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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Debate resumed from 29 November 2007.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [10.03 a.m.], in reply: Given that this bill was introduced on 29 November 2007 it is extraordinary that no Government member has spoken on such a significant issue to business within this State. That approach perpetuates the lack of action by the Labor Party on workplace issues since the State election 11 months ago. The Premier and the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. John Della Bosca, gave firm promises to introduce this very bill to try to provide a fairer and more workable occupational health and safety system in New South Wales that would have delivered safer workplaces to employers and employees.

We know the State is mired in crisis. We have a Premier asleep at the wheel allowing car crash after car crash regarding workplace safety. The State's existing occupational health and safety system is dysfunctional and is a barrier to investment and employment growth in this State. It is an impost on business and, most importantly, it fails to deliver safer workplaces for which we should all be aiming. I do not intend to reprise at great length the failings of the existing system, but we know we have an unduly adversarial occupational health and safety system in New South Wales. Instead of a system that aims to make sure that employers and employees alike do everything practicable to ensure safety within workplaces, our system seeks to impose undue responsibility on employers, encourages prosecutions and legal action, and delivers rates of accidents within our workplaces that are above the national average.

Despite having the largest number of occupational health and safety inspectors and the highest number of fines and prosecutions in the nation, New South Wales maintains an accident rate above the national average. This State's occupational health and safety system demonstrates that more regulation does not mean a better outcome. It is not necessary to just take my word; John Della Bosca agrees with that thesis. The bill I introduced, to which the Government has not responded, is the same as legislation that John Della Bosca prepared after a year's consultation with unions and employers. This bill represents the State Government's position to put back into the system a degree of fairness. It represents also the Government's attempts to ensure improvements in occupational health and safety in New South Wales.

Despite repeated promises from the Premier before and after the last State election campaign to introduce this legislation by the end of last year, nothing happened. That inaction prompted me to introduce this bill to give those opposite a chance to put up or shut up on an important issue to every New South Wales workplace. Government members had an opportunity to show their commitment to every worker in this State to improving workplace safety across New South Wales. Workplace safety should not be geared towards fines and prosecutions. It should be geared towards changing behaviour by ensuring dual responsibility of employers and employees. Above all, it should be a system designed to decrease work accidents in New South Wales to a rate lower than the national average.

Last Friday the shadow Minister for Industrial Relations and I hosted a forum in the Jubilee Room involving representatives from a number of employer groups across the State, all of whom expressed concern about the way the current system operates and their difficulty in getting even the simplest of advice from the WorkCover Authority. They described, for instance, attempts to have education programs and materials approved by WorkCover and indicated WorkCover's unwillingness. They said that WorkCover is keen to prosecute—keen to enforce black-letter law on employers—but is not prepared to work with industry groups and employers to try to impart ways to improve occupational health and safety.

The Liberal Party and The Nationals are firmly committed to occupational health and safety reform. We understand the disadvantage in which the current system places this State. We understand the significant regulatory load it places on business. We understand the unfair obligations and responsibilities it places on employers and directors of companies. One needs only to speak with the people running trucking companies across the State to understand the pressure they are facing. One needs only to speak to employees about this State's accident rate, which is above the national average, to understand why reform is necessary.

The Liberal-Nationals are determined to deliver that reform, to ensure we have a fairer system and to make both employers and employees responsible for delivering and maintaining safe workplace environments. We are also determined to ensure that prosecutions are determined in a court, consistent with other criminal matters. We are determined to restore the right of appeal against convictions and to make the prosecution in criminal matters prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as applies in other jurisdictions. We are also determined to ensure that responsibility for all enforcement, education and prosecution issues is vested in a single independent authority—the WorkCover Authority of New South Wales.

It is upon that basis that the Liberal-Nationals will move to implement our policy on occupational health and safety and seek reform. This bill does not represent the ideal solution to this issue, although it is moving in the right direction. To co-opt a phrase, there is more to be done. What must be done first and foremost is to offer employers and employees across New South Wales hope of fewer workplace accidents and hope that this Government understands the problem and that it will support this legislation. The election of a Liberal-Nationals government will see the implementation of policy changes to ensure that the existing system is reformed in the way that I have outlined. Beyond that, the Liberal-Nationals are determined to shift the approach to occupational health and safety.

Occupational health and safety is ultimately a matter of behaviour. To change behaviour we must educate and train people. We should not have an occupational health safety system that is judged not on the delivery of safer workplaces but on the number of prosecutions launched and fines imposed. We need fundamental change of the basis upon which the legislative arrangements are implemented. We should be working with industry groups to give them best possible practice. We should ensure that those who work in and manage industries have a better understanding of and are better educated about the way in which they can practically assist to avoid accidents of the type that cause distress to families and others and to this place from time to time.

This issue will not go away for the State Government. It is a disgraceful performance on the part of a State Government that professes to have a commitment to small and large businesses and to improving the economic interests of this State that not one member opposite has contributed to the debate on this issue. This issue affects every employee and employer in this State. The Liberal-Nationals will continue to highlight the State Government's hypocrisy, embarrassment and refusal to address this issue. The Premier's latest excuse—apparently he woke from a nap a few weeks ago and decided to say something—is that he wants harmonisation and the Federal Government to take the lead. As a result, our system will not change.

The Premier can deliver harmonisation by supporting this bill, or by introducing into New South Wales the system that operates in Victoria. If that were to occur, almost three-quarters of the country would be operating under the same system. The Victorian system is a significant advance on the system that operates in this State. The Premier's usual inaction is only making problems worse and delivering the crises we see on a daily basis. Business and employers are dealing with an occupational health and safety system that is driving people out of business and businesses to other States. It is also not guaranteeing workers the safe workplaces that we have a responsibility to provide for them. I commend this bill to the House, and I urge members opposite for the first time in their lives to put public interest ahead of politics.

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

Division called for and, pursuant to standing orders, deferred.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Whan.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Whan.

Debate resumed from 6 December 2007.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of Order: Mr Speaker, I know that the Parliament is now operating under your family friendly hours. However, surely that means that Labor members should be turning up to Parliament on a Thursday and participating in debates on important issues, not simply hiding behind the Parliamentary Secretary. We have three Labor members in the House, one of whom is prepared to speak and two others who are not. They are making a mockery of the institution that is meant to be Parliament. I do not know how much longer we can put up with a system in this place where Labor members so arrogantly disregard the Parliament that they will not speak on an issue as important as occupational health and safety and defer other bills because they are too hard. We know that the Premier is asleep, but I did not realise that all 52 members of his party are also asleep.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. His point of order relates to Government members speaking to legislation. That is a matter for Government members.

Mr Daryl Maguire: To the point of order: The proceedings here this morning are outrageous. We have given notice as required by the standing orders that we agreed to before the conclusion of the last session. I complied and filled out the relevant documentation and supplied it to the Clerks, and the Government was given plenty of notice. In fact, the Government would have known at 12 noon yesterday that this was the business before the House and what we had agreed upon. Clearly, this place—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition made his point of order. I have ruled on the point of order and will not debate the issue. I have called on the order of the day. Does a member seek the call?

Mr Daryl Maguire: Mr Speaker, without canvassing your ruling, I want it recorded that these proceedings—

The SPEAKER: Order! The matter has been recorded.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.19 a.m.]: There appears to be an overwhelming demand for me to say something. I understand that the debate on this motion commenced last session and that the Government has indicated that it will oppose the motion. It has been a while since that debate. So I reiterate that the Monaro electorate does not have an urban railway that can be utilised in the same way as the wonderful Sydney rail network, which transports me to this place on time every morning, and comfortably, such that I am able to sit and read the paper—although sometimes that is not the most pleasurable experience. It is a great rail system so it bemuses me when I hear the member for Epping talking about new projects affecting his electorate. He always seems to be complaining, and I have to say that if the people of Queanbeyan were given a metro underground rail link, they would be jumping for joy. My electorate has a wonderful CountryLink service, but all we ever hear from the Opposition are complaints.

The Government has been investing in the railway system by untangling the network. The line that I use frequently—Sutherland, beginning from Wollongong, which are areas represented by my Labor colleagues—provides an excellent service. I take the train service every morning I come to Parliament House and I usually get a seat, which seems to be contrary to what members opposite tell the House regularly. I arrive here in less than 20 minutes on most occasions. I think it is a fantastic service. The Government is determined to improve rail services. The Minister for Transport regularly refers to major investment in new carriages on rail lines. I feel very privileged when I get to ride on the Millennium train, which the Opposition bagged mercifully for a long time. As happens with new things, there was the odd teething problem, but it is a terrific and comfortable train. As I understand it, it is the most reliable train on the network. It represents a remarkable achievement and it is a great train. I also often use the airport rail link, which is perhaps an example of how not to manage a public-private partnership in rail.

Mr Greg Smith: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129, which is about relevance. The member is now talking about the airport rail link, which has nothing to do with the matter before the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will confine his remarks to the substantive motion.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Standing Order 129 does not relate to relevance of debate. I suggest the member for Epping read the standing orders one day. My colleagues have observed that I may be a Minister soon, and I thank them for their support. The member for Epping consistently complains about the new project that is being constructed in his electorate. As a Parliamentary Secretary, I have noticed several complaints from him come across my desk. There seem to be constant complaints about the Epping project. I point out that construction of infrastructure may be disruptive at times, but the results are worth it. If construction is not undertaken, no improvements in service will be achieved in the long term. The Government is investing in improving rail services in the metropolitan area. In contrast, the Liberals investment in rail in New South Wales featured rail line closures in country New South Wales. The Opposition closed the Cooma rail line. In the metropolitan area, the only project of the Liberals was the airport rail link. A Labor Premier, Neville Wran, built the eastern suburbs rail link when he was in government, and that was a terrific improvement.

Mr Thomas George: Do you know where Epping is?

Mr STEVE WHAN: Members opposite are asking me if I know where Epping is. I really think we should not waste the time of the House with geography lessons and stating the obvious. I experience at firsthand the direction in which the rail service is heading. After the three seconds it takes me to read one or two of the daily papers on the train in the morning, I study the rail network chart on the wall of the train, and I see all the great links that the Government is building. Those rail links will service areas of Sydney that the Coalition would never have bothered investing in because it has no commitment to public transport. [Time expired.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I advise the member for Epping that Standing Order 76 relates to relevance during debate.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [10.24 a.m.]: I am very pleased to support the motion moved by the member for Epping, and I congratulate him for taking on the concerns of his constituents. I state for the record that I find offensive the contribution made by Labor members during this debate to date. Their comments demonstrate to me how out of touch they are and the contempt in which they hold the Parliament as well as the ordinary citizens who have expressed concerns about public transport. Public transport is or should be available for people who do not have other modes of transport, for people who want to recognise environmental considerations, and people who have mobility issues. As the shadow Minister for Transport and the member for Willoughby, who has the Chatswood railway station upgrade being undertaken in her electorate currently, it concerns me that the new Epping railway station is failing to meet the needs of the community.

How is it possible in 2008 that the State Government could so badly design a new railway station at Epping that is not meeting the needs of the community? It is unacceptable, and older residents are now unable to obtain the pedestrian access or lift access that they had previously. It is unacceptable that families who use prams no longer have the access they had previously. The Epping railway station is supposed to be a brand new state-of-the-art station. It is supposed to offer the constituents of the member for Epping and others who use the Epping railway station accessibility, and it is failing to do that.

It is more than a little coincidental that this comes after a fortnight of huge revelations throughout the health system about poor planning for major projects. It is concerning that a brand new railway station has major problems associated with it. The only response we have heard from Labor members in this debate is a show of contempt for the constituents of Epping and for anyone who uses the railway station. I am sure that if the member for Monaro, the member for Drummoyne or the member for Parramatta had any of their constituents held up at a railway station by being unable to use it, they would be more sympathetic to the motion before the House, but the Government has not even had the decency to prepare a proper response. The Government has not even had the decency to address the specific concerns of the member for Epping. It is inappropriate for members opposite to show such contempt for the people of New South Wales.

The specific issues raised by the member for Epping bring to light examples of constituents who have been severely hampered in their use of public transport because of bad design. I also know from personal experience that Chatswood railway station is currently being upgraded. While it is in transition, the facilities are simply inadequate to allow for easy accidents for elderly residents, residents with prams, residents with disability issues and residents who have accessibility issues. It is unacceptable that such railway upgrades do not consider accessibility issues during the process of design, development and construction.

One example of the problems is that it took over a year to obtain lift access to the medical centre that adjoins the Chatswood railway station. A woman with appendicitis had to walk down the stairs and a man who had a heart attack had to be moved down the stairs because the ambulance stretcher could not be brought up the stairs. Those issues were supposed to be resolved by the new Chatswood railway station upgrade, but the State Government failed to address them. Even basic toilet facilities do not exist currently at the Chatswood railway station. It is very inconvenient for commuters to find facilities even as basic as that.

I totally empathise with the concerns raised by the member for Epping: more than empathise, I am outraged that the State Government would have such problems with a new railway station. It is 2008 and the design reflects no consideration being given to easy access issues. Current constituents are highly inconvenienced and they include constituents with mobility issues and constituents who use prams. In this day and age it is unacceptable to have a brand new railway station that has been so badly designed. I commend and congratulate the member for Epping for bringing the issues to the attention of the House. The regard with which the Government has dealt with his concerns has been appalling. The Government is so out of touch.

An appropriate response would have been to take on board the member for Epping's concerns and to urge the Minister for Transport to stop ignoring the member's concerns and instead address them. The residents of Epping and surrounding areas deserve better, as do residents throughout New South Wales who use public transport. The Government's response is indicative of a government that is out of touch, a government that no longer cares about ordinary people who rely on public transport to move around and to enjoy a certain quality of life. The State Government is neglecting them. The State Government is refusing to address the member's concerns as stated for the record. I congratulate the member for Epping and highlight the Government's contempt for such issues.

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

[Deferred division.]

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The House will now proceed with the deferred division on the question: That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The House divided.

[In division]

Mr Daryl Maguire: I draw your attention to the fact that the doors were closed and the Minister for Planning pushed aside the attendant.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): As I was reading, I did not see the Minister enter the Chamber.

Mr Daryl Maguire: The Minister for Planning barged his way into the division.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): I have not ordered the doors to be locked.

Mr Daryl Maguire: They were locked.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): I have not ordered that.

Mr Daryl Maguire: You should have, Mr Assistant-Speaker.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! Lock the doors.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill not agreed to in principle.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [10.39 a.m.]: I commend the member for Epping for bringing this motion before the House. It is extraordinarily important not only to his electorate but also to my constituents. The member for Epping has brought to the House his concerns about the lack of adequate planning for Epping railway station and the lack of adequate provision for pedestrians, passengers and, indeed, trains. On the basis of Action for Transport 2010, the Epping railway station would be one of the major interchanges in Sydney. Certainly, it would be the major interchange for the whole of north-western Sydney because it would be the jumping-off point for the Epping to Chatswood rail line. It would also be the end of the Parramatta to Epping line, and it would be the starting point for the north-west rail link, which would go to at least Castle Hill, according to Action for Transport 2010.

The Government has reneged on its promises to the people of north-western Sydney to build those additional rail links. We can see from the Government's neglect of Epping railway station that it had no intention to build these railway lines. The real issue the member for Epping is bringing to this House is not only the Government's lack of planning but also its lack of consideration for the hundreds of thousands of people living in north-western Sydney. Members might remember that according to Action for Transport 2010 not only would the Government complete the Parramatta to Epping line, which the previous Liberal-Nationals Government promised in 1994, but it would extend the line to Chatswood. That promise was no sooner made than it was broken, because the Government decided that it could not afford to link Parramatta to Chatswood and it halved the line. However, it did not halve the line in a way that would benefit my constituents.

The Government decided that it would build only the Epping to Chatswood line. Of course, there has been a massive cost overrun. The Government is spending twice the amount of money for half the rail line it promised originally, and that halved line was supposed to be completed in June 2006. That completion date has probably blown out until next year—certainly, to June 2008, based on a story in the Sydney Morning Herald this week about the rubber buffers underneath the sleepers coming loose. Certainly, that line will not be completed this year, so it will blow out to 2009. The Government could not meet its promise to build that line or to complete it within a reasonable period. So why should anybody believe that the Government will complete the north-west rail link?

Only this week the Government has started to talk about a metro link that would go nowhere near Epping. So why on earth would it need to be upgraded? Why would the Government make provision for additional tunnels when this metro line will be another line on the map that will go from somewhere near Meadowbank out to Castle Hill? The people in the north-west simply do not believe it. We have never believed it. We always thought the north-west rail link would be a ghost train. But the great tragedy of all this is that not only the people in the north-west sector will be affected. Baulkham Hills Shire Council is being forced to plan around the ghost train and Carlingford railway station on the basis of a promise made when this Government was first elected to build a line through to Epping. Some 7,500 more people are supposed to be shoehorned into the area immediately adjacent to Carlingford railway station, with a railway line that is so inadequate that there is only one direct service a day to the city and no service coming back.

Castle Hill town centre is being planned around a railway link that will never be built under this Government. Indeed, it will take the election of a Coalition government to ensure that adequate public transport provision is made for the people of north-western Sydney. That is the real focus of this motion. What is happening at Epping station is an absolute disgrace, but what is happening in north-western Sydney is equally disgraceful.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [10.44 a.m.]: I commend the member for Epping for bringing this important matter to the House. By doing so, he has highlighted the inadequacies in public transport in north-western Sydney. As the member for Castle Hill rightly pointed out, Epping railway station plays an integral role in the north-west sector. The north-west rail link from Chatswood to Epping and from Epping to Castle Hill was supposed to be completed in 2010 but it has blown out to 2017 and now it is anybody's guess as to when it might be completed. As I said correctly on the radio this morning, I do not think we are any closer to having a north-west rail link implemented today than at any time throughout this Government's term. The Government has chosen to ignore the people of north-western Sydney.

To see the Government's ignorance of the people of north-western Sydney, one need only look at the tolls these people must pay. People who travel from Rouse Hill and Castle Hill to the city weekly pay some $4,000 a year, or about $80 a week, in tolls. People in south-western Sydney pay similar tolls but they get cash back; they get their tolls reimbursed. In north-western Sydney not only is there a lack of public transport but people do not get reimbursed for the tolls they pay. Each week I receive letters from students who travel from Rouse Hill to the University of New South Wales and their parents who live in areas where there is no bus service. Indeed, they do not have any public transport. These parents must kick in the price of a car for students undertaking a university course.

It is not enough that parents must purchase a car because there is no public transport but they must also pay the road tolls. Students, like everyone else, must pay $4,000 a year to get to university to study, and they cannot get a rebate. More importantly, their hardworking mums and dads do not get a rebate. Mums and dads are paying for a car, they are paying the tolls and they are being neglected because they do not have access to public transport in north-western Sydney. The member for Castle Hill correctly said that the ghost train that has been rolled out before the past three or four elections has put strain on the administration of councils such as Baulkham Hills Shire Council. Council—I am also a councillor—must now plan around the so-called north-west rail link, which we know will never happen. Also, council chambers are located in an area where it is proposed to build a station.

We now learn that we will not get a heavy rail link but we might get a metro line. In reality, under the State Government, what we will get is nothing more than the inadequate bus services we have had for the past 20 years. While this area has absorbed massive growth—some 250,000 to 300,000 people have moved to north-western Sydney—these people have been ignored in terms of public transport. The campaign I led with the community back in 1999 to get Windsor Road built revealed the neglect in New South Wales. The Government built a single-lane road—a single-lane goat track—to service the massive growth in population from Rouse Hill to Parramatta. At the time the NRMA estimated that between 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles a day would travel on that single-lane road. That is an absolute disgrace. We had to drag the New South Wales Government to the negotiating table just to get our road built. But the irony about Windsor Road is that the Greiner Government, prior to losing office in 1995, put in place a funding mechanism that paid for the entire road. A small levy was attached to the sale of every house that paid for the upgrade of that road. Yet the Minister at the time, Mr Scully, did not even know that the scheme existed.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Where's the money?

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: The member for Coffs Harbour asks a good question. After we dragged the Government to the negotiating table, the money was put into Windsor Road. The project cost some $320 million but the Government would have realised much more than that from a very small levy. That simply highlights the inadequacies of the area and the fact that the levy that has now been imposed on new housing in the area of some $70,000 per block of land has stopped housing and has limited the opportunities for people to purchase a home.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.49 a.m.], in reply: To paraphrase the words of Lee Marvin in the movie Paint Your Wagon, "This Government is on the last train to nowhere and it is moving fast." It is a problem for the people of Epping and surrounding areas that the trains are simply not running; the trains have been taken away from us. The people in the north and north-west do not have trains because they have been allocated to the south-west. This Government, more than any other government in the country, has practised residential discrimination—and I am not merely referring to the fact that Royal North Shore, Ryde, Manly and other hospitals are being run down. This week the NRMA revealed that many thousands of commuters will travel by car to the city because they cannot park anywhere near railway stations.

Epping station has only about 100 car spaces when several thousand are required. This means that hundreds of commuters park around the streets of Epping, Beecroft and other areas, inconveniencing local residents, who cannot park outside their own homes. Sometimes their driveways are blocked and cars are parked on the footpaths. Despite the Government's proposal to move an additional 3,000 residents to downtown Epping over the next five years by forcing Parramatta City Council to approve additional dwellings, it is not providing sufficient car parking spaces to cater for the increased population.

The Government has messed up the Chatswood to Epping tunnel. Even though I am the local member I was not invited to attend the opening because I am a member of the Liberal Party. However, retired Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation and RailCorp officials, journalists, photographers and the Minister, who rejected my request to examine the platform, were in attendance. Apparently platforms 4 and 5 downstairs are inaccessible and platforms 1 and 2 are upstairs. We are told by officials at the station that platform 3 is reserved for the Parramatta link, which was scrapped six years ago by the Government.

Thanks to Bruce Baird, Thornleigh railway station has 500 car parking spaces. But 1,000 car parking spaces are needed at each of the railway stations from Epping to Chatswood. Despite this, the Government has provided none. Optus sought 5,000 car spaces for its new headquarters at Macquarie Park but was given only 2,000. The opening of the Chatswood to Epping link has been delayed by another six months, so it will be 2009 before it is opened—if it is ever opened. Buses taking people to their Optus workplace have to traverse the residential streets of Epping, which have three-tonne limits. This is discrimination.

The Minister's solution to the NRMA's complaint is to open another 10 parking stations. But these are in the south-west and the west; they are not in the north-west where half the population of Sydney lives. This morning the member for Hawkesbury spoke eloquently on the Alan Jones show and in this place setting out this Government's discrimination. The Anti-Discrimination Act covers gender, sexual preference, age, pregnancy, race and disability. I suggest that the Act should be amended to include location, because people in the north and north-west pay $20 a day in tolls yet those in the south-west and west pay only $2 because they receive a rebate.

Also, our roads are closed, stopping freedom of movement and forcing people to pay the tolls. The Government has closed Epping Road. Why did it not close the Great Western Highway and the Hume Highway, forcing people in those areas to use the tollways? But it would not practise discrimination on people in Labor electorates. Epping station will be a monument to the Government's defeat because it has mistreated the people of the north-west, which comprises half the population of Sydney. More people would move into the area—it is a nice place to live—if it were not for this discrimination, and the Government will regret it.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

[In Division]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am informed that members have been delayed because of difficulties with the lifts. With the concurrence of the Opposition and Government Whips, I will have the doors opened and the bells rung again.

[Interruption]

Division called off.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Would you do that if the delayed members were six Liberals?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Absolutely, and especially if the member for Terrigal were caught in the lift. This is a democracy.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Mr Speaker, there are two pairs today: one is for the member for Blue Mountains and one is for the member for Kogarah. They are paired and that is why they are out.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! We have resolved the matter. Everyone is happy.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [11.07 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) Notes the overwhelming support of the Tweed community, as expressed at the March 24 State election, for Community Option "C" of the Pacific Highway upgrade at Sexton Hill in the Tweed.

(2) Condemns the Government’s insistence on pursuing Option "B", known locally as "B-Doubles Option B", despite massive local opposition and a similar price tag.

(3) Calls on the Government to accept Community Option "C" and expedite construction of this option before further lives are lost on this shameful highway black spot.

Mr Deputy-Speaker, I am sure you are aware by now that I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. I pay tribute to another group that is 100 per cent for the people of the Tweed, the Community Highway Action Group. President Ken Zealey, Secretary Pat Tate and Rod Bates head a formidable team that have been fighting alongside me to convince the Government to implement community option C at Sexton Hill. The alternative, which the Iemma Government is pursuing against community opposition and commonsense, is known as the B-doubles option B. That may not sound like much to the pollies in this House but it is vital to the people of the Tweed. Indeed, my 2007 election campaign was in large part a referendum on Sexton Hill, and the people of the Tweed gave me a clear mandate to fight for option C.

I lodged the notice of motion to debate Sexton Hill as soon as I arrived in this House last year, before I even delivered my maiden speech. I am delighted that it has finally reached the top of the list. During that time I have asked the Minister for Roads 42 questions on notice about Sexton Hill. In short, the Community Highway Action Group has comprehensively demolished each and every argument used by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] for option B. We are gathering more support every day. Last year in Parliament I submitted more than 5,000 signatures from local people who support community option C.

Next week I will bring the Highway Action Group to Sydney where its members will press their case with Wendy Machin, a Director with the NRMA, and Stuart St Clair, Chief Executive of the Australian Trucking Association. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, the member for Maroubra, has also agreed to meet us. That is in contrast to the Minister for Roads, who has refused to do so despite dozens of requests. We look forward to a productive meeting with the member for Maroubra and trust he will subsequently be in a position to engage the Minister.

Time and time again the people of the Tweed have told this Labor Government that its B-double option B for Sexton Hill is terrible. That option has been prepared with little local consultation and it will harm the Tweed economy, the Tweed environment, the Tweed lifestyle and culture. I will tell the House about Sexton Hill. That section of the highway is a dual carriageway divided by a median strip. The road has been modified and has a carriageway slope up to 8 per cent along most of the hill. It is in urgent need of upgrade with the state of the bitumen surface being of particular concern to residents. Oil and diesel spillages have seeped into the surface, leading to it being extremely slippery in wet conditions.

Over the past three or four months Tweed has experienced a lot of rain. During the 2007-08 Christmas-New Year holiday period 15 road crashes were recorded over one weekend. Further damning evidence of the dangerous state of that section of road comes from the NRMA. It brands the Sexton Hill section as one of the worst accident black spots in New South Wales. The best result for the Tweed, and one that the Tweed Community Highway Action Group tried to lobby the RTA for, was a complete bypass of the Tweed. The RTA flatly refused that proposal and has, instead, pressed ahead with developing a six-lane freeway that runs through a residential suburb.

The average daily traffic on the Sexton Hill section is about 54,000 vehicles, with a large and increasing proportion being heavy vehicles. That number is forecast to grow to 150,000 by 2026. In June this year the Tugun by-pass will come on line. The incoming Queensland traffic will increase the number of vehicles on that small section of road by 10 per cent, which is already one of the State's most notorious black spots. The RTA's preferred option, option B, would never be able to cope with that traffic, nor would it have scope for further highway upgrades. Option B includes a 360-metre long and 26-metre high viaduct, a deep cutting and blasting program to remove waste rock, a gradient of 5 per cent and poorly designed off ramps to Tweed Heads South.

In short, B-double option B of Sexton Hill still involves, well, a hill. The Highway Action group's community option C is backed not only by me but also by 5,000 petitioners who signed a petition presented to this House. The community option C includes a tunnel, a roadway and bridge at much lower levels than that of the RTA option; a flat road with a grade no steeper than 1 per cent; and significant design modifications to Minjungbal Drive on-off ramps and the Kirkwood Road interchange. In short, the community option C provides the Tweed with a well thought-out and designed traffic network solution. That would be much safer and more efficient than the Government's current B-double option B.

Option B also harms the Tweed economy because it slashes access to Tweed Heads South and Banora Point. Amazingly, the RTA charter did not include a true economic impact statement, because in Tweed Heads there are about 3,000 local businesses. If the RTA goes ahead with option B, access will be cut off to between 50 and 60 per cent of the current market for those businesses. That will make their life incredibly hard. I foresee many unhappy businesses and loss of employment and income into that great town. I accept that cost is a key factor for a cash-strapped Government. Initially it was claimed that the RTA option C would exceed option B by $120 million. That difference was later halved by an independent costing study.

Further scrutiny has led to local engineers and traffic managers identifying further costing errors of up to $25 million. In any event, the two options were never costed simultaneously or with the same methodology. That makes dollar comparisons unreliable. I believe the price tags are probably very similar. Environmental impacts are also important. A rare palm forest is located right next to the proposed upgrade corridor. The blasting and construction of the enormous option B viaduct would harm that natural treasure. On the other hand, option C can be built without blasting. The bridge construction process for option C cuts the risk of sedimentary run-off into the rainforest area.

By contrast, option B's inclusion of a 5 per cent gradient means that trucks will burn a lot more fuel, with obvious consequences for our greenhouse gas emissions. The RTA's lack of noise testing is also of great concern to the Tweed. No reliable traffic counts have been conducted since 2001. The cultural impact of the adoption of the RTA's option B cannot be understated. I am advised that the project area contains items of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage. I am advised that the northern side of Sexton Hill contains an Aboriginal site believed to be between 4,200 and 4,700 years old. Yet a thorough Aboriginal cultural heritage and significance assessment is yet to be conducted.

