52 a.m.]: The 2007-08 budget is an unlucky thirteenth Labor budget for New South Wales because of the Government's failure to deliver to the community. The only certainties in the budget are record tax revenues and infrastructure delays and blowouts. My colleague the member for Willoughby spoke in detail about the transport portfolio and no doubt other members will speak about portfolio allocations in their electorates. This thirteenth Labor budget is unlucky for us all as we are still struggling to fix the infrastructure and service delivery problems that have plagued this State for more than a decade. If the Labor Party put as much effort into delivering projects as it put into making media announcements we would be in a much better position.

The New South Wales Labor Party can claim little credit for the budget surplus, which has occurred because of strong investment returns and employment growth, and the Federal Government's excellent economic management. Labor cannot be believed on infrastructure or capital spending because last year it did not even spend what was allocated in the budget. Because of Labor's inability to manage infrastructure projects, last year it underspent $213 million of its capital works budget, which meant no school upgrades, new roads and hospitals. The Premier and the Treasurer also underspent $236 million of the maintenance budget so vital hospital, school and police equipment has not been repaired. In effect, Labor has saddled future generations with a massive increase in debt.

Total sector net debt will more than double from $15 billion in 2006 to about $39 billion by 2011. Whilst there are some welcome tax reductions, the land tax reduction amounts to little more than a return of bracket creep. The paucity of detail in this budget and its lack of transparency make it difficult for members of the community and members of Parliament to ascertain what is being spent in each electorate. Today I will speak in detail about issues that affect my electorate. I might appear to be repeating earlier speeches that I have made in this place, but the Iemma and Carr governments have neglected, overlooked and ignored many issues and projects in my electorate, so I will address issues that have arisen in every suburb. I call on the Government to provide funding for most of these projects, as they are not easily identifiable in the budget.

On first blush it appears as though not much funding has been allocated for the Hornsby electorate. I will refer also to a number of projects that have been mentioned in the budget. The people of Hornsby are disappointed as many of the concerns that they raised have not been addressed in the 5½ years that I have represented them. The Government allocated $135 million over four years to match Federal Government funding to widen the F3 from Cowan to Mount Colah. An amount of $21 million was allocated for the completion of the redevelopment of Hornsby hospital, which includes a brand new accident and emergency department, maternity unit and paediatrics unit. A psychiatric emergency care centre that was located in the accident and emergency department is operating with skeleton staff. A mental health intensive care unit is just about to be opened. That begs the question whether there is enough staff to run that centre. I ask the Minister for Health to assure administrative staff at Hornsby hospital that enough staff will be provided to ensure the centre is operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Work on Hornsby railway station—the completion of stabling facilities and a new platform—is well underway. However, I am disappointed about the lack of parking facilities adjacent to Hornsby station. The member for Willoughby said earlier that our transport system is lacking in many areas. Only this morning I received a complaint from somebody about the cramped condition of railway carriages. People have to wait to catch a train because so many passengers are packed into the carriages. Constituents in the Hornsby electorate are familiar with these cramped conditions.

Mr Thomas George: That is if you've got a train.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD: As the member for Lismore said, that is if they have a train. When I travelled by train on Sunday I was surprised to learn that it was travelling to the North Shore. So much maintenance is being carried out at the weekend that rail buses have to be utilised. Is that a cost saving? What maintenance is being carried out? I asked at Hornsby station for a copy of the timetable but they had run out. Perhaps that is just another way of hiding the poor timetabling!

Some $16.5 million has been allocated for sewerage connection to Brooklyn and Dangar Island. The project will cost a total of $56 million, some of which has been provided by Gosford City Council. The connection has been a long time in coming and involved extensive community lobbying of the relevant Ministers. The project could have included a recycling facility, which would have addressed community concern about outfalls under Brooklyn Bridge and helped to ease water shortages on the Central Coast. But the Government has not listened, and the project is well under way. I have raised this several times in this place. There is also concern about the rebate that residents were promised. Residents have also received no detailed information about the connection or the alleged sale of land to Sydney Water for the site of the sewerage treatment plant. I have requested those details, and I look forward to receiving that information.

