Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 26 February 2008, Corrected Copy)

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 1.00 p.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Question—That private members' statements be noted—proposed.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock [1.05 p.m.]: I draw attention to the board of Greyhound Racing New South Wales and the way in which it has been conducting business throughout the industry since it was established. The board comprises different association representatives from across the industry who are keen to ensure their association gets a fair deal from Greyhound Racing New South Wales. This is where the Cessnock Showground Society failed as it was independent of any association, financially sound and not reliant on the board.

When one looks at the money that has been distributed to clubs such as Birmingham Gardens, which is owned by the National Coursing Association [NCA], and the Maitland track, which is owned by the Greyhound Breeders, Owners and Trainers Association [GBOTA], one quickly realises that Cessnock was always going to be treated in this way. Last financial year the money distributed to the Birmingham Gardens complex totalled $267,860 and the money distributed to the Maitland track totalled $65,422. Greyhound Racing New South Wales paid Sky Channel $199,959 in compensation for not allowing Cessnock to race greyhounds, and it has spent a total of $533,241 propping up industry in the Hunter since the closure of the Cessnock track.

The National Coursing Association struck a deal between Tabcorp and Sky Channel that will have severe ramifications across industry well into the future, that is, because $2.1 million was owed to Greyhound Racing New South Wales for the garden complex and the loan was extended on a number of occasions. The National Coursing Association is about to obtain another $1.5 million loan from Greyhound Racing New South Wales, but that is conditional on the sale of office space in Sydney. In light of this, the showground society at Cessnock has been told that it will receive back its TAB dates when it pays a bill of $250,000 for the court case involving Cessnock v Greyhound Racing New South Wales because of the inequities of the board's decision to take the TAB dates off the Cessnock course.

One question that must be asked is: Why are the board and Mr Perceval Allan, the independent chair, running this industry in such a discriminatory and biased way? It is apparent that Greyhound Racing New South Wales is hell-bent on looking after two associations—the National Coursing Association and the Greyhound Breeders, Owners and Trainers Association. Other questions that must be asked relate to fairness on all independent tracks in New South Wales. If Cessnock cannot operate for $250,000 how can Birmingham Gardens operate for $2.1 million when it did not meet its initial contract with Greyhound Racing New South Wales?

It is time for the Minister for Gaming and Racing to step in and sort out this issue. The board controls millions of dollars across New South Wales and it is spending money like a drunken sailor looking after its association and the supposedly independent chairman of the board, who is busily building his empire and enabling the growth of his business associates. Currently there is a proposal to take dates off the independent tracks at Moree, Coonamble, Coonabarabran and Appin, which is affiliated with the Greyhound Breeders, Owners and Trainers Association, which is quite ironic as the Appin track is run by Mr Chris McKay, secretary of the Cessnock track when the TAB dates were taken off.

Tracks such as those at Young, Dapto, Gunnedah and Tamworth have not been touched. Debbie Priest, who is involved at the Young track, just happens to be on the board of Greyhound Racing New South Wales. Mr Jeffrey Rose, who is involved at the Gunnedah track, is also on the board of Greyhound Racing New South Wales. And surprise, surprise, Mr Jack Primer, who is also on the Greyhound Racing New South Wales board, is involved at Dapto, which received 26 non-TAB racing dates in this proposal. It would have been much fairer to spread those dates across all tracks, such as Cessnock.

Tamworth is also aligned to the National Coursing Authority, so to touch it would be a sin by the Greyhound Racing New South Wales board. The Cessnock association raised in court issues of conflict of interest with Greyhound Racing New South Wales and that it looked after its associated members ahead of independent tracks. It seems that the Greyhound Racing New South Wales board has learned nothing from the court case and is making all its decisions for the benefit of the two major associations. Mr Perceval Allan, chairman of Greyhound Racing New South Wales, should hang his head in shame for the way this proposal is being pushed through the industry. It is very clear that the board is loaning money and also the way that TAB dates have been distributed. This is being done at the expense of the industry as well as independent tracks and is not in the best interest of the industry. Anyone wanting their club to get ahead needs to be on the Greyhound Racing New South Wales board and their club will be looked after.

I need only hark back to previous speeches about Cessnock track and TAB takings that have fallen away since closure of the track. It is time that the Greyhound Racing New South Wales board explained clearly to interested people in the greyhound racing industry why these decisions have been made because the whole industry regards these decisions as being only in the interests of associated members of Greyhound Racing New South Wales. I call on the Minister for Gaming and Racing to look at the issues I have raised and will continue to raise. [Time expired.]

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [1.10 p.m.]: This afternoon I wish to be the first in this place to congratulate the Newcastle Jets on their spectacular win against the Central Coast Mariners on Sunday night and to reflect upon what this means for the future of Hunter economic growth. The Hunter Valley is a great place to live, work and play. On this, I and the other Hunter-based members of Parliament can agree, even those who sit opposite. It is also a great place for sport. The Hunter punches well above its weight as a sporting powerhouse. Our achievements in soccer on Sunday are evidence of that. Government investment in sport can at times be a contentious issue. When money is tight it tends to be the first thing to get the chop. However, the flow-on effects from government support of sporting endeavours extend well beyond mere entertainment.

In 1997 the Newcastle Knights had just won the National Rugby League Premiership for the first time against the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles. But in spite of a tightening job market and less than robust conditions for regional investment, a positive mood in the community saw incremental gain in local economic conditions. At the time I was a builder in the Lower Hunter and I was surprised that on the Monday after that historic win by the Newcastle Knights, our business was flooded with requests for new homes to be built in the area. Many of us in business during that tumultuous time in Newcastle's history would reflect upon the fact that a win for the league team did wonders for people's pride in their region and encouraged investment at a local level.

Coming up to 11 years since the closure of BHP and the effective overnight decimation of a regional economy, things are looking up for the Hunter, but they could be better. According to the latest Australian Local Government Association's State of the Regions report, the Hunter rates a resounding average in all indicators of economic growth. With high levels of welfare dependency—20 per cent of all Hunter income is derived from government payments—and an unemployment level 1 per cent above the national average, the Hunter economy might have diversified but not fully recovered from the serious blows it took in the late 1990s as traditional Hunter industrial priorities shifted. But how does this relate to soccer?

Consumer confidence is not just a statistic that can be represented by tracking purchases and investment. Regional consumer confidence is reflected everywhere, and it is about creating a mood in the community that a small town can punch well above its weight. The Jets win will give the Hunter community a tremendous boost in morale. It is important for smaller communities to feel as though they are doing well. It might be taken for granted by metropolitan regions that constantly see their name in lights on the world stage, but for a region like the Hunter Valley, beset by issues both economic and social, the Newcastle Jets' win will go a long way toward boosting this community's self-esteem.

Novocastrians deserve to feel proud of themselves this week in the wake of the Jets' spectacular win. The Jets' striker, Mark Bridge, might have kicked the winning goal on Sunday night but it was a groundswell of community support that brought the Jets across the line. Although we may spend a lot of time in this House contemplating those things that are problematic in the Hunter, it is moments like these that remind us that this is a region possessed of incredible community spirit. Make no mistake: there are serious economic and social issues in the Hunter region that need to be urgently addressed by government. A lack of government investment in the region, coupled with inadequacies in law enforcement, health, and education resources, places a serious strain on the people of the Hunter Valley. But for all this, those same people have enormous pride in their area and they will overcome problems before being consumed by them. This is, after all, a region that has pulled together through enormous strife, earthquakes, floods and industrial issues.

The historic win by the Newcastle Jets on Sunday night is reflective of this community strength, and so I congratulate not just those athletes but also the people who supported them—the fans who have been tremendous in getting to the games, even when played in Sydney on a Sunday night. Those of us who could not attend the games owe a debt to ABC's Aaron Kearney, whose commentary rivalled that of the great Frank Hyde in bringing the excitement to us, wherever we were. Finally, the Jets' owner Con Constantine deserves a medal for sticking by the Jets with his fantastic faith, backed up by his ongoing financial support.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [1.15 p.m.]: I also speak about the Jets but in a different code and a different suburb. Today I talk about the Newtown Jets and, in particular, the upgrade of Henson Park, located in my electorate of Marrickville, and home to the historic Newtown Jets Premier Rugby League team. The State Government has worked in partnership with Marrickville Council. It has provided a grant of $250,000 and the work is now almost complete. This great investment has meant that the oval is now in tiptop shape and ready for this year's season opener in March as the Newtown Rugby League Club, along with a number of other rugby league clubs, embarks on its centenary year.

Henson Park playing field was first laid down in the 1930s and the grant provided has provided for much-needed renovation works, including levelling, drainage, repairs to the irrigation system and returfing of the field. The upgrade, including the new hybrid turf, will improve playing conditions especially after heavy rain. With Sydney having received 159.8 millimetres of rain in just eight days at the beginning of February, these improvements could not have come at a better time. From the very beginning in 1908 Newtown has been noted for its gritty, never-say-die spirit and the ability to make the best of limited financial resources. The years 1984 to 1990 were dark days for the club when financial woes forced them out of the first grade competition, but in 1991 the club made its senior competition comeback and it now fields a side in the premier league and is building a thriving juniors contingent.

As a patron of the club, during its centenary year I am proud to say that Newtown is one of only two New South Wales rugby league foundation clubs that celebrates its foundation day in the exact venue where the club was formed. The other is South Sydney. I attended the 100-year celebrations at the Newtown Town Hall on 8 January 2008 where many great moments in history were relived. The centenary is also a huge milestone for the fans, many of whom have stuck with the club through all its ups and downs.

Located in what was then a rock-solid working-class district, Newtown was seen as the definitive battlers team and one associated with the best fighting qualities inherent in the Australian character. Newtown's first playing season at Henson Park was in 1936 and except for a very brief period in the early 1950s the Bluebags proudly made Henson Park, as described by others, "the impregnable fortress" up until 1983. Even before the current upgrade Henson Park was considered to be one of the best suburban grounds in Sydney. It has an old-style grassy hill that can comfortably seat a large number of spectators and a heritage grandstand. Anyone attending the ground on any Saturday afternoon will witness the real spirit of rugby league. There is a sausage sizzle, kids can kick balls around on the grassy hill, and the players acknowledge supporters after the game. It is a great and inexpensive way to spend a Saturday afternoon during the football season.

I acknowledge that much has changed in rugby league and much needs to change—the game has become much more professional—but nonetheless attending a Jets game on a Saturday afternoon reminds one of the older traditions of league and, as I said, it is a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. The strong supporter base of the Newtown Jets is openly acknowledged within rugby league circles as drawing the best home-game attendances of any club in the VB Premier League Competition, now the New South Wales Rugby League New South Wales Cup.

The Jets formed a new partnership in 2006 with the Sydney Roosters and finished second on the premiership table. Continuing their partnership with the Sydney Roosters this year and with a new revamped home ground, the Jets are back and ready to perform this season, kicking off with their first home game in March against Western Suburbs. Although I have to say that already the Jets are showing impressive trial form. They had a win on the weekend against Balmain in the New South Wales Cup trial match; we hope to see this form continue. With the much-needed field upgrades the Jets can continue to play in a high standard, full-time professional rugby league competition.

Not only is Henson Park the home ground for the Jets, but it also has been used as a training facility for the Rugby World Cup and to host the Sydney Australian football league competition finals series and the national Australian football league women's championships. The park is a great resource in my Marrickville electorate. It is warmly treasured by the Marrickville community and beyond. The upgrades now will ensure that Henson Park is a high-standard all-weather facility that can be enjoyed by sporting fans across Sydney. I acknowledge the hard work of Marrickville Council in making sure the work will be completed in time for the start of the season. I thank the New South Wales Government for providing this grant to continue the history of the Newtown Jets at Henson Park.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [1.20 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Marrickville regarding Henson Park and the Newtown Jets. Henson Park is a significant part of the cultural makeup of Marrickville. As someone who has lived in Marrickville for a very long time I can say that we are all very proud of the park. Of course, this year being the centenary year of rugby league in New South Wales and the Jets being one of the centenary teams, it is even more significant. I add one other wonderful use of Henson Park over the past three or four years, apart from those uses listed by the member for Marrickville. The park has been the venue also for the New South Wales rugby league annual knockout competition, which is a significant sporting event in New South Wales. Marrickville Council responded magnificently to the demanding use of Henson Park over the September long weekend.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [1.21 p.m.]: I speak today on the health issue enveloping the Central West and also the brand-new Bathurst Base Hospital.

Mr Gerard Martin: Which you know nothing about.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: The member for Bathurst maintains they simply are teething problems, but everyone else acknowledges they are major infrastructure and structural problems. Of course, as soon as those enormous problems came to light at Bathurst, those involved in the just about to start construction of the new Orange Base Hospital thought that they had better look at the plans a little more closely. It emerged over the following few days that Orange Base Hospital was going to be subject to the same deficiencies as Bathurst hospital—if not even more so. Clinicians, nurses and everyone raised concerns; I issued various press releases. No-one supported it; Orange Base Hospital was not going to be the hospital promised by the Premier and the Minister for Health. I was motivated to place a full-page advertisement in the Central Western Daily in which I pleaded with the Premier to intervene. The advertisement stated:

Mr Premier,

Please stop the impending disaster of our new Orange Base Hospital

On the half of the 305,000 residents throughout the Central West who will have access to the facilities of the new Orange Base Hospital, I ask you to intervene and authorise a redesign of the new hospital before it is too late.

Please acknowledge that the current design will be a disaster.

Please show leadership and allow our Orange Medical Staff Council to work with the design architects and building contractors to plan a hospital that will work, will not cost any more, and will be the flagship level 5 hospital you and your Government promised.

It will take courage from you as the leader of this state to admit that somewhere within NSW Health, this wonderful project has been stuffed up.

It is not too late to get it right!

And it is signed:

Russell Turner, MP
STATE MEMBER OF ORANGE

On behalf of our Doctors, Nurses, allied health staff, future patients and their families.

The construction of this hospital was first promised in 2002 and completion in 2005. With the health issues in Orange over the past four or five years, no-one expressed concern to me about the hospital being delayed a few more months to make sure that we got it right. The Government has acknowledged that there are mistakes. We do not want what happened in Bathurst to happen in Orange. Construction corrections to Bathurst hospital will be a compromise on what the general public and those working in the hospital envisaged. The Minister for Health came to Orange last Thursday to turn the first sod for the new hospital; she left the shovel behind. She spoke to me, the Mayor of Orange City Council and some members of the Orange Medical Staff Council; she promised that there would be a review of Bathurst Base Hospital and I believe she has appointed the Hon. Ian Sinclair to chair that review. Again we can take only her assurance that there will be a review regarding the design and construction of Orange Base Hospital.

We do not know how far that review will go. Will it include the contractor appointed to build the hospital? Will it involve the clinicians? The clinicians spent years meeting voluntarily with those planning the hospital and were bitterly disappointed to learn that what we were getting was so different from the hospital that was envisaged. The Premier and the Minister for Health promised and proudly boasted in this House that the Orange Base Hospital would be the flagship for future regional base hospitals and would be the largest regional base hospital in New South Wales. Based on the figures we have so far, at this point the new hospital will be 30 per cent smaller than the current hospital. I cannot see how that will be a flagship regional hospital. I call on the Premier to review urgently the plans for Orange Base Hospital. [Time expired.]

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [1.26 p.m.]: On Saturday 23 February 2008 I had the pleasure of attending the presentation of the Georges River men's triples bowls trophies at the Picnic Point Bowling Club. The honoured guests for this function were the New South Wales Governor, Professor Marie Bashir, and her husband, Sir Nicholas Shehadie. This was not the first time Her Excellency had attended a function in my electorate: she attended an Anzac Day ceremony at my old school, Picnic Point High School. As I recall, that was probably the first official function at which she participated as Governor.

I know I speak for all members in this place on both sides in thanking Marie Bashir, supported by Nick Shehadie, for their continued enthusiasm certainly for the Governor's job, and the genuine affection Professor Bashir has for so many people privileged to meet her at these functions. Like most members here in this place, I have had the privilege of meeting her on many occasions at different functions; she has such an infectious enthusiasm. One of the absolute non-contentious issues in this House is the great role the Governor and her husband play in being available to go everywhere and anywhere: attending a school and bowling club presentation is just fantastic.

The Governor and Sir Nicholas were celebrating their fifty-first wedding anniversary on the day they attended the bowling club in my electorate; and again this demonstrates the great lengths to which they will go for the office of Governor. I pay tribute to the president of the bowling club, Mr Peter Price, and his wife, Melanie Parry, who is a professional singer and who sang a song to the Governor and Sir Nicholas to celebrate their anniversary. Thanks go also to Mr Peter Cullen, who is the men's bowls secretary, and Mr Brian Horne, who is the president of the men's bowling club and who played a key role in organising the tournament. I acknowledge Mr Garry Clarke of Century 21 Real Estate, which is the sponsor of the bowls tournament.

The Georges River bowls tournament now is in its fourth or fifth year and is held at one of the six local bowling clubs on a rotating basis. Mr Clarke also is a patron, as am I, of the Revesby bowling club, of which I believe his father was the inaugural president. His continued sponsorship is greatly appreciated. I know that the member for Mount Druitt, who is in the Chamber behind me and who is a very keen bowler, would appreciate the strength of bowling in my electorate. Six clubs participated in the tournament: Revesby Workers Bowling Club, Revesby Bowling Club, Panania-East Hills Bowling Club, Bankstown Bowling Club, which is in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, Picnic Point Bowling Club, and Padstow Bowling Club.

Other guests at the function included Mr Daryl Melham, the Federal member for Banks, Tania Mihailuk, the Mayor of Bankstown, and Mr Dick McLaughlin, the Deputy Mayor of Bankstown. Also included as an honoured guest was Mr John Archer, who, as many members know, is the President of the Royal New South Wales Bowls Association. A total of 96 bowlers participated in the finals on Saturday, which were won by Panania-East Hills. Mr Paul Judd accepted the trophy. The runners-up team was Revesby Bowling Club. Bowls has gone through a bit of a difficult time in the last few years as some of the bowling clubs, as we all know, have struggled to survive as a result of the difficulty of maintaining the greens. Although some bowling clubs now have special greens, which are obviously not grass and which need less maintenance, the cost of having greenkeepers—

Mr Richard Amery: You are going to tell the House about the trophy you picked up in January, aren't you?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I will get around to it if I get another minute, yes. It is great to see that bowls is still successful. The member for Mount Druitt reminds me—and I suppose I have to declare an interest in this—that I had the privilege of playing in the parliamentary bowls tournament, which was held in New South Wales. I thank Ms Cheryl Samuels for organising that, and certainly Richard Amery, the member for Mount Druitt, who is the president of the New South Wales parliamentary bowling team. If I am correct, Queensland won this year's title. It went down to the last end, when Richard Amery had to take out the jack—

Mr Thomas George: They're always beating New South Wales at everything!

Mr ALAN ASHTON: As the member for Lismore said, Queensland is always beating New South Wales at everything. I can back that up, because I played in the Queensland team.

Mr Richard Amery: We beat them last year.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: Last year is ancient history. I played bowls for the Queensland team, which means, as I understand it, that in State of Origin matters from now on I have to be a Queenslander. The tournament at Picnic Point was wonderful. I thank all the organisers, and I thank the Governor and Sir Nicholas for attending.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [1.31 p.m.]: In life there are scam merchants and then there is the king of the scammers—one Douglas Graeme McCoy. I draw attention to this conman who knows no State boundaries and no moral boundaries. In 2005 a northern beaches woman, Therese Foley, received advice from an acquaintance at a northern beaches church that Mr McCoy would invest her money at a particularly good interest rate. In or about February 2005 Mrs Foley invested $300,000, the proceeds of her marriage property settlement, for a period of three months with the very unaptly named Loyalty Plus Pty Limited. None of the funds has ever been repaid. Mrs Foley advised me she had contacted the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission prior to investing the funds and was given no indication that there was a problem. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission indicated that it had no history of Mr McCoy, and the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs indicated that it could not give Mrs Foley any information about Mr McCoy.

Research by Mrs Foley since the loss of her money found a reference to Mr McCoy in 1994 in Parliament after Mr Richard Amery, member of Parliament, asked a question on notice. At that time Mr Amery's question produced an answer that indicated that Douglas McCoy was involved in five separate companies that had generated a total of 48 formal complaints since 1985. The response also indicated that the Department of Consumer Affairs had cooperated with the New South Wales police service in initiation of criminal proceedings against Mr McCoy, although this appears never to have happened. I am therefore amazed that the Department of Consumer Affairs offered no advice to Mrs Foley prior to her lending the funds to Mr McCoy's company when he clearly has a long history of involvement in fraudulent activities of which the department was well aware or should have been aware.

On 14 June 2007 I wrote to the Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Linda Burney, sending a copy of the loan agreements dated February 2005, which facilitated the investment of $300,000 for three months. The documents stated interest would be paid up front and the balance repaid at the end of the three-month term. Mrs Foley received the one interest payment back. It appears she got back some of her $300,000 as an interest payment, but the rest was never seen again. Since February 2005—today is the three-year anniversary—she has received zilch. With the benefit of the history of parliamentary questions raised over 15 years ago, it is clear that Mr McCoy has ripped off vulnerable people for almost two decades, which raises the apparent lack of capacity in the State and Federal watchdogs to act appropriately. When I first contacted the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Federal body the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, neither body had contact details for Mr McCoy. Inquiries by me turned up an address in Western Sydney and I got a mobile number for that address. Phone discussions followed with the "king of conmen".

Mr McCoy presents as a credible fellow who turns out to be utterly incredible. After my contact with him he suddenly showed up at my office on Thursday 19 July 2007 and told me that he now lived at 6 Golfview Terrace, Robina, in Queensland. Does he really? Who knows? In a 1½ hour-long talkfest Mr McCoy admitted to me that he had been in a relationship with a woman called Jacqui Blazeski, the same woman who had attended a northern beaches church with Mrs Foley and first suggested that she invest her money with him. Mr McCoy claimed he had not seen Jacqui Blazeski for 12 to 18 months and that she had lived at Bondi. He stated that Jacqui had worked for him as a secretary-personal assistant for four to five months at Loyalty Plus. It would seem more likely that Jacqui was part of the scam, hooking innocent people into Mr McCoy's financial black hole.

So what is McCoy up to today? During our meeting he told me that he had set up a business with a woman called Bridget Bryant in a company called Y Not Call Me. He maintained there were "a lot of people after her" arising out of other business dealings. He named a James Meyers in Canada, and said the company's bank account was in Delaware, in the United States. He told me that had told Mrs Foley that her money would go into a telecommunications company with millions of distributors throughout the world and that this discussion took place in his office in Pyrmont in the premises of Y Not Call Me. Mrs Foley recollects going to a presentation at a Pyrmont office, which she thought belonged to Loyalty Plus Pty Limited, where McCoy delivered his conman spiel. She told him that she had her marriage property settlement funds to invest and that effectively they were all her available funds.

At the meeting with me in July, Mr McCoy gave me chapter and verse of his tales of woe to explain why he had not repaid the money. He told me he had put up 16 properties for security for loans totalling $1.8 million. He mentioned various properties at Mumbil and Wellington, and he said he now had a place on Macleay Island, off Queensland. He mentioned another business called Self Reliance, which he had operated 20 years ago, which had also gone into liquidation after a judgement debt for half a million dollars. After listening to his conman banter I asked him to sign a document on the spot that guaranteed he would personally pay back the money to Mrs Foley. That is, instead of Loyalty Plus Pty Limited, in liquidation, being the only avenue for Mrs Foley to get her money, I asked him to sign a document saying he would pay the money personally. In the best efforts of criminals, spivs and conmen, he even posed for a photograph showing the document he had just signed, which effectively bought him another few months while Mrs Foley hoped he would pay the money.

Today is the end of the road for McCoy the conman. Nobody on the northern beaches, nobody in Sydney, and indeed nobody in Australia, should be under any misapprehension: they would have more chance of getting their money back if they stood on North Head and threw their $300,000 to the four winds. I call on the Office of Fair Trading to get its act together and ensure that in future people who make inquiries before making investments can rely on the department to give the necessary information. If someone has been on a warning list, that is where they should stay and the list should be updated. In the meantime, the people of the northern beaches want to keep a look out for a fast-talking, smooth-operating king of scammers who will rip them off as quick as look at them. Finally, Mrs Foley needs help. She needs her $300,000. If anybody knows which rock this conman is under or what assets he has that could be used to pay back Mrs Foley, I ask them to please let Therese Foley know.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [1.36 p.m.]: I thank the member for Wakehurst for raising the issue. He has written to me and discussed the matter with my staff. The body responsible for consumer protection regarding financial services is the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. However, the Office of Fair Trading contacted the liquidator seeking further information about the circumstances of the liquidation. Fair Trading investigated Mrs Foley's complaint and is liaising with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission about Mr McCoy's investment activities and involvement with at least one failed company to determine whether any regulatory action is appropriate.

Generally, Fair Trading is not in a position to provide consumers with reputation checks unless the Minister or the Commissioner for Fair Trading has issued a current public warning about the trader's conduct that can be brought to the attention of the inquirer. In the case of Mr McCoy no public statement has been issued for more than 10 years. I place that on record, but I am very happy, as the member for Wakehurst would know, to have further discussions regarding the matter. I take on board his comments today.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [1.38 p.m.]: The Central Coast now has a first-class cricket facility based at Mount Penang Parklands, in Kariong, located within my electorate of Gosford, to which the State Government contributed $115,000 under the Regional Sports Facility Grants Program. It was an honour to officially open the new centre in conjunction with Bob Horsell, the Chairman of Cricket New South Wales, on 10 January this year at an event attended by many people from all over the Central Coast. The region now has a high-quality sporting facility to help develop and promote cricket on the Central Coast and in New South Wales, which is in keeping with the New South Wales Government's commitment to promote healthy living with a 10 per cent increase in sports participation by 2016.

