Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 11 April 2008, Corrected Copy)

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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry Collier, on behalf of Mr Nathan Rees.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am very pleased to introduce the Clean Coal Administration Bill 2008, following the Premier's comments about the importance of this technology in the House yesterday, 10 April 2008. The Clean Coal Administration Bill puts in place a key strategy to substantially reduce New South Wales greenhouse gas emissions. In so doing, it will help secure our future energy needs, our economy and our environment. The New South Wales Government has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Coal Administration Bill builds on that commitment.

The bill establishes a fund for research into, and development of, clean coal technologies, including demonstration projects. The fund will also be able to be used to increase public awareness of clean coal technologies and for the commercialisation of clean coal technologies. Importantly, the Iemma Government will contribute substantially to the fund. In addition, there is provision for voluntary contributions to the fund. This means that the coal and electricity industries or other non-government organisations can contribute to reducing greenhouse emissions through the development of clean coal technologies.

The bill also establishes a Clean Coal Council. The council will make recommendations to the Minister for Mineral Resources on the funding of projects. The council can also make recommendations on policies to encourage the development and implementation of clean coal technologies. The Minister will report to Parliament annually detailing allocations of funds for specific projects and other activities. Members of the council will be drawn in equal numbers from the Government and from the coal industry. This is important, as the mining industry has made a major financial commitment to the development of clean coal technology.

The industry has committed $1 billion over 10 years through the COAL21 Fund. Of this, $400 million will go towards projects in New South Wales. Industry will work together with Government to allocate the funds from both sectors. By working together, industry and government will be able to achieve much more than each sector working alone. The Clean Coal Administration Bill will ensure that funds are available and allocated for the best research into these important technologies. When established, these technologies will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the generation of electricity.

Members would be aware of the pressing need to reduce the production of greenhouse gases by modern societies. The 2006 Stern report on the economics of climate change has highlighted to the world the need to reduce global emissions. The report also talks of the necessity of taking action now to protect national economies in the future. The latest assessment report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed that warming of the earth's climate system is unequivocal. The evidence shows clearly that global greenhouse gases are the major contributors to global warming. Further, due to human activity, greenhouse gases increased by 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004. The international panel's report is also clear that a country's capacity to mitigate greenhouse gases is closely tied to its social and economic development.

Turning to the situation in New South Wales, it is well known that over 90 per cent of the State's energy needs are generated from coal. It is no secret that coal provides us with an abundant source of very cheap energy, but we must recognise that in 2004 New South Wales produced approximately 10 per cent of all Australian greenhouse gas emissions from its coal-generated energy production. So the challenge for New South Wales is the issue highlighted in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that is, to mitigate greenhouse gases in ways which avoid conflict, to the greatest possible extent, with sustainable development. That is why the New South Wales Government has already set about cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 and returning to year 2000 levels by 2025.

As an important step towards these targets, we need to find effective ways of reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations. We need to develop clean coal technologies, but we also recognise that coal is not the only means of producing energy. There are other sources of energy that do not have the same greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with coal-based energy. However, we cannot suddenly stop producing energy from coal. It will take time to implement other energy sources on a scale that can sustain a large, industrial economy such as New South Wales. We simply cannot go back to the Dark Ages while other energy sources are established. Approaching the problem this way could lead to economic and social disaster.

The New South Wales Government is taking steps to ensure continuity of energy supply in the most environmentally and economically responsible way. We are supporting and exploring a range of means of producing renewable energy. For example, hydro, biomass, landfill methane, wind and solar energy are all being developed, and used. Significantly, the New South Wales Government has set mandatory targets, which require an increase in the amount of energy from renewable sources. Currently, about 6 per cent of the State's total energy usage is provided from renewable energy sources.

The Government has set mandatory levels for renewable energy of 10 per cent of the State's energy usage by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2020. The Commonwealth Government has since introduced a target of 20 per cent of Australia's electricity supply from renewable sources by 2020. These targets will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost the renewable energy sector. The Government is supporting the increase in renewable sources of energy by providing funds for research into renewable energy technologies. This is entirely appropriate in our efforts to reduce our vulnerability to climate change. It is important to make the point here.

However hard the Government works, and whatever the funds that might be committed, it cannot provide New South Wales baseload energy needs from renewable sources only, within a foreseeable time frame. It will take a significant effort to meet the new mandatory renewable energy levels alone. It is virtually impossible for renewable energy to replace coal-based energy within the foreseeable future. At the same time, the Owen inquiry has estimated that there will be increases in electricity demand in New South Wales of 1.8 per cent each year over the next 10 years. Alternative energy sources and clean coal technologies are together expected to play an important role in satisfying the need for clean power in the medium to long term.

However, clean coal technologies provide the best option for significantly reducing emissions while still providing stable, reliable baseload power. From this perspective, New South Wales needs the best technologies available to reduce greenhouse gases as soon as possible. At the same time, it is imperative to plan to grow our economy while we do this. If we consider the State's economy, it is clear that coal and coalmining have played a significant role in New South Wales for a very long time. Further, coal currently supplies about 90 per cent of the State's energy needs. But its significance to the economy in other ways is as great as its critical role of supplying energy to New South Wales. The coalmining industry provides significant revenues for Australia through exports and to New South Wales through the royalties it pays.

The value of New South Wales coal production in 2006-2007 was $8.1 billion, and the industry paid royalties of $412 million. From anyone's perspective, this is a major contribution to both the national and State economy. At the same time the industry plays a significant role in regional economies where coal is mined. It does this through job creation, investment and regional development. The coalmining industry employs about 10,000 people in regional New South Wales and a further 30,000 people are employed indirectly. It also makes substantial contributions to local infrastructure and local communities. All of these factors, national, State and regional, show clearly the important role the coal industry plays in the economy of New South Wales. Thus, while action must be taken to mitigate greenhouse gases, the approaches we follow must be sensitive to economic and social impacts and ensure ongoing sustainable economic development.

One of the internationally recognised opportunities for adaptation in the energy sector is to provide stimulus to develop new technologies. This also means developing ways of adapting present energy technologies to use in the future while reducing greenhouse gas emissions substantially. Professor Garnaut made some very relevant comments on this point. In his recently released interim report on climate change he noted that just putting a price on emissions will not generate optimal levels of investment in technological change. He said that the development of low-emissions technology for the energy sector is of particular importance to assist "Australia's transition to an emission-constrained future". Clean coal technologies are already being researched and developed, both within Australia and internationally. These include combustion technologies, and capture and storage technologies.

Capture and storage of carbon dioxide, or geosequestration, is already being successfully used in other industry applications. Well-known examples include Sleipner off the Norwegian coast, Salah in Algeria, and Weyburn in Canada. Here in Australia, clean coal technologies are at various stages of development. Some of the technologies have been developed at a research or pilot project level. For example, at Munmorah on the New South Wales Central Coast, a pilot carbon capture plant is expected to be operational in the middle of this year. It will capture greenhouse gas emissions from the Munmorah power station using ammonia absorption technology. It is planned that the project will move to the demonstration phase by 2013. Another clean coal technology, carbon geosequestration, is being set up as a demonstration project off the coast of Victoria.

There are also other worthwhile technologies being researched and developed. They all need to be considered for funding to help in their development to commercial scale operations. This is where the Clean Coal Fund being proposed in the bill becomes critical. It can help the developing technology to become a reality. If the funds are made available so that such research can be encouraged, the implementation of clean coal technologies will happen sooner, and more effectively. The proposed Clean Coal Council will assess projects and recommend priorities for the distribution of the funding to provide the maximum benefit to New South Wales. This legislation is an important means of ensuring continued energy supply for New South Wales in an economically and environmentally responsible way. 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 Barry Collier, on behalf of Mr John Watkins.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.13 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Workers Compensation Amendment Bill 2008 contains a number of initiatives to cut red tape and improve workers compensation arrangements. The bill also gives effect to changes to specialised insurance to ensure the ongoing viability of the WorkCover Scheme. The bill contains a number of new provisions that modify the obligations of employers to take out workers compensation insurance. First, the bill exempts employers who pay wages below a threshold, initially of $7,500, from the requirement to hold a workers compensation policy. This reform aims to reduce the costs and administrative burden on several hundred thousand small and domestic employers by removing the requirement to obtain a minimum premium or domestic workers compensation policy.

Currently around 200,000 householders take out workers compensation insurance. This reform will remove their need to do so and also extend the same workers compensation coverage to around 2.4 million households in New South Wales. The exemption will not apply where an employer engages an apprentice or trainee, or is a member of a group for workers compensation purposes. Workers employed by these exempt employers will be covered for their compensable injuries by virtue of a "deemed" policy. If a worker employed by an exempt employer is injured at work, the employer will be required to notify the Nominal Insurer and pay the Nominal Insurer a once-only fee for the administration of the claim.

The fee will be prescribed by regulation, but it is expected initially to be in the vicinity of $175. Consequently, these exempt employers will still be required to meet all other workers compensation and injury management obligations. These include advising employees of their right to lodge a claim when injured, reporting injuries, and providing suitable duties where appropriate. This reform aligns New South Wales arrangements regarding the obligation to hold a workers compensation policy with Victoria, and is a further step in achieving the harmonisation and streamlining of workers compensation requirements between the States and Territories. Another insurance reform in the bill is to align the period for which records relating to wages must be kept with the record-keeping requirements of Victoria and the Australian Taxation Office. Currently, the workers compensation legislation requires employers to retain all records relating to wages for seven years. Under the bill, this will be reduced to five years.

The bill corrects an anomaly that exists in relation to the recovery of compliance audit costs from certain employers. Compliance audits or inspections are currently undertaken by or on behalf of WorkCover to ensure that the correct premiums are paid. Under existing legislation, costs of these inspections may be recovered from employers who have workers compensation policies and who under-declare wages by 25 per cent or more. However, there is no provision for recovery of these costs from employers who have failed to take out a policy. The bill contains a new provision that corrects this anomaly and will enable recovery of all audit and inspection costs incurred by WorkCover where the employer does not have a workers compensation insurance policy.

The bill also clarifies that an individual employer should hold only one workers compensation policy of insurance. While it is the intention of the existing section 155 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to prevent employers from holding more than one workers compensation policy of insurance, there has been some questioning of this. The bill now makes it clear that the rule is: one employer, one workers compensation policy. However, the amendment will not prevent an employer in the coalmining industry from holding a policy under the Coal Industry Act for employees in that industry, as well as holding a general workers compensation policy for any other employees.

An important reform in the bill is to ensure that WorkCover has sufficient powers to obtain and manage securities from current and former self-insurers to ensure ongoing claim liabilities, including for dust diseases, are serviced. New provisions in the bill extend the existing security arrangements to make it clear that they apply to former self-insurers who may be required to provide additional deposits or security. Further, interest earned may be applied to supplement any additional deposits that have not been made. These amendments will assist in protecting the scheme in the event that there is a shortfall in security and a self-insurer or former self-insurer is unable to fund their liabilities.

I now turn to proposals in the bill to close the class of specialised insurers. Around 75 per cent of employers are covered by the WorkCover Scheme, which is managed by the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer. The Nominal Insurer administers the scheme funds, which are held in the Workers Compensation Insurance Fund. The WorkCover Scheme offers workers compensation cover to any eligible employer, regardless of risk or claims history, and the substantial size of the fund allows the scheme to offer affordable premiums to all employers.

The New South Wales scheme has experienced a major improvement in efficiency and performance, with a deficit of over $3 billion in December 2002 being returned to surplus in less than four years. This strong performance has allowed the Government to reduce workers compensation premium rates by an average of 30 per cent and increase statutory benefits twice since December 2005. However, workers compensation insurance is also offered to employers in some industries by specialised insurers, which are licensed by WorkCover. Specialised insurers are generally responsible for specific industries or cover specific categories of employers, such as Catholic Church Insurance or StateCover, the local government scheme. Most specialised insurers are of longstanding and offer workers compensation cover to relatively small groups of employers.

The WorkCover Board has been concerned that the potential growth in the numbers of specialised insurers could threaten the ongoing viability of the nominal insurer because, unlike the nominal insurer, specialised insurers can refuse proposals for workers compensation insurance. This capacity allows specialised insurers to offer cover to employers who have a good claims record, but reject proposals from high-risk employers. If the number of employers eligible for cover by specialised insurers were to increase, the nominal insurer could be left with high risk and/or poor performing employers, affecting the stability and viability of the nominal insurer scheme. Further, the WorkCover Board believed that permitting the entry of new specialised workers compensation insurers would effectively involve the private underwriting of a significant section of the workers compensation system. The WorkCover Board accordingly recommended that the entry of new specialised insurers should cease immediately.

The bill provides for the closure of the class of specialised insurers to new entrants and it takes effect from the date of introduction into the House. Prohibiting the entry of new specialised insurers will reinforce the recent achievements in stabilising and enhancing the scheme by ensuring that it maintains a size and industry mix that is sufficient to provide stable and affordable premiums and that will ensure its long-term viability. The holders of existing specialised insurer licences will still be able to operate under their licences and to apply for renewals where the term of a licence expires. In summary, the bill provides a number of initiatives that will improve the workers compensation arrangements and administration, and ensure the continued long-term viability of the scheme. 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 Ms Sonia Hornery, on behalf of Ms Verity Firth.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.22 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Dividing Fences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 seeks to achieve four aims. Three of these relate to the powers and jurisdiction of a Local Land Board and the Local Court concerning dividing fences. The final proposal relates to the powers of the Local Court to award costs under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000. The proposed amendments to the Dividing Fences Act 1991 relate to expanding the jurisdiction available under the Act. These changes include a power to make an order relating to a retaining wall and to vegetation. The proposed new power is appropriately limited in its scope to matters incidental to a dividing fence. The dividing fences proposals set out in the bill have been formulated in consultation with those government agencies responsible for legislation imposing requirements for tree preservation. These are the Department of Local Government, the Department of Planning and the Attorney General's Department.

