Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 18 October 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.

Debate resumed from 27 September 2007.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.00 a.m.]: On the last occasion I spoke about constituents who had written in response to submissions called for by the Department of Planning about the proposed Channel 7 redevelopment in Mobbs Lane and I said that a massive number of home units and other dwellings were going to be erected on what is largely open space at the present time. I emphasised the traffic problems this development would cause in the very narrow laneway with one lane each way for traffic in an area where considerable flooding had occurred when open space was likely to be aggravated by the erection of lots of buildings. These constituents were not criticising the council; they wanted the power to decide questions on development applications to be returned to Parramatta City Council, which would have approved the erection of a much smaller number of dwellings on this site.

One particular letter requested that Mr Tink introduce a private member's bill, which he did, and I now have reintroduced such a bill. Mr Tink received other letters from constituents reflecting the types of comments of a large number of individual representations, which numbered about 100. Most of the letters were original, not photocopies. In a letter dated 8 August 2006 addressed to the Minister but sent care of Mr Tink, who passed it to me, N. and A. Cartwright said:

I feel quite strongly that the approval power has been taken away from our local Parramatta City Council into your department's hands.

Our local council knows our area and because the Councillors live locally they voice the residents' opinions. They have our interests and what is best for our area at heart. Do you?

That question was directed at the Minister. The letter continued:

How long have you lived in the area, Mr Sartor? I do not believe that you ever have! You cannot be an expert on everything—leave local Councils to deal with proposed developments in the area. They know the local area best.

The Minister visited the Epping electorate a week or so ago, but not to look at the Channel 7 site or the problems being caused by the development—I do not believe he has ever been there—nor to look at the Office Works site on Pennant Hills Road, which is a planning fiasco because a private certifier has gone berserk and that development project is gravely encroaching on residential land. The Minister did not visit Epping to look at the site about which we have raised problems, but to steal the thunder from me, the member for Epping, after I had persuaded the Chamber of Commerce and others at a meeting several months ago about the way to achieve a unified town centre in Epping.

Epping is under the control of two councils, Parramatta and Hornsby, both of which have different planning attitudes to the town. I had persuaded the Chamber of Commerce that it would be best to have a united body, perhaps even along the lines of a county council, for the betterment of development and planning in Epping. What happened? At Maxine McKew's behest the Minister was invited to address the Chamber of Commerce. Of course, I was not invited, which appears to be the customary practice. The Minister proposed all sorts of suggestions and reckoned that he was going to fix everything for the Epping town centre. No doubt that is likely to mean there will be high-rise development on both sides of the railway line casting great shadows over the beautiful parks and gardens where people like to walk—but the developers will be happy. Unfortunately, that is the image of this Government in my area, where it takes over by plonking down some development that it wants and ignoring the comfort of residents.
Mr Jonathan O'Dea: In my area too.

Mr GREG SMITH: It is widespread in this State. That is one of the reasons we need the Coalition to stay in power at least in Canberra. In a letter dated 7 August, again addressed to the Minister but sent care of Mr Tink, Mr Eric Bentley said:

Our Council, consisting of local representatives, is in the best position to judge the appropriate level of development on the site and will involve the local community in its deliberations.

It is my view that the current development proposal before you for this site is a gross overdevelopment for the following reasons:

1. Density of units too many and far in excess of Council's planning controls.

2. Height too high and out of character with the surrounding area.

The surrounding areas comprise mainly single-storey dwellings and some of the proposed unit complexes will be four storeys. Mr Bentley continued:

3. Traffic chaos in neighbouring streets never designed to take the levels of traffic predicted to be generated by the development.

Shortly before Mr Tink spoke in this House on 31 August last year, he received an email from Darryl Lance of the Loftus Square Park Committee in Epping, which stated:

We have heard from our Councillors that Mr Sartor has control over this development and that no consultation will be had. If that is the case it is a travesty. What right does Mr Sartor think he has to take control of something that should be under our Council's jurisdiction?

We elected our very capable councillors—

Many of them are Labor members—

and demand that they are allowed to do what they were elected for, look after our interests.

Mr Tink received a large number of high-quality representations from constituents who have considered this matter carefully and are disturbed about it. He sent those representations to the Minister as he received them. He was more than a little irritated that after receiving the letter from the Parliamentary Secretary on 6 January 2006 he did not officially hear anything further, except a repeat of the contents of that letter. Indeed, rather than being given the courtesy of advice from the Minister, he had to read in the local paper that apparently the Minister for Planning had made a decision to declare this land of State significance under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The article appeared to suggest that the Minister's decision had been gazetted on or about 16 August 2006.

Not only were constituents, Parramatta City Council and Mr Tink ignored, but also they were not even paid the elementary courtesy of being told the Minister had made a decision. They had to read about it in the local paper. That is typical of the arrogance of the Iemma Government and the Minister for Planning. The Premier needs to look out for the Minister for Planning: Across the State people have had just about enough of not being given the courtesy of being told when a decision was made affecting their areas. Parramatta City Council reflects the views of the major political parties to varying degrees. For many years the council has returned a Labor administration. I do not always see eye to eye with councils of that persuasion and others—neither did Mr Tink—but as far as Mr Tink and I could tell, Parramatta council appears to always try to do the right thing in exercising its powers to assess development applications. Some councils struggle to do that; some councils simply struggle to exist.

Parramatta City Council still has under its control one of the largest central business districts in Australia. It assesses some of the most complex development applications to come before any council anywhere in Australia. As far as I can tell, the council has always conducted itself in a reasonable and professional manner. It is eminently capable of carrying out all the assessments required for the Channel 7 Epping site. There was no reason whatsoever to take away the council's powers over this site. The Minister could have said he had identified certain problems with the council and he could have attempted to make a case that he did not believe the council was capable of determining this development application.

The Minister has not made out such a case, nor has he claimed to do so. I do not believe there is any evidence that would justify the Minister making out such a case. There is no basis for the department taking over planning in this area. I invite the Minister or his department to itemise and particularise where Parramatta City Council has fallen short to justify the Minister taking this step. What elements, allegations or issues go to Parramatta City Council being considered incompetent, apparently in the Minister's eyes, or unable to properly consider this development application? The council may have approved a far smaller number of dwellings, which would have meant far less return from the development. Channel 7 may have stayed at its former site or may have moved to a location other than the Eveleigh centre, giving the Government, of course, great benefit from the 11-storey office block development.

The Government, in its contribution to debate on this bill, will have to give a pretty good answer to my question. I suspect it will oppose and reject the bill. If it does, the least the Government can do is identify where Parramatta City Council has fallen short in this matter. I do not believe the Government can demonstrate that. If it cannot, why is the Minister taking the power away from the council? On what basis can the Minister justify stripping a council of its power to consider a development application, in the absence of any evidence that the council is incapable of properly undertaking this task?

Parramatta City Council has considered the most extraordinarily complex applications, particularly relating to the Parramatta central business district, which is one of the major growth central business districts in Australia. Like Mr Tink, I have never heard it said that there has been a problem with the council considering such applications. I ask the Minister to provide evidence to warrant his intervention. If a Minister of the Crown in this State were trying to settle upon an outcome that was acceptable to the public, balancing local public interests with developer interests, Parramatta City Council would be the way to go. The Minister cannot possibly assess local concerns from an office in the Sydney central business district, or wherever he is located. That task is, and always has been, best done through local councils and local councillors who are in a unique position to do so. Councillors are both elected representatives and people who exercise considerable executive authority when ultimately voting on these sorts of issues. One of the councillors and former lord mayor of Parramatta is a member of Parliament on the Government side. Why is he not capable of acting in a proper way on Parramatta council to decide on this issue? I ask the Minister for the third and final time to justify his refusal to allow Parramatta City Council to determine this matter. If he cannot, he should withdraw the part 3 order.

As we have seen in recent times in the case of Gray v The Minister for Planning, the Minister and his department make mistakes. In that case the Land and Environment Court granted a declaration to the applicant, an environmental group, "that the Director General's view that an environmental assessment prepared by a particular company in respect to the Anvil Hill project adequately addressed the Director General's environmental assessment requirements was void and without effect." The department makes mistakes. The trouble is that apart from environmental groups and developers affected by a decision, people do not have the money to go to court and take on the Minister. He is likely to try to bankrupt them and take them to the High Court.

[Business interrupted.]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): I would like to welcome to the Parliament His Eminence Cardinal George Pell, His Excellency Archbishop Stanislaw Rylko, His Excellency Bishop Josef Clemens, Dr Marcello Bedeschi, Monsignor Francis Kohn, Ms Elizabeth Hawkins, His Grace Bishop Anthony Fisher, Danny Casey, Kathy Campbell, Gerry Brus and Chris Bastic.

[Business resumed.]

Mr GREG SMITH: It is a great honour to be giving a homily in their presence.

Mr Gerard Martin: You had better raise your standard.

Mr GREG SMITH: Despite the chirping from the other side, there is no doubt on the merits of this issue, and on the basis of equity and justice the Epping electorate deserves a break from the Minister, and Parliament should pass this legislation.

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

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [10.15 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

Abraham Lincoln said:

I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.

I follow that quotation by Abraham Lincoln with the following facts. Australia has the highest rate of pet ownership in the world. Yet the most recent statistics of the Department of Local Government show that more than 60,000 dogs and cats are killed each year in New South Wales alone. Those numbers do not include animals dumped in national parks where domestic animals die of starvation, are killed by other animals or harm the natural ecosystem. If we want to consider ourselves as a humane society we must take action to prevent the cruel dumping and killing of so many companion animals. That is the basis of the bill I introduce to the House today. I repeat: Australia has the highest rate of pet ownership in the world. Four out of five Australians have owned a pet and almost two-thirds of Australian households currently own pets.