In conclusion, it is fairly obvious from what I have said that the people of the Tweed know what they want in the Sexton Hill upgrade of the Pacific Highway. They have given this Labor Government a resounding "No" to its flawed, inefficient and dangerous RTA-preferred option B. They have employed highly qualified road engineers, traffic directors and former members of the New South Wales Police Force to formulate a safe and viable alternative, the community option C.

I ask the Government to wake up to this problem. We should start by commissioning a cost benefit analysis comparison between option B and option C. That is the crux of the problem: the two options used different costing methodologies. Further, the RTA has caused the community to fear option C. Also there are the flood impacts across the Tweed to be considered. In our town we are very concerned that if the Government, through the RTA, continues on its hell-bent endeavours for option B, that will cause major economic and social impacts on the fine people of Tweed Heads. I am confident that a cost-benefit analysis comparison between options B and C will show once and for all that community option C is the right way to go, not just for the Tweed but for all the people of New South Wales. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.17 a.m.]: I heard what the member for Tweed said. He might like to say that he is 100 per cent for the Tweed, but that does not mean that he knows everything about roads. The office of the Minister for Roads has received expert advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] that the preferred option adopted by the RTA is the way to go. The Government formally opposes the motion on that basis. However, as the member for Tweed said, I have agreed to meet the Community Highway Action Group on 5 March 2008. I will hear what they have to say and I will put their concerns to the Minister.

No-one should be under the illusion that because I have agreed to meet with the group means that the Government's position has altered. Currently the Government has decided to go with the preferred option. However, I will meet with the group, as I will meet with anyone who wants to talk to me. I will meet with the community group and will pass their concerns on to the Minister. The Government formally opposes the motion.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [11.18 a.m.]: Can I ask for extra time, Mr Deputy-Speaker?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will comply with the time limit set down for debate.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The contribution by the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads clearly demonstrates what is wrong with this rotten Government. During the last election campaign I visited the Tweed electorate where I met with Rod Bates and the Community Highway Action Group. That group has put forward a properly formulated, well thought-out option that is the best environmentally, economically and for the long-term future of the Tweed. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA], which has absolutely no respect and no public confidence right along the North Coast is pushing, for whatever reason, this inane option B. As the member for Tweed said, the current gradient on that section is 8 per cent, and the RTA's option B has a gradient of 5 per cent for that section. It is one of the worst accident black spots in New South Wales. As shadow Minister for Road Safety I visited that area 10 days ago, when the opportunity for an accident during wet weather was horrendous. There had been an accident on that section earlier that day.

What does this Government want to do? Does it want the carnage on New South Wales roads to continue as a result of its ignoring local knowledge and a member who has done his homework? I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that Napping Neville would love to be back in this Chamber. Why is he not here? It is because he refused to listen to these people and others in his electorate who are now being fairly and properly represented by the present member for Tweed, Geoff Provest. Those people went to see Neville Newell but he would not listen to them. The Parliamentary Secretary has agreed to meet with them but he has already stated to this House that he will ignore their concerns and the evidence they will put forward. Rod Bates is a retired officer—

Mr Michael Daley: That's not what I said and you know it.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Parliamentary Secretary said that. He said that he was going to go with option B but he would meet these people anyway. He should have a look at Hansard tomorrow and see what he did say. There are 54,000 vehicles a day using this section of road and 30,000 heavy vehicles going through Coffs Harbour weekly. There are more in the Tweed, and some drop out on the way through, but at least 30,000 heavy vehicles use this dangerous section of road every week. The option that is being offered by the member for Tweed and the Community Highway Action Group will reduce noise and pollution and will give an opportunity for a 1 per cent gradient, something that the truck drivers will thank the Parliamentary Secretary for, yet the Parliamentary Secretary is choosing to ignore it. As I said, the people of the North Coast of New South Wales—I was tempted to speak for five minutes on what is happening in my electorate—quite rightly have absolutely no confidence in the RTA.

I cannot understand why Mr Higgins, who is the manager of the Pacific Highway upgrade, will not listen to the people. I asked him why the RTA had a preferred option that was geared to everything that the RTA wanted and ignored, in the farcical public consultation process, any evidence to the contrary. That is almost a school playground attitude: "Whereas what you say is right, you must do as we have decided", yet the Parliamentary Secretary adopted that attitude here today. The Government needs to listen to these people. How many people have to die or be maimed on this section of road before the Government starts to do something and, probably more importantly, listens to the people and the Community Highway Action Group and takes the option they are putting forward? It passes every test of road safety.

I notice the member for Blacktown is in the Chamber today. I feel sure, given his involvement with Staysafe, that if he has looked at this section of road he would have to agree with everything that has been put forward this morning in relation to safety. The occurrence of 15 accidents in a weekend on that one section of road surely must start to ring some alarm bells. Surely it must tell the Government that the locals have knowledge of what should and could be done, at a reasonable price. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary not to just give them the benefit of his wisdom and knowledge in a five-minute meeting. He should listen to them, go back to Minister for Roads Eric Roozendaal, who will not listen, and ensure the option wanted by the community is put forward.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [11.23 a.m.]: I would like to make a brief contribution on this matter. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, as he indicated, will listen and will take on board the comments that are made. I can advise that the New South Wales Government will work closely and cooperatively with the Federal Government on the Pacific Highway upgrade. We are moving forward with the Banora Point upgrade. The Government announced the preferred concept and the environmental assessment was placed on display for public comment on Wednesday 20 February 2008. I am advised details of how to view the environmental assessment and display locations have been advertised in local newspapers and are currently available on the RTA website.

A range of issues, including property impacts, hydrology, noise, traffic and access were closely considered as part of the assessment process. I encourage members of the community to visit the display, which includes details of the refined concept design, and provide feedback on the assessment. Comments close on 31 March 2008. I am sure the member for Tweed will take that opportunity, together with his community groups, to make those comments. Following the display the proposal will be assessed by the Department of Planning and considered for approval by the Minister for Planning.

It is worth noting that over the 10 years from 1996, the New South Wales Government has contributed $1.66 billion to the Pacific Highway upgrade and the Federal Government $660 million. In a three-year program, the New South Wales and Federal governments are investing a further $1.3 billion in the Pacific Highway. In 2007-08 the State Government committed $45 million to continue the planning, design and land acquisition for a number of key Pacific Highway projects, including the Banora Point upgrade.

The Banora Point upgrade will provide a high standard 2.5-kilometre dual carriageway and will connect the completed Chinderah bypass with the Tweed Heads bypass. The upgrade will significantly improve safety and relieve traffic congestion on this section of the Pacific Highway. The preferred concept design for Banora Point was announced in September 2006 after careful consultation with the community, and the RTA has continued to refine this concept design. As an interim safety improvement, the RTA has installed a median barrier between Terranora Road and Minjungbal Drive to prevent vehicles from crossing into oncoming traffic.

Key features of the proposal include: a six-lane divided carriageway with an improved vertical and horizontal alignment, and a posted speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour; separation of through and local traffic by the reuse of the existing Pacific Highway as a local access road; an upgraded northern interchange that allows north and south connections between the upgraded highway and the South Tweed businesses in Minjungbal Drive, Darlington Drive and the existing Pacific Highway; a land bridge approximately 100 metres wide, which will provide a green connection between east and west Banora Point at Wilson Park; and realignment and upgrading of the existing coastal cycle/pedestrian route through Banora Point. A number of improvements have been made to the concept design following further input from the community, stakeholders and council.

I am advised that the preferred option was selected after considerable community consultation and field investigations. It provides the best overall balance and certainty for the local community. Traffic suggestions made by the local community and Tweed Shire Council have been incorporated into the design. This option will provide uninterrupted flow for highway traffic and continue to provide effective highway access for local traffic. I am also advised the RTA has conducted two reviews of an option proposed by the Tweed Chamber of Commerce and the community group mentioned by the member for Tweed, called option C. The key feature of this option is a deep tunnel. These reviews were undertaken in 2005 and 2006 by different specialist organisations. The reviews identified option C would be more costly and pose significant geotechnical issues, to which I think the Parliamentary Secretary alluded in his brief comments.

The community does not want to delay this project. The Government has announced the preferred concept and the environmental assessment is well under way. We are getting on with the job of upgrading the Pacific Highway. I am also advised that the Minister has already met a delegation of residents from Tweed on this issue. The Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Maroubra, will meet them again in early March, listen to their concerns and pass them on to the RTA together with details of their suggestions.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [11.28 a.m.]: I commend the member for Tweed for his enthusiasm in representing the genuine concerns of the people of Tweed about their road system. The member for Tweed has been in this House for only one year but has put this motion on the notice paper and it has now come up for debate. I commend him for that. It is the first motion he has had debated in the House and it is a measure of the importance that he attaches to the Sexton Hill deviation that his first notice of motion is about that matter. Any member of Parliament who goes to the Tweed is immediately taken by the honourable member to look at Sexton Hill, as I was, and all are impressed by the danger that the present road system poses to road users and the urgent need for its rectification and upgrade.

The issue that has to be addressed is the upgrading of Sexton Hill. The community has spoken. In a petition containing 5,000 signatures the community asked for option C, which involves building a tunnel. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] declined the community's request and essentially it is going for option B, which is cheaper. From the RTA's point of view the difference between the two options is one of cost. It boils down to whether the RTA is prepared to spend the money to find the right solution to the Sexton Hill issue or whether it wishes simply to go for the less expensive option, save itself some money but not solve the problem in the end.

The people of Tweed, like the people of New South Wales, are entitled to the right result and to the right treatment from the State Government. The question is: Are they getting that treatment? At present when one goes to Sexton Hill one sees—and I was shown this by the member for Tweed—tow trucks waiting there from time to time for accidents to happen. Up to 15 accidents occurred on one weekend. It is literally a death trap and it is rated by the NRMA as the worst black spot in New South Wales. It simply cries out for urgent action.

We all welcome the undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister for Roads, to meet the delegation to be led by the member for Tweed on 5 March, and we welcome his undertaking to convey the concerns of residents to the Minister. However, we hope that the Government has an open mind on this issue and that it does not simply say it will go ahead with option B, because that carries with it the implication that any meeting with residents and the member for Tweed will be window-dressing and going through a process of consultation when the RTA has already made an ironclad decision.

We invite the Government to say, "No. We will look at the issue afresh. We will try to ensure that the decision we make is the right decision for the community." It is clear that the community preference and road preference is for option C. The member for Tweed is asking for a cost benefit analysis to compare option B with option C—a reasonable request that the Government should take on board. In other areas, for example, Lane Cove, tunnels were constructed and some areas have highway deviations. On the Central Coast both Gosford and Wyong townships were bypassed, with the consent of local residents, when the F3 was constructed.

When the F3 proposals were mooted many years ago there was talk of putting the bypass through or close to Gosford and Wyong on the basis that that would be enough to cope with road traffic and still ensure the viability of the towns. People accepted that there would be growth—as there will be growth on North Coast, and that growth is continuing—and that a far better result for the communities would be to bypass the townships of Gosford and Wyong altogether, which is what occurred. Ideally, that is what should be happening in the Tweed. In effect, option B will bypass the city but allow access from south Tweed. We appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister to look at the proposal with an open mind, to meet with residents as requested by the member for Tweed, and to allow for a cost-benefit analysis of this proposal. I commend the member for Tweed for his enthusiasm and his commitment to his residents and his constituency.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [11.33 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Maroubra, the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, for agreeing to meet with the Community Highway Group next week. That is an important step forward. I would like to respond to some of the issues that were raised in debate. Because the option C gradient is about 1 per cent and the option B gradient is about 5 per cent, B-doubles will use approximately 10 per cent to 20 per cent more fuel if option B is chosen. More importantly, it will have an economic impact on south Tweed and eventually Tweed Heads. Option B will result in those areas being bypassed but it will also inhibit the flow of local traffic.

I am concerned about the economic impact of option B on job growth. Currently we have a fairly high youth unemployment rate in the Tweed. If businesses are starved of customers ultimately they will close, which will have a significant impact on the Tweed. I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Coffs Harbour, who visited the area about 10 days ago just after it had received a significant amount of rain. Every time it rains in the Tweed the tow trucks park permanently on top of Sexton Hill because accidents are inevitable. Unfortunate and fairly horrific deaths have occurred in that area.

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Camden, who quite rightly referred to a number of reports. However, this issue goes beyond politics. We must find a practical solution for people in the Tweed and in New South Wales. I have received thousands of letters complaining about the actions of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. The RTA says that it consulted the community, but its idea of consultation is to call a public meeting, show residents what it wants, take on board their comments and the next day or two months later do exactly what it wants to do. That is not consultation; that is just a stage show.

The RTA's actions have upset the majority of people in this area. The member for Camden referred to the carrying out of hydrology tests. Option B would result in the construction of a dam across the Tweed floodplain. Some 18 months ago the Tweed received about 23 feet of water. The water that was lapping at people's doorsteps has to be diverted but it can only be diverted eastwards. Under option B the RTA plans to build a levee bank across the floodplain. Over the past two weeks the Tweed received five inches of rain within an hour, which caused flooding. The height of the floodwater in the middle of the street reached the level of most people's knees. As I said, the only way to divert this water is eastwards.

The RTA said it was acting on information in relation to traffic counts in the area. Some of those counts were carried out in 2001 and the RTA has not conducted a noise assessment for a number of years. Option C was quite rightly costed out—it includes every last nut, bolt and drill bit—whereas option B uses estimates. I do not know what the RTA is trying to hide. It has not done proper research in this area. The RTA is headed in one direction and it does not want to change. It should respect the views of people in the Tweed and take on board their comments. I thank the member for Terrigal for his eloquent contribution to this debate. He visited the Tweed on a number of occasions and stood with me while we witnessed near accidents on that slippery road. The government of the day must take an active interest in this serious issue. People in the Tweed are losing their lives and they are being subjected to considerable harm. If we support option B this situation will only get worse. I ask all members to support option C.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [11.46 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) Notes the significant efforts of Ku-ring-gai Council in 2006 to comply with State Government
requirements for increased densities in residential and town centre areas.

(2) Calls on the Government to immediately:

(a) exempt Ku-ring-gai from SEPP 53; and

(b) consider Ku-ring-gai Council’s proposed conservation zones for gazettal.

Two-thirds of my electorate of Davidson is contained within the Ku-ring-gai Council area. Local planning powers, development and environmental issues are of huge importance to local residents. As I outlined in speeches last year, Minister Sartor relied on incorrect or out-of-date figures to strip from Ku-ring-gai Council significant planning powers and appoint an external planning panel for certain purposes. This appointment is now subject to legal appeal due, in part, to the alleged incompetence of the Minister in failing to ensure proper process was followed. I confidently predict that the Minister will end up with egg on his face and be forced to revisit the appointment process.

I agree with the Minister for Planning that Sydney's growth must be properly catered for and balanced in greenfield and brownfield sites. However, the way the Minister recently appointed an external panel to Ku-ring-gai Council is totally unacceptable. Ku-ring-gai Council has planned appropriately for the construction of more than 10,000 new residential dwellings in its local area over the next 25 years, as required by the metropolitan strategy. In the past three years council approved development applications for approximately 3,000 new units. Minister Sartor's actions fail to take into account the many achievements and substantial progress of Ku-ring-gai Council over the past couple of years.

Under Mayor Nick Ebbeck the council essentially met the New South Wales Government's requests on planning and development, including to lodge its plans for town centres before Christmas 2006, while indicating a willingness to discuss matters further. Council cut median times for processing development applications by 70 per cent from 134 days in 2003 to 38 days in 2007. Council slashed also the number of development applications on hand from well over 1,000 in 2003 to now just 280. Last year council even introduced a new express development application service with a 30-day guarantee for many applications.

Even figures recently issued by the Department of Local Government support Ku-ring-gai Council's claim that it was performing far better than Minister Sartor was prepared to admit. The figures show that from 2004-05 to 2005-06 the Ku-ring-gai Council dealt with an extra 6.9 per cent of development applications compared to a reduction in volume of 10.1 per cent for councils of similar size. At the same time the Ku-ring-gai Council reduced its mean days for assessments of development applications from 103 to 75.4 days, which was a further reduction from 134 days in 2003-04. Median days taken by Council fell from 78 days in 2004-05 to 57 in 2005-06. Somewhat hypocritically, Minister Sartor, by his own admission, has taken an average of 66 daysand, in many cases, much longerto resolve developments that he has called in under part 3A.

In recent years there also has been a huge cut in Ku-ring-gai Council's legal bills for planning issues from $2.3 million in 2003 to $970,000 in 2007, and a considerable improvement in council's success rate in Land and Environment Court appeals arising from council's development application decisions. This appears to be part of Minister Sartor's centralisation of planning powers within his own department and overriding the rights of local communities comprised of people who pay rates and who deserve a properly functioning local democracy.

The Minister should allow the local council to make important decisions about what is happening in its own backyard without inappropriately imposing his will on the local community in a way that favours large developers. At the same time, councils across New South Wales are asking, "Where is the Minister for Local Government?", as he fails to stand up for his local government constituency in areas such as Ku-ring-gai. While a handful of people may have been in favour of a planning panel in Ku-ring-gai, more than 4,000 local residents and all locally elected representatives wanted the council to continue with the substantial progress it has made over recent years. It was interesting to hear the Minister explain in this place yesterday how he had listened to a petition from 680 people regarding the Tralee area, while observing how he has ignored 4,000 petitioners in Ku-ring-gai.

I understand that the Mayor of Ku-ring-gai, Councillor Nick Ebbeck, has experienced significant delays in receiving written replies from the Department of Planning in recent years. For example, when the council launched its town centre plans by the end of 2006, as the Minister urgently required, it took the Minister's Department of Planning six months to issue a response to the council. In 2007 Ku-ring-gai Council continued its good work from 2006 under the leadership of Mayor Nick Ebbeck. Council has lifted its game and should be allowed to continue on that path, keeping the "local" in local government. However, the Minister seems intent on continuing to punish the council for poorer performance levels of some years ago and perhaps for electing members of a different political persuasion.

In recent years Ku-ring-gai Council has been the only council in New South Wales not exempt from the dual occupancy provisions in State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 53, despite the efforts and requests of the council. This appears to constitute unfair and unjust discrimination from Minister Sartor. SEPP 53 continues to threaten current ungazetted urban conservation areas in Ku-ring-gai while his planning panel considers new guidelines for dual occupancy development. In April 2001 the Hon. Tom Uren said to Ku-ring-gai residents, "You have something special here in Ku-ring-gai. Fight for it." In May 2002 the National Trust past president Barry O'Keefe said:

Any great city ought to be able to boast an area such as Ku-ring-gai. In many cities of the world the values that are characteristic of Ku-ring-gai would be regarded as the things to be preserved. These values are universal.

On World Heritage Day in April last year the National Trust nominated Ku-ring-gai's urban conservation areas [UCAs] within the context of the original blue gum high forest as one of the top 10 heritage-at-risk places in Australia. The threat was described as "destruction", which is the highest possible rating. Ku-ring-gai is a place of state and national significance. Therefore, it is absolutely amazing to note that the New South Wales Government has not gazetted any urban conservation areas in residential Ku-ring-gai. That is an absolute disgrace.

In response to a question I asked of the Minister for Planning mid last year regarding urban conservation areas, he admitted that Ku-ring-gai Council had proposed several areas to be listed as urban conservation areas over the past seven years. Some of these proposals were formally submitted to the department under section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act while other proposals were the subject of pre-statutory community consultation and were not formally submitted to the department under the Act. The Minister admitted that these were submitted at various times between 2001 and June 2005 and that they had not been acted on. His excuse was that planning for increased housing choice in the North Shore rail corridor and St Ives centre should take precedence over plans for urban conservation areas.

In mid-2006 and in 2007 his department continued to stall conservation initiatives of council, asking for a local government area wide heritage review while considering the objectives of the Metropolitan Strategy. Minister Sartor's delay in properly addressing those urban conservation areas put forward by council is like delaying heritage listing of the Opera House so that we can see another toaster building erected on adjoining land, or like planning to recognise the historical and conservation value of Parliament House so that a 10-storey building can be erected next door.

Yesterday's Northside Courier reported that since 2002 Ku-ring-gai Council had nominated 98 properties for State heritage listing with the Heritage Office, but it is still awaiting a reply. Given the New South Wales Government's non-listing of potential heritage items deemed worthy of heritage listing and the non-gazettal of urban conservation areas deemed worthy of statutory recognition, it is disturbing to see the recent emasculation of the New South Wales Heritage Office, with most of its staff being relocated elsewhere in the Department of Planning. This further reduces the scope for Ku-ring-gai and other New South Wales councils to protect heritage items and areas. Anne Carroll, the President of the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment [FOKE] group, said in her 2007 report:

Things that should not be destroyed are being destroyed, when a civilised society should preserve what is valuable and worthy of preservation. We risk losing more of our precious natural and cultural heritage including canopy trees, bushland ridges, wildlife habitats and corridors, heritage and historical homes and beautiful streetscapes.

[Time expired.]

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.56 a.m.]: I apologise to the member for Davidson: he will receive a reply. The Government does not support the motion. This motion is similar to the series of motions before the House late last year, when the Opposition tried to raise issues that essentially go against the Government's overall planning to accommodate Sydney's growth. Often the Opposition fails to grasp the concept of good planning, particularly for sustainable development. We need to move forward in planning for Sydney's growth. The Opposition seems to be bogged down in old ideas that will not deliver the best outcomes for residents and for the city as a whole.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Currawong?

Mr STEVE WHAN: In contrast to that, the Government has a plan for the future that will balance Sydney's growth with lifestyle and amenity for residents. The member for Wakehurst might remember I referred to some of those matters in the House late last year. The motion is about growth in residential town centre areas. The Government does not believe in adopting a piecemeal approach to planning in Sydney, as advocated by the Opposition. That is why the Government is implementing a 25-year metropolitan strategy that takes a cohesive and strategic approach to planning for the entire city.

As the strategy shows, we are expecting another 1.1 million people in Sydney by 2031. The metropolitan strategy has identified the need for Sydney to accommodate 640,000 new dwellings and provide space for 500,000 new jobs by 2031. The metropolitan strategy is a bold plan for Sydney's long-term future, addressing issues such as land supply, water supply, recreational opportunities and more efficient planning systems. It aims to encourage growth around existing and accessible centres. In addition, it will help to achieve the key objectives outlined in the State Plan, including more jobs closer to home and providing a supply of land that meets demand. Of course, having more jobs close to home and having people cluster around good transport links is sensible and sustainable development, and that is what the Government is trying to promote.

The Government is implementing the metropolitan strategy at a subregional level to ensure that every area plans for its fair share of growth. Draft subregional strategies are being rolled out for public exhibition. They set specific growth targets at local levels. The Government is working with councils to set subregional growth targets, then it is up to councils to determine where the new homes are to be located by reference to their principal local environment plans. The draft subregional strategies for the inner north, north, north-east, east, west central, north-west and south-west subregions were released in 2007. The draft north subregional strategy covers the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai local government areas. It proposes an additional 21,000 residents by 2031 and 13,500 new jobs. This equates to about 780 new homes a year, and it compares with growth in previous years of about 1,000 homes per annum in that area.

Ku-ring-gai is ideally located within the Sydney metropolitan area. It is well serviced by transport and other infrastructure, including eight train stations. The subregional strategy focuses on strengthening the major centre of Hornsby and enhancing local villages and centres. It also outlines plans for better transport access to the region, including the Epping to Chatswood rail link, which we talked about earlier today, and possible connection to the F3 freeway and the M2 motorway at Pennant Hills. It gives Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils responsibility for identifying significant rural and resource lands in recognition of the importance of agriculture to the region's economy.

The Opposition should support these sensible long-term plans for the future of the Ku-ring-gai region and, of course, of Sydney as a whole. Unfortunately, we consistently hear negativity from members opposite. Often they want to isolate small areas without being cognisant of the whole plan and trying to ensure that we are planning for development of the region as a whole. The member for Davison attempted to rewrite history when he said that all councils are exempt from State environmental planning policy No. 53. State environmental planning policy No. 53, Metropolitan Residential Development, was introduced in 1997. As the metropolitan strategy that followed more recently does, State environmental planning policy No. 53 was designed to broaden the choice of building type and location in the housing market. It aims to make better use of existing infrastructure and services, reduce the consumption of land for housing and other urban development on the urban fringe, and encourage good design.

When the policy was first introduced it applied to all councils in the Sydney region. As each council prepared its own residential strategy, which was endorsed by the State Government, the policy no longer applied to that council. In other words, the policy did not apply to councils that had done the work and had an approved residential strategy in place. Every single council bar one has done that. The only council that has not produced an acceptable residential strategy is Ku-ring-gai Council. Without a residential strategy, the Government cannot be confident that council can provide its residents with a range of housing types; and it is clearly not in the interests of Ku-ring-gai residents to exempt the council from the provisions of State environmental planning policy No. 53 until such time as it prepares a residential strategy, as every other council has done.

The New South Wales Government's concerns were strengthened in 2004 when the then Minister for Planning directed Ku-ring-gai Council to prepare a local environment plan for its commercial centres. Again, the aim was to broaden housing choice for residents in the area and prepare planning controls that would revitalise the existing retail and commercial centres. Council was given 12 months to complete its work on the centres. Council was then given informal extensions, but the plans for the centres have still not been finalised. That has gone on since 2004. A draft plan submitted in 2006 would not have delivered strategic outcomes for the area. Indeed, controls in the draft local environment plan would have virtually prevented any redevelopment in some areas by ensuring that it would be financially unviable. So 3½ years later Ku-ring-gai Council still has not complied with the Government's requirements for greater housing choice in its town centres.

In order to finalise a local environment plan for the town centres, an independent planning panel has been established. I wonder whether the member for Davidson will criticise that, when only yesterday in this place I got the impression that the Opposition was calling for more arm's length planning. The panel will consider appropriate development densities and urban form in the town centres that meet the objectives of the metropolitan strategy and the draft north subregional strategy. The Department of Planning has made it clear that it will consider the merits of creating urban conservation areas once the town centre plans are complete. Again, that matter is referred to in this motion. Those plans will provide certainty to the people of the region.

Those are just some of the reasons the Government does not support this motion. We want the Opposition to come on board with the Government with a vision for Sydney's future. We want to ensure that there are more jobs and more housing and lifestyle opportunities for future directions. I am sure we all accept that Sydney is subject to population growth pressures. As an aside, I guess, as Country Labor chair, I think back to the decentralisation that took place during the Whitlam years and wish that governments and politicians would consider our regional centres in terms of coping with population growth. I am continuing to push for that on behalf of Country Labor.

It is important to push ahead with plans that give certainty to regions. We have overall plans that will give people some certainty about what development will occur and with local environment plans so that councils can give their residents and ratepayers certainty about how and in what ways development should progress. Once that certainty is there, and once we conclude the planning reform process on which the Minister has embarked, we will see a system of planning that gives people certainty about where things will go. This will reduce the need for the Minister to be involved in section 3As and a range of other areas. It will also reduce the workload on councils, which could focus on more strategic planning decisions in the long term.

There are many positives in the planning reform agenda. If the Opposition is interested in better planning for New South Wales it will welcome the reform positively. Once again, members opposite are concentrating on one local issue and saying, "We don't like broad planning and giving people certainty. We want you to address this local thing on its own." However, we need to provide people with certainty in the long term. We need to protect important areas while at the same time allowing for population growth.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [12.06 p.m.]: I am delighted to participate in this debate, and I am delighted that the member for Mulgoa is in the chair because, without in any way seeking to draw her into the debate, the planning mess in Ku-ring-gai and her name are entwined in history. The member for Monaro needs to understand the problems associated with being handed briefs. I am happy to give the member a vision for Sydney. Indeed, I am happy to give the member a vision for this State. It is a vision of a State not run by the Iemma Government. It is a vision of a State run by a Premier who is awake at the wheel, not asleep at the wheel. It is a vision of a State run by a bloke whose vision is not confined to when he is simply sleeping at his desk between nine and five.

The planning system in the State best epitomises all that is wrong with Labor. Instead of trying to efficiently use land use infrastructure to produce better outcomes, Labor looks at the planning system as an opportunity to raise revenue through levies imposed on developments, which are passed on to those who buy those developments—levies that end up being homeowner levies, although they are described as developer levies, and which affect housing affordability in this city. But there is also the opportunity to raise donations from developers. This State Government has hung up the For Sale shingle outside the Department of Planning. From planning Minister after planning Minister we have seen increasing centralisation of planning to the extent that six months ago ICAC, recognising the corruption risks within State Government on planning matters, proposed changes that would limit the way in which the Minister for Planning can deal directly and personally in approving planning matters from developers who may have donated to his party.

All those matters are relevant to what is happening in Ku-ring-gai. Whether it is the current controversy over expanding the size of the Ku-ring-gai town centres—in some cases by up to 500 per cent—whether it is the curious decisions that have been made by a variety of Ministers over the years, or whether it is the way in which some areas seem to be favoured over other areas, the Ku-ring-gai community is reflecting what is happening across this State. There is a belief that Labor's decisions on planning matters in Ku-ring-gai are being driven not by what is in the best interests of either the local community or the wider Sydney community but by what is in the best interests of Labor's development mates. That is why this system needs to be cleaned up in the way it applies to Ku-ring-gai and across the State. The sooner we have greater certainty, transparency and accountability in relation to planning issues, the sooner not only residents but the property sector will be happy. But, above all, the sooner we get politicians out of the process and limit the power of the Minister, in particular, in the process, the sooner everyone can rest easy.