The first proposal is to permit a Local Land Board or the Local Court to make a fencing order requiring construction or maintenance work to be done on a new or existing retaining wall but only to the extent necessary for the settlement of a dividing fences dispute. It also relates to any tree or vegetation, but only to the extent necessary for settlement of a dividing fence dispute. The bill authorises an adjoining owner to include in a fencing notice matters relating to a retaining wall, tree or vegetation. A fencing notice under the Act allows an adjoining owner to claim a contribution for a share of fencing costs.

The final aspect of the first proposal is to allow a Local Land Board and the Local Court to fix a fair contribution between adjoining owners for the cost of the fencing work carried out when this affects a retaining wall, tree or vegetation. Such contributions by adjoining owners should generally be made in equal proportions. The Dividing Fences Act 1991 allows an order to be made under section 14 for the construction or repair of a dividing fence of a certain type. An order may be made for the adjoining owners to contribute a proportion of the construction costs. A contribution for fencing costs may be enforced against an adjoining owner for usually only half the cost of a sufficient dividing fence. The Act defines a sufficient dividing fence in a way that means it is, in general, the usual type of fence for the relevant area. A contribution may not be enforced against an adjoining owner for half the cost of any fencing work for a fence that is more expensive and of a higher standard than a sufficient dividing fence.

The proposed extension of jurisdiction to allow an order to be made regarding a retaining wall and vegetation is specifically limited in the bill. The proposed amendments will authorise an order to be made for fencing work to be carried out provided it is associated with a retaining wall. But this order is limited to only the extent that such work is for the purpose of any foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of a dividing fence. The limited power to make an order regarding a retaining wall will ensure that the new power cannot be used for any other purpose other than the erection of a sufficient dividing fence and to allow for a fair contribution to fencing costs.

The application of the Act to vegetation is limited in that the removal of vegetation is proposed to be added to the definition of "fencing work". This amendment will mean that vegetation may only be trimmed, lopped or removed under the Act if that work is fencing work done in connection with the preparation of land for the construction or repair of a dividing fence as defined by the Act. But this order is also limited to only the extent that such work is to be carried out for the purpose of the design, construction, replacement, repair or maintenance of the whole or part of a dividing fence. This limited power to make an order regarding a retaining wall or vegetation removal will ensure that the new power cannot be used for a purpose other than the erection of a sufficient dividing fence and for fair contribution to fencing costs.

The definition section of the Dividing Fences Act 1991, section 3, currently excludes "a retaining wall" from the definition of a fence. The result of the exclusion of a retaining wall from the definition of a fence is that no order may be made affecting a retaining wall by a Local Land Board or the Local Court. The complete exemption of retaining walls from the operation of the Act means that in making orders about a sufficient dividing fence, a Local Land Board or the Local Court is often unable to fully resolve disputes between neighbours where a dividing fence consists of a fence constructed on or near a retaining wall. This may lead to dissatisfaction by the parties and it hinders the effective dispute resolution capabilities of a Local Land Board or the Local Court to resolve the dispute. Implementation of the proposal will allow certain problems experienced by the Local Land Board to be overcome for the first time.

Problems arise because frequently a fence and a retaining wall are complementary to each other. Thus a dispute between neighbours is only partly resolved if a land board or the court may make orders only in relation to the fence—not the retaining wall. The number of such problems is increasing in the experience of the senior chairperson of the Local Land Board. At present the parties bringing a matter before a land board are unlikely to appear with the benefit of legal representation. Sometimes either or both have a misunderstanding that the land board has the power to make orders about a retaining wall when the retaining wall is integral to the structure of a dividing fence.

The courts currently do not have the power to make orders in relation to a retaining wall when hearing dividing fence matters. The experience of the senior chairperson of the local land boards shows that it is often difficult or impossible to settle a dividing fence dispute where a tree or substantial vegetation stands on or near the boundary and affects the subject fence. In those circumstances the jurisdiction of the Local Land Board and of the court does not permit any fencing order for the removal or trimming of the relevant vegetation. The Local Land Boards and the Local Court should have the power to make an order affecting a tree to the extent necessary for the settlement of a dividing fence dispute.

The first proposal will not override other general laws applicable to the construction and maintenance of a retaining wall, including requirements for development approval. Similarly, the proposal will not override any legislation providing protection to vegetation, including trees. Legislation protecting vegetation includes the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This allows for the making of environmental planning instruments that may contain provisions protecting or preserving trees or vegetation. An interim heritage order made under the Heritage Act 1977 may prevent a person from causing damage or destruction to a tree or other vegetation subject to the order. In the event that any relevant work on a retaining wall would require development approval under planning legislation, the Local Land Board or the Local Court will need to see any required development approval before a final order regarding a dividing fence is made.

The Local Land Board or the Local Court must also ensure that a proposed fencing order will apply in a way that is consistent with other legislation protecting vegetation. Amendments found in the bill ensure that the proposed limited power for an order to be made affecting a retaining wall, tree or other vegetation is reflected in the permissible scope of work that may be included in a fencing notice. An adjoining owner may serve a fencing notice to request a contribution for certain proposed fencing work. The amount of the contribution that may be claimed is also limited by the bill. An adjoining owner will only be liable to pay a contribution in respect of the removal or trimming of vegetation or for works proposed regarding a retaining wall to the extent that those works are necessary for the provision of a sufficient dividing fence.

In view of the proposed limitations on the permissible scope of the fencing orders that refer to a retaining wall, tree or vegetation, it is appropriate for the existing general rule that such contributions should be made by adjoining owners in equal proportions to apply. Payment in equal proportions is fair and reasonable in the circumstances where a contribution needs to be made to the cost of works affecting a retaining wall, tree or vegetation, only to the extent those works allow for a sufficient dividing fence. A dividing fence will usually benefit both parties equally. However, a particular benefit may be gained by an adjoining owner as a result of fencing work relating to a retaining wall, tree or vegetation performed under the Act. A particular benefit arises where, for example, one owner has the benefit of relevant excavations beneath a retaining wall or has the benefit of clearing.

The bill will allow an adjoining owner to construct a retaining wall or to clear vegetation that provides that owner with a particular benefit but prevents him or her from claiming a contribution for that work from the adjoining owner if that work is not part of constructing a sufficient dividing fence. Finally, regarding the proposed new powers for an order to be made affecting a retaining wall or vegetation under the Dividing Fences Act 1991, one of the consequential amendments in the bill allows for such an order to be made in any current proceedings before a Local Land Board that have not been finalised before the bill commences.

The second main purpose of the bill is to allow a Local Land Board to make an order for the payment of a fixed amount by an adjoining owner under the Dividing Fences Act 1991. This new power adds to the existing power to make an order for a proportion of fencing costs to be paid by each adjoining owner. An order for the payment of a fixed amount, after being certified by a Local Land Board, may be enforced as a judgement debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 24 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 presently allows an order for the payment of money by a person made by a Local Land Board to be recovered as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. The practical difficulty with this provision is that a certificate issued by the relevant Local Land Board under section 24 serves only as evidence of the making of the order.

The party seeking to enforce a money order made under section 24 may need to commence fresh proceedings, usually in the Local Court. They would do this by issuing a statement of claim and going through the process of obtaining a fresh judgement for the debt with the assistance of the section 24 certificate. No useful purpose is served by the need for the debt to be established in two sets of proceedings. The implementation of the proposal will allow a person with the benefit of an order for the payment of a fixed amount of money to file it in a court of competent jurisdiction as a judgement. They can then take advantage of the procedures of the court that are available to assist with the recovery of a debt.

Dividing fence disputes commonly bring before a Local Land Board people who, due to the nature of neighbourhood disputes, are in a highly charged and emotive state of mind. The need to embark on other proceedings to enforce a money order may unnecessarily prolong the dispute. The third main proposal contained in the bill is to allow the senior chairperson of the local land boards discretion to sit alone or to direct a chairperson of a Local Land Board to sit alone in a residential dividing fence hearing. The experience of the senior chairperson of the local land boards indicates that in many cases it is appropriate for a dividing fence dispute to be heard by either the senior chairperson sitting alone or by the chairperson of the relevant Local Land Board.

This is in circumstance where the subject fence is located in either the Sydney metropolitan area or in a residential area of a regional city or town. In general the lack of complexity of the subject matter of such disputes means that only the chairperson is required to sit in order for the dispute to be dealt with. The senior chairperson is in a position to decide at the outset of a matter if it is appropriate for only the chairperson or for the senior chairperson to sit alone in the matter. The bill does not provide for such discretion to apply in the case of fencing matters located in non-residential areas. This is because, by their nature, such matters have proven in practice to be likely to be more complex.

The final proposal contained in the bill relates to the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000. The purpose of the proposal is to provide that an applicant for an access to a land order must pay the legal costs of the landowner whose land is the subject of the access order. This will occur unless in the discretion of the Local Court the conduct of the parties to the application for access or any other relevant matter means that either another order or no order should be made. Amendments proposed in the bill will require the court to consider any attempts by the parties to reach agreement before the proceedings, and whether the refusal to consent to access was unreasonable in the circumstances. The Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000 was the subject of a review in 2005 to examine if the Act was operating to meet the needs of all stakeholders.

A report entitled "Review of the NSW Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000" was subsequently tabled in Parliament. Respondents to the review highlighted deficiencies in the operation of the legal costs recovery provisions of the Act. The current scheme governing recovery of the legal costs of an application for access to neighbouring land, contained in section 27 of the Act, provides that a costs order may be made at the discretion of the Local Court. In determining if an order should be made, the court may consider in any attempts by the parties to reach agreement before the proceedings whether the refusal to consent to access was unreasonable in the circumstances, and any other matter it thinks fit. In practice, the costs orders made by the court usually require the costs of the application to be borne equally by the applicant for access and the owner of the land subject of the access order.

Submissions and anecdotal evidence received as part of the review indicate that it is more reasonable if there is a requirement for the applicant to pay the legal costs of the owner of the land subject to the access order. This is because usually only the applicant receives a benefit from an order for access. The proposed amendments will allow the Local Court to continue to have discretion to make any appropriate order for costs or no order based on an examination of all relevant circumstances. The measures in the bill will improve the operation of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 and assist dispute resolution between adjoining owners. The proposed increase in the jurisdiction of the Local Land Board and the Local Court will allow a fencing dispute to be settled where the relevant dividing fence has an incidental impact on vegetation or on a retaining wall. The controls on the application of the new jurisdiction will mean that any impact on vegetation or a retaining wall is likely to be minor. The amendment proposed to the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000 will provide a fairer method for the award of an order for legal costs following a hearing in the Local Court. 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 Ms Noreen Hay, on behalf of Mr Nathan Rees.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.43 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the National Gas (New South Wales) Bill 2008 because it gives effect to Council of Australian Governments [COAG] commitments ratified under the Australian Energy Market Agreement. The legislative package given effect to by the bill will improve the operation of the gas access regime nationally. It will also strengthen the quality, timeliness and national character of the governance and economic regulation of natural gas pipeline services, while increasing consistency between electricity and gas regulation and improving transparency. Under the terms of the agreement the national energy legislation operates under a national cooperative legislative scheme in which South Australia is the lead legislator.

Other States, Territories and the Commonwealth apply the relevant schedules of the South Australian legislation as laws in their respective jurisdictions through application Acts. The national gas legislation is made up of the National Gas Law [NGL], the National Gas Rules [NGR] made under that law, regulations made under the NGL, as well as each jurisdiction's Act applying the NGL in their own jurisdiction. The national gas legislation will transfer the governance and institutional arrangements of the current gas access regime to the national framework, where the Australian Energy Regulator [AER] is responsible for economic regulation and enforcement and the Australian Energy Market Commission [AEMC] is responsible for rule making and market development.

The national gas legislation also implements reforms developed by the Ministerial Council on Energy [MCE] in response to the Productivity Commission's "Review of the Gas Access Regime". The national gas legislation furthers the MCE goal of convergence of gas and electricity regulation and contains a number of common areas with the national electricity law. These areas of commonality include governance arrangements, a national gas objective, the information gathering processes and powers of the AER, performance reporting by the AER on the financial and operational performance of service providers, revenue and pricing principles, and the regime for merits review of significant regulatory decisions. The national gas legislation also strengthens consumer advocacy arrangements in the national gas sector. The NGL replaces the current Gas Pipelines Access Law as the third party access regime for gas network infrastructure. The NGR will replace the Gas Access Code. While the NGL and NGR build on the existing Gas Pipelines Access Law and Access Code, they also introduce new features.

The overall objective of the law is to promote efficient investment in and efficient use of gas services for the long-term interests of consumers. Revenue and pricing principles will allow a regulated gas service provider to earn a return commensurate with commercial and regulatory risks. There will also be a form of regulation factors based on market power to determine how gas services and the assets used to provide those services are to be regulated. The Australian Energy Market Agreement commits States and Territories to transfer responsibility for the economic regulation of gas distribution pipelines from State-based regulators to the AER. So the bill has the effect of transferring responsibility from the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal to the AER. Responsibility for economic regulation of gas transmission pipelines in New South Wales had already been transferred to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and that responsibility will now be moved to the AER.