In New South Wales there are about two million companion animals. Pets play an incredibly important role in our society. They give pleasure and teach responsibility. For many people who live on their own pets provide love and security. A recent RSPCA survey demonstrated the degree of emotional attachment to pets by a high percentage of pet owners saying they would choose their pets' company over that of friends or flatmates. Yet there is a disturbing aspect to pet ownership.

In 2005-06 the New South Wales RSPCA received more than 38,000 dogs and cats at its shelters, 18,000 of which had to be killed. As I said, the most recent statistics of the Department of Local Government show that 60,000 dogs and cats are killed each year in New South Wales—a number that equates with the population of a medium-size town. This number does not include other animals such as rabbits, mice and guinea pigs that are put down, nor does it include animals that are dumped in national parks where domestic animals die of starvation or cause harm to our natural ecosystem. If we want to be considered as a humane society we must take action.

A campaign to prevent the sale of animals in pet shops has been initiated by the Say No to Animals in Pet Shops organisation. This body claims there is a link between pet shops and the enormous number of animals killed every year at pounds and shelters. Its claim is supported by other animal welfare and advocate groups and has wide community support. That is because pet shops promote impulse buying and irresponsible breeding for profit. Pet shops create a demand for animals that can only be met by unscrupulous breeders and puppy farms that continue to produce more animals, despite the already oversupply. The Say No to Animals in Pet Shops organisation has collected 5,000 signatures on petitions and my office has received a great deal of phone calls and correspondence on this issue.

The Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill will protect the lives and wellbeing of dogs, cats and other mammals by prohibiting their sale in pet shops, fairs and markets. It will prevent the impulse purchasing of mammals by restricting sales to registered breeders, pounds, animal shelters and veterinarians where animals will be appropriately matched with buyers, who will be informed about special needs and requirements. Mammals will only be able to be kept at shops or markets and offered for sale if they are kept on behalf of animal shelters and returned to the shelter at night. Mammals cannot be sold at shops or markets. Instead, prospective buyers will be required to attend an animal shelter to make a purchase. This will allow the RSPCA to participate in the Road to Home Program, which increased the recovery and re-homing of abandoned pets in Queensland by 40 per cent.

The bill will make it difficult for the industry to shift to other outlets by preventing the advertising of sale of mammals through printed and electronic material. It will ensure that the pet shop cannot advertise to act as an intermediary for the sale of the mammal unless the animal is at an animal shelter or council pound. The bill does not restrict shops from selling other animals, such as birds or fish, or from selling pet foods and accessories. There are approximately 300 pet shops in New South Wales. Only recently in Australia have pet shops become major suppliers of companion animals to the public. Previously animals were generally acquired either from breeders or, more commonly, from surplus litters in informal networks.

Pet shops are now part of a large commercial industry that supplies a range of animals. Pet shops can sell a puppy for $550 or $600 and make 100 per cent profit, according to industry representatives. Designer puppies or hybrid breeds can sell for as much as $1,000. Like any commercial enterprise, pet shops exist to make profits. Site location and shrewd marketing are as essential to a pet shop as they are to any other retail business. I cite a pet shop guide produced by the Entrepreneur Business Centre:

The scenario is simple: Someone will walk by, fall in love with an animal and buy it. These sorts of impulse sales can add dramatically to your profits.

First-time browsers in a pet shop will not necessarily jump at the thought of spending $450 to $500 to bring a dog home … However, if your shop is accessible and your sales and service ability is convincing, it will not be long before you convert walk-in traffic into buying customers.

In other words, to maximise their profits, pet shops must encourage potential purchasers through clever marketing of their most appealing products. Puppies and kittens in prominent window displays are especially conducive to impulse buying.

Impulse buying is acceptable for handbags or shoes, but pet shops sell live sentient beings, such as puppies and kittens, which need ongoing care and attention. Unlike most animal shelters, pet shops do not ensure there is a suitable match between animal and purchaser. An inappropriate choice of an animal can result in neglect of the animal. A small cute puppy in a pet shop may develop unanticipated and undesirable behavioural problems as an adult and that can lead to its being dumped. A person who buys a puppy or a kitten on impulse may not be aware of the considerable responsibilities of owning an adult dog or cat. The cost of desexing, annual immunisation, veterinary checks and food can be considerable unanticipated financial burdens for the purchaser, who may also be unaware of the time and effort involved in walking and grooming a dog.

The bill bans the sale of mammals to persons under the age of 16 in line with the recent changes to the United Kingdom Animal Welfare Act. Persons under the age of 16 are unable to understand the responsibilities of owning a pet and purchases could lead to parents abandoning the animal if they are not in a position to take on the new responsibilities. The Pet Industry Association of Australia has a national code of practice based on the Department of Agriculture's code of practice for animals in pet shops. However, it is voluntary. It covers animal housing, care and management, including written information for the purchaser. The seven-day health warranty is encouraged, but there is no provision for returning the animal because of behavioural problems. Even this inadequate warranty is ignored by at least one major chain of pet shops.

Animal behaviourists claim that a pet shop is an inherently stressful environment for an animal. This is because the animal is often too young to be taken away from its mother and is subject to constant handling and lack of quiet times. Animal behaviourists say that this can lead to depressed immune systems and illness. The RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League of New South Wales and the police all have power under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to oversee the health and welfare of animals in pet shops, yet the basic standards set by the code of practice are not adhered to by many pet shops. My office receives countless phone calls, letters and emails from people who are distressed about the treatment of animals in pet shops.

The pet industry's national code of practice sets a minimum age of puppies and kittens for sale at eight weeks with some exceptions. It recommends that pet shops advise the purchaser about the advisability of desexing both male and female dogs and cats. Advice from veterinarians is that both dogs and cats can be desexed at eight weeks, although it is not always desirable. Prepaid vouchers to be used when the animal is more mature are used by some animal rescue groups, but rarely by pet shops. The onus is on the purchaser and the community to bear either the financial cost of desexing or the implication of litters. I point out to the House that an un-desexed female cat and her offspring can produce 420,000 cats in seven years.

The sale of mice in pet shops is also a serious problem when some pet shops do not separate male and female mice, and some mice may be pregnant when they are purchased. The quick succession of multiple litters can be dealt with by the purchaser either by killing them or dumping them in the bush or at an animal welfare organisation, or by taking them to animal advocacy groups that either kill them or, very rarely, re-home them. Litters of mice are detrimental to the environment when dumped in either urban or bush environments, and killing them is inherently cruel and unnecessary.

One of the most disturbing issues in relation to pet shops is the lack of regulation with regard to the source of the animals for sale. Animals may come from unregistered backyard breeders, puppy farms or other pet owners. Purchasers have no guarantee of the pet's genetic history, past treatment or possible behaviour problems. Unregistered backyard breeders and puppy farms breed dogs and cats in large numbers to be delivered to the lucrative pet shop market. They sell animals without identification or microchip and without screening the new owner. Animal advocates allege there are numerous puppy farms in New South Wales where animals are kept in shocking conditions, bred continuously and housed in inhumane conditions, and when they are no longer able to breed, they are killed. Their offspring have little or no contact with either humans or other animals of the same breed.

Say No to Animals in Pet Shops has provided evidence of these puppy farms on its website. As well as the cruelty involved in this form of breeding, animal behaviourists maintain that it can lead to future health and behavioural problems for the animal: it may be unable to socialise properly with a family or it may have problems with other dogs. The result is that the animal may be dumped or surrendered to a pound or shelter where it will be killed. Only a very small percentage of these animals will be re-homed. The Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals published information in one of its magazines and ran a television commercial about puppy farms. They received approximately 1,200 phone calls from people who suspected that there might be a puppy farm in their neighbourhood. Following up every call found that 70 per cent were puppy farms and 18 per cent were unregistered backyard breeders.

The situation in New South Wales is probably similar. There is no reason to suggest otherwise. Animal advocates claim that the organisations given power under the New South Wales Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act do not have the resources to monitor such an extensive underground industry. Even if the numbers were small, a civil society would act to prevent this cruelty and reduce the number of unwanted animals that are killed or die of starvation or disease. It is a sobering fact that the average lifespan of a dog in Australia is two years. Pet shops create a demand for animals. The more companion animals sold through pet shops, the greater is the demand from puppy farms and backyard breeders. Animals must not be bred solely for profit. The tragic implication of the oversupply of dogs and cats in New South Wales must be stopped.

This bill will reduce the oversupply of mammals. It will immediately remove the lucrative market. It will ensure that a person wishing to acquire a cat, a dog or a mammal will have to go to a registered breeder, and/or a pound or a shelter. Debate last year in the United Kingdom Parliament's House of Commons on the Animal Welfare Bill involved an amendment to ban the sale of dogs in pet shops. The Government in reply acknowledged the problems associated with pet shops selling pets and said that the Parliament would consider a ban on the sale of all animals in pet shops when developing regulations. Regulations could also introduce mandatory codes of practice for pet shops and other practices to discourage impulse buying.

Austria has introduced legislation. Belgium and Croatia recently introduced legislation and many pet shops in America re-home animals only from shelters. It can be done here. Many pet shops run profitable businesses selling pet food and accessories. I do not claim that this bill will stop backyard breeders or completely transform the ways that society treats companion animals. However, if people have to consider the real consequences of owning and caring for a pet, the shocking oversupply of dogs and cats may be reduced. As a civil, just and humane society, we must take action to stop the cruel dumping and killing of companion animals.