Members of the Central Coast Cricket Association have worked tirelessly to secure funds to create a first-class cricketing facility that is able to host regular Sydney grade cricket matches. I would like to highlight the efforts of all those involved, including the President of Central Coast Cricket, Bob Collard, MBE, who was the master of ceremonies for the opening; David Smallman, coordinator of the Mount Penang Regional Sporting Complex; Patrick Riley, the executive officer of Central Coast Cricket; Bill Lincoln, Chairman of the Development Committee for the Central Coast Cricket Association; Diane Dales, a long-time and strong advocate for Central Coast Cricket, and Brian Hoffman, curator of the sports ground, who does a remarkable job.

Funding was secured through the Department of Sport and Recreation's Regional Sports Facility Grants Program, with additional funding support from New South Wales Cricket and the National Rugby League's [NRL] Melbourne Storm, which has a feeder team on the Central Coast, the Central Coast Storm. The project has developed the oval into a first-class cricket facility, and includes four turf wickets and two practice turf wickets. The project includes a new picket fence and an irrigation system.

As part of the grand opening of the grounds, visitors were invited to pay $20 to have their name inscribed on a plaque on one of the 7,000 pickets in the ground's fencing. John Gifford, a well-known cricket identity on the Central Coast, who umpired in Sydney grade cricket for 12 years, two of them in first grade, together with his wife, Judy, were very much involved in the opening celebrations. No-one got past them without buying a commemorative picket. These initiatives of the Central Coast Cricket Association were not only great fundraisers, but also were a great way of getting the local community involved.

The grand opening was a great success. Local youngsters were lucky to be involved in junior coaching clinics conducted by former leading local cricketers Wal Clifton, Peter Davidson and Barry Olsen, and they were able to meet players from the New South Wales Speed Blitz Blues and the Central Coast Storm Premier League NRL team. A very welcome guest at the opening was well-renowned batsman for Australia in the days of "the Don", Arthur Morris, who has been described by my brother-in-law, Alan Staunton, who played first grade cricket for Petersham-Marrickville, as being "an absolute and thorough gentleman". Arthur was one of the Invincibles who were undefeated in all the matches they played during their 1948 tour of England. In the last game in which Don Bradman played, which was held at The Oval, "the Don" was dismissed on the second bowl for a duck. Someone asked Arthur Morris what he was doing at the time, to which Arthur replied that he was at the other end, chalking up runs for Australia—196 of them in fact.

The regional sports ground will be the permanent home of the Central Coast Cricket Association, which lost its base a decade ago when its then home, Grahame Park in Gosford, was chosen as the site for a first-class stadium, now known as Bluetongue Central Coast Stadium. Central Coast Cricket is a not-for-profit association made up of 12 district cricket clubs and more than 3,000 players from all over the Central Coast. It administers cricket competitions for juniors, seniors and women, and participates at the highest possible level in representative matches administered by New South Wales Country Cricket and the New South Wales Cricket Association in regional New South Wales.

Approximately 3,000 registered cricket players, from as young as 10 years old right through to the open representative team, participate every weekend from across the Central Coast. They no doubt will find their new ground a first-rate place at which to play. In addition, the ground not only will be available for cricket, but also will be used by the four football codes during winter, as well as school groups and the local community all-year round. The detainees of the former Mount Penang Juvenile Detention Centre, now the Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre, maintained the original cricket oval.

Frank Baxter was a gifted sportsman, playing first grade cricket at the age of 13. As an orphan ward of the State, Frank was placed at Gosford Farm for Boys, as the centre was first known, and later went on to full-time employment there. Frank continued his Mount Penang association through junior and senior cricket, and also returned to the home to teach animal husbandry. He was a life member of the Gosford-Wyong District Cricket Association and manager of the Emus under 21 world touring side. Congratulations to all involved in the development of the cricket facility at Mount Penang Parklands. I wish them all the best for the future.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [1.43 p.m.]: I advise the House of a chain of events in western New South Wales in the Barrier Range near Silverton that consequently devastated the lives of four grazier families and caused a major rift among farmers regarding the future of wind farming in New South Wales. Approximately 18 months ago a company, Epuron, approached a grazier friend of mine, Phil Blore, because the company wanted to erect a wind farm in his property. Phil advised Epuron that he was not the owner of the land. He operated a grazing property under a 99-year Western Lands lease, which is as close as possible to freehold tenure. Phil said a solicitor should be consulted to advise whether negotiations could take place. Subsequently Epuron contacted Kerry Keady who advised the company to contact Andrew Bell, the regional director of the Department of Lands in Dubbo.

At a meeting Andrew Bell indicated that Epuron could go ahead and negotiate with landholders, and he indicated that a change of purpose could be recorded for grazing property to recognise that the property could accommodate wind turbines. Members should note that the erection of wind turbines is basically an invasive and destructive process resulting not only in the turbine operating in the area but also in roads and other infrastructure being constructed for continual maintenance of the turbines. Basically the property holders hand over their property to public access, which is unusual. Historically, property holders have met most miners at the front gate with a shotgun, but things have changed. Property owners are now prepared to accept some compensation and an annual rental to underpin their grazing operations.

While this was taking place, Epuron visited Parliament House to brief The Nationals, visited the Department of Lands, and visited the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, who issued a press release indicating his support for wind farm development at Silverton as a great initiative. At that point, the Minister for Lands, Tony Kelly, would have been well aware of the proposal. Approximately three weeks ago, the four grazier families were called to another meeting with the Department of Lands in the western region at which they were confronted by Mr Andrew Bell, a solicitor, a Western Lands commissioner and another gentleman and were informed that they should seek advice from their solicitors because the Western Lands Commission intended to resume the land under a lease-back arrangement. Those four families were absolutely king hit with a blow that came out of nowhere.

This is a gutless and cowardly act. The Minister should have at least written a letter outlining his intention and inform these people of what he proposed to do. The first time they knew about it was when they attended the meeting. They are absolutely gutted. They did not know how to take the information. I am told that there was a stunned silence for two minutes until they realised the implication—that their lives were wrecked. Currently those people do not know what the future will hold for them. Their land will be divided. My question is: What is the future of wind farming in New South Wales? My advice to a company that wants to put a wind monitor on a farmer's property is that the company will be met with a shotgun, and that will be the new rule in the Western District from now on.

At this stage the Government has not mandated for green power, but I am sure that that will soon be on the agenda. The argument I put in relation to climate change is that the Government needs a mandate for green power. As soon as the Government stands to derive some financial benefit from wind farmers, it will put up its hand to mandate for green power, simply to derive revenue from the development at Silverton. I am not opposed to wind farming, but in my view the venture is off to a very poor start, courtesy of the Government.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [1.48 p.m.]: On 13 December 2007 I was privileged to attend the end of the year ceremony for the John Edmondson High School as a guest of the principal, Mr Gary Joannides. Only three years old, the John Edmondson High School has already developed an admirable reputation for quality education, attested to by the very large number of young people who wish to enrol there. As one of the parents said at the opening of the school, every school should be like it. I was privileged to share an economics class with the year 9 students during the 2007 election campaign: I had a great time with a fun bunch of young people.

I have also spoken in this House about the Women Educating Each Other [WEEO WISER] Day I spent at the school in 2007. In 2008, the school's fourth year of intake, the school will have 780 pupils and its enrolments will increase to more than 1,100 by 2010. Seeing the pupils together on that night with their parents gave me incredible optimism for the future of our area. On the opening of the school in 2005 my predecessor, Steven Chaytor, spoke in this place. It is incredibly pleasing to note that his initial optimism was so well founded. The masters of ceremonies for the evening were Blake Hull and Megan Northey from year 9, and they did an excellent job.

John Edmondson won his Victoria Cross with the 2/17th battalion and for that reason the 2/17th Battalion Association has a special bond with John Edmondson High School. The 2/17th Battalion Association was represented by Roger Mackell, the son of the commanding officer of the 2/17th battalion Austin Mackell—the officer whose life was saved by John Edmondson and who also won a Military Cross. Roger Mackell is the owner of Gleebooks, one of my favourite bookshops, and a long time supporter of public education. Also present from the 2/17th battalion was Mr Ray Rudkin, who presented the John Edmondson Victoria Cross Award for excellence to Ankita Khanna. Mandy and Bridget Harris—the daughter-in-law and granddaughter of the late Jack Harris—gave the Jack Harris-Doug Foster award for leadership to Ilario Patti.

Highlights of the night were the performance of the choir, led by the admirable Dani Craig, a wonderful music teacher who has a unique gift for bringing out the best in her pupils. Christian Shaw helped Dani. Also the vocal ensemble, sax group and strute—strings and flute—group were excellent. Students who did exceptionally well academically included Connie Chan from year 7 and Praneel Kumar from year 9. Both pupils also had 100 per cent attendance records. In the 100 per cent attendance groups Chris Cooley from year 7, who missed a lot of school the previous year, deserves a special mention. The large number of young people with 100 per cent attendance records was most impressive. I am told that even students with chicken pox have asked to be allowed to come to school. I was privileged to be able to present an award for consistent effort to Jake Campbell in year 7. He is a fine young man with a bright future. Also deserving of special mention were the recipients of silver medallions: Jinan Al-Saleh, Amanda Jarjas, Anastasia Krivoshev and Megan Northey from year 8, and Blake Hull, Praneel Kumar, and Vince Mammoliti from year 9.

The whole night was marked by the positive attitude the students have towards each other. The many gifted and committed teachers at the school foster such an atmosphere. The Parents and Citizens Association, led by Tracey Cassar, Elena Rysko, Nina Mammoliti, Lucy Campbell, Margaret Cvetko, Sue Williams and Sue Galvin, is most active and highly valued. I pay tribute to Gary Joannides, the principal, Davern Lewis and Margaret Sanders, the deputy principals, and Daniel Hundt, Mandy Kirk, and Mark Doyle, the year coordinators. I also pay special tribute to the wonderful administration staff team, who rarely get the recognition they deserve: Margaret Fenn, Karen Casey, Brenda Franks, Ron Horn, Anne Lily, Debbie Owen, Michelle Smith, Dearne Steven, Kathy de Davernport-Stuart, Kevin, Campbell, Bruce Vincent, and Juan Villar. Mr Joannides said the administration staff is the best non-teaching staff he has worked with; they are always most helpful when I contact the school. I commend John Edmondson High School, and the students, teachers, and parents, to the House. I am very proud of them.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [1.53 p.m.]: My electorate of Davidson has a growing number of Australians of Chinese descent, as do adjoining electorates. It is therefore appropriate to recognise that the Chinese New Year commenced on 7 February 2008—the year of the rat. It was wonderful to see people whether locally, across New South Wales, or beyond, celebrate the Chinese New Year in a way that remembers 5,000 years of myths, legends and ancient culture. This year I was fortunate to be part of various celebrations, including the celebration held by the Australian Chinese Charity Foundation. Chinese New Year celebrations customarily continue for 15 days, during which time people typically wear red clothes, give children "lucky money" in red packets and set off firecrackers. Red symbolises fire and the Chinese believe it drives away bad luck. The Chinese New Year celebrations ended with the lantern festival under the light of the full moon, which typically includes a dance with a long dragon generally made from silk, paper and bamboo.

According to ancient Chinese legend, Buddha asked all the animals on earth to visit him before he died. But only 12 animals came and the first was the rat. The other 11 animals were the ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and bore. As a reward, Buddha announced that each year the lunar cycle would be named after one of the 12 animals and that people born in that animal's year would have some of its characteristics. What are some of the characteristics of people born in the year of the rat? They have high energy levels and organisational talents. It is rare to see them sitting around with nothing to do. They are sometimes seen as opportunists who manipulate others into helping them achieve a great ambition. Unsurprisingly, "rat" people are said to find considerable success as politicians. For example, George Washington and Sir Winston Churchill were both born in the year of the rat. I perused the New South Wales parliamentary website to identify parliamentarians born in the year of the rat. I found only the member for Kiama, who was born in 1972, three rat cycles ago. I confess to being a horse person.

The 2006 census indicated that 4.4 million people, or 22 per cent of the Australian population, were born overseas, with almost 14 per cent coming from a non-English-speaking country. In 2006, 16 per cent spoke a language other than English at home and 206,500 of the 4.4 million people born overseas came from China. While most Australians reasonably expect immigrants of all backgrounds to represent our mainstream values and customs, they also accept that we have different backgrounds and recognise the richness of our culturally diverse society. In the early days of modern Australia, most Chinese arrivals came from impoverished areas in southern China. Many were motivated by the lure of gold. Although not always accepted, the Chinese worked hard to contribute to the building of our colony and country. Whilst more affluent today, Australians of Chinese background continue to be an integral part of Australian society.

In August this year the whole world will focus on China when the Olympic Games are held in Beijing. However, Australia's focus on China and on growing mutually beneficial bilateral links has been strong for some years. Before Christmas it was interesting to hear the New South Wales Premier report on his trip to China. While the timing of the trip no doubt pleased Mr Rudd—it removed Mr Iemma from Australia just before the Federal election—I did receive some positive feedback about the New South Wales delegation from a relative of mine in China who markets exported Australian wine for Windowrie Estate. I expect new Prime Minister Rudd will continue the excellent progress of the previous Howard Government in building Australia's relationship with China, and the New South Wales Coalition will build on our increasing economic and cultural links with China upon winning government in New South Wales in March 2011. The health of Australia's direct relationship with China can only be enhanced as people increase their understanding and cultural appreciation of important occasions such as Chinese New Year.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands—Speaker) [1.58 p.m.]: It is no exaggeration to say that the delivery of health services both in this State and nationally is at crisis point. I do not want to dwell on recent incidents highlighting these problems: members know them well through the sensational media reports of recent times. In reality they indicate a system that is stretched at the seams, handicapped by a bloated bureaucracy and held to ransom by militant medical professional associations. The situation in rural areas is just as critical as it is in the major cities. We, too, have ageing infrastructure compounded by a shortage of doctors and specialists, nurses and allied health professionals. In addition there is isolation and the distances country people have to travel to access specialist treatment. Dentists are scarce and public dentistry is underfunded. There is virtually no public transport in some areas and the various Federal and State funded transport schemes that exist are not coordinated and often do not meet specific community needs.

In the Northern Tablelands we have two positive initiatives that are making a difference in smaller communities. We hope they will overcome some of the difficulties in recruiting doctors to rural areas. Cooperation between the Federal and State governments has delivered us the very successful multipurpose service hospitals to accommodate long-stay, aged-care patients and acute and community health services under the one roof. We have them operating successfully in Emmaville, Guyra and Walcha, with buildings underway for further hospitals of this model in Bingara, Tingha and Warialda. Because the conditions in these hospitals are so modern and efficient, it is becoming easier to recruit doctors and other staff to work in them—not easy, but a little easier.

The initiative upon which many country people are pinning their hopes is the new Rural Medical School at the University of New England, in conjunction with the University of Newcastle. It opened this year with 62 enrolments for its five-year program; and touring the facilities, it is a magnificent achievement by all concerned. More than 60 undergraduates will be enrolling each year and spending the greatest proportion of their clinical education in large and small rural and regional hospitals. Statistics indicate that after they graduate students more often than not choose to remain in the areas in which they studied.

Attracting specialists is much more difficult outside the metropolitan centres. A collective culture encourages them to work in close proximity to each other. The rationale, which has some validity, is that they can retain and update their skills more effectively by working in teams, and that the prestige and pay scales available in the bigger cities are much more attractive. In our area this is equally true. Specialists tend to gather in the larger centres, and since the start-up of the Rural Medical School they have been a little easier to recruit. The Hunter New England Area Health Service has proposed a hub and spoke or outreach model to share the specialist services across the tablelands area. Some centres like Inverell are trying to recruit a general practitioner [GP] surgeon to replace the retired surgeon they lost almost four years ago. While a recruiting process continues, surgeons from Armidale and Glen Innes will be regularly visiting Inverell hospital.

In my view a hub and spoke model can be more flexible, with each centre concentrating on one specialist area and becoming the hub for other centres. Attracting specialists to meet this model is a problem at present, but it should be considered as a real alternative. It is all very well to have a hub and spoke structure, but public transport services must be addressed to make it work effectively. At present, with so many specialist services based in the larger centres, it is necessary for transport disadvantaged to have access to reliable transport. I urge the Government to address this issue with some urgency. In terms of infrastructure, we need new and upgraded hospitals in Armidale, Glen Innes, Inverell and Tenterfield. The existing hospitals do not meet the demands of modern management practices.

Some upgrading has occurred and new services such as renal dialysis have been introduced over the past few years, but now a major strategic overhaul is needed. With closer cooperation between the State and Federal Governments, and the Federal health Minister undertaking a review of rural health services, there is a real opportunity to tailor services to meet the specific needs of rural and regional communities. In my view, this should be led by a regional health authority to manage State, Federal, local government and private sector funding and initiatives. This would save money, cut back on bureaucracy and provide conditions conducive to local management, recruiting and making the most of the services of doctors, specialists, dentists, nurses and allied health professionals in areas outside the Sydney Basin.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [2.03 p.m.]: One pleasure I have as a local member is being invited to community events such as the recent presentation of long service medals for members of the Yeoval and Washpen Rural Fire Service brigades. Seven men from these brigades had notched up a total of 295 years of service for their communities. Ron Johnson, Colin Whittaker, Michael Antrobus and Kevin Kerin were recognised for 50 years service each, along with Les Tremain and Ray Kerin for 35 years service and John Munro for 25 years service. It was quite moving to see these fellows—tough, hardened men who think nothing of tackling a raging bushfire—suddenly humbled and emotional by the attention focused on them. Their individual stories reflect the history of the rural fire service in that region.

Kevin Kerin was a founding member of the Washpen brigade when it formed in 1948. He could remember carrying water on horseback to fires when he was only nine years old. During his half century as a volunteer, he served a total of 28 years as captain and deputy captain of the Washpen brigade until his retirement in 1998. For the curious, the Washpen district was named after sheep washing yards that were set up at Washpen Creek in the early years of settlement in the Yeoval district. Viewers of the ABC may have seen an example of sheep washing on the reality TV program Outback House, filmed near Yeoval in my electorate, which examined life on a grazing property in the 1860s. The sheep were forced through a race built across the creek in an effort to wash the dust out of the wool prior to shearing. The practice fell out of favour over time as the establishment of wool scouring plants alleviated the need for washing the sheep.

In 1952 Mick Antrobus started fighting fires at Running Stream between Mudgee and Lithgow when he was 17 years old. Mick moved to Obley in 1954 and joined the Washpen brigade in 1956. He has been a key member of the brigade ever since, including a stint as deputy captain from 1974 to 1995. Ron Johnson joined the Yeoval brigade in 1954 and fulfilled many roles including deputy captain and maintenance officer. In 1986 Ron was appointed Group Officer of the Yeoval and Washpen brigades. During a state of emergency in January 1994 Ron was involved in the containment of a serious fire in the Washpen district. This major threat to life and property coincided with more than 800 fires across the State, which resulted in widespread destruction.

Together, these men gave, and continue to give, unconditionally to their community. Their actions are a prime example of that often-lamented virtue we call "community spirit". It is always heartening to see the way rural communities pull together, whatever the cause. It is not just the men fighting fires; their wives and partners also get involved—and, together, often carry that commitment over to almost every area of community life. It is not uncommon to see the same people involved in school parents and citizens associations, the hospital auxiliary, the show society, the country women's association, the local progress association or the shire council. These people do not seek reward or recognition for their efforts. They do what they do because it has to be done, and they know too well that no-one else will do it for them.

They have an outstanding level of resourcefulness honed from years of making do without Government support. They are generous people, often a bit shy but quick to show their appreciation when someone does them a good turn. This warmth and generosity was evident in the Yeoval community's appreciation of the attendance of the new New South Wales Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons at the medal presentation three weeks ago. Issues of the past regarding restrictive occupational health and safety legislation and equipment provision were cast aside, and all in attendance warmly welcomed the commissioner. Much of the equipment issues have been resolved with most rural fire service crews now well equipped with the latest in fire fighting technology. The occupational health and safety issues are still a bit of a bugbear for some as they see it as an affront to their ability and commonsense.

A number of examples were quietly cited where fire crews were unable to progress down fire trails because no-one in their crew had a chainsaw licence to cut up fallen trees blocking their path. For many, this issue was perceived as a slight on their ability, even though most of them had been using chainsaws since their youth without the need for or want of a licence. Another issue was the closure of fire trails in national parks preventing timely and safe access to and from fire fronts. However, those issues were sidelined during the commissioner's visit and he was received with gracious admiration for making time to visit the troops. In all, it was an excellent day, particularly as the cooler summer this year brought considerable relief to the fire fighters, who were able to devote more time to their families.

Question—That private members' statements be noted—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Private members' statements noted.

[The Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 2.08 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The SPEAKER: It is with regret that I have to inform the House of the death on 8 February 2008 of John Richard Bartlett, a former member of the Legislative Assembly who was very well known by many members of the House. On behalf of the House I extend to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained. A motion of sympathy will be moved in the House on a future day.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

Assent to the following bills of the previous session reported:

Consumer Claims Amendment Bill 2007
Police Amendment Bill 2007
Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2007
Community Justice Centres Amendment Bill 2007
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2007
Local Government Amendment Bill 2007
Courts and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007
Crimes Amendment (Sexual Procurement or Grooming of Children) Bill 2007
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill 2007
Agricultural Industry Services Amendment Bill 2007
Rice Marketing Amendment Bill 2007
Wine Grapes Marketing Board (Reconstitution) Amendment Bill 2007
Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) Bill 2007
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Bill 2007
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Prosecutions) Bill 2007
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No 2) 2007
Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill 2007
Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Bill 2007
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2007
Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill 2007
Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2007
Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2007
Liquor Bill 2007
Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Bill 2007
Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Bill 2007
Local Court Bill 2007
Miscellaneous Acts (Local Court) Amendment Bill 2007
Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Bill 2007
World Youth Day Amendment Bill 2007
Law Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007
Road Transport (General) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle User Charges) Bill 2007
Road Transport Legislation (Breath Testing and Analysis) Bill 2007

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I inform the House that today the Minister for Women, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water (Environment) will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.18 p.m.]: In view of the comments I am about to make, it is with a special sense of respect that I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and pay tribute to elders past and present. On 18 June 1997 my distinguished predecessor, Bob Carr, stood in this place and made one of the most historic statements in the 152-year existence of this Parliament:

That this House, on behalf of the people of New South Wales—

(1) apologises unreservedly to the Aboriginal people of Australia for the systematic separation of generations of Aboriginal children from their parents, families and communities;

(2) acknowledges and regrets Parliament's role in enacting laws and endorsing policies of successive governments whereby profound grief and loss have been inflicted upon Aboriginal Australians;

(3) calls upon all Australian Governments to respond with compassion, understanding and justice to the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission entitled Bringing them home; and

(4) reaffirms its commitment to the goals and processes of reconciliation in New South Wales and throughout Australia.

Eleven years later the power of those words and the emotion of that day remain undimmed and undiminished. All of us who witnessed it and who were privileged to vote for that motion will forever regard it as one of the high points of our life in public office. The statement was just over 100 words long but it can be encapsulated in just one word—short, simple, precious—the word we teach our children to value above all others but the word we often find the hardest to say. It is, of course, the word "sorry". Just five short letters that some Australians staked their reputations on denying and who, despite the overwhelming evidence and the sheer weight of moral urgency, never found the courage or the humility to utter. Thankfully, with the apology made by the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Parliament on 13 February the age of denial is over. No more must the Aboriginal community face a double hurt: the original trauma of the stolen generations and the added insult of refusing an apology. A great national wrong has been righted; a great national healing has begun, and the first Australians can walk a little taller in their own land once again.

No-one would deny the apology marks a beginning as much as it marks an end. The apology marks the end of a series of symbolic actions and gestures that have unfolded since the referendum of 1967: the handover of Wave Hill to Vincent Lingiari; the Northern Territory Land Rights Act and its many State equivalents; the appointment of the first Aboriginal judges, governors and politicians; the Mabo judgement and the Native Title Act; the apologies of the State and Territory parliaments; the bridge walk; and Cathy Freeman's unforgettable victory in the 2000 Olympics 400 metres final. Now we have the great missing piece in that sequence: the apology by our national Parliament. With that action, the era, symbols and tokens have come to an end.

That is not to say there will not be, or need to be, such actions in the future. But the defining era of recoiling gestures has reached a conclusion. It is now time to give them substance, to give them real meaning and power in the lives of Aboriginal Australians for whom "sorry", however powerful and necessary, can never on its own be enough. What lies ahead is more challenging and less defined. Unlike symbols and actions that occur on defined days, there will not be a precise moment when Aboriginal infant mortality or school results or incarceration levels reach appropriate benchmarks. They will not happen at the same time nor evenly among the States and communities of this nation. There will not be a defining moment when we know we have made it. It will happen slowly and, at first, imperceptibly, but it must happen. And it will happen, lest the words so solemnly uttered in this place 11 years ago, and uttered with even greater meaning in Canberra two weeks ago, turn to dust and ashes, and our plans for rebuilding join the scrap heap of failure and waste, which is what our decades of attempting to defeat Indigenous disadvantage amount to.

For this generation it can no longer be so. In the face of that shameful legacy, with so many lessons learnt, and so many good intentions scorched, more of the same will not be acceptable. It will be time to right the wrongs. Therefore, in welcoming and celebrating the apology, we acknowledge that it also sets the bar higher and makes the price dearer if we get the future wrong. With the apology we have a chance for black and white Australians to live on just terms in this lucky country we share: our last and best chance, an open door through which we must pass if our third century together is not to repeat the mistakes and failures of the first two. It is a challenge that we, and we alone, must face; a challenge that we, and we alone, must meet. We have said "sorry". It is time to show we mean it.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [2.25 p.m.]: In replying to this motion, I assume the usual courtesy will be extended to the Leader of The Nationals on this motion as it has been over the past 13 years whenever these matters have been raised. I spent the morning of 13 February at Newcastle Civic Centre, along with the member for Newcastle, the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, the Anglican Bishop of Newcastle, Bryan Farren; the Catholic Bishop of Maitland and Newcastle, Michael Malone; the member for Port Stephens, Craig Baumann; and the Hon. Robyn Parker, MLC, and, thankfully and joyously, hundreds of ordinary citizens. We heard Awabakal Aboriginal Co-op spokesman Richard McGuinness speak with great feeling about what the apology meant to him. It is clear that not just for Richard McGuinness, not just for people of Aboriginal descent across this State and nation, this was a significant event.