Some $7.1 million has been allocated for sewerage connections to the Mt Ku-ring-gai industrial area, which is another longstanding project. I met recently with local business owners who are totally disgusted that the gravity system that was to feed into the main sewer tunnel is to be changed to a pressurised system. As a consequence, business owners will be required to operate pumps on the 300 sites. This is a cost-cutting exercise, although I concede that there may be concerns about adverse effects on the Berowra Valley Regional Park. Under the new plan each business will have a 24-hour capacity tank and an electric pump. In light of the increasing focus on climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it seems shortsighted to force businesses to use an electric pump 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 365 days a year into the future. I call on the Minister for Water Utilities to examine the situation and to revisit the decision about the planned sewerage connection for the Mt Ku-ring-gai industrial area.

That is the extent of the funding for my electorate listed in the budget, apart from the combined project funding, which is extremely difficult to decipher. The Hornsby community was expecting additional expenditure for several projects that have been needed for some time, but that has not been forthcoming. Although the Government has not yet made the announcement, I have become aware that Neringah Hospital is to lose 15 palliative care beds. Members may recall that Neringah Hospital was threatened with closure in 1996-97, as was Hornsby hospital. Public outcry forced a rethink on that occasion but Neringah appears to be under threat again. We expect the Government to announce in July that the facility will close at the end of the year, or shortly thereafter, and that patients in our area will have to travel to Greenwich for treatment.
I urge the Minister for Health to consider the situation carefully. The hospital and its outreach services assist a quarter of a million people, and we desperately need to retain the 15 beds. The hospital's services have been whittled away over the years—for example, about six weeks ago it had 19 beds. We must keep palliative care beds in the area, if not on the Neringah site then at Hornsby hospital. Some years ago rehabilitation services were moved successfully from Neringah and I believe the same could be done with the palliative care beds.

The Hawkesbury River railway station at Brooklyn has the most formidable flights of stairs to the platforms that I have ever seen. Residents and the Brooklyn Ratepayers Association, which recently changed its name to the Brooklyn Community Association, have expressed concerns about the stairs. I call on the Minister for Transport to address the matter urgently. Shortly before the last State election a 24-year-old man fell down the stairs and subsequently died. The matter is urgent and to this point has been ignored. The Cowan area has pump-out issues. It was promised a sewerage connection—almost on the never-never. However, it is not among the next 10 villages to be connected but among the last 20. I call on the Government to expedite the connection of sewerage to the Cowan area. Residents face exorbitant pump-out costs, which they fear will increase when Cowan is the only village in the area without a sewerage connection. The local outdated railway crossing needs attention. The station toilets are almost always closed and ticketing options are extremely limited.

The communities of Berowra, Berowra Heights and Berowra Waters extend over a large area. I have said many times during my 5½ years in this place that Berowra Public School needs a new hall. At present it has a very dilapidated demountable that is not weatherproof and that does not accommodate all students. It is extremely unsatisfactory. The school lost its original structure due to a series of unfortunate events and has been unable to secure government funding for a new hall. In the past couple of years a serious landslip has occurred on Berowra Waters Road. I believe the Government should assume management of this major regional road, which needs attention desperately. The local council does not have enough funds to manage adequately the many roads for which it is responsible so the State Government should take control of them.

Last year the Premier and the Minister for Transport opened Berowra railway station with a huge fanfare. Unfortunately, the station's parking is inadequate—Hornsby station faces a similar problem. The many people who commute from the Central Coast to Berowra station are being disadvantaged, as are local residents who wish to park near the transport hub and travel to the city or to other destinations along the North Shore line. Additional parking is needed desperately. All the Minister for Transport had to say about this oversight is that the issue is not about parking but about getting people from the Central Coast into the central business district—which was a real slap in the face for local people. The Government should address this problem urgently. [ Extension of time agreed to.]

In relation to policing, the local shopfront police station has an allocation of one police officer. That is totally inadequate for the population. I have drawn attention to a lack of police numbers in the Hornsby electorate. Police in the Ku-ring-gai Local Area Command do a fantastic job, but the system is letting them down. They try very hard to meet the needs of the local people, but there are just not enough of them. I have a letter dated 5 June 2007 from David Cain, a Berowra resident, regarding police staffing. I will read part of it onto the record:

As my local member, I would appreciate your representation of this issue in NSW Parliament on my family's behalf.

Specifically, please ask the NSW Police Minister to provide figures detailing the percentage of time, on a "24x7x365" basis, that Berowra Police Station is:

(a) open "in any capacity whatsoever"; and

(b) open in a capacity, with sufficient officers, that permit the immediate response to incidents of crimes (as they arise) in a patrol car. That is, NOT simply a "lone officer manning the front desk", who's not permitted to leave the station, and therefore is unable to respond to incidents of crime.