I note that the following organisations support this bill: the RSPCA, Animal Liberation, Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee, Saying No to Animals in Pet Shops, World League for the Protection of Animals, Dogs New South Wales, the American Staffordshire Club of New South Wales, Doggie Rescue, the Cat Protection Society and the Humane Society International. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Anthony Roberts.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [10.28 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

It is with great deal of pride that I introduce this bill on behalf of my community. The bill is long overdue. The object of the bill is to require pollution filtration equipment to be installed and maintained that will remove particulate matter and toxic gases from the air in the Lane Cove Tunnel and from the air exiting the tunnel. Clause 1 sets out the amendment. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on the date of assent to the proposed Act. Clause 3 is a formal provision that gives effect to the amendment to the Roads Act 1993 set out in schedule 1. Clause 4 provides for the repeal of the proposed Act after the amendment made by the proposed Act has commenced. Once the amendment has commenced the proposed Act will be spent and section 30 of the Interpretation Act 1987 provides that the repeal of an amending Act does not affect the amendments made by that Act. Schedule 1 inserts proposed section 161A into the Roads Act 1993 to give effect to the object of the bill. The schedule states:

Insert after section 161:

161A RTA to reduce road tunnel air pollution

(1) Immediately after the commencement of this section, the RTA must install filtration equipment that removes particulate matter and toxic gases from air in the Lane Cove Tunnel and air exiting the tunnel.
(2) The RTA must maintain the filtration equipment after its installation.
(3) without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the RTA must, in complying with those subsections, ensure that the concentration of particulate matter leaving the Lane Cove Tunnel (through the stacks or portals) does not exceed the average daily ambient background concentration of particulate matter for that area (as determined by the relevant air quality standards), except where air quality in the area is affected by a bush fire.
(4) Any money needed to allow the RTA to exercise its functions under this section is to be provided out of money to be appropriated by Parliament or that is otherwise legally available.

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

Debate resumed from 27 September 2007.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.30 a.m.]: I support the Rural Communities Impacts Bill 2007. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of The Nationals on bringing the plight of country people again before the Parliament and on behalf of rural communities I thank him for introducing this bill. The object of the bill is to require Ministers to consider the likely impact of certain legislation and other Government proposals on rural communities. That is very, very important to people. Clause 3 of part 1 of the preliminary section of the bill sets out the scope of the proposed Act by defining "rural community" as being part of the State that is outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. I have never seen that put in writing but there it is. I do not know what part of the State the rest of us are in.

Mr Gerard Martin: You're about 20 years behind, Thomas.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: Yes, I know that. But it is good to see that finally we are trying to do something for country people. Over the past three or four sessions of this Parliament much has been said to highlight the concerns country and regional people face following everyday decisions made by this Government. Unfortunately, I do not have 24 hours to speak on these issues, although I could go on forever. The Government closed the Casino to Murwillumbah rail link, which took away the independence of many people who needed transport along that rail link. Buses have replaced the train services, but the change has had an impact on older people. They have to climb aboard a bus, unload their own luggage when they get to Casino and put it on the train. It is obvious what people think of that service now: patronage has dropped right off because the changes have created problems for many people, who now make alternative travel arrangements.

Also, the North Coast Area Health Service decided to close the rehabilitation unit at Lismore. A few beds were left in Lismore but the unit was shifted to Ballina. The rehabilitation unit at Lismore was servicing about 67 per cent of people, who were closer to the unit at Lismore than Ballina. It does not sound like such a big move to go from Lismore to Ballina—20 minutes away—but there are many people who depend on the rehabilitation unit who live west of Lismore. It is not just about the 20 or 30 minutes it takes people to get from Lismore to Ballina; it is also about the hour or hour and a half that people have to travel from Woodenbong, Urbenville, Bonalbo, Drake, Tabulam—and two and a half hours from Tenterfield—to get to Lismore, and then another half an hour to get to Ballina. That is the sort of inconvenience caused to the community at large by shifting the rehabilitation unit from Lismore to Ballina.
I know that a number of people do not have access to public transport to get to Ballina and they cannot get to the unit to see their loved ones, their family or their friends. Visits from family and friends are a very important part of rehabilitation. This issue is very close to my heart because I have had family members go through the rehabilitation unit. I commend the people who work at those rehabilitation units for doing such a fantastic job. To create extra anxiety for families in this situation is a disgrace. The impact the change has had on rural communities leaves much to be desired.

Back in 2005 this Government asked a former member of this House, the Hon Garry West, to head up an inquiry into tick fever in the cattle industry. Here we are at the end of 2007 and we still have not had an inquiry. Yes, the Government has started to act—it has disbanded the board—but what has it replaced it with? The cattle industry is suffering as a result of the inaction of this Government in relation to tick fever outbreaks. Also, communities have been hamstrung: people cannot take their horses from one paddock to another because of equine influenza. It is a very important time of the year in the cattle industry because the cows are calving, yet some producers cannot take their horse up the road to another paddock. We have a problem at this time of the year with dog tick and we are losing calves. As well, heifers are calving but they have no-one checking them.

Someone suggested that farmers should use motorbikes to check the cattle. Anyone who has been involved with the cattle industry knows that if someone takes a motorbike into a paddock of cattle that have never been mustered by motorbike and that are only used to seeing horses and dogs it certainly creates chaos. Again, the Government is not rushing to solve these problems, and the impact on our rural communities just goes on and on.

Coming back to health, country towns such as Bonalbo, Urbenville, Kyogle and Nimbin, have had hospital services transferred to Lismore. At Tweed there is the threat of services being transferred to Murwillumbah. Services are being transferred to major hospitals that cannot meet current needs. To top it off the Government is attacking older drivers and seeking to restrict them to driving a distance of only 10 kilometres. A 10-kilometre trip would not get some of my constituents out of their front gate! It is assumed that all my constituents live in the city of Lismore, but some of them must drive for 2½ hours to visit their doctor or three hours to see a specialist—and the Lismore electorate is perceived to be coastal. If older people cannot drive more than 10 kilometres they will be unable to visit their friends in hospital or see their doctor, let alone do their shopping. The Government continues to make decisions on the run without considering their impact on rural communities. I congratulate the Leader of The Nationals on introducing this important bill, which I support fully.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [10.41 a.m.]: I also support the Rural Communities Impacts Bill. I supported the very same legislation in the previous Parliament and was disappointed when it was voted down. I represent a rural constituency and I know only too well that decisions made in Parliament based in Macquarie Street can often overlook the needs of residents in regional and rural areas. Such decisions often have perhaps unintended adverse effects and must be reversed. This could be avoided if the Government took more care when drafting legislation by identifying the needs of rural residents and considering the likely impact of its decisions upon them.

The object of the bill is to require Ministers to consider the likely impact of certain legislation and other government proposals on rural communities. It is interesting to note that the bill clearly defines the rural community as being that part of the State outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong metropolitan areas. That is significant because for too long country residents have always considered the abbreviation "NSW" as standing for those major cities and the conurbation that extends north and south from Sydney. The population of the State is 6.5 million and 4.1 million people reside in the greater Sydney area. However, when making decisions in this place the Government must consider the needs of the remainder, who live in areas that are the breadbasket and the powerhouse of New South Wales. The bill provides:

… that a Minister or Government Member who intends to introduce a Bill into Parliament must ensure, before that Bill is considered by the Cabinet, that a rural communities impact statement has been prepared which provides information about the likely impact of the proposed Act on the rural community and that the Minister or Member has given consideration to that likely impact.

In my brief contribution today I will highlight some recent examples that prove that the Government has yet to appreciate why this bill should be passed. The Premier referred recently to introducing family-friendly sitting hours in this place and made the point that it would allow members to return more easily to their families and constituents in the evenings. I have news for the Premier. It is a six-hour drive to the city of Albury, which is located on the Murray River, and it would take my colleague the member for Lismore even longer to return to his electorate. There are of course no flights late at night. That statement indicates clearly that the Premier has no idea about the importance of this bill.

Parliament recently passed legislation extending the period of daylight saving. Was there any consultation about that change? There was certainly none in my electorate of Albury. During the Henty Machinery Field Days—which are an institution in our part of the world—people described to me how the extension of daylight saving would impact adversely on their lives. They explained how they would have to rise in the dark every morning—it is darker later as Albury is west of the Great Divide—and children spend an hour on buses in the early morning darkness and then endure the heat late into the afternoon and evening. I appreciate that we require uniformity in legislation but this Government does not consult with, or consider the needs of, all New South Wales residents. That is why this bill is so necessary.

I will give another example. In the past the water tank rebate was available only to those in the cities that I mentioned earlier—Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong—because of the drought affecting Sydney, the Hunter and the Illawarra. The Government took no account of the desperate need to retain water in rural areas. By introducing that rebate for city areas—where, incidentally, rainfall is higher than in inland New South Wales—the Government failed to recognise the needs of country residents. Of course all residents of New South Wales should benefit from that rebate.

Other strange anomalies could be avoided if this bill were passed. The Government made much of its introduction of the salt interception scheme in my region. The scheme worked and the money was spent wisely. But the Government then discovered that the funding had run out so the scheme ended. That decision impacted on farmers downstream who had come to rely on clean, desalinated water. The Government's failure to prepare rural communities impact statements is impacting adversely on people in rural areas. I ask the House to support the Rural Communities Impacts Bill for the benefit of the more than two million people in rural and regional New South Wales.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.47 a.m.], in reply: I reinforce the need to pass the Rural Communities Impacts Bill. In 1996 the then Premier Bob Carr promised the people of New South Wales, particularly country New South Wales, that rural communities impact statements would be prepared before the Cabinet and Government took important decisions that had consequences for country communities. Since then the Carr and Iemma Labor governments have taken numerous decisions that have had a devastating impact on country New South Wales. I will mention just a few of them. The first is the conversion of productive forestry land into national parks. I instance the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion, the purchase of Yanga Station and the conversion of many State forest areas on the north and south coasts—the hardwood forests—and red gum forests in the State's south into national parks. These were sustainable forestry areas, where environmental and economic considerations coexisted. However, the Government, in pursuit of Green preferences, closed virtually entire timber communities across the State.