A single national body will now be responsible for the economic regulation of both gas transmission and distribution pipelines in New South Wales and in all other participating jurisdictions. The NGL sets out functions and powers for various persons and bodies, including the AER and AEMC, and includes provisions allowing disputes about the terms and conditions of access to regulated gas infrastructure to be arbitrated by the AER. The current role of jurisdictional Ministers and the National Competition Council [NCC] involving the coverage of pipelines by regulation—based on market power factors—will continue. The NGL contains important incentives to encourage investment in gas infrastructure. These include the continuation of the greenfields pipeline incentives established in the current regime in 2006, as well as improvements to the rules around cost recovery for investment in expanding existing pipelines and the introduction of a new light-handed regulatory option where the NCC will decide whether or not light regulation may apply to certain gas transmission or distribution pipelines which are not designated pipelines.

The gas industry will continue to have the benefit of a merits review regime. The Australian Competition Tribunal will hear merits review challenges of significant economic regulatory decisions, thereby making the AER more accountable when making such regulatory decisions. The NGL also provides for the establishment of the Natural Gas Market Bulletin Board. This is the first initiative developed by the industry-led Gas Market Leaders Group and will provide improved transparency and opportunities for trading in the gas market, as well as assistance in responding to gas emergencies.

I now turn to specific provisions of the bill. Part 2 applies, as a law of New South Wales, the National Gas Law set out in the schedule to the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 of South Australia, as well as regulations made under that law. The bill will repeal the Gas Pipelines Access (New South Wales) Act 1998, the current New South Wales legislation that applies the National Gas Pipelines Access Law as a law in this State. Part 3 of the bill confers necessary functions and powers on the Commonwealth Minister and Commonwealth bodies, including the AER, the Australian Competition Tribunal and the NCC. It also confers functions and powers on State Ministers, including the New South Wales Minister for Energy, to do things where powers are conferred by the National Gas Legislation of other States or Territories.

Part 4 of the bill contains miscellaneous provisions. The national regime exempts parties from the payment of stamp duty and other State taxes for transactions made to comply with requirements to ring-fence or legally separate transmission or distribution functions of a business from any competitive upstream, that is production, and downstream, that is retail, functions it may undertake. The stamp duty exemption ensures that the Government makes no windfall gains from the ring-fencing requirements in the NGL or as required by an AER ring-fencing determination made under the NGL. The bill also confers power on Ministers and Supreme Courts in certain situations involving regulation of cross-border distribution or transmission pipelines.

Schedule 1 of the bill enables the making of regulations of a savings or transitional nature consequent on the enactment of the bill. Various savings and transitional provisions relating to the continuation of access arrangements, associate contract approvals, the review of decisions, and other aspects of the transition from the current regime to the new regime, are generally to be found in the NGL and the NGR, not in jurisdictional application legislation. Schedule 2 contains amendments to a number of State Acts that are consequential on the commencement of this bill, for example, changing references in State laws from "Gas Pipelines Access (NSW) Law" to "National Gas (NSW) Law". The New South Wales Government has been an active participant, through the Treasury and the Department of Water and Energy, to bring about these national gas reforms. I commend this very important 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 Ms Tanya Gadiel, on behalf of Ms Linda Burney.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.53 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008. The bill implements the recommendations of the statutory review of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 and the outcomes of an independent review of the tribunal's operations. The tribunal offers a valuable service to the people of New South Wales by providing an accessible, efficient and affordable avenue for the resolution of disputes about the supply of goods and services and issues relating to residential property.

The tribunal conducts hearings throughout New South Wales and deals with matters under eight separate divisions, namely, Tenancy, Home Building, Strata and Community Schemes, Retirement Villages, Residential Parks, Motor Vehicles, General and Commercial divisions. The tribunal is headed by the chairperson, who is assisted by two deputy chairpersons. The Deputy Chairperson (Determinations) is responsible for the tribunal's adjudication function and assists the chairperson in managing members. The Deputy Chairperson (Registry and Administration) is a non-sitting member and is responsible for the tribunal's financial, administrative and registry functions.

In the last financial year the tribunal received 64,168 applications and conducted 79,826 hearings. It is a very busy tribunal indeed. Despite this workload, most matters were finalised within 35 days from lodgement, either at or before the first hearing. This reflects the tribunal's mandate to provide an informal alternative to the courts system for quick and low-cost dispute resolution. Wherever possible, the tribunal aims to bring the parties to a mutually agreed settlement. In most matters, qualified conciliators bring both parties together before a hearing to help them reach agreement. The tribunal came into being in February 2002, replacing the former Fair Trading and Residential Tribunals, and is established under the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001.

The bill arises as a result of the Iemma Government's consultation with interest groups and stakeholders during a statutory review of the Act's operation in practice. The review commenced with preliminary consultation being carried out with key interest groups to assist in identifying relevant issues for examination in the review. Following this an issues paper was prepared covering a wide range of topics, including jurisdiction, rehearings, appeals, member performance and procedure. Comment was also sought on any other relevant matters not specifically mentioned in the issues paper. Forty formal submissions were received in the course of the review, and I am pleased to say that more than a third of these came from individual consumers. The remaining submissions came from industry and consumer bodies, as well as individual traders, government agencies, and community and legal groups.

A report on the review was tabled in Parliament by my colleague the Hon. Diane Beamer. The review found that the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and that the terms of the Act are fundamentally appropriate for serving its objectives. It also found that the legislation could be improved in some areas to better meet the Act's objectives and improve the tribunal's effectiveness. In the course of the statutory review a number of operational issues arose. To respond to these the then Minister for Fair Trading commissioned an independent review of the tribunal's operations. The report on the operational review was publicly released on 13 July 2007. The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill addresses the recommendations of both reviews, as well as other matters that have since arisen.

I now take the opportunity to outline the main provisions in the bill. The bill clarifies members' qualification requirements by providing that members are to have ability or experience in alternative dispute resolution. This will replace the current requirement to simply have an understanding of, and commitment to, alternative dispute resolution. The tribunal chairperson is already required to be an Australian lawyer. The bill extends this to apply to the Deputy Chairperson (Determinations), recognising that the position holder is required to act as chairperson from time to time. The current deputy chairperson holds the appropriate qualifications.

The amendments will provide the chairperson with additional direction-making powers with regard to tribunal proceedings, to ensure that matters are dealt with as expeditiously as possible and in proportion to their cost and importance. The chairperson can currently give procedural directions to members about matters they are hearing. The amendment makes it clear that procedural directions can also be given for classes of proceedings. The chairperson will also be able to delegate certain powers of an administrative nature to the registrar and deputy registrars of the tribunal. These will include powers to adjourn proceedings, withdraw an application if requested by the applicant, give procedural directions, and make orders giving effect to a settlement. The specific powers will be prescribed in the regulations.

The bill removes the tribunal's power to apprehend a person who has been served with a summons to appear before the tribunal. The Act currently provides that a person who is served with a summons to attend and give evidence at a tribunal hearing and fails to attend may, after the issue of a warrant, be apprehended, detained and brought before the tribunal. The review concluded that it is not appropriate for the tribunal to carry out this role. When the tribunal makes an order, it can give leave to the person in whose favour the order is made to renew the proceedings if the order is not complied with within the period specified by the tribunal. There is currently no time limit for the renewal of proceedings after the other party has failed to comply. The review found that this was not appropriate and could lead to cases being renewed many years after the original order was made. The amendment limits the period in which this can be done to 12 months after the compliance date specified by the tribunal.

The current time period for providing written reasons for decisions by the tribunal is seven days after a request is made by one of the parties to the matter. This issue generated a great deal of comment in submissions to the review. Many submissions noted that, despite the best intentions, the tribunal rarely provides written reasons within this period. Other comparable tribunals, such as the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, are not subject to seven-day time limits. The review concluded that a 28-day time frame would be more appropriate and would enable the tribunal to meet its legislative obligations. The Act allows a party to completed proceedings to apply to have the proceedings reheard, in limited circumstances. The grounds for an application are where the applicant may have suffered a substantial injustice because the decision of the tribunal was not fair and equitable; or the decision went against the weight of evidence; or significant new evidence has become available since the original proceedings were heard. It is important to note that a rehearing is not an appeal. Rather, a rehearing allows for a matter to be heard afresh by the tribunal.

The chairperson makes the decision about whether a matter can be reheard, and that decision is final. The review concluded that, in general, it is appropriate that there is only one opportunity for a rehearing application to be made to the tribunal. However, the review also found there might be limited circumstances where natural justice considerations should allow for a second rehearing application, such as where substantial new evidence arises after the first rehearing application has been refused. The review also recommended that there be tight restrictions and limits on this second rehearing application process. Accordingly, the bill introduces a right for parties to make a second application for a rehearing of a matter in limited circumstances.

An application can be made if significant new evidence becomes available after the first refusal, and that evidence suggests a substantial injustice has occurred to one or more parties. The application will have to be made within the time period prescribed in the regulations. The chairperson will be able to delegate the power to consider rehearing applications to the Deputy Chairperson (Determinations). An application for a rehearing of completed proceedings currently cannot be made where the amount in dispute was over $25,000, or another amount prescribed in the regulations. The bill will remove the reference to a monetary amount from the Act and simply provide for the threshold to be prescribed in the regulations.

It is proposed to increase the threshold to $30,000, in line with the increase to the tribunal's general jurisdiction from $25,000 to $30,000, which was implemented last September. The bill provides for all tribunal proceedings to be sound recorded, unless circumstances arise that make it unreasonable to do so—for example, where there is a technical malfunction the member is unable to rectify. The requirement for sound recording will increase the transparency of tribunal proceedings and ensure there is an accurate record that could be used to resolve possible future complaints. Recordings will have to be kept for a period to be prescribed in the regulations.

The bill creates a new Social Housing Division in the tribunal. The new division will deal with applications relating to social housing premises, which are defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 as premises leased by a social housing provider. Social housing providers include the Land and Housing Corporation, the Department of Housing, the Office of Community Housing, the Aboriginal Housing Office, and registered community housing organisations. Tenancy applications make up the bulk of the tribunal's workload, comprising 77 per cent of all applications received in the last financial year. Currently around 25 per cent of tenancy applications are social housing matters. The tribunal has estimated that this amounts to more than 11,000 applications annually.

Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act over the past few years have introduced specific social housing provisions, including additional grounds for termination; legal recognition of acceptable behaviour agreements for public housing tenants; and additional consideration tribunal members may give to the special circumstances of social housing tenants. Social housing matters, accordingly, require specialist member knowledge and can take longer to resolve than other tenancy matters. The creation of the Social Housing Division will allow tribunal members to deal with these matters expeditiously whilst not delaying mainstream tenancy matters. Currently, the Act provides for full-time members of the tribunal to be paid in accordance with the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975, while the pay of part-time members is determined by the Minister. The bill provides that remuneration of all members is to be determined in the same manner—that is, in accordance with the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act.

The final amendment I will address today relates to the establishment of a Professional Practice and Review Committee for the tribunal. The committee's role will be to review and provide advice on matters referred to it by the Minister, the Commissioner for Fair Trading, the chairperson or another person prescribed in the regulations. Matters that will be able to be considered by the committee include the education, training or professional development of members; performance management of members; complaints against members and remedial or disciplinary action to be taken; and performance and complaints trends.

The committee will be comprised of the chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the tribunal, the Commissioner for Fair Trading and two other persons appointed by the Minister who have expertise in consumer protection, ethics, dispute resolution, education or public administration. The committee will be chaired by one of the independent appointees, who will have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a second or casting vote. In addition, one or more members of the committee, if dissatisfied with advice provided by the committee on any matter, will be able to provide a minority report to the person who referred the matter to the committee. The bill also provides for the procedures of the committee and reporting on its activities.

The statutory review also recommended that the tribunal's maximum general jurisdiction of $25,000 be increased to $30,000. This recommendation was implemented on 1 September 2007 when the Consumer Claims Regulation was remade. In concluding, this bill delivers a range of refinements and improvements to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act to significantly improve the tribunal's ability to resolve disputes between consumers and traders effectively. It comes as a result of the Government's statutory review, which involved extensive consultation with stakeholders, and the independent review of the tribunal's operations, and it deserves to receive strong support. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Steve Whan, on behalf of Mr Morris Iemma.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.08 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The purpose of the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Amendment (Black Opal) Bill 2008 is to recognise the black opal as the gemstone emblem for New South Wales. While schedule 3 of the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 lists the State's emblems, there is no gemstone emblem for the State. The proposal to recognise the black opal as the gemstone emblem for New South Wales has wide support. This includes support from the Australian Museum and the Lightning Ridge Opal and Fossil Centre. Black opal is a type of precious opal, or opal of gemstone quality. Precious opal is usually classified on the basis of the background colour of the stone and the type of colour pattern. The background for the colour play can be colourless, milky white, pale to dark grey, or black.

It is the most sought after type of precious opal as the very dark body colour enhances the depth of colour and the colour play is seen to its best advantage. The magnificent black opal ranks with diamond, emerald, ruby and sapphire as one of the most valuable gemstones in the world. Black opal is a suitable gemstone emblem for the State as it is the only gemstone that is mined in New South Wales in a significant amount. The only other gemstone mined in New South Wales is the sapphire; however, only a small amount is mined. In addition, sapphire is already recognised as the gemstone emblem for Queensland.

Internationally, the black opal is strongly associated with New South Wales, and in particular Lightning Ridge. Opal, in general, was discovered at Lightning Ridge in the late 1880s, with significant mining starting in the early 1900s. The opal industry in New South Wales is now largely based at Lightning Ridge, which has a population of about 1,200 people. This important regional centre also makes a large contribution to the tourism industry in New South Wales. The Australian Museum also advises that Lightning Ridge is now the world's major commercial producer of black opal and is world famous for its high-quality black opal. Specifically, Lightning Ridge supplies 95 per cent of the world's black opal. No other jurisdiction in Australia has the black opal as its gemstone emblem. While opal is already recognised as the gemstone emblem for Australia and South Australia, the black opal can be distinguished from opals generally due to its value.