The member for Monaro read a brief that he clearly did not understand. He referred to town centre areas. I am sure the member for Davidson will detail this at length, but every time the Opposition has put up a plan the State Government has found fault with it for reasons never mentioned before. It is like sitting for a mathematics examination, submitting an answer and then being told that the answer is wrong because the equation was not provided. It is a process that has been designed to fail. The member for Monaro referred to the area being serviced by transport. Ku-ring-gai has eight railway stations but to catch a train at peak hour commuters must bring their sardine can openers. He also referred to the Epping-Chatswood rail link. I point out to the member for Monaro, who has probably only travelled through Ku-ring-gai along the Pacific Highway, that the Epping-Chatswood rail link does not stop in Ku-ring-gai. The last stop is in either the electorate of the member for Lane Cove or the Deputy Premier, and then it pops up in the electorate of Willoughby.

Look at the Pacific Highway, where Ku-ring-gai is bearing its load of high-rise development. Yet this State Government has no proposal to do anything about the appallingly overloaded transport infrastructure on the Pacific Highway. Members complain to me about that regularly on a Thursday or Friday afternoon, when they are trying to leave the city to get home under the new family-friendly hours. It does not seem to get them here any earlier of a morning either. Opposition members are not pleading special case for Ku-ring-gai; we are pleading the case for the entirety of Sydney. We want a liveable city, we want a city where jobs and people do not have to be miles and hours apart, and we want an end to the Minister's interference in these matters.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.11 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the member for Davidson. As the Leader of the Opposition said, New South Wales has a major planning problem, and it is essentially the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, and the Labor Government. Ku-ring-gai Council has been on the receiving end of a very raw deal from this Government. Like most councils, it has been the victim of the arrogance of the Minister for Planning, who believes he alone knows what is best for New South Wales when it comes to planning. I have discussed this issue with many mayors in New South Wales who feel antagonistic towards a Minister who invites antagonism. There is disbelief that the Labor Government is making decisions not for all the people of New South Wales but in its own monetary interests.

Nick Ebbeck, the mayor of Ku-ring-gai, and the council certainly seem to have made every effort to try to arrive at a reasonable outcome that meets the needs of the area, and indeed the entire State. As I understand it, Ku-ring-gai Council put up proposals and negotiated with the Department of Planning. It made a proposal about density housing requirements in the area and for six months received absolutely no response from the Government. That raises a very serious issue. When the member for Monaro read a prepared speech, which obviously came out of the Minister's office, that attacked—

Mr Steve Whan: Surprise! Surprise!

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Surprise! Surprise! That is right. Government members read notes, and that is about it. Labor frontbenchers have not a neurone working or a synapse connection at the moment. Members can read a speech and that is it. Ku-ring-gai is a classic example of what is happening across the State. This arrogant Labor Government is throwing its weight around and effectively demeaning councils and ruining any prospect of a partnership between local government and State Government. The Minister for Planning and this Government have bagged councils. In fact, the Minister has been bagging councils while effectively becoming the bagman for New South Wales Labor. Through his policies, he has ensured that dollars and cents—

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I ask you to direct the member for Wakehurst to withdraw that reflection on the Minister, which is inappropriate and insulting. It is certainly outside the leave of this debate.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Does the member for Wakehurst wish to withdraw his comments?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I do not withdraw.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I think precedence in this place—

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: There is no standing order that allows that. The member for Monaro should sit down and stop playing juveniles games.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I found that comment offensive to the Government. I ask you to direct the member for Wakehurst to withdraw it. Previous Speakers have been able to insist that the member withdraw a remark that another member finds offensive.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: No, a member withdraws only if it causes personal offence to the member taking the point of order. It is not about the Government. Unfortunately, this Government is offensive to the people of New South Wales.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I cannot compel the member for Wakehurst to withdraw his comments.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: New South Wales has a government that does deals for dollars. It is a deals-for-dollars Government. If one has the money and can get through the Minister's door then chances are the deal will be done. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we need a system that does not permit that sort of tainted influence. The problem in New South Wales is that we have a government and a Minister who do not recognise that it is a conflict of interest when the Government takes enormous amounts of money in developer contributions. The poor developers have no choice: they either pay the money or they do not get through the Minister's door.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order is relevance—as my previous point of order was not upheld. This debate is about Ku-ring-gai but the member for Wakehurst has spoken for almost five minutes and hardly mentioned Ku-ring-gai. I ask you to bring him back to the leave of the motion before the House.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The member for Monaro is busy covering up his Government's desire to get as much money out of the developers as it possibly can before they get their deals considered.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I am sure the member for Wakehurst will return to the substantive motion.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Developers and New South Wales do not need this, and it is time this Government was gone. [Time expired.]

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [12.16 p.m.]: I support the call from my colleague and friend the member for Davidson that Ku-ring-gai Council be exempted from the provisions of State environmental planning policy 53 and for the voice of the elected representatives of that community to be heard by the State Government and its planning department. A member opposite gave an interesting response about a centralist, technocratic, Soviet-style five-year-plan approach to planning in this State. Frankly, planning does not work when it is imposed from above. Planning imposed on communities will only generate resentment, conflict and perceptions of conflicts of interest.

Strategic planning should not be about imposing site-specific targets on particular addresses in Ku-ring-gai. It should not be about Ministers calling in specific development applications for multi-unit residential buildings. It just smells bad for strategic planning to focus on specific sites. That is what is happening in Ku-ring-gai, and the community can be forgiven for assuming that there must be by some conflict of interest—particularly in light of media allegations about the influence of developers in the political process. It simply adds to the smell and to the belief that what is happening in Ku-ring-gai is not good strategic planning but site-specific call-ins to benefit a favoured coterie of developers.

Some assumptions about the planning policy that is imposed on communities such as Ku-ring-gai are simply wrong. The way in which this Government is imposing its vision of an urban consolidation future is creating bad planning outcomes in Ku-ring-gai and other communities, such as Pittwater. It makes certain assumptions. For instance, it assumes that there is sufficient carrying capacity in existing infrastructure. That assumption is clearly wrong. This morning a water main outside my electorate office burst simply because development pressure has not allowed for the infrastructure to sustain it. It is the same with public transport.

There is no effective bus route that will take students from Pittwater to Macquarie University on the other side of the Davidson electorate to attend a 9 o'clock lecture. That is a strategic bus corridor, identified by former Premier Unsworth, and yet no buses traverse that route. It is just not good enough. The infrastructure is not there; the roads are choked. Building more units in the most congested parts of our towns will create more congestion and dump more cars into the busiest parts of our city. It is a bad policy, and it is time the Government woke up to that fact.

The policy assumes also that high-density living is somehow more energy efficient. That assumption is also wrong. Recent research established that high-density apartment living is less energy efficient than villa, townhouse or detached dwelling living. The policy assumes also that somehow higher-density developments are more affordable. I invite members opposite to take a train to Ku-ring-gai or travel to Pittwater or any other areas north of the city to see what developers are charging for new units—it is not affordable housing. The policy assumes also that fundamentally people want to live that way, and the Government is imposing a vision of future urban consolidation, against the wishes of local communities and elected councils, because that is what people want.

I do not believe everyone wants to live in an apartment building. Some people want to have a backyard, where they can have a barbecue or play a game of cricket. Not everyone wants that. Of course there is a need for higher-density housing, which should be provided for in a strategic manner. However, imposing a consolidation policy on everyone will cause resentment, more congestion and more conflict. That has been the sorry state of planning in New South Wales for the past decade. Instead, we need good process in planning. Time and time again it can be seen that the system is lacking good process. The Government keeps focusing on the need to produce outcomes. We will not get outcomes without a foolproof, transparent and fully accountable process. I refer members to the Currawong development in my electorate of Pittwater. Every time the community has a win that will safeguard the site and defeats an obstacle that the Minister has put in our path, the process is subverted by the Minister, who is intent on overdeveloping the site.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [12.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Monaro, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wakehurst and the member for Pittwater for their contributions to this debate. I made it very clear when I moved the motion that we in Ku-ring-gai do need to bear a fair share of new development. It is a pity that the member for Monaro did not recognise that fact. Ku-ring-gai Council has proposed a residential strategy that has the potential to deliver more than 10,000 new dwellings, as required by the Metropolitan Strategy. The town centre plans, which precipitated the appointment of a planning panel, were lodged under great pressure by the end of 2006, only to be met with more than six months of silence from the Department of Planning and the Minister.

Independent planning panels, if they are to be used, should be appointed on a proper basis—and the Minister has not done that. Delay in gazettal of the urban conservation areas is not justified. The Leader of the Opposition appropriately pointed out that we are not asking for special treatment or favouritism but we expect that there will be no discrimination. We expect to bear our fair share of new dwellings, and we also expect the requisite infrastructure investment to support those who are currently living in the area and those who will move to the area. The member for Wakehurst appropriately pointed out the arrogance of both the Government and the Minister to Planning, and the need for more transparent and accountable processes. The member for Pittwater emphasised the need for good strategic planning processes and how planning imposed from above is fraught with danger.

On that point, and noting that heritage is obviously an extremely low priority for the New South Wales Labor Government, I am reminded of a comment by Dr Zeny Edwards, the President of the National Trust in New South Wales. She pointed out that current proposals for statewide default codes in a one-size-fits-all plan will seriously erode the special character of places of environmental or heritage value. For many decades the National Trust has fought admirably for conservation of natural and built heritage in Ku-ring-gai and throughout New South Wales. In my inaugural speech in this place I emphasised how we must preserve and protect the best of our past as a legacy for future generations. Let us not be short-sighted in delaying the gazettal of valuable urban conservation zones any further. I note that the absence from the Chamber by the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Local Government demonstrates a lack of courtesy, a lack of hard work and a lack of interest—not so much in what I or others have to say but in the people of Ku-ring-gai. Sadly, the public is being used as a political football by Minister Sartor in a one-sided game that he calls progress.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this House notes the result of the 2007 State election.

As members might realise from the date that notice of this motion was originally given, 9 May 2007, just a few weeks after the election, it was obviously put on the notice paper at a time of great excitement about the result. It was also tempered, of course, by the great challenges we faced. At the time I gave notice of the motion I certainly intended it to be an opportunity to say thank you to the people of Monaro for their terrific support in returning me with an increased majority. I also wanted to report on some of the matters that had contributed to that result. Given that almost a year has passed, this is a great opportunity for me to run through some of the progress that is being made in the Monaro electorate on matters that I had spoken about and which were issues in the election campaign. Some good progress has been made. What I wanted to do, having been elected for a second term, was to build on the delivery of results. That was the reason the electorate re-endorsed me. I put on record at the outset my gratitude for the support those people gave me.

The electorate of Monaro is very diverse, and I very proudly said during my first four years as its member that I was delivering for Monaro. That was the key reason I won the seat for the Labor Party in the first place. The people of Monaro were really sick of having members who blamed other people for not delivering. That was the pattern over a long time. It was always someone else's fault that something was not done. That is why they elected me as member for Monaro and that is what I have proceeded to do. I want to discuss some areas of the electorate and outline how some of the important developments are progressing. I refer first to Queanbeyan, where I live. The Queanbeyan community once again gave me a wonderful endorsement, particularly at my local booth where my majority increased. Queanbeyan hospital was the major commitment I made for Queanbeyan. I am very pleased to say that its construction is really going well. It is currently ahead of schedule for its mid-year opening.

The staff will move into the new hospital mid year and then the old hospital, which is next door, will be demolished. It is growing well on the site, with two storeys and a part underneath already built—I suppose one could call that three storeys. It is making great progress and will be delivered on time, as promised way back in my first election campaign. It is something I am very proud of and the people of the region are very pleased about it as well. The State Government office block, another building that I committed to, is almost complete. That is near the Queanbeyan showground. It is nearing completion despite a few mischievous visits from members of the Opposition who have come down—

Mr John Williams: Like you do. Country Labor is going to visit Deniliquin—

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Murray-Darling says that my visits to his area are mischievous—like those of the National Party. They are positive visits to show people the Government cares about them. That is something Country Labor likes to do. The office block is underway, despite some mischievous comment about car parking at the showgrounds. Somehow the National Party managed to justify flying one of its upper House members all the way from Coffs Harbour to Queanbeyan to do a press release and a photo opportunity with a local branch member who used to be a stalwart of One Nation, and then fly that member back home again. I had the great pleasure a couple of weeks ago of visiting with Premier Iemma the nearly completed trades school, which is one of the first in New South Wales. This school is focusing on metalwork and the facilities will be absolutely fantastic. It is a great advance for the Queanbeyan area to get that trades school.

During the last election I told the people of Braidwood that I would continue to work with them to resolve the problems they were having with their town sewerage system. It was not an election promise, but since then I have secured $3.3 million to help them with that project, which I was very pleased about. In the lead-up to the Federal election I was pleased to have the assistance of our new Federal member, Mike Kelly. He managed to get the Federal Labor Government to commit to matching that grant, which was terrific news for people in that area. In Braidwood there was a swing of 2.88 per cent to the Labor Party on a two-party preferred basis, which was pleasing indeed. I thank the people in Braidwood for voting for me.

I understand the reason for the swing against me in Bungendore: people in Bungendore remain frustrated about some of the things that happened in the past. I have worked in that area to try to deliver some of the things to which I committed. At the moment construction of a basketball court and a skate park are underway. Just before the last election the Michelago community had a meeting with me and said, "How come you have not done anything about getting us a water tank for the fire station?" I said, "As you just raised that issue with me now I will take it on board." A week later I delivered funding for that water tank. There was a 7 per cent swing to Labor in the Bredbo area, where new tennis courts have been constructed, which is terrific. I committed to those tennis courts before the last election. As I said, they have now been constructed and they look fantastic.

Jerangle has also seen improvements to its sporting facilities. At the last election I committed to an oncology service in Cooma, which is now up and running. It means that people do not have to drive all the way to Canberra every couple of days to obtain that service. The jail expansion to which I committed, which is open, is employing more people in Cooma. Unfortunately, The Nationals opposed that proposal at the last election, which might be why I won the Cooma booths for the first time. Berridale has seen an increase in its sporting facilities. Just the other day I received a terrific visit from the Minister for Sport. Since the election I officially opened a school in Jindabyne, which is wonderful. This is the first time there has been secondary education at a public school there. At the opening of that central school I was able to announce that it would go through to years 11 and 12.

I also opened facilities at the Gaden Trout Hatchery. When Cabinet came to the region a couple of weeks ago following up on my commitments, the Minister for Health and I went to Bombala and opened a brand new hospital, which is absolutely fantastic. We could not get the smiles off the faces of people in the area. I am disappointed that that hospital, a wonderful facility, was not featured on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. The doctor said that going to work in the new facility was like having a new job. I have been working on some issues at Bemboka showground—a wonderful community that I have the privilege of representing. At the last State election some key issues relating to Jerrabomberra were raised—issues that have been raised in the last few days, that is, whether or not development should take place.

I backed the community 100 per cent on what it wanted, but The Nationals decided not to do so and I won 56 per cent of the vote in that conservative booth. That is the second time I won that booth and I am the only Labor candidate to have won it. I apologise for my lack of modesty but I hope Mike Kelly will match that at the next election. It was pleasing to get a result such as that after I had gone out of my way to work hard to represent that community, despite the Opposition's incredibly negative and misleading statements. Last night we heard some of those negative comments in the upper House. Opposition members are too cowardly to make comments like that in this Chamber, but last night in the upper House they made some outrageous and unfounded accusations that have already been dealt with.

One ridiculous comment was that my office in Sydney was being used as a base by a lobbyist. That bloke has never been into my office in Sydney in its current location. He might have visited me in the past but he has never made a phone call out of that office. I suppose I should take that as a compliment. If Opposition members believe they have to make up stories to try to diminish what I am doing, I must be doing a good job. The Labor Party had a terrific outcome at the last election. Since then Country Labor in Monaro and around New South Wales has been trying to get out, talk to country communities and show them that Country Labor can deliver for the people of rural New South Wales. Labor has provided additional oncology services, established dialysis extension in a number of places around the State, and introduced ethanol. That was reflected in the Federal election that occurred in 2007.

Labor members were elected in a number of country seats in New South Wales, taking out members of The Nationals and members of the Liberal Party who simply had not done the job. The other day when I happened to be watching Federal Parliament it was interesting to hear Bob Katter giving his interpretation of what had happened. He took each point in turn and asked, "Who is responsible for these losses?" The current Leader of The Nationals is responsible. [Time expired.]

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.45 p.m.] I am amazed at the contribution by the member for Monaro, who did nothing other than congratulate himself on what he has done. I say to any members who are listening to this debate upstairs, "We have a Minister in waiting." Are any Government members listening to this debate? The member for Monaro just promoted himself and he should be given a go. He has to build up his ego because he is paranoid about losing his seat. He is a shaking, trembling mess because he knows that The Nationals are coming to get him. He bags The Nationals at every opportunity because he knows that one day—and that day is not far away—they will take his seat. He said earlier that it was great that Colonel Klink was elected to the Federal seat of Monaro. If there is a change of government at the next election voters might be playing eenie, meenie, miney, mo.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I do not usually object when the member for Murray-Darling is attempting to be funny, but I think that calling Mike Kelly Colonel Klink is not very respectful. Mike Kelly is a distinguished soldier who served in a lot of battle theatres around the world, so a bit of respect might be nice.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I do not think the member for Murray-Darling meant any harm in his comment. There was no malice. However, I ask him to refrain from making such comments.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: If there is a change of government at the next Federal election voters in Eden Monaro will be playing eenie, meenie, miney, mo with the ballot paper, as they will not know which way to go. We might have the best member in the world, for example, Gary Nairn, a great member and Minister in the former Federal Government who did a lot for the community. Everyone in Eden-Monaro said what a great guy he was but, come election day, voters thought there was a change of government and they played eenie, meenie, miney, mo and crossed to the other side.

People in the Monaro electorate might do the same if they thought there was a change of government, and the good work that this member has done and his self-promotion will all be forgotten. The member for Monaro knows that we might see a change in his electorate after the next election. After we signed the Kyoto Protocol he came out of hiding from under the bed. He told us in this Chamber about the catastrophes that would occur as a result of environmental changes. He said earlier that a new hospital would be built in Queanbeyan. How many years has it been since that announcement was made?

Mr Steve Whan: Quite a long time.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: The member for Monaro probably used his tape measure to ensure that the door openings were wide enough to get beds through them. Members would be aware that another hospital did not quite match the specifications and all the professionals said how bad it was, but the problems were simply passed off as teething problems. The member for Bathurst has had problems with the hospital and power stations in his electorate. At the moment he is like a one-legged frog in a snake pit.

Mr Steve Whan: We built 50.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: Government members can thank the Coalition for those 50 hospitals. Is the member for Monaro aware of hospital lead times? This Government constantly reminds Opposition members how long the planning stage takes, so we will take the blame for that. The Queanbeyan hospital proposal was thought of before the member for Monaro was elected. He is riding on the back of a Coalition government's decision to replace that hospital. The member for Monaro should ensure that everyone is able to fit through the doors of the emergency department and that it is big enough to accommodate patients.

Mr Steve Whan: They will have trouble fitting you in.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: At Bathurst patients have to be able to walk into the hospital. What a good way to run a hospital! Patients have to walk into the hospital rather than being wheeled into the hospital on a trolley. The Minister for Health does not seem to want to know about the long-term bed blocks that are occurring in our hospitals. I hope we see some development out in the new area because we might just start telling those new householders why their homes are under the flight path for Canberra airport, why they have to listen to jets flying overhead all day, and why their washing is covered in kerosene. They will love it when they are reminded by us that the member for Monaro copped himself a large highland sling to make sure that went ahead and that he is basically responsible for the selection of that area.

There were enough people saying it was not a good idea, and we will be testing that at the next election. There will be a bell ringing. Houses have not been built there yet but one day people will build houses there and they will find out that the area is not as good as the member for Monaro promised. He had his arm around the property developer saying, "Guess what I have got for you. It's coming. It's under the flight path, but don't worry about that, you'll really enjoy this. It's a great place to live. You want cheap housing? Well, you have it. The only thing is that the family will be up early in the morning." I believe the first flight out of the airport is about 5.30 a.m.

Mr Steve Whan: Gary Nairn supported it. Remember that great member you were talking about before?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: Gary Nairn has gone. You are in the seat now. You have to wear this on the chin. So that will be good for you.

Mr Steve Whan: He supported it. You just told us he was a great member.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: According to the people in Eden-Monaro he was a great member, but now he is out the door. I would hate to suffer that uneasiness. The member for Monaro could go a long way; he has a great future in this place. He could be a Minister sitting in his high-back lazyboy recliner, enjoying his warm milk and yo-yo biscuits, with six urgers running around at his beck and call. How absolutely lovely! He has plenty of opportunity to achieve that through the way he promotes himself. He has worked hard to increase his votes. He has done a good job but, unfortunately, history shows that a seat like Monaro is held only temporarily.

As a new member in this House I am amazed at what happens in rock-solid Labor electorates. The incumbent accepts the job, but does not have to do a lot—does not even have to live in the electorate. They can live outside the electorate and enjoy the coast. Some western suburbs are not so good to reside in and people like the smell of a nice sea breeze when they awake in the morning. Two members of Parliament could live in the one electorate—an arrangement that really shows constituents that their members are right behind their electorates!

Mr Steve Whan: Your candidate in my electorate did not live there either.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: Well, so what?

Mr Steve Whan: So what, exactly!

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: The member for Monaro does not have to live in the Monaro electorate because members representing temporary electorates—swinging and changing seats—should not make long-term plans, as he well knows. The member for Monaro is fortunate as he will be able to enjoy a nice pension, a bit of walkabout money. He can sit at the post office corner at the shopping centre on Saturday and tell people what a great member he was: "Remember what I did for you?" It will all be forgotten; he will just slide out the door and a great career will be down the drain.

The sad fact of politics is that it tears you up when you are in the prime of your life. Just when the member for Monaro thinks he is going to make it, with his eyes set on being Premier of New South Wales, something awful happens, an election is held and out he goes. I am sure the member for Monaro has put on that special suit, looked at himself in the mirror and thought, "This is it, I can make it." It was a good result in Monaro and I say well done to the elected member, but at the next election there might be a change of government—maybe it will happen, maybe we will get the numbers. Then the Monaro electorate will be back in the hands of the party that can truly represent country people—The Nationals.

Mr David Harris: How many are left?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: There are enough of us. There are 18 in this Parliament and the numbers are growing. A grey cloud is hanging over Bathurst, where things are looking a bit dodgy for the Government. We only have to ring the bell on the hospital to find out how pleased the locals are about it, so that is another seat that might slide our way. A couple of other seats are on the brink and might come our way at the next election. We might see 22 members of The Nationals in this place. It will be sad to look across the House and not see the member for Monaro. He knows that if he gets back in he will be sitting with the Opposition. Unfortunately, a great career will have gone down the drain. Even though he will have fought hard, he will have to accept the will of the electorate.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [12.55 p.m.]: I commend my colleague the member for Monaro for moving this timely and relevant motion. It is a good motion because everybody in this House should take note of the result of the last State election—especially the Opposition, which continues to oppose everything. I contested the election against a popularly elected mayor, a former member of this House and known to everyone in Maitland. It was a great achievement to defeat him at the election because I put my name with the Australian Labor Party and the Government, which had a strategic plan—the State Plan. This plan has a vision for New South Wales with a clearly announced set of objectives so every member of the community can monitor and watch the Government's progress.

The Government's vision is in stark contrast to that of the Opposition. The Coalition continues to oppose everything and pull political stunts. I recall one in this very House in the days leading up to the election that put Opposition members on the rope and revealed them as members of a party that only pulled political stunts. A political party promoting itself as an alternative government will not gain office unless it puts together a strategy and vision to form government. Political parties will not be elected to office by continually opposing government proposals for the State. That is what happened at the 2007 State election.

It is easy to imagine the discussion when the Opposition met to form its election tactics: "What are we going to oppose today?" Its members would be looking through the papers for a story to oppose. The Opposition has no creativity and no plan. It cannot say to this House, "This is our policy." One can imagine a new Opposition member sitting at the back putting up his hand and asking, "What is our policy on this?" The reply would be, "Don't worry about that son. We don't worry about those things. We just oppose. That's what we do." That is all the Opposition does daily in this place.

Debates in this place in recent days have clearly demonstrated that the Opposition continues to degrade and oppose other members of Parliament without coming up with an alternative plan. While Opposition members continue to put down the public servants of this State—police, nurses and others—they will remain in opposition. If they do not present an alternative plan, they will remain on that the opposite side of the House. This motion is a timely reminder to us all. The Leader of the Opposition today compared running a government to driving a car. All I can say is that the Opposition is in a very slow car on the wrong side of the road, going nowhere.

Mr David Harris: And missing a few tyres.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: Yes, it is missing a few tyres and something is wrong with its electrical system. The Opposition is going nowhere; the Government is getting on with the job. It has its strategies in place with record spending on mental health and on business regulation reform. My electorate has a new emergency department at Maitland hospital, a new third river crossing and record spending on sports grants—things are happening. The Government has a plan for New South Wales; the Opposition does not.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [12.59 p.m.]: I join in debating the motion to discuss the New South Wales 2007 State election result. I appreciate the comments made by my colleague the member for Murray-Darling. It is great to have two new members on our side who collectively represent 61 per cent of the State. It is recognised throughout western New South Wales that geographically the member for Murray-Darling and I punch way above our weight. Barwon does not have a city or a base hospital. While Murray-Darling may be greater in area, Barwon has a widely dispersed population. It is a pleasure to work with the member for Murray-Darling. His gaining of the seat has been a positive result of the 2007 State election. We are now able to work together on issues that have been ignored for far too long. Representation of the people of western New South Wales is now coming to the fore, and I am sure that Government members recognise that.

The comments made by Government members in this debate were quite interesting. I point out to Government members that the election was not about them or me, but about the people of New South Wales and the electorates we represent. Members opposite do not seem to appreciate that representing an electorate is a privilege. I suspect that if an election were held this week the tables would be turned. It will become clearer in the next couple of years that the people of New South Wales will not wear wall-to-wall Labor governments in this country, let alone the Labor Government in this State.

The current New South Wales Labor Government can no longer blame the Federal Government for programs and systems that do not work. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, visited Walgett last week. Yesterday in Parliament the Minister referred to Federal housing and indigenous issues. She said that State governments must take off their blinkers, start working harder, start making some hard decisions, come to grips with grassroots policy matters, and put in place strategies that actually work. She also said that the Federal Government is considering a new form of federalism whereby the States will no longer be able to blame the Federal Government.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his apology and on some of the bipartisan strategies that he has offered, the like of which are yet to be seen from the New South Wales Government in respect of housing and indigenous housing. The Prime Minister foreshadowed a new era in federalism. I suspect that the Federal Labor Government will bypass the States and deal with people directly. The Federal Government, by the manner in which it is operating already in respect of climate change, rail, road, water, electricity, housing, tourism, community services, health, policing, education and infrastructure, has hinted that it will bypass the New South Wales State Labor Government and deal with issues directly. In my electorate significant events indicate the Federal Government's intention. For example, the Federal Government is bypassing the State Labor Government in respect of climate change because New South Wales has had a revolving door series of Ministers and bureaucrats who have achieved nothing of substance, as alluded to recently by the Federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett.

I predict that we will notice the Federal Labor Government bypassing the result of the 2007 Clayton's State election. While the Opposition's role for the next three years is to keep the New South Wales State Government honest, if Government members allow us to work with them they will be in for an interesting ride. If they choose otherwise, they will become redundant on a number of big issues that they have failed to address, not the least of which is the privatisation of rail signed off by the Government six years ago. Everything in this State that does not work is for sale, including some Ministers. It is a disgrace.

The Government cannot get off the front page of the newspapers. When people vote in 2011 they will remember all the things for which the New South Wales Labor Government is responsible. In conclusion, I congratulate the new member for Murray-Darling on his election. I enjoy being a member of this House, and I will continue to represent the seat of Barwon to the best of my ability. The 2007 State election should be viewed as redundant, like the State Government.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [1.04 p.m.]: I ask the House to note the results of the 2007, 2003, 1999 and 1995 State elections—they were all perfectly excellent! The 2007 State election results for my electorate of East Hills show that I was returned with 53.6 per cent of the primary vote and 64.1 per cent of the vote on a two-party preferred basis. I mention that because there was a swing against me of 1.6 per cent of primary votes, but the redistribution for the 2007 election accounts for that minor aberration. I am still trying to find out the names of those people who did the wrong thing!

Mr David Harris: What, the two of them?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: It would not be many, for a swing of 1.6 per cent. Since the election my electorate has gained a great deal of infrastructure. I will highlight several projects to illustrate the importance of election results and what is gained from properly representing an electorate, as the member for Monaro can confirm. The Revesby turnback facility is a project worth $98 million, and it will become fully operational this year. The lifts are already working. My electorate office is in Revesby and frequently I take a look at how the project is progressing. I also catch trains into the city, and when I caught a train to the city last Monday it was exactly on time. My electorate is served by excellent trains.