We last spoke about this matter in May last year when we celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 referenda in which Faith Bundler, whom I had the privilege to represent, played such an important role. The apology by the Federal Parliament is a vital step towards the goal of genuine reconciliation in this country, and I believe it was as historic an event as that 1967 referenda. But legislation or motions cannot guarantee equality, respect or dignity. To achieve those goals also requires an understanding of the problems and the determination to overcome them.

The Federal Parliament's apology is an expression of the community's desire to begin that process of healing. It is an acknowledgement by the Australian community of past wrongs and that as a nation we care about the effect of those actions upon our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. There is no doubt that when Aboriginal children were taken away from their parents, because of Aboriginality, government policy of the day was clearly unjust and unreasonable, and there can be no excuse made for that. This apology, and the reaffirmation of the apology offered 11 years ago in this place, sends a clear message to Aboriginal Australians that they are valued by all Australians, that we recognise past injustices and that we are committed to achieving reconciliation.

Motions and expressions of goodwill will not provide Aboriginal Australians with what they ultimately deserve from all of us as Australians, that is, genuine equality. I will not recite today the appalling statistics across a range of areas that demonstrate the lack of equality between Aboriginal Australians and the rest of us. I do acknowledge the following passage of the motion in the Federal Parliament. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has shown, at least initially, that he is going to direct an enormous amount of energy towards some of the tasks, including housing, that confront Aboriginal Australians. I acknowledge that he does so—I think to his credit—in a bipartisan fashion.

Eleven years ago I stood in this place and spoke in support of the apology offered by this, the oldest Parliament in the nation, the first Parliament to offer an apology to Australian Aborigines. Now, 11 years on, I believe that none in this place could be satisfied that the outcomes of the hopes, the energies and the goodwill that were clearly put into that exercise have been delivered to the people in our State. From time to time in this place we get very excited and we seek to hold governments to account for the failings of big portfolios involving billions of dollars. Frequently we fail to understand the impact of those failings upon communities across the State. Whether in Health or the Department of Community Services, what at times might be issues of great conflict between political parties in this place are matters of life and death, care and treatment, and protection and nurture for those weakest and most vulnerable within our communities.

Today I asked the member for Barwon about the status of the Brewarrina office of the Department of Community Services. I was told, again, six months after the matter was first raised in this House, that the Brewarrina office still does not have a child protection officer attached to it. That fills me with distress but it also fills me with a determination; a determination to ensure that 11 years on from our apology, and after the Federal Parliament's apology, we continue to hold governments to account and we continue to work to ensure that these are not just words, but are matters of action. We must meet the expectations of all Australians in this being a practical step towards real reconciliation and, above all, we must meet the needs of Aboriginal Australians in this State.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [2.31 p.m.], by leave: On behalf of the New South Wales Nationals I indicate tripartisan support for an apology to Aboriginal people who were taken from their families as children. Several years go in this House I expressed the same support for an apology. It is important for many Aboriginal people in New South Wales to hear those words during their lifetime, words that will assist them in their healing process. The Nationals members in this place represent seven out of the 10 electorates with the highest Aboriginal population; that is, most Aboriginal communities are located in country New South Wales. The Nationals members in this place have consistently sought to improve the living standards of Aboriginal people in their communities. They are proud to represent those people and they are desperate for a changemore than mere wordsand for practical reconciliation in their communities.

There are significant Aboriginal communities in towns such as Kempsey, Bowraville and Bellbrook in my electorate of Oxley and in other parts of the mid North Coast. The notorious Kinchela Boys Home, which played a very dark part in the history of the stolen generations, is near Kempsey. The day before the apology was delivered in the Federal Parliament I spoke to a respected elder of the Aboriginal community in Kempsey. I will call her Aunty Janethowever, I will not reveal her full details. Aunty Janet was one of eight children in a Taree family in what was then known as the Aboriginal mission near Purfleet. In the late 1950s her father was a worker on the railways. When Aunty Janet was 14, her parents told her to go bush, to go and hide, because the authorities were after her. The authorities were the Aboriginal Welfare Board, an agency of this State.

On that occasion Aunty Janet escaped. However, when she was 15 she was removed from her family and sent for domestic work in Sydney, where she was placed with a Jewish family in Edgecliff. Of her seven siblings, five were removed from the family. Things became worse when her father was killed during his employment on the railways. The Aboriginal Welfare Board took the insurance money owed to her mother. The manager of the so-called mission wrote documents to say that she was an unfit mother, which resulted in five of the siblings being placed into various locations involving domestic duties. They were taken from their mother because she was regarded as unfit. Two of the boys were sent to Kinchela Boys Home, one died while there and the other died subsequently as a result of alcoholism in western New South Wales.

Aunty Janet told me her story not because she wants any money—she said that she is happy with her lot in life—but to have the record corrected regarding her mother and her family. I appeal to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to whom I will speak later, to go through the archives and read some of the documents that I believe were falsified. The Federal Parliament's apology has helped Aunty Janet and many of the Kempsey community no end. However, indigenous and non-indigenous people want more than mere words; we want practical reconciliation on the ground.

Last year I toured Aboriginal communities in western New South Wales. I saw chronic drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and child abuse. I heard of incarceration rates for Aboriginal men that were 12 times the average. I heard that life expectancy for Aboriginal men in far western New South Wales is 33 years. That is an absolute scandal and an international shame. These issues have been raised by way of a report entitled "Breaking the Silence: Creating the Future. Addressing Child Sexual Assault in Aboriginal Communities in New South Wales", which recommends practical reconciliation on the ground, whole-of-government action and significant funding for those recommendations. As yet the New South Wales Government has failed to come to grips with those recommendations.

Whilst The Nationals join with the Government in its apology, we urge it to get serious about practical reconciliation and about addressing the serious disadvantage in Aboriginal communities throughout New South Wales. That disadvantage is not confined to remote communities in the Northern Territory; it exists in the Government's backyard in New South Wales. Let us be tripartisan and work together on this. I am sure all members will join with me when I say that words are very good. We give those words out of a spirit of wanting to see people move forward in their healing process. However, if we are fair dinkum about addressing those issues we will work together and provide the necessary resources towards dealing with them.

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Ports and Waterways. In light of the admission by the member for Wollongong that last November everyone knew of sexual harassment allegations and investigations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption into the Minister's friend Joe Scimone, does the Minister still claim that he did not know what everyone else seemed to know until he read about it on the Internet last week?

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Obviously everybody in this House is aware of the fact that this matter has been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and, as a consequence, it is not appropriate for me to make any further comment in relation to this matter.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order

The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order. However, the Minister has only just begun his answer.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: He has only just started his answer, but we know what he is going

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. That a number of matters have been the subject of considerable media speculation does not allow members to conduct themselves outside the leave of the standing orders. The Minister has the call.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: As I was saying, everyone in this House is aware of the fact that this matter has been referred to the commission. Therefore, it is not appropriate for us to be making further comments in relation to these matters.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order

The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition. However, I remind him of my earlier ruling.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Indeed, Mr Speaker. I hope you hear what I am about to say. My question did not ask about what involvement the Minister had with Joe Scimone's appointment. My question asked about the admission of the member for Wollongong that last November everybody knew about the allegations of sexual harassment

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that the Minister is required to give a relevant answer.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I have saidand as I will say for the third timeeveryone in this House is aware that this matter has been referred to the commission. Therefore, it is not appropriate for us to comment further on the matter while it is at the commission

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: other than to say that I have done absolutely nothing wrong.

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on the latest developments in the Government's plans to secure the State's energy supplies?

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will remain silent.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am pleased to do so, even if the member who interjected may think it is not an important issue. The Government's plan will secure the State's future energy needs, because energy security means economic security. What the Government announced at the end of last year was a plan to do just that. As energy experts have told us, the State will require enough extra electricity by 2014 to power 200,000 homes, which is the equivalent of the output of Mount Piper power station. That is the extra electricity required by 2014.

The people of this State have done a fantastic job in saving energy, but with population growth and economic growth the State needs more electricity. Following the Owen inquiry, options on how to best secure that outcome were outlined for the Government. Our package, which was released at the end of last year, does just that: it secures more electricity and, at the same time, it provides more protection for workers and consumers, especially pensioners, and provides for continued price regulation until at least 2017. It also establishes two massive green energy funds to back research projects and pilots into alternative sources of energy. Unlike the Coalition's handling of water supplies when in government, where it allowed the State to become a Sahara before it would take action to secure the State's water supplies

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is exactly what they did. There were brownouts before the Coalition took any action. We are not going to risk the State's future. That is why the Government will proceed with its energy security plans.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As part of those plans, I inform the House that given the importance of ensuring the best possible environment for that investment in extra electricity to occur, the Minister for Planning has agreed that applications for new power stations with a capacity greater than 250 megawatts lodged before 1 January 2013 will automatically be considered as critical infrastructure.

[Interruption]

A power station is being built in Wollongong, at Tallawarra. For the member's benefit, it is a 400-megawatt gas-fired power station. I might add that the investment proceeded as a result of this Government giving a guarantee on carbon tradingour State-based carbon trading scheme. We look forward to even more investments like the one at Tallawarra securing the State's energy supply. Consistent with the Government's position that no one fuel type should be preferred over another, all power station proposals that meet this threshold will be considered critical infrastructure, whether they are wind, solar or gas. We will also consider proposals to expand our existing power stations. The Government will not differentiate between projects, proponents or fuel sources and it will include peak, intermediate and base load plants. Today I have a simple message for the energy industry: get cracking!

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the revelations of the member for Wollongong that everyone knew about the activities of Joe Scimone last November, why does the Premier not sack the Minister for Ports for continued poor performance and lack of judgment, instead of hiding behind an Independent Commission Against Corruption reference?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Minister for Ports categorically denies that he had any involvement in Mr Scimone's recruitment and to that extent he is entitled to a presumption of innocence whilst the matter is the subject of Independent Commission Against Corruption advice.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Opposition might tell us all of those Liberal Party Ministers, members and branch members who have ever met people such as Adler, Vizard and Williams over the years. Would the Coalition make an imputation on their character simply because they knew someone who at a later time might have been guilty of doing something wrong? No, it would not.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Members opposite think they can get up and smear the reputation of people on our side just because they want to play a game of throwing bombs of guilt by association.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If members opposite want to get into throwing bombs on the basis of guilt by association, we can spend all of our time doing that every day this week. It will not exempt any members opposite over a very long time. The fact is some very serious allegations have been made against Mr Scimone and, quite properly, the corruption watchdog of this State is investigating. If he is found to have done something wrong he will face the consequences of the criminal law. The Minister for Ports categorically denies any involvement in his recruitment, yet Opposition members want to hang him.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Opposition members want to hang the Minister for Ports without any evidence and without any basis for moving against him. They simply want to smear him.

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

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Premier said that we have no evidence.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the member for Murray-Darling to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: For the benefit of the member for Willoughby, the answer to the second part of the question is: Refer to the comments that I made on Friday. They are 100 per cent accurate and I stand by them. That is exactly what will occur when the advice comes back from the Independent Commission Against Corruption, if there is something to proceed against the Minister.

Mr STEVE WHAN: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's plans to tackle climate change?

Ms VERITY FIRTH: Currently there is no greater environmental challenge than the threat of global warming. Confronting the issue is a solemn responsibility that we all share. The science is in: experts globally agree that urgent action is required. According to one recent survey, community concern about climate change has doubled in the past 12 months. The interim Garnaut climate change review, which was released last week, shows that we are already locked into significant climate change as a result of previous and current emissions, which is not good news.

Significantly, the Garnaut report finds that the failure by Australia and the United States of America to ratify the Kyoto protocol seven years ago was of historic importance in disrupting an international approach. While members opposite were pledging to scrap our native vegetation regulations, we were working with landowners and green groups to end large-scale land clearing, which has made a real contribution to meeting our Kyoto targets. The Opposition's lack of interest in these issues mirrors the Howard Government's 11 long years of inaction on climate change.

The SPEAKER: Order! It is inappropriate for Opposition members to conduct private conversations while the Minister is answering a question. Such behaviour may be a deliberate Opposition tactic, but it should cease. The Minister has the call.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: The Garnaut report clearly shows the ramifications of years of ignoring the science, ignoring the experts, and ignoring the international effort to work towards a solution, which is why we are in the trouble that we are in today. New South Wales has been a national and world leader in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. We initiated one of the world's first mandatory carbon emission trading schemes that has already cut emissions by more than 60 million tonnesthat is, the equivalent of taking more than 12 million cars off the road in one year. In 2005 New South Wales was the first Australian jurisdiction to set ambitious targets to reduce emissions. Opposition members are heckling me, but the Howard Government did zero on this issue for the 11 years it was in office. That is one of the reasons why we have lost precious time. Considering that inaction, it is amazing that Opposition members are heckling me.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goulburn will cease interjecting. The Minister has the call.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: In 2005 New South Wales was the first jurisdiction to set ambitious targets to reduce emissions. We have in place targets to reduce emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Under New South Wales leadership work started on a national emissions trading scheme that is now being considered by the Commonwealth as part of developing a truly national scheme. It is wonderful that we are at last developing that scheme. Today, as Acting Minister for Environment and Climate Change, I am pleased to advise the House that New South Wales is moving into the next stage of climate change policy leadership. The national and international debate has now moved forward.

We are now dealing with a Federal Government that is actively engaged in this issue and new science is adding greater urgency to our response. As the Commonwealth engages in emissions trading New South Wales will increasingly focus on implementing emissions reduction measures and on helping families and businesses deal with the consequences of climate change—the challenge of climate adaptation. Clearly, the national scheme will be the central driver of Australian emissions reduction, but we know that that alone will not be sufficient. To meet the greenhouse challenge will require policy, technical and business innovation.

We are focusing our efforts on actions to ease the path of families and business and to exploit new job opportunities as we start this transformation to a low carbon economy. I have faith in the human species. This can be done; we can solve this problem. We need to prepare for a future in which renewable energy will play an ever-growing role. That is why we are backing increased renewable energy targets and improving our existing systems to minimise adverse effects on our environment. Currently almost 3,000 megawatts of renewable generation proposals are in various stages of consideration across New South Wales. That will see extra power generated through wind, solar and other zero emission technologies.

We have funded renewable energy research in development projects, including the thermal solar power system at Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley. In fact, $100 million has been put into the Renewable Energy Fund to support the development of new and renewable energy projects, and we are expanding our existing development program. The first call for expressions of interest for funding closed earlier this month and I am pleased to announce that 72 applications have been received. Any jurisdiction that is serious about climate change must not only support the renewable energy sectorwhich is incredibly importantit must also get serious about energy efficiency.

We are always looking to support innovative energy solutions. As part of the response to the Owen inquiry we announced the new energy efficiency strategy. Detailed work is under way on this strategy, which includes phasing out old-style electric hot water systems in favour of cleaner alternatives, requiring the top 200 energy users to implement cost-effective energy saving measures, and helping low income earners become more energy efficient and save money through an energy efficiency audit and refit program for households.

More than 90 per cent of this State's energy needs are currently met by coal, which is why Professor Owen identified that the reliance of New South Wales on fossil fuels would continue for the foreseeable future. That is also why this Government is doing everything it can to improve its clean coal technology. The Garnaut review wholeheartedly supported carbon capture and storage as vital in a mix of mechanisms in the battle against climate change. While we continue to support the development of practical, renewable energy solutions, clean coal technology offers us a key chance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future.

In the last year alone we have invested almost half a million dollars on projects that specifically assist in clean coal research and, in an Australian first, New South Wales is trialling a $5 million pilot carbon catcher plant at Lake Munmorah on the Central Coast. Importantly, the technology we are working on can be retrofitted, which means it can improve the environmental performance of existing coal-fired power stations, which is vital in this battle. Like it or not, China and developing countries are building new coal-fired power stations at a rapid rate. That is a reality we face, so any contribution New South Wales can make to the development of new clean coal technologies would be a real contribution to the global fight against greenhouse gas emissions.

New South Wales must work on renewable energy sources to meet its long-term needs and to do what it can to curb greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired facilities. This is the way of the future—the important first steps in a process that will allow us to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in New South Wales. At the same time it will ensure that we continue to provide a reliable energy supply to New South Wales families and businesses. It is actually an historic moment. This is the first time the House has met since our nation signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr John Watkins: We are happy about it.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: Yes, we are really happy that at last we are engaging with this issue. New South Wales, in conjunction with the newly elected Federal Government, will now begin its new role helping businesses, families and the community adjust to the inevitable changes we all face in a sustainable way that keeps our economy secure and provides a real, long-term solution to climate change.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. How can the public believe that Joe Scimone was only an acquaintance when the Minister thanked him personally in his inaugural speech and appointed him as his campaign manager at the last State election?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clarence will not assist the Leader of The Nationals to ask his question.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I am happy to repeat to the House what I said publicly last week. At the 2007 election campaign Mr Scimone was like many other individuals in the community and many members of the Labor Party in the Illawarra: He handed out how-to-vote cards for a couple of hours. If the mob opposite did their research they would know that a gentleman named Ian Hunt has been my campaign director and campaign manager for every one of the three campaigns that I have waged to win a seat in this Parliament. Opposition members do not do their homework and do not get it right.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The inaugural speeches of just about any member in this place list people who assisted in their election. I do not deny for a minute—and I have not denied for a minute—that in 1999 Mr Scimone was one of those who assisted me to be elected to this place. I have not denied that he has been a friend for in the order of 30 years. But I have said publicly, and I repeat here, that over the past several months we have drifted apart and I now consider him to be an acquaintance.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I welcome questions from the Opposition on this issue because it gives me the opportunity to say—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: —that in this place about 18 months ago—

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: —the member for Vaucluse got down in the sewer—down in the gutter—looking for political paydirt and came up with egg on his face. If Opposition members go down the same path regarding my associations, they will end up in the same situation.

Ms JODI McKAY: My question is addressed to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on responses to the Government's energy changes?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Understandably, this debate has caused concern, particularly among trade union members. A number of surveys regarding this issue—no matter which side of the debate one is on—reveal that the community wants certainty, clarity and action. We endorse that wholeheartedly—as, I might add, does a former Premier of this State, Nick Greiner. I will quote an excerpt from the Australian of 11 February. In response to a question about certainty and clarity of Opposition policy, Mr Greiner responded, "I don't know what their position is." The confusion is understandable because in 2001 in a speech at the Carlton Crest Hotel the Leader of the Opposition quite correctly stated, "The correct option in the name of the public interest is electricity reform." Then last year in his speech in reply to the budget the Leader of the Opposition stood in this Chamber and said, "I'm going to sell retail electricity." It was policy on the run. He was desperate for something to say in his reply to the budget so he said, "I'll sell retail electricity." The most pressing need for the State is extra electricity.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: The most pressing need for the State, Morris, is more energy from you.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We were hoping the Leader of the Opposition would not go there, but he has. As Peter Ruehl wrote this morning in the Australian Financial Review of Mr O'Farrell: It is like being given a Maserati and being unable to drive it. Then there is Malcolm Turnbull. Three times as many people want Malcolm Turnbull as leader, and he is not even in this place! The Government might be going through a tough time but we will get through our tough time. The research shows that the Leader of the Opposition just cannot cut it—and there is no recovery from that. We were hoping the Leader of the Opposition would not go there, but nevertheless—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Deputy Premier will cease interjecting. The member for Terrigal will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Does the Leader of the Opposition know the reason he cannot cut it and why there is no return from that situation? It is precisely because of the position he has adopted on issues such as energy reform and electricity. At a time when the State needs certainty about its future electricity needs the Leader of the Opposition simply cannot make up his mind. In 2001 he showed some leadership potential by saying that electricity reform is the only option. When he became the Leader of the Opposition—10 years after hanging back, one out, one back, and desperate to say, "If only they would give me a chance, things could be so much better"—his reply to the budget was, "I am going to sell retail." Then he says nothing else—nothing about the workers, nothing about the environment, and nothing about prices.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Willoughby to order for the third time.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He does not say anything about extra supply of electricity.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He just says, "Well, let's pick an asset and let's just flog it off so we can go on a spending spree. Pick an asset and sell it." So when someone like Nick Greiner is asked about the Opposition's position on securing extra electricity for New South Wales—the State's most pressing energy need—he is forced to answer, "I don't know what their position is." Then in February this year the Leader of the Opposition says, "We want to see the detail"—as if you cannot state a position in principle. As Mr Greiner correctly stated after that interview, "Professor Owen was right, you can't deal with retail without dealing with generation because generation gives you the extra capacity." But the Leader of the Opposition says, "I want to wait; I can't make up my mind. I've only got a policy that says, 'Sell off some silverware, sell retail; let's get a few billion dollars and let's just go and spend it'."

But dealing with retail and nothing else does not deliver extra electricity. All the energy experts have said that, as a result of population and economic growth, New South Wales needs extra electricity. The Leader of the Opposition says, "I don't know what my position on that is; I want to wait." Just as the Opposition waited on water, when it said it would wait for the State to become a Sahara before taking any action, so too the Leader of the Opposition wants to wait for brownouts before he decides to do something about electricity. We are not waiting. We are getting on with the job of making sure that New South Wales has sufficient electricity for families, homes and jobs so that investment happens in New South Wales, not in other States.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning. Will he confirm that he personally telephoned developers, including Stockland, in some instances on multiple occasions, encouraging them to attend his February 2006 $500,000 Labor Party fundraiser, notwithstanding those developers were waiting for his consent under part 3A of the planning legislation?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: When this House debated the ban on smoking in pubs and clubs about three years ago, I presumed at the time—when I was the responsible Minister—that the Leader of the Opposition—

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I presumed that the Opposition's having received $200,000 from British American Tobacco had no impact on the voting of members of the Opposition or would influence them in any way in respect of how they dealt with that matter in this House. When legislation dealing with planning came before this Chamber on a number of occasions in the past two years, I presumed—

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I point out to the House that the election returns for the Labor Party show $27,000—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I suggest that the member ensure that his next point of order is relevant.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: As I just said, the Opposition received $200,000 from British American Tobacco, including $6,000 directly into Barry O'Farrell's own local campaign fund. I presumed that that had no impact on how members of the Opposition voted or on their position in regard to a very important public policy issue. When we debated planning legislation and a number of critical amendments to the planning Act and O'Farrell, Hazzard and the rest of the Opposition expostulated upon these issues, I presumed that the fact that the Liberal Party had received well over $1 million in donations from developers—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: —had no impact on how Liberal members voted, or on their position.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Standing Order 129 relates to relevance. You will understand that the question has nothing to do with what the Minister is going on about. The question is about phone calls that he made directly as a member of the Executive arm of this Government and one signature away from being able to make significant decisions.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Minister that answers must be relevant to the questions asked.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am coming to the point. I think the question of consistency and hypocrisy is very relevant at the moment in this Chamber. The member for Wakehurst gets a speculative story from a journalist and straightaway seeks to besmirch my reputation in the exercise of my functions under the planning Act. I am answering the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat. It is inappropriate for Opposition members to interject when a Minister is answering a question. All members who have been called to order previously are now on three calls to order. I will not tolerate such behaviour.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I hope that applies to the Premier as well.

The SPEAKER: Order! All members who have been called to order previously are now on three calls to order.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: In February 2006 I hosted a quite significant fundraiser for the Australian Labor Party. Approximately 700 people attended. The media omit to tell people that most of the people who attended were not developers. They omit to tell people that the function was hosted by John Singleton, that Paul Keating made a fairly anti-development speech, and that Ray Hadley—that great supporter of the Australian Labor Party—conducted the auction. The media omit to tell people all that and instead run with the line that somehow I was soliciting in an improper way; implying that attendance by people at that dinner would somehow influence planning decisions.

I presumed goodwill and bona fides on the part of members of the Opposition. All I say now is that I have never, ever allowed donations to any political party, the Labor Party in particular, to influence what I do in my public office in any way, shape or form, and that will remain the case—even when members opposite come into my office lobbying me on behalf of developers and about local issues.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you were listening attentively to the question, and you would know that the question I asked required a yes or a no answer.

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

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Water Utilities. What is the latest information on the Government's commitment to drought proof communities across the State, particularly regional and rural centres?

Mr NATHAN REES: Our Metropolitan Water Plan is well documented and it drought proofs drinking water supplies for Sydney. It relies on four key elements. First, we have the three largest recycling schemes in Australia—one is at Bluescope Steel in the industrial district of Wollongong, another is at Rouse Hill, which is the largest residential scheme in Australia, and there is the $250 million Western Sydney recycling initiative—

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr NATHAN REES: The second element is that we have more than 70 stormwater harvesting schemes across Greater Sydney. Third, we have permanent water saving plans in place to reduce water consumption by approximately 3 per cent per annum. Fourth, the desalination plant, which has been brought in under budget and ahead of time, doubles the capacity of the initial proposal. All these elements combined increase our water supply by almost 50 per cent, setting up Sydney and its surrounding suburbs well for more than half a century.

In the Hunter we are building the $340 million Tillegra Dam, and that will secure drinking water for the Hunter and the Central Coast for the next century. Long-term drinking water security for Sydney and the Hunter shows that the Government is delivering on its election commitments. But, as members will be aware, we also have a couple of million people in rural and regional areas of New South Wales, where drinking water is delivered by more than 107 different utilities. I want rural and regional people to have the same security and quality of drinking water supplies as do people in our cities. That is why in August last year at a Local Government and Shires Associations conference in Inverell I announced my intention to review drinking water delivery arrangements in rural New South Wales. Before making that announcement I consulted closely with Genia McCaffrey and Bruce Miller of the Local Government and Shires Associations as well as Ben Kruse of the relevant union.