The Government has closed 4 of the 15 grain rail lines in country New South Wales. This decision has had major consequences. The price of grain freight has increased, the volume of traffic on roads has increased and the cost for local councils has increased also. The Government's closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah passenger line, which the member for Lismore mentioned, has had massive consequences for a community that already has too few public transport options. The Department of Agriculture has been attacked: it will be rolled into the Department of Primary Industries. The closure of agriculture research stations and the cuts to the department's budget have had a massive impact on support for farming in this State and therefore on local economies. The Productivity Commission has demonstrated that the Native Vegetation Act has had a massive impact on farmers' incomes and the value of their properties.

The Threatened Species Conservation Act has had a similar impact. In addition, this Government has closed 32 of the State's 67 small maternity wards in rural areas. Expectant mothers are forced to travel long distances—for up to three hours in some instances—to have their babies, and tragedies have occurred as a result. The Government has also dramatically cut the area health service regime. As a result, agencies such as the Greater Western Area Health Service now cater to areas larger than Germany, which, again, has a negative impact. People in the Hunter-New England area have been denied access to health service management because it is now located in Newcastle.

More recent decisions made by this Government demonstrate that rural communities impact statements have not been prepared. TAFE fees have increased by 9 per cent—which is 6.5 per cent greater than the CPI increase—which has had a massive impact on country communities. Many residents of country communities do not have access to universities or other forms of higher education, so TAFE is crucial to them. The member for Lismore mentioned older drivers and the nonsensical 10-kilometre driving limit. On many properties in the far west the front gate or the neighbour's property is much more than 10 kilometres away. That proposal is yet another demonstration that this Government is not considering rural communities.

The member for Albury mentioned the extension of daylight saving. There has been no consultation about that proposal, and the impact on western communities—the communities at the margin—would be considerable. The scandal being played out about public health in New South Wales has revealed that this Government has closed accommodation provided for patients and their families travelling from country areas to Royal North Shore Hospital or Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Those people must now jump on a bus and go down the road to a motel. When did this Government consider the impact on country people who are forced to travel away from home and family because of illness requiring attendance at a major Sydney hospital? Being virtually cast to the wind and having to make their own accommodation arrangements is causing more problems for these already stressed people. This Government's reputation as the most Sydney-centric government in the history of New South Wales is well deserved on the back of that raft of anti-country decisions.

A couple of weeks ago the Premier and the Minister for Roads announced that $7 billion would be spent on more road works in Sydney. That is in addition to the work on the Lane Cove Tunnel, the Cross City Tunnel, the M7, the western Sydney orbital and so on. There are plenty of road works in Sydney, but this Government is dragging the chain on the Pacific Highway and people are being killed. Banora Point and Sextons Hill—which are in the electorate of the member for Tweed—are the most dangerous spots on any road in New South Wales but this Government still has not repaired them. The Bells Line Expressway has been proposed to provide a decent, safe route to the food bowl of the Central West, but this Government refuses to fund it. Despite the fact that it is a State road, the Commonwealth Government has stepped in to fund the studies required for the project to be undertaken. The Princes Highway to the South Coast is another case in point.

This Government has only one Cabinet member who genuinely hails from outside its version of "NSW"—Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. I refer to the Hon. Tony Kelly, who is from Wellington. He is not a bad fellow, but his colleagues are going to bump him out of the Parliament next year and bring in the Premier's chief of staff, disgraced former Queensland member of Parliament Mike Kaiser. He will hardly go in to bat for country communities. This is a Sydney-centric Government and it needs help to consider the impact of its decisions on country New South Wales. Although "NSW" might stand for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong for the Labor Party; for The Nationals it stands for North Coast, South Coast and west of the Divide. That is what this bill is all about.

Most country-based members have made a contribution to this debate. I thank the members for Hawkesbury, Burrinjuck, Monaro, Bega, Port Stephens, Tamworth, Dubbo, Murray-Darling, Barwon, Bathurst, Ballina, Lismore and Albury. They offered almost unanimous support for the bill. I say "almost" because two of them have let the side down and effectively betrayed country people and the people they represent. I refer to the member for Bathurst and the member for Monaro.

Mr Thomas George: Country Labor!

Mr ANDREW STONER: They are the two so-called country members in this place. Two Country Labor members departed at the last election because this Government continues to ignore country people. The two remaining will soon be heading in the same direction if they do not support this bill. I know that they risk disendorsement if they cross the floor, but is it not more important to be able to look at themselves in the mirror or to sleep well at night? I suggest that the members for Bathurst and Monaro buck the system and the Labor Party and support their country brethren—the Independents, The Nationals and the Liberals. After all, this bill is simply a codification of Bob Carr's 1996 promise. It is necessary to force State governments of either persuasion to consider the interests of country New South Wales. The concept of the bill is simple: it will ensure that impact statements are prepared. It represents democracy in action and it will also ensure that State governments govern for the entire State. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill not agreed to in principle.

Debate resumed from 7 June 2007.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.07 a.m.]: If there were any need for this bill the Auditor-General would have recommended it in his recent report into government advertising. In contrast to the Federal Government's party-political use of taxpayer-funded advertising to promote WorkChoices, the Auditor-General recently found the New South Wales Government has introduced greater rigour into the process of approving government advertising. To quote the Auditor-General:

The Government has improved guidance for agencies and introduced a more robust framework for approving advertising campaigns.

Greater rigour has been introduced into the process by requiring campaigns to be peer reviewed and approved by Cabinet.

The Opposition has introduced a bill that is almost identical to one introduced into the Federal Parliament by the Democrats and opposed by John Howard. A number of bodies have discussed the subject of political advertisement at length over the years. The Howard Government's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters found the type of legislation proposed by the Opposition would be unwise and unworkable. If the Opposition had bothered to do any research on this issue, it would know that a large part of the advertising expenditure for 2006-07 was on important but routine government business. I am advised that $30 million was spent on such things as the recruitment of nurses, teachers and police, as well as tender advertisements and public notices.

On advertising campaigns, I am advised that the government agency with the largest expenditure was the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, which spent $13 million in 2006-07 on important campaigns such as breast cancer awareness and encouraging people to quit smoking. The breast cancer awareness campaign has contributed to a record 400,000 women in New South Wales having regular mammograms. The Auditor-General has specifically acknowledged the success of the Quitline program, which resulted in 48,000 calls last year—well over double the number of calls received in the previous year. I am advised that New South Wales now has one of the lowest rates of smoking in the developed world.

The second biggest spending government agency was the Roads and Traffic Authority, with its important road safety awareness campaigns, which have contributed to the lowest road toll in New South Wales since the Second World War. Another example is Sydney Water's water conservation campaigns, run in response to the drought. I am advised that these have contributed to Sydney homes using the same amount of water now as they did in 1974, despite an extra one million people living in the city. This is a remarkable achievement, of which the people of Sydney should be proud. Other advertisements saw public transport patronage increase and police recruit numbers surge. Which of these advertisements would the Opposition not have run?

These are legitimate public awareness campaigns with clear benefits for the people of New South Wales. The Auditor-General found that New South Wales spent $81.5 million on advertising campaigns in the past financial year. Various media reports have put the cost of the Federal Government's WorkChoices advertising and supporting campaigns alone at $100 million. That is more than the New South Wales Government spent on all advertising campaigns for the whole of the past financial year. If the Opposition is really concerned about the use of taxpayers' money, and if it is interested in anything more than cheap political point-scoring, it would attack the Federal Government's blatantly political promotion of WorkChoices. The Government opposes the bill.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.11 a.m.]: This bill strikes at the heart of integrity in this House. In my inaugural speech I spoke strongly about the way the community no longer trusts this institution and the people who constitute it. One key factor I spoke about was government advertising. Clearly, there is a trend of this Government using advertising purely and solely for the promotion of itself and its services. ACNielsen media research shows that last year the Premier and his merry men and women were the seventh largest advertisers in Australia—up from tenth in 2005. Indeed, it spent a lot more than companies such as Proctor and Gamble, which is one of the biggest spenders on advertising in the world, Coca-Cola even more so, McDonald's, the Commonwealth Bank, Toyota, Myer, Kellogg's, David Jones, Ford, Cadbury, Qantas and Westpac. We could be here for a long time debating how much this Government has spent.

The member for Wallsend provided a flimsy defence, referring to the Federal Government. Yes, the Federal Government has spent money on advertising, but it has spent less than $30 million on average across the States and Territories. The Premier and his merry men and women have spent more than $110 million in the past financial year. This is not just us saying that, and it is not the Leader of the Opposition simply calling for some integrity to be returned to the process. The bill has many supporters. Indeed, I refer back to the Auditor-General, who said that the existing process is fine. The process is not fine. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 August 2007 stated:

The NSW Auditor-General has criticised the State Government for having insufficient control over government advertising, saying some of it may have been party-political in nature.

…

The Auditor-General wants more rigorous guidelines than those put forward by the Department of Commerce for judging "whether material may inappropriately serve party-political interests".

…

Existing guidelines are still not sufficient to prevent the use of public funds for party-political purposes ...

The Auditor-General has called for reforms, and clearly this bill will give him what he wants. In addition, other people come to mind, and one of them is the leader of the Federal Labor Party. Time and time again members opposite talk about Kevin Rudd's credentials. On this particular point Kevin Rudd got it right. He said:

When it comes to a government using taxpayers' money to unfairly fund party political ads, I think that's a cancer in our democracy and that is the cancer which should be eliminated.