The spectacular black opal is worthy of being declared the State's gemstone emblem as it is a world-famous gemstone and is strongly associated with Lightning Ridge and the State. Declaring the black opal to be the State's gemstone emblem is also likely to benefit the State's opal mining industry and the tourism industry. I am reasonably convinced that during the agreement in principle debate the bill will become known as the "Blackie bill"—and it probably should be recognised as such. I am sure there will be more to say about that during the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Consideration of the Legislative Council amendment.

No. 1 Page 4, Schedule 1 [2] (proposed clause 13). Omit all words on lines 26-37.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.12 a.m.]: I move:

That the House agree to the Legislative Council amendment.

The Government is extremely concerned about the amendment by the Legislative Council to the State Emergency and Rescue Management Amendment (Botany Emergency Works) Bill 2208. Let me be absolutely clear about the effect of the amendment: The taxpayers of New South Wales could be forced to meet the cost of ensuring that this necessary work is undertaken rather than the property developer who is responsible for the land on which the dangerous retaining wall is located. Let me make this c1ear: The Opposition and the Greens favour effectively giving taxpayers' money to a developer.

The Opposition and the Greens seem to believe that in circumstances where a dangerous situation has arisen on private property the taxpayers of New South Wales should be the ones to pay. The responsibilities of property developers have been shifted onto taxpayers. In those circumstances, what incentive is there for private property owners to take responsibility for ensuring their property does not pose a danger to others? Why would they do anything if they think the Government will step in to fix the problem? The Opposition in the other place tried to make out that these provisions are in some way unique and are an attempt to unfairly advantage the Government. They are not. They are designed to protect the taxpayers of New South Wales and to ensure that property owners act responsibly to address dangerous situations on their land.

There are numerous examples of cost-recovery provisions that apply when the Government has to step in to do work that property owners have refused to do. For example, section 61 of the existing Act already allows the costs of police having to step in to ensure public safety and take action on private property to be recovered from the property owner. Other examples include section 101 of the Roads Act, section 256 of the Water Management Act and section 121ZJ of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. As with these other examples, the clause that allowed for the costs to be recovered from the property owners reinforced the principle that they should be the ones responsible for addressing any situation on their land that poses a danger to others. Importantly, the provisions of the bill make it clear that nothing in the Act would affect the right of the property owner sto recover damages if it could be shown that the dangerous situation was the result of the negligence of some other person. The property owners could still show that someone else was liable for the damage, and recover costs.

At this stage, no-one knows who is responsible for these circumstances, despite the assertions of the Opposition that Sydney Water is responsible. In these circumstances why should the taxpayers of New South Wales be forced to foot the bill? While some have spoken about fairness to the property developer, what about fairness to the taxpayers who, as a result of the amendment moved by the Opposition and supported by the Greens, will now be much more likely to carry the full cost of those works—which are on the private land of a property developer? I point out that, even if it is shown that the property developer is found to be responsible for this set of circumstances it is by no means clear that the Department of Commerce will have a cause of action that allows it to recover costs. This is a matter on which the Government will need to take further advice. Nevertheless, and in spite of our strong reservations, the Government will accept the amendment in order to get on with the job of ensuring the safety of the site.

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

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council amendment agreed to.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Pursuant to standing orders debate postponed.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Pursuant to standing orders debate postponed.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Pursuant to standing orders debate postponed.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [11.20 a.m.]: Some water has passed under the bridge since the Government issued its response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital in late February. While the inquiry was centred on the problems at Royal North Shore Hospital, I hope that the recommendations, in tandem with the Garling inquiry, will lead to action to overcome systemic problems in the New South Wales health system. The Government announced that it accepted and supported in principle 43 of the 45 recommendations. The remaining two recommendations dealt with matters that are also being, or have been, addressed. One called for a follow-up inquiry into the Vanessa Anderson case. That has now been overtaken by the Government's establishment of the special commission of inquiry into the delivery of patient care within the New South Wales public health system. The recommendation has therefore been adopted in principle but on a larger scale.

I am pleased that the other recommendation not accepted as presented is being taken up in another form. It raised the operation of the Australian triage system and whether it would be appropriate to review the terminology used in emergency departments. It suggested the term "triage nurse" could be replaced by something more meaningful such as "priority nurse". The Minister has referred that recommendation to the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine for further expert consideration. As such, I am pleased that the committee's 45 recommendations have been dealt with. From my perspective as deputy chairman of that committee—and I hope I can speak on behalf of the other committee members who worked diligently on the inquiry—I commend the Government's prompt response to the recommendations.

The committee had to face some very traumatic evidence. In many ways Jana Horska's case precipitated the inquiry. Her baby was alive when Ms Horska went to the toilet in distress. Her husband, after hearing her screams, found the baby in Ms Horska's hands still connected to the umbilical cord. It is not possible to assess whether the miscarriage could have been prevented before that point had Mrs Horska received a higher level of attention. We know that in many hospitals babies born preterm survive, even at seven months gestation, with specialist treatment and use of a humidicrib. It quickly became obvious to the committee that women experiencing miscarriage symptoms must receive a very high priority. As a result the Government has adopted procedures whereby those women will bypass the emergency department and go to an area where they will receive expert assessment and assistance.

I have considered the Government's response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital and I am pleased that it has responded quite well to the recommendations. It is a good report, but it is important to remember that although it focused on Royal North Shore Hospital there are hospitals across this State facing similar challenges to deliver the highest standard of care for patients. The final success of the report will depend on the Government's responses being followed through.

Importantly, the committee raised the need for additional nurses to be employed at Royal North Shore Hospital. I was amazed when experienced nurses at the hospital told the committee they estimated there was a minimum shortage of 100 nurses. It is not hard to understand why this shortage placed tremendous pressure on the existing medical staff—both nurses and doctors—and also on patients. No wonder, when staff are under such enormous pressures, there are breakdowns in the system. Again, this problem is not confined to Royal North Shore Hospital. While I note the Government's response that 97 nurses have been successfully recruited to vacancies at the hospital in the past four months, maintaining and enhancing staffing levels must be a priority, now and into the future.

Pressures on emergency departments were also seen as a key problem, and our report called on NSW Health to expedite the work of the Emergency Department Workforce Reference Committee and the Ministerial Taskforce on Emergency Care in establishing optimum levels for emergency department workforces, including specialists, registrars and nurses, who are currently working in emergency departments. I am pleased that, in recognising the problem, the Government has the task force addressing these issues, including increasing patient numbers, workforce pressures and improving communication with hospital management.

Both the joint select committee inquiry into the Royal North Shore Hospital and the Garling inquiry have revealed a multitude of problems revolving around health provision in this State. At the end of the day it is not copious quantities of reports and talk that are the panacea to health provision problems; it is action. It is time for the mudslinging in the Parliament to come to an end and for us to work together to ensure that the recommendations are implemented effectively. We owe it not only to the patients but also to our dedicated, hardworking health professionals who through no fault of their own have had to weather constant criticisms over the past 18 months. Enough money has been spent getting to the bottom of the problem; this State's valuable resources must now be spent on fixing the system to guarantee the people of New South Wales a level of health provision they expect and deserve. I thank my fellow committee members, the committee staff, and all the doctors, nurses and patients who gave evidence before the inquiry. I note the Government's positive response, and eagerly await positive outcomes.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [11.25 a.m.]: I have spent 32 years in the New South Wales public health system, and the first four of those years were spent at Royal North Shore Hospital. The high quality of training in both the standards of care and compassion of medicine have stayed with me every day of my working life. I have stayed in contact with my colleagues from the hospital to this day. It gives me great pleasure to speak on the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital. When I started work at Royal North Shore Hospital in 1975 the old wards were due for refurbishment. A new block was opened after I arrived, and it says much about modern health care that it is now obsolescent after only 30 years. Committee members were shown around the facility, and we agreed that it is now time for redevelopment. The redevelopment of Royal North Shore Hospital is the biggest health capital works project in New South Wales. The Government will invest more than $700 million as part of its four-year $2.4 billion health infrastructure commitment. The research and education building is due for completion in October this year, which will be followed by the commencement of construction of the main hospital.

The one thing that can be said about Royal North Shore Hospital is that the excellent standard of clinical care at the hospital is striking. It is as good as anything one would receive in New South Wales, Australia or anywhere else in the world. I have worked around the world and I read the world's medical journals weekly, so I can verify that. If members do not believe me they can ask Dr Ross Wilson, a world leader on health care standards who testified before the inquiry. With every patient, decisions are made on balance of probability, and things do go wrong in hospitals. As Dr Hughes stated, there were approximately 500 SAC 1—the most serious form of so-called "adverse event" reports—in the New South Wales health system in 2005-06. It is important to note that these 500 incidents represent 0.03 per cent of the overall 1.5 million admissions to the New South Wales health system in the same year, and the more than 27 million services provided to outpatients and community health services. A comment made to the inquiry by Professor Bruce Barraclough, the Chair of the Clinical Excellence Commission, puts this in perspective. He stated:

"Mind you, modern health care is probably the most complex thing humans have ever attempted to do, not only because of the technology but because of the multiple human-human interactions and the complexity of that."

The second thing I would like to talk about is the staff who appeared before the committee. They are the most impressive bunch of clinicians I have met. I pay special tribute to the Royal North Shore Hospital nursing staff and, in particular, those who work in the emergency department. Every day they must make value judgements, clinical assessments and juggle competing priorities in a way that would put any politician to shame. They do so with compassion, commitment and kindness. For every complaint, they can show you hundreds of complimentary letters. Finally, I would like to mention the patients and relatives who appeared before this inquiry. They remind us all, regardless of party affiliation, why we are in this place: to make patient care the focus of our health system. All the studies on clinical governance place patients at the centre of any improvements in health care. In the future, we will have infinite demand and finite facilities, and only with the involvement of patients can we prioritise our resources.

The involvement of politicians in health care is necessary and desirable, because we represent the people. However, playing politics in a desire to gain political brownie points and using the hospital system as ammunition is counterproductive to making the necessary improvements in health care. It flies in the face of the basic principle of improvement in any quality system—that is, investigation and open disclosure. Playing politics reduces staff morale, and discourages staff from entering or staying in the public health system. Our health staff, regardless of political belief, deserve more from this place. I have been a patient at Royal North Shore Hospital, and I would happily go there again for treatment because I know, without a doubt, that I would receive care that is as good as anywhere in the world both clinically and compassionately. I am pleased that what I have seen during the inquiry supports this view.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.30 a.m.]: Like the member for Macquarie Fields, I have been a patient at Royal North Shore Hospital and I agree most vigorously with the member that the doctors and nurses at that hospital do a wonderful job. In many cases what they do is world-leading. The reality is that they are the people holding Royal North Shore together. They are the people who gave evidence to the Royal North Shore Hospital inquiry, and I commend reading the report thoroughly and the documents underlying it, which can be found on the parliamentary website—the many submissions put together by the leading clinicians at Royal North Shore Hospital and the transcript of evidence.

It is those doctors who demanded that this hospital inquiry be held. It is those doctors who came forward, sometimes at great risk to their employment because they were speaking against the rule that you cannot say anything publicly. I am talking about the head of the emergency department, the head of trauma, the head of the intensive care unit; I am talking about many nurses, some of whom were compelled to give evidence in camera because they were fearful for their jobs and some of whom gave evidence in tears because they were so frustrated about the circumstances in which they were working.

The evidence is there, which is why it is so discouraging that the recommendations in this report are so pathetic. Fifteen of them simply recommended further reviews. We do not need another review to know what was the problem at Royal North Shore Hospital. I commend to everybody the dissenting reports submitted by myself and The Nationals member, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, and published at page 225—right at the back of the report. In brief, our dissenting reports recommend the establishment of an independent oversight body to monitor and report on the implementation of recommendations in the report. Why was that necessary? Because doctors and others were saying to us that they had a sense of déjà vu.

We were asked to participate in the development of a clinical services plan some time ago. What happened? Nothing. We were asked to make comment about redevelopment of the hospital. What happened? A disaster. We wanted an independent oversight body to make sure that things moved on. We recommended that the Government make available more hospital-based training places for specialist training. This story was repeated again and again by doctors at the hospital and others, and in the report. We asked for the involvement of emergency department doctors in establishing optimum levels for the emergency department workforce recommended in the report, building on the guidelines from the Commonwealth body. We wanted 70 extra beds immediately opened at Royal North Shore Hospital. That was the recommendation of all the experts. This was about providing adequate resources to staff, with further work to determine how many beds would be needed to ensure less than an 85 per cent occupancy rate.

One of the really disturbing things about the evidence in this inquiry was the manipulation of data, which we know is ongoing—the data that the Government uses to try to suggest that occupancy rates were lower than they really were because they included beds that were not acute care beds and not available, for example, for patients coming from the emergency department. Why do I think it is terribly important that we look at these things? Because the same thing is happening now. I refer to evidence given by one doctor at this inquiry, Professor Stephen Hunyor. He told us, as many others did, what he thought was wrong: beds, staff and all the other things. He gave evidence at the inquiry in November 2007. He also gave evidence to the Garling special commission when it was held on 13 and 14 March this year, and he said the following to Mr Garling, who was heading that inquiry:

I think a lot of my colleagues have the feeling that your Committee of Inquiry is the last stop before some really bad outcomes, with the potential that if you fill the gap we will go into the future well.