I emphasised in the announcement that the review was dependent upon close cooperation and consultation with all local utilities and that there would be no Macquarie Street solutions. Instead, councils will develop their models for the future. Since then, terms of reference have been finalised in consultation with all 107 councils. I have appointed a reference panel of six people, five of whom are from local government. I also have appointed Dr Col Gellatly, the former head of the Premier's Department, and Mr Ian Armstrong, the former head of The Nationals and former Deputy Premier, to lead community consultations throughout New South Wales.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Ian is a good one.

Mr NATHAN REES: He will be very good.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr NATHAN REES: They will be consulting in 15 locations throughout the State—Albury, Bourke, Broken Hill, Cowra, Coffs Harbour, Cooma, Dubbo, Forbes, Griffith, Nowra, Orange, Tamworth, Temora, Tweed Heads and Wagga Wagga, and I have asked them to report back to me in June. Over recent weeks I have been visiting rural areas of New South Wales such as my own electorate of Toongabbie, Dubbo, Tamworth, Armidale, Taree, Braidwood, Cooma, Wagga Wagga, Queanbeyan, West Wyalong, Jerilderie and, finally, Bathurst.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr NATHAN REES: During the course of those town meetings I met with more than 250 mayors, councillors and officials, and I talked to them about their ideas for the future and their models for future water service delivery. I have told them all that the State Government will back their new models with new money for infrastructure, over and above the $160 million already earmarked under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program. I have made it clear to them that if they get the model right we will back it up with additional dollars for infrastructure; we will bring existing projects forward and fund more projects. In each of the towns I have visited I have said that the models they develop must meet six criteria: they must protect revenue streams for councils, protect or enhance capital works programs for councils, protect local jobs, provide access to the skills and capacity required for intellectual knowledge into the future, have the right pricing model, and provide best practice governance.

Mr Andrew Stoner: What about delivering extra water?

Mr NATHAN REES: That is the sort of addiction to short-termism that got the Leader of The Nationals in the position he is in. I am delighted to advise the House that in the town of Bathurst I was presented with a joint submission from the 16 councils that comprise the Central New South Wales Regional Organisation of Councils. Blayney, Boorowa, Cabonne, Cowra, Forbes, Harden, Lachlan, Lithgow, Oberon, Orange, Parkes, Weddin, Wellington and Young councils were all involved, amongst others. They know that there is no more pressing issue than securing water supplies into the future. These mayors, councillors and general managers have had the foresight to work together to develop a cross-regional plan. That is a tremendous demonstration of community leadership and it is especially brave and laudable, given that we have just been through the worst drought in 100 years.

The easiest thing in the world for those councils as community leaders would have been to let things drift, as they have always done. However, they have stepped up and developed, with their communities, a submission with real merit. We will be considering the submission over the coming months as we work through the details, but I must say that it was the most exciting prospect that emerged from all the meetings I attended. This massive water reform program is a direct beneficiary of our energy reform package. Our long-term energy plan will secure the energy needs of New South Wales for the future, with guaranteed jobs and apprenticeships, and it will provide millions of dollars for investment in rural and regional infrastructure. Our energy reforms will help deliver healthy and sustainable country water and sewerage services for many generations to come. We can bring key infrastructure projects forward for rural New South Wales and fund additional projects. That is why reform of our energy sector is the right thing for the people of New South Wales—a tough decision but the right decision for the long term.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is addressed to the Premier. Why does a Labor mate like Joe Scimone get suspended on full pay while under investigation by the ICAC when an electorate staffer like Gillian Sneddon, who blew the whistle on allegations of paedophilia against the former Minister Milton Orkopolous, was sacked in the same week she gave evidence at his trial?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have already outlined the circumstances regarding Mr Scimone's standing down and the allegations he is facing. The member for Murrumbidgee has previously asked about the staff member of Mr Orkopolous. As I have said, those employment matters are matters for the Clerk and the Parliament. It is the same information in the question asked by the member about workers compensation.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. The question does not relate to the trial taking place now or the ICAC; it relates to double standards. Labor mates get looked after. However, people who dump on Labor members get sacked.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I ask the member for Murrumbidgee to resume his seat.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister update the House on the latest initiatives by the Government to help young people with disabilities who live in residential aged care?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I am happy to update the House on the positive outcomes we are delivering for young people living in residential aged care facilities. These outcomes are delivering new services and new age-appropriate supported accommodation. These outcomes are improving the lives of young people who choose to remain in residential aged care, and they will prevent more young people from entering residential aged care. When I travel around the State, whether it is to Bathurst, Newcastle, the Far North Coast or the South Coast, people talk to me about their ideas on how to provide more age-appropriate accommodation.

This week I released a request for expressions of interest for new and innovative supported accommodation—accommodation that is age appropriate for younger people with very high support needs. This is an exciting move. It is the first step in creating real solutions on a significant scale—solutions for people like Allegra Salter. Allegra is a young woman who left school recently. She has cerebral palsy and her support needs are quite high. I met Allegra when I visited Bathurst. Currently, she lives in a residential aged care facility. Allegra's mother, Sally, has told me about how the quality of Allegra's life has improved significantly since she has been able to access the Community Participation Program, which is part of our Stronger Together reform of disability services.

It gives Allegra five days a week outside the residential aged care facility. It gives her the opportunity to be with people her own age and to pursue her love of art, whether it is visiting an art gallery or engaging in her own artistic pursuits. Allegra also has the opportunity to attend things like Riding for the Disabled or to have a personal shopper supporting her when she goes to the shops. While I am thrilled that Allegra is getting the support she needs through the Community Participation Program, she wants what most people her age want: the opportunity to move out on her own or to move in with a group of friends her own age. That is why the Iemma Government and I are committed to providing better support to young people who live in residential aged care. It is stories like that of Allegra that compel us to that commitment.

The expressions of interest process closes on 18 April, and we would like organisations, individuals and consortia of organisations to come to us with their suggestions of flexible, innovative and age-appropriate accommodation. An expressions of interest process is just one part of it. Recently we have seen the first two younger people in residential aged care move into age-appropriate accommodation in the Hunter, and a third person received a similar offer only last month. It is important to note that not all young people in residential aged care want to move out. In fact, last year the Iemma Government wrote to all 367 people under the age of 50 who live in residential aged care, and invited them to be part of a process where we consider how we can provide alternative accommodation and improved services.

About one-third of those people who responded told us that they would prefer to stay in their current accommodation but to access additional services that make their lives more enjoyable. That is why we have introduced our in-reach support packages. These in-reach packages are tailored to each person. They can include things like recreational activities, diversional therapy, occupational therapy, and access to a day program off site where they can interact and participate in activities with people in their own age group. What is important about these in-reach packages is that they are available not only to young people who are choosing to stay in their residential aged care but also to younger people who are waiting to move out into age-appropriate accommodation.

We recently concluded a tender process that sought to roll out in-reach disability support packages across New South Wales to create a network of service providers around the State to deliver them. The response to that tender process has been incredibly positive. The Iemma Government's commitment to younger people with a disability with high support needs is reflected in Stronger Together, our $1.3 billion commitment to disability services. Stronger Together supports the young people in residential aged care programs. It provides long-term, practical solutions that people with disabilities and their families and carers want and need. I look forward to updating the House in the future on the continuing positive outcomes of the Young People in Residential Aged Care Program.

Question time concluded.

The SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 117, I table a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 26 February 2008.

The Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 103 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, of the following reports:

Report to Parliament: Operation Mallard, dated December 2007
Report to Parliament: Operation Rani, dated December 2007

Ordered to be printed.

The Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 78 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, of the following reports:

Report on an Investigation into Allegations of Bribery Relating to Wollongong City Council, dated December 2007
Report on an Investigation into Corrupt Conduct of an Officer at the Department of Housing's Miller Office and Other Persons, dated January 2008

Ordered to be printed.

The Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to a resolution of the House dated 6 December 2007, of the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2007, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 21 February 2008.

The Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to a resolution of the House dated 6 December 2007, of the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2007, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 25 February 2008.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 52A of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the following reports:

Financial Audit Report, Volume Six 2007, dated December 2007, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 12 December 2008.
Financial Audit Report, Volume One 2008, dated February 2008, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 6 February 2008.
Performance Audit Report entitled "Ageing Work force—Teachers: Department of Education and Training", dated February 2008, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 13 February 2008.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 68A of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, of report No. 2/54 entitled "Review of the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption", dated December 2007, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 12 December 2007.

The Clerk announced the receipt of the report entitled "The Royal North Shore Hospital", dated December 2007, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 20 December 2008.

The Clerk announced the receipt of report No. 54/01 entitled "Discussion Paper: Local Government Private Partnerships for Asset Development", dated January 2008, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 9 January 2008.
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 70A of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, of report No. 1/54 entitled "Review of the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission", dated February 2008, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 20 February 2008.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 10 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 1 of 2008", dated February 2008, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 22 February 2008.
Petition requesting improved access to Hawkesbury River railway station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting funding for the construction of a school community hall at Valentine Public School, received from Mr Robert Coombs.

Petition opposing the Somersby Fields sandmining proposal, received from Mr Chris Hartcher.

Petitions requesting increased funding for public libraries, received from Mr Greg Aplin, Mr Barry Collier, Mr Thomas George, Mr Daryl Maguire, Mr Greg Piper, Mr George Souris, Mr Richard Torbay and Mr John Williams.
Petition praying that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Petition requesting funding for Hornsby's palliative care beds, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petitions requesting funding for stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment, received from Mr Thomas George and Mr Donald Page.

Petition requesting a permanent 24-hour police station at Nambucca, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting reinstatement of police numbers at Miranda police station and maintenance of a strong visible police presence in Cronulla, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petition requesting more power and resources for police and courts to deal with crime in the Macleay Valley area, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting that the speed limit on Plummers Lane be reduced, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting the installation of a right turn arrow at the intersection of The Kingsway and Gannons Road, Caringbah, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petitions asking for an inquiry into licence laws for older drivers and the implementation of a suitable licensing system for senior citizens, received from Mr Andrew Stoner and Mr John Turner.

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition opposing increased national park camping fees, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting increased funding for, and expansion of, inner city alcohol and drug services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

MR SPEAKER: I call on the member for Wallsend to make a statement in support of her notice being accorded priority.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I regret that, given the significance of the notice of motion given by the member for Wallsend, I have to ask that you rule it out of order. I refer you to Standing Order 134, which says that at the time of giving notice the original signed notice must be handed to a Clerk at the table. I note from the copy given to me by the Clerk that there is no signature on that notice of motion. I appreciate that it is—

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! Members are entitled to raise a point of order.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: We all appreciate that this is an important issue, but the motion can be moved tomorrow. I am sure that members would appreciate an opportunity to speak to the motion, but there are forms and standing orders of this House that we are constantly reminded need to be complied with. Today the Leader of the Opposition also gave notice of motion for priority of a very important matter. In the event that my point of order is ruled out of order, I am sure that members on both sides of the House would want to speak to the motion to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr John Aquilina: To the point of order: I have looked at the notice of motion handed to the Clerk by the member for Wallsend. It is in her handwriting, she wrote it herself; it is not typed. It is legibly written in her own handwriting. For the Opposition to contend that the notice of motion did not come from the member for Wallsend is playing with the standing orders of the House. The notice of motion is in the member's handwriting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask members to be silent while I rule on the point of order.

Mr John Aquilina: The member for Wallsend handed up the notice of motion, which is in her handwriting: it is hers. I contend that it is in order.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have looked at the copy of motion presented to me. It is unsigned. This is a technical matter. The standing orders require that the notice of motion be signed. I rule it out of order.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burrinjuck will have an opportunity to raise a point of privilege at the conclusion of this matter. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to give reasons why his motion should be accorded priority.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [3.41 p.m.]: The document that passes for a Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown in this Government is very thin. The document was modified two years ago and it states:

Ministers will perform their duties honestly and in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

It also states:

Ministers should avoid situations in which they have or might reasonably be thought to have a private interest which conflicts with their public duty.

Today we saw two examples of Ministers refusing to answer questions that go to the heart of integrity in the Government of this State, and a refusal by the Premier to do anything about the performance of those Ministers. The Minister for Planning has admitted that he did approach developers on multiple occasions in seeking to raise money for the "Re-elect Frank Sartor Fund". Those developers clearly understand that when the Minister for Planning phones and says, "You will come to my function, won't you", that he, as a member of the Executive Government, and with increasing planning powers in this State, has the capacity to make tens of millions of dollars for the companies involved.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Apart from that cowardly comment in casting an aspersion—

The SPEAKER: Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr Michael Daley: My point of order is taken under Standing Order 73. The Leader of the Opposition cannot say what he just said without casting an imputation of an improper motive upon a Minister of the Crown. I ask you to call him to order and ask him to not repeat such things.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am quoting from the Government's own code of conduct, which states that Ministers should act in the best interests of the people and avoid conflicts of interest. Indeed, the code goes further and says that Ministers should avoid situations where it appears that a conflict of interest might have arisen. The Minister for Planning, could have answered the question today by saying, "No, I did not ring developers", but he did not do that. It is clear that at the very least the perception of a conflict of interest exists.

The Premier sat there and did nothing about it. Indeed, the Premier is so lacking in energy that he is not even present for this debate. However, the case is clearer with the Minister for Ports and Waterways. From the time that that bloke appeared in public life, and along with the Minister for Health, they have run amok across public administration in this State. From the "Abuse of Power" practice when they took control of the Young Liberals—no, the Young Labor movement—

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I do not think they took over the Young Liberals. However, the Leader of the Opposition is making imputations about members of this place not by way of substantive motion and therefore he is out of order. I want him to tell us about his donations from the—

The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the Leader of the Opposition. However, I remind him to remain within the standing orders and to not reflect on another member except by way of substantive motion.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is very hard to refer to this Government's ministerial standards and then look at those opposite and try to not draw conclusions. The fact, as admitted by the Minister the Ports and Waterways, is that he claimed he did not know anything about the appointment of Joe Scimone until Mr Scimone told him in advance that he was applying for the job. That demonstrates an appalling lack of judgment. It demonstrates why the Premier should enforce the ministerial standards. The Minister for Ports and Waterways did not know what the member for Wollongong claims that everyone knew—that Mr Scimone was under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, that Mr Scimone had sexual harassment allegations hanging over his head—but he should have known.

By the admission of the Minister for Ports and Waterways, Mr Scimone was his close friend, they had known each other for a long time and they had coffee together on a monthly basis. The Premier should not hide behind a referral to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in relation to either the Minister for Ports and Waterways or the Minister for Planning. They have both clearly breached the State Government's own Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown, but the Premier does nothing. He does nothing not because of his usual lack of energy in fixing problems confronting the State; the Premier does nothing because he is not prepared to stand up to the Minister for Planning, and he cannot stand up to the Minister for Ports and Waterways, the man who made him Premier, the man who shifted votes from Carl Scully to Morris Iemma. The Premier should show some action— [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion of the member for Ku-ring-gai be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [3.53 p.m.]: I raise a point of privilege. On 28 November last year the Leader of The Nationals asked a question of the Minister for Health about why 73-year-old Janet Holland was made to wait more than 14 hours at Yass hospital in severe pain from a broken hip because, against the advice of the treating doctor, the Greater Southern Area Health Service would not pay the radiologist overtime. In her reply, the Minister for Health stated:

I will seek further details on this case.

Christmas has come and gone, as has the new year; in fact, almost three months have passed and the Minister for Health still has not explained why cost savings are more important than providing adequate care. Mr Speaker, I ask that you direct the Minister for Health to provide the answer to the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member has made the point and has advanced all the arguments on the matter.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The Minister is holding your position in contempt as well, Mr Speaker.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [3.55 p.m.]: Last weekend we saw a magnificent spectacle, mixed with a little history, played out on our magnificent harbour when two of the world's great ocean liners visited Sydney: the Queen Victoria for the first time and the QE2 for the last time. Two thousand passengers and three times that number of crew came ashore to visit one of the great cities of the world. It was great for our tourism industry and for our small businesses. Who were the unsung workers who made it all such a success both on the ships and onshore? They were the engineers and metal workers who maintain the ships and make them run; the people who ensure the port facilities cope with thousands of people; the mechanics who serve the hire cars, buses, coaches and other vehicles that moved people around; the hospitality and tourism staff who fed, watered and entertained the vast influx of thousands of tourists and onlookers each day; and the hairdressers, cooks and waiting staff.

The list is endless, as is the demand for these skilled tradespeople. It is a great example that underlines why the Iemma Government is establishing 25 trade schools by 2011. Quite simply, New South Wales is joining the world in having to meet an enormous demand for skilled workers if we are to meet expectations for service and production and if we are to keep our pre-eminent position as a first grade economy. At the same time we are helping young people who may have an aptitude for a trade to get in early and giving them the best chance of making the transition from school to a skilled trade.

Trade schools are all about strengthening vital industry partnerships and helping industry to maintain its workforce. The New South Wales Government initially invested $18 million in a four-year trade school program in 2006 to tackle these skills shortages head on and to offer students increased training opportunities. This initiative proved so popular that in March 2007 the Iemma Government boosted its commitment to the trade school scheme through the announcement of its Learn or Earn program. This included an additional $14.7 million for capital works and increased the number of trade schools planned throughout the State to 25. I am pleased to see that the new Commonwealth Government is also coming to the party with its Trade Training Centres in Schools program. We look forward to working with them to further expand the opportunities available to our students to get the skills and training that will secure their futures.

The beauty of New South Wales trade schools is that they use existing facilities such as TAFE colleges or public high schools. In 2007, in the State Plan, the Premier made commitments to improve the overall attainment of school students, improve employment outcomes for individuals, increase opportunities for people in regional New South Wales and lift the economic and social outcomes of our State. The trade school in my electorate of Wyong is a perfect example of how the Iemma Government is turning those commitments into reality. Trade schools operate as a school within a school. Students in years 11 and 12 have the advantage of combining their HSC studies with a TAFE qualification and paid employment in their chosen vocation as a school-based apprentice or trainee.

This is all about giving students in our secondary education system more pathways to improve their skills and ensure that they are gainfully employed in the community. It is also about addressing the identified skills shortage. Generally, students spend three days a week at school, one day a week at TAFE and one day a week on the job with their employer. That means they are doing some of their Higher School Certificate [HSC] subjects, their trade certificate and their apprenticeship or traineeship training on the job. At the end of the training they get their trade certificate and their Higher School Certificate, which is a good outcome for students and families.

This enables students to kick-start their careers and it catapults them into the work force where the skills they have learned provide extensive and transportable career opportunities. They begin earning good money and they provide services to the community. The Central Coast area has been identified as one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. Three TAFE campuses currently service the region at Ourimbah, which is based at the university, Gosford and Wyong. Wyong Trade School, which was opened by the Premier this month, will further strengthen the vocational education and training opportunities that are available on the Central Coast.

Over the past few years the growth rates in Wyong local government area have either matched or exceeded those in the surrounding areas of the Central Coast. For the period up until June 2006 Wyong experienced the eighth largest population growth in local government areas in New South Wales. These exceptional growth rates for Wyong are set to continue. Two weeks ago plans for the new Warnervale town centre and Wyong employment zone came out for public consultation, which is good news, as those are two projects in the Wyong electorate are important for the whole of the Central Coast.

In light of population growth predictions it is clear that this new trade school, which is much needed, will be of huge benefit locally. During the election campaign I promoted the setting up of a trade school at Wyong, which was popular with the community. Wyong Trade School, which is based at Wyong TAFE campus, has a strong partnership arrangement with high schools in the area and with various industry partners. Wyong High School is conveniently located just across the road from the campus, which means that at all times students have extensive resources at their fingertips.

The widespread appeal of Wyong TAFE is evident from the diverse student enrolment in its Vocational Education and Training [VET] in Schools Program. Students at Wyong High School did well in that program. In 2007-08 students from 33 schools in the region and surrounds enrolled in that program, which demonstrates a strong and obvious demand for that initiative. In fact, 432 students accessed more than 25 different courses at Wyong TAFE as part of their Higher School Certificate study program. Wyong Trade School specialises in two trade skills shortage areas—electro-technology and aged care health services. These two areas are particularly relevant as the number of apprentices and trainees undertaking electro-technology trades has more than doubled since 1996.

The ageing population is particularly significant in the Wyong area as a disproportionately high number of people are aged over 65. This age group has a high demand for all types of health services and this growth trend is likely to continue as the Central Coast continues to be a highly desirable and relatively affordable location for retirees moving out of Sydney. Wyong Trade School will produce job-ready graduates to ensure that the demands of the work force are met. The electro-technology industry will also be strengthened thanks to the quality vocational education and training that students undertake at the school.

The TAFE NSW Hunter Institute has broken significant agreements with local industry to provide a pool of employers that recognise the many advantages of recruiting enthusiastic school-based trainees and apprentices. These industry partners, which are highly significant to the success of Wyong Trade School, include Gosford RSL Leisure Living, Catholic Healthcare, Our Lady of Loreto, Eraring Energy, MIGAS and larger enterprises. A number of small local electrical businesses support Wyong Trade School and I congratulate them on becoming involved. It is great to see small businesses working closely with education and training for the future of the region.

Industry partners have an opportunity to train staff to suit their specific workplace needs. They have access to an industry-based advisory committee and to significant incentives. They have the option to participate in student work trials to ensure the most suitable students for their workplace. This responsiveness to industry needs is another example of how TAFE NSW Hunter Institute is delivering quality innovative service to industry. The facilities that are available for students at Wyong TAFE are state of the art.

When the Premier and the Minister for Education and Training recently opened the facility we were impressed with how students replicated an aged care facility, including the beds, the showers, et cetera. Students had the opportunity to experience what they would experience in the workforce. Students have access to industry standard equipment and will be taught by highly trained vocational teachers with years of industry experience. These teachers return to industry to train and develop a contemporary understanding of industry practice, standards and operations, which will ensure that students get the best information about the occupations they wish to enter into.

TAFE NSW Hunter Institute, local high schools and industry are to be commended for their cooperation and vision in strengthening the economic and social landscape through the production of skilled job-ready graduates. Wyong Trade School will go a long way towards addressing the skills shortage that is currently being experienced in the region, thanks to the integrated nature of the trade school and the involvement of three key parties: TAFE NSW Hunter Institute, local schools and local industry. Wyong Trade School will produce job-ready graduates who are well trained, available and willing to work in key shortage areas. In the area of aged care nursing, a number of new nursing homes will open in the area.

As areas in the Wyong electorate are designated State environmental planning policy [SEPP] senior living there will be great opportunities for young people to move into that industry. Wyong Trade School is a fantastic step forward for the Central Coast and a valuable asset for the community. Wyong Trade School is the first trade school on the Central Coast. However, in the near future one will operate at Brisbane Water campus on the Woy Woy peninsula. The member for Gosford, Marie Andrews, worked hard to ensure that that trade school went ahead. I am sure all members join me in eagerly anticipating the full complement of 25 trade schools throughout New South Wales by 2011. I am particularly pleased because this is a major commitment that I promised during the last election. I am proud that the Iemma Government delivered it within 12 months of its announcement. It will be of great benefit to local people and, in particular, to young people looking for educational pathways on the Central Coast and in the Wyong electorate.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.07 p.m.]: As is usual from this Government, this matter of public importance is nothing other than a self-congratulatory filler in the parliamentary schedule—a filler given to a backbencher to give him some speaking experience in this Chamber. Let me offer the member for Wyong a gratuitous piece of advice: He should not simply accept speech notes that have been written by a staffer from a ministerial office. Did the member for Wyong write his speech?

Mr David Harris: I did. I spend a lot of time writing my speeches.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Nationals will direct his remarks through the chair and not to the member for Wyong. Members should not engage in a two-way discussion.

Mr ANDREW STONER: I will continue my gratuitous advice. The member for Wyong should scratch the surface and talk to teachers, industry, parents and students—as I did recently as part of a series of country public education tours—and ascertain for himself what is happening on the ground. In reality, wherever we go, we continue to have a serious skills shortage in New South Wales. Just a couple of years ago the Federal Government was forced to intervene in this matter. It established a number of technical colleges around Australia that prodded this Government into some form of action. After the Federal Government introduced those Australian technical colleges the New South Wales Government made its trade school announcement.

Mr David Harris: How many did they have?

Mr ANDREW STONER: Might I say—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting.

Mr ANDREW STONER: —that at every step of the way this State Labor Government resisted, opposed, complained and whinged about the very considerable investment the Federal Government was forced to make in addressing—

Ms Cherie Burton: It was a waste of money; it was not even worth it.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The member for Kogarah says that it was a waste of money. They are still going on. What was their objection to training young people to undertake skilled careers in the industry? It was a waste of money. That is an ideological hang-up from this mob of socialists opposite. That is the problem, is it not? Government members made their announcement and now they are congratulating themselves, giving themselves a nice little pat on the back. By the time they have produced the 25 trade schools they will have been in government 16 years before doing something about addressing the skills shortage—not bad. No wonder the Federal Government had to intervene and put serious money on the table. Government members are still whingeing about it because they are socialists. Shame on you!

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of The Nationals to stop giving gratuitous advice to Government members and to confine his remarks to the matter of public importance. If he wants a fair hearing he should not incite Government members.

Mr ANDREW STONER: If they stop interjecting, I will not take the bait. The Government says that there will be 25 trade schools by 2011. We welcome that announcement because we are serious about addressing the skills shortage. Employers are coming to us all the time. I can give a few examples of what is happening. Finally the Government has been prompted into some action. Sadly, it will have taken it 16 years. If one scratches the surface of the Government's announcement one sees that these trade schools are, in fact, not new facilities.

Mr David Harris: We have said it's a school within a school.