The Premier of New South Wales is the king of that cancer. Expenditure of $110 million is simply not acceptable. To take it further, time and time again we hear about the lack of resources, and members opposite point their fingers at the Federal Government. That $110 million could have been spent on fixing many problems the State now faces. The Auditor-General made some interesting comments. In his report he stated that the Director General of the Department of Commerce, Robyn Kruk, admitted that:

The Department of Commerce does not have details of actual costs for research, development and production costs, and nor does it have estimates for these costs for some advertising campaigns.

We should explore the financial implications in other debates. The reality is that the Government does not understand its own costs. Indeed, if the Government had not dabbled in the superannuation of its public servants, if it had not manipulated the discount rate, and if it had not made a spurious claim to the Federal Government for a tax on Sydney airport, the State budget would have a deficit of $1.5 billion. It is no wonder we have an underlying deficit. The Government and the Department of Commerce need a shake up. But it is not just the Department of Commerce; it is every department. The Department of Commerce does not have the details of the actual costs for research, development and production costs. How can a government run a budget if it does not know how much it is spending?

That $110 million only applies to the media space that has been booked. Production costs could take that figure to 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent higher. We could be talking about $150 million, $160 million or, indeed, almost the entire amount the Federal Government has spent over the past year. The costs must be clear, and we should put a framework in place. However, before we get to that we must return some integrity to the process. For those who can remember, Kevin Rudd made a big point about the need for reform. I refer to Bob Carr who, in 1995, sought to introduce a publicity control bill. On 18 February 1995 he told the Labor caucus that he would introduce a publicity control bill to regulate government advertising to prevent the use of taxpayers' money for party promotional purposes. What are we doing? Members opposite should come to the party and change.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: How can you say that, considering what the Federal Government is doing?

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Members opposite have nothing to be ashamed about. Clearly, they need to embrace their Labor Government heroes, including Bob Carr, who was one of the key architects. He wanted to introduce a publicity control bill, but over the past 12 years the Labor Government has not had the courage to bring it on. The Leader of the Opposition has integrity and is prepared to tackle the issue. He will reform the political process. I encourage members opposite to come forward. The Government has spent $110 million plus all the hidden costs, which cannot be identified by the Department of Commerce. What is $30 million or $40 million? It is just costs and other stuff. That $110 million spent on the media, plus costs which could increase that figure to $150 million or $160 million, should be spent on our schools and hospitals. Could the Royal North Shore Hospital use $110 million or $160 million at this time? Of course it could!

This Government has spent more than $1 billion for these purposes. It needs to admit that it has got it wrong and needs to reform, and it needs to support the Leader of the Opposition in his push to return some integrity to the governance of this State. It is time the Government came on board, endorsed the Leader of the Opposition and used the available funds not for promoting itself but for providing infrastructure and services to support the community it is supposed to serve.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [11.20 a.m.], in reply: I thank members who have participated in this debate, particularly the member for Manly, who clearly understands the importance of this issue. I regret the speech provided to the member for Wallsend. I ask my colleagues opposite what do they fear about a process that would simply enable the State's Auditor-General to require a public authority to submit a report detailing expenditure on government publicity? What do members opposite fear from a bill that will enable members of the public who have complaints about government publicity in advertising to lodge those complaints? What do they fear about a bill that would allow the Auditor-General to conduct an inquiry into those complaints? The bill requires the Auditor-General to report annually to Parliament on those matters. What is fearful about that? The bill sets guidelines for government publicity, and those guidelines are realistic and simple. The guidelines state:

1 Government publicity should be accurate, factual and truthful

Factual information should be outlined clearly and accurately. Comment on and the analysis of that information, to amplify its meaning, should be indicated as such.

2 Government publicity should be fair, honest and impartial

The material should be presented in unbiased and objective language, and in a manner free from partisan promotion of Government policy and political argument.

3 Government publicity should be lawful and proper

The material should comply with the law.

What is fearful about that? What is fearful for members opposite is that last year $112 million was spent on government publicity, up 21 per cent on the previous year. Why was there a 21 per cent jump last year? Clearly it was because of the State election campaign. What members opposite fear about this bill—which, as the member for Manly said, was the very bill promised prior to their election in 1995—is that they would not have access to the millions of dollars they spent in the lead-up to the March 2007 election in order to have themselves re-elected.

I will address issues that seem to restrain the member for Marrickville from supporting this sensible bill. I single out the member for Marrickville because I know that her Federal member of Parliament is a strong supporter of this type of legislation. The argument advanced by the member for Wallsend asked how this bill applied in relation to Federal matters. The House should know that the Federal Government's per capita expenditure on advertising in the past financial year was $8.35, that is for every man, woman and child across Australia. The member for Marrickville should understand that in New South Wales the per capita expenditure on advertising in the past financial year was $13.09. The level of expenditure of taxpayers' funds that goes unchecked to government publicity under this State Government is outrageous.

As the member for Manly said, and as I said in my introductory speech, this money could and should be used for other pressing needs across the community. Since this Labor Government was first elected it has spent $1,088 million on publicity: that is a scandal. As the member for Manly said, that expenditure has put the New South Wales Government in the top league of advertisers across the nation. Harvey Norman Holdings spends between $115 million and $120 million on advertising each year. The Government has put us in that league and above Woolworth's. I regret that the State Government will oppose the bill.

Mr Gerard Martin: We have a bigger turnover than Woolworth's.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Does the member for Bathurst have shares in Woolworth's as well as in Telstra? He should declare an interest; he is the Parliament's largest Telstra shareholder. My final point is that on 19 May the Federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, argued that the Federal Auditor-General should have these exact powers over expenditure on government publicity at a Federal level.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: Did you come out and support him? Did you back him up?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: They are matters that I supported at the time when I introduced the bill. They are matters that I am at one on with the Hon. Anthony Albanese. I would have thought that members opposite who may have closer relationships to the Labor Party generally, and the Hon. Anthony Albanese in particular, may come and join the Opposition in this debate. This will set the bar for Federal Labor candidates across the State. Labor says one thing and does another. The leader of the Federal party has argued for this legislation, he wants this legislation. Here is a chance for Labor members in this Chamber to support Kevin Rudd legislation to limit and provide the Auditor-General with powers over government publicity. I seek their support for the bill.

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

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill not agreed to in principle.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [11.33 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) welcomes the Federal Government's commitment of $10 million towards a planning and engineering study of the Bells Line Expressway; and

(2) calls on the State Government to contribute matching funding so this much-needed transport link to the Central West can progress.

The Nationals have long championed a new and safe expressway over the Blue Mountains. Over the years Ian Armstrong has continued as chair of the Bells Line Expressway Group. The member for Orange is strong in his support for this route, as are the member for Upper Hunter and former Leader of the Nationals, the Hon. George Souris, and John Cobb, the current member for Parkes, who is seeking election in the electorate of Calare. John Cobb has represented Dubbo for quite some time and is familiar with the stretch of road. Yesterday I was surprised when the Government agreed to this motion being given precedence.

Mr Gerard Martin: You are about to find out why.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The member for Bathurst should refrain from interjecting as there are schoolchildren in the gallery and he is setting a very bad example. He will have an opportunity later to contribute to debate on this motion. Yesterday I spoke about the many benefits of this proposal, not the least of which is road safety. The Great Western Highway and the current Bells Line of Road are amongst the most dangerous roads in this State per kilometre of highway. The Great Western Highway adversely affects the amenity of the villages it traverses in the Blue Mountains area and beyond. Clearly, the current road is simply not up to the task.

Economic issues also have to be addressed. Currently there is no B-double route for road freight to come from the Central West and the Western Plains to the container port in Sydney. Unlike the State's other highways, individual semitrailers are being forced to bring that freight into the city at a massive additional cost to producers. Fletchers International is just one of those producers. Manildra flour mill exports a lot of flour and flour products out of the Port of Sydney but many other businesses would benefit from having a safe and faster route for road freight. It is scandalous that in the twenty-first century there is no B-double route to the west of the State. In an economic sense it would bring other benefits, including tourism. Tourists would visit the Central West and other delightful parts of the State if they were made much more accessible, which they would be if there was an expressway instead of the long and tortuous route they currently have to traverse.

Decentralisation would occur. Over the decades we have witnessed the benefits of the F3 with the expansion and growth of the Central Coast and the Hunter, and businesses, industry and families taking advantage of this transport route. Those same benefits could be achieved with a new expressway to the Central West and the Western Plains. Land would become more available—currently we have a land shortage in Sydney—we would have more affordable housing and there would be an industrial expansion into the Blue Mountains and beyond. So there would be massive benefits for the State as a whole, benefits that are recognised by the councils affected by this proposal. They have all indicated their strong support for the proposal for a Bells Line Expressway put forward by the Bells Line Expressway Group. It is obvious that communities support the proposal. In a recent contribution even the member for Bathurst stated that 99 per cent of people in his electorate and in western New South Wales wanted this road.

Mr Gerard Martin: It is 99. 5 per cent.

Mr ANDREW STONER: It has gone up by half a percentage point. There is every good reason to support a proposal that is estimated to cost in the order of $2 billion. To put that into context, the Premier and the Minister for Roads recently announced that they want to spend $7 billion on more road works in Sydney, including on the M4 east, and that is on top of many other recent road projects—for example, the Lane Cove Tunnel, the Cross City Tunnel, the M7, et cetera. Country New South Wales is calling on the Government to heed a number one priority for infrastructure investment. This motion calls on the State Government to contribute matching funding of $10 million for an important planning and engineering study following the Prime Minister's announcement on 25 May of $10 million in funding. However, we have not heard a peep in response from the State Labor Government to match that funding, even though it has responsibility for this State highway. After some outcry from the community the Government's official position was disingenuous, to say the least. It said:

Not enough details have been provided from the Federal Government.

The truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, had written twice to Eric Roozendaal providing all the details. On 26 September Mark Vaile announced that the Federal Government will provide the other $10 million because the State Government will not. The State Government has been hiding, ducking and weaving, so it is up to the Federal Government to get this planning and engineering assessment underway. It is clear that The Nationals at Federal and State level are absolutely committed to this project, but Labor is not. The member for Bathurst, a member of the Bells Line Expressway Group, keeps pooh-poohing the project, saying that it cannot be funded, and he keeps trying to shift the entire responsibility to the Federal Government despite the project being a State responsibility.
The Labor candidate for Macquarie, Bob Debus, has offered only criticism of Kerry Bartlett, the current member for Macquarie, for seeking strong support from the communities in the redistributed electorate that he seeks to represent. Mr Bartlett is in a better position than Bob Debus, who will not even support the project. Neither Bob Debus nor Bundy Bear have taken the Minister for Roads to task for refusing to back an essential road project that even the member for Bathurst says 99 per cent of people want. I anticipate that the member for Bathurst will get back to his usual blame shifting: trying to shift responsibility for funding the project, saying that it cannot be funded, and using every reason not to fund it. But let us talk about cooperative federalism, that is, the State and Federal governments working together. The Federal Government has shown an interest in the project, but what level of interest has the State Government shown? Has the member for Bathurst knocked on the Minister's door and said, "Why don't you go and talk to Mark Vaile and Jim Lloyd? Let's work out a way to fund this project cooperatively—State and Federal government funding—and private sector funding."

Mr Gerard Martin: Jim Lloyd thinks its pie in the sky, but it's in here.

Mr ANDREW STONER: That is a very old document the member for Bathurst has in his possession; he should not be so disingenuous again. The Federal and State governments and the private sector have worked together to fund and construct major roads projects. For example, the Western Sydney orbital, the M7, which is a magnificent piece of road, was achieved as a result of cooperation between government levels and the private sector. That same approach can apply to the Bells Line Expressway proposal at considerably less cost than the M7. So why does the member for Bathurst not lobby his Minister to get behind this project instead of ducking, weaving and playing politics as he has? I know he is in a difficult position, but he needs to do more than play politics on this issue. The member for Bathurst should not start blame shifting and buck-passing again today. Instead, he should tell his community what he is doing to make this project happen. The Federal Government has $20 million for a State road project. What is the State Government doing? The engineering and planning assessment that is required to enable the project proceed is essential.

Mr Gerard Martin: It will be 2009 before you start the money coming.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The member for Bathurst is already pooh-poohing it all. Why not get behind it and support this motion.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [11.43 a.m.]: I should have about two days to speak in the debate, which is the time I would need to rewrite all the untruths we have just heard. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all words after the word "That" with a view to inserting instead:

this House:

(1) welcomes the Federal Government and the Federal Opposition's commitment to fund planning and engineering studies into a second road crossing of the Blue Mountains; and

(2) requests the agreed crossing be funded from the Federal Government's AusLink program.

I have moved the amendment for a number of reasons. The first is to correct the Leader of The Nationals, Mark Vaile. The $10 million, $20 million, probably $30 million bail out Kerry fund is not exclusively for a study into the Bells Line of Road. It is for a second crossing of the Blue Mountains. The Leader of The Nationals should go back to square one. In a letter of 30 August 2007 that those opposite claimed had been sent to our Minister in June—an absolute lie—Mark Vaile said to the Minister:

Unlike the SKM study in 2003/04—

which was jointly funded by the State and Federal governments—

this undertaking will examine all options, not just the Bells Line of Road.

We should make that clear from the start. Mark Vaile now wants to start again all that good work done by the Bells Line Expressway Group relating to the Bells Line of Road. Of course, conveniently, that will miss any opportunity to fund it under AusLink2. When the Prime Minister bowled up to Bathurst on 25 May, the first time in his prime ministership that he had visited Australia's most significant and oldest inland city, he made the statement that $10 million is needed for extra studies for the project. Nobody in the Federal Government Department of Transport and Regional Services had any idea what the $10 million was for. In fact, $10 million is not needed. It took Kevin Rudd to come along, have a look at it and say, "I'm with Martin Ferguson. We'll commit to a study into the second crossing of the Blue Mountains as part of the AusLink program." That will probably involve about $5 million or $6 million. Not to be outdone, Federal members again tried to put up a bit more support for Kerry Bartlett and said, "Oh, $20 million."

Let us just look at the support the other side of the House supposedly has for the project. Jim Lloyd is running from this project at 100 miles an hour, as are most Liberal members on that side because they have their own pet projects, whether it is the Pacific Highway, the Princes Highway or some other highway. There is not a Liberal body that really wants to support this project. As for Mr Bartlett, he has crossed borders and now is in a redistributed electorate. In 2005 when the Sinclair Knight Merz [SKM] report was released, Mr Bartlett, supposedly now a fervent supporter of this program, was quoted in the Hawkesbury Gazette—a newspaper I am sure the member opposite reads studiously—of 9 February 2005. The article began:

Macquarie MP Kerry Bartlett said statements by a western NSW National Party member that the new report found the project feasible, were unfounded.

That National Party member was the Hon. Ian Armstrong. The article quoted Mr Bartlett as saying:

"There is no basis in this new report to support (Lachlan MP) Ian Armstrong's statement that the project—"

The Bells Line of Road—

"—is viable."

He continued:

"I've been advised by the federal minister's office, who have spoken to the RTA, that the only substantial difference with this new report is that the cost has gone up to $3 billion."

Mr Bartlett continued:

"Ian Armstrong is just trying to raise some interest ahead of a report which won't do him much good."

The article then stated:

Mr Bartlett was incredulous this new report had been commissioned at all, considering the findings of the previous report by consultants Maunsell McIntyre—

which was paid for by this Government—

—four years ago.

"The last report showed (the plan) was not even in the ballpark," Mr Bartlett said …

From that we can see that Mr Bartlett has had a sudden conversion on the way to political oblivion. The article quoted him as saying:

"It [the report] was way short of justifying the proposal.

I've made it very clear in the past that I'm opposed to any superhighway that's going to involve compulsory acquisition of land in the Hawkesbury, or have an adverse affect on a world-heritage-listed area."

So much for Mr Bartlett! To reinforce his great support for this project, on 20 April when the report into the proposed north-south rail line was released, Mr Bartlett was again quoted in the same newspaper as saying:

"I consider the superhighway is pie-in-the-sky."

This proposal was the railway running north to south, or wherever they wanted to run it. He was supported by Bart Bassett, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, who I believe was a failed Liberal Party candidate at the last election. They are all in there together looking after their parochial politics. He did not give a stuff about the people west of the mountains. The member for Orange suddenly has been whipped into line. We saw the farce at the last election when Sue Williams and Greg Matthews from Dubbo were on a billboard supporting the project. They had the sod-turning ceremony near Lithgow, about which everyone is still doubled up with laughter. No money was given to fund it, but they were pushing it! That put the kiss of death on the project. Members opposite will put the kiss of death on the Bells Line Expressway project. There is no credibility on that side of the House for the project.

On 25 May the Prime Minister said in Bathurst that he would provide the funding for the study. What he did not say in the fine print was that the money will be available in 2009—this is the $10 million, now $20 million, for the study. So now we are going to wait until 2009 for the study to be conducted. Everyone agrees that an environmental impact statement would be a comprehensive document, but it will probably take two years to complete. Guess what happened? They were rolling all the money out for AusLink 2—$2.4 billion for the Pacific Highway and $2 billion for the Bruce Highway to try to shore up some Queensland members of The Nationals—and it sped out the door. By the time the studies were done, AusLink 2 funding was spent, and the next capital allocation coming from the Federal Government would not be until 2014. It will be seven years before the Federal Government again will have to put its hand in its pocket. We all know that in seven years time, Kevin Rudd will still be the Prime Minister of this country. Kevin Rudd, Martin Ferguson and Bob Debus are committed to this project. The money is available. They came to Bathurst and made a statement.

Mr Ray Williams: Where is it?

Mr GERARD MARTIN: The money is there for the study to be done on an alternative route. Currently Jim Lloyd is pushing the Penrith to Dubbo option for AusLink 2. The New South Wales Opposition said that the New South Wales Government had not put in its bid for AusLink 2. That is an absolute lie. Ian Armstrong also said it, as did all the other members of the Coalition. I will again cite what Mark Vaile stated in a letter of 30 August to Eric Roozendaal:

Premier Iemma, in his letter to the Prime Minister on 1 May 2007, which identified AusLink 2 priorities for NSW—

For the benefit of some members of the Coalition who are a little slow on the uptake, I repeat that the letter states, "which identified AusLink 2 priorities for New South Wales"—not that we had not done it, as alleged by the Coalition. This is what was said by Mark Vaile:

… highlighted the "need to investigate alternative routes to the existing alignment of the Great Western Highway on the western escarpment of the Blue Mountains in order to provide safer and more efficient access from western NSW to the Sydney area."

That was stated in agreement by our leader, Premier Morris Iemma, to the Prime Minister. Now the Federal Opposition, which in five weeks will be the Federal Government, has agreed to fund the studies. If members of the Coalition want to waste their money, they should phone Kerry Bartlett. But before members of the Coalition have any truck with what Kerry Bartlett says on this matter, they should acknowledge that he has done an absolute back flip, and the member for Hawkesbury knows that. He is not happy about the proposal because he does not want the route to go through his electorate.