Quadruplication of the rail tracks from Kingsgrove to Revesby has commenced and construction is well underway. The project is worth $400 million and for people who live in the outer suburbs and those who live in my electorate it will make catching a train to Sydney much easier. At the same time it will take pressure off some western suburbs roads that are congested with traffic. Within the next few weeks construction of the Alfords Point Bridge will be completed. This will provide a second crossing of the Georges River—great news for the people of the Sutherland shire, for the member for Menai, Alison Megarrity, and for me. The bridge will reduce travelling times for those from the Sutherland shire who traverse my electorate to access the M5 and major roads at Bankstown. Construction of the original Alfords Point Bridge was commenced in the late 1960s and completed in the 1970s when Sir Robert Askin was in government, and there was some skulduggery associated with that.

Mr Steve Whan: They built something?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: They did, but they only half built it.

Mr Steve Whan: They had to hold the bag?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: There were some allegations at the time, but we will not go into those in the present climate. Suffice it to say there were allegations about what happened in relation to some of the money and some of Sir Robert's friends. The main point I want to focus on is that the State Labor Government is getting on with the job. That massive capital expenditure project will soon be completed and everybody will be happy—especially, as I have already noted, the people who live in my electorate, because traffic will move more quickly, as well as people who live in Sutherland who will benefit from quicker access to the major thoroughfares of Sydney.

The East Hills Girls Technology High School, which I opened in November last year, will receive $100,000 worth of technology rooms. Funds for that excellent school are greatly appreciated. All schools want improved facilities, and I am busy working on trying to obtain additional funding for security fences. As schools in my electorate have been very successful in obtaining security fences it is only natural that all the other schools that do not yet have security fences also want them. Another project in the East Hills electorate involves the horticultural facilities of the Padstow TAFE, for which $500,000 has been allocated. In November last year I had the privilege of jointly opening that facility. Just this month my electorate received almost $50,000 for sporting facility upgrades for the clubhouse at Sydney Smith Park for the East Hills Bulldogs, additional funds for the Canterbury Bankstown Tennis Association and funds to upgrade facilities at Playford Park. All those projects are the result of consultation and commitment by the Bankstown City Council, but it should be noted that much of the council's finances comes from State grants.

Earlier in the debate health care was mentioned. Let us not forget that a new health agreement will be completed soon. As a result of the 2007 State election we are in a position to do the best we can with declining revenue disbursements. An interesting feature of meetings between the Federal and State health Ministers will be statistics showing the decline in funds by the Federal Government over the last few years. Federal funding has declined to as low as 41 per cent—a decrease from the Federal Government's commitment to provide 45 per cent of funding to maintain the public hospitals system. While members opposite may wish to discuss the Opposition's prospects of winning a couple of seats in the 2011 election and moving a little closer to gaining government, let us not forget that the Opposition's Federal colleagues have not helped them very much. Labor members will be happy to remind the public of that.

I thank the electors of East Hills for again supporting me and returning me for a third term as their parliamentary representative. Although I am not being critical of the new member for Murray-Darling, I was sad to see the previous member for Murray-Darling lose his seat, largely, it must be acknowledged, as a result of the redistribution rather than because of anything to do with his personality or the work he did. It was all about changes in the electorate.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The member for East Hills is misleading the House. The redistribution made a difference of about 1 per cent, but the result shows that the swing was a little more than 1 per cent. I do not think that the redistribution is the only reason for Labor's loss of the seat.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.09 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members who participated in the debate. If the member for Murray-Darling wants to refer to his result, that is fine. I thank him for all his glowing endorsements of me in my capacity. Whether I will become a Minister is a question for my colleagues. On several occasions the member for Murray-Darling pointed out that Monaro is a marginal seat. I keep pointing that out to head office and to the Premier's office. The key reason for being able to deliver in those places is the fact that I never take a vote for granted; and neither does any other member on this side of the House. We should never take voters for granted; it is important to keep serving them, and that is what I do. And I absolutely respect the right of voters to change their mind.

The member for Murray-Darling talked about the uncertainty of elections. That is true. Going into an election, a candidate does not know whether they will be elected. If I am not re-elected at the next election I would be satisfied with the things I have delivered. But obviously I would like the opportunity to deliver much more. I do not think the people of Monaro want to go back to the 15 years of representation by The Nationals, when all they ever heard was, "We need something done here, but it is not our fault it is not done. It is somebody else's fault it is not done." Indeed, the Coalition Government was in office for the seven years that the electorate of Monaro was represented by The Nationals. What did The Nationals deliver? They closed the Cooma railway line, and they delivered fewer services.

The member for Murray-Darling said that The Nationals deserve credit for providing hospitals. I will tell members what happened to hospitals in our area. When the Liberals and Nationals were in government not one new hospital was built. Cooma Hospital was built by the Wran Government. This Government is building new hospitals in Queanbeyan and Bombala, and it will build a new hospital in Bega, which services people in the Monaro electorate. So Labor Governments are delivering on those things. The member for Maitland pointed out that the Opposition has no policy. That is absolutely right. As people said during the election campaign, the Opposition had no policies, and it still has no policies.

The member for Barwon thinks that Labor members will be in trouble at the next election because people will not like wall-to-wall Labor governments. That seems to sum up the Opposition's strategy for the next four years: do nothing except criticise and hope that at the next election they will be rolled into office because people will be sick of Labor governments. It is not very charitable but I have to say that it is a little like the Kim Beazley strategy, the small target strategy that people did not like. I did not have a problem with my opponent during the election campaign; he is a nice bloke. However, I had a problem with the way The Nationals dodged providing policy and providing what the community wanted. The member for Murray-Darling mentioned the Tralee development again. On that matter I have gone with what the community wants: I have represented the local community. Most importantly, I have held the same position since well before the developer acquired the land.

I told Canberra airport in 2000 that I supported residential development on that land. The developer did not buy the land until some time later. Once again The Nationals cannot cope with putting forward positive policy. Sometimes I wonder about The Nationals' campaign in the Monaro electorate. The campaign manager, who was a member of the New South Wales upper House, spent weeks in the Monaro electorate. She flew from Coffs Harbour to Monaro and back—it is the same person I mentioned earlier. Who paid for that? Did the taxpayers pay for that? Former member of The Nationals, Bob Katter, in referring to the Federal result, said:

No responsibility has been taken by this ex Minister—

He was talking about the current leader of the Federal Nationals. The ex-Minister should take responsibility for losing four of his party's seats and one Liberal Party seat at the last election: Page, Flynn, Dawson and the Liberal seat of Leichhardt. Katter went through a range of policy issues on which The Nationals failed to stand up for country New South Wales. I have pointed that out in this place over the past four or five years. He gave one example that I agree with—ethanol. He talked about what Brazil is doing with ethanol. Whose fault is it that we are behind Brazil? It is the fault of the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services—he is the current Federal Leader of The Nationals—because he did not react to it. All we get from The Nationals in New South Wales is negative, negative, negative! [Time expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [1.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) Notes the continuing downturn in the housing market and the subsequent damaging effects on the New South Wales economy as a result of excessive costs of land development due to the imposition of the Government's infrastructure levy in suburbs such as Kellyville and Rouse Hill.

(2) Notes the struggle of small business operators such as bricklayers, concreters, electricians and other building associated tradesmen throughout Western Sydney directly affected by a depleted housing market, with no certainty of continuing work and the negative effect it will have on employment.

(3) Calls upon the Minister for Planning to immediately review the impost of infrastructure levies imposed on the north and south-west development areas of Sydney, which are hindering the orderly development of housing and most of all imposing hardship on working families wishing to purchase a home.

In light of the current circumstances surrounding the Department of Planning, it is prophetic that we are dragging the Government to account and highlighting one of the greatest impediments to housing in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government has neglected to plan for the future housing needs of hardworking families in Sydney's northwest. Evidence can be seen in the Baulkham Hills and Hawkesbury electorates, where the housing development undertaken in the past 10 years is a direct result of planning by the former Liberal Government under Premier Greiner and Premier Fahey. The New South Wales Labor Government has been happy to sit back and reap the rewards of the many State taxes and levies that have applied to these homes and the billions of dollars in stamp duty. Something that always slips under the radar is the income received by the Government from the sale of its own land.

Members will remember that the largest land developer in the Rouse Hill area was the New South Wales Government. This State Government has sat back and reaped those rewards over a long period. Suddenly the money started to dry up. When the well started to run dry and the Government said, "It's about time we put our plan in place." That plan is still being rolled out. The north and southwest sectors are only just coming on board and nothing is happening. No housing development is underway in the north and south-west sectors, simply because of the imposition of the New South Wales infrastructure levy on housing. The infrastructure levy imposed by the Minister for Planning is an impediment and has imposed such a cost on developers that they are simply not developing their land. In the past developers divided up their block of land and worked out the on-costs, the section 94 levies and so on.

When the Government imposed a levy of some $70,000 per block of land the developers simply could not make enough money from the development. They knew that it would be impossible to sell the blocks of land for $400,000, $500,000 or $600,000. These infrastructure levies have brought housing in the north-west sector to an absolute stop. A few months ago the Minister for Planning suddenly woke up and said, "I will have to do something to stimulate the New South Wales economy to give a little hope to the carpenters, builders and bricklayers who are flooding over the border to Queensland because no building is happening in this area." He decided to halve the infrastructure levies but then took the section 94 council contributions to make up the shortfall so the New South Wales Government still got its kick. It maintains its greedy grab for cash. That is where the lack of planning has come in.

The State Government has realised huge benefits from the area but has squandered the profits, stamp duty, taxes and its own money from its own sales of blocks of land. No infrastructure has been built. Today we heard that the northwest rail link, our favourite ghost train, is off the agenda and will not occur. All these major development projects are simply not going to happen. That is because the Government has run out of dough and is almost bankrupt. It is trying to claw back some dough from the sale of the electricity commission to get some money to spread around. It has wasted opportunities because it has failed to plan. The only thing planned by the Minister for Planning, which he is really good at, is his next fundraiser. He can get half a million dollars at a fundraiser from a few developers. At the last State election the New South Wales Australian Labor Party raised approximately $24 million. It is good at planning fundraisers.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Point of order: This motion is not about fundraising; it is about housing. I ask you to ask the member to return to the leave of the motion.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Hawkesbury is referring to the motion generally. I ask him to refer to the motion specifically.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I will come back to the motion because it is very important to address it. Council areas such as Blacktown and Baulkham Hills have taken the brunt of housing development across the north-west sector and New South Wales over the past 10 or 15 years. They have implemented world-class infrastructure in relation to local roads, community buildings, parks and playing fields, which do not come cheaply. Both councils have done this transparently and accountably. They have kept their bottom line and stayed in the black while undertaking that massive development. They have done their share while managing their funds—the section 94 contributions that have been attributed to them—in a very effective way.

Mr Steve Whan: Some levies are okay but others are not?

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: That is exactly right. I am glad that the member for Monaro, who never says "no" to anything, has raised that point. Some levies are good because the Government put the section 94 levies in place to pay for local infrastructure. Now, at a time when the Government has run down its own resources so low and has no money, it wants to go back and grab cash from local councils and take away the funds that are said to be sitting in their bank accounts. The Minister does not understand the basic principles of section 94 contributions. In his recent circular he said that these are merely taxes that have no limit. That is absolutely incorrect. They are not taxes that have no limit: they are addressed under strict criteria. A robust status of proportion of apportionment and nexus must be found in relation to section 94 contributions. If that is not adhered to it is not ticked off by the State Government under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, but it is appellable.

It is amazing that the only levy that is a tax to councils, and they have handled them so well, is appellable by developers. If councils get it wrong in any way the developers can drag them to the Land and Environment Court and get back some money, which they do from time to time. Councils have to be very careful. The Minister for Planning should take on board the manner in which councils such as Baulkham Hills and Blacktown have conducted their business affairs over the past 10 or 15 years while absorbing this massive growth. They have provided infrastructure and rolled out massive development. A couple of hundred thousand people are now living in that north-west sector and there are plans for more but because of the restrictions and impediments placed by the Minister for Planning on the infrastructure levy housing has now stopped.

Hardworking families in that area not only cannot get a home but the longer they wait the more land prices rise and the situation becomes more difficult. The only answer of the Minister for Planning is his metro strategy. He has based his life—signed it in blood—on the Metropolitan Strategy. What will that strategy achieve? Under the City of Sydney's programs, the metropolitan strategy will see another 500,000-plus dwellings, across every suburb in Sydney. The only way to get 500,000 extra dwellings, across every suburb in Sydney, is to build apartment blocks. And who are the developers who build apartment blocks? I will not go there but I will stick to the motion. That will mean approximately 1.5 million people will be in those suburbs of Sydney. But we are not going to get a rail link, new roads or infrastructure. What impact will that have on Sydney?

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [1.25 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the member for Hawkesbury to the wording of the motion:

Notes continuing downturn in the housing market and the subsequent damaging effects on the NSW economy as a result of excessive [land costs]…

He has just argued against measures put in place by this Government to reduce land costs.

Mr Ray Williams: It will not reduce land costs, my friend.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: When the member for Hawkesbury exercises his right of reply he might address what the Opposition, with no policy, proposes to do. It has no policy. And that is why the Government was re-elected. Housing affordability is a pressing issue right across the nation, and all levels of government must take steps to address this issue and the pressure it places on families. That is why last October the Premier announced that the Government would introduce both State and local infrastructure changes for new developments. The changes reduce the State Government infrastructure charge from $33,000 to $23,000 per lot but do not reduce its commitment to delivering new infrastructure in growth centres, because the amount directly invested by the Government will almost double to more than $4 billion.

The Government has also specified what local infrastructure councils can charge developers, including: local roads, local bus infrastructure, local parks, drainage, local community infrastructure and land for other community infrastructure. Those changes will save an average of $25,000 per lot. The motion calls on the Government to reduce the price of land. The Government is taking active steps to reduce the price of land in growth centres alone. The reduction in levies will improve housing affordability by reducing development costs and increasing the supply of land.

The member for Hawkesbury has recently, most improperly, made statements about the changes. I note that the member for Wakehurst is not in the Chamber. I have heard him and the member for Hawkesbury give astounding misinformation on the Alan Jones radio program. The Government is not stopping councils from raising money for infrastructure, it is not taking council infrastructure funds away, it is simply making sure councils apply the levies in a reasonable way. I have told Camden Council—a Liberal-dominated council whose members were independent Liberals when elected—that I have every confidence in its ability to continue to deliver the proper things. Section 94 should look at a Holden Calais, not a Rolls Royce. Let us just go for the Holden Calais version, not the Rolls Royce. We do not have to go to the base model Commodore at all but go for the best thing for the community at the Holden Calais level.

The Opposition has no plans and that is why it was not elected to government. Because of the magnitude of the growth centres, Treasury will hold local infrastructure funds in trust and interest earned will be returned to the funds. This will happen in relation to the six councils covered by the growth centres—Liverpool, Camden, Campbelltown, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown and Hawkesbury.

Mr Ray Williams: That is right, I got that— all the ones that are absorbing the growth.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: That is right, and I am part of one of those councils. Councils will still use those funds to provide the agreed infrastructure. The reform to levies at both State and local levels will significantly reduce the cost of bringing new homes and land packages to the market. They will encourage building activity and industries suffering because of higher interest rates. The second part of the motion referred to losing skilled labour and the lack of activity. I was in a pub last Friday afternoon, having a quiet lemon squash with some friends. A bloke who drives a concrete truck said to me, "I don't know what I'm going to do, Geoff, I am working that hard; we have that many deliveries of concrete at the moment that the building sector is really starting to take off". That bloke is involved at the base level of the building industry. He said, "I think we are really starting to move up in the housing cycle". He, like most people, recognised that there is a building cycle, and that we were at the bottom it.

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

[The Acting-Speaker (Mr Wayne Merton) left the chair at 1.30 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.15 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the achievement of two outstanding young students who were formally recognised today at a function in the Jubilee Room of Parliament House. The Brother John Taylor Memorial Prize is a special award presented each year to a student, or students, who have overcome significant hardship to attain academic excellence in their Higher School Certificate. The award, first presented in 1993, pays tribute to Brother John Taylor, who made a significant contribution to education in New South Wales, while recognising the outstanding academic efforts of students who despite personal difficulties achieved excellence in the Higher School Certificate.

This year there are two recipients of the Award: Samantha Dickson from Bega High School and Andrei Gudas from Sydney Technical High School. The first recipient, Samantha Dickson, had a troubled home and family life leading up to the Higher School Certificate. She attended four schools in five years before taking a year off school in 2005 to support her mother and elder brother. She returned to school in year 11 when she moved to Bega with her mother in 2006, but planned accommodation fell through and they were forced to live in a tent at a local caravan park, including through a cold winter.

Another blow came when Sam had almost finished year 11. Her mother decided to move again. However, with a strong resolve to finish the Higher School Certificate, Sam decided to stay put. She said that if it were not for her friends she would have studied non-stop, but they made sure she got out and enjoyed life as well. In September 2007 Sam was rushed to hospital with severe abdominal pains. She underwent surgery and it was discovered she had cancer. Unfortunately, she was not able to sit the Higher School Certificate exams, and her final marks were based on assessments. Her hard work earned her a place in a Bachelor of Science degree course at Macquarie University.

The second recipient is a young man who has overcome incredible obstacles to achieve outstanding results in the 2007 Higher School Certificate. Andrei Gudas suffers from Crohn's disease. He was first hospitalised with symptoms in July 2006, just before his Higher School Certificate trials. By November, he was recovering and decided to repeat year 12. Though still not in the best of health, he continued his studies in 2007 but in May he became very sick again. Tests revealed that he had Crohn's disease, and thus began regular visits to three doctors and a variety of treatments. One of Andrei's biggest emotional hurdles was the 2007 Higher School Certificate trial exams. He kept himself motivated by looking at the most immediate goal—just getting through the first trial exam then the next and the next.

As well as being supported by his family, his doctors were also considerate of his Higher School Certificate studies and timetable and ensured that his treatment fitted around that timetable. Faced with Crohn's disease and fitting in medical visits and treatment, he battled through. I am pleased to advise that this year he is studying a Bachelor of Engineering and a Bachelor of Business at the University of Technology, Sydney. I am sure that the House will want to acknowledge the outstanding achievements of Samantha and Andrei.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [2.19 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I am pleased to join the Government in congratulating this year's recipients of the Brother John Taylor award. These young people, Samantha Dickson, formerly of Bega High School, and Andrei Gudas, formerly of Sydney Technical High School, have made enormous achievements despite very considerable personal difficulties. In so doing they have inspired not only fellow members of their generation but also the wider society. Their achievements send a very strong message to us all about the importance of education and the opportunities that education provides to us all, regardless of circumstance or background. I am sure that Samantha and Andrei, despite the significant obstacles they faced and perhaps will continue to face, have very bright futures ahead of them. I wish them the very best in the future—in their studies and in their careers. They are indeed an inspiration to us all.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. With yet another developer getting the nod from the Minister for Planning after thousands of dollars were donated to Labor, why has the Premier failed to implement the Independent Commission Against Corruption's six-month-old recommendations that development applications lodged by political donors with the Minister for Planing should be subject to a commission or inquiry, expert report or other arm's length safeguards? Is the Premier under orders from Sussex Street fundraisers?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is a bit rich, Barry, coming from a former State director of the Liberal Party whose main responsibility was raising funds.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has barely started his answer.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of clarification: We do not run our party—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As with an ever-increasing number of issues, the Leader of the Opposition, firstly, has got it wrong. Secondly, the Minister for Local Government in his address to the Local Government and Shires Associations in fact outlined that the Government was considering these measures and was providing a response.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In the reforms that are in draft by the Minister for Planning he in fact picks up—

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition is grossly disorderly. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: My question is to the Premier. What direction will the Government take to improve campaign finance laws in New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In relation to the previous question, the establishment of an assessment commission is consistent with what the ICAC said and, secondly, independent panels. The Leader of the Opposition might read the draft reforms that the Minister has released. As I said last week, donations laws need to change, and for the better. We will make that happen. The Government does support the upper House inquiry into donation reform and the Australian Labor Party has already made a submission. The Government has been doing further work on this issue. I am pleased to inform the House of the work that has been going on to ensure that reform takes place, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition just said. We will ensure that the reforms work—that there is reform, not just change. These will be a carefully considered series of measures to improve the donations laws and accountability and transparency—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Willoughby will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member should worry about the Greiner fundraiser that she is busy organising for Friday.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What is it—$10,000 a table? Is the member on the organising committee?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The first of the measures, requiring disclosure on a more regular basis rather than the current system of every four years, will make our system more transparent. Annual disclosure would be equal to best practice in Australia.

The SPEAKER: Order! The members for Bathurst and Coffs Harbour will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The first measure is to change the disclosure system for this State from every four years to an annual basis. We will go further. In the interests of having the best system in the country, New South Wales will move to a system of twice-yearly disclosures with full reports in June and December. The Government has also given consideration to the issue of lowering the level of disclosure. The level of disclosure in New South Wales is currently $1,500 for donations to State members of Parliament or candidates and $200 for council members. That figure is consistent with other Australian jurisdictions and far stricter than the $10,500 donation limit that John Howard introduced federally. But rather than undertake unilateral change, the New South Wales Government will give a commitment that if the Commonwealth Government adopts a disclosure limit below $1,500, the New South Wales Government will apply the same lower limit. ICAC has made a number of recommendations—

[Interruption]

The member can say that, but we are going from four-yearly disclosure to twice-yearly disclosure. ICAC has made a number of recommendations regarding the potential for conflict of interest between development applications and donations. My Ministers for Planning and Local Government, as I just outlined to the Leader of the Opposition, have been reporting on these issues—the Minister for Local Government reported to the Local Government and Shires Associations. As a result, we will seek a system of disclosure by applicants for development approvals by which they detail their donations at the time they lodge that development application. The Government agrees that disclosure should be publicly available as part of the development application.

The Government will also make clearer the requirements for councillors to deal with these situations where a perceived conflict of interest might arise from donations. That will be done in consultation with the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Another proposal I want considered is mandating that all councils record the voting history of individual councillors on development matters. The Minister for Planning is already proposing changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to enable him to delegate his decision-making powers, and ICAC's recommendations are being considered in this current planning reform process.

The Government will formalise these recommendations and proposals and put them before the upper House inquiry. I will also be proposing measures that result in all fund-raising efforts for members of Parliament, councillors and candidates being handled through their relevant central party office—that is, members from each side will not be permitted to organise or collect donations or hold their own campaign accounts. Instead they will refer all contributions to their party headquarters, the registered agents under the Electoral Funding Act that will be responsible for collating and disclosing all donors. We will also consider the disclosure of donations on a website hosted through the party organisation or the Electoral Commission.

[Interruption]

Opposition members might put the Greiner fundraising efforts on that website.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: No. That was—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will be asking the parliamentary inquiry to look specifically at how we can make the fundraising efforts of Independent councillors and members of Parliament more transparent. Initial advice from the Electoral Commissioner suggested that the Electoral Funding Authority could assist Independents with that task. I have often spoken of the need for State and Federal uniformity when it comes to donation laws.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Coffs Harbour and the member for Murray-Darling will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: With Labor in power in Canberra and in all the States there is a great opportunity for cooperation to achieve national uniformity in these laws. To that effect I will be meeting the Special Minister of State, Senator John Faulkner, to progress further reform in this area. The measures that I outlined today are the first step. There will be further reforms in this area of donations, disclosure and accountability when it comes to electoral funding.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Following his decision to sack Port Macquarie-Hastings Council for a cost blow-out, will he now apply the same scrutiny and sack the Deputy Premier for losing more than $100 million on the Tcard contract, the Minister for Water for a $500 million desalination blow-out, the Minister for Planning for being compromised, the Minister for Ports for conflicts of interest, the Minister for Health for mismanagement, including Bathurst hospital, and the Minister for Community Services when a child known to the Department of Community Services dies every nine days?

Mr John Aquilina: Point of order—

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

Mr John Aquilina: The Leader of The Nationals has been here long enough to know that question time is a time for members to seek facts.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order. I ask members to cease interjecting.

Mr John Aquilina: Question time is a time for members to seek facts. Clearly, the Leader of The Nationals is being argumentative. He asked an argumentative question that in no way aims to seek facts. If the member wishes to ask a question that seeks facts relevant to the matter that he has raised he should reword his question appropriately.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: To the point of order: The question that was asked contained some facts but the Leader of the Nationals clearly asked the Premier whether he would apply to Ministers in this House the same standards he applied to Port Macquarie-Hastings Council. His question contained some items of fact, but I think most questions have to do so. He asked the Premier a simple question about applying the same standards.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no doubt that the question is argumentative. However, there is enough substance in the question for me to allow it. Given that it is such a broad-ranging question, I will not entertain points of order in relation to relevance.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The question asked by the Leader of The Nationals sums up the Opposition. It is interesting that the Leader of The Nationals started in Port Macquarie.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Clarence, the member for Port Stephens and the member for Hawkesbury to order for the third time because they are holding up documents.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Why does he not apologise to the people of Port Macquarie for privatising their hospital? Why does he not apologise to the people of New South Wales? In the process of privatising that hospital the Auditor-General said, "You gave it away and then made the taxpayer pay for it twice over." In relation to transport, why does the Leader of The Nationals not turn to the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to apologise for the $800 million that was lost as part of the southern rail link? Do Opposition members remember the project that was signed in the dying days of the Fahey Government? The then Premier stood up in Parliament and said, "At no cost to taxpayers we are building a southern rail link." And $800 million later taxpayers have had to foot the bill for the southern rail link transport disaster—the one that we were told would not cost New South Wales taxpayers one cent.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clarence will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is one year after the election and the Coalition still does not have a water policy. Before the last election the Leader of the Opposition said that he would rather see New South Wales turned into the Sahara desert before he would build a desalination plant. That was his policy at the last election. We now have a desalination plant that is twice the capacity at less the cost, along with recycling projects such as the Western Sydney recycling initiative. Twelve months later this Opposition still has no policy on water, let alone a policy on anything.

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

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order does not relate to relevance; it is a question. Will the Premier put this matter—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition has been most unparliamentary today.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is because he is dressed for the Sahara. This Opposition does not have any plan to secure this State's future energy needs; that is what it is about. Twelve months later the man who was so desperate to become leader and who knifed all those other leaders does not have a policy. That is not surprising because he said, "You have to wait two years before I release anything." No wonder! There is good policy and there is bad policy. We might be going through a tough time, but the Leader of the Opposition should have a look at what is being said about him. They want someone who is not even in his party room, let alone anybody sitting beside him or behind him. As Peter Ruehl said in the Australian Financial Review, the Leader of the Opposition has been given a Maserati and he is unable to drive it.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). Will the Minister update the House on the Government's continued efforts to cut smoking rates?

The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Minister commences her reply, I advise the member for Coffs Harbour and the Leader of The Nationals that if they continue to call out they will be dealt with swiftly.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: Smoking is the greatest cause of premature death in New South Wales. Each year in New South Wales smoking causes more than 6,500 deaths. Smoking continues to be a major burden on our public hospitals, with more than 55,000 hospital visits a year attributable to tobacco smoking. The cost to the New South Wales community in 1999 as a result of tobacco smoking was conservatively estimated to be $6.6 billion. We see the advertisements, we see the warnings on cigarette packets and we know the facts: tobacco causes cancer, heart disease, gangrene and stroke, and will kill half of all smokers. Research suggests that the overwhelming majority of smokers start smoking before the age of 25 years. In fact, it says that 8 in 10 smokers start smoking in their teens. By the age of 20 years, 8 out of 10 of these smokers regret that they ever started smoking, having underestimated the addictive powers of nicotine.

We must work together to help the next generation of children avoid a lifetime of addiction to this terrible habit. Young people are more influenced by tobacco marketing and gimmicks than adults, as revealed in all of our research. We need to reduce our children's exposure to cigarettes. For these reasons the New South Wales Government already has undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at tobacco companies promoting specific youth marketing ploys. For example, we have banned the sale of fruit and confectionery-flavoured cigarettes. These cigarettes were placed in packets designed to glow under disco lights and had flavours such as chocolate, strawberry and lime and were deliberately aimed at a youth demographic. We have banned these cigarettes from sale in New South Wales. Further, we have banned mobile vendors of tobacco products at youth events.

Cigarette products still are far too visible to children. Every suburban shopping centre has huge displays of cigarette packets for sale alongside lollies, chips and other children's treats. We need to find ways to remove the visual lure of cigarettes to children at their local shops. Research tells us that 9 out of 10 community members surveyed believe that cigarettes should not be displayed at shop counters. In fact, they believe cigarettes should be placed out of the sight of children. We must find ways to prevent children from marketing ploys that aim to tempt them to take up smoking. We need also to help smokers, who are trying to quit, from constant bombardment at supermarket checkouts, which display cigarettes literally in front of them to entice them to smoke.

We not only want to stop kids from taking up smoking; we also must act to protect vulnerable young lungs from the harms of tobacco. In particular, it is incredibly harmful for young lungs to inhale concentrated tobacco smoke when an adult smokes in the family car with a child present and the car windows wound up. We know that a child exposed to that level of concentrated tobacco smoke is more likely to take up the habit later in life and become a smoker. Today I announced a package of measures to reduce children's exposure to cigarettes. That package will be released for community consultation and I urge all members of the House to become involved in this process, rather than heckling the proposal. The effects of tobacco smoking are serious public health issues and should not be the subject of continued heckling by members opposite.