Mr ANDREW STONER: That is right, a school within a school. Eleven are in existing schools, including Nambucca Heads. I am happy to have one in Nambucca Heads.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that they should not engage in a two-way discussion. The Leader of The Nationals has the call.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The truth hurts. Eleven trade schools are in existing schoolsI am glad that Nambucca Heads High School is included. However, the Government should not pretend that they are new trade schools. The other 14 trade schools are in existing TAFE colleges. In my visits to TAFE colleges in country New South Wales teachers have said, "This is what we have always been doing. We have always been training kids for trades. We have always been skilling them up." How is this a new idea? TAFE teachers are not happy with the Government—not happy, Jan! What is the reality? In my travels I have heard that 28 students at Forbes are waiting to commence a carpentry apprenticeship. Guess what? They cannot start because the course will not be conducted in Forbes. That is what is happening on the ground. While Government members give themselves a pat on the back for their trade schools, the reality is that 28 kids in Forbes cannot do carpentry because they will not deliver the course locally. The member for Murray-Darling tells me that pre-apprenticeship courses in fitting and machining at Broken Hill and Riverina TAFE colleges have been cancelled.

Mr John Williams: Some 25 students at Broken Hill can't do it.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Those kids have jobs ahead of them—the mines are screaming out for young people in those trades, yet they cannot get the training. The member for Murray-Darling again tells me that the shearing course in Hay, which is run at Shear Outback, also has been cancelled. Members who have not been there should certainly take the time to have a look. Kids want to get the skills and the training, but it is not happening.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray-Darling will cease interjecting.

Mr ANDREW STONER: We are having a pretty good season in the bush and there will be plenty of wool to shear. The member for Lismore has given me an article that appeared in the Northern Star of Monday 25 February. Under the headline "Apprentice system needs overhaul" it states:

The current agricultural skills shortage will get worse unless the apprenticeship system is overhauled, according to Lismore tractor and machinery mechanic Doc Dorahy.

Mr Dorahy, who employs two apprentices, believes the current government assistance for agricultural apprenticeships does not create enough incentive for employers to take on new apprentices.

"We might get $1500 to cover start-up costs but we have to pay for apprentices' TAFE training, which costs about $3000," he said.

"We also need to get apprentices in earlier, at 15 or 16 years of age when they are keen and still living at home and don't have the expenses."

Only a couple of weeks ago Mr Iemma said that he would raise the minimum school leaving age. If kids want to do a full-time apprenticeship they will not be able to do it before they are 16. It does not work like that. Government members ought to go out and listen to the kids, their parents and employers. What else has the Government done at TAFE? This year it has raised TAFE fees by 9 per cent—that is unbelievable. Last year before the election the Premier promised that TAFE fees would be capped to no higher than the consumer price index. TAFE fees were increased by 9 per cent; I believe that the inflation rate is about 3 per cent. The increase in fees will drive down TAFE enrolments because many students do not have a lot of spare money. Students from country areas often have to travel to attend TAFE and have associated accommodation costs. They cannot afford it. Government members should not think they are addressing the skills shortage simply by introducing these trade schools, which already exist in schools and TAFE colleges. All the Government is doing is driving down TAFE enrolments, putting TAFE out of the reach of people and not delivering training locally.

Mr David Harris: Where is your information coming from?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wyong will have an opportunity to speak in reply.

Mr ANDREW STONER: I have just quoted from an article that appeared in the Northern Star. The same article stated:

NSW Farmers' Association rural affairs committee chair, Alan Brown, says as conditions in NSW start to improve with recent rain and predictions of more to come, the agricultural industry will need an injection of trained people.

"By cutting apprenticeship incentives, on top of the recent decision to axe FarmBis"—

another decision by this mob—

the Government is taking away opportunities for people to gain education and revitalise the industry despite its so-called 'education revolution'," Mr Brown said.

They are some of the realities. The Coalition welcomes the trade schools. I welcome the trade school at Nambucca Heads. However, we need an integrated policy that addresses skills shortages on the ground. The matter of public importance of the member for Wyong is titled "Trade schools in New South Wales". However, he talked only about the Wyong Trade School. That is his right as a local member, but he should have done so by way of a private member's statement. He has plenty of opportunities to talk about his electorate in private members' statements. He could get his local media out, send copies of his speech to people and send out a copy of Hansard—just more gratuitous advice. However, I am afraid that the contribution of the member for Wyong is an indication of the continuing decline in standards of debate in this House under the Carr and Iemma Labor governments.

The member could have dispensed with the issue in a five-minute private member's statement instead of asking that the House note it as a matter of public importance. As I said, we warmly welcome any initiatives to address the skills shortage because it is a serious issue. If the member for Wyong were fair dinkum he would go to Broken Hill, Lismore and Forbes and listen to employers who are desperate for skilled people. The Government should not engage in nice self-congratulatory discussions about trade schools that took it 16 years to deliver after being prodded by the Federal Government. An integrated holistic policy will address the skills shortage. It will be a policy that rolls back the 9 per cent TAFE fees hike and makes courses available where they are needed, such as at Hay, the Riverina TAFE, the Broken Hill TAFE and at Forbes, where kids are desperate to do that type of training and where employers are desperate for those skills.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Kogarah, I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [4.19 p.m.]: I have been a member of this House for nine years, yet I am amazed that the Leader of The Nationals has revealed, by his contribution to this debate, that he is nothing short of a dope. He has cobbled together some notes, does not know the program and has been raving on in a manner that would be described in the United States of America as filibustering. If he had had more time, he would have read his favourite recipes! Now that his speech is concluded, thank goodness the House will be spared any more of that rubbish. There is a national skills shortage, not a New South Wales skills shortage. The Leader of The Nationals should stay awake. The New South Wales Government has addressed the inequities of the Howard Government's failure to do anything to address a national skills shortage over 11 years. Week in, week out, year after year while Howard was in government, the Coalition sat in this Chamber, blamed the State for everything and claimed that the Federal Government had no responsibility whatsoever for skills shortages.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Leave him alone. He has gone. Get over it. Move on.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: The Leader of The Nationals has had 11 years to be fair dinkum, but he has made a complete mockery of this House by suggesting that Howard set up trade schools to address the skills shortage because none of those establishments worked. Moreover, I seriously doubt that the Leader of The Nationals has spoken to any TAFE teachers because either he would have missed the meeting as a result of getting out of bed late and having a midday shower or he would have slept through it. Irrespective of the reason, I am sure he would not have spoken to any TAFE teachers.

I refer to the growth of St George TAFE and the increase in trainee apprenticeships and traineeships. I have met with TAFE teachers and know that this is an extremely successful program. It is delivering real change in the workplace. It is preventing kids from dropping out of school early. It is ensuring that they not only achieve their Higher School Certificate [HSC] but also receive training in skills development. I invite the Opposition to speak to representatives of Toyota and all the other companies that are providing traineeships through TAFE. It is an excellent program because it encourages kids to stay at school, and that is the number one priority of this State. It was not a priority for the Howard Government. Thank heavens Australia has a new Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, because there will be skills development across the country, not just in New South Wales.

Having said that, I reiterate that the Australian technical colleges Howard set up were a complete failure. The TAFE teachers said that the Federal Government poured money into trade courses but there was no infrastructure and no facilities in which to provide the courses. The program was a complete dud—an absolute failure. The Leader of The Nationals should not bag the hardworking member for Wyong who, as an excellent advocate for his electorate, has drawn to the attention of this House a matter of public importance—that New South Wales is proactively addressing the skills shortage in the State and is making progress by providing traineeships.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Could you ratchet the tone down a little, Cherie? Take a few deep breaths.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: I listened to the speech made by the Leader of The Nationals and it was the most boring, uninformed piece of garbage I have heard since being elected to this House. He is an absolute disgrace. No wonder his political party is approximately 1 per cent away from losing party status. Craig Dearden, the New South Wales Vocational Student of the Year, thinks that the skills shortage is a matter of public importance. David McAlister, who undertook an automotive course at school and went on to complete a certificate III course in the automotive heavy vehicle trade with Cummins South Pacific, also thinks the issue is a matter of public importance.

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

Ms CHERIE BURTON: To name just two, those guys think that this is a matter of public importance. I am sure that people in the public gallery think this is an issue of public importance, as do their families. This is about the State picking up where the Howard Government failed and taking action that the Howard Government should have taken 11 years ago. For 11 years we watched as skills drained out of the State—something for which the Coalition will always be blamed. The Leader of The Nationals sat idly in this Chamber and slept through the whole 11 years. That is why every time The Nationals face an election they get a worse result than the time before. Captain Snooze has made a zero contribution to the State. Not once did he pick up the phone and speak to John Howard in Canberra, who could have done something to staunch the flow of skills out of New South Wales. He did absolutely nothing and he should retire.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [4.24 p.m.], in reply: It is interesting that only one Opposition member was prepared to speak during this debateand I use the word "prepared" advisedly. It astounds me as someone with an education background and who understands the need for proper pathways to enable young people to obtain proper employment—kids who may not take the Higher School Certificate [HSC] and go to university, but kids who want to take another pathway into the trade area—the Leader of The Nationals would criticise the Government's TAFE traineeships. The Opposition does not understand that the Wyong Trade School is one of the first trade schools to open in the State. It is an example of how businesses, schools and the public system of TAFE operate, unlike the exclusive and probably expensive private system operating in the Australian technical college system.

The New South Wales Government supports TAFE. The important issue in this debate—the issue that the Leader of The Nationals does not understand—is that Federal Government funds should be applied to improving the delivery of TAFE courses. I invite him to visit the Wyong Trade School and inspect the facilities. He said that it is nothing more than a school rather than a business, and his comments reveal his ignorance. This new pathway offers young people improved opportunities not only to begin their apprenticeship or traineeship but also to undertake studies for the Higher School Certificate, and those opportunities did not exist previously. In spite of that, the Leader of The Nationals criticises the policy and the set-up at Wyong. His comments serve only to reveal his ignorance.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease interjecting. The member for Wyong has the call.

Mr DAVID HARRIS: As a result of the Iemma Government's commitment to 25 trade schools and to students, the State is addressing the skills shortage. This real, on-the-ground policy will help young people and their families. In contrast, the Opposition criticises repeatedly, but it offers no solutions, irrespective of the issue. The Opposition offers nothing substantialsuch as new ideas and providing assistance for familiesto move the State forward and to address matters of importance to communities. The Opposition should be condemned for its ignorance. Opposition members understand very little about the great initiatives that the Iemma Government is putting in place.

In Wyong the youth unemployment rate is 19 per cent. Trade schools represent a real policy that will assist young people to stay at school, obtain skills and thereafter become gainfully employed. It is absolutely outrageous that the Opposition criticises such a measure. Instead, it should applaud the Iemma Government for not only making promises during an election campaign but also delivering on those promises within 12 months by providing funding to help young people and their families. In some cases intergenerational unemployment is being turned around and young people are entering the workforce. That represents economic benefit for the companies and industries employing young people and a break in the cycle of unemployment. Those two elements constitute a vital matter of public importance.

It is essential for governments not to rely on rhetoric but to deliver on policies. The Government should be applauded for the initiative it has taken. I wish the young people who are the first to embark on the new pathway good luck and express the hope that they obtain employment. We will monitor how other trade schools operate. The Opposition should take a hard look at itself and adopt a bipartisan approach to important issues for the benefit of the community.

Discussion concluded.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Debate resumed from 27 June 2007.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.30 p.m.]: It is interesting to note that this bill was carried over from last year. Indeed, at the end of the sittings last year the Premier decided to stop the proceedings of the House a week earlier than we had planned. He shut down the Parliament a week early so he could go on holiday a week earlier than he intended, leaving the Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill on the table. Obviously, this bill was not urgent or important to the Government. What is the bill about? It is about throwing the book at would-be electricity thieves and creating a new offence relating to people who effectively trespass on electricity works as defined in the parent Act, the Electricity Supply Act.

One would think the legislation is a little more urgent than suggested by the attention it has received from the Government to this point, because after 13 years of the Carr and Iemma Labor governments we have an ever-increasing shortage in the supply of electricity in New South Wales. Indeed, we had an unusual situation today: The Premier was talking up his power privatisation plan, saying that it was necessary in order to build more baseload generation capacity, yet the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water was talking about the Kyoto Protocol and saying it was urgent that Australia signed up to that. Indeed, the Minister was endorsing Professor Garnaut's report on climate change, which would not permit the building of a baseload power station, a coal-fired power station or a gas-fired power station in this State. It was bizarre to hear two conflicting messages from the Government. That is indicative of the policy inertia and laziness that has led us to the point that electricity is in such short supply in this State that the Government wants to increase the term of imprisonment for the offence of electricity theft from two years to five years.

Mr Andrew Fraser: But the Premier is stealing the whole power system!

Mr ANDREW STONER: As the member for Coffs Harbour points out, a lot of people in Macquarie Street today suggested that the Premier is stealing something to flog it off. However, it is not his to sell; it belongs to the people.

Mr Andrew Fraser: He's guilty.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will cease injecting.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The member for Coffs Harbour has made a good point that perhaps the Premier could be in trouble under this bill. Perhaps that is why the bill was not so urgent and the Premier went on holiday a week early instead of debating it. One principal part of the bill relates to a new offence of entering, climbing or being on electricity works, which defines the infrastructure for our generators and retailers—the polls, wires, substations, generators and so on. That has Opposition support in that the Government should send a strong message to the idiots who trespass on these facilities, if they do not electrocute themselves. In short, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. However, we wonder why the Premier has not dealt with it urgently. We note that the Government is increasing the penalties for electricity theft as a result of its own laziness and policy inertia, which has produced this policy of flogging off the State's power crown jewels, as it were, as a solution for having done absolutely nothing in the past 13 years to secure our power supply.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.34 p.m.]: I support the Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill 2007. I commend the Minister, his hardworking staff and the department for their work in bringing this bill to the House today. I am pleased to comment on this bill because it will strengthen the protection of vital electricity infrastructure in this great State of New South Wales. Unfortunately, though, irresponsible people force entry, vandalise and sometimes interfere with the operation of the State's electricity network, reducing reliability and imposing costs on hardworking community members.
In recent years there have been several occasions when people have been caught climbing on high-voltage transmission towers. I cannot stress enough how extremely dangerous that activity is. Members will be well aware that contact with wires, transformers and other high-voltage equipment can cause death or serious injury instantly. The New South Wales Government places a high priority on ensuring that all electricity customers receive a safe and reliable supply of electricity. Average reliability levels across the State are consistently about 99.97 per cent. Capital spending on electricity distribution networks has more than doubled in just five years to ensure a more reliable and secure supply. I hope members opposite are listening to this.

Over the past five years the number of electricity distribution workers has increased by some 47 per cent in order to upgrade the network and better maintain it. Electricity distributors are subject to tough licence conditions to require them to meet mandatory network planning and reliability standards, many of which become more demanding over time. To further improve community safety, each electricity distributor has a public electrical safety awareness plan to identify key public safety issues associated with operating an electricity network and strategies for managing those issues. Those strategies include running programs to educate children and young people on electricity safety and ensuring the safety of emergency services personnel and other workers using heavy equipment, plant and machinery near powerlines.

We need to support measures that improve network reliability and safety with strong laws to protect electricity infrastructure. Once this bill is passed, people charged with tampering or entering electricity works will risk spending three months behind bars. These measures will deter illegal and dangerous conduct, thus protecting the safety of individuals and the security of electricity works that deliver the reliable supply of electricity in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [4.38 p.m.]: As the Leader of The Nationals said, the Opposition will not oppose the Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill 2007. However, it is worth making a couple of points about it. First, when the Government produced this bill we were all amazed that it had to increase the penalties. That had not been done before, and I think it came from a couple of different directions. One is the counterterrorism audits being done on electricity industry infrastructure. People started to look at the penalties in place and realised that they are completely inadequate. Another one is that the theft of electricity in this State is significant. There have been various estimates that 0.5 per cent of total sales or 0.8 per cent of low-voltage sales are put down to theft of electricity. That is of concern.

Apparently there has also been a big drop-off in the number of people prosecuted for the theft of electricity. That is surprising, given the fact—we have spoken about this in the House on a number of occasions—that over the past 10 years there has been an explosion in New South Wales in the number of people taking to the drugs industry with gusto because of the Labor Party's soft-on-drugs approach over the past decade. Much of the theft of electricity is associated with the hydroponics industry for marijuana: the electricity use is hidden. The drop in prosecutions is surprising. Having said that, obviously the upgrading of penalties is long overdue, and the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. I hope the Government looks at upgrading other legislation because clearly the upgrading of this bill is long overdue.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.40 p.m.]: I support the Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill 2007, which is a short but important bill that increases the maximum penalty for the offence of theft of electricity from two to five years imprisonment. The increase in the maximum penalty for theft aligns with the penalty for theft of tangible goods. An increase in the maximum term of imprisonment is required to deal with serious offenders who deliberately and dishonestly steal electricity in serious circumstances, such as those individuals who steal electricity to aid in the production of illegal substances. It will ensure that serious offenders are dealt with appropriately. The maximum penalty, which is reserved for the worst categories of offenders, will not unfairly disadvantage individuals facing financial hardship.

Of course, the offence of theft is not committed when a customer enters into a contract for the supply of electricity in good faith—that is, with every intention of paying for it—and then, due to changed circumstances, is unable to pay the bill when it falls due. The Government recognises the difficulties that can be faced by consumers in meeting payment of their electricity bills. The Government provides a number of energy concession programs for individuals who experience financial difficulties and cannot pay their bills. The Energy Accounts Payment Assistance Scheme helps financially disadvantaged people who experience difficulty in paying a bill because of a crisis or an emergency. The Government also provides an energy rebate for electricity and gas of $112 per year for eligible pensioners.

As members are aware, the Minister for Energy introduced tougher new measures in 2007 to better protect energy customers who face financial difficulties. Recently I served on the Electricity Reference Committee established by the Premier, and was pleased to read some submissions that suggested ways in which the Government could improve assistance for people who face difficulties paying their bills. I acknowledge it is inevitable that, as we move into an environment in which we try to decrease the consumption of carbon, prices will increase. So it is more important than ever to ensure that people who are less well off reduce their use of electricity so that they can pay their bills. Reverend Harry Herbert raised a number of those issues with the reference committee. I do not pre-empt the report, but I hope that together with the generous programs already put in place by the Government additional measures will help financially disadvantaged people.

The new regulatory measure introduced by the Minister in 2007 requires that all retailers who deal with small retail customers operate payment plans to enable customers to make payments by instalments, in advance or arrears. Victoria has a retailer of last resort. The Government has put in place a number of measures that help customers stay connected to electricity and not experience hardship. The measures in this bill are aimed not at smaller users who legitimately cannot pay their bills but at people who commit much more serious offences.

The Leader of The Nationals commented on the urgency of the legislation and complained about how long it took to be introduced. Obviously it was not enough time for him to prepare for his contribution because he did not have much to say. He referred to an ever-increasing shortage in the supply of power. If he had read the Owen report he would know that New South Wales currently has more than enough baseload power. The report identified that additional baseload would be needed by 2013-14, not now. The Government believes it is right to plan ahead for power. The Leader of The Nationals revealed the failure of his party to understand the response to climate change. He said that there was a clash between what the Premier said today about ensuring power supply and the recommendations of the Garnaut report and what the Government has said about climate change. There is no clash. We still have to provide power, and the carbon trading system that is to be introduced nationally will be the mechanism used to reduce carbon emissions and send signals to the market. That is why it is so important to have that scheme in place.

Clearly The Nationals cannot grasp that concept. Do they think that suddenly not as much power will be needed? The Government will also undertake demand initiatives but power will be needed. If The Nationals do not understand that power can be supplied to the people while addressing climate change, they are again demonstrating their incapacity to grasp the issues that must be grasped by government in this environment. It illustrates why The Nationals could not govern even if they got the chance.

The Leader of The Nationals referred to infrastructure. The Government is investing $9 billion to improve transmission infrastructure around the State. In the area around Parkes, which I visited a week or so ago, the Government has made a direct investment to improve the reliability of transmission. A lot of work is being done to improve the transmission network, which is welcomed by communities. In many cases it is building redundancy into the system to make sure that when failures occur in one part of the system it will not go down in other areas. In my electorate of Monaro a lot of money is being spent to strengthen one particular line specifically to enable it to cope with the snow and ice to which it is subjected. Importantly, the Government is investing in infrastructure to ensure that the people of country New South Wales get reliable energy supplies.

I am surprised that the Leader of The Nationals—and, to an extent, the member for Vaucluse—complained that the provisions of this legislation have not been implemented before. I have not heard these matters raised before—and Opposition members are clearly not prepared to talk about them today, despite their having been on the agenda since last year. Once again, Opposition members, for want of something to say, have had a go at the Government. The people of New South Wales are sick of that negative attitude. Opposition members say that everything the Government does is wrong but they have no ideas of their own. That is why the Opposition is continually rejected by the people of New South Wales and why the Government will keep improving things when needed—as is the case with this legislation—and plan for the long term in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [4.47 p.m.]: It is Groundhog Day: We have been away for months but when we come back exactly the same thing is happening in this place. It is bizarre. I am pleased to make a brief contribution in support of the Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill 2007. The bill will provide additional protection of the State's electricity infrastructure and will ensure a reliable supply of power, as expected by families and businesses in New South Wales. The bill includes provisions to protect infrastructure, including transmission towers, power poles and distribution lines. In recent years substantial investment has been made in electricity infrastructure around Tamworth. New substations have been constructed at Westdale and Oxley Vale to cater for increased demand resulting from strong growth in the housing and industrial sectors.

These assets deserve protection under the law not only to preserve the ability of the substations to deliver reliable electricity supplies to the district but also to protect people who are foolish enough to trespass on dangerous facilities from putting their lives, and those of others, in jeopardy. Currently no criminal offence exists in New South Wales that prohibits a person from climbing on, or just being on, electricity structures.

The maximum penalty is a $1,100 fine and imprisonment for up to three months. I question whether that penalty will be sufficient to deter people, as intended. I will listen with interest to contributions by other members in that regard. The new offence created by the bill will apply to electricity works as defined in the Electricity Supply Act. That means any electricity powerlines or equipment and structures that form part of a transmission or distribution system. That means the prohibition on entering electricity premises will extend from transmission towers through to electricity lines and poles that deliver power to homes and businesses. The offence states that a person must not enter, climb or be on electricity works unless authorised to do so by the network operator or retail supplier. That ensures that the offence will apply only to people committing illegal acts without any authority from those owners.

The bill also amends section 64 of the Electricity Supply Act to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of theft of electricity from two years to five years. That is a good step. It aligns the offence with the penalties provided for larceny, and should send a clear message that the theft of electricity will be regarded as a serious offence. Whether that will deter the city farmers who grow their crops of illicit drugs on roofs is yet to be determined. But at least when they are caught prosecutors will have the opportunity to lay further charges.

While on the subject of electricity, I express my concern that although the House is currently in the process of providing protection to electricity infrastructure the Government is still moving towards disposing of retailers and generators. Experience in Victoria and South Australia indicates quite clearly that New South Wales will face a future with increased prices and reduced reliability. I have received many strong community representations revealing that the average consumer in my area is very concerned about the proposal. The overwhelming majority of people are supportive of Country Energy, and admire its community involvement and investment in local jobs. The message I receive very loudly is that the current structure is working effectively in my part of the country and people do not want it changed. In conclusion, this bill is overdue. It is well put together and much needed. I commend it to the House.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [4.51 p.m.]: The Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill 2007 creates a new offence of entering, climbing or being on electricity works. In addition to poles, towers, overhead lines and underground cables, electricity works include substations, which can take the form of enclosed steel boxes in public areas, buildings or larger facilities with open transformers, switchgear and conductors enclosed by fences. One of the major benefits of the creation of this new offence is in the area of public safety. Some tragic accidents have occurred—those involving children are particularly tragic—when members of the public have entered substations for various reasons. Some have suffered very severe burns and others have died painful deaths.

Any initiative to reduce those most disturbing outcomes should command the support of all honourable members. Public safety in relation to electricity networks has increased substantially since the 1990s. Over the past two years the number of serious electrical accidents involving the public has consistently been less than half the level in 1997-98, when there were 20 such accidents. A major factor in that improvement has been the mandatory implementation of improved public electrical safety awareness plans by the electricity distributors. We need to maintain that momentum and continue to improve public safety by further discouraging unsafe acts such as entering, climbing or being on electricity works. Those same actions can also result in disruption to electricity supply, sometimes over wide areas and for long periods when a crime or fatality is involved.

This Government is committed to achieving a 25 per cent improvement in electricity network reliability in New South Wales by 2016, as outlined in the State Plan. The most recent annual reliability figure of 132.7 minutes per customer to the end of December 2007 is the best reliability performance for New South Wales to date. This performance is already more than 12 months ahead of the State Plan target. The existing frameworks have already delivered improved safety and reliability outcomes. These proposed additional measures to protect electricity infrastructure will drive further improvements.

The potential to be charged with climbing or entering electricity works and risking up to three months behind bars will certainly discourage adults from such activities. In the case of children, the new measures will encourage parents or carers to ensure that their children are aware of the risks and consequences of entering or climbing on electricity works and to closely supervise their outdoor activities. In my electorate of Gosford in recent years there has been a substantial improvement in the supply of electricity at West Gosford and Umina substations. The Government has spent millions of dollars on improving electricity supply for residents on the Central Coast. I am very pleased about that, and I am also pleased that this bill provides for the safety of both adults and children by prohibiting entry to substation areas. The measures in the bill will deter the kinds of dangerous actions that some members of the public have undertaken in the past that resulted in serious accidents and major disruption to essential electricity supplies. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [4.55 p.m.]: I wish to generate some further comments on the Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Bill 2007. Although we have seen again recently that power can corrupt, we do need electricity. The bill aims to strengthen the protection of vital electricity infrastructure in New South Wales and has two main aspects. The first aspect focuses on the trespassing on electricity enclosures, including climbing on high-voltage transmission towers and other types of electricity apparatus. The bill proposes fines of up to $1,100 and penalties of imprisonment for up to three months for someone who trespasses on electricity lines or high-voltage towers. For idiots who trespass on these areas, the other truly maximum penalty is death. Parents should ground their children who transgress.