Mr Steve Whan: He wrote a speech in favour of it.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: I know. He had his arm twisted, but privately in the corridors of Parliament House he says the opposite. It will be interesting to find out whether he participates in this debate and talks about how he feels about the proposal. He sings from the same song sheet as Kerry Bartlett. They spend all their time rubbishing Ian Armstrong. I am on the executive of the Bells Line Expressway Group with Ian Armstrong and I know more about this project than anybody else in this House, including the member for Orange, who still pulls up at Mount Victoria Pass, stands there as if in some sort of fantasy land, and dreams about a great big tunnel from Mount Victoria to Penrith. Of course, tunnels will be no good for this project.

If there is one thing said by Leader of The Nationals that I agree with it is that we need a B-double route. There are many restrictions on what heavy vehicles are allowed to carry through tunnels, and prohibited goods include fertilisers and fuels. That is why the Government, in the SKM study, went away from the idea of tunnels. The engineering studies have been done and we do not need $10 million or $20 million to undertake studies. We need money to do an environmental impact statement. The Federal Government, the colleague of the New South Wales Opposition, has plenty of money to put on the table. Why would we want $20 million to do more studies? There has been no consultation with departmental officers in Canberra. This was a Nationals sham in the lead-up to the State election. No one bought the Coalition's empty promises. The very same thing will happen at the next Federal election. The project will not save Kerry Bartlett's neck. On this issue he is a hypocrite.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [11.53 a.m.]: It gives me pleasure to speak to the motion moved by the Leader of The Nationals welcoming the Federal Government's $10 million commitment and acknowledging—owing to the failure of the State Government to commit—that the Federal Government has increased its contribution from $10 million to $20 million so that a planning and engineering study can be undertaken. A great deal of rhetoric has been heard from the member for Bathurst. He is confused. In this House he rubbishes the project, yet in his electorate, where he knows that 99 per cent of his constituents support it, he tries to pretend he is in favour of it. In the Mudgee Guardian on Friday 2 March the member for Bathurst is quoted as saying:

The Expressway group has put forward a compelling case, and State and Federal Governments need to give a funding a high priority.

Where is the State Government's funding? Where is the evidence that the State Government is giving this project priority? Let me detail some of the positive aspects of the proposal. We have heard all the negative points and we have heard a number of accusations that have been made by the Government. Some of the project's positive aspects are revealed by reference to the development that occurred between Gosford and Newcastle after construction of the F3, which was then known as the Newcastle Expressway. When the F3 was opened extensive development became possible.

The Government can rubbish this project as much as it likes and come up with traffic numbers to show that the cost of the project does not justify its construction, but The Nationals believe that the better view of the project is that, quite apart from improved safety, improved perception of distances and time-saving benefits, it represents a vision for the area. The Nationals' vision for this project is that investment in construction of this highway will bring benefits similar to those that accrued to the Central Coast, Gosford and Newcastle areas after construction of the F3. The prosperity and development of that area could not have occurred without construction of the F3, so let us debate this project from the point of view of the project's positive features.

I have often remarked about the inhibiting effect on development of the perception of distance. People who live west of Parramatta, an area that accounts for roughly half the population of Sydney, think nothing of driving to the Hunter Valley for the day or for the weekend to visit the wineries. Despite the district being roughly equidistant from the centre of Sydney—the Hunter Valley, Mudgee, Orange and the Cowra vineyards—people would not even think of travelling to Sydney for the day because they have the perception, from that goat track of a road they have to travel on and the traffic that queues for kilometres from Sydney to home on their return drive, that Sydney is an undesirable tourist destination.

While there are many benefits generally to be derived from this highway project that The Nationals support, its benefits for the freight transport industry are not limited to the reduction of costs. Electrolux and Fletchers cannot use B-doubles to transport goods over the mountains and at best may be able to use A-doubles. I know that Westoil uses A-doubles to pick up fuel from Clyde for the Central West. Even though Westoil uses an A-double, the tanker cannot be filled entirely because of weight restrictions. There are not only length restrictions applying to the use of the current route in respect of B-doubles but also weight restrictions.

The road was built in 1814. That shows how out-of-date the current route across the mountains is. In many respects the Great Western Highway is a highway in name only. It follows the original route discovered by Cox when he pushed through to Bathurst. The Government stands condemned because it insists on upgrading the Great Western Highway. There is a huge conflict raging about the route the highway will take through the Hartley Valley. On many occasions in this House we have heard that the Great Western Highway's speed zone restrictions, especially through school zones, reduces its function to that of a local road. Let us show some vision, let us make a commitment, let us get a decent highway over the mountains!

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.58 a.m.]: I am pleased to endorse the comments made by the member for Bathurst on a new road crossing of the Blue Mountains, and I support the amendment he moved. The people of the Bathurst electorate and areas lying farther west know that they have a very strong advocate in the member for Bathurst for meeting their needs. In a short time they will have another very strong advocate for having their needs met, including another road crossing of the Blue Mountains, when they elect Bob Debus as their Federal Parliamentary representative. Unlike Mr Bartlett, the Liberals Federal candidate, Bob Debus has a consistent position on this matter. The member for Bathurst outlined Mr Bartlett's flip-flops on this issue and pointed out that Mr Bartlett's position changes depending on whom he happens to be talking to on any given day. With the exception of a couple of members, such as a former member of this House, Ian Armstrong, the Opposition's attitude to the proposal has been wildly inconsistent and subject to the effect the proposal is likely to have on voting in an electorate.

There was strong council and community support for a second crossing of the Blue Mountains during hearings of the Premier's rural and regional task force held in the west of the State. The message came through loud and clear: The Federal Government must take seriously the investigation of crossing options. The current proposal is simply a pre-election ploy. Let us face it: John Howard has form on this. Shortly before a Federal election the Howard Government promised my electorate that it would commission a feasibility study and planning work on a very fast train project. What happened after the election? The idea was quietly dropped. The Government said, "It's not feasible so we'll cancel the study." No doubt Treasurer Costello pocketed the money set aside for the study and declared it to be a saving resulting from his good economic management. The Howard Government failed to deliver that promised service.

In this case a promise made during the election campaign will quickly become a non-core promise after the election. This proposal is designed to tide the Government over. We need committed Labor members who will carry the study through and pursue real and viable crossing options. As the member for Bathurst has pointed out consistently to Country Labor members and to caucus, a second crossing of the Blue Mountains would be an absolute boon for regional development in western New South Wales. The project has a very strong advocate in the member for Bathurst.

The Leader of The Nationals moved this motion. In his reply to the recent budget the Leader of The Nationals said that he would sell retail electricity to fund the road. But just a few weeks ago he told the ABC in Wagga Wagga that selling retail electricity would be devastating for rural economies. His comments change from day to day. Let us consider The Nationals' record on roads. The Barton Highway is a Federal responsibility but the member for Burrinjuck only recently and belatedly began to criticise the Federal Government for its failure to upgrade that highway. I recently had the awful and tragic experience of talking to the grandfather of a person who was killed in an accident on the Barton Highway and of hearing the terrible regret in his voice. The Federal Government has failed in its duty to maintain that highway, and for many years The Nationals and the Liberals have been reluctant to criticise its inaction. Turning to the Murrumbateman bypass and road funding, I recently attended the Murrumbateman field day—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The member for Monaro seems to be somewhat distracted from the substance of the motion before the House, which is about the Bells Line Expressway. He has talked about Murrumbateman and the Barton Highway—everything but the Bells Line Expressway.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I note the point of order. I ask the member for Monaro to return to the specific nature of the motion before the House.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I have spoken at great length about the need for a second crossing of the Blue Mountains. Let us consider the history of the promises that have been made. The Nationals are all over the place on this issue. This proposal is an election stunt. As the Leader of The Nationals said, "Rhetoric is no substitute for substance", and rhetoric is all we hear from members of The Nationals.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [12.03 p.m.]: I must put the following information on the record immediately. I think the member for Bathurst called someone a hypocrite but I have noticed that in the 1998 Australian Railway Historical Society newsletter it is stated clearly that, while Blue Mountains City Council opposed the super road plan, the then Mayor of Lithgow, Gerard Martin, called for an expressway using the alignment across the Bells Line of Road.

Mr Barry Collier: Point of order: Is it appropriate for the member for Hawkesbury to read from his BlackBerry in the House?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! Members will be aware that they are able to refer to notes and other written material. In the circumstances, and as it is 2007, I consider that there is no difference between referring to a newspaper article and referring to a BlackBerry.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: Well chaired once again, Mr Acting-Speaker. That was quite a vexatious point of order by the member for Miranda. As to the member for Bathurst, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I am glad that I put that on the record. It is now clear that the member for Bathurst will reject his amendment and support the motion moved by the Leader of The Nationals.

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: I remind the member for Hawkesbury that I have moved an amendment to the motion. There is no hypocrisy from me on this issue. I have been consistent on this issue from day one: I have always supported the Bells Line of Road.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Bathurst will resume his seat. The member for Hawkesbury has the call.

[Interruption]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): The member for Bathurst will resume his seat. I call the member for Bathurst to order.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: The central western areas surrounding Bathurst have for years been constrained by the lack of a decent road across the Blue Mountains. While there has been some work on the Great Western Highway, there is potential for a better road to be constructed via the Bells Line of Road. While much has been said about this issue, the simple fact is that good roads and transport links are the foundation of prosperity for the State and our nation as a whole. Because New South Wales is so large we must always give priority to new and improved transport links between the cities and our country cousins. The economic longevity of the west depends on vital road and transport links that allow businesses to grow, and which in turn will provide employment for people in rural areas.