The proposed measures include banning smoking in cars with child passengers, a move that 90 per cent of the community supports. The proposed measures will ban shop counter displays of cigarettes by keeping cigarettes out of the sight of children; toughen registration and licensing of tobacco retailers to enable immediate deregistration if convicted of selling cigarettes to minors; and restrict employees under 18 years of age from being able to sell tobacco products. Further, the measures include a broad review of tobacco marketing and gimmicks, for example, cigarette warmers, electric cigarettes and any form of giveaways when tobacco companies go to corporate events and fashion shows. The measures also include a continued commitment to public education campaigns that encourage adult smokers to quit, a factor that has contributed to strong declines in teenage smoking rates.

A number of members in this place have long been dedicated advocates of children's rights to a smoke-free life, but few more so than Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I am pleased to inform the House that canvassed in this discussion paper are measures of which he has been a long-term staunch advocate. The Government looks forward to working with him and other members in this process. The number of smokers in New South Wales is declining. Our smoking rates now are amongst the lowest in the world. In fact, in New South Wales, we have an estimated 155,800 fewer adult smokers than in 2003. We are heading in the right direction. To date our progress reflects the New South Wales Government proactive policy and program initiatives aimed at meeting declining smoking rates. That is our ultimate goal.

Proactive policy changes have altered the social environment whereby today smoking is no longer the norm. Significant progress has been made over the past decade, nevertheless, we must remember that there is no room for complacency; we need to keep the push going. We must remember that adolescence is the key life phase for initiation to smoking. We need further measures to protect our children from tobacco-caused harm. We will continue to lead towards a non-smoking culture in New South Wales.

I cannot imagine a parent in this State who wants their children exposed to the marketing of cigarettes and to be tempted by a habit that in almost every case leads to addiction and cuts years out of individual lives. I do not believe any parent struggling with their own addictions to cigarettes wants to pass that legacy on to their children. These measures are about helping to prevent that process. I welcome the upcoming consultation process and steps to improve the health of New South Wales families now and into the future. I encourage the New South Wales community to have its say.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I direct my question to the Premier. Why has the Premier allowed an incompetent Minister for Health to remain on his front bench when, after five months, she still cannot give the brave women who have come to this Parliament today any answers as to why they were mutilated by a doctor re-employed by the health service despite a red flag being placed against his name?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Let me say at the outset that the series of accounts that have surfaced in the past week about this doctor are disturbing in the extreme. Our medical practitioners hold a privileged position of trust within the community. When that trust is breached, the resulting stories often are horrific and heartbreaking. To the women in the public gallery today, I commend you for your courage in coming forward and I am sorry for the awful experiences you have suffered at the hands of someone who has acted so despicably. I am advised that a helpline has been established and I encourage all women who have been affected to come forward and assist. I am advised further that any new complaints will be referred immediately for investigation by the Health Care Complaints Commission and the police, as well as previous complaints being reviewed as part of those investigations.

I am advised further that a police strike force has been established to investigate the allegations made by the patients. Strike Force Tarella comprises detectives from the State Crime Command's Child Protection and Sex Crimes Squad and the far South Coast Local Area Command. Yesterday, strike force detectives met with Lorraine Long from the Medical Error Action Group at New South Wales police headquarters. Ms Long is continuing to work with detectives to prioritise matters for referral to the strike force.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order. The question specifically related to the inaction by the Minister for Health after five months. The Premier is talking about what is happening from today.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to resume her seat. The answer clearly is relevant to the question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have outlined a series of actions that have been taken. In conclusion, let me say that our thoughts are with these brave and courageous women.

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of police efforts to crack down on Middle Eastern organised crime?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and I acknowledge her interest and that of many other members on the Government side of the House in policing matters generally, and in the efforts of police in cracking down on the Middle Eastern organised crime particularly. Middle Eastern organised crime is a major issue for New South Wales police and for all of the hardworking law-abiding people of New South Wales. The Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad [MEOCS] has made significant progress in taking some of the State's most dangerous gang members off our streets. I am proud to report that in the past year the squad, known among police as MEOCS, has achieved startling results in disrupting and driving down crime.

I am informed that 556 suspects linked to Middle Eastern crime were arrested in 2007 and charged with more than 1,500 offences. The list of charges brought against the suspects in the 12 months to December include 281 charges for drugs, 126 firearms charges, 140 theft and fraud charges, 41 violence charges, and more than 700 traffic-related offences. The squad is not letting up on its efforts in targeting violent thugs. Last month alone they made 37 arrests and laid 124 charges. MEOCS has worked incredibly hard to take dangerous criminals off our streets, stop them from pushing dangerous drugs onto our children and threatening the safety of hardworking families.

During 2007 illicit drugs worth an estimated $2.6 million were taken off the streets by the squad. More than $1.5 million in cash was seized as well as a variety of guns, ammunition and knives. These are great results and the police deserve our recognition and praise. But members opposite do not support the good work of the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad. If members opposite had their way, there would not be a police team dedicated to smashing violent criminal networks. During the last budget estimates hearing the Opposition questioned the Commissioner of Police on why we need a Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad. When I stated on the record that it was clear from the line of questioning that the Opposition does not support the work of MEOCS, my claim went unchallenged.

The Opposition's extraordinary attack on this squad, which is protecting the good people of this State, remains unexplained. Before the last election the member for Vaucluse was running around half naked half the time and making all sorts of wild threats about what he was going to do, and now the Opposition, led by the member for Ku-ring-gai, is saying that they have no interest in Middle East organised crime. What we have come to expect from the Opposition is that it will always attack the New South Wales Police Force. The Opposition has never been willing to congratulate police on the good work they do.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: As the grandson of a policeman, I find his remarks offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to ask for comments to be withdrawn. Will the Minister withdraw his comments?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Everybody was offended by the member for Vaucluse running around half naked. If the Leader of the Opposition is offended by my having said that, I withdraw those words.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lismore will resume his seat. The Minister has withdrawn his remark.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Opposition never supports the police. The Opposition has very real form on that. We know that the Opposition has no policies, much less the concept of a consistent policy. On the other hand, the Government is getting on with the job of running New South Wales. We are introducing tough new laws, supporting police with extensive resources and new technologies, building new police stations—I did not hear the member for Lismore complain about that—and introducing new crime prevention initiatives. The good work of MEOCS is backed by our tough anti-gang laws. Those laws have given police greater powers to get in the faces of criminals and disrupt their activities.

The Iemma Government's anti-gangs package represents Australia's most far-reaching anti-gang laws and includes new offences associated with aggravation, new police powers relating to public disorder, and new offences relating to organised crime groups and recruitment. We are giving police officers and their families new protection from assault, intimidation and other forms of harassment. We are giving the New South Wales Police Force the tough powers they need to take undesirables off our streets, thereby ensuring that those people do not ensnare other young people in a life of crime. In contrast to the Opposition, instead of stooping into the gutter and becoming preoccupied with smear, the Government is getting on with the job. That includes supporting and arming specialised police—teams such as the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. With the State mired in crisis and people facing problems with everything from doctors described as butchers to corrupt planning systems, will he finally admit that he has failed to honour his promise to fix the problems of New South Wales, accept that he is the real problem, and admit that it is time to go? Think of the public, Morris. Resign!

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is reminded that he can ask only one question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Barry, just look at what they have been saying all week about you! They want someone who is not even in this Parliament.

Ms NOREEN HAY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Will she update the House on the progress of negotiations with the Federal Government on a new Australian Health Care Agreement?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The current Australian Health Care Agreement will expire in June this year. Tomorrow Australian health Ministers convene in Sydney to discuss the shape of the next agreement. That agreement presents a historic opportunity for Federal, State and Territory governments to engage in longer-term structural reform of the Australian public health system. The days of the hospital representing the start of the health system are gone. We are now building a system where care is provided in the community and in people's homes, and a system that supports our hospitals. The new agreement should encompass the entire patient journey from the hospital to the community health centre to the local general practitioner. But significant reform on such a scale requires significant investment.

Historically the delivery of public hospital services has been based on an equal partnership between the Federal and State governments. The equal partnership ended under John Howard. For 11 years, the Federal Government abrogated its responsibilities for public health. Under the Howard Government the Federal share of public hospital funding declined to 41 per cent. The increase in funding under the agreement also fell well short of the increased cost of delivering health services. Since signing of the current agreement in 2002, the New South Wales Government's spending for public health services increased by 51 per cent compared to the Federal Government spending of 20 per cent. Yet since 2001 John Howard had approved private health fund premium rises of 47 per cent.

The Federal Government's appalling neglect of public health was confirmed by its own Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports, which found that the Federal Government is underspending on public health care by $2.2 billion each year. Based on population share, that has meant a loss to New South Wales of $750 million annually. That represents a significant underinvestment in our public healthcare system. I point out that $750 million a year equates to funding each year for 9,000 year 8 registered nurses or almost 60,000 hip replacement procedures. When New South Wales tried to engage the previous Federal Minister in discussions on funding last year, we were met with silence. A key challenge tomorrow is to examine the funding formula in the agreement and to negotiate a new formula that recognises that public hospitals across the country are under more pressure, not less.

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: New South Wales Health has projected that the number of people admitted to hospital for acute care will grow by approximately 2.4 per cent per year over the next four years. That equates to approximately 25,000 additional hospital admissions a year. The increase in the number of people attending public hospital emergency departments is also likely to be even higher—possibly as high as 6 per cent this year—if recent trends continue. It is also important to remember that the general practitioner [GP] workforce shortage, caused by a decade of underinvestment in our medical places in universities, has reduced access to GP services and forced people to seek treatment in emergency departments as the only default option. The Commonwealth has neglected the primary health sector and the States have had to pick up the slack.

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: We have opened nine after-hours GP clinics that are co-located in our public hospitals, with more on the way.

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Unless we get the funding right at both levels of government, it will be difficult to meet the rising demand for health services in New South Wales. To put it bluntly, the New South Wales Government cannot continue to make up the shortfall in Commonwealth Government funding. And nor should we have to! Recently I wrote to the Federal Minister for Health, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, seeking a fairer funding arrangement—an arrangement where both governments will equally share the costs of service provision; an arrangement where the growth in demand and increased costs of health care delivery will be matched by the growth in funding.

New South Wales also strongly advocates that the scope of the current Australian Health Care Agreement needs to be expanded beyond public hospital services. The key challenge will be to ensure that the new scope of the agreement is supported by a genuine funding partnership that equitably shares the risks and the benefits. As funding partners, the Commonwealth and New South Wales must work together to ensure that New South Wales residents have access to the right health services in the right place at the right time. The key issues that I will be pursuing tomorrow include a better system for the management of people with chronic conditions, to support them to live as independently as possible in the community and to avoid unnecessary hospitalisation. We will also be pursuing enhanced access to primary care services to allow more effective prevention and management of health risks, better detection and early intervention at the onset of disease or disability, and improved matching of services to needs.

The New South Wales Government is working closely with the Rudd Government to bring about these improvements. However, it is difficult to discuss increases in the services covered by the agreement without also looking at the increase in investment. We recognise and agree that any investment should be linked to improved performance and accountability for both levels of government. New South Wales will also be willing to work with the Federal Government to develop a series of sensible and constructive performance indicators. We already report extensively on triage times, emergency admission times, off-stretcher time, elective surgery waiting lists and adverse events.

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The Productivity Commission's latest report on government services found that New South Wales residents have greater access to hospital beds and benefit from more government expenditure on health services per person than the national average.

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The report also found that New South Wales has the second highest bed availability rate and exceeded the national benchmark in four of the five triage categories. New South Wales provides a range of performance data to national bodies such as the Productivity Commission and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. So, we are prepared and willing to work with the Federal Government to develop sensible indicators around performance. To that end, I wrote to the Minister outlining a range of new performance indicators for both the States and the Commonwealth that could be included in the new Australian Health Care Agreement—performance indicators that are focused on better patient outcomes.

Possible indicators for the Commonwealth include general practitioner waiting times, general practitioner and specialist attendances in local government areas, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescription rates and aged care places, as well as private hospital admission and presentation data. This would create a more genuine accountability framework for the national health system for both public and private patients. This framework would provide information that is more practical for patients than hospital league tables, which have the potential to mislead the community about services provided in our hospitals. League tables could potentially undermine confidence in the hospital system without any real gains for patients. It would be counterproductive to compare the performance of regional hospitals with metropolitan hospitals, in the same way that it would not make sense to compare hospitals that perform complex, specialised surgery with district hospitals that perform less intensive services.

It would provide a perverse disincentive for hospitals to accept serious, complex cases, and make it more important for hospitals to churn out patients without proper regard for patient outcomes. Arguably, league tables also provide a disincentive for nurses and doctors to report adverse events. New South Wales is ready, willing and able to work with the Federal Government to reform and improve health services. But let me make it clear: The Iemma Government will not accept a new agreement that disadvantages New South Wales. We will fight for a better deal than what we received under Howard.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will cease interjecting.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: We will not accept the status quo. It is time for a return to a fair funding model with a fair funding split and an indexation regime that takes account of the growth in demand for health care and the actual increase in the cost of providing that service. I will be taking that position to the health Ministers' meeting tomorrow, and I look forward to productive discussions with my State and Territory counterparts and the Commonwealth.

Mr PETER DRAPER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Following the announcement by Pacific National that it will withdraw from rail grain haulage, will taxpayers be forced to subsidise country freight services or should country communities expect to see massive increases in heavy vehicle movements on unsuitable roads?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: This issue is of real concern to The Nationals as well as Country Labor members of this House. The member for Tamworth has written to me about this matter. After three or four years of desperate conditions among our grain farmers, when there has been virtually no grain to haul, and now with a bumper crop this season—I heard an estimate of about nine million tonnes starting to be harvested in October and later this year—

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: It is a shame that at the end of last year Pacific National announced that it was withdrawing from grain haulage. That is a real kick in the teeth for many country people and in particular grain farmers who have done it so tough. The Government is concerned about the situation. I know that the decision is causing concern for the industry. Let me say from the outset that the Government is focused on ensuring that we get the best use of our funds. That is why last week I asked the Director General of the Ministry of Transport to convene an urgent meeting of the relevant parties to see how we could move forward on this issue.

At that meeting on Monday were representatives of GrainCorp, Pacific National, the New South Wales Farmers Federation, the Australian Wheat Board, the Grain Growers Association, Railcorp, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation and union representatives. It was clear from that meeting that all the parties—the grain growers, the grain companies and the freight companies—were keen to work on this together into the future to get a sensible outcome. It was acknowledged that at the end of the day this matter will be resolved at the industry level; it cannot be resolved by the New South Wales Government alone.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: We play a role, but at the end of the day, the solution will have to be based on commercial arrangements between the grain growers and the carriers. The Government will make decisions on the future of the rail infrastructure based on the success of those ongoing negotiations. We have already provided a three-year funding commitment to continue the operation of the lines through what were a tough three years. Some $69 million was spent in those three years despite the fact that little grain was actually hauled, but the New South Wales Government was committed to that rail infrastructure. The Government has put in place other funding arrangements and will continue to assist Pacific National and the industry to reach a commercial agreement that sees the continued use of rail for bulk grain transportation into the future.

I am pleased to say that the Federal Government will play a role, as was announced prior to the Federal election, and convene a working party. Tomorrow I will speak to the Federal Minister responsible, Anthony Albenese, to see how we can move forward together. I acknowledge the work of the member for Tamworth in representing his members. I also acknowledge the contribution of the member for Barwon. I understand that he will shortly be meeting with representatives from my office to offer further insight about the grain industry, which is important to his electorate. A solution will be reached to what is, as I am sure most people would acknowledge, a complex matter. This Government is working with the Federal Government, industry, carriers and also the union movement to see how it can secure a positive way forward.

Ms SONIA HORNERY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's efforts to improve reporting on child welfare?

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

Mr KEVIN GREENE: I thank the member for Wallsend for this very important question. A lot has changed in the Department of Community Services in recent years. The department has over 700 more caseworkers in the field responding to reports of children who may be at risk of harm and approximately 2,000 families are participating in the early intervention program Brighter Futures and getting help before their problems reach crisis point. Approximately 12,700 children are in out-of-home care who, for a range of reasons, can no longer live safely at home. That is an increase from just over 9,200 in June 2002. The department has a well-trained, highly professional workforce with degree-minimum qualifications, recruited through an innovative process that tests their ability to cope with the day-to-day demands of being a caseworker. It has the highest-paid foster carers in the country, with thousands of families generously opening their homes to children in need.

The Department of Community Services has vastly improved responses to critical reports, with virtually all the most urgent cases allocated within the designated timeframe—which is an increase from just over half prior to its reforms. It has joint investigation response teams involving departmental caseworkers, police and health staff working together to investigate serious allegations of abuse. The Government has established a Special Commission of Inquiry, headed by James Wood, with clear terms of reference designed to look at how all parts of the child protection sector can work together better to identify and respond to children who might be at risk of harm. They are all important and critical achievements, but there is always more to do.

I make clear that where measures can be put in place to improve the identification or response to children at risk of harm those options should be pursued. While the Special Commission of Inquiry does its important work—work that will give the whole child protection sector a clear insight into how we can work together to best help vulnerable children—we need to keep moving forward. Members already know that calls to the Department of Community Services helpline are escalating, and escalating rapidly. Last year the helpline received 286,000 reports, which is up by more than 80 per cent over the past five years. And that trend is set to continue.

It is anticipated that the helpline will receive up to 820 calls and 150 faxes per day each week in 2008. The vast majority of reports, approximately three-quarters, to the helpline come from mandatory reporters. Since the helpline was established in 2000 there have been a number of improvements, including the introduction of a specific phone number for reporters from the education sector that now has a response time of approximately 90 seconds. Earlier this year the Government announced calls for tenders to upgrade the technology that underpins the helpline centre.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: I am finding it increasingly difficult to hear due to the level of noise in the Chamber.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold that point of order. There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr KEVIN GREENE: Community Services is also testing initiatives to make the best use of the helpline's telephone service. This month a pilot project was commenced which, for the first time, explores the use of electronic reporting for non-urgent child protection reports. The pilot will help determine how we can capitalise on technology to ensure that low-level reports are still made and acted on appropriately, while relieving some of the pressure on the front line to better deal with more critical reports. To be very clear about this, e-reporting is only for reporting concerns that do not require an immediate response by the Department of Community Services. They may include a child coming to school regularly with dirty clothes, children who consistently do not have lunch provided for them or a child who a teacher believes is being exposed to repeated verbal violence between the parents. By minimising the need for mandatory reporters to call and verbally report these events, helpline staff are freed up to answer other calls from members of the public or other mandatory reporters that are of a more serious nature.

Twenty-eight schools from Sydney, the Central Coast and Hunter regions have been selected to be part of the trial, which will run until April. Those schools have been assisted in registering and operating the system, and the Department of Community Services has developed simulations to assist staff in completing the electronic forms. Fact sheets have been distributed to the schools and a technical help desk is in operation to address operational issues. At the completion of this first phase of the trial a comprehensive evaluation will be undertaken to ensure that the program is functional, effective and easy to use for staff both at schools and within the Department of Community Services before a broader rollout is commenced.

E-reporting will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It provides an instant receipt to the reporter and a copy of the full transcript of the e-report is sent to the Department of Community Services. The e-reporting project will not affect the normal reporting process for education mandatory reporters regarding serious concerns such as serious physical injury to a child or young person requiring medical attention, serious neglect of a child or young person, domestic violence involving serious injury and/or use of a weapon, sexual abuse and immediate safety issues. In each of those circumstances reports must be made to the Department of Community Services education helpline or, in life-threatening emergencies, by phoning the emergency services 000 number. If this e-reporting initiative is as successful as I hope it will be, I look forward to informing the House down the track that it has been expanded even further.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: On 28 November 2007 the Leader of The Nationals asked me a question in relation to Yass District Hospital Radiology services about which I have some further details. I am advised that Mrs Holland arrived by ambulance at Yass hospital emergency department at 6.10 p.m. on 3 October 2007. Mrs Holland was examined by the doctor and was thought to have a possible broken pelvis or left hip. As Mrs Holland required specialised treatment that is not delivered at Yass hospital, attempts were made to secure a bed at the Canberra Hospital in the Australian Capital Territory. Unfortunately, the Canberra Hospital would not accept the patient due to bed unavailability.

As there was no possibility of Mrs Holland being transferred that evening, it was decided that it was clinically appropriate for Mrs Holland to stay in Yass hospital overnight and undergo an x-ray the following morning. Mrs Holland was given appropriate pain management ordered by her medical officer. I am advised that Mrs Holland was transferred to Bowral private hospital on 4 October to undergo surgery. The Greater Southern Area Health Service, in conjunction with Australian Capital Territory Health, has finalised policies to address bed access issues in the Australian Capital Territory and appropriate escalation procedures so that patients from New South Wales can gain appropriate access to Australian Capital Territory services in a timely fashion.

Question time concluded.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bega cannot take a point of order as there is no business before the House.

Mr Andrew Constance: Does this mean I get an answer on—

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

Mr Frank Sartor tabled, pursuant to section 26 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, variations of the receipts and payments estimates and appropriations for 2007-2008 arising from the provision by the Commonwealth of specific purpose payments in excess of the amounts included in the State's receipts and payments estimates.

Mr Paul Pearce, as Chair, tabled the report entitled "Review of the Proposed Draft Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation 2008", dated February 2008.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Paul Pearce.

Petition requesting that pets be allowed on public transport, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting the upgrading of Edgecliff interchange, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting an express train service from Bathurst to Sydney departing Bathurst at 6.00 a.m. and a return service departing Central Station at 5.30 p.m., received from Mr Gerard Martin.

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

Petition asking that TAFE fees be frozen at the 2007 level until 2011, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Petition requesting facilitation of the Big W development at Taylor Oval, Moree, received from Mr Kevin Humphries.

Petitions requesting increased funding for public libraries, received from Mr Greg Aplin, Mr Steve Cansdell, Mr Thomas George, Mr Daryl Maguire, Mr Gerard Martin, Mr Donald Page, Mr Geoff Provest, Mr John Turner 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 stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment, received from Mr Donald Page.

Petition requesting that a hydrotherapy pool be installed at the rehabilitation unit at Ballina Hospital, received from Mr Donald Page.

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

Petition requesting funding for a public radiotherapy unit on the Central Coast, received from Ms Marie Andrews.

Petition asking that the police report on the actions of Dr Balaji Rao be submitted to the New South Wales Coroner's Office immediately upon its completion, received from Mr John Williams.

Petition calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

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

Petition requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

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

Petition requesting the retention of the current NSW Fisheries compliance officer positions in rural and regional New South Wales in their current locations, received from Mr John Williams.

Petition requesting that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags be displayed along with the New South Wales and Australian flags in the Legislative Assembly Chamber, received from Mr Phillip Costa.

Petitions opposing increased national park camping fees, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mr John Turner.

Petition requesting that the Government not sell any inner city public housing stock and that it increase funding for public housing maintenance, received from Ms Clover Moore.

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

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.21 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Drink and Food Spiking) Bill 2008.
This bill marks the New South Wales Government's response to growing community concerns about the practice of drink spiking by introducing a new two-year summary offence for drink and food spiking, and modernising existing offences relevant to drink spiking to ensure that they apply to the use of alcohol. Drink spiking is an insidious practice. It was identified as a significant problem throughout Australia in an Australian Institute of Criminology report. The institute estimated that up to 4,000 cases of drink spiking occur across Australia each year, that the spiking agent most commonly used was alcohol, that one-third of drink spikings involve sexual assault, that four out of five victims were young women and that only one in six cases of drink spiking were reported to police.

Drink spiking is not harmless or simply a funny prank; it has a variety of negative physical and emotional effects on the victim. In the majority of incidents the physical effects include memory loss and nausea. Also common are intoxication, vomiting, unconsciousness and even paralysis. Those effects are, of course, compounded if there is additional associated criminal behaviour. Following the Australian Institute of Criminology report the Standing Committee of Attorneys General commissioned the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee to examine the issue. The committee, which finalised its report in July 2007, found that there were already a number of State and Territory criminal laws of general application covering the most serious cases of drink spiking and its consequences. Despite the existence of these laws, the committee identified a gap in the law when it came to addressing the act of drink spiking itself. As a result, the committee devised a model food and drink spiking offence. To date, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia have also introduced offences similar to the model food and drink spiking offence.

The present bill implements the model offence by inserting new section 38A into the Crimes Act. An offence under section 38A is committed if a person causes another person to be given or to consume drink or food containing an intoxicating substance, or more of any such substance than the other person would expect it to contain in circumstances where, first, the other person is not aware the drink or food contains the substance, or that quantity of the substance; and, secondly, the person intends the other person to be harmed by the consumption of the drink or food. For the purposes of section 38A, "harm" includes an impairment of the senses or understanding of a person that the person might reasonably be expected to object to in the circumstances. The term "impair" includes to further impair. The term "intoxicating substance" is broadly defined to include "alcohol or a narcotic drug or any other substance that affects a person's senses or understanding". For the purposes of the proposed new section 38A, giving a person food or drink includes preparing the drink or food for the person or making it available for consumption by the person.

In keeping with the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee's recommendation, the new offence carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units, which currently amounts to $11,000. That penalty is appropriate considering that the offence is at the lower end of the drink-spiking continuum, and fits within the tiered penalty structure currently applying to the more serious drink-spiking offences in the Crimes Act. Currently section 38 of the Crimes Act provides for using chloroform, laudanum or other stupefying or overpowering drugs to commit or assist in the commission of an indictable offence, with a maximum penalty of 25 years. The Act also provides, under section 39, for administering any poison or other destructive or noxious thing to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm, maximum penalty ten years; and under section 41, for administering any poison or other destructive or noxious thing to injure or cause distress or pain, maximum penalty five years.

Under proposed new section 38A, two defences are available. Firstly, it will be a defence where the person had reasonable cause to believe that each person who was likely to consume the drink or food would not have objected to consuming the drink or food if the person was aware of the presence and quantity of the intoxicating substance in the drink or food. Secondly, there is a defence when a person uses an intoxicating substance in the course of a medical, dental or other health professional practice. Those defences will serve to clarify the extent of the application of the offence and ensure that prosecutions and convictions are targeted towards appropriate levels and categories of criminality.

In addition to introducing the new drink and food spiking offence, the bill modernises the more serious offences in the Crimes Act that are relevant to drink spiking and that carry penalties up to 25 years imprisonment, which I have previously outlined. These changes will ensure that those more serious offences apply to alcohol, the most commonly used drink-spiking agent. In summary, this bill ensures that the sinister practice of drink spiking is tackled at all levels—from the most serious cases to those at the lower end of the scale—with tiered penalties in place to ensure that offenders face appropriate punishment. The additional amendments in the bill will bring existing drink-spiking offences into the twenty-first century, and ensure that police have a range of options when charging persons who are accused of using alcohol as a drink-spiking agent. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Graham West.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [3.29 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The main purpose of the proposal before the House is to amend the provisions of the Totalizator Act 1997 relating to the limitations placed on the licensee, Tabcorp, in respect of the commission amounts that may be deducted from totalizator betting pools. This bill will amend section 69 of the Act to delete references to the overall annual commission cap of 16 per cent. These references will be replaced with a requirement for Tabcorp to establish individual product-based caps for each type of totalizator pool conducted. The intent of these changes is to update the current restrictions on totalizator commission pricing, which are outdated. The restrictions prevent stakeholders, including the racing industry, from achieving revenue growth as punting preferences change over time.

The new arrangements have been put forward by the industry, and are supported by Tabcorp. The Government is pleased to be able to support their proposal. The arrangements are essentially the same as those approved in Victoria during 2007. The background to this issue goes back to the privatisation of the New South Wales TAB in 1998. That initiative has been a significant achievement of the New South Wales Labor Government, with New South Wales racing industry revenues from the TAB having escalated by almost $100 million, or 79 per cent, in the period from 1996-97 to 2006-07. In order to protect TAB punters from inappropriate pricing by the exclusive licence holder, currently Tabcorp, the Government imposed a limit on the amount of total commission, as a proportion of turnover, that the licensee could deduct from totalizator pools during any single financial year. This annual take-out rate was set under the Totalizator Act at 16 per cent. In addition, a further cap was set at 25 per cent for any individual betting pool.

In reality, these two measures allowed the TAB to move individual product rates up and down, within the constraints of the annual average limit of 16 per cent and a top rate for any one product of 25 per cent. The proposed changes will continue to protect TAB punters from any form of price gouging. The changes will leave the 25 per cent maximum take-out rate in place, and will replace the 16 per cent annual average cap with a defined cap for each betting pool currently offered by Tabcorp. Those caps will be set at the current rates being charged for each product, which are as follows: win, 14.5 per cent; place, 14.25 per cent; quinella, 14.75 per cent; exacta, 16.5 per cent; trifecta, 21 per cent; duet, 14.5 per cent; doubles, 17 per cent; first 4, 22.5 per cent; quadrella, 20 per cent; and FootyTAB, 25 per cent.