The operators that supply electricity in New South Wales have a responsibility also to ensure that the dangerous places where offenders could access the high-voltage apparatus are kept extremely secure and are not accessible without proper authority. Proactive intervention that reduces the opportunity for offenders to trespass on places where they could be a danger to themselves and compromise the supply of electricity cannot be covered by the bill but must be addressed in practice. The second aspect of the bill focuses on energy theft. By energy theft I do not mean the ripping of more than $11 billion in dividend and other payments from State energy companies over the past 12 years. However, as with the first aspect of the bill, the energy suppliers should address in more detail what creates the problem of energy theft. The onus is on government, as a partner in the electricity provider relationship, to ensure that regulation is extended to ensure safe points of supply. A reliable and uninterrupted supply to all customers at all times must be an integral aim.

Why do people steal electricity by tapping illegally into the supply grids? Is it the charge they get from pinching electricity? Is it the thrill of overpowering the system? Are they on a power trip, or is it the growing surge in power costs? One might boldly suggest that we need more light on the issue. The rapid expansion of residential areas and business parks in New South Wales clearly increases the demand for new electricity supply infrastructure and service points. Where the new developments are occurring all power cables should be placed underground, with grids and substations built into bunkers. By doing this the safety of powerlines in times of storm, tempest and other natural disasters would be much improved, potential security risks from vandals would be reduced, cars would have less to slam into when drivers lose control and trees in residential streets would be saved from regular hacking by local councils or other authorities. The green canopy of intact trees would further enhance our environment and improve our quality of life, both in terms of aesthetics and filtering more greenhouse gas emissions.

Imagine the cost savings that could be transferred to reducing power bills by not having to maintain power poles. The considerable savings could be directed towards putting electricity lines underground in more established areas, where older and dilapidated infrastructure could also be renewed. I am sure that many members are familiar with the comment by Peter Downey, Chairman of Cables Downunder, who has stated, "Underground power is five times more reliable and costs half as much to maintain." Although this bill might spark improved protection of electricity infrastructure and supply, I hope that responsible energy suppliers are doing more to secure their towers, substations, grids and other electricity apparatus. The safety of the services and infrastructure also relies on proper enforcement of laws through the New South Wales justice system.

Finally, I will refer to one electricity-related crime that is not covered in this bill but which families across northern Sydney and elsewhere would appreciate my mentioning. It is the Government's crime of not ensuring a more reliable electricity supply. Relevant annual reports indicate that customers of Energy Australia, Integral Energy and Country Energy experienced more blackouts last year than the year before. In Roseville, where I live, we have had numerous power cuts in the past year, on three occasions interrupting the dinner and bath routine of young children. While this is understandable on the odd occasion, it is now happening too often at crucial times. We also have problems with our trains, which do not run on time but do run on electricity. Certainly, for a number of reasons, we need a more reliable power supply and I hope this bill will assist in achieving that aim. However, I fear that it will not be a real circuit breaker.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Davidson and other members who joined in this debate. The member for Davidson should look at the Owen report and the National Energy Market Management Company website, where he will see that the reliability of the electricity industry in New South Wales exceeds 99 per cent. We are embarking on measures to enhance that reliability. It is one of the most reliable electricity industries in the world. This bill makes a number of small, but important, changes to ensure that the people of New South Wales have a safe and secure electricity supply. The Leader of the Nationals commented on the time it has taken for this bill to be presented. The reason is very simple: we wanted to consult and we wanted to get it right, and we have done that. This bill not only brings penalties for stealing electricity into line with those for larceny of tangible goods, but hopefully it will also deter people from fooling around on electricity infrastructure, which is an extremely dangerous practice.

Some of the member for Tamworth's comments were a digression from the bill but I need to respond on behalf of the Government. The member for Tamworth told the House he has received representations from people who say they are concerned about the Government's proposed reforms to the electricity industry and that they want no change. This is not a philosophical debate about privatising or not privatising Government assets. The starting point for the Government's reforms is that we wish to secure the ongoing supply of baseload generation in this State. We understand that people are concerned and we are doing our best to allay those fears, but it is a complex issue and people should take some time to look into the reforms we have proposed and keep certain things in mind. The Government has some paramount concerns as it proceeds to implement the reforms it has outlined. One of them, as I have said, is the need to secure baseload power supply into the future. The second is to secure and enhance the reliability of an industry that is already one of the best in the world. The third is that we need to look after our employees as they are transitioned, if they wish, into the private sector, and those who remain with the public sector. The fourth is to attend to very serious environmental concerns. The fifth is to make sure there is a price watchdog and that consumers are not ripped off. We will do all those things.

Professor Owen says markedly that whether the government remains in the industry or chooses to leave it will have no bearing whatsoever on two of those concerns, price and reliability. That is not a message that our friends who were rallying in the street today are helping to disseminate; they are doing the opposite. Professor Owen says that there will be no impact on price or reliability regardless of whether the Government remains a player in the industry. I, like the member for Monaro, am a member of the electricity reference committee, which is looking very rationally and responsibly at concerns and submissions in relation to these reforms. It should give some comfort to the member for Tamworth to know that the member for Monaro has been vociferously arguing the case for people in country and regional New South Wales before that committee and I am doing the same thing on behalf of people who live in the cities. Thirteen per cent of my electorate lives in public housing. The last thing I wish to see is that electricity prices rise unduly to hurt people who cannot look after themselves.

Mr Andrew Fraser: They have doubled since you've been in this place. What have you done about it? Nothing.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The member says that prices are rising. He should read a recent article by the former Auditor-General of New South Wales, Tony Harris, in which he looked at the effect of electricity privatisation in Victoria and noted conclusively that the electricity reforms in Victoria led to a significant price decrease in that State. The member for Coffs Harbour should do some research before he comes in here and opens his mouth and makes ill-informed comments.

I will conclude on this note: the Government is spending $9 billion over the next four years on the transmission and distribution sector of the industry. Not only is it spending $9 billion to increase the reliability of the electricity industry, it is also keeping in Government ownership every transmission and distribution asset that it currently owns. It is keeping in the Government's employ every employee who now works in the transmission and distribution network. More than 10,500 workers who currently work for the Government will remain Government employees. The Government will continue to enhance its apprenticeship programs with Energy Australia. That is our commitment to the reliability of the network in addition to the measures outlined in the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
Debate resumed from 7 December 2007.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [5.07 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Coalition and in doing so point out that I led the debate on the original bill in this place in 1997. At the time I raised my grave concerns about the need to change Solitary Islands Marine Reserve, which had been set aside by the Coalition Government, to a marine park. People in Coffs Harbour could not see the value of it and nor could tourists coming to the area. Basically it was decided both in this place and generally that the only reason the classification was changed from marine reserve to marine park was that the then Minister for the Environment, Pam Allen, who is no longer in this place, needed some green credentials. When the park was being proposed there were meetings in Coffs Harbour and throughout the area covered by the Solitary Islands Marine Park, which was from the northern break wall at Coffs Harbour to Sandon River. I attended meetings in Wooli, Woolgoolga, Sawtell, and Coffs Harbour.

Five hundred people, including Marnie Yates, Graham Ashton and a few others, turned up at the meeting that was held in Woolgoolga Bowling Club, but only five people in the room that night wanted to turn the marine reserve into a marine park. The Minister was in the area at the time and she was seen in the confines of the club, but when she saw the size of the crowd and assessed its attitude she decided discretion was the better part of valour and she left the premises and let the public meeting handle the matter. I was going to say that there was a unanimous vote on this issue, but there was not: some people were against the formation of the marine park.

Graham Ashton, one of the five people who were for it, is a card-carrying member of the Labor Party. I usually have a lot of time for Graham, although he blotted his copybook of late with some sexist comments he made that were not appreciated. Graham ended up on the community advisory panel. In fact, the five people who were for the marine park ended up on that panel. When the Minister read her agreement in principle speech on this legislation at 10 o'clock on the last day of the last parliamentary session, which occurred without prior notice, she said that extensive community consultation would take place on the legislation, that it would lie on the table over the summer period and that debate would take place on the advisory bodies and committees that would be appointed to make decisions on zoning and regulations in the parks.

I do not believe her statement. The Minister might have changed but the Government has not changed its practice of non-consultation in relation to marine parks. I will give members another example. A couple of years ago we legislated for boundary change to zoning areas in Solitary Island Marine Park. Anglers and locals alike at Moonee expressed great consternation and angst. At the time the Government proposed to turn Moonee Creek and the area next to it into a habitat protected sanctuary zone. The area next to Moonee Creek, which has a magnificent caravan park, is the beach that I use. In the days when my dog was still alive I used to take it for a run along the beach in that area, as did a lot of people, because it was allowed.

The Government wanted to turn that whole area into a habitat protected sanctuary zone, which meant that activities that normally took place along the creek and on the beach front at Moonee would no longer be allowed. A meeting was held at Moonee Reserve hall, which is about the size of this Chamber, which was attended by marine parks people, a fisheries officer and a number of other reasonable people who wanted some answers. That night we did not get any answers but we got a lot of excuses as to why the Government wanted to do this. That meeting sent the Government a strong message.

People who normally support the park—even though they do not believe that the benefits promised by the Government since 1997 are there—were extremely angry about proposed changes to that area. This proposal, which was part of a raft of changes, went back to the Government but we did not receive any response. Even I, as the local member, did not receive responses to the submissions I made on behalf of my constituents. We were fearful of losing the access we had been granted to this place, but the zonings were changed, they were gazetted and Moonee was returned to us, which was fantastic. Even now people enjoy the benefits that they previously had.

However, the Government did not tell us that the headland just north of Sandy Beach, which it did not propose to turn into a sanctuary zone, had been turned into a sanctuary zone without anyone in the community being given an opportunity to comment on it. The draft plan we were given did not contain that proposal, yet when the plan came back it was there as bold as brass. People who have been fishing there for generations are now no longer allowed to do so, which clearly demonstrates that the promises given to us by the Government and the Minister will not be kept, even under amendments to this legislation. The Government will still make decisions about marine parks in New South Wales that are based not on scientific evidence but on rhetoric and political imperative. In order to gain green preferences and other electoral advantages this Government will turn areas in regional New South Wales into marine parks.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Whatever it takes.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the member for Lane Cove said, the Government will do whatever it takes. What would happen if I, as a member, introduced a marine parks bill to turn Sydney Harbour, the area around Manly and Maroubra into a marine park and I then put in zoning plans to cover all the reefs? Anyone who does a bit of fishing—I tend to fish off the beach or off the rocks; I am not an outside fisherman—knows full well that the fish are where the rocks are. When someone publicly asks, "Why are you turning all these reefs into sanctuary zones or the areas around islands, for example, Solitary Islands" the Government says, "What are you complaining about? The sanctuary zones and habitat zones within your marine park comprise only 5 per cent of the marine park area." I tend to agree with the Government's statement, but that 5 per cent is probably 95 per cent of the reefs or areas where someone can catch fish.

None of this is based on scientific evidence. I am glad that I have an audience on the government backbenches, as I will be on my feet for quite some time. I have a paper from Emeritus Professor Bob Kearney, PhD, DSc, AM. That paper, which was delivered on 12 September 2007 to the Australian Society for Fish Biology in Canberra, relates to Batemans Marine Park. I will come back to that paper. Members opposite, who have a lot to learn tonight, should hang around rather than walk into caucus and stick up their hands and say, "Yes, this seems like a good idea." What would occur if we applied the same conditions? I would not introduce a bill to turn the areas around Manly, Sydney Harbour or Maroubra into a marine park because one of the dills on the government benches thought it was a damn good idea and that is what should occur.

Every recreational fisherman in Sydney—there are two million in New South Wales, each of whom pays $25 a year to support the fisheries in this State because this Government will not fund them—would be on my back because they would lose their ability to fish. The Government will not create a marine park in that area for exactly the same reason: it would be unacceptable politically. Prior to the last election Opposition members travelled to the North Coast, to Tweed and to Port Stephens. I offer my condolences to the family of the former member for Port Stephens who tragically passed away, but I would suggest that even he would have realised that we now have a Liberal member for Port Stephens because of the attitude of locals in that area to the proposed marine park.

Mr Barry Collier: I think, with respect, that that is a long bow to draw.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: It is not a long bow. We did our polling and we know that members of ECOfishers and those two million licensed recreational fishermen in New South Wales vote. Anyone visiting the North Coast, Port Stephens, Newcastle, Batemans Bay or Bega would have noticed the stickers on all local vehicles that state, "I fish and I vote." They damned this Government on its proposals, its management plan and its attitude. I referred earlier to a paper written by Emeritus Professor Kearney. The Government was damned for its lack of consultation on precautionary principles and for its unfounded scientific statements, which this paper will prove, which resulted in the nomination of those marine parks.

The legislation, as the Minister said, will limit planes flying across marine parks. It will be an interesting challenge as to how close planes can go to the water as they cross above a marine park. Last year the Solitary Islands lighthouse was 100 years old and the Marine Park Authority decided to conduct a lottery with prizes being a visit to the island. As people cannot freely visit the islands, among those who entered this lottery was the widow of the last lighthouse keeper. I fully support the Marine Parks Authority in trying to obtain sponsorship to enable repainting of the remaining buildings. Basic repairs were undertaken but the buildings badly need painting with solar-based paint. To Taubmans and British Paints and others to whom I have written, if you read this in Hansard tonight I say that I have not yet heard from you, but if you donate the paint we will provide the labour to paint the buildings.

The Marine Parks Authority, which manages the Solitary Islands Marine Park, decided to fly the people out to the islands in helicopters. If the proposal in the bill is to limit planes flying across marine parks, what will happen on the days chosen to promote the benefits of the park when people are told they will be flown to the island to wander around for the day? I suggest that will not be possible. The end result will be that planes will be able to fly only where someone in the Marine Parks Authority wants them to fly. Another example of the proposed restrictions is rather a sad one. A constituent of mine was getting married at Aanuka Resort in Coffs Harbour—a lovely spot right on the beach. The front of the resort is at the high water mark, which is in fact a marine park.

The bride and groom wished to arrive by helicopter, landing on the lawn of the resort for the wedding and reception—a magnificent idea. Guess what? They were not allowed. I wrote, I begged, I asked and I rang but could not get permission for that couple to fulfil their lifelong dream of arriving at their wedding by helicopter. This is the sort of regulation and stipulation that will be enforced. But it gets worse. Coffs Harbour airport sits basically on the edge of the marine park, separated from it by the railway line. The ocean is right next door to the airport. The prevailing winds dictate the way planes will land at the airport—that is, from the north or south. Coffs Harbour is very fortunate as it has seven, eight or nine flights in and out per day with QantasLink and a couple of Virgin flights with 737 planes. These planes come in across the marine park, landing with the wind.

Bad weather often dictates that planes must land from the north, and quite often planes come into Coffs Harbour airport on a long, low trajectory. It is a safe airport, although not long ago an air ambulance clipped the top of the break wall, resulting in one wheel ending up in the marine park. That no-one died was due only to the skill of the pilot. Do the restrictions mooted in the legislation and foreshadowed by the Minister mean that the busy Coffs Harbour commercial airport will no longer operate? Will the restrictions proposed in this bill mean that the air service afforded to the people of the Coffs Harbour electorate and surrounding areas—Grafton through to Dorrigo and across the whole region—will be severely limited? I suggest that many of the proposed restrictions are autocratic because the legislation will give the Minister carte blanche to make marine parks regulations and zonings with reference only to a hand-picked select committee and not to the public. The Minister handpicks all the advisory bodies and local committees.

I have demonstrated already that the last community advisory committee comprised only those who supported the zonings proposed for the marine park when 500 others were against it. So, 1 per cent of the people will dictate to 99 per cent of the people what can and cannot be done. The Williamtown air base and its proximity to the Port Stephens Marine Park also will be affected by the proposal. This country's fighter jets fly from the Williamtown air base, as do commercial flights. Until recently Sunstate planes flew into Coffs Harbour from Brisbane and on to Newcastle—a fairly popular route. The member for Newcastle recently utilised the services of Aeropelican flights, which also land at Williamtown. I wonder whether in the prevailing weather conditions the Williamtown air base will be affected by this proposed legislation.

I believe very little thought has been given to this legislation. As I said earlier, the Minister introduced this bill at 10.00 a.m. on the last sitting day of 2007. She promised public consultation, but Ken Thurlow from EcoFishers now firmly supports the Coalition because he does not trust the Labor Government on these issues. Ken Thurlow used to be a very ardent Labor man, in fact he has run campaigns for Labor candidates on the North Coast of New South Wales, but he is now solidly behind the Coalition because of its support for decent regulation and public consultation for marine parks, sanctuary zones, and habitat areas.

Fishing is a great Australian pastime. These days when people have a few extra bob in their pockets they have an opportunity to buy themselves a little boat, a tinny. The proposed legislation will double the penalty units from $500 to $1,000 or 500 units to 1,000 units, and from $1,000 to $2,000 or 1000 units to 2000 units. I will read a letter from Geri Rossi, a retired bloke in Coffs Harbour, who wrote to me on 13 February. He said:

On the 27 December 2007 I was fishing at Moonee Headland when I was confronted by two Marine Parks Officers who said I was fishing in Solitary Islands Marine Park. One of the Officers asked me if I had a map of the Marine Park on my boat and I said no, could you give me a map which he did. After questioning me, checking my fishing licence and fish catch (about 15-20 minutes) I was asked if I had a G.P.S, switched on and when I replied my G.P.S. was on the Officer asked me to read out my G.P.S. co-ordinates to him which I did twice at his request. My G.P.S. co-ordinates were 30^o-12-880S and 153^o-10-669 E and as I read them out I wrote them down in my notebook. I reminded the Officer that we had been drifting in a north easterly direction towards the Marine Park for 15-20 minutes while they had been questioning me and before I was asked to read out my G.P.S. co-ordinates to them.

The Officer told me I would be reported for fishing in Solitary Islands Marine Park and would either receive a warning letter or a fine.

When I got home that morning I checked the Solitary Islands Marine Park map and discovered that my G.P.S. reading put me outside the marine Park Area. The border of the Marine Park is 30^o-12-860 S and my G.P.S. reading was 30^o-12-880 S even after drifting towards the Marine Park for 15-20 minutes at .5 knots while being questioned.

The location given by the Marine Parks Authority was at 30^o-12-744 S and 153^o-10-822 E, which is quite different to my G.P.S. reading.

Mr Paul Gibson: Can you give us more detail?

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I can if you like, Gibbo. You are going to get it, so you may as well sit back and enjoy it.

Mr Alan Ashton: If you want to, go up the back and talk.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: His Irish heritage shows.

The offence I was charged with—harm attempt to harm animals in a sanctuary zone, I believe that is quite different from fishing with a rod and reel.

I received the Penalty notice on the eighth January and as I was booked to leave Australia on the fifteenth of January to go overseas for two weeks I reluctantly paid the $500-00 fine to stop further action while I was out of the country.

Mr Andrew Constance: It will soon be $1,000.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the member for Bega says, the fine will be $1,000. My constituent goes on to state:

I protest about being issued a penalty notice and a fine of $500-00 as I believe I did nothing wrong.

I have been fishing the Coffs Harbour area for over forty years and I have not had any previous offences against me.

That example illustrates the jackboot tactics that are being utilised in marine parks. The reading that he was asked to give and gave to the marine park officers showed that he was outside the marine park area, yet he copped a $500 fine before he took a holiday overseas. Government members say that he should get a new global positioning system, but he has had to pay the Government $500. I find it really amazing that someone who represents the people of Wollongong would make such a statement.

A couple of years ago when Bob Martin was the Minister for Mineral Resources and Minister for Fisheries I was approached by two Labor voters from Grafton who never again will vote for Labor. They and their visitors from Sydney were fishing on a headland at Arrawarra. It was not marked and it was not signposted as part of a marine park, yet they were pinged for dangling a line during the Christmas holidays. I wrote to Bob Martin, but nothing could be done. The fine was not overturned. Those poor people had to pay a fine. I can almost guarantee that the person to whom I referred earlier will not be able to recover his $500, either.

Those examples illustrate the autocratic policing taking place in the Solitary Islands Marine Park. That is happening day in and day out. Surprise, surprise, under the existing legislation the marine park zoning and regulations should have been reviewed last September. However, it is 26 February and they have not been reviewed. Why? Are the promises made by the Minister in her second reading speech the same empty promises that have resulted in provisions not being reviewed last September? The people of Coffs Harbour and I want to know why the regulations have not been reviewed. The reality is that the Government puts legislation and regulations in place and promises consultation and review, but nothing happens. When claims of the supposed innocence of this legislation—

Mr Andrew Constance: What innocence?

Mr ANDREW FRASER: Indeed, what innocence—and great benefit for areas that include marine parks are examined, they are destroyed by reference to the different story coming out of Coffs Harbour. One of my daughters is an avid diver and is currently undertaking a diver instructor's course. She and other divers go out to the marine park and they love it. However, they are fearful of a rumour circulating in Coffs Harbour that, despite their strict adherence to the no-take policy while visiting parts of the marine park they admire, they will be banned because they may interfere with the sex life of the grey nurse shark. We all know that grey nurse sharks are vulnerable to being trapped in fishing nets, but there are no fishing nets in that area. Photographs of the South West Rocks area appearing in national and international media show that there are literally schools of grey nurse sharks there, yet we are still being told that, based on precautionary principles, the areas need to be locked up. Emeritus Professor Kearney's paper addresses some of those issues.

I suggest that diving is probably the least invasive activity undertaken in marine parks and other areas, but divers are now fearful that they will be barred on the basis of a precautionary principle without any real scientific evidence to back up the restriction. A large number of charter boat operators who formerly operated in the Solitary Islands Marine Park no longer do so because their licences were not renewed. The Government said that its legislation would result in an increase in charter boat operations and an increase in recreational activity. One of the greatest recreational activities on the North Coast is fishing, but the fishermen have voted with their feet and have left Coffs Harbour. They have moved to other climes because, as the member for Bega mentioned to me earlier today, the Government is forcing people out of marine park areas and is increasing zones. The fishermen have decided to move to areas south of Coffs Harbour or to areas farther off the coast outside the boundaries of the marine park. We should also recognise that recently the Federal Government legislated a marine park into existence even farther off shore in the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. As a result, the opportunities for commercial or recreational fishing are poor.

Fishermen who used to roam widely because there were so many areas available now find that their fishing spots are overfished. Prawn trawler operators and others operating off Boambee Beach have had their livelihood severely curtailed because, at a cost to the people of Coffs Harbour of $170 million, the Government built an ocean outfall. A former Minister for Public Works, Michael Knight, visited Coffs Harbour and told the people that it would not cost them one cent. The Government is looking for a headland as a disposal point for tertiary-treated effluent, the highest level of treatment available. Some people have suggested that tertiary-treated water is drinkable but, while I might drink my own, I do not think I would want to drink someone else's. Irrespective of the level of treatment, effluent is still being discharged into the ocean south of Coffs Harbour. The discharge effluent is interfering with prawn trawler operators and other craft hauling nets.

The hypocrisy of the Government's position was that it would not allow treated effluent to be discharged into an area encompassing a marine park and situated the outfall two kilometres south of the marine park, directly in the path of the southerly current. The Government was hoping that the current running along the coast would turn back and go the other way! The result of the Government's action is that the current is still taking the treated effluent into the marine park. The Government based its claim of protecting the marine park on the so-called scientific arguments that have been proved to be spurious. We need proper management of areas that have been converted to marine parks. When legislation came before the House in 1997 the Coalition ensured that advice from fishermen was taken into account in the overall management of marine parks.

I clearly remember the night after the legislation was passed, after the debate was guillotined—an unusual event that would never happen under a Coalition government but it happened under Labor. The then Minister, Bob Martin, invited the member for Myall Lakes, John Turner, and me to his office to meet recreational fishers, to have a beer and to break bread with them because it was the Coalition's amendments that infused some sanity into the legislation. Unfortunately, the sanity has not prevailed. Currently there is only one fisheries officer in Coffs Harbour. I am aware of a Government proposal to do away with fisheries officers throughout the State. The Coalition does not believe that the $25 for permits paid by every recreational angler in the State is being directed to the purpose for which it was intended. If the Government directed the permit revenue to protecting some fish-breeding zones in rivers that would be a far greater good than locking people out of reefs in gazetted marine parks. Marine parks really are a blight on the freedom and recreational pursuits of the people of New South Wales.

I want the Government to understand that the Coalition has absolutely no problems with the concept of marine parks. The regulations, zonings and management of those parks are causing real concern throughout New South Wales. I quote from Professor Bob Kearney's address, which was delivered to the Australian Society for Fish Biology:

Today I will concentrate on one area and circumstance, the Batemans Marine Park, one of the most recent in Australia, and use that as an example that has relevance to the rest of New South Wales, and possibly Australia more generally. I will take advantage of today's audience that shares an interest in fish biology

his address was delivered to marine biologists—

to delve in some detail into the science that has been used to underpin the declaration of the Batemans Park.

He continues:

In this age of increased political scrutiny and public accountability of government agencies most of us would expect to find some advocacy in the Marine Parks Authority's overview of its core business, such as might be evident by considering only the benefits of MPAs and not the problems. But, on a subject where sound science is so critical we would hope that subsequent decisions which impact public and environmental wellbeing would be based on objective and thorough research. This expectation is reinforced by the Marine Parks Authority's own assertion—

and I would suggest the assertions in this House by both the Minister presenting the amendment bill and the then Minister for the Environment—

That this process will be driven by "thorough scientific assessments of all available information and data". For detail and discussion on the benefits of marine protected areas Marine Parks Authority, not surprisingly, refers readers to another publication, the "Science Paper".