We often talk about the decentralisation of people from our cities to the country. The question is: Who would want to live in the Central West and be forced to travel on a dangerous, slow road such as the Bells Line of Road? There is enormous potential for increased growth in these areas, where people would not have to live in the high-rise apartment blocks that have proliferated under the State Government's urban consolidation policy. People who wish to move to the lovely towns of Bathurst, Orange and Mudgee have the opportunity to live on small acreage lots, which are great places for families to raise children. Unfortunately, the State Government is again ignoring the potential of developing a better road across the Blue Mountains by upgrading the Bells Line of Road.

Consider how the new road between Lithgow and Bathurst has benefited the residents of those towns. The road cut 30 minutes off the trip between the towns. Motorists who were forced to use the old concrete road that wound its way around Lake Wallerawang now enjoy a safe, quick trip between Lithgow and Bathurst. This obviously aids employment and improves the quality of life of residents in these rural towns. Unfortunately, the return trip from Lithgow to the city is slow and dangerous. Heavy vehicles are reluctant to use the Bells Line of Road and instead travel on the Great Western Highway. This impacts on towns from Katoomba to Penrith, with unwanted pollution and gridlocked traffic in towns such as Lawson, where the road narrows to a single lane.

The Bells Line of Road is the preferred route, but it can be perilous and has cost many lives. The upgrade of this road is vital to the health and survival of the rural communities that depend on the road not only for transport but also to sustain and maintain businesses in those areas. At a time when rural towns are suffering the worst drought in history it is amazing that the Government has rejected this proposal outright. I would have thought members who represent country electorates would do all they can to benefit their communities. This motion is about providing important roads and transport links in rural communities. But the State Government does not want to spend money on vital projects. I commend the Federal Government for allocating $20 million for the construction of a link to Richmond Road, the Bells Line of Road, the M7 and country areas.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [12.08 p.m.]: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion. As an Independent, I have prepared my own speaking notes—unlike the member for Hawkesbury, who read a prepared speech. But I know what I am talking about and who will benefit from any upgrade to the Bells Line of Road.

Mr Andrew Stoner: We get less resources than you.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: The Leader of The Nationals is interjecting rudely. Yesterday when he was giving reasons for bringing on this motion for debate today—which I welcome—he said that the Federal Government was allocating $20 million to the project. He then added the throwaway line that if we did not hurry we would lose the money. Has the Federal Government made a commitment to provide that $20 million? The immediate costs of building the expressway will be easily balanced by the long-term benefits of safer and more efficient travel times to Sydney and income generated from increased tourism and business opportunities. No government, State or Federal—no matter who is in office—should deny the regions past the sandstone curtain the right to a safe and secure highway.

Mr Ray Williams: I thought you weren't going to read?
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: These are my thoughts, not somebody else's. Mr Duncan Gay in the upper House wanted to know what my stand was. Clearly he is not up to speed: I have always supported the proposal and congratulated Ian Armstrong and the member for Bathurst on their stand and their involvement. I have not yet heard Mr John Cobb, the Federal member for Parkes, who has not been very visible for the last 12 months, express his support for the project.

On 15 November 2005 Mr Jim Lloyd, the Federal roads Minister, rejected the Bells Line proposal in a radio interview on 2BS Bathurst. It is nice to know that, all of a sudden—surprise, surprise—there is great interest in the Bells Line of Road, not only from Mr Bartlett: other members from the area are also raising their hands. I would not be surprised if very shortly the Leader of The Nationals proposed in this House discussion of the inland rail forum, which also needs to be debated. It is an opportune time, five weeks out from the election, to be gathering momentum on that as well. What firm commitment do we have from Government on that at this stage?

In 2005 many mayors came to the launch in the foyer of this House. We looked at the plans and all the mayors and general managers from the area supported the proposal put forward. Mr Russell Turner was there as well. We all welcomed the announcement. Members of Parliament of different political ilk and mayors and general managers of different political persuasion welcomed the announcement on the Bells Line of Road. We firmly believed that the State and Federal Governments were going to be working on this proposal to get it through—and the sooner the better. I have family members who travel the road very often and safety aspects are of concern.

The Leader of The Nationals mentioned Mr Roger Fletcher. People other than Mr Fletcher depend on this road. Many trucking companies and transporters in our area are doing good work. Mr Fletcher employs a lot of people in Dubbo and beyond and he is a very community-minded citizen, but many other transporters are looking for an alternative route. At the moment transporters can only go to a certain point—to Lithgow or down the Golden Highway to near Cessnock. They cannot go into the port of Botany.

This proposal is very important for our industry. It is also very important for safety reasons. One ratepayer approached the former mayor of Forbes, Alistair Lockhart—a very good man—following the hurricane disaster in Louisiana. I am on record as questioning, if a disaster were to happen in Sydney, whether governments are prepared for evacuation of the population? How would we get people out over the goat track or north and south of Sydney? How would we deal with that? We would not be able to do it. We need good highways to do that. We are concentrating on upgrading the Pacific Highway but we need to concentrate on the area over the sandstone curtain, past Penrith, out west and down to Parkes and Forbes where we could handle those people. Louisiana could not handle it with four lanes of highway going either way. That is an aspect that not many other people have considered, but it is a very important one: What avenues are there to move that population?

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [12.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members for Bathurst, Orange, Monaro, Hawkesbury and Dubbo for contributing to this important debate. The member for Bathurst moved a predictable amendment, essentially proposing that the Federal Government fund the project entirely from AusLink funds. The amendment is all about shifting responsibility, which has been the consistent position of the member for Bathurst from day one. It is also confirmation that the Iemma Labor Government will not stump up one red cent to make the project happen, despite this project being a State responsibility. The member for Bathurst criticised the Federal Government for seeking to examine in its study all options, not just the Bells Line Expressway proposal. The Federal Government would be irresponsible if it did not seek the best route; the safest road and the maximum benefit to the community. But if the Bells Line Expressway proposal stacks up—and I am confident that it will—of course that would receive some preference in the assessment.

The members for Bathurst and Monaro were fairly strident in their criticism of this project and the Federal Government. They constantly sought to shift responsibility for the project and point fingers, but we did not hear a word from either of them about what the State Labor Government is going to do. The member for Bathurst and the member for Monaro talked about a 2005 position of the current Federal member for Macquarie, referring to a 2005 piece of fish and chip wrapping. The newspaper is that old—

Mr Gerard Martin: The Premier has told Mark Vaile what we are doing. Get Mark Vaile to show you the letter of 30 August—that is if you can read.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The position of the member for Macquarie post-redistribution—in case you did not know, Macquarie has been redistributed—has changed because his seat has changed. Are you suggesting that he should not strongly represent the people in his new electorate?

Mr Steve Whan: He is obviously a man of great principles.

Mr ANDREW STONER: All we heard from both of those members who seek to interject is more political game-playing, but not a word about why they have, despite being members of this Government, failed for nine years to get one dollar for this crucial project. All they did was pooh-pooh the Federal Government's interest in the project, saying that funding would not start until 2009. But the question is: When will the State Government's funding start? It is a State road. We have seen nothing in nine years with Mr Martin as the member for Bathurst, so we should not hold our breath for funding out of the State Government.

The people that the members for Bathurst and Monaro are supposed to represent would be disgusted at their performance here today. Those people do not care about political gains, excuses and point scoring; they want to see governments cooperating, working together to make it happen. So we do not support Labor's blame-shifting amendment. It is a transparent attempt by the State Government to duck its constitutional responsibilities. It is also a pathetic attempt by country-based members to disguise their inability to get their city-centric Labor colleagues to spend any money outside of Sydney. People will be disgusted at the negativity the two Labor members have displayed here today. This project can and will happen, but it needs a positive approach and cooperation, in contrast to their negative, carping performance today. They have shown themselves to be nothing more than political hacks instead of the visionaries that the Central West needs, visionaries like Ian Armstrong and Russell Turner.

Mrs Dawn Fardell: Point of order: I have heard enough. This is clearly a blatant attempt to get Kerry Bartlett over the line.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Again the member for Dubbo has revealed her Labor bias by that point of order, not to mention her contribution to the debate, which was all about continually attacking the Coalition. At no stage has she asked the State Government what it is doing. She asked whether the $20 million would be withdrawn. Answer: No, it will not. The only worry is if Kevin Rudd and Federal Labor get in. Then the project is in trouble because State Labor does not support it. State Labor does not support it; Federal Labor will not.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Debate resumed from 27 September 2007.

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [12.31 p.m.]: The area in which I live borders the Port Stephens electorate. I thank the member for Port Stephens for his history lesson and note the valuable contribution that the Port Stephens area makes to the amenity and prosperity of the Hunter region. I am well aware of the arson attack on the Mallabula Community Centre and its effect on the local community. The Government is taking steps to investigate the concerns of the community within the lower Hunter police command, which is why the Government opposes the motion moved by the member for Port Stephens. An examination of the broader Hunter area has commenced with the establishment of the Greater Hunter Workforce Planning Project, which will consult widely with local stakeholders, including local area commanders and police association branches.

That examination presents an opportunity to investigate the current and future policing needs, not only of the Port Stephens and Lower Hunter areas but also of the Greater Hunter policing area. It provides for a balanced assessment of community and policing needs now and into the future. The Greater Hunter Workforce Planning Project will use key analysis indicators of customer service, crime, the impact of technology, staffing and demographic composition. I commend their efforts and believe that this issue cannot be dealt with in isolation, as any modifications to policing in one command will have a domino effect throughout the region. The member for Port Stephens will know that the region integrates with all areas and there is an expectation of planning. We look at issues such as policing, health, roads and education on a regional basis, not just on a particular area basis.

I remind the House that the former Deputy Commiss