Professor Hunyor and other experienced and respected people, such as Professor Michael Cousins from the pain management clinic—renowned worldwide as the best—said that they were ready to leave. They were demoralised and disenchanted because this inquiry, while it heard all the evidence, came up with nothing substantial. I believe it is an absolute disgrace that this was allowed to happen, that the efforts of the doctors, nurses and others, who put themselves out to assist the inquiry, were ignored with a set of recommendations that, as Professor Hunyor said, do nothing—and now Mr Garling is required to come up with some real solutions.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.35 a.m.]: I would like to make a short contribution in relation to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital. I do so particularly in relation to one of my constituents, Warren Anderson, whose daughter's death in November 2005 at Royal North Shore Hospital, whilst not the trigger for this inquiry, certainly was in the foreground of considerations for deciding to have such an inquiry and also in the considerations of the Committee. I note that, in the summary of recommendations in the main document, recommendation 1 states:

That if there are any recommendations from the Coroner's Report into the death of Vanessa Anderson that are within the terms of reference, the Parliament should consider re-establishing this Committee for inquiry and report into these matters.

Even though the Government's response was technically not to support that recommendation, other matters had overtaken the recommendation relating to the coronial inquiry conclusion where the Coroner recommended that further investigations into the health system be undertaken, and from that the Garling inquiry was set up. Warren Anderson and his family have been through so much. He came forward to the inquiry very bravely to state how he could help and what should happen in terms of what the Government should be looking at in relation to Health. At the inquiry he tabled a letter, a copy of which he had received, from Dr Lali Sekhon who was a spinal surgeon at Royal North Shore Hospital who had written to the then health Minister in 2005, before Vanessa Anderson died, stating the many reasons he felt he was forced to resign. He just could not work under a system that had so many problems associated with it.

To this day Warren Anderson has not been satisfactorily responded to, having asked for a response in relation to the letter that he tabled on the day he gave evidence. I call on the Government to respond to Warren Anderson in relation to that letter. No response from the Minister was forthcoming in relation to anything to do with that letter until after Vanessa Anderson's death, which is not satisfactory. I will refer to certain aspects of the Government response in terms of the recommendations. I draw the House's attention to recommendation 4, which is:

That NSCCAHS, as part of their role in the development of an Area clinical services plan, work with senior clinicians to determine if the RNSH needs additional beds.

I do not believe that that has been addressed: the absence of a clinical services plan for Royal North Shore Hospital is a glaring omission. I believe that a clinical services plan was to be urgently developed by April 2008. We are now in the month of April and no such clinical services plan, to my knowledge, is forthcoming. I also refer to recommendation 23, which is:

That the management of NSRHS review and modify the changes to nurse reporting structures implemented in 2006, in order to provide an operational voice for nurses in executive decisions.

That is an extremely important recommendation and I hope the Government addresses that aspect. I also refer to recommendation 24, which is:

That the role of Director of Nursing be reviewed as a matter of urgency, with a view to restoration of management responsibilities so that the most senior nurse on staff has authority to make decisions, and can provide leadership and support for the nursing staff.

That is an extremely important recommendation. As a nurse who trained at Royal North Shore Hospital, I find it bizarre that nurses, in the chain of command, do not report directly to their own director of nursing. This is something that the Government needs to address hastily in relation to career path as well as confidence of nursing staff that they are reporting to people who understand the predicament of nurses on the ground, in the hospital wards and other areas, and the decisions that need to be made by nurses.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.39 a.m.]: It is almost impossible to say in five minutes what one would like to say about this inquiry and report, but, like other members, I will do my best to speak quickly. I congratulate all the members on the committee for approaching the task of finding out what we could do as a committee to improve the lot of those who work at and those who are patients of Royal North Shore Hospital. It was obvious, and it still is, that there were, and there continue to be, problems at Royal North Shore Hospital. Human beings run the health system and while that remains the case there will be mistakes from time to time, but it is important to realise, as the member for Macquarie Fields has said, this is an excellent hospital providing world-class care.

One of the things that disappoint me is the approach of the Opposition to the hospital, especially in the face of the recommendations contained in the report. If one listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning one would see that a great deal of politics is being played in respect of not only this report but also the treatment of Royal North Shore Hospital generally and the Health portfolio in this State. What are the policies of the Opposition to fix this hospital? Employ more nurses; we are doing that. Find more doctors; we are doing that. The big thing that came out of the committee's inquiry is that the sole Opposition policy on Royal North Shore Hospital is that a hospital board should be reinstated. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition likes to quote clinicians. She enjoyed their evidence, found it very compelling and valuable. So did I, particularly the evidence of Dr Patrick Cregan, who is the senior surgeon at Nepean Hospital. He chairs the surgical services task force in the New South Wales Department of Health. His résumé is as long as my arm and I will not repeat it here.

Dr Andrew McDonald: He trained at North Shore.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: He trained at North Shore, as did his wife. The chairman of the committee, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, asked him this question:

We got the impression from some of the evidence that some of the people at Royal North Shore Hospital would like to go back to a hospital board—reverse the whole process, and so on.

This is what Dr Cregan said in response to that question:

Apart from firing all the nurses, if I could do one thing to destroy the whole system what would I do? I would institute individual hospital boards. Hospitals are part of a system: they have to be part of a system; they have to be part of a network, and an individual hospital board is a terrible thing to do.

I could go on, but I will not. The Government has agreed with all but two of the comprehensive recommendations that have come out of this report. We should keep in mind the work that is happening now and the performance of Royal North Shore Hospital since the report was handed down. It is in the midst of a $702 million commitment for rebuilding. If I am not mistaken, it is the biggest health infrastructure project ever undertaken in the history of this State. I could be wrong, but I do not think I am.

It was evident during the inquiry that there were engagement problems. I think the biggest problem at the Royal North Shore Hospital is the engagement between management and clinicians. The new chief executive officer of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service, Matthew Daly, has moved quickly to address that. He is actively engaged with the clinical staff at Royal North Shore Hospital. He has already overseen a number of changes—the recruitment of additional nurses, 97 of them, to Royal North Shore Hospital; the appointment of a second triage nurse for the hospital's emergency department, which was a big problem; further funding of additional beds as a specialist staff package to recruit specialists to Royal North Shore Hospital as part of a $30 million package for 150 new beds; the implementation of all of the recommendations from the Dalton-Meppem report into bullying at Royal North Shore; and the establishment of a professional practice unit to better deal with concerns raised by patients.

A further major reform has occurred with the establishment of the clinical reference group to provide advice to the chief executive officer and ensure that physicians have a real voice in the management of the hospital. This is what all the doctors wanted and this is what they got. It is a 20-member body, and some tremendous clinicians are on that board—Professor Malcolm Fisher, Dr Charles Fisher, Stephen Hunyer and Danny Stiel, who all gave evidence before the committee. We acknowledge that there is a hell of a lot of work to be done but it is being done effectively and all of the people doing it deserve congratulations.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [11.44 a.m.]: Yesterday I spoke on the proposed Frenchs Forest hospital and problems with health service delivery, including in Sydney's north. Royal North Shore Hospital falls within the same broad region of Sydney and is of keen interest to those in the area I represent. Many of the committee's recommendations and the Government's responses to the committee's report require increased resourcing. The Minister for Health continues to call for more Federal funding, and I support that call. There is a need for more funding of the health system. However, it also requires more funding from the New South Wales Government. A report I quoted yesterday, which contained figures demonstrating that in 2005-06 New South Wales had the lowest spending on public health per person of any State or Territory in Australia, is particularly pertinent to this point.

I agree with the comments made by the member for Macquarie Fields that the compassion, commitment and kindness of health staff are not to be doubted, which makes it all the more disturbing that the committee found that a culture of bullying and harassment exists in significant parts of Royal North Shore Hospital. As the chair said in his foreword, it is also indisputable that inappropriate workplace behaviour has been allowed to thrive for several years. This has had a devastating impact on many staff members and, most likely, on patients, whose care should be the centre of our health system. I look forward to seeing the Government's actions in response to this report rather than its words. I congratulate all those who had input into the report, including those brave people who willingly spoke up about their personal experiences with the health system and the hospital.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.46 a.m.]: In the brief time left for this debate I want to make a couple of points about the performance of Royal North Shore Hospital in recent months that I think give reason for hope. As the member for Maroubra mentioned, there are continuing problems in the health system but there are a hell of a lot of successes. For each of those tragic stories we hear about, there are many hundreds and probably thousands of people who are successfully treated and are happy with the treatment. If I have time I will come back to one of those in a moment.

During February this year Royal North Shore Hospital treated more than 3,600 patients in its emergency department, 1,374 of these patients required admission to a hospital bed, and 77 per cent of these patients were admitted within the benchmark time, which was a 6 per cent improvement over last year, despite a 9 per cent increase in the number of patients admitted. The benchmarks for all five hospital emergency department triage categories were exceeded during the month of February. That is an outstanding performance in the face of rising demand. In elective surgery, the February data shows no patient waiting longer than 12 months for non-urgent surgery and no patient waiting longer than 30 days for urgent surgery. That is a credit to the way the staff has been embracing change at Royal North Shore Hospital and something we should acknowledge in a positive way as we discuss this report.

Our health system certainly has a lot of challenges. The Rural Doctors Association has been in the media today saying that we need 1,000 additional doctors and 15,000 additional health professionals in Australia to overcome shortages. The association is talking to the new Federal Government about that because it knows it will probably get a positive response, unlike from the previous Coalition Government. Over recent years the former Howard Government reduced public hospital funding, which is one of the reasons why our hospital systems are struggling. The vast majority of people who go through our public hospital system do so successfully and they are pleased with the service that they receive. Earlier the member for Maroubra said that human beings run our hospital system. This Government is addressing these systemic problems but it has to take into account the fact that there could be some form of human error. It is tragic when Opposition members try to politicise the cases of certain individuals.

Recently, Opposition members who were visiting Cooma told the local media that it had no emergency department, which was false. They then told the media that the department's resources were being reduced, which was also false, and they referred to a child who needed an appendectomy who had to be taken to Canberra for treatment. They said that the mother of that child, who was unhappy with Cooma Hospital as her child could not be treated, wrote a letter to the paper stating that she was disgusted by that lack of service. In fact, the mother wrote a letter to the paper to thank the hospital for its service and to state how pleased she was with that service. However, she expressed some concern about the way in which she had to wait in Canberra once she got there. She stated clearly in her letter that she did not want to see her child's case being politicised.

Another constituent of mine recently wrote to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and asked her not to politicise a case that had been made public. A week or so ago I referred in this place to appendectomies. In one of those bizarre coincidences, last weekend my son was admitted to Queanbeyan Hospital for an emergency appendectomy. Members of staff at that hospital were fabulous. At the time a surgeon was not present at the hospital—we acknowledge that surgeons need breaks—so my son was transferred by ambulance to Canberra Hospital, treated in that hospital and had his appendix removed the next day. I have nothing but praise for staff at that hospital.

If I had not been involved in that incident that story would have gone unnoticed. However, I was able to see firsthand the great work of the staff at that hospital. For every tragic story in our hospitals—we always regret tragic stories and we hope to be able to eliminate them—there are thousands of good stories. Hospital staff do a wonderful job and this Government continues to put more resources into the health system, but we have to ensure that that money is being used to benefit staff and patients. Recently I was annoyed at the double standards of Opposition members relating to funding allocations for the hospital system. Opposition members say that there is too much bureaucracy but when changes are made to reduce the amount of bureaucracy in country areas they oppose those changes and want another layer of bureaucracy in the form of outdated hospital boards.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Report noted.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Pursuant to standing orders debate postponed.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Pursuant to standing orders debate postponed.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.54 a.m.]: I wish to speak briefly in debate on the report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 4 2008" and to commend the hardworking members of that committee. Committee members are often given very short notice of legislation that requires review. In accordance with the committee's terms of reference, committee members meet regularly to review many pieces of legislation. Members of Parliament require a period of five days within which to review and analyse legislation and to ask organisations and individuals in their respective electorates and constituencies about its content.

If we are not given a period of five days within which to do so it makes it extremely difficult, and all the good work done by committee members and staff assisting and supporting the committee in preparation for those meetings and the publication of the digest goes down drain. The Government must ensure that members of Parliament have a period of five days within which to examine legislation. We had an example this week when legislation was introduced and members were not given five days within which to examine it, which is not in the interests of the community. Recently the committee reviewed the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill—one piece of legislation on a long list of legislation for consideration.

The committee carefully considers legislation relating to the invasion of personal rights and so on, so it was extremely concerned about the impact of this bill on public housing tenants. Issues of concern have been listed in the committee's report. Members are assisted in this valuable way to protect the personal rights and liberties of others and to ensure that there is no inappropriate delegation of legislative powers. However, we need appropriate time within which to consider these pieces of legislation before they are debated in this Chamber.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [11.57 a.m.]: I take note of the comments of the member for Hornsby and concur with her. The Legislation Review Committee, a hardworking committee, is extremely important to the functioning of this Parliament. In the absence of anything like a charter of rights in New South Wales this committee fulfils that role by testing legislation against a series of requirements under the Legislation Review Act, in particular trespass against personal rights and liberties and established principles of law. The committee cannot, as a matter of course, reject any government legislation or private members' bills, but it can draw to the attention of members potential trespasses or issues that are likely to impact adversely on people's rights, and those issues are referred to the Parliament.

The Parliament then has to determine whether or not to proceed with legislation despite the issues that have been drawn to its attention by the committee. The member for Hornsby said earlier that the committee works to a very tight timetable. The committee has to respond to these issues within a limited time frame, which results in a heavy workload, in particular, for the chair of the committee. However, the committee gets the work done and the Parliament regularly receives reports in accordance with the required timetable. I refer, as an example, to the committee's report on the Government's Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008.