The actual title of this Science Paper is, "A review of benefits of Marine Protected Areas and related Sony considerations" (Marine Parks Authority New South Wales undated). Here the issue of balance, or lack thereof, begins to emerge; one that may well question the objectivity in having "the Science Paper" on MPAs consider only the benefits.

The Science Paper is attributed as, "Prepared on behalf of the Marine Parks Authority Scientific Committee"; an attribution which projects the full authorisation of the Authority and the scientists therein.

In the Science Paper the objectives of NSW marine parks are stated as,

. "conserve e marine biodiversity and maintain ecological processes;
. provide for ecologically-sustainable use, public appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of the marine environment."

Few could find exception with these objectives: but the purpose of my presentation today is not to consider asserted objectives, but rather the pros and cons of marine parks that are declared in pursuit of these objectives. More specifically, what science underpins the measures that have been taken in the Batemans Marine Park in pursuit of the stated objectives and what these measures are likely to deliver against these objectives. To do so I will go through the Science Paper section by section. The quotations included in the text below are from the Science Paper, unless otherwise referenced.

The Science Paper's introduction to the "Threats to marine environments" states, "This document highlights some of the key threats to some marine species and their habitats and examines key benefits of marine protected areas in addressing these threats." Five key activities, presumably these threats, are then listed—

I would like Government members to listen to the key threats because they are important

"coastal development, pollution, agriculture, recreational and image commercial fishing, and introduced marine pests".

Mr Barry Collier: When was this written?

Mr ANDREW FRASER: In September 2007. I will provide the member for Miranda with a copy or he can read Hansard tomorrow.

Mr Barry Collier: No, I have enough rubbish in my office already.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: Yes, I knowin your chair! If the member sits back and listens he will be right. The "Science Paper" continues:

It is noteworthy that fishing is fourth on a list of five key threats. Then, dealing specifically with New South Wales, the Science Paper states, "approximately 60 per cent of coastal wetlands lost or degraded over the last 200 years" and "Increased nutrient levels and turbidity from urban and industrial discharges and capture usage are the key causes of increased turbidity and nutrient levels that often result in a decline of seagrass habitats and adversity of species in soft-sediment areas". Here I am not trying to draw attention to the repetition, but rather to note that this pivotal listing of key and direct threats to coastal environments, which are reported to have resulted in serious damage to 60 per cent of wetlands, does not include fishing. The Science Paper does, however, subsequently state that, "The overall pressures include some fishing activities". The only specific fishing activity mentioned in the Science Paper is demersal trawling, which is, in this region, an offshore activity. Not a single estuarine or beach fishing activity is identified as being responsible for the identified declines, or even as being a threat.

I suggest that the regulations, the zonings, et cetera are specifically aimed at recreational fishing, yet it is not mentioned at all. It continues:

General statements on fisheries problems around the world are then followed by the somewhat leading comment, "There are a number of species in NSW identified as being at moderate to high risk of becoming overfished; many of which are sharks species". This key statement is neither substantiated, nor referenced. What it is actually saying is that there are no species in NSW that are currently overfished. An FOI request on information relating to the proposal for the introduction of the Batemans Marine Park revealed that NSW Department of Primary Industries, the State's fisheries management agency, in its communication with the Marine Parks Authority on the Batemans Marine Park before it was declared, actually listed four fish species it considered as growth-overfished in NSW: snapper … silver trevally … sea garfish … and kingfish … Disregarding this inconsistency between the fisheries management authority, NSW DPI, and the Marine Parks Authority on fisheries management, it is significant that neither agency provides any evidence for any current, or even anticipated problems, with predominantly estuarine or ocean beach species in NSW.

That is significant. We are asked to trust this Government and a Minister who, under this legislation, I suggest will be given autocratic authority to change regulations on the basis of these broad-brush statements, yet they were disproved by an emeritus professor in fisheries and marine sciences. It continues:

The Science Paper then continues: "The protection of species and their habitat can result in benefits to a range of species and habitats, some of which are documented below."

"Increases in the size and numbers of marine fish and invertebrates in sanctuary zones."

It states in part:

Surely if sanctuary zones do actually provide protection from the known threats then, logically, it should follow that unless the purpose of the sanctuary zone is solely to protect some clearly identified critical habitat, such as a spawning or nursery area, then the biomass of at least some of the species being protected in the zone would be higher than it is in areas that are not protected? If not, why have "protected" areas? If we are truly trying to assess benefits, the objective should surely be to assess if having closed areas leads to conservation of biodiversity that would otherwise be lost, or at least seriously threatened, and/or, the normal objectives of fisheries management, maximum or optimum sustainable yield from the total resource, are enhanced by having access to part of the resource restricted. However, as more space in the Science Paper is devoted to the benefits in the form of increased numbers and size, than to any other benefits, obviously the Marine Parks Authority believes this is truly critical. Furthermore, as this is the first example of the Marine Parks Authority documentation providing specific examples, as opposed to unsubstantiated generalizations, these examples warrant consideration. The Science Paper continues:

"Some examples from around the world that document the benefits of sanctuary zones are:" What follow are 13 separate examples given in support of this assertion. Most are referenced to the scientific literature. The first states, "In the De Hoop sanctuary, a surf beach on the southern coast of South Africa, the numbers of 6 surf-zone fish species increased between 30 and 500% compared to fished beaches". I thought I should check at least some of the reference in the Science Paper … My conclusion was that an objective place to start would be the first specific example in each section and then, if available, an example from within Australia, preferably New South Wales.

Two references are cited for the above quotes on fished beaches, Bennett and Attwodd (1991) and (1993). Even if I was somewhat concerned that more recent references could not have been found, I found these two papers to be quite good in a field plagued by imprecision, but I do not think they have been overly optimistic in their interpretation of the relationship between angling catch per unit effort (CPUE) and abundance, relative or otherwise.

The catch per unit effort to keep the fishers out of these areas is disproved by the emeritus professor. Referring to the cited South African examples, the professor said:

The two Bennett and Attwood papers actually refer to the use of angling techniques to assess the effectiveness of closing areas where "the shore is a mixture of sandy beach and aeolianite beach-rock platforms": not a "surf beach" as stated in the Science Paper. The 1991 paper was based on the use of angling CPUE as an indicator of abundance. The 1993 paper concentrates more on the variability in experimental catches. Bennett and Attwood actually studied ten species, not six. CPUEs for only six of these were higher in the closed areas. Of these six species the two most prominent … which account for more than 90% … are described in FishBase … as reef associated, as is another … of the remaining four. The habitats of two of the other three species … are described in FishBase, respectively, as "mainly off rocky shores" and "over sand between rocks". Only one of the six species … has a habitat described as "over sandy substrate". Therefore the results from only one of these six species are truly relevant to evaluation …

So the two reports, from 1991 and 1993, list 10 species, six of which are relevant. When one looks at how those fish are distributed, one sees that only one of them has any relevance. It is high time we blew the lid on this. If the Minister is to autocratically put marine parks and zones in place we need proper home-based, scientific assessment. Later in the paper the professor refers to the Solitary Islands, and I shall come to that shortly. He continued:

Of even greater significance to the issue of the relevance of the two cited South African papers to assessment of possible benefits to the Batemans area from the closure of surf-zone beaches is the following quote from Bennett and Attwood (1991), "Only 2 of the 10 species examined in this study … are highly migratory and neither demonstrated any benefits from protection in the reserve". The last two species names may have been familiar—

I will not attempt to pronounce the scientific names but their common names are mulloway and tailor. Anyone who knows anything about mulloway knows that red mulloway is probably one of the least caught fish; I think it is 0.02 per cent of the catch in New South Wales. As we all know, tailor is what I would term a common species on any beach in New South Wales. The professor continued:

It is also relevant to note that two thirds of the discussion in Bennett and Attwood … is about why there is need for caution in accepting that CPUE in this study actually reflects abundance. The key statement on this in the discussion is, "It is evident that angling CPUE should be interpreted with some caution".

Yet the Marine Parks Authority and the Government are giving it much greater weight than they should. He continued:

Thus, the actual conclusions that should be drawn from the two papers cited in the Science Paper are a long way from the inference of "the numbers of 6 surf-zone species increased by between 30 and 500% compared to fished beaches".

…

Then, as mentioned above, I looked in the Science Paper for examples closer to the Batemans region: the Solitary Islands Park being the most relevant area referred to. It should be noted here that the Solitary Islands Park is less than ten years old as a Park, but aquatic reserves, which were in effect fishing closures, were in place since 1991—

under a Coalition Government—

Therefore after a total of 15 years of prohibiting fishing in sanctuary zones it is reported by the Marine Park Authority's Science Paper that there is evidence that "the abundance and mean size of mud crabs … were consistently greater within sanctuary zones: and, "there are preliminary indications that certain demersal fish such as red morwong have greater densities in sanctuary zones, but the patterns are often inconsistent between sites".

While this faint praise could be sufficiently damning for most, I thought I should check the reference (Butcher et al 2002) given for mud crab abundance, as this is the first local example. Butcher et al actually report a difference in CPUE … this time from trapping, in sanctuary and fished areas.

Perhaps more important than just noting the reported CPUE for mud crabs in sanctuary zone of two and a half times that in fished areas, is consideration of what this might mean to the well being of the species and fisheries based on it, and therefore the real benefit from the sanctuary zones. Such analysis is, unfortunately, completely lacking in the Science Paper.

There is clearly need for caution when comparing catch data from different fisheries, particularly those for different species, let alone in different countries as carried out in the Science Paper, but the assertion that relative CPUE data from crustacean trap fisheries are automatic indicators of management success can be investigated to at least some degree by the use of comparisons.

In relation to mud crabs, he said:

My above consideration of mud crab CPUE is not intended as a fundamental criticism of the paper by Butcher et al, or that increases in CPUE in sanctuary zones are not good. It merely points out that the assertion in the Science Paper that the Solitary Islands Marine Park is providing valuable conservation and fisheries benefits, as demonstrated by the mud crab paper referenced, should not be accepted. In fact, based on the information given it can be argued that the closure of areas in the Solitary Islands Park to fishing for mud crabs is contrary to the best interests of the wise use, ecologically sustainable development, of this apparently underexploited resource. The documentation also fails to provide any evidence at all that the declaration of sanctuary zones has provided any protection of estuaries from the real threats.

Under the amendments proposed in this legislation, any local zoning will now be based on a statewide assessment. This means that if there is an abundance of fish à la mud crabs in the Solitary Islands Marine Park in the Coffs Harbour area that could be ignored in favour of another area where there are no mud crabs; the Solitary Islands area would then be locked up on the basis of a statewide assessment. That is totally unfair. As the professor pointed out, that is not based on scientific evidence; it is based on a proposal to lock up and lock out, which is totally unacceptable.

I challenge members opposite to talk to their fishing clubs. They should talk to people who fish and ask them whether those who have utilised the Solitary Islands Marine Park in the past would go back there. Those people do not go back there. So it is a lock up and a lock out. There is no real scientific evidence to show that the Solitary Islands Marine Park is managed better than it was when it was a reserve, apart from a huge cost back to the taxpayer and the poor beggars who actually fish out there and get belted. The report contains other headings, one of which states:

"'Spillover" of fish from sanctuaries into areas open to fishing"

It is claimed that there is a spillover of fish into areas adjacent to marine parks, yet people are still not allowed to fish. It is bizarre that there is a huge fish population but people cannot fish in adjacent areas. Another heading is, "Sanctuaries lead to improvements in ecosystems and habitats". The first example—these are statements made in the science paper—is that sanctuaries lead to improvements in ecosystems and habitat. The example referenced is a sanctuary in New Zealand, the Leigh Marine Reserve. No Australian examples are given. Another heading is, "Improved reproductive potential of key species in sanctuary zones". The document states:

"For most marine animals … egg and sperm production increases exponentially with size", is leading, as we are meant to assume that fish will be bigger and more numerous in sanctuary zones, but it is at best, imprecise and inaccurate. Egg and sperm production, within a fish species, in relation to size as measured by weight, is close to linear for many species. For length, the relationship is often a power function, but is normally not strictly exponential, particularly for live-bearers. Marine mammals are "marine animals", and the statement in the Science Paper certainly does not describe their reproductive behaviour. More specifically for the Batemans region, the key species in this area are migratory and no spawning areas have been identified, therefore the assertion that the sanctuary zones as declared in the Batemans Marine Park will provide improved reproductive potential for them is wishful, at best.

Pursuant to the proposed amendment, statewide data will be used. Here is proof positive that fish that are said to spawn in the area do not spawn in the area. They do not reproduce in the area. Yet sanctuary zones have been set up to protect them in an area where they do not reproduce. As the fish are migratory, the people who are disadvantaged are the recreational and commercial fishers. Under the heading "Design considerations for marine parks" the document states:

The first paragraphs under design consideration describe the need for conservation of a "comprehensive, adequate and representative sample of marine biodiversity". This objective appears perfectly reasonable for a series of marine parks in NSW …

What is highly questionable from the information given in the Science Paper is the "ability to manage impacting activities", such that the biodiversity identified as in need of conservation, is actually conserved (protected) and that the prescribed measures represent effective and efficient management.

The Science Paper continues: "Other important design considerations for marine parks include:"

"consideration of the marine park location and extent and zoning arrangements in relation to ecological processes (e.g. movement and biology of particular species), distribution of habitats, and practicality of management (e.g. enforcement, education)

I have told members all about the enforcement. The document continues:

As discussed above, ecological processes, such as the movement and biology of particular species, have clearly been ignored.

The next points are:

"assessment of the vulnerability of the biodiversity and threatening processes" Assuming that this criterion relates to the vulnerability to threatening processes it is appropriate here to note that the actual threats to the biodiversity in the differing types of habitats are not adequately identified and/or addressed. For example, for estuaries two key threats, "increased nutrient levels and turbidity from urban and industrial discharges and catchment usage", and four additional direct threatening processes, "introduced marine pests, swing-mooring chains, propellers and retrieval of anchors", are described under "threats to marine environments". Not one of these identified key threats is addressed at all in the remainder of the documentation.

"the ecological sustainable use of marine resources for a range of human activities" This constitutes the only mention of Australia's guiding principle of natural resource management, ESD.

In other words, it has been included as a statement but there is nothing to back it up. The document continues:

"economic, social and cultural selection criteria which are considered in the zoning process" As there is a separate Socio-Economic Report and an Economic Report provided by the Marine Parks Authority, no discussion of these items is necessary in the Science Paper. However, as the Executive Summary of the Socio-Economic Report contains key statements that are relevant to several key points in the Science Paper, some discussion here is warranted. The Executive Summary notes there is likely to be adverse impacts on commercial fishing and "There may also be minor aspects on charter boat operators and recreational fishers … However, the economic impact analysis suggests the impact is likely to be small for the region as a whole and partly offset by additional Marine Parks Authority expenditure".

That is errant nonsense. Businesses have gone broke in Coffs Harbour. Charter boat and fishing boat operators have left town because they can no longer survive. It sounds like manna from heaven for people of cargo cult mentality, but it will not happen. The document continues:

The failure of the Batemans Marine Park proposal to take account of the extremely high financial and social cost to a significant number of individual recreational fishers, particularly the elderly, the very young and the financially disadvantaged, who have greatly reduced means of translocating their angling efforts, totally compromises socioeconomic assessments. In cases where lifestyle reasons, that include proximity to favoured or traditional angling spots, have influenced house purchases and relocation of families, these financial costs could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for an individual angler. Replacing income from the commercial fishing sector with taxpayer funded expenditure from the Marine Parks Authority, as outlined in the Executive Summary, may balance the scoresheet with local councils but it will do nothing for the average fish consumer (>90% of the population) or the reputation of local restaurants for using fresh, local produce.

It is also most significant that the Socio-Economic Study lists the positive economic and social impacts from the establishment of the Batemans Marine Park as including, "growth in tourism through marine park management and promotion". But the primary beneficiaries of the establishment of the park are acknowledged by the Marine Parks Authority to be those who manage and promote the park. This group constitutes the marine parks industry.

It does not help the local real estate agent, the local butcher, the local fish shop owner—who obviously cannot get fish—or the local tourism industry. Although a large number of people come to Coffs Harbour, as evidenced by the example I gave of my daughter who is training to be a scuba diving instructor, it is a small percentage compared with previous figures. The scuba operators get 5, 6, maybe 10 customers. I think the biggest group they had over Christmas was 12. In previous years they could expect dozens of boats week in and week out; people came from Tamworth and Armidale, which is only three hours away, to utilise the facilities at Coffs Harbour. Those people now go elsewhere. Coffs Harbour has lost a huge number of tourists. One of its major fishing competitions has been severely compromised by the marine park. The document refers to the buyback of commercial fishing licences. It is a minor initiative. The document continues:

A series of "examples of the application of ecological criteria to zone planning" then follows:

One of the key aggregating species that are protected in NSW marine parks is the grey nurse shark. The assessment of the grey nurse shark is currently subject to legal challenge so detailed comment here is not appropriate. However, it should be mentioned that because of the mobility of grey nurse sharks, whatever protection of this species may be represented via the declaration of a series of sanctuary zones up and down the New South Wales coast, this will not, in itself, protect this species.

This is one of the sad aspects. Dozens of sharks have been seen at an underground reef at South West Rocks. But these sharks are migratory and locking up the reef will not protect them. The fishing industry has acknowledged that fish nets on commercial trawlers cause damage to grey nurse sharks. Unfortunately, when they are caught accidentally in nets they do not survive. Although grey nurse sharks are used as a tear-jerking example, locking up the areas will not protect them. There was a grey nurse shark at the porpoise pool in Coffs Harbour. They are magnificent creatures that should be protected. But any assertion that locking up these areas will protect them is a fallacy. The document continues:

"Studies of some fish species inhabiting rocky reefs in NSW suggest that sanctuary zones of between 2 and 6 km long would be optimal … the average range of a reef fish is 1800 sq/m. This is an estimate of the minimum area of suitable habitat required in a sanctuary zone for it to provide some protection for this species" Again the red morwong becomes the centre of attention. Why is it necessary to provide protection for this species? It is neither endangered nor assessed as over-fished. Why would you use the requirements of a minor red morwong representing 0.02% of the angling catches in the major surveys for which data are held by NSW DPI, unthreatened species, as the justification for determining the size of sanctuary zones that impact all the major target species? "The average home range" of red morwong is 1800 sq/m actually represents an area of approximately 42 metres square or in the words of one of the authors, Ian Suthers, of the cited paper, Lowry and Suthers 1998, "the size of a tennis court". It is also interesting that this cited reference actually estimated the daytime home range to be 1865 sq/m and the night-time range to be twice that, 3639 sq/m. However, if the assertion that a home range of 1800 sq/m leads to the need for sanctuary zones of between 2 and 6 km long is correct, then this would again confirm that sanctuary zones of the size of those in the Batemans Marine Park have no chance whatsoever of representing effective, let alone efficient, management for even one of the many prominent migratory species in this region that have distributions covering hundreds of kilometres.

Mr Barry Collier: I think you've said it all.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: No, I have not said it all. I could go on. I suggest that every member of the House read this paper. I refer to the final paragraph:

Many citizens of the Batemans region have been hoodwinked into believing that the proposal for this park was actually based on sound science and that the park will deliver considerable benefits to biodiversity conservation of recreational fishing. The email traffic on this subject identifies many who are seduced into believing that the short-term pain will lead to long-term gain. Unfortunately this is far from the truth. Not only is it extremely unlikely there will be any demonstrable benefit to recreational fisheries, certainly not on ocean beaches or in estuaries, but the case for having future beneficial area management will be seriously weakened by the experience of these closures failing to deliver.

The community will not be pleased when it is asked to accept additional management measures—

which this legislation introduces—

that will undoubtedly be necessary to appropriately address the real threats. One is reminded of the story of the little boy who cried wolf. There are almost certainly marine areas, species and habitats in the Batemans region that require protection and many that would benefit from efficient area management; examples include protection of estuaries from known threats such as siltation and pollution, area management of abalone fisheries, the closure of all inshore areas to fish trawling, and reduction in threats from introduced pests, such as aquatic weeds. It is such a pity tax payers' money and public good-will for conservation have been so needlessly misdirected by advocacy for more parks posing as science in the asserted cause of conservation and sustainability. The goal of having effective marine parks in NSW based on sound science has been seriously set back. And to date, we fish biologists have sat back and watched it happen.

They will not watch it happen any more. I suggest that recreational fishers in New South Wales will deliver a very strong message at the next election to members of the Government. People from the electorates of some Labor members visit the north and south coasts, and Port Stephens.

Mr Barry Collier: We don't leave the shire, mate!

Mr ANDREW FRASER: That is unfortunate. The member for Miranda said that they do not leave the shire. That is how New South Wales is governed—for Sydney people. Anything west of the sandstone curtain or south or north of Sydney is totally disregarded. I have often said in this place—and I am sure members opposite will be disappointed if I do not repeat it now—that the Government finds and identifies a problem in Sydney, such as pollution in Sydney Harbour or maybe species overfishing, and fixes it in the bush. The Government fixes problems outside the electorates of Labor members because it does not want an electoral backlash when legislation—Professor Kearney has proved in his paper that this measure is nonsense—is not soundly based in science.

I suggest that people across New South Wales want science-based legislation. If the Government identifies a problem that is based on evidence from New South Wales and Australia, people will listen. However, when the Government backs up its claims with science from South Africa and New Zealand, people will turn a deaf ear until they cop a $500 fine—as Gerio Rossi and others in my electorate have. I believe Mr Rossi has been fined wrongly and I challenge the Minister to wipe that fine. He is a genuine man, who has fished in the area in question for many years.

Today Coalition members spoke with staff from the office of the Minister. The Opposition did not know this legislation would be debated today, purely because the Government has no other business to put before the House. In fact, earlier today the Government tried to bring on agreement in principle speeches for bills of which it gave notice only today. I do not believe this legislation has received sufficient public consultation. If this debate continues in this Chamber tomorrow—if we cannot do it tomorrow we will do it in another place—I foreshadow that the Opposition will move amendments to remove the autocratic powers proposed for the Minister in section 17E. The Opposition wants to leave the penalties as they are so we may move amendments in that regard.

The Opposition also will move amendments in relation to the ability to declare zones without public consultation. Under the legislation, an advisory committee will be appointed to consult the public over a 28-day period. The Opposition will ask the Government to remove that stipulation from the legislation to ensure that people are consulted properly. The Opposition will also ask that scientific proof form the basis of declarations of sanctuaries or introduction of regulation. We think that is fair. When the Government says that something must be done the Opposition believes it should be based on scientific reasons. The Opposition does not believe the precautionary principle—that is, locking up areas for grey nurse sharks or, as stated by Professor Kearney, red morwongs, which are not even endangered—should be adopted.

The Opposition wants the Government to be reasonable and honest with the people of New South Wales and give them an opportunity to have some input in the process, which has a scientific basis. The Opposition wants all zoning and regulation plans to be put out for a period of consultation that allows people to view them properly. The agreement in principle speech for this bill was delivered on 7 December, during the Christmas period when people were away. Eco-fishers were not advised and no-one in the recreational fishing industry had an opportunity to comment. The bill should lie on the table for the whole of summer, as the Minister indicated clearly. It should be debated in the autumn session and amended appropriately, as foreshadowed by the Opposition, either in this Chamber or in the Legislative Council.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.16 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Marine Parks Amendment Bill. New South Wales led the way in area-based conservation more than a century ago in 1879 with the declaration of Royal National Park. This is the second-oldest park in the world. But many people do not realise that it also contains the oldest formal marine protected areas in the world. Two arms of Port Hacking—South West Arm and Cabbage Tree Creek—are included in the national park. Dredging and the removal of sand, rocks, and vegetation were banned upon declaration of the national park. Net fishing, the use of explosives and the commercial taking of oysters were prohibited soon after. In 1893 park managers reported that oysters:

… now cling to the rocks along the shore, as their threatened extinction some years ago was averted by the action of the [National Park] Trust.

So it was with the second national park in New South Wales declared in 1894 to the north of Sydney. Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park includes the Cowan Creek Arm that covers about 800 hectares of the Hawkesbury River system and its associated marine biodiversity. So it was too with Bouddi National Park—the ocean waters of Maitland Bay were reserved in the park in 1971. So it was with Myall Lakes National Park, which was declared in 1972 and included the Myall Lakes system of about 10,000 hectares of brackish coastal lakes. From this perspective our activity over the past 10 years in building a marine parks system is following the trail blazed in establishing those previous reserves. The Government has developed and implemented zoning plans for six marine parks over the past decade. With these zoning plans it is actively managing one-third of New South Wales waters for both conservation and sustainable uses. This is significant progress over 10 years.

The zoning plans for our oldest marine parks—at Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands—are now more than five years old and the Marine Parks Amendment Bill provides for the review of these plans.

The Government has specifically protected biodiversity and provided for sustainable uses at the Solitary Islands and at Jervis Bay by managing them as marine parks over the past 10 years for a host of reasons. A major reason is the natural values of those places. They are places we can appreciate for their natural beauty, their amazing sea life, their potential to provide food, medicines and materials for our future and their benefits as scientific reference areas against which to measure changes in other areas.

Jervis Bay Marine Park covers about 21,500 hectares of Jervis Bay proper and near shore ocean waters. The marine park was declared in early 1998 and is visually stunning both below and above the water due to its geology and oceanography, its relatively natural, undeveloped coastline, the generally unpolluted and clean environment, and its mix of habitats, flora and fauna. The variable interaction of temperate and subtropical currents and other oceanographic processes, in combination with the complex array of habitats, supports a diversity and wealth of life. The various habitats—estuaries, reefs, soft sediments, beaches, rocky shores and pelagic waters—support different groups of plants and animals that are distributed in various numbers in the marine park at various times of the year. Reef habitats are significant, and recent seabed mapping has provided new insights. Previously unmapped areas of reef have been identified and some areas that were mapped approximately have now been mapped accurately in high resolution. This includes large areas of complex reef in Crookhaven Bight adjacent to Beecroft and Bherwerre peninsulas.