For clarity, this means that Tabcorp will not be able to raise rates for any existing product. Win betting will be locked in at 14.5 per cent, place betting at 14.25 per cent, trifecta betting at 21 per cent, and so on. These individual rates will be approved by the Minister and published in the TAB Totalizator Betting Rules. Similarly, any new product that Tabcorp wants to introduce will require a new rate to be set by Tabcorp and approved by the Minister, which must fall below the 25 per cent maximum cap. I might stress that these are maximum caps and that Tabcorp will retain the ability to reduce an individual totalizator take-out at any time to enable the running of promotional sales at certain times of the year to stimulate wagering interest. I am informed that the New South Wales TAB shares the lowest take-out rates of any racing totalizator operator in the world. For example, the return to punters in Australia of around 84 per cent of total wagers compares with around 77 per cent in the United Kingdom, 69 per cent in France, 74 per cent in Japan and 79 per cent in the United States.

The reforms will allow new revenue growth to be tapped as punters' betting preferences continue to shift towards the exotic higher take-out betting options such as first 4 and quadrella. These relatively new products, together with the longstanding trifecta, are growing in popularity, supported by Tabcorp's innovative flexi betting option, which allows punters to take percentage bets involving multiple combinations of contestants in any race. The proposed reform of the commission caps relating to totalizator wagering in this State is a responsible move by the Government in responding to the wishes of the New South Wales racing industry, which is reliant on TAB revenues for its future financial viability. The initiative is a timely one, given the New South Wales racing industry's recent struggle with the impacts of the equine influenza outbreak, which has in turn had a drastic effect on its finances.

With the loss of a significant number of thoroughbred and harness meetings in New South Wales and Queensland and the resultant impact on betting, overall TAB payments to the racing industry in 2007-08 will be reduced. Based on current forecasts, this proposal is expected to help offset this downturn by generating around $1.5 million in revenue for the racing industry this financial year, and around $4.5 million next year. Ultimately, the amount of additional revenue generated by this initiative each year will be dependent upon punter demand for the various betting options. It is the Government's desire to see any new revenues generated returned to industry participants through prize money. This will assist in maintaining the viability of the New South Wales racing industry, an industry that provides approximately 50,000 persons in this State with part or all of their livelihood. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Graham West.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [3.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The five-year statutory review of the Gaming Machines Act 2001 was tabled in Parliament on 7 December 2007. At the centrepiece of the proposed package of 42 legislative and non-legislative reforms is the Government's intention to further encourage a reduction in gaming machine numbers through the removal of unnecessary red tape and the strengthening of the Act's existing harm minimisation measures to further assist problem gamblers. At the time I announced a temporary freeze on certain gaming applications. As a consequence of the time lag between announcing the reforms in December 2007 and developing a comprehensive package of reforms for Parliament to consider, it is necessary to introduce these changes to prevent venue operators rushing through new gaming machine applications in the meantime.

The first measure in this bill will impose a freeze on the approval of new social impact assessment applications by hotels and clubs to increase their gaming machine thresholds or, in simple terms, the maximum number of gaming machines that may be authorised to be kept in their venues. This freeze will remain in place until the commencement of the new Gaming Machines Act, which will contain a new and strengthened method for assessing the impact of additional gaming machines in an area. Many local communities already have a higher than average number of gaming machines and they do not want or need any more.

This new method will make it very difficult for hotels and clubs located within certain local government areas to obtain an increase in the number of gaming machines that may be authorised to be kept in their venues. These local government areas will already exhibit a high density of gaming machines, a high level of gaming machine expenditure and a low socioeconomic index for areas as provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Hotels and clubs located within local government areas such as Fairfield, Canterbury, Ashfield, Auburn, Marrickville, Burwood and Bankstown are expected to be captured by this new and strengthened process.

The second measure in this bill relates to the Gaming Machines Act review recommendation to impose a 15 per cent cap on the number of multi-terminal gaming machines that a club may operate on its premises. This bill will impose a temporary freeze on new applications for additional multi-terminal gaming machines by clubs already operating above the proposed 15 per cent cap. It will also impose a temporary freeze on new applications by clubs that would potentially breach the proposed multiterminal gaming machine cap. It should be noted that the final policy determination on this proposed cap is subject to further consultation. The freeze is an interim measure that will remain in place until the finalisation of the new Gaming Machines Act.

Finally, the bill will also clarify who is required to consent to the transfer of poker machine entitlements from a leased hotel. Currently under the Act the Liquor Administration Board must take into consideration when making a decision on an application to transfer poker machine entitlements any submissions that attest to a person's relevant financial interest in the hotelier's licence. The relevant financial interest excludes persons who are the owner of a hotel. Within the review's report I proposed to amend the legislation to ensure that the owner of a hotel who has a beneficial interest in the licence will be able to object to the transfer of entitlements from a leased hotel.

This amendment will prevent new applications for the sale of poker machine entitlements by lessees where consent has not been given by the lessor and others with a financial interest in the licence or business. These amendments apply to applications lodged since 7 December 2007. These amendments do not apply to applications lodged before the announcement. I reiterate that we are continuing to consult with the industry on these measures as we develop a final package to bring before this House. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Nathan Rees.

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie—Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Water) [3.43 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Iemma Government wants New South Wales to be the leader in food safety in Australia, which is why it has taken pioneering steps to enhance food safety by establishing the New South Wales Food Authority—the only fully integrated food safety agency in Australia. Again, this bill reflects the Government's strong commitment to food safety issues in this State. This is an important bill for consumers in New South Wales.

In another Australian first, this bill will allow details of food safety breaches to be made public. As a result, consumers in New South Wales will be able to make more informed choices when it comes to food safety. In addition to people being better informed about food safety, another feature of this bill is the incentive it provides to the food industry to boost its performance. Through the local government partnership, the Food Authority and local councils work in concert to enforce the Food Act 2003. This strategy is improving food safety capabilities and is ensuring that available resources are maximised towards food safety outcomes.

In the past 12 months, the Food Authority alone successfully doubled its rate of prosecutions. It finalised 16 prosecutions comprising 70 charges, which saw a total of $139,000 in fines being imposed and $224,000 in costs being awarded. And this is before we include those prosecutions that are conducted by important enforcement agencies such as local councils. These penalties actively serve as notice to rogue operators that the Government will not hesitate to prosecute, fine or shut down businesses that put consumers at risk and do not follow the letter of the law. However, as members would be aware, the public's access to information about the performance of food businesses, particularly food law breaches, has emerged as a significant issue in the past year.

In response to public debate, the Food Authority commenced publishing Food Act convictions on its website in July 2007. The Government recognised that publication of successful convictions would provide additional deterrents for non-compliance by food businesses. In addition it also undertook a review to identify options for the publication of similar details of food businesses that are issued with a penalty notice for food safety breaches. In doing so the New South Wales Government's objective were clear—to push the boundaries in enhancing the public's knowledge about food safety breaches without unfair impacts on the integrity and reputation of food businesses, and to deliver the net effect of improving consumer information and industry standards.

To facilitate this review, the Food Authority convened a stakeholder forum on 15 August 2007. The forum was co-hosted with the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales and was well attended by a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including those from the food industry, local government and consumer advocacy groups. The forum was critically important, as the feedback was used to refine proposals and is properly reflected in the legislation that is now before the House.

The Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill 2008 amends the Food Act 2003 to achieve three key objectives. Firstly, it finetunes the current power of the Food Authority to publish information about convictions. The bill will permit the publication of such information directly on its website without first having to publish the information in a newspaper or the Government Gazette, as is currently the case. This amendment ensures that information is made available as quickly as possible and in a more accessible way. It also facilitates the publication of convictions that have been secured by other enforcement agencies under the Food Act. This is appropriate, given that under the Food Act local councils perform a significant proportion of enforcement activity. The public has the right to know details of all Food Act convictions, regardless of which level of government takes action.

Secondly, the bill expands the publication requirements of names and offenders under the Act. It will give the Food Authority power to publish information about penalty notices relating to the sale and handling of food issued under the Act. Penalty notices are issued for poor food handling practices, which the public has a right to know about, as well as for other less dangerous breaches of the Food Act. I should add that offences that do not inform the public of the food safety performance matters will be excluded from publication. An example might be where a validly licensed food business fails to display its licence at the premises as required and no other food safety issues are involved.

Thirdly, a limitation of liability in respect of the disclosure and publication of such information will be provided. This protection ensures that not only can the Food Authority legally publish the relevant breach information but also that fair dealing and reporting of those matters will be protected. This is important as it will protect all proper forms of information dissemination that promotes both public interest and awareness in food safety matters. The key policy justification underpinning the proposed amendments in the bill is clear: that the public has a right to information on food law breaches by retail and food service businesses. Informed consumers should be able to take compliance history into account when deciding where to eat or where to shop.

The authority works with local government to administer and enforce aspects of the Food Act, its regulations and the Food Standards Code. Many local councils undertake food premises inspections and follow up enforcement action in retail and food service businesses. The authority's compliance work focuses on the higher risk food businesses in the retail and pre-retail sectors, including primary production. Although the recent public debate has focused on consumer interest in information about restaurants and retail food businesses, the Government considers that the same principle justifies providing information on food law breaches elsewhere in the supply chain. In fact, a restaurant owner or retailer may well be interested in the compliance history of his or her suppliers.

Accordingly this bill entails a through-chain approach—published food law breaches also include those from the pre-retail sectors. For the public to maximise the benefits from these proposals, it is important that any published information is easily accessible and as up to date as possible. Accordingly, these considerations have been included in the design of the proposals. The proposals involve the publication of information on two types of enforcement response to food law breaches: prosecutions, where these result in conviction or a finding of guilt, and penalty notices where uncontested.

It is important to note the key distinction between the two. Prosecution of a person charged with an offence results in conviction or a finding of guilt after a court has heard evidence from both the prosecution and the person charged, and decides it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the offence. Alternatively, the person charged may, after considering the allegation made against him or her, choose to plead guilty to the offence before a court. In contrast, a penalty notice may be served on a person by an authorised officer if it appears to that officer that the person has committed an offence under the legislation. The recipient of a penalty notice has the option of either paying the monetary penalty or contesting the notice by electing to have the matter heard by a court.

It is important to recognise, however, that, by law, the payment of a penalty notice is not to be regarded as admission of liability or otherwise affecting any civil claim or action arising out of the same occurrence. The Government has carefully considered this matter in formulating its policy position on this issue. The fundamental policy challenge has been to strike an appropriate balance between the public's right to meaningful information on the compliance performance of food businesses and fairness to those food businesses, having regard to the potential commercial impact of easily accessible public information on food law breaches.

The Government considers that, ultimately, the public has a right to know that an enforcement officer believed that a food law breach occurred and issued a penalty notice, which is either paid or uncontested. The Government recognises also the potential for collateral benefits of these publication initiatives. Firstly, that publication will provide an additional deterrent for non-compliance by food businesses, and, secondly, greater transparency around enforcement action will help enhance consistency and best practice by those tasked with compliance and enforcement obligations.

I acknowledge the role of local government in assisting to develop and support the proposals contained within the bill. Local government has stepped up to the plate and has acknowledged its key role in this initiative. The stakeholder forum held on Wednesday 15 August 2007 provided for consultation with the food industry, local government, consumer advocacy groups and other stakeholders on the proposals. The forum was co-hosted by the New South Wales Food Authority and the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales. It was jointly opened by the responsible Minister and the local government association president, councillor Genia McCaffery. More than 55 participants attended the forum.

The forum was a very powerful exercise and greatly assisted the Government in advancing this initiative. I thank all those involved for their valuable contribution. On the whole, forum attendees agreed that the main aim of such a system is to provide more information to aid consumer choice, with a longer-term aim to help raise standards across the food industry. It was agreed also that the system needs to strike a balance between the public's right to timely and useful information and fair treatment of food businesses. A range of constructive suggestions to the NSW Food Authority's proposals were put forward to improve efficiency, consistency and equity of the system.

Two key issues raised by stakeholders at the forum are worthy of mention for present purposes. Firstly, the question of consistency between enforcement agencies, and, secondly, the role, if any, of positive information on food law compliance as well as negative information on food law breaches. On the matter of consistency between enforcement agencies, it is anticipated that greater transparency around penalty notices will translate to a tighter administration of the system within councils. Under the food regulation partnership agreed between State and local governments, the food authority is working with local councils to promote best practice and therefore greater consistency in enforcement actions. Guidelines and training for council environmental health officers are an important component of this ongoing work.

Importantly the bill ensures also that an interested person has a right to review publication. This right of review is in addition to the current right available, which allows an election to contest the issue of a penalty notice in the first instance. The food authority will assume responsibility for publication matters and will perform a gatekeeping role promoting consistency in enforcement. In relation to the second issue, stakeholders saw potential merit in exploring systems, such as inspection rating schemes, which publish or display both positive and negative information about the food business.

The food authority has identified that such systems have been implemented with varying degrees of success in a number of countries—in fact, most of these are developmental or trials. Due to the wide range of schemes and publication methods used internationally, and varying reports on their effectiveness and fairness, the authority will continue to explore the efficacy and applicability for such systems. It is important also to show appropriate deference to the nationally consistent food regulation system that operates in Australia. The key benefit of the amendments proposed by this bill is that they relate to breaches of the Food Act, which is a uniformly consistent piece of legislation—it has equivalents in operation in each Australian State and Territory.

The respective food Acts incorporate the Food Standards Code, which is applied across all Australian jurisdictions. Whilst New South Wales is taking the national lead, a consistent Australian approach to a positive-based scheme would be a long-term project requiring national effort and co-operation. The responsible Minister will advise his national counterparts on New South Wales progress and will argue for a national approach in this regard. I should refer also to specific matters in the bill that will be of broader interest to the House. The bill does enable publication of a conviction in circumstances where a person found guilty of an offence receives an order under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. These orders may be made for first offences or in extenuating circumstances.

The main impact is that the person is not convicted of the offence and, therefore, does not have a criminal record. Having considered the matter carefully, the Government's position is that a section 10 order should not entitle the person to confidentiality in relation to the court's finding of guilt. Consumers should always have the right to information on a guilty finding. I would like also to comment on the bill with respect to privacy matters. In order to facilitate the publication of Food Act breaches, it is necessary to have in place appropriate privacy authorisations, which enable the transfer of required information to the food authority. These authorisations reflect the complexities involved in the administration of Food Act compliance arrangements. In short, every local council as well as other agencies are enforcement agencies under the Food Act 2003. Additionally, the administration of penalty notices is undertaken by the State Debt Recovery Office in accordance with the requirement of the Fines Act 1996. It is important to note that any privacy authorisation is limited to the proper purposes of the administration of this new publication scheme.

As I mentioned at the outset, this is an important bill for New South Wales consumers. To illustrate the point I would like to share with the House two examples of serious food breaches, which resulted in the issue of penalty notices. These are the kinds of matters the detail of which, including the name of the companies involved, would be made available to the public once this bill is in force. In this first example, a business was issued a penalty notice under section 17 (2) of the Food Act 2003, which requires that a person must not sell food that is unsuitable. The facts are as follows. A consumer purchased a chicken burger, which contained a white pill embedded into the bottom of the burger bun.

Investigation confirmed that the pill was in fact prescribed to the person who made the burger and it had been placed on the burger wrapping. It was identified that the person took the pill out of its foil casing, placed it on the food wrapping paper and then forgot to take it. The person then made the chicken burger and placed it on this wrapping paper where the pill became embedded in the bottom of the burger bun. The wrapped burger was then sold to the customer. The business concerned did not have an appropriate food safety program in place and the food authority was satisfied that a defence of due diligence was not available.

In this second example, a business was issued a penalty notice under section 21 (1) of the Food Act 2003, which requires that a person must comply with the Food Standards Code. The relevant requirement of the code in this case was that equipment must be designed and constructed so that there is no likelihood that it will cause food contamination and it is able to be easily and effectively cleaned. The inspector's observation were as follows:

Observed fresh baby octopus in a deteriorated cement mixer. Cement mixer was badly rusted, with the edges of the cement mixer breaking off into pieces. A plastic tub below used to catch excess liquid from the mixer contained the pieces of metal which had broken off from the mixer during the processing of the octopus. Deteriorated cement mixer, covered in rust with flaking metal was being used to clean & tenderise fresh octopus. Confirmed during inspection and during recorded interview that the product in the mixer was intended for sale and for human consumption. The business concerned did not have an appropriate food safety program.

I conclude by commending this bill to the House. It represents a victory for consumers who deserve the right to know of those food businesses that are not doing the right thing. Dodgy food businesses that cut corners with food safety are now on notice: if they do not put food safety first, then they could suffer the potential commercial detriment as informed consumers vote with their dollars on food safety matters.

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

Consideration resumed from 27 February 2008.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [3.59 p.m.]: The member for Coffs Harbour has moved a number of very sensible amendments that the Minister proposes to reject on behalf of the Labor Government. It has dawned on people throughout country and coastal New South Wales that the Government has introduced this legislation and amendments have been proposed by various groups who have expressed concern. The Minister did not do her job over the summer, as she promised she would when she introduced the bill in December, and failed to consult.

In November on behalf of the Coastal Rights Association I drew attention to the manner in which zoning for the newly established Batemans Marine Park had been undertaken and stated that the Governor had been misled by the Government. Section 16 subsections (2) to (5) state that the relevant Ministers, who at that time were Minister Debus and Minister Macdonald, were to cause public notice to be given of proposed regulations relating to a zoning plan for the marine park. Section 16 describes the notice that must be given and the issues that must be considered before any further action can be taken in respect of the proposed regulations. The regulations were later signed off by the Government.

The point sought to be made at that time related to the way in which the consultation process was undertaken particularly in respect of trawling. This afternoon concerned fishermen, particularly members of the Coastal Rights Association, pointed out to me that the amending bill is a direct result of the Government becoming aware of having been caught out misrepresenting the situation to the Governor. The misrepresentation was discovered during consultation, and that brought trawling anomalies to light. Because due process was not followed in the creation of the zoning and operational plans for the six marine parks that currently exist, the argument advanced by the fishermen is that the parks were not legally established, and it follows that compliance was not enforceable.

It has been suggested to me that the bill is an attempt to cover up the problem by making changes to the Marine Parks Act regarding the creation of zoning operational plans for marine parks. By deeming all existing zoning operational plans created under section 16 of the 1997 Act to be implied to be repealed but subsequently renewed by new section 17C, the Government is seeking to make the provisions legal. On 13 December 2006 Minister Macdonald described changes effecting the removal of commercial fish trawling and dredging for shellfish as a major change from the draft zoning plan and a big win for the recreational fishing industry. This leads me to discuss the effect of minor changes and their significance.

The Government has misled the people of this State and the Governor in respect of its zoning plans. This bill is a device to clarify the situation and retrospectively rectify the zoning and operational plans applying to the State's marine parks. The concerns relating to the legality of section 16 of the original Act are sought to be addressed by the passing of new section 17C. I commend the Coastal Rights Association for drawing that matter to the attention of the Parliament.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [4.04 p.m.]: I had not intended to participate in consideration of the bill in detail, so I will be brief. As the member for Bega noted, the debate this week has generated a great deal of consternation within communities across New South Wales. Emails are being sent thick and fast from the fishing fraternity who have found that assurances given by the Minister and statements made by Government members in the Parliament are inaccurate. Last night the Government knew full well that if the amendments had been put to a vote, it did not have the numbers, so Government members filibustered for approximately 10 minutes. I note the look on the face of the Minister at the table. I admit that I spoke at length and I promise not to do so now. However, the Government engaged in calculated filibustering.

The member for Swansea espoused the virtues of marine parks—he said how great they are and what a great fisherman he is—so last night I offered to have Parliamentary Counsel draw up a marine park that will cover the area he described in his speech, including places like Blacksmiths, the Swansea Channel and Lake Macquarie, and then we will see whether Labor members become alert to the concerns of the fishing fraternity of New South Wales. I restate that offer in Hansard now. As the member for Wagga Wagga said yesterday, the member for Swansea advocated that course yesterday, and the Opposition will be pleased to have a marine park drawn up. That will test the mettle of the member for Swansea and other Labor members. Today I received an email from Rod Burston, who is spokesman for the New South Wales Fishing Clubs Association. Mr Burston lives in Kiama Downs on the South Coast—an area of Labor electorates. He states:

Dear Mr Fraser,

Today I read your address concerning the Marine Park Amendment Bill currently before the Legislative Assembly. On behalf of members of the NSW Fishing Clubs Association and the vast majority of fishers in NSW, I congratulate you, Andrew Constance and Rob Stokes for so effectively bringing the issues to the attention of Parliament.

The recreational and commercial fishers have been poorly represented by the current government, especially in relation to marine parks. Our organisation is dominated by Labor heartland voters but they are rapidly educating themselves on the issues and losing patience, as you observe to be the case in the seat of Port Stephens.

In your address I notice you refer to an interjection by the Member for Wollongong … "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." I can't find her comments in the record which is a great pity because they would be of interest to fishing families in Wollongong. Are you able to help so I can pass the word around?

I will help because the comment is represented in Hansard as an interruption. I can state categorically, both inside and outside Parliament, that it was the member for Wollongong, Noreen Hay, who made an inane interjection. It was not recorded in Hansard but if I can obtain a film of the debate, it will come through loud and clear, and I will give it to him. His email goes on to state:

As you are aware, there is no requirement for fishers to … operate a GPS while in a marine park. In any case, there is a disclaimer on all GPS sets that they should not be relied upon for navigation. Interestingly, marine park zoning plans have a similar disclaimer! For example, the Bateman's Marine Park Zoning Plan User Guide says "This brochure should not be used for navigation or legal interpretation purposes." I am sure Jerri Rossi will be interested in this.

Those comments indicate that the boundaries are unclear and that those who police them are unclear about the boundaries as well, yet people are being convicted on the word of the fisheries officer or a marine parks officer. The Government's amendment states that no longer will it be a requirement for members of the Department of Environment and Conservation or New South Wales Fisheries to be the compliance officers, so it could be anyone issuing the fine who is overzealous and does not understand the boundaries or other issues relating to the marine park. The problem is that the people who are booking the fishermen are relying on a global positioning satellite but at the same time they are saying that fishermen should not rely on a GPS. In the case of Jerry Rossi, whose GPS was wrong? I suggest it was the one used by the marine parks officers. When Mr Rossi was pulled up in Solitary Islands Marine Park he gave the officers the reading, which they accepted. It is disgraceful that such a situation can arise. Mr Burston further said:

We had a similar incident down here in Jervis Bay MP two years ago. Retired policeman Wayne Topham and his mate were inadvertently fishing in Hammerhead sanctuary zone when they were confronted by marine park officials. They didn't have a GPS and the zone was poorly marked with only one buoy. The boundary of the zone is not perpendicular to the beach as it runs east west while the line of the beach is about SE – NW. They hadn't caught any fish at the time. Another boat fishing deeper in the zone had caught fish but were let off with a caution on the basis they weren't locals. After a two year wait, his case will be heard in Nowra this Friday. You can contact Wayne … for accurate details. Wayne is justifiably angry and we will be more than happy to assist politically after the hearing—

Wayne is a retired police officer who has been unjustly booked under this proposed system—

Thank you for your interest and again for highlighting the issues in Parliament. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need information or assistance in the future.

Rod Burston, who is the spokesman for the New South Wales Fishing Clubs Association, is concerned, as is everyone, about the lack of consultation as highlighted by the member for Bega. Labor members have taken the opportunity to make defamatory remarks in this House about Emeritus Professor Bob Kearney.

Mr David Campbell: Talk about the bill! Don't get down to the gutter.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister wants me to talk about the bill and not get down to the gutter. That was his contribution. Government members lack any understanding. What do they do? They shoot down an emeritus professor inside coward's castle. I tell them to repeat outside this place the remarks they made about Professor Kearney when this bill was previously debated and let him take appropriate action. Professor Kearney, who is a highly regarded scientist, raised legitimate concerns about the lack of scientific evidence and the precautionary principle when zonings were put in place and exclusion zones and park boundaries were being set. They are legitimate concerns from an internationally renowned scientist.

On behalf of Professor Kearney I am offended by the way members opposite disparaged him. I would love to hear members opposite withdraw those remarks, but I know they will not do so. This legislation is framed to ensure that a Minister can make changes. Last night the Minister said—I still cannot come to grips with this—that a minor change is the changing of the boundary of a marine park. I commend the amendments, and I suggest that the Government support them.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.13 p.m.]: The Government is opposed to the amendments, as explained in detail in the House on previous occasions. I do not intend to detain the House further by repeating them. The Government will simply vote against the amendments.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

[In division]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Before asking for the doors to be locked, I advise members that there are still irregularities with the lifts. A number of members may not be in the House at the moment. With the consent of the Whips, I ask for the doors to be locked.
Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

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

Question—That private members' statements be noted—proposed.
Mr KEVIN GREENE (Oatley—Minister for Community Services) [4.23 p.m.]: As many members recognise, we have the opportunity to be involved with a large number of community groups within our electorates. For the past two years I have had the pleasure of assisting Lugarno Lions Club in organising a St George sports stars breakfast with the funds raised being used to assist projects of Lions clubs. Last Friday I attended that function at the home of sport within the Hurstville community, Hurstville Oval. Fortunately, this year eight international sports stars hosted tables for local business groups and others who supported this fundraiser. The Lugarno Lions Club will use the money to buy Hart Walkers. The Hart Walker program is significant for Lions clubs. The eight international sports stars who joined us were rugby league immortals, Graeme Langlands and Johnny Raper, Olympic cyclists Gary Sutton and Kevin Nichols, Australian cricketers Brian Booth and Murray Bennett, renowned international former world record holder athlete Albie Thomas, and Wayne Riley who is recognised throughout the world not only as an athlete but as an outstanding golf commentator.

This great morning raised between $13,000 and $14,000 to support the Lions Hart Walker program. As the master of ceremonies, I interviewed two of the guests, Johnny Raper and Brian Booth. They certainly entertained the 100 or so gathered at the function with their stories and comments on current sporting trends both in rugby league and cricket. Well-known comedian Paul Martel generously gave of his time and also entertained us with his quick wit and stories. As I said in my introduction that morning, Paul is one of the best comedians not just in Australia but in the world. I also thank generous chefs Leo and Merren Rutishauser, who run Stapletons Restaurant, Sutherland, who also gave freely of their time. I also thank Greg Lazarus and the Sydney Markets Lions Club for providing produce.

The organising committee of the Lugarno Lions Club - chaired jointly by Bruce Martin and Alan Peters, current president, Ivan McKay, and members Dick Goodfellow, Noel Burchmore, Brian Anson and Keith Miller - would agree with me that one of the great benefits in organising this function is the involvement of well-known local businessman and great supporter of community events Phill Bates. Again this year Phill provided his expertise and assisted in the successful function that raised close to $14,000. I also thank the generous businesspeople who supported the event not only by buying a ticket but by the raffle and the small number of auction items that made the day such a great success. I also thank Hurstville council for the use of Hurstville Oval and St George District Cricket Club for the use of the Booth Saunders Pavilion, which stands so proudly at Hurstville Oval. I take this opportunity to plug the trivia night to be held by Lugarno Lions Club tomorrow night at Penshurst RSL in support of Mortdale Community Services, which I will be attending together with other friends. I also plug Oatley Lions Club annual jazz in the park at Oatley on Sunday 9 March.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.27 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for Community Services for drawing the attention of the House to the wonderful work of the Lugarno Lions Club. The Minister is well known for his community involvement in service and sporting clubs in his electorate, and the Lions Club of Lugarno is no exception. I congratulate the club on raising $13,000 to $14,000 for the Hart Walker program. That is a wonderful example of how volunteers in our service clubs are making a difference to the community. I congratulate the Lugarno Lions Club. I hope its future functions, as advertised by the Minister, are successful.
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [4.28 p.m.]: I pay tribute to a couple from Seaforth in my electorate who experienced something on the weekend that no-one should ever have to go through. I will cut to a summary by reading how the incident was reported:

A Seaforth mother was forced to give birth in a car on Military Rd after the dash to the hospital came to a grinding halt because of the antiquated Spit Bridge.

John Volante and Natalie revealed how what should have been an easy 15-minute drive to Royal North Shore Hospital turned into a terrifying half-hour ordeal when they discovered the bridge opened just before 5.30 a.m.

I had the pleasure to speak with Natalie and John after the event. They are both relieved, but also traumatised. Those of us who have experienced the joy of having children could not imagine what that couple went through last weekend. Natalie Love has become, in many respects, a hero of mine; how she was able to give birth unassisted in the car was beyond the realm of human endeavour. John had the peace of mind and the calmness to continue driving during the crisis. He did that because their first child, Aren, was also in the car and required emergency hospitalisation and treatment immediately after the birth.

There was a real fear that the young baby may not have survived. I am delighted to say that baby Addie did make it. She is a healthy baby girl, a tribute to John and Natalie for bringing her into this world. I am delighted that they are all okay, but that brings me to the point of asking the Iemma Government to finally do something about the bridge. In the twenty-first century it is not acceptable for a community in one of the most modern cities in the world to have one of its main arterial roads cut by a bridge. The recent budget allocated $59 million to a small project that did nothing to address this problem.

A working group has been meeting and was due to report by 31 December 2007—that is, 5½ years after the plan was first announced to upgrade that corridor—but still nothing has happened. Not only a few local politicians and community leaders are involved; the whole community is demanding some action. Indeed, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia has summarised the 40 most significant projects across the country that require priority. A few of those projects are of interest to my community, including the northern beaches hospital. Projects that are of interest to communities across Sydney include the north-west rail link, about which there was some conjecture this week, the Sydney light rail expansion, the M4 East and, most importantly, the northern beaches connection, or corridor, involving The Spit Bridge.

The Infrastructure Partnerships Australia reports states that there is an urgent requirement for the "Expansion of current, or construction of a new bridge or tunnel to ease chronic urban congestion issues affecting Sydney's northern beaches." Last weekend, through John and Natalie's story, there was a clear example of a situation turning into a very tragic tale. As it turned out, it did not end tragically. The role of government is to keep out of the lives of people of New South Wales, but more importantly to address the problems. Time and time again I will raise this matter in the House until the Minister for Roads, the Minister for Transport and the Premier take this problem seriously. Notwithstanding the day-to-day traffic congestion, we should not be in the position of having people's lives at risk.

The NRMA advises that the average time for a trip to the city from my electorate is greater than an hourit is a 12.5 kilometre trip. I have referred to a potential life or death incident. If that does not get the Iemma Government to act, nothing will. The Opposition implores the Minister for Roads to reveal the details of the working group and advise what it is planning to do about that corridor. We have been waiting and waiting for action to be taken. The Government said that it would release its plan before the end of the year. As I said to John and Natalie, Addie has become the human face of the Iemma Government's inaction on that corridor. I have promised John and Natalie that Addie will cut the ribbon to that corridor when it is delivered. Let us just hope that she can cut the ribbon as a young child with the help of her parents, rather than as a teenager.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [4.33 p.m.]: I highlight a number of issues affecting the construction of infrastructure in the town of Riverstone within my electorate of Riverstone, specifically relating to Garfield Road and its interaction with the railway line. This matter has a long history, as there have been a number of attempts to eliminate the level crossing at Riverstone with the construction of various overpasses. Community consultation has been undertaken and an agreed position was determined which would have shifted the crossing to Loftus Street, away from Garfield Road, which would have eliminated congestion in that area. However, when we got to detailed planning it proved to be an extremely expensive proposal, having blown out to in excess of $180 million.

In addition, a number of aspects made it unpalatable. Basically, the proposal involved a number of very important archaeological sites and was also environmentally sensitive. Part of the road leading on from the bridge would have gone through flood plains, which would have made it very difficult to traverse in weather such as that experienced in recent weeks. There is no doubt that Garfield Road is a major south-west to north-east link between Richmond Road and Windsor Road in the north-west growth centre. The need to eliminate the level crossing is of paramount importance.

In February 2007 I joined the Minister for Roads in announcing a $120 million proposal to construct the new Riverstone railway overpass. As there has been some conjecture in local media and it was raised yesterday by the member for Hawkesbury that perhaps the Government has changed its mind on this matter, I emphatically state that the Government has not changed its mind. In fact, the Government intends to go ahead with the construction of the overpass and the elimination of the level crossing. Clearly the member for Hawkesbury does not know what he is talking about and is content to mislead the public in a pathetic attempt to get media coverage.

In last week's edition of the Rouse Hill Times the member for Hawkesbury alleged that the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has reneged on a $120 million promise to build an overpass over the train line at Riverstone. He made various claims and alleged that I am in some way part of a conspiracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the RTA is preparing material for community consultation that will be undertaken within a matter of weeks, together with the concept design and environmental impact assessment for the overpass.

The Iemma Government is delivering on its commitment to significantly improve safety and traffic flow for pedestrians and motorists in Riverstone, and I emphatically state again that that includes constructing this overpass. In the meantime, the Government is very much aware that because of increased traffic in the area we need to do something immediately about eliminating that congestion. As a first step the RTA is developing plans for a safety upgrade to improve three aspects of the current overpass area: firstly, the pedestrian crossings at Garfield Road East and Riverstone Parade; secondly, safety for vehicles and trains at the level crossing; and, thirdly, vehicle movements at Garfield Road West for those vehicles wanting to turn right into Railway Terrace.

The key features of the proposed level crossing safety upgrade include installing traffic control signals, with pedestrian crossing facilities at the intersection of Garfield Road East and Riverstone Parade, Garfield Road West between West Parade and the railway level crossing and in Railway Terrace; providing right-turn bays on Garfield Road at West Parade, Railway Terrace and Riverstone Parade; and interfacing of RTA and RailCorp signal software to enhance safety and road-rail connectivity. Public exhibition of the proposed first stage of the safety upgrade commenced on 17 December 2007 and public submissions closed on 18 January 2008. I have put in a submission on behalf of my local constituents, as did a number of people, including the Riverstone Chamber of Commerce, because of some concerns relating to parking. They will be considered. I conclude by stating emphatically once again that the Government will go ahead with the elimination of the level crossing and the construction of the overpass despite the claims by the member for Hawkesbury.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [4.38 p.m.]: I state my support for Mr Percy Allan, the Chairman of Greyhound Racing New South Wales. In particular, I refer to comments made under privilege by the member for Cessnock. I have known Mr Allan for 20 years, in particular when he was the Secretary of the Treasury and I was Minister Assisting the Premier and subsequently Minister for Finance and Assistant Treasurer. Mr Allan wrote to me to complain that he had been defamed under privilege and he offered rebuttal of a number of the alleged defamations. I am only too pleased to be able to afford him the opportunity of having his reply recorded in this Parliament and to some extent to ameliorate the damage he claims to have suffered. The member for Cessnock made claims about Mr Allan and Review Today, a local government research practice owned by Mr Allan, and Mediate Today, all of which are false. There are four key claims. Firstly, the member for Cessnock said that Mr Allan directed councils to invest in risky investments associated with the subprime mortgage meltdown. Mr Allan's rebuttal states:

Neither I nor Review Today (or any of the research reports we wrote or commissioned) ever advised councils on how to invest their money let alone to invest in securities tied to the subprime mortgage market.

Secondly, the member for Cessnock said that Mr Allan claimed that councils were on the brink of financial ruin. Mr Allan's response to that states:

Neither I nor Review Today ever claimed that any council is on the brink of financial ruin.

A report by FiscalStar commissioned by Review Today found that almost a third of medium to large councils are financially "unsustainable" on existing policy because of large operating deficits or large infrastructure backlogs or both. Unless they change that policy 57% will be "unsustainable" in 10 years time.

Sustainability is defined in the NSW Government Fiscal Sustainability Act 2005 section 3(1), as being "able to manage financial risks and financial shocks in future periods without having to introduce significant and economic and socially destabilizing expenditure or revenue adjustments in those future periods". Unsustainable councils are those that cannot do this.

Thirdly, the member for Cessnock said Mediate Today was involved in mediating between Cessnock greyhound racing track representatives and Greyhound Racing NSW. Mr Allan responds:

Mediate Today (MT), which is owned by Bob Gaussen and David Holst, never mediated between the Cessnock greyhound racing club and GRNSW. MT was appointed to facilitate a Charrette consultation process with all greyhound clubs and associations on how best to use $1.5m of unspent savings in 2006/07.

Finally, the member for Cessnock said that Mr Allan, as the chair of Greyhound Racing NSW, used Mediate Today, which may be perceived as a conflict of interest. Mr Allan's response to that is:

Before the GRNSW Board considered hiring MT … I declared that since Bob Gaussen was a business associate of mine in Review Today I had a conflict of interest so would abstain from any Board decision to use the services of MT. This was formally recorded in the minutes of the GRNSW Board meeting of Sept. 25^th 2006 (pages 19-20).

Since receiving that letter and deciding that I would seek the call to make a private member's statement in defence of Mr Allan, the member for Cessnock has once again sought to use parliamentary privilege to defame Mr Allan, on Tuesday this week. No doubt there will be some further rebuttal. It is inappropriate that a member of Parliament should repeatedly use privilege in this way to attack the character of a man who was a respected senior public servant during the time he was Secretary of the Treasury and is still respected now as this Government appointed him to an important organisation. I think it is time the Minister and the Premier brought the member for Cessnock into line.

Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly) [4.43 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure once again to thank a number of people for a very important milestone that was reached in Wollondilly recently. I thank Minister Rees for his visit. He has announced that one of the last areas in my electorate will be connected to reticulated sewerage. In the 1980s the Wollondilly electorate did not have a sewerage scheme anywhere other than in Warragamba. As I look at the successes achieved over those 20 years I realise how hard quite a lot of people before me have worked.

I would like to pay tribute to my predecessors and make special mention of Peta Seaton, who is an outstanding person and former local member. I have a great deal of respect and time for Peta. I also thank a very good friend of mine, the late Liz Kernohan, also from the other side of politics. She was a wonderful lady and another person for whom I have a great deal of respect. Both of them worked extremely hard in my area and are valued for the outcomes they achieved. My good friend and colleague the member for Camden continued to carry the baton after those two members. I would also like to thank the Wollondilly councillors and council staff for their contribution over 20 years. I also make special mention of a good friend, Mr Frank McKay, who passed away. He was shire president and mayor for many years. I would also like to thank a retired Sydney Water employee, Mr Norm Lewis, who also played a very important role in delivering many much-needed pieces of infrastructure across the electorate.

The Bargo-Buxton-Yanderra scheme, which was announced earlier this year, is the last of the large schemes for my electorate. I will go through the list in a moment, but we believe that particular scheme is the last large town area in New South Wales to get a reticulated sewerage scheme—in excess of 3,000 people. I spent 20 years in my other life lobbying and working with all the people I have mentioned and I now have the responsibility to carry on the great work they did. I would like to draw the House's attention to all the projects that have been completed, or are in the process of completion, across the electorate.

One of the projects was the takeover and construction of the new water supply to Menangle village. I know it happens in many towns across New South Wales, but in the mid-1980s the township of Menangle—my good friend the member for Macquarie Fields lives there—sucked the water straight out of the river and pumped it into the houses. That was their water scheme. Sydney Water came along and put in a new system to give the people of Menangle a very reliable supply of good quality drinking water.

The Picton regional sewerage scheme took 40 years to complete. Once again, I thank Liz Kernohan for her work on that project. An improved water supply was provided to Appin, which involved a much bigger reservoir. The Oakdale sewerage scheme and the Bulimba Park sewerage scheme were completed. The Wallacia-Mulgoa-Silverdale sewerage scheme was also completed. The water supply to Warragamba and Silverdale was improved. The irony is that Warragamba did not have the same quality water supply as the rest of Sydney even though the dam was there. The water supply to Bargo and Tahmoor was also improved. Planning has commenced for the Appin-Wilton-Douglas Park sewerage scheme under the Priority Sewerage Program, and it is on its way. As I said earlier, the Bargo-Buxton-Yanderra Priority Sewerage Program has now commenced, which completes the entire project.

I stand here to formally thank all those wonderful people for the great work they did. There are a couple of small villages to finish. There are only 23 houses at Nattai, but they are lovely people and they deserve the service. We also need to work on providing a service for the Mount Hunter community. I would like to thank Sydney Water and its current staff members for their support and cooperation with the Minister and his colleagues in bringing those projects to fruition and completing a project that started in 1985.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.48 p.m.]: I congratulate the member on becoming the first representative for the newly created seat of Wollondilly. I also congratulate him on his work in the electorate and, in particular, on his statement in the House tonight. I am sure that the Bargo-Buxton-Yanderra sewerage scheme will make a great deal of difference and benefit his community enormously. It was particularly pleasing that the new member for Wollondilly recognised the work of other members—past and present—from both sides of the House, including Peta Seaton and the late Liz Kernohan.

It was pleasing to hear those comments rather than to have the usual finger-pointing. Most people who knock politicians have never even met one. When people knock politicians I always say that members, regardless of their party affiliations, are here to work in the best interests of their community. Tonight the member for Wollondilly brought that matter to our attention, and I congratulate him on that timely reminder.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [4.49 p.m.]: I endorse the comments that the member for Miranda made in response to the contribution by the member for Wollondilly. I thank the member for Wollondilly for his kind comments about former Liberal members. To Sydney's northern beaches the Pacific Ocean is liquid gold. Waterfront homes are virtually priceless and a saltwater economy sustains scores of local businesses—from surf schools to professional lifeguards, beachside cafes and restaurants, swimwear shops and surfboard manufacturers. So much wealth, investment and employment is tied to the beauty of our coastline but there is nothing permanent about the shape of our waterfront. Disasters like the 1974 storms that destroyed homes in Bilgola and threatened unit blocks in Narrabeen prompted public authorities to better manage and understand our coast.

Between 1980 and 1990 the New South Wales Government established the Coastal Council to advise on coastal management, drafted the State's first coastal policy, and released the coastal management manual and the coastal hazards policy to guide coastal development. Since that time we have learned far more about the ways in which changing weather patterns are likely to increase the pace of change along the New South Wales coast, including Pittwater's fragile waterfront. Since 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has produced four climate change assessment reports. The Australia and New Zealand Chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II, which was released in April last year, concluded that there had already been a 70-millimetre sea level increase since 1950, and that by 2050 Australia would experience more cyclones, rising sea levels and increased flooding across coastal communities.

What does that mean for my Pittwater community? A shift in swell direction and the associated tropical lows from the north may scour the southern ends of beaches and, at its most dramatic, undermine cliffs, causing collapse. Cyclonic flooding and elevated sea levels could threaten low-lying areas, including the commercial centres at Newport and Narrabeen. Currently, Pittwater Council is investing million of dollars in a community centre at Newport and in the village centre. More than $350 million of coastal development is at risk in Narrabeen, not to mention the threat to one of the world's finest beach breaks.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report noted 2004 research findings that showed that along the Collaroy-Narrabeen coastline a sea level rise of just 20 millimetres by 2050, combined with a 50-year storm event, would lead to coastal recession exceeding 110 metres and cause losses to the value of $US184 million. We should actively update our coastal policies to reflect that new information. When I asked a question about this in Parliament recently I was told that there was no need to update the Coastline Management Manual, the coastline hazards policy, or the coastal policy. I was told of the development of a new document called the coastal zone management manual but, despite a thorough search, I found no evidence that this document had been finalised or released. I found a glossy brochure about it but no document with legislative force.

In 2001 Bob Carr announced that a new coastal manual would be developed but so far, despite the publication of scores of new research papers on the impact of climate change on our coasts, no comprehensive coastal management plan has been adopted. We are still relying on information from the early 1990s, while most of our detailed knowledge of the coastal impacts of climate change has emerged over the past decade. Instead of planning strategically to protect our coast, the State Government is facilitating more and more development on sensitive coastal sites without regard to the incoming tide of scientific information about climate change. For example, Minister Sartor used State environmental planning policy 71, ironically entitled "Coastal protection", to appoint himself as arbiter of a massive subdivision proposal by developers with strong Australian Labor Party connections at Currawong on Pittwater's waterfront.

Local government has a statutory immunity from liability for coastal flooding on private land provided it acts in good faith and in accordance with the principles of the coastline management manual. But what about the State's liability when the manual fails to account for up-to-date scientific research? We have already seen in the case of Walker v the Minister for Planning what happens when the Government fails to take account of climate change flood risk. In that case Justice Biscoe found that planning Minister Sartor failed to consider "whether changed weather patterns would lead to an increased flood risk in connection with the proposed development in circumstances where flooding was identified as a major constraint on development of the site". That case highlights the need for the proposed New South Wales coastal zone management manual to be released now. Cate Faehrmann, executive director of the Nature Conservation Council, recently said:

Scientists have proved climate change will cause seas to rise and that many coastal properties are at risk. So why is it taking so long for the State Government to get this, and plan appropriately?

I could not agree more. The evidence of changing weather patterns means that we must focus on managing the likely impacts on our precious coastline. Places as diverse as Holland and Venice have flourished for centuries despite the constant threat of coastal processes, yet they have also constantly researched and managed the risks posed by their tempestuous and changeable natural neighbour. Much of Pittwater's prosperity and lifestyle depends on the ocean. We must plan how to manage our coast, otherwise our precious waterfront may be headed for a watery grave.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [4.54 p.m.]: On 13 February it was with great pride and emotion that I watched the new Labor Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, fulfil one of his party's election promises. On the first full sitting day of the new Parliament he formally apologised to the Aboriginal stolen generations. It was a long time coming for the Federal Parliament formally to say one simple word—"sorry"—which means so much to so many people in the Gosford electorate. On 14 November 1996 I was proud to be a member of the New South Wales Labor Government when former Premier Bob Carr, on behalf of an Australian Parliament, made the first apology to the stolen generations. His apology for past legislation and for the actions of the New South Wales Parliament received unequivocal and bipartisan support. I would like to remind the House what Premier Carr said on that memorable day more than 11 years ago:

They are the stolen children of lost generations—and it was all done in the name of the State and in the name of this Parliament. That is why I reaffirm in this place, formally and solemnly as Premier on behalf of the Government and people of New South Wales, our apology to the Aboriginal people. I invite the House to join with me in that apology. In doing so, I acknowledge with deep regret Parliament's own role in endorsing the policies and actions of successive governments which devastated Aboriginal communities and inflicted, and continued to inflict, grief and suffering upon Aboriginal families and communities. I extend this apology as an essential step in the process of reconciliation.

On 18 June 1997, in a motion in this House, Premier Carr again apologised, and in doing so he recognised:

Two tiers of government have formally apologised to Aboriginal people. We now await the third.

It has taken a long time but the Australian Parliament, under the new Labor Government, has finally issued an apology. I believe this is a milestone in our concerted efforts towards Aboriginal reconciliation. I joined my community in the electorate of Gosford, which included many people from the local Aboriginal community, to watch a live telecast from Gosford Regional Gallery of Prime Minister Rudd's apology. Gosford City Council held a morning tea. The apology was televised live on big screens and there was a dance performance by the National Aboriginal Islander Skills Development Association [NAISDA]. More than 200 people attended the function to watch the speech and to hear from various guest speakers.

When the Prime Minister repeated the word "sorry" three times the audience erupted into applause. Minutes into the apology the rain started pouring down. Margaret Hardy, a well-known Central Coast resident, who on two occasions has been Gosford City Council's Citizen of the Year, commented that the rain represented the tears of the stolen generations. Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council sent 48 people by bus to the tent embassy on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra. I spoke with Ray McMinn, a respected Mingaletta Aboriginal elder—one of the people who made the trip and one of my constituents—to garner his response to the Prime Minister's apology. Ray stood on the lawns of Parliament House and described how there was not a dry eye to be seen.

Throughout Mr Rudd's speech Ray described how there was absolute silence, and every time the Prime Minister said the word "sorry" there was applause. Ray McMinn was particularly moved when Prime Minister Rudd spoke about Aboriginal servicemen and what they had done for Australia. Ray was in the Royal Australian Navy from 1960 to 1988, yet he was recognised for his Aboriginality only after the 1967 referendum. For Ray the Prime Minister's speech was the third most significant occasion in his Aboriginality, the first being his birth and the second the 1967 referendum. Ray, who wore his medals for the occasion, told me that he had not been so moved in a long time. He compared the feeling to the birth of his first son. His daughter, Rachael McMinn, aged 17 years, who watched the speech from The Block in Redfern, said that she cried along with everyone else and that the day would stay with her forever.

Sorry Day 2008 represents the beginning of a new era in indigenous and non-indigenous Australian relationships. Even the most hard-hearted of people surely could not help but be moved by the profound effect that one simple word—"sorry"—had on our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. The Aboriginal people have said that they will now be able to put the past behind them and work hard to achieve a better future. I join Premier Morris Iemma in congratulating Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on a memorable opening to the Forty-Second Federal Parliament.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.59 p.m.]: I thank the member for Gosford for bringing to the attention of the House the words and reflections of Aboriginal elder Ray McMinn and his daughter, Rachael. It is important to acknowledge that the member for Gosford joined these people to hear this marvellous, moving and genuine apology from our new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. It is important to recognise the member's work with her local indigenous community. I take the opportunity also to thank Mr Ray McMinn for his service. Sometimes we overlook the service that Aboriginal people—our first Australians—gave to the nation in wartime. I am grateful to the member for Gosford for bringing to our attention Mr McMinn's service in the Royal Australian Navy. I thank him, and I congratulate the member for Gosford on her work.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [5.01 p.m.]: This week I have lodged in the Parliament more petitions I have received from residents in my electorate. The petitions lodged this week on the funding of public libraries bring to the attention of the House the continuing reduction in State Government funding for public libraries in New South Wales. The petition calls on the House to recognise the vital contribution of public libraries to our communities and to increase funding to protect their future. To date, I have submitted petitions for library funding containing some 200 signatures from the Burrinjuck electorate, and more are coming into my office every day. These petitions have come from Boorowa, Harden, Rye Park, Wombat, Thuddungara, Young, Bribbaree, Gundagai, Cootamundra, Crookwell and many other locations. If I were to list all the places that have expressed concern about inadequate State Government funding of public libraries, I would probably have to list every locality in the Burrinjuck electorate! This is an interesting snapshot of the importance of public libraries to the whole community.

While public libraries may be important to residents of the Burrinjuck electorate, obviously they are not important to the New South Wales Labor Government. When the Carr Labor Government came to office the State's coffers were providing 12.47 per cent of total funding for public libraries. Since then it has steadily declined to a low of 7.8 per cent in 2005-06. According to a June 2007 paper issued by the State Library of New South Wales, the 2007-08 estimated expenditure will again decrease by 4.17 per cent. Over the same period the cost of funding public libraries borne by local government has risen to more than 90 per cent. Recently I visited Young library, where I met with local librarian Janice Ottey. Ms Ottey presented me with petitions gathered from users of the library. These signatures were amongst those that I presented to Parliament this week. Ms Ottey wrote to me saying:

This is a matter of deep concern for local government as it struggles to maintain effective public library services against a backdrop of ongoing proportional reduction in State funding to the extent that there is a real risk of the introduction of user pays libraries, or worse still, closure of libraries.

Libraries provide an essential free service to local communities. Funding of public libraries is vital to local communities. I have received strong representations from librarians and others throughout my electorate. Library staff and supporters will not be quietened on the issue of more State Government funding. Today I should like to be a voice in this place for just some of the people who have written to me about Labor's cuts to public library funding. Mrs Anne Rees of Cootamundra wrote:

As a very concerned library user in Cootamundra I am writing to add my voice to the urgent call to the relevant Minister and the State Government to improve/restore funding to our libraries.

Our Library here is a vibrant asset to the community. Programs range from 2 year olds to 100. We have the highest membership of the Regional area. I urge you to do what is possible, with your colleagues, to remedy the situation.

Mr John Reid of Gundagai wrote as follows:

The Library is an integral part of the community providing additional services beyond normal activities. For example, the Irish Festival display area, the Dog on the Tucker Box local history exhibition, and the launch of three books by local authors in support of Diabetes Australia.

This library provides services to all ages of the community from the very young to senior citizens. It is a vital part of community life and the welfare of the residents should be paramount.

Mrs Lynne Jones from Milvale wrote:

At our CWA meeting a member brought to our attention the plight that our local Libraries are experiencing. We all know that the Library is a vital part of our community and a very necessary area for resource and information.

Young children enjoy reading sessions with their parents at the Library. Just recently my son-in-law went with his 2 year old son to a 'father & son' evening at their local Library.

So if we allow our state government to reduce the financial support to our Libraries we can see a reduced service, which is rather a slap in the face for education.

The Burrinjuck electorate has public libraries located at Gunning, Crookwell and Yass as part of the Southern Tablelands Regional Library; at Boorowa, Harden and Young as part of the South West Regional Library Service; and at Gundagai and Cootamundra as part of the Riverina Regional Library. Cowra has the Central Western Library, and the Grenfell and District Public Library is one of the smallest stand-alone public libraries in New South Wales. Many of the staff and users of these libraries attended the New South Wales Public Libraries Day of Action at Parliament House last year, which I also keenly supported.

At the beginning of 2007 I met with the various librarians at a group meeting at the Boorowa library next to the shire chambers. I was happy to outline to them the Coalition's commitment to library funding. The Minister responsible for the funding of public libraries is the member for Rockdale, Mr Frank Sartor. As he scoffs his canapés at the next Labor Party fundraiser for property developers he should spare a thought for the struggling public libraries in drought-affected rural New South Wales. He must act urgently to increase the level of State Government funding for public libraries.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [5.06 p.m.]: Before I commence my remarks, I express my appreciation to the Whips and to the member for Macquarie Fields, in particular, for rearranging the list of speakers. The potential loss of, and changes to, telephone services for wildlife groups is a relevant issue not only in the Port Macquarie electorate but in surrounding areas. The proposed changes will affect not only a volunteer group in my area called For Australian Wildlife Needing Aid [FAWNA], which is licensed by the Department of Environment and Climate Change for the purposes of wildlife rescue and rehabilitation covering the council areas of Port Macquarie-Hastings, Greater Taree, Gloucester and Kempsey, which is an area of 12,814 square kilometres, but other services including Wildlife Information Rescue and Education Service [WIRES] branches at Coffs Harbour, Nambucca Heads, Dubbo and Tamworth, the Hunter's Wildlife Animal Rescue and Care, and the Native Animal Trust Fund.

The effects of the proposed changes will have broad implications for wildlife services. Essentially, these wildlife services are about to lose their 0500 number, which is a 24 hours a day, seven days a week telephone number. The groups have been trying to negotiate with Telstra to continue the telephone service, but the argument put to them is that technological changes make it impossible to continue the type of service that these volunteer organisations require. This is extremely disappointing when one considers that technology should be about making services more available. Technology should make the role of the volunteer easier, not more difficult. In the Port Macquarie electorate FAWNA is manned by 16 to 18 volunteer members from their homes, who use the 0500 diversion telephone service.

Present telephone technology allows these volunteers to provide the service at the very small cost of only a directory listing. The volunteers are spread widely throughout the area and could receive anything from 10 to 40 telephone calls per day from members of the public concerned about an animal, bird or reptile in trouble. One does not have to be green or brown when it comes to this service: it is used broadly by anyone who comes across an animal in distress or injured. Essentially, the phone service was the 000 number for wildlife. I call on the new Minister for Climate Change, and the Environment to get her head around the issue as quickly as possible and join the campaign to try to obtain a telephone service that is equivalent to, or better than, the current Telepath One service provided by Telstra. It is extremely disappointing that feedback to date from Telstra Country Wide is that it is unable to provide a continuous telephone facility for an essential local community service. Currently charges are on a per-call basis.

Because vast areas of my electorate are involved, the implications are that the cost will be pushed from a flag fall 30 cents a call to a regional network call of $1. If a volunteer organisation receives approximately 40 calls a day, the costs will become prohibitive. Consequently the service will be put in jeopardy with the result that wildlife will be injured and distressed and will not receive assistance. I reiterate my call for the Minister for Climate Change, and the Environment to see what she can do to apply pressure to Telstra and any other telephone service to provide a low-cost facility for this good local volunteer network. The organisation is doing great work. It is incredibly disappointing that matters have reached the stage where volunteers have to engage in political lobbying just to be able to continue their work for the benefit of the community.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [5.11 p.m.]: Every day many people in Macquarie Fields contribute enormously to the future of our area. They rarely receive the recognition they deserve, so I take great pleasure in being able to acknowledge the great work of our local community workers in Macquarie Fields. On 22 February I attended the Schools as Community Centres Program [SACC] open day at the Curran Public School in Macquarie Fields. I was invited by Karen Russell, the facilitator of SACC, who is a motivated and inspiring person.

SACC is a Department of Education and Training initiative that is jointly funded by the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, Department of Health, the Department of Housing and the Department of Community services. Funding is distributed by the Department of Education and Training. The project targets children aged 0 to 8 who are living in Macquarie Fields. SACC runs three playgroups a week that are facilitated by Meg Stone, whom I was fortunate to meet. Meg is an early childhood teacher, and one of her groups is for our Pacific Islander families.

During the playgroups, parents have the opportunity to be linked to a large variety of community services. This may take the form of referrals for families with parenting difficulties, help for parents of children with disabilities, or family issues, such as depression or domestic violence. An early childhood nurse visits the playgroup once a month. There is also a toy library. SACC is also involved in the Curran Public School's Transition to School Program. The evidence shows clearly that for every dollar spent on early intervention, $17 is saved in future government expenditure. Every year SACC holds a major event, such as an expo or family fun day similar to the one I attended on that day.

It was great for me to meet the school staff and local community workers. As well as the dedicated school principal, Kathy Strong, I was able to meet many of the local workers in my electorate. For example, I met representatives of Macquarie Fields TAFE who are responsible for the wonderful I Am Me Program that I spoke about in this place last year. It was also great to see Leanne Charles from Northcott, who is a tireless worker for children with special needs and who has a large and useful supply of contacts for parents and professionals needing information on services. I was also fortunate to meet Pierre Comis, the regional coordinator for the Active After School communities program, which is so vital for the future of our children, given the increasing rates of obesity and depression that stem from inactivity in adulthood.

The Curran Public School is a wonderful place for our families. The reduction in enrolments with the changing demographics of the electorate means that the built school environment now has enough space for the kids, and that encourages them to play and learn. Anyone who could see these great young kids would be proud of them. They are polite, smiling and fun. The older pupils helped with the organisation on the day. Typical of these were two year 6 students whom I met, Paige Makepeace and Shanaye Miller—great kids with a bright future whose parents must be so proud of them.

I have been riding my bicycle around Macquarie Fields to meet the locals, and can attest to the improvements in the suburb over the past few years. For example, I was able to drop in on Rochelle Bonning and Geesje Maguire who run the outreach midwifery program at the Salvation Army centre just down the road from the Curran school. The Building Stronger Communities team, led by Housing New South Wales community regeneration program manager Jo Sammut has just completed a community visioning project and has a organised a community family fun day for this Sunday. The project has found that locals want access to improved public transport, a larger variety of shops, more sporting facilities and increased employment opportunities. The results will be included in planning for the next three years.

I have already met with Michael Roumieh from Glenquarie shopping centre, who has told me of planned exciting new developments for Glenquarie. Despite the continuing and acknowledged challenges that exist for many of our people, every day great things happen in Macquarie Fields. I am so incredibly proud of my constituents who live there, and pleased to be able to report in this place on our recent achievements.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.16 p.m.]: I congratulate the member for Macquarie Fields on drawing to the attention of the House the work of many people in his community from different walks of life who would otherwise not receive the recognition they so richly deserve. He reminds me as a member of Parliament that it is quite a privilege to be given a glimpse of how a community fits together. Members of Parliament are in a unique position to see that interaction, even if it presents as a patchwork of groups of people, individuals and volunteers who are coordinating their efforts to make the community work as a viable entity. It is great to see how they improve the lot of everybody in their community.

I thank the member for Macquarie Fields for drawing to the attention of the House the Schools as Community Centres [SACC] Program and the work of the Curran Public School in Macquarie Fields—in particular the work of Karen Russell, Meg Stone, the principal of the school, Kathy Strong, Leanne Charles, and Pierre Comis. Clearly the hardworking member for Macquarie Fields is very proud of his electorate. He is working hard and doing the best he can to assist the people of his electorate. I congratulate him on his speech.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.17 p.m.]: I too give recognition to a community worker. In another place the Hon. Marie Ficarra spoke about an extraordinary man recently deceased, Mr Bruno Riccio, OAM. The Hon. Marie Ficarra described Mr Riccio as a legend in the Sutherland shire for his voluntary work and family businesses over a 40-year period. Mr Riccio left school at the age of 12 and for six days a week worked in a fruit shop from 4.00 a.m. until 10.00 p.m. At the age of 17, he started his own business. Mr Riccio was a well-known Sutherland shire businessman and fruit shop owner. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to the community and for his philanthropic role in supporting medical research organisations and his support of the Italian community. He died of heart complications on New Years Eve, aged 63.

Mr Riccio arrived in Australia from Italy in 1956. In 1967 he married Angela, and they had four children: Leanne, Cathy, Danielle and Mark. By 1999 the family owned a number of businesses in the Sutherland shire, including the Green Apple Fruit Shop in Miranda, Farmer John's Fruit Barn at Sutherland, the Italian Stallion Pizzeria and the Riccio Italian restaurant. In 1994 Bruno formed the Freshest Group Ball, which raised more than $1 million for the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, and he was a life governor of that institute. He also helped to raise funds for the Sutherland Hospital. The member for Miranda and I have attended a number of functions that were intended to benefit the Sutherland Hospital. At the funeral, which both the member for Miranda and I attended, Councillor Marie Simone gave the eulogy, in which she said:

Bruno's stout heart has stopped beating. And our community has been robbed of the company of a unique, honest, generous and warm hearted friend, whose tongue was as sharp as his agile mind.

The untimely and sudden death of Bruno has robbed his family of a loving husband, a caring father, a generous uncle and a doting and proud grandfather.

Indeed, his departure from us all is a great loss to the whole community.

She went on to say what an example Bruno provided for us. It was Bruno who got Councillor Simone to join the Sutherland Hospital fundraising committee more than four years ago. She has been active in that role, and I am glad to say that she will be continuing Bruno's legacy in that area. As was mentioned by Councillor Simone, the name of Riccio is inseparable from the growth of Cronulla, our shire and our community. To recount the history of Bruno is to invoke the obvious. He was a strong, compassionate man whose warmth left all those who knew him, or those who were only touched once, better people for having met him. In history each individual makes his or her unique contribution, but that contribution is reshaped by the input of others to become unrecognisable on its own. Yet some contributions stand out as monuments, precisely because the individuals responsible do not fear to differ. They do not wilt under a heavy load. They know what is right and just. Bruno Riccio was one such personality. On behalf of the community, I pay tribute to Bruno's memory and to the work he did to make our shire a better place.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.21 p.m.]: I join with the member for Cronulla in paying tribute to Mr Bruno Riccio, OAM, in recognising Bruno's outstanding contribution to our community and in expressing our sincerest condolences to Bruno's beloved wife, Angela, and his family. Along with the hundreds of others in attendance at his funeral, Bruno's sudden passing on New Year's Eve came as a shock to me. He had previously recovered from two cardiac episodes, but not this, his third. It was his heart attack in 1991, treatment and subsequent surgery at both Sutherland Hospital and St Vincent's Hospital that led Bruno to go on to raise more than $1 million for Sutherland Hospital and more than $2 million for the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute.

I well recall congratulating Bruno on the success of one of his several fundraisers that I attended with my wife, Jeanette. In his own unselfish, unassuming way, Bruno replied, "I do it because they saved my life and I want to give something back." Bruno did that many, many times over. Bruno arrived in Australia in May 1956. He worked at a fruit shop in Ramsgate at age 12 and became a very successful businessman. Bruno was quoted in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader newspaper on 21 August 2003 as saying:

If you want to succeed in life you have to put your head down and bum up.

In 2000 Bruno was appointed a life governor of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, and in 2003 he was awarded a papal knighthood for his charitable work. When Bruno received advice from the Governor-General that it would be announced on Australia Day that he was to receive an Order of Australia medal he is reported to have said to his wife, Angela, "Isn't this meant for people higher up in society?" Such was the humility of this quiet achiever, Bruno Riccio. Sadly, of course, Bruno was not to have that award, which he so richly deserved, bestowed upon him personally during his lifetime. Bruno was simply inspirational; a magnificent volunteer in every sense of the word. We thank him for his wonderful work and his tireless commitment in helping to make the Sutherland shire community, and indeed New South Wales, a better place in which to live. Bruno will be sadly missed.

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [5.23 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House recent New South Wales Government initiatives for the Hunter region to promote business, drive investment, enhance job creation and nurture our cultural heart. The Hunter Means Business Investment Prospectus 2008, launched last week by the Minister for the Hunter, Michael Costa, paints a positive picture for the region. As members would know, the Hunter is Australia's oldest wine-growing region, the world's largest coal export port and Australia's equine capital, and is home to the fastest-growing regional airport in Australia. The region also has prosperous manufacturing, tourism, defence, research and information technology industries. The prospectus has been created to showcase the Hunter and demonstrate the region's outstanding attributes as a business and industry location. It provides an overview of the region's local government areas, industries and businesses that successfully and competitively operate within it, land availability, the workforce, the economy and a snapshot of the unequalled lifestyle our region offers.

Businesses continually recognise the benefits of the region. Members may recall the announcement by the Minister for State Development, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, that Newcastle had successfully secured a 200-job financial services call centre ahead of not only Australian capital cities but also India and Singapore. I am pleased to inform the House that Arvato Services will open its new premises in inner Newcastle in late March. The Iemma Government, through the Department of State and Regional Development, has provided support and knowledge to Arvato Services for its entry into the Newcastle market. This is a huge vote of confidence in the city and its skilled and competitive workforce, and builds on the city's reputation for call centres by following the Commonwealth Bank, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and EnergyAustralia in establishing in Newcastle.

From the city's steel past, we are now seeing different types of industry in Newcastle, including film and television, research, visiting cruise ships and super-yacht manufacturing. In line with this, in recent months the Iemma Government has supported the merging and strengthening of Film Hunter and the Central Coast Screen Alliance, the realignment of Cruise Hunter to the auspices of the Newcastle Port Corporation, and a grant to the Hunter Valley Research Foundation to enlarge its Maryville premises. Guiding this is Hunter Vision 2007-2027, commissioned by the Hunter Economic Development Corporation to articulate a strategy for achieving the sustained and sustainable future economic development of the Hunter. Underpinning the strategy, which aligns with the New South Wales State Plan, is a collaborative and inclusive approach to regional development, recognition of the contribution the Hunter makes to the State and national economies, and a commitment on the part of the region to expand and develop this broader contribution within the context of State and regional planning priorities.

The Hunter is also keeping up with the nation in terms of innovation. The State Government, through the Department of State and Regional Development, is supporting the 2008 Hunter Means Innovation Festival. The Hunter festival is in association with the Australian Innovation Festival, a national event that aims to showcase innovation. The Hunter festival will include a number of events from 5 to 16 May to inspire others to become involved in entrepreneurship and innovation. We are also building on our natural assets, with the Iemma Government supporting the growth and development of Surfest, Newcastle's world-renowned surfing festival. From 26 March to 6 April locals, surfers, tourists and spectators will gather at Merewether Beach for the event, which attracts the world's best surfers and includes a food festival titled "Wine and Waves".

The Iemma Government, through the implementation of priorities arising from the State Plan to increase business investment and tourism in New South Wales and to increase business investment in rural and regional New South Wales, is supporting this international event. Through Events New South Wales, the New South Wales Government is providing $450,000 over three years to support Surfest. The confirmation of sustained funding will enable organiser Warren Smith and his team to get on with the job of running a successful festival. This year's event is expected to attract between 30,000 and 40,000 spectators, providing jobs and an injection of funds into the Hunter economy. I invite my parliamentary colleagues to attend Surfest. Finally, I am pleased to inform the House of the Iemma Government's announcement this week of support for six Newcastle art community groups, including the Hunter Writers Centre, the Newcastle Regional Art Gallery, Live Sites and Tantrum Theatre. The Iemma Government is getting on with the job in Newcastle and in the Hunter region.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.28 p.m.]: I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing to the attention of the House the true breadth and diversity of business and industry in the Hunter region. She outlined some of the successes of the Hunter region. Given the festivals and the work taking place in the Hunter, I am sure those successes will continue. The member outlined the Hunter lifestyle and the competitive nature, particularly of industry. Securing a call centre over fairly tough competition from places such as India and Singapore is no small feat.

What the member for Newcastle has outlined in the Hunter region is a world in itself—whether it is call centres or industry, innovation, research or the arts. She also outlined a long-term plan for sustained economic development in the Hunter in line with the Iemma Government's State Plan. We all look forward to the festivals encouraging entrepreneurial achievement—even Surfest. I am not too sure whether I could enter Surfest. I still have my 1965 9 foot 7 inch single-string Ron surfboard under my house with two Sutherland shire stickers on it from the days when one had to pay the local council and put a sticker on the board to surf, otherwise the board would be confiscated by members of the surf club. Maybe an allowance may be made for old surfies like me. I congratulate the member for Newcastle on her work.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): No doubt the surfboard has a lot of dust on it!

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [5.30 p.m.]: By the sound of it there is a lot of love in the room. I also congratulate the member for Newcastle. Last week I met with some Hunter industrialists on the Hunter gas pipeline that will come from Wallumbilla in Queensland and run through the middle of my electorate. Given the gas shortage in the Hunter, it will benefit quite a number of other electorates. It is a project of State significance, and is something we might share and have in common. I am not sure about the Surfest, but I do travel.

I refer to the diversity of our State, particularly the Macquarie Marshes, and marshes in general in the electorate of Barwon. Last week and again this week all eyes were on the Macquarie Marshes amid claims that flood plain harvesting was threatening to undermine the Murray Darling Basin rescue plan and the environment. There are many serious defenders of marshlands, especially the Macquarie Marshes. It is an iconic wetland. A number of drought and management issues affect wetlands. Drought has played a huge part in forcing wetlands to struggle for survival over the past five or six years.

The Macquarie Valley's workable water sharing plan and similar plans for all inland catchments in this State were introduced in 2004, and the ten-year plan is to be reviewed every five years. The State Labor Government drove the flood plain harvesting process and consultation began in 1999. The draft flood plain management plan for the upper Macquarie has been on the table and out for consultation since October 2006. That management plan was commissioned by the Department of Environment and Conservation and was undertaken by Sinclair Knight. The Government has sat on that report and done nothing, which has frustrated those in Macquarie Valley, including irrigators, graziers, those living on the flood plain and everyone concerned with the future of environmental outcomes.

The draft flood plain management plan was conducted from Narromine in the upper Macquarie through to Oxley, a property below Warren, in an area that contains most of the intensified irrigation in the Macquarie Valley. That plan was not about preventing water getting to the marshes but about getting more water to the flood plain and through to the marshes. Recently Professor Kingsford, whilst raising very important issues, undertook his own study from Warren to Carinda, which is in the lower part of the Macquarie Valley. My belief, and that of many others, is that there will be no workable plan for the Macquarie Valley or the marshes. A number of critical and important environmental outcomes are needed, but the job still remains only half done. To compare the two plans is comparing apples with oranges.

I do not want to underestimate or fail to acknowledge the importance of Professor Kingsford's work on wetlands, which is recognised across the State. I believe his work needs to be seen in the context of a holistic approach to catchment in order to achieve the necessary outcomes for all stakeholders. I do not believe there will be any workable outcomes whilst there remains a fractured approach to environmental management. There is little trust and little legitimate leadership in the process. New South Wales has had a revolving door for Ministers in the Environment and Conservation portfolio and bureaucrats have managed communities from above. That is why the level of frustration in some areas has reached boiling point.

Flood plain management in all valleys should incorporate landholder management plans, with the option of stewardship payments, as happens in other places further north at Gingham and on the Gwydir where there are recognised wetlands. Environmental flows will never be fully effective or legitimate until the appropriate piping programs are in place to differentiate and secure stock flows, domestic flows and environmental flows. The New South Wales Government has a potential for a piping program that will meet these needs. I urge decision makers to progress these options urgently.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [5.35 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House my visit on 18 February 2008 to Maitland Christian School, Chelmsford Drive, Metford, which represents one of a diversity of schools in my electorate. My electorate has public schools, both primary and secondary, independent schools, private schools and the Maitland Christian School. Maitland Christian School was founded in 1983 as a small primary school. It originally occupied two Victorian houses in Victoria Street, East Maitland, and in 1981 moved to its present site. The school started with kindergarten to year 7, and has progressed every year with a further grade. In 2008 it is a kindergarten to year 12 school, with brand new facilities and more than 470 students.

One of the many items contained in the vision statement is the preparation of children to be competent communicators who are able to verbalise, articulate and think critically, and to seek and develop healthy interpersonal relationships at all levels. The school, recognising the need to nurture those vitally important community values, aims for the highest possible quality in educational facilities, resources and staff. I was invited to present students with certificates from the Premier's Reading Challenge, which is available to all New South Wales students in kindergarten to year 9 in government, independent, Catholic and home schools.

The challenge aims to encourage students to love reading for leisure and pleasure. It is not a competition but a challenge to each student to read. Each year, the challenge runs from 1 February to 1 September. Every student who successfully meets the challenge receives a certificate signed by the Premier. After four successful years in the challenge, students receive a gold certificate, signed by the Premier. Gold certificates are distributed to school principals during late November and early December. This is a great initiative of the Iemma Government. We all know how important it is to start reading very early in life, a skill taken for granted by members of this House but not available to some. It is good to see that this initiative places such importance on basic skills such as reading. Learning how to communicate comes from reading and I am proud that a growing phenomenon in my electorate is that schools are taking up this initiative.

I thank the school principal, Mr Garry Couper, for his invitation and for showing me the school's new facilities. I also thank Robyn Bilkey for organising the event, and I congratulate the following students on their awards: Chloe Denley 1M, Edward Marion 1G, Jason Moore 1G, Lily Cains 2C, Lachlan Procter 2H, Blake Applebee 3C, Timothy Moore 3B, Celeste Alley 4G, Georgia Garry 5K, James Spearpoint 5K, Taylor Bonner 6W, Bronte Cincotta 6W, Alexander Hickson 6W, and the gold award winner for four years of successive participation, Jake Cincotta 9W. Those students have shown themselves to be our future community leaders, mayors or members of Parliament. They have taken up the challenge put out by the Premier. It is great to see schools such as Maitland Christian School providing that special education to our students. This initiative demonstrates the strength of our diverse education system in Maitland. I congratulate all of them on a fine effort. I have no doubt that from very small beginnings this school will continue to grow as the demand for education is certainly growing. I am very happy to have them in my electorate.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.40 p.m.]: I congratulate the member for Maitland on bringing to the attention of the House the work of the Maitland Christian School and the achievements of its students in being awarded certificates for their participation in the Premier's reading challenge. It is important that all members recognise the contributions made by not only State schools but also the various religious and other schools in our community. Their common aim is to educate our children to the high standard required by the syllabus produced by the New South Wales Department of Education. I congratulate the Principal, Mr Garry Couper, and the students and staff of Maitland Christian School.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.41 p.m.]: I raise a number of concerns that have been brought to my attention about Eden, which is in my electorate of Bega. A number of weeks ago I gave an undertaking on behalf of the community to pursue a resolution to the antisocial behaviour in the community that has caused a number of serious concerns to be raised publicly by businesses and community organisations that are suffering at the hands of a group of young people. From time to time country and coastal communities suffer outbreaks of antisocial behaviour such as vandalism, drunkenness, drug taking and the like. The issue in Eden has involved government agencies and a number of families for too long. A number of weeks ago the Eden Imlay Magnet reported several vandal attacks on local community facilities, such as the pony club and the golf course, which suffered thousands of dollars of damage.

It became obvious in this tight-knit community that a small group knew what was going on. The local police have been involved on an ongoing basis, as have the Department of Housing and the Department of Community Services. I am not convinced that the Department of Community Services has done enough. I will not name the families, but one family in particular is incredibly well known to the department. Given the number of notifications the department has received, I call on the Minister for Community Services to intervene in this matter. I call on him to ensure that appropriate action is taken with regard to the children of the family concerned. At the end of the day, this is about protecting those children and the community. The children are in a vulnerable situation because of family issues and I hope the department will intervene appropriately. There is no excuse for kids as young as 10 to be out at 2.00 a.m. and 3.00 a.m. exposed to the inherent risks at that time of day.

Incredible frustration is creeping through the community as a result of some of the actions of these young people. I urge the Minister to act because all other courses of action have been pursued. The family concerned has been moved from one community to another. Although its housing needs might have been addressed, that does not mean that the other issues—be they health or social issues—are being addressed. I urge the Minister on behalf of the Eden community to look closely at this issue. Any family with a number of young children in crisis needs assistance. In this case the safety net is there, but I am not convinced that it is not being used as it should be simply because of the repeated reports that have been made to the Department of Community Services.

I would like the Minister to tell me how many reports have been made about young people in the Eden area. I think he will find that there has been a spike in the number of reports made in recent years. Much of that is driven by concern about antisocial behaviour at all hours of the night. As I said, I do not want to see children at risk. These children are at risk and I hope that the Minister will intervene to protect them and the community before something very serious happens.

Mr DAVID BORGER (Granville) [5.46 p.m.]: I speak in support of the historic apology offered to the Aboriginal people of Australia by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Australian Parliament and also to reflect on the apologies made in this Parliament and other places. It is important to put into context the historical document that lit the spark of the remarkable apology that is now healing our nation. In May 1997 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released the report of its inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families entitled "Bringing Them Home". The report described the loss suffered by Aboriginal people and communities through the removal policies of previous governments.

Premier Carr became the first leader of an Australian Parliament to apologise formally to Aboriginal people for the separation of generations of children from their parents, their families and their communities. It is with some pride—even though I was not a member of that Parliament—that I note that the Liberal Party, The Nationals and the Labor Party joined together in 1997 in a great spirit of tripartisanship and unanimously supported the apology. Aboriginal people who were taken from their parents and forced to live in institutions in the 1970s and 1980s are still alive today, and some of them live in my electorate of Granville. They are now in their 40s and older.

These children of the stolen generations were quite simply the unwitting and unwilling victims of a deliberate attempt to breed out a race of people. As the Prime Minister said on 13 February, these are uncomfortable things to be brought out into the light. They are not pleasant; they are profoundly disturbing. The policymakers of the day were oblivious to the rights and needs of Aboriginal people. But in a time when hundreds of thousands of people did not care a hoot for the plight of Aboriginal people, the New South Wales Government responded to the "Bringing Them Home" report by working through the 54 recommendations, which fell into seven thematic areas.

The areas targeted for action included the need to make an apology to acknowledge past wrongs. They also covered history and culture, education and training, a model for indigenous wellbeing, contemporary separations and a monitoring process. The implementation of the recommendations of the report is this Government's guiding light in its determination to close the gap. Quite simply, we will continue our work to beat the problems that disadvantage so many Aboriginal men and women no matter how long it takes. It is a moral imperative; it is the right thing to do.

The "Bringing Them Home" report called for the establishment of a family tracing and reunion service. That practical service is now a reality. It is called the Family Records Unit and it operates within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The unit helps Aboriginal people to gain access to records relating to themselves and their families. In 2006-07 it continued to receive family history research requests from every Australian State and from overseas. Each financial year the unit receives about 500 telephone calls and 150 emails from people looking for help to locate their families. To date, more than 1,600 have registered with the scheme.

The report also a recommended that local Aboriginal languages be recorded and maintained. This, too, is a reality. The New South Wales Government is working to revive the languages, especially of those who, through forcible removal, were deprived of opportunities to learn and maintain their mother tongue. Indeed, the Premier promised that every schoolchild in New South Wales would have access to study materials for Aboriginal languages. This commitment was met with an Aboriginal languages CD-ROM that was distributed to all schools and $260,000 in Community Language Assistance Program grants in the past financial year alone. They are all useful and practical ways of making good. Very important changes have been made to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

I send a message of support to the people in my local electorate and to those on Parramatta City Council who have made an effort to right these wrongs and to send important messages to our community. I mention Doug des Jardines, the members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community and Lyn Leerson, who have been involved for a long time in trying to raise the consciousness to these issues of people amongst our electorate. I refer also to Phil Russo, a Parramatta councillor who moved a motion a few years ago to apologise to the Aboriginal people and to introduce a "Sorry Book" into its library. I was there that night. I think Parramatta was the first council in Australia to move such a motion. Some people ridiculed that motion, but I feel proud that I participated in and voted on that proposal. I am very proud that Kevin Rudd moved that motion in Federal Parliament and that we have finally apologised and can now move on.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [5.50 p.m.]: I convey the view of my electorate and raise community concerns regarding a discussion paper issued by the Minister for Planning entitled, "Improving the New South Wales Planning System". Many local organisations and concerned residents have forwarded copies of their submissions to the Minister and the State Government about the proposals. The community organisations and residents who have provided submissions and contacted me with their concerns have outlined that they support greater consistency and simplicity regarding decision making in planning proposals. However, they stressed that notwithstanding that principle many aspects of the Minister's discussion paper are justifiably of concern to them, and to the general community.

I thank the organisations that contacted me directly to outline their concerns. They included the Federation of Willoughby Progress Associations, the Castlecrag Progress Association, the Castle Cove Progress Association and the Walter Burley Griffin Association, which is particularly concerned with heritage issues. I thank a number of residents who have felt so strongly about this that they have taken time to make submissions and to speak to their neighbours about the proposals. The Willoughby South Progress Association has highlighted its concerns via its 272 newsletter. Willoughby Council has made a substantive submission, which is on its website. I thank those organisations for bringing their concerns to my attention. In summary, their submissions highlight that the current proposals in the discussion paper remove and diminish communities' participation in decisions that affect them.

They are concerned that the proposals remove development decisions from our elected local government representatives and place those decisions in the hands of private certifiers paid by development proponents. That concern has been raised many times. Another concern is that the proposals will result in approved development in residential areas without any reference or notification to the community or adequate consultation with affected neighbours. I know many Willoughby residents feel strongly about that. We are blessed to have wonderful surroundings and many residents have worked hard during their lifetime to be able to live in the Willoughby electorate. Many are concerned about the impact of the proposals on their quality of life and on the environment.

Other concerns raised by community organisations in their submissions to the Minister include that the proposals will not provide for the proper assessment or protection of environmental features and quality, which, again, was highlighted by many community groups. Concerns were raised that the discussion paper does not include any relevant information about the way in which particular and special character, quality and features of local areasincluding conservation areas and items with significant natural and cultural heritage valueswill be identified and protected from degradation.

Throughout the electorate of Willoughby there are pockets of areas that are of significant cultural heritage, not just to the electorate of Willoughby but also to the State at large. Clearly, this is a major concern to many progress associations and other community groups that have contacted me about this matter. There is a concern about the overall effect of the proposed changes on the relationship between developers and developments. People feel that the current proposals will not enhance transparency but will cause there to be greater levels of dishonesty in local planning issues. Those types of issues have been raised directly with me by many organisations. Organisations have lost confidence in the process, given the short period allowed by the Minister for consultation.

I am sure many organisations across New South Wales have spent a considerable time putting together their submissions, but many believe the length of time available to them is not sufficient. Many organisations that have contacted me said that they were in favour of the direction that the Local Government and Shires Associations were going in their approach to this issue. I again place on record that the future of our local communities is important to all of us. Residents and community organisations in the Willoughby electorate certainly feel strongly about this. I urge the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to take all those submissions into consideration and to ensure that the quality of life in our communities is not irrevocably destroyed. [Time expired.]

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [5.55 p.m.]: The sale of the New South Wales Government Railways FreightRail operations in 2001 is another example of lost services and reduced capacity that we will probably face should the New South Wales Government continue with the sale of our electricity assets. The once great New South Wales Government Railways have been reduced to a shadow of the service once provided to virtually every corner of the State for both freight and passenger operations. Control of our freight operations was sold to private enterprise and the successful company has picked the eyes out of the business, and is now slashing services that do not return a quick dollar for its shareholders.

A number of years of severe drought have meant rolling stock that may be required to transport a grain harvest has sat idle, deteriorating, and now seem unavailable to shift the crop should recent rains result in a bumper harvest. As a result, I have called for an audit of all available rolling stock, both wheat wagons and locomotives, so we can ascertain what is immediately available if required. The revelation that Pacific National is withdrawing from grain haulage raises many more questions than just how to get the harvest to port. Since the sale of FreightCorp, and also as a result of the prolonged drought, it is apparent that there has been insufficient investment in maintenance of wagons that was once commonplace, and a similar situation exists in relation to the maintenance and availability of 48 class branch line engines.

I query the large number of wheat wagons that have been stored for a number of years on the Tamworth end of the former Barraba branch line, on lines near Nemingha and also in paddocks near Werris Creek. I am led to believe that other such graveyards exist around the State and it begs the question: What operational capacity do we have? To the passing observer, those wagons appear as though a large amount of investment and work would be required to get them into service. Should we have a bumper crop this season, what wagons would be available? Of most concern, it has been suggested to me that many of these wagons are being allowed to deteriorate rather than prepared for sale to possible competitors in the rail market. If assets that New South Wales taxpayers once owned have been deliberately allowed to deteriorate in such a fashion it is a national disgrace. The public was told that the sale of FreightCorp would promote competition and reduce costs to the taxpayer.

Following the experiences with Pacific National in Tasmania and Victoria, will New South Wales taxpayers have to fund the rehabilitation of rolling stock we once owned, or possibly pay a subsidy to entice another operator to take on grain haulage? With the exception of coal haulage, the sale of FreightCorp has delivered a massive failure for the people of rural and regional New South Wales. Apart from transporting grain to port, I am very concerned about the long-term job security of rail workers at Werris Creek. In addition to locomotive crews, over recent years maintenance workers at Werris Creek have been moved from being employed by State Rail, then to Pacific National and now to EDI Rail.

These people and their families deserve some sense of job security, as much of their work revolves around maintenance of grain line locomotives, while some are also responsible for wagon maintenance. The people of northern New South Wales demand that grain transport remain on rail, not only to protect farmers security and maintain rail jobs in regional areas, but just as importantly to prevent many more heavily loaded trucks from using unsuitable rural roads with local ratepayers being slugged for maintenance.

These problems are compounded by the long-term reluctance of government to properly fund country grain rail branches. Slowly but surely, State governments of both persuasions have closed branch lines or cut maintenance to the point where rail speed restrictions are needed for safety reasons. This is forcing more vehicles onto unsuitable country roads, increasing maintenance costs to local government and in some instances forcing farmers to look at other agricultural pursuits. It is a vicious circle of self-fulfilment. The rail operators say the condition of the grain lines makes them uneconomical to supply services, giving government further excuses to make cuts. As a result, the grain lines radiating from Narrabri and Moree must be further threatened, with inadequate track maintenance combined with a lack of suitable rolling stock exacerbating the problem.

Once again, the sale of government assets has been shown to be at the cost of providing essential infrastructure and services to the people of rural and regional New South Wales. Our forebears, using little more than horses, carts and shovels, pushed the rail lines into the interior, opening up this country and in the process creating an agricultural economic bonanza. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that farmers can get their grain to port and that rail jobs in regional New South Wales are maintained, and that we encourage more freight onto rail to free up roads. I was encouraged by the response from the Minister to a question I asked in question time today regarding the future of our rail enterprises. I look forward to hearing the results of his meeting with interested stakeholders and also the Federal transport and infrastructure Minister, Anthony Albanese. This is an issue of great concern to people across the north-west and one that I will keep on pursuing.

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

Private members' statements noted.