It should be remembered that both the chair and the deputy chair of this committee are members of the governing party, but that did not prevent this committee from drawing to the attention of the Parliament a number of matters in which concern had been expressed about the impact of the legislation on personal rights and liberties. Some of the issues that were identified included the possibility of excessive punishment, whether or not these proposals were considered too severe, and whether or not the legislation trespassed on personal rights and liberties. Similarly, the research staff, who do an excellent job, reviewed other Australian jurisdictions to see whether similar provisions operated and, if so, the impact of those provisions. Of course, they identified no similar provisions in other jurisdictions.

The report identified that we were changing established law, for example, in relation to the question of privity in tenancy contractual arrangements. Again, the Parliament will determine whether the proposed changes, whilst recognised as impacting on certain personal rights and liberties, were excessive in the circumstances. A number of members find the legislation review reports useful; they are extremely handy to have in their offices when people challenge them about legislation. The report contains a succinct summary of the potential impacts, a copy of the agreement in principle speech and the bill, which are forwarded to Legislation Review Committee members for reference. The Legislation Review Committee is a hard-working committee; everyone would like to be given more time so we can investigate matters thoroughly. But the committee also cannot, as a matter of course, hold up government business.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Report noted.

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

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.02 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of House concerns about the loss of the hydrotherapy pool at Royal North Shore Hospital. Many of my constituents, as well as people from neighbouring areas who have used the pool for many years, have raised this matter with me. In December 2006 I first wrote to the then Minister for Health, Mr John Hatzistergos, about this issue. I have since written to the current Minister who, unfortunately, does not seem to know what has happened. In a letter to me dated 14 March 2008 she said that the pool would remain operational until the end of this year. Information I have gleaned from the hospital is that the pool will close in the second half of this year, but then verbal information to patients is that it will close almost immediately. The problem is that the plans for the redevelopment of the hospital do not include a hydrotherapy pool. I put on record some of the comments of my constituents. Diana Weate of Wollstonecraft is aged 71 years and regularly attends hydrotherapy classes. She wrote:

Without hydrotherapy my health would deteriorate and I would certainly become a costly burden on the health care system.

Rosemary O'Mara of North Sydney suffers from a condition called arachnoiditis, which is an inflammation of the middle covering of the spinal cord. She wrote:

I have been attending the hydrotherapy pool on medical advice for approximately 12 years and have remained completely independent. I am convinced that my current level of functioning is being maintained by regular hydrotherapy attendance.

Helen Blake of Neutral Bay expressed concern to my staff that the closure of the pool will mean the end of vital in-patient hydrotherapy services at the hospital. Royal North Shore Hospital has a specialist spinal unit, the largest in the State, receiving patients from all over the State. Many in-patients depend on the hydrotherapy services for recovery. If the pool is closed, this service no longer will be available. During last year's parliamentary inquiry into Royal North Shore Hospital, which was the subject of a report tabled earlier today in this place, two physiotherapists appeared as witnesses and provided compelling argument for the need for a hydrotherapy pool at the redeveloped hospital. Unfortunately, the Labor-dominated committee refused in its final report to address the absence of the hydrotherapy pool in the plans for the redeveloped hospital.

On 2 April this year the Garling special inquiry into health visited Royal Shore Hospital to hold a public hearing at which the hospital's allied health professionals again delivered compelling evidence that the hydrotherapy pool needs to remain open. It is my hope that in his final report Commissioner Garling will recommend that the pool remain open until it must close for the redevelopment, which will not be for some time, and is included in the plans for the redeveloped hospital. I refer to particular evidence during the inquiry that was the subject of an article in the North Shore Times dated 4 April 2008. The evidence can be found also in the transcript available on the inquiry's website. I refer particularly to comments of the head of rheumatology, Rodger Levant, who said that the loss of the hydrotherapy pool "shows a lack of understanding that hydrotherapy is an essential service for both acute and chronic patients." He said:

Transport is not an issue for people who are well, but for patients who are very sick it is a major issue.

He makes that point because the plans for hydrotherapy treatment for patients at Royal North Shore Hospitalthe hospital with the State's specialist spinal unit to help patients from across the State, including patients in the electorates of Government members sitting oppositesuggest that those patients somehow should get themselves to Greenwich. Anyone familiar with the distance between Greenwich and Royal North Shore Hospital knows that that suggestion is ridiculous. The article stated further:

Spinal rehabilitation specialist Sue Rutkovski, who has 21 years' experience in the field, told the inquiry newly-injured spinal patients were very "fragile".

"They are liable to faint, they have difficulties with temperature control and they need to be attended by someone all the time who is aware of all these things," she said.

Imagine taking those staff out of the hospital to transport these patients to Greenwich. As I said earlier, the hospital has the largest spinal unit in New South Wales and I question the economic wisdom of closing the pool. I have launched a petition that allows people across the board to express their views about the closure of the hydrotherapy pool at Royal North Shore Hospital.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [12.07 p.m.]: I am a member of the Charles Sturt University council along with my upper House colleague the Hon. Tony Catanzariti. Members may be aware that last week a program, developed to promote Charles Sturt University and the benefits it brings not only to country and regional New South Wales but also Australia, was showcased in Parliament House to mark Charles Sturt University Week. At a ceremony in the Strangers' Dining Room on Monday 31 March the Premier launched the program. Lawrie Willett, the chancellor of the university, and Professor Ian Goulter, the university vice-chancellor, supported him.

Reverend Professor James Haire, AO, Director of the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture, gave a public lecture on Tuesday. His informative lecture was entitled "Islam and ChristianityCan the Two Live in Peace?" Professor Shahbaz Khan, Director of the International Centre of Water for Food Security, delivered a second public lecture on Wednesday. Professor Khan shortly will commence work for the United Nations in Paris on world hydrology issues. He is one of the foremost experts on hydrology. If members are interested in reading his papers, they will find them quite fascinating and informative.

The Centre for Indigenous Studies, which will be located at Charles Sturt University Dubbo campus, was launched on Thursday. I am proud to say that the Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering, Linda Burney, who is a graduate of Charles Sturt University's Mitchell College of Advanced Education and also the first Aboriginal graduate in education, launched the campus. Professor Toni Downes, Dean of the Faculty of Education, supported her. On that same day, Parliament House hosted an alumni cocktail party. The communications degree course offered by Charles Sturt University is probably the most recognised in Australia.

Many famous people, many of whom can be seen on television, including Andrew Denton, Chris Bath, Selina Edmonds, Jessica Rowe and our own George Wood of Prime Television, who operates out of this Parliament, graduated from the course. The idea of promoting the university is to highlight the benefit of the university to regional Australia. One of the big problems faced in regional Australia is the shortage of professionals, particularly in health fields. Charles Sturt University has been at the forefront of addressing the shortages and has a terrific record of training graduates in country areas.

In recent years the Charles Sturt University introduced a pharmacy course. Between 1995 and 2000, before the pharmacy course was introduced, an average of three metropolitan-trained pharmacists were allocated to regional areas each year. Each year since the Charles Sturt University's first pharmacy students graduated, 35 graduates or more have chosen to practise in rural and regional centres. That amounts to more than 110 new pharmacists practising in rural and regional Australia within just three years. Without the Charles Sturt University, many towns and communities would not have a local pharmacist, which would lead to a further decline in professional services across inland Australia. That demonstrates the value of training professional people in the regions.

The Charles Sturt University developed the first veterinarian course outside a capital city of Australia. If history repeats itself, most of the graduates will practise in regional areas of New South Wales. From next year the Charles Sturt University will introduce the first dental school outside a mainstream university. In New South Wales there is only one dental course and that trains 45 graduates a year, but that number of graduates is lower than the number of dentists who retire each year. If people wonder why they are having trouble obtaining an appointment with a dentist and have to pay astronomical dental bills, that may be the reason.

I commend the Howard Government—I am sure members opposite will be pleased—for allocating $56 million to set up the School of Dentistry at the Charles Sturt University. The funds have been shared equally between the Orange, Bathurst and Wagga Wagga campuses of the university. The footprint of the Charles Sturt University across New South Wales extends from Albury-Wodonga, Wagga Wagga and Canberra to Bathurst—which is also the main campus and the headquarters of the vice-chancellor—right through to Dubbo. The university is even developing a School of Education in Ontario, Canada. Charles Sturt University is the great inland university of New South Wales. I am proud to be a member of its council.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.12 p.m.]: I thank the member for Bathurst for his comments and note the important role that regional universities play in rural communities, particularly in relation to boosting jobs and the local economy. I note that some of our famous universities include the Charles Sturt University and the University of New England in Armidale, of which I am a graduate. I congratulate the member for Bathurst on his passion for the university and his service to the university council. The Charles Sturt University is an outstanding university. I congratulate the university on its vision in introducing veterinarian and dentistry courses.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [12.13 p.m.]: Again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. I inform the House about the operations and future direction of the Bright Side of Life respite centre, which is a wonderful and extremely important cancer patient facility situated in the Tweed. The Bright Side of Life seeks to provide palliative care and an end-of-life facility for people of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds with the goal of supporting each individual patient's journey through their final phase of life. Studies of the Tweed and the Far North Coast of New South Wales identified a complete lack of stand-alone hospice facilities. That resulted in the formation of a partnership between the Bright Side of Life and Tweed Palliative Support Incorporated that investigated the establishment of an accredited hospice facility in the northern region of New South Wales.

A review of the Bright Side of Life's operations found that the centre already meets required standards in infrastructure and equipment as well as professional care. In the words of the management of the centre, it is a "hospice in all but name and funding". The centre largely has progressed due to funding from Tweed Palliative Care Incorporated and the generosity of Gillian Cooper, who is a registered nurse and who has used her own funds to establish this wonderful facility. However, the long-term future of the centre as a care facility for terminally ill patients is at risk due to the lack of government funding. The centre receives absolutely no government funding or resources. Operating as a sole trader, it has no access to government grants and thus gains funding purely through the generosity and donations of local people.

In two public hospitals in the Tweed currently, no beds are specifically assigned for palliative care. A local nursing home has two beds, but this is grossly inadequate in providing a service for the estimated 3,500 cancer patients in the Tweed plus 2,500 from the southern Gold Coast who use facilities in the Tweed. As the Bright Side of Life seeks to evolve into a fully accredited hospice facility and as the Tweed population continues to grow and age at a rapid rate, the urgent need for government funding for this facility is clear. Given that there are no accredited stand-alone hospice facilities in central northern New South Wales, it is entirely possible that this facility will service a much greater area than the Tweed in the future.

Upon accreditation it is estimated that the centre will require approximately $1.15 million each year to operate four hospice beds. This funding will be sought from both the New South Wales and Federal governments as well as from donations and fundraising through the private sector. It is important to note that the cost of four hospice beds in a hospital is more than $1.7 million, making the Bright Side of Life a much more viable option. Securing the future of the Bright Side of Life is an important matter not only for cancer patients in the Tweed but also for cancer patients located in the northern New South Wales region. It is vital to ensure that most critically ill cancer patients have the resources to see out their final days in a comfortable and caring environment. Full accreditation for the Bright Side of Life to hospice status and the grant of associated funding will assist in achieving that goal.

I extend an invitation to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), Verity Firth, to visit the facility and gain a valuable insight by speaking to cancer patients and their families as well as cancer specialists. I believe we can demonstrate that our need for funding is even greater than that of other regional centres, which, in recent times, have won approval for radiation therapy services. I believe that the Minister will find such a visit enjoyable and informative, and it will give her a better understanding of cancer issues in the Tweed. It will also serve to inform future government policy. When I visited the hospice, I found it a very moving experience. The centre obviously provides a very valuable service to the people of the Tweed. As well as being the local parliamentary representative who is attempting to strengthen and promote the centre, I am a member of the organising committee of the hospice. I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. I am also 100 per cent for the Bright Side of Life centre.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour) [12.18 p.m.]: On 11 March 2008 I had the pleasure of representing the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services at the Annual State Conference of the New South Wales University of the Third Age [U3A Network] at the Warilla Bowling Club in the Shellharbour electorate. Recognising the strong commitment and achievements of Shellharbour seniors to life-long learning and education, the U3A Network of New South Wales selected Shellharbour as the setting for this year's annual conference, with around 200 seniors from across the State attending the conference held at the Warilla Bowls and Recreation Club.

The New South Wales U3A annual conference incorporated a mix of speakers including Dr Barry Jones, AO, Peter Treseder, AM, Professor Don Iverson, Michael Newman, Paul Deverell, Professor Ainslie Lamb, Dr Celeste Rossetto and the travel editor from the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Bruce Elder. This year's event took on added significance as the official opening of the conference was preceded by a Welcome to Country performed by Barbara Nicholson. By all reports the U3A annual conference was a great success, due in large part to the outstanding contribution from all of the Shellharbour committee members who worked tirelessly to organise the large event. In particular, I recognise the efforts of Shellharbour committee members Sheila Gall, Ray Gall, Dirk Meyer, Mary Graham, Joyce Nixon and Roy Arneman.

The U3A State Conference not only represented a great opportunity to raise the profile of the Shellharbour and surrounding Illawarra U3As, but also provided a chance to showcase the spectacular long sandy beaches, rural tranquillity and modern recreation and shopping facilities that Shellharbour has to offer. The U3A movement is a collection of autonomous organisations that share a common goal of providing a diverse range of life-long learning opportunities within a social setting for older members of their communities. The U3A offers a unique approach to later education, operating in accordance with the guiding principle of learning for pleasure, with absolutely no previous qualifications required. There is no formal validation or accreditation associated with U3A courses, removing the need for any examinations or assessment, which, for some, after enduring a lifetime of rigorous academic study and application, represents a highly attractive feature of the U3A programs.

All of the courses run by U3A are self-supporting and are convened by tutors within the various groups, which draw from a lifetime of experience across a broad range of disciplines. U3As offer leaning activities that aim to directly reflect the interest of its members, with programs stretching across a wide range of areas, including, educational, cultural, recreational, physical and social events. The Shellharbour branch of the U3A regularly attracts around 100 people to its weekly meetings, providing an important forum for local retirees and pensioners to enjoy fellowship together while pursuing healthy physical and mental activity.

The Government has maintained a long and positive working relationship with the U3A network, encouraging many older people from across New South Wales to engage in a vast array of healthy activities. This year, as in previous years, the Government has funded a number of grants as part of Seniors Week for U3A to run a range of activities including information and discussion forums, trivia afternoons, performances and book launches. It is hoped that these activities will encourage more seniors to continue their quest for knowledge and take part in some of the many courses offered by U3A, which enable older people to attempt fresh challenges and gain the satisfaction of acquiring new skills.

New South Wales is undergoing a significant demographic change, with forward estimates predicting that by 2018 New South Wales for the first time in the State's history will have more people aged over 65 years than children aged 14 years or younger. This represents a radical shift in the total proportion of New South Wales residents aged over 65, with the current number of around one million expected to double to two million by 2036. The New South Wales Government is working hard to manage the changing needs created by this demographic shift, and recognises the importance of organisations such as U3A in helping to facilitate the independence and positive health of older people in our local communities.

I am immensely proud to have such a vibrant and active U3A association in my electorate of Shellharbour. As a member of the Iemma Government, I look forward to continuing to work with organisations such as U3A in promoting healthy ageing and community participation. Once again, I congratulate the Shellharbour U3A on organising this year's highly successful U3A State Conference. I commend also the broader association for its terrific contribution in enabling older people no longer engaged in full-time paid employment to share their knowledge, skills, interests and experience.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [12.23 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House two public facilities in my electorate, Lilli Pilli Public School and Prince Street seawall. I received a letter from the secretary of Lilli Pilli Parents and Citizens Association, which stated:

On behalf of the parents and children of Lilli Pilli Public School I respectfully request your immediate attention in regards to an issue in our Infants Department playground that has become a serious health threat to our children.

The only "undercover" area that existed on the infants site where an assembly could be held or the children could sit for a lunch was a parent funded and parent organised shade shelter that was installed 11 years ago. This soft canopied shade structure was destroyed in a storm over 12 months ago causing the infants playground to be left completely without shade. The timetable of the school is even affected as attempts are made to keep the children out of the sun during the hottest part of the day while they sit and eat their lunches. In reference to a previous request that you put forward in Parliament on our behalf we were denied a hall due to insufficient numbers. Surely, when the health and safety of the children is at risk the DET should immediately act to at least install a hard roofed covered area to provide essential shade for all of the children on the infants site.

The parents have the right to expect that the school provides a safe environment for the children when they attend every day and the DET is failing completely in its responsibility to provide this.

And so has the Iemma Government. The letter continued:

The DET now also insists on Project Managing all works within a school so as a parent body we are prevented from even providing low-cost shade options for our children from raised funds—

that is appalling—

Lilli Pilli Public School has been on numerous lists for funding for works to be carried out on our school including a Joint Funding application, a very slow moving Incentive Program and an Asset Management Minor Works Program. The P&C has funds set aside in an account as required should our joint funding application for covered walkways/shade be successful but the inaction of the DET has reached a point where the health risks to the children are totally unacceptable and action needs to be taken immediately.

It is important that the Iemma Government take that action to ensure that children do not continue to suffer. The second public facility is the Prince Street seawall, which was constructed in 1985-86 with State and Federal funding following the collapse of an earlier structure during severe storms that lashed the coast in 1975. The wall is approximately 340 metres long and has four distinct components, which I shall not describe because members who visit Cronulla can inspect the wall. The current stability of the seawall is questionable and its deterioration could be rapid, which could place at risk numerous developments taking place in Prince Street. Damage to public and private assets could be substantial, as could a loss of tourism income—the Iemma Government has a particular interest in that revenue. Council provided funding of $1 million in its 2007-2008 budget and anticipates a State grant of $1 million.

The current five-year financial plan provides a further $1 million in the 2008-09 financial year to support the restoration project. Council will examine ways to access the funds at a future time. Although Minister Koperberg provided $500,000, no further State funding has been forthcoming. Indeed, the State budget has allocated only $2.9 million towards coastal management funds for the entire State. If the Government does not intend to provide the funds because it is still under the impression that the Hon. Marie Ficarra lives in Prince Street, I advise the Government that she has moved. Therefore, the Government should repair the wall to ensure the safety of the residents of Prince Street.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [12.28 p.m.]: Violence in any form against women and children is not only unacceptable, it is also an abomination to us all, especially when that violence is perpetrated by a family member, a close friend or a person in a position of trust. When that trust is breached, it not only hurts the victims directly, it hurts us all. It is said that domestic violence costs Australian businesses $1.5 billion per year while the cost to the economy can be as high as $8.1 billion. The social cost is immeasurable. Unfortunately, my electorate of Maitland has a relatively high incidence of domestic violence. Typically, it involves victims who are mothers, partners and, most unfortunately, children.

In my time as a prosecutor, I dealt with many cases of domestic violence and saw firsthand how it has ruined families and taken away many opportunities that our young people would otherwise have had in life. We are very lucky in Maitland to have a group of people dedicated to helping these victims and today I pay tribute to them. Carrie's Place is an organisation in Maitland that has assisted victims of violence for over 15 years. This refuge with its outreach centre has become a real institution in the Maitland and lower Hunter area and a place where many victims have sought assistance. We have all come to rely on this extraordinary group of people who dedicate so much of their time in helping those unfortunate enough to be subjected to violence in their own homes. Their mission statement is:

To increase the number of families in Maitland that are living independently, safe and free from abuse, addiction and reliance on Government/non Government services. This will be achieved by developing and facilitating a holistic program which empowers women with/without dependant children from domestic/family violence backgrounds.

The women who support Carrie's Place are dedicated advocates who are determined to work hard and make sure that the value of these services is not overlooked by the community. What is also clear is that Carrie's Place is dedicated to breaking the cycle—the cycle that I have seen so many times in the courts. On 30 January 2008 I had the pleasure of visiting the refuge with the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Kevin Greene. The Minister wanted to see for himself the work that was being done at Carrie's Place and he was most impressed. I was most pleased when the Minister announced an additional $150,000 grant to Carrie's Place over the next three years.

This was in recognition of just how reliant we as a Government and as a community are on organisations like this to break the cycle of domestic violence. This funding will allow Carrie's Place to continue to develop excellent programs for our victims of crime and, most importantly, to give our young victims a chance in life. In my 12 years in the courts I came across many reports which detailed the history of offenders and the great majority of them would make mention of how those offenders grew up in violent homes. They were victims of some form of physical violence or sexual assault when they were young.

This scourge in society affects us all. Firstly, there is the economic cost as I have outlined above. Then there is the emotional cost that we all pay when we hear of these stories. There is also the cost we pay and that we share with our young victims, many of them having not been given opportunities to make something of their lives. I have seen so many young offenders who have fallen foul of the law and repeatedly come before the courts. These youngsters were otherwise capable of achieving great things in life but because they grew up in a violent home they were never given the opportunity for a decent education, nor were they the beneficiaries of sound advice to help them achieve. Wasted potential is a cost to us all.

I congratulate and thank the manager of Carrie's Place, Ms Sabine Wagner, together with all of the women support workers, co-ordinators, consultants, relief workers and other staff, on the excellent work they are doing for these victims and for all of us in the Maitland community. Their work is highly valued and we are very lucky to have them all in Maitland. It is very important for us as community leaders to recognise in this House the great work of community groups in our individual electorates. Carrie's Place is an institution in Maitland. It has developed remarkably over the past 15 years into an organisation where victims of domestic violence, partners or mothers, and especially children, can seek refuge from the perpetrators and be taken care of and receive solace. With the new initiative by the Iemma Government to better prepare matters for court and have police dedicate more resources to this problem, I am confident that Carrie's Place will continue to make inroads into this scourge in society and help all victims of this terrible phenomenon.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [12.33 p.m.]: Today I raise the issue of the Jetty Bunker Youth Service and I do so somewhat reluctantly. I would like to read as much of a letter as I can get onto the Hansard record from Mr Jeff Chapman, who was previously employed there. Mr Chapman has a bachelor of social work degree from the University of New South Wales. The letter reads:

Dear Andrew

First I would like to thank you for meeting … The abuse of children is so abhorrent that something must be done to stop the past, present and ongoing abuse of these marginalised and needy young people. To think that consecutive Organisations whose job is to protect these young people continue to lie and cover up the facts for their own personal gain is beyond comprehension.

The Minister in writing to you and me has stated the following inaccuracies; I trust you will deal with these lies in the manner they deserve. I would be interested in how Mr Greene will respond to inaccuracies that he now has leant his name to.

Mr Greene in his letter dated 5 November 2007 states
"DoCS has been assured that Mr Chapman's allegations have been fully investigated and that appropriate human resource management strategies have been put in place to ensure that all staff are aware of appropriate conduct in the workplace".
Part of these strategies have been according to Mr Greene in his letter dated the 5 September 2007 states; "Ms Rix was also informed that for part of the time the Coordinator had been on leave an Acting Coordinator, which is a qualified Psychologist …. has been engaged'.
The referred to Psychologist is a Mr Michael Moore, who is NOT a psychologist, he is a Plumber, and as both professions fix leaky situations, I can see the obvious confusion!'
I am amazed that Mr Greene would have the audacity to put his name to such an obvious inaccuracy/lie. This is part of the problem, as Mr Greene continues to write about investigations of the Jetty Bunker without his Department once speaking to any of the people who have complained about the abuse of the young people and the subsequent 'cover-up'.
*Mr Greene writes on the 5 September 2007; 'YAA (Youth Accommodation Association) assisted the Acting Coordinator to conduct a Staff Appraisal process, which has been of significance assistance to the Management and staff'. I question that this ever occurred. The YAA may have some objections to their good name being 'muddied' by the Minister's ascertains. As the Acting Coordinator referred to in the Minister's letter is obviously Michael Moore as he is a Mediator, was only A/C for a very short period of time and while he was A/C no such appraisal process took place. If some process did take place the staff appraisals left out one important part of the process ……. Staff members were left out of the process!
The Minister writes that, 'The Acting Chairperson … reports that staff morale appears to be much improved'. In response to this Worker Tania Hadlow was at the time on compensation for 'workplace anxiety and depression' as was for a short time Sam Hepi. Who previously was not at work as he was on compensation for falling over and injuring his back,'.
Worker Steve Dargue had put in a claim for workplace anxiety, which was not accepted by the Management Committee and worker Jo Page has not returned to the workplace due to her serious complaints about the abuse of the young people being covered up. The Management Committee has assured me in a Management Committee meeting after Jo Page had once again reiterated her complaints about Mr Michael Van Den Boogaard assured me that he would be dismissed. This has not happened as he is a personal friend of members of the then Management Committee.
Mr Michael Moore was again hired (another friend … ) to conduct mediation between Michael Van Den Boogaard and Lindy Davies in recent months as their working relationship had become untenable.
The only other FT worker left in employment at the Jetty Bunker at this time was Mr John Sprott who is the acting Coordinator and has been since approximately January 2007. Mr Sprott is the person on hearing yet more complaints about Michael's abuse of young people to say to Tania Hadlow, 'Michael is very good about covering his tracks'. This has left NO workers left to be considered that their 'morale appears to be much improved'.

GIO investigator Mr David Rope … after having no co-operation from the Management Committee in his endeavours to investigate what was occurring in the Agency has asked that his diary and report be subpoenaed for the purpose of any investigation that was to occur.
Acting Chairperson Ms Meena Johnson in response to why she had not participated in Mr Rope's investigation stated she had never heard of him. Mr Rope was able to show me his diary which documents all his attempts to speak directly to Ms Johnson, including notes in his diary where he has left numerous messages for her to contact him. Mr Rope is happy to provide all his documentation which unquestionably shows that a cover up was occurring as far back as February 2007.
Minister Greene has also brought unwittingly the name of the National Data Collection Agency (NDCA) into this cover-up. …
Mr Greene states that; "Mr. Chapman alleges that there was a period of four weeks during which the refuge had no clients whatsoever it is incorrect. I am informed that NDCA figures show that this is incorrect. There was a period of 12 days, from 4 August to 16 August 2007, when there were no residents in the Refuge building itself'.
The actual figures are that from the 30 July 2007 until the 28 August there were NO residents in the refuge.

I cannot read all of the letter into the record, but I will finish with this:

The bottom line is that the Minister has now implicated the NDCA in a cover-up of the worst kind—the ongoing abuse of children and young people in an Agencies which happily takes tax payers money to implement programs for one of the marginalized sectors…
The Minister … should be ashamed of himself…
The ongoing abuse must stop now!

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary at the table to hand this letter to the Minister to investigate thoroughly and protect the young children.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [12.38 p.m.]: Over the last century 70 per cent of the world's beaches have been retreating due to erosion. Australia is not immune to this and surveys have shown that some of our east coast beaches have been disappearing at a rate of about two metres a year. Today I publicly recognise a group of volunteers in my electorate who are fiercely committed to saving some of our country's pristine coastline. I note that you, Mr Assistant-Speaker, swim along some of that coastline, so you know what I am talking about.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): I do.

Mr DAVID HARRIS: The Budgewoi Dune Care Group, funded by Coastcare, a cooperative Commonwealth, State and local government program, was formed in May 1995. Of the many dune care groups around Australia, Budgewoi Dune Care has been a pioneer and prides itself on its achievements over the years. It is run by a hardy group of volunteers who meet every Tuesday afternoon and every second Sunday of the month. A couple of weeks ago I spent a full Saturday morning with several of the volunteers. It was a glorious day but looking at their work was the highlight.

Phil Heaton is the coordinator of the group. He is passionate about Budgewoi Dune Care and the environment in general. His vision is to have Budgewoi Dune Care as a leader in its field and he, along with his team, has certainly ensured this. Budgewoi Dune Care is very proud of the fact that it has rehabilitated two kilometres of coastline. This was at a cost of $165,000 and 38,000 volunteer hours, but can be maintained at a minimal cost of between $2,000 and $3,000 per year. Volunteers constructed a timber boardwalk linking local streets, timber walkways to access the beach, and a viewing platform that allows the most spectacular view of Budgewoi Beach. A lot of work has gone on behind the scenes over the years, such as consultation, fact-finding, site assessment, seed collection and propagation, weed control, reconstruction and the necessary communication with the agencies involved. Because of the extreme fore-dune deterioration, mechanical reshaping using bulldozers was necessary. The eradication of the noxious bitou bush is an overwhelming task across our coastlines. Budgewoi Dune Care Group enlisted the help of the fire brigade, which did control burning to eliminate major weed infestation in the area and let the natural bush regenerate.

The Dune Care Manual, written by Dr Rod Kidd, is a highly regarded reference for dune care groups and features Budgewoi Dune Care because of its significant achievements and outstanding practices. Indeed, this document could be referred to as a bible for other dune care groups and is also used in all tiers of education. One of the problems that Budgewoi Dune Care faces, as do other community groups, is ongoing vandalism. They have had their fair share of damage and destruction, including attempts to burn the boardwalk. One has to wonder why people would engage in such senseless activities. It was pointed out to me that the group installed a picnic table and someone came along with a chainsaw to cut through the legs and took the table away. That is just incredible. However, Mr Heaton acknowledges that there has been a huge improvement recently in what he calls "real policing". Phil has asked me to take this opportunity to congratulate the New South Wales Police Force for its diligence and support of the group by providing additional patrols to ensure that the group's work is protected.

It is also worth noting that a major development in the area, Magenta Shores, a resort built on the shores of the beach north of The Entrance, has used the processes employed by Budgewoi Dune Care and, in fact, used its seed stock for its dune restoration. Budgewoi Dune Care has been recognised in the Clean Beach Challenge regional awards organised by Keep Australia Beautiful, New South Wales, of which Premier Morris Iemma is the president. In 2007 Budgewoi Beach won the regional Natural Heritage Award and the regional Community Action Award. These awards speak for themselves and full credit needs to go to the Budgewoi Dune Care group. The driving force behind this group can be, according to Phil Heaton, summed up by the word "sustainability". The group is keen that the work it does can be maintained with minimum reliance on man-hours and dollars. Care of our coastal environment can seem to be an insurmountable task, but with a vision and passion a difference can be made. Budgewoi Dune Care has shown this. I know the volunteers are very passionate. I fought alongside them during the election campaign to stop some temporary desalination plants being placed along that section of the beach, and they were successful in that.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.43 p.m.]: I speak about the delay in waiting times for post-mortem examinations to be conducted in this State due to a shortage of staff. The Iemma Government has known for a number of years that more staff is needed to alleviate this contentious and serious problem and yet it has done nothing. In January this year Veena Saini, an Indian woman in my electorate, died. Veena's brother contacted me two days after her death. He wrote:

I am writing this mail regarding my sister Veena Saini who passed away during the early hours of Saturday 5 January 2008. She was suffering from anorexia/bulimia. After this she was taken to Westmead Hospital where she has been kept since. This morning I received a phone call from the forensics department informing us that the Coroner's Court has ordered an autopsy/post-mortem but this will be towards Friday.

The issue being here is that our family is of the Hindu religion and, accordingly must cremate the body within four days before sundown. Our religion does not allow us to cook at home or to conduct our daily lives till cremation has taken place and the state of the household is in mourning. We are a joint family and have two young children who are being affected by the condition the household is in. All we want is to put our sister to rest. We have been living in the Hornsby area for the past 17 years and Veena was a student of the local Hornsby Girls High School. Please respect our beliefs and religion and help us to contact the Health Minister who can ask the department for priority.

Cremations are very important to the Hindu faith. It is a ritual designed to do much more than dispose of the body. It is intended to release the soul from its earthly existence. Hindus believe that cremation, compared with burial or outside disintegration, is most spiritually beneficial to the departed soul. This is based on the belief that the astral body will linger as long as the physical body remains visible. If the body is not cremated the soul remains nearby for days or months. I immediately contacted the forensic science department and was unable to change the autopsy date. The family wanted it to be held on the Wednesday but they were told it would not be until at least the Friday. I spoke to a pathologist who explained that because of too few resources the autopsy could not be performed until at least the Friday—six to seven days following her death.

There is a directive from the New South Wales Department of Health, issued last year, which states that no alteration of sequence of lists is allowed and it does not matter for what reason. On that same day I called the office of the Minister for Health but I was handed from one staff member to another over the next few days whilst they were deciding that they could do nothing either. On Tuesday 8 January the New South Wales Chief Medical Officer called me to let me know that she was also unable to alter the list to accommodate the wishes of the family. I suggested that some overtime could be worked to help the distressed family but she would not change her mind. I pointed out that this was not a new problem and that for a number of years past the Government had not increased training positions. I also pointed out that it was unsatisfactory that the New South Wales Department of Health did not recognise the religious and cultural needs of the community.

My comments were to no avail: the autopsy date remained at Friday. On Wednesday 9 January I wrote an urgent representation to the Premier calling for urgent intervention to assist the Saini family in adhering to their Hindu religious beliefs after the death of their daughter and sister. I received no reply, despite my office calling regularly to monitor progress. On Friday 11 January the body of Veena underwent an autopsy and that afternoon it was released to her family. Her cremation occurred on the Saturday. I attended the service, which was an extremely touching and heart-wrenching experience. The family was and is distraught not only about the death of their daughter and sister but also about the uncaring way in which the authorities handled the case. I believe it is inexcusable decision-making when the Iemma Government cannot respect the religious requirements of Hindus, or any religion for that matter, in relation to the death of a family member due to the lack of timely expenditure on essential forensic science resources.

We have known for years that there are not enough forensic pathologists to perform autopsies and other examinations, yet the Government ignores the plight of family members and the waiting lists are extremely long. As a society we need to care about our members and the Government has shown it lacks compassion when it comes to one of the most distressing times in life: the death of a loved one. Further, we must recognise and observe religious requirements and not place extra duress on family members who are already grieving. Despite many pleas to help, the Iemma Government ignored such a family who wanted to properly respect the memory of their daughter and sister. I thank Veena's brother for this lovely photograph of the woman who could not be cremated in a timely fashion in accordance with her religion and her family's wishes. I show it to the House. It is an absolute disgrace that that should happen in 2008.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [12.48 p.m.]: I speak about the terrible kidnappings and killings occurring in the war-torn country of Iraq. One in particular is the recent killing of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho. Iraq, as we know, is currently in the midst of war but over the last four years there has been a spate of killings within the Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandaean and Syriac Christian communities. These killings are occurring because of the faith of the innocent victims. There have been killings of young men, women and families while they sleep, beheadings and, especially painful, the killing of young children. People are not able to practise their customs, beliefs and faith for fear of retribution and death.

Various Christian groups around the world have been lending their voices in support of the Christians in Iraq. I attended a church service on Tuesday 18 March 2008 at the St Thomas the Apostle Chaldean Catholic Church in Bossley Park in honour of Archbishop Rahho, whose cowardly murder occurred on 29 February 2008. It was a very emotional service, led by the Chaldean Archbishop, Jibrael Kassab. Also in attendance were Cardinal George Pell from the Roman Catholic Church and several other archbishops, bishops, priests and approximately 2,000 people. The recent killing of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho has sent shockwaves and drawn condemnation throughout the entire international community.

The death of Archbishop Rahho is a tragedy but by no means an isolated incident. As he returned home after mass in the city of Mosul on 29 February 2008 the archbishop was kidnapped during a shootout in which three of his companions were killed. His kidnappers telephoned church authorities the Thursday after to announce that the archbishop had died and that they had buried him, giving the location of the grave. The cleric's body was later exhumed from the site. There has been condemnation from as far as the Vatican, from Pope Benedict XVI, to the Prince of Jordan. Statements have been issued condemning these inhumane acts and pleas to end the bloodshed and violence have been made. Pope Benedict's plea was made during a recent Sunday sermon. He said, "Enough to the violence in Iraq."

From 2003-2008 more than 48 churches have been bombed, attacked and destroyed. In January this year seven simultaneous attacks were made again on churches and monasteries. Iraq's Christians were said to number as many as 800,000 before the war. The number of Christians who remain today is uncertain. The last Iraqi census in 1987 counted 1.4 million Christians. There have been systematic and targeted killings in the Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandaean and Syriac Christian communities, and I am saddened to think that generations of people have been wiped out by those killings. Many left after the sanctions were imposed in the 1990s.

I am advised that Christianity in Iraq began 2,000 years ago, making Iraq home to one of the world's oldest Christian communities. The Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs are the country's largest Christian groups and still pray in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. Over the past 3½ years the Christian community has been subjected to a steady stream of church bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and death threats. That form of torture against an indigenous minority incapable of defending itself is heartbreaking. Several high-level representations have been made to the United States of America Government to assist the Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandaean and Syriac Christians in Iraq. Some aid has been approved; however, I fear that much more will need to be done.

We as Australians are incredibly privileged to live in a country that respects differences and people from many different cultural backgrounds. They are paying the ultimate price because of their faith. Whilst I understand that this is more of a Federal issue, a large number of my constituents currently have family members suffering in the Middle East. These terrible actions have affected and touched many of the Australian Chaldeans that are living in my electorate. I take this opportunity to express my deepest and sincerest sympathy to the Chaldean community and, more importantly, to the family and friends of the late Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho. I also take this opportunity to thank the Chaldean community for allowing me to be part of that very important service.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [12.53 p.m.]: Today I refer to the wonderful Laura Isobel Tourle, who was born on 23 August 1922, and passed away on 30 March 2008. But first I will provide a brief history of The Springs. Arthur Campbell Baird came from Scotland in 1937 with his wife Isabel Kennedy Baird and young son Thomas. They travelled via Bathurst, where their daughter Kennedy Macintosh Baird was born in November 1838. David Donald Baird was born in May 1841 at The Meadows in the Dubbo district where A. C. Baird was working as overseer for a gentleman by the name of David Donald.

The Springs was an outstation of The Meadows. In 1846, 200 acres of The Springs run were secured by A. C. Baird and by 1857 he had built the main homestead, which remains on that land. In January 1853 A. C. and I. K. Baird and D. Donald went into a partnership for 10 years, which involved several stations, including The Springs. David Donald died in 1861, thus terminating the partnership, and Baird instructed Richardson and Wrench to sell all the stations and stock. The Springs was not sold, and became the nucleus for Baird's pastoral and grazing activities. Thomas Baird purchased Dundullimal in 1871 and it remained in the hands of his descendents until 1986 when the property was sold and the homestead block was donated to the National Trust, and it is exhibited there on the Obley Road near the Dubbo Zoo.

Kennedy Baird was a skilful artist and some of her paintings and sketches remain to this day. She died when she was 21. David married Jane Strahorn at Wandoo Wandong on 7 January 1867, and at the time of his father's death in 1881 David Baird took over the running of The Springs. They had 13 children. Today the families included in the ownership of The Springs are the Tourles, Lanes and MacCullochs. Now I turn to my lovely friend, Laura. Her nephew Scott Tourle said at her funeral that many of us have fond memories of the first generation of the aunts and uncles of The Springs, but no more than the second generation of the aunts, Jess and Laura Tourle. He said:

Aunt Jess and Aunt Laura have been a great team, a partnership, a mateship which so sadly has been broken. … Aunt Laura would never say a bad word about anybody—

The only person she said a bad word about was Bob Hawke—

Aunt Laura was born in Dubbo on 23 August 1922, the daughter of Thomas … Tourle and Violet Rose … She was the youngest of three children with aunt Jess being the eldest and then my father Tom Tourle who passed away in 1992.

The parents ran a boys boarding house—

Aunt Laura attended Dubbo Primary School then Dubbo High.

Laura and Jess were successful champions in sport—

School was a happy time of her life and holidays were spent at The Springs with all the old aunts and uncles—

and their good friend, Jeanie Webb—

Aunt Laura left school in 1938—16 years old—when she and Aunt Jess went to Sydney for further education. They stayed at the YWCA in Kirribilli and Aunt Jess took cooking lessons and Aunt Laura learnt shorthand and typing … In 1939 the manager of the Commonwealth Bank in Dubbo, Mr Thompson, offered Aunt Laura a job—

She stayed at the bank for all her working life. On Wednesday 1 April I received a phone call advising of Laura's passing and I was terribly upset. Laura was the first person in Dubbo to befriend me and the first home I went to was her house in Cadell Street where I enjoyed Jess's caramel tarts and pavlovas. Laura also taught me how to drink whiskey—I learnt well and have continued that education—and together with Jess, Laura, Joan and Jim Scott on a Sunday winter's day Jim would place rings on the tails of the lambs, which was a new experience for a city girl like me, and Laura poured the scotch.

Last week in Parliament at 6.00 p.m. I toasted her. In 1950 the aunts built their home at Cadell Street where they lived until now. In 1955