Kelp and algal communities are diverse throughout the marine park and provide key habitat, structure and protection for many other species. More than 250 species of reef fish have been recorded in the marine park, some of which are threatened or protected. Some of these are endemic or have an important ecological role, some are valued also by fishers and, as is generally the case for reef fish in a localised area, many species are uncommon. Mammals, reptiles and birds are permanent residents, seasonal visitors and individuals just passing through. Some are threatened species that benefit from the resources in, and the condition of, the marine park.

Solitary Islands Marine Park is based around the five major islands of the Solitary group: North Solitary Island, North West Solitary Island, South West Solitary Island—Groper Island, South Solitary Island and Split Solitary Island, which lie just off the coastline at Coffs Harbour. The marine park was also declared in early 1998 and includes about 71,000 hectares of oceanic and estuarine waters. The park extends from the coastline to at least 70 metres deep and 20 kilometres offshore in some areas and there is considerable diversity of flora and fauna, due primarily to the variations in water depth, oceanographic influences and the presence of islands. These factors have resulted in a unique environment where tropical, subtropical and temperate marine fauna and flora coexist. As a result, the region supports a biologically diverse range of marine species.

The region contains a diverse range of habitats, including intertidal and subtidal reefs, sandy seafloors and beaches, seagrass beds, mangroves and pelagic waters, which all support somewhat distinct groups of plants and animals. Corals, sponges, ascidians, sea-whips, gorgonians, hydrozoans, black corals, kelp and coralline algae are abundant in the park. More than 600 species of shellfish have been recorded. The region also supports more than 150 species of algae, 90 species of coral and more than 530 species of reef fish, with about 12 per cent of these fishes endemic to the east coast of Australia. Of these, about 5 per cent are endemic to the east coast subtropical region. Some fishes are threatened or protected, some have high conservation value due to their endemism or their ecological role and some are valued by fishers. Mammals, reptiles and birds are also a distinct part of the fauna. That is part of the reason why we have been active in establishing and managing marine parks in New South Wales.

Contrary to what the member for Coffs Harbour said, there is strong support for marine parks in the vast majority of the community—despite the best efforts of a vocal minority opposed to the conservation measures provided by marine parks. We know, for example, that about 87 per cent of the 407 people surveyed recently in the Coffs Harbour, Bellingen Valley and Clarence Valley communities are in favour of conserving the Solitary Islands Marine Park, with 80 per cent in favour of sanctuary zones in the marine park. Similarly, we found that 84 per cent of 402 people surveyed recently in the Shoalhaven area are in favour of conserving Jervis Bay Marine Park, with 82 per cent in favour of sanctuary zones in the park.

The Eurobodalla coast, including Batemans Marine Park, is experiencing the best tourist season for the past decade or two, with reports from fishing tackle businesses that visitors seem happy with Batemans Marine Park and that they have had a good season. This is the opposite of the downturn in tourism predicted by those opposed to our newest marine park. As to the longer-term story, we know that small businesses surveyed at Solitary Islands Marine Park have enjoyed growth in visitation since the creation of the marine park, which has benefited accommodation businesses in particular. There is no evidence that the zoning plan for this marine park has adversely affected the turnover of the other businesses surveyed. Anecdotal evidence is that recreational fishing has increased significantly in the area, as has tourism.

The original zoning plans for all marine parks were developed with very extensive community consultation, including community information days, stakeholder workshops and meetings with industry. For each park a draft zoning plan was placed on public exhibition for a period of three months and submissions were considered in determining the final zoning plan. As to the science of marine parks, there is a clear global view among many highly eminent scientists that marine parks are necessary and important if we are to conserve our marine environment and resources for future generations. A number of consensus statements have been released over the past 10 years to this effect and have been endorsed by more than 1,000 scientists worldwide.

Science has underpinned the bioregional assessments that have helped inform where marine parks have been established, and it has underpinned the development of zoning plans in our marine parks. In addition, the views of the community, socioeconomic factors and stakeholder needs have been factored into zoning plans from the extensive consultation we have done for each marine park. This has meant that we have provided for both conservation and sustainable uses in our marine parks. We have not locked up all the best fishing spots. Contrary to what the member for Coffs Harbour said, from community surveys at Port Stephens, Great Lakes and Batemans marine parks we know that more than 80 per cent of the key recreational fishing sites, as identified by the community, remain available in each park.

Our knowledge of marine ecosystems needs to continue to improve. We are always looking for ways in which our research and monitoring programs can better inform establishment and management of the marine parks system. For example, we know we need to understand more about the connections between marine ecosystems, including the movement patterns of species. We are currently embarking on work in this area of connectivity in our marine environment.

The member for Coffs Harbour made extensive references to a paper by Professor Kearney. I accept that scientists, like other people in the community, have a wide range of views, and they are entitled to those views. But if we wait for science to examine each species and tell us that more and more individual species are in decline it will be too late to act. There is now broad, worldwide scientific support for marine protected areas and the benefits of protection. The support from marine scientists is demonstrated by several consensus statements, including most recently the National Statement on Marine Parks, published in 2006 by the Australian Marine Sciences Association and Australian Coral Reef Society, which together have about 1,500 members; and also the European Scientists' Consensus Statement on Marine Reserves, published in 2007 and signed by 275 marine scientists.

The clear conclusion from these consensus statements is that a large number of marine scientists believe that marine protected areas are essential for marine conservation. Professor Kearney attacks the science underpinning the Batemans Marine Park zoning plan. The science is quite clear for those who care to look. Key scientific information used in establishing and planning marine parks includes classification and mapping of all the marine ecosystems and habitats in each park. A large amount of scientific information is compiled in a habitat map for each park, which is then used to develop zoning arrangements that protect adequate examples of each habitat. We also put great effort into gathering detailed local information on marine biodiversity and park use from the community, including fishers and scuba divers, to help develop zoning plans. This information helps to choose the zoning arrangements that best provide for sustainable use while also protecting marine biodiversity.

The Marine Parks Authority and the local community used many datasets and considerable local knowledge to develop the zoning plan for Batemans Marine Park. For example, the authority used ecological data, including detailed mapping of 20 different types of habitats in estuaries and ocean waters, underwater visual census of rocky reef fish at key sites and data on species such as shorebirds and grey nurse sharks and their breeding sites; local knowledge and research, including a survey of local businesses and expert opinion from Eurobodalla Shire Council, information on significant habitat features from the Nature Coast Marine Group and information on aggregations of commercially important species from commercial fishers; commercial fishery data and information, such as abalone, lobster and fish catches from individual estuaries, and key fishing grounds for various types of fishing; recreational fishery data and information, mainly from State Fisheries officers, focus group workshops, individual fishers and fishing clubs, marine park user surveys and submissions on the draft zoning plan; and socioeconomic data and information, mainly from input and output analyses of the regional economy, the socioeconomic profile of the region, marine park user surveys and focus group data about use of the marine park. A vast array of scientific information was, and is, being used to establish and plan our marine parks. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [6.28 p.m.]: I cannot believe the platitudes I have just heard from the member for Miranda in support of the Marine Parks Amendment Bill. He said there is science about the marine parks. Where is it? He should produce it and show it to the community. He should show it to those communities that want to know how the Iemma Government's decisions in relation to marine parks are affecting their livelihoods. I cannot believe how Labor members make motherhood statements in this place that are not backed by fact. We will be seeking to amend this bad legislation. To frame the debate, it is not only the recreational and commercial fishing interests that will be affected by this legislation but the conservationists, every other commercial operator inside the marine parks and the wider community.

For instance, the overview of the bill refers to the extension of public consultation, yet proposed section 17E will allow the Minister to make or amend a regulation or zoning plan at any time after consulting with the Marine Parks Authority without public consultation. The Government has introduced this badly worded and ill-crafted bill without taking it to the community in a deliberate attempt to centralise power for the control of marine parks within the Minister's office. In the lead-up to the 2011 State election the Minister, in exchange for Greens preferences, will make changes to the park without conducting wider community consultation.

The conservation movement, and some conservationists with whom I deal with on a regular basis, also will be concerned that the Minister will have the power to make amendments without first consulting widely with the public. In 2012 the Minister responsible for marine parks in this State could be a member of the Coalition and, in that event, I am sure the conservation movement would be very concerned about the Minister's power to amend zoning plans and park operations without having first consulted the public. The Coalition has always approached this debate on the basis of the need for wider consultation.

The Coalition will seek to move an amendment to the bill that relates to scientific research and evidence-based research. That is a key amendment, as scientists have expressed their concern about the Batemans Marine Park. Recently Dr Robert Kearney, an Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra, wrote to the Premier about the marine park following a series of exchanges between the Minister and members of the far South Coast community. Dr Kearney wrote:

On October, 2007, I wrote, to you concerning the deception of the people of New South Wales by the process used by your Government to justify the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park. The reply I received on your behalf … did not address the fundamental issues raised in my letter. It merely stated that my approach would be brought to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. It did, however, assure me that my comments would receive close attention.

To date I have received no response from any of the Ministers referred to in Mr Cameron's letter—

who wrote on behalf of the Premier—

and so have no direct indication of what attention they may have given to my comments.

In the light of a copy of a letter of 18/12/07 to Mr Jack Tate from Minister Firth … forwarded to me by Mr Tait, I am writing to enquire as to the exact nature of the "close attention" given to my comments.

In her letter to Mr Tait, Minister Firth refers to me and to my paper, a copy of which was attached to my letter to you of October 3. The Minister makes the totally unsubstantiated statement that there are many scientists who disagree with my views as expressed in that paper. She goes on to imply that I am opposed to the wise use of marine protected areas. These assertions are, unfortunately, in keeping with the consistently deceptive conduct by officers of your administration that has characterised the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park.

For a Minister to make an authoritative statement that many scientists disagree with my views she should have received testimonies from many suitably qualified and experienced scientists. I would have thought that I, or at least the recipient of the Minister's statement, in this case Mr Tait, would have been advised of the exact sources and given details of these testimonies before a Minister of your Government used the authority of her position to assert to third parties that I was in error.

In accordance with established scientific practice my paper was peer reviewed before presentation. It was also given and discussed, as an invited key contribution, to approximately 70 scientists at the Australian Society of Fish Biology's conference on area management for aquatic resources. The overwhelming response to my paper at that conference and since, by appropriately qualified scientists, has confirmed the validity of my assessments. These scientists include many of Australia's most relevant and appropriately qualified people, including numerous of the most appropriate in your Government, the senior fisheries scientists such as the Chief Scientist, in the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.

A second particularly disturbing aspect of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait is that her assertion that there are many who disagree with my views is followed by deliberately misleading use of the statement, "world-wide scientific support for marine protected areas". The unambiguous inference is that I am again wrong and acting contrary to worldwide consensus in that my paper is opposed to the use of marine protected areas. This inference grossly misrepresents the truth.

My paper frequently acknowledges the benefits that may come from well designed and managed marine protected areas. It even gives examples where well designed area management of aquatic systems may work in New South Wales. What my paper does uncover is orchestrated bias and abuse of the accepted principles of science, and of the use of science for management, in the Marine Parks Authority's Science Paper and other documents used to justify the creation of the Batemans Marine Park. As such, it provides a damning assessment of the administration of one of your Government's agencies.

My paper demonstrates that the Batemans Marine Park is so badly conceived and designed that it will not bring the possible benefits on which international support for marine protection is based. Put simply, the Batemans Marine Park is not a marine protected area. It fails to provide the protection of biodiversity, and individual species, conservationists and fisheries managers expect in a marine protected area. No significant protection is given against even the key threats identified by the Marine Parks Authority. Even its sanctuary zones are nothing more than fisheries allocation mechanisms, and extremely poorly designed ones at that. No amount of wishful reference by the Minister, or the Marine Parks Authority, to the benefits that might have flowed had the Park been well designed, will change the fact that it is not.

The remainder of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait repeats the misinformation on the management of marine ecosystems contained in much of the Marine Parks Authority's documentation The Minister repeatedly misrepresents the intentions and possible benefits of well designed marine protection in an apparent attempt to cover-up the gross deficiencies with the justification for, and design of, the Batemans Marine Park. In reality this park does not comply with even the Marine Parks Authority's own design requirements, let alone with those that would be necessary to efficiently achieve desired objectives. I would be pleased to provide details at your request.

In my letter to you of October 3, I stated that the people of New South Wales had been deceived and called for this deception to be corrected immediately. Minister Firth's more recent letter to Mr Tait confirms that the people of New South Wales continue to be deliberately misled. It also shows that this has now gone to the extent of Ministers using misinformation in an attempt to discredit those who point out errors or mal-practice in relation to marine parks in New South Wales. I trust your Government does not condone such actions.

I stand by my request to you of October 3, that because of the abuse of science and of the science management process by the Marine Parks Authority, the zoning plan for the Batemans Marine Park should be immediately annulled and an independent inquiry into all present and proposed marine parks in New South Wales initiated a soon as possible.

Dr Kearney, an Emeritus Professor of Fisheries, has been defamed by the Minister responsible for marine parks in this State, the Hon. Verity Firth, and now the Minister has introduced a bill that will amend the Marine Parks Act 1997 in order to centralise power within her office to amend and change zoning plans without wide public consultation. Conservationists, fishers and the wider community have every right to be very concerned about these provisions. The Coalition does not have the numbers in this Chamber to prevent that, so if we are not successful in convincing the Government to accept this amendment in this House, we will seek to move an appropriate amendment in the upper House to achieve this objective.

I reiterate the continued concerns of members of the far South Coast community about the effect on the Bateman's Marine Park, particularly as we head towards the winter months, when there will be a reduction in recreational fishing and tourism. It is very easy for the member for Miranda, who has no knowledge about the far South Coast, to say that there has been a bumper tourism season on the far South Coast. That was certainly the case, but that was because of the severity of a number of storms on the North Coast that caused many people to holiday instead on the sunny South Coast to enjoy weeks of fine conditions and experience what the far South Coast has to offer. There is no evidence to suggest that the reason for the bumper tourism season on the far South Coast was the Batemans Marine Park.

Any debate about marine parks must be based on fact. An emeritus professor has expressed his concerns about the way in which the zoning plan has been established in the Batemans Marine Park—that is, the consultation and the science behind it. Those concerns are very serious and the Government should not take them lightly. As are all members of this House I am concerned about the marine environment, but I do not accept that as a result of the zoning plan that has been put in place there will be a shift of fishing effort, a greater concentration of fishing effort, in areas outside established sanctuary zones.

I also question the fact that Batemans Marine Park, which comprises 80,000-plus hectares, had its zoning plan designed within six months with minimal community input and is now up and running. It took four years for the Jervis Bay Marine Park to be up and running and it is a quarter of the size of the Batemans Marine Park. The suggestion by some that there is science behind the decision-making process is just not true. Even a Greens member of the local Eurobodalla Shire Council said at a public forum that the parks boundaries were political. That is the point: We do not want the environment hurt because of bad politics on the part of this Government in seeking to secure Greens preferences in the lead-up to State elections. A five-year review process ensures that we will repeat this process of dealing with community concerns about zoning plans and how they are working. It worries me when members and Ministers say that there is science behind this decision when that is clearly untrue. That has been the argument throughout this process, and it is the reason the Opposition will seek to amend this legislation to include an evidence-based approach to guarantee that science is driving decision making about marine resources.

The Marine Parks Act should not be used as a tool to manage fisheries. This whole debate has been about fisheries management, but that is clearly not the object of the Act. It also worries me that we have heard nothing from the Government about ocean outfalls pouring sewage into the marine park. Wedges have been driven between recreational and commercial fishing interests and between people in the recreational fishing community. The Government has not consulted them about this legislation and they do not know that it will increase the range of authorities that can punish anyone in breach of the zoning requirements in the park above and beyond the Marine Park Authority and the Department of Environment and Climate Change. Officers from NSW Maritime, the Eurobodalla Shire Council, the Bega Valley Shire Council and potentially even officers from local catchment management authorities will be able to whack an infringement notice on someone who might inadvertently be doing the wrong thing.

Minister Firth should explain why this legislation is before the Parliament now. What drove this decision? What is the politics behind her introducing these amendments 12 months after the last election and in the first year of a four-year election cycle? We are entitled to know. We want to know to whom she has been talking, particularly in the conservation movement, about what these amendments mean. Someone has been driving this process. We need to know why the Minister has not consulted the wider community about these amendments. As I indicated, the Coalition has concerns about the bill, but we realise we do not have the numbers in this place to reject it. We will wait to see what happens in the upper House.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.45 p.m.]: I am happy to speak in support of the Marine Parks Amendment Bill. The six marine parks this Government has established over the past 10 years have provided for both conservation and sustainable use. The primary objects of the Marine Parks Act relate to conservation and the secondary objects relate to sustainable use. This Government's approach of establishing large and multiple-use marine parks has allowed it to balance these objects through zoning plans established for each marine park. The sustainable uses of our marine parks are diverse. As we head towards reviews of the zoning plans for Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay marine parks, it is timely to consider the many activities and pursuits that these parks are supporting.

We know that popular activities in Solitary Islands Marine Park include beach walking, swimming, surfing and other beach activities, commercial and recreational fishing, scuba diving, whale and dolphin watching, research, boating and various other water sports. The exposed and sheltered waters in Jervis Bay Marine Park also support many recreational and commercial activities. The recreational activities include swimming, fishing, boating, diving and snorkelling and beach activities. Other activities and uses of the marine park include indigenous traditional uses, Department of Defence activities, commercial fishing, research and education activities and maintenance of facilities such as wharves, jetties and moorings.

Recreational fishing in Jervis Bay Marine Park is diverse. There are 15 major types of fishing activities and these are closely associated with habitats in the park. When the zoning plan for the park was developed there was a significant reduction in impact on recreational fishers between the draft and final zoning plans. Zoning of the park avoided closing to fishing 13 out of 15 of the most popular fished areas. We know that revenue generated from the local commercial activities in the marine parks contributes economic benefits to the region and is a valuable asset to the community. Commercial fishing and aquaculture are obvious examples, but commercial uses also include many forms of tourism—for example, dive charters, charter boat fishing, sightseeing and dolphin, whale and seal watching cruises, kayak hire and tours, surfing schools, education tours and eco-tours. Commercial films and photographs are occasionally shot in the marine parks.

To assist in the Government's commitment to a sustainable commercial fishing industry, it has provided funding to allow commercial fishers to surrender their businesses voluntarily at a fair price to implement zoning plans for marine parks. To this end, the Government has spent about $30 million to buy out commercial fishing efforts to establish the marine parks system. The Government surveyed visitors to marine parks and local communities and found a high level of support for its management activities and the marine parks themselves.

We know that marine parks are culturally important to local Aboriginal communities, with many significant cultural and spiritual sites located within or adjacent to them. The fish traps at Arrawara Headland in the Solitary Islands Marine Park are a notable example. These fish traps are protected within a special purpose zone that allows for their maintenance and use. The fish traps are more than 1,000 years old and traditional use includes baiting of the traps and working them with the rise and fall of the tide.

A conservation plan for the fish traps has been developed in consultation with Garby Elders—a recognised clan group of the Gumbaynggir Nation and the Yarrawarra Aboriginal Corporation. Food for cultural celebrations and ceremonies, elder gatherings, funerals and the full moon twin high tide events will come from ongoing use of the fish traps. Their use in Solitary Islands Marine Park will enable elders to pass on cultural knowledge and skills to the next generation. This Government has been active in establishing and managing marine parks in New South Wales both to conserve our natural heritage and to help to provide for the activities that the people of New South Wales need and enjoy now and in the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [6.48 p.m.]: I will make a few brief comments about the Marine Parks Amendment Bill 2007. Our marine environment and the coastline are important assets for the economy and environment of New South Wales. However, our coast faces several threats including coastal overdevelopment. I draw the attention of members opposite to the plight of Currawong in my electorate where a massive suburban redevelopment is planned. Other threats include sewerage outfalls and aquatic weeds. I will have more to say about those issues later.
Commercial and recreational fishing is one of the issues that need to be appropriately managed in the coastal zone. Over the past decades the research into the fragile ecosystems on land has led us to recognise that such ecosystems also extend to underwater lands, of which the marine parks are part. An important part of the development and installation of ecologically sustainable development in New South Wales is to recognise the need to protect the aquatic environment. I note my local newspaper, the Manly Daily, today mentioned the need to protect the marine environment of Manly Cove. The mechanisms for achieving protection will also be contentious, particularly when communities are fearful or confused about the impact of conservation on their jobs and their lifestyle.

We are certainly not assisted in this State by the multiplicity of instruments to protect marine areas. For example, we do not have any marine parks as such in the Pittwater community but we have marine areas protected by the local council in the form of intertidal zones. Areas of underwater lands are protected in national parks. In Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park part of the underwater area is included in the park. I note the comments of the member for Miranda in relation to a similar situation with the Royal National Park. Given that there are a multitude of instruments for the protection of marine lands, it is unsurprising that communities are confused and fearful when changes to the aquatic environment threaten to affect their lifestyles or their jobs.

That is why regular reviews of marine parks zoning plans are important; they allow the community to have genuine input into the management of marine areas. However, I echo the comments of the member for Bega that no provision is made for public submissions as part of the review regime. Sure, once a draft zoning plan is prepared there is the opportunity for public submissions and the requirement that they be considered, but it does not apply to the review of the zoning plan, which is done by the authority. In fact, there is not even scope for advisory councils to have a role in relation to the review of zoning plans. The public is left to react to what the Minister is proposing rather than having the opportunity to participate in the drafting of a zoning plan at the first stage. If we are to have genuine participation in these matters we need to involve the community at the first possible opportunity and not leave people to react once a draft zoning plan has been proposed.

It is also important to recognise that while marine parks are designed to, in part, protect and incubate fisheries, some of the real management issues affecting our coastal zone, as I suggested in my earlier comments, relate to management of aquatic weeds such as Caulerpa taxifolia, which is now wreaking havoc in the coastal lands in the Pittwater community. From a small outbreak of two hectares identified in about 2002 we now have more than 100 hectares affected by this aquatic weed. Those sorts of management issues, although they are not within marine parks, will have just as much impact on our marine environment. It is very important that the Government pays attention to those issues. I note the Government has no programs to deal with Caulerpa in Pittwater. That problem is out of control and I urge members to do something about it because if it is not yet affecting members in coastal electorates, it soon will.

Because the management of marine ecosystems can have dramatic consequences for local communities—one need only look at where the collapse of a fishery can destroy a local economy—it is vital that genuine participation take place, particularly when revisiting the operation of a zoning plan. That is why it is important that this bill be closely looked at to ensure there is adequate participation and that it contains devices for community participation. That is why we will seek to move some amendments to the bill.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [6.54 p.m.]: The greatest thing we can do for our children is leave the Earth a better place for them. For this reason I am a supporter of the New South Wales system of marine parks, and a supporter of this bill. All Australian jurisdictions are committed to the protection of marine biodiversity and ecological processes, and to the sustainable use of the marine environment. In the early 1990s, Australian governments identified a need to establish marine protected areas and to protect representative examples of the full range of marine ecosystems and habitats. While the role of marine protected areas continues to be debated, they are widely regarded, both nationally and internationally, as one of the most effective mechanisms for protecting biodiversity, and providing for sustainable use of the marine environment. Let us be clear: our New South Wales marine parks do just that—provide for protection and sustainable use of the environment for our future and that of our children.

The past decade has seen significant expansion of the marine protected area system. We have gathered experience and knowledge on the best methods and practices for identifying, planning and managing marine protected areas. The development and implementation of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas is continuing with careful planning and with regard to existing and complementary conservation and land management measures. While they may go by different names—marine parks, marine sanctuaries, marine reserves or marine national parks - similar challenges are faced around Australia and worldwide. We will never have perfect knowledge of the components and processes of marine ecosystems and so we will always need to monitor the performance of marine protected areas. We need to manage human activities within marine protected areas and in adjacent seas and catchments if we are to have a protected environment with sustainable use.

In the five years since zoning plans were implemented for the State's first marine parks at Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay, we have learnt a great deal more about these places. We have also learnt that marine park zoning plans have largely been well received, of course after an initial adjustment, and have not been a death knell for local communities and regional economies. In fact, far from it. A recent survey in relation to Jervis Bay Marine Park indicated that 84 per cent of respondents were in favour of conserving the marine park and only 4 per cent were not. A survey of small businesses adjacent to the Solitary Islands Marine Park assessed the impacts of the current zoning plan for that marine park on local business activity. It indicated growth in visitation since the creation of the marine park has benefited accommodation businesses. There is no evidence that the zoning plan for this marine park adversely affected the turnover of any of the businesses surveyed.

The primary purpose of this bill is to establish a clear and transparent process for reviewing and amending zoning plans, and streamlining the development and adoption of operational plans. The changes should only be seen as positive. The bill sets some time frames: for initial review, five years after the commencement of the zoning plan, and subsequent reviews at 10-year intervals. This provides greater certainty for our community. We are aiming for conservation and management of the environment. The bill allows for a period of submissions on issues associated with the current zoning plan. It allows for the development of a review report with local advisory committee input. It also allows for consideration of the review plan by the Minister before any decision is made about amending the zoning plan. It also then sets out the process for amending the zoning plan. Some members may be aware that in April 2007 the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts of the Commonwealth delivered its report on conserving Australia's national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas. The approach to review of zoning plans in this bill is entirely consistent with one of the key recommendations of that standing committee, which said:

The committee recommends that best practice preparation and revision of reserve management plans should ensure that stakeholders, are consulted at the commencement of planning processes rather than beginning with seeking comment on draft plans.

The consultation process has involved the development of zoning plans for each marine park and these have been extensive. The Marine Parks Authority has undertaken extensive community consultation in developing zoning plans for each marine park. In New South Wales there has been a local community-based advisory committee and this has been established.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit the adjournment of the House.

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