The letter continues:

My concerns are as follows:

Crime in Berowra – attributable to PART TIME POLICE STATION

The SMH has been running a number of articles about youth crime on the Central Coast.

I would like to highlight that Berowra, while generally a nice and peaceful suburb, is also seeing a rise in crime.

This is mostly attributable to the BEROWRA POLICE STATION operating on a PART TIME basis. The station's CLOSED more often than it's open.

Crime – Example 1

The Clayton's nature of this police station was demonstrated on 22^nd February this year, when a robbery occurred at Berowra Petroleum Service Station. Three men stole a sum of cash.

This service station is DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ROAD from Berowra Police Station:

Berowra Petroleum Service Station: 111 Berowra Waters Rd

Berowra Police Station: 106 Berowra Waters Rd

Further details of this crime are reported …

He gives information about where more information can be obtained. If the Minister is interested, he could go to that source for more details. Mr Cain continued:

Crime – Example 2

The Hornsby Advocate reported LAST WEEK that two shops (Absolute Thai and Michel's Patisserie) in the recently opened Berowra Heights shopping centre, were victims of break and enter theft.

This shopping centre is only 300 metres from Berowra Police Station.

That letter gives a first-hand indication that the people of Berowra are none too impressed that they have a police station that really is now a white elephant; there is very little activity from it. This large population needs more police presence. In regard to Mount Colah, again I stress the need for traffic lights at an intersection either at a reopened Beryl Avenue, Foxglove Road or Excelsior Road. I cannot overemphasise the seriousness of this issue; people on the western side of Mount Colah have great difficulty getting onto the Pacific Highway to travel south. I have been asking for these traffic lights since I was elected, and prior to that Steven O'Doherty was asking for them. We had some black spot funding. However, the Roads and Traffic Authority, due to its failure to consult adequately with the community, caused us to lose that funding.

The audit done by the Roads and Traffic Authority a couple of years ago did not take into account traffic movements in peak hours and other busy times, like Wednesday evening and Saturday morning. This was therefore a flawed audit. Last year a Roads and Traffic Authority representative promised a public meeting of 100 people that the authority would review the audit and go back and revisit those times. However, I recently received a letter from the Roads and Traffic Authority to say that no such promise was made. Obviously, people in the Mount Colah area are very disappointed. Quite frankly, it seems it will take a death before the Government, in a knee-jerk reaction, puts lights there, where they should be. We will keep pressing for traffic lights at this intersection, we are not giving up, so the Government should expect many more representations about that.

The Asquith Boys High School has a basketball court that has been cracking. These problems have been attributed to many other events. Laughably, the most recent reason given is that the drought has caused the cracking. That is a total joke. The basketball court consists of cement blocks coated with tar, so it does not take long for the tar to sink into the cracks in the blocks and cause occupational health and safety issues for those entering the school or walking across it to get to the administration block. I have raised that issue in this House many times.

The electorate has a number of problems with intersections. One in particular is the intersection immediately in front of the strip shops that cars use to cross the railway bridge to turn right to travel north on the Pacific Highway. That is a very dangerous intersection, and I have raised this matter also many times. I have mentioned the need for increased parking at the Hornsby railway station. If the Government wants people to use its trains—if they possibly can, given the low number of rolling-stock and inadequate timetables—we must have more parking at a major hub. Existing parking facilities are just unbelievable.

Hornsby hospital needs child and adult mental health facilities. I have mentioned that we have a psychiatric emergency care unit, and the mental health intensive care unit is about to open, but, regarding child and adult mental health facilities, concerned parents are calling me to say that their child, teenager or young person had been admitted to the adult ward at the hospital. That is not adequate or appropriate for children by any stretch of the imagination. Children and young people have special needs, and they should be in an area of their own. The Government cannot be sincere about spending a lot of money to improve availability of mental health facilities there when a child and adolescent unit is a glaring omission.
In relation to the old maternity unit, the lower floor is still vacated. I call on the Government to make a decision as soon as possible to place the diabetes centre in that unit. We need a diabetes educator there, along with the endocrinologists, podiatrists, dieticians and others who can assist in the treatment and care of patients with diabetes. This morning I attended a Diabetes Australia briefing, which gave us a lot of information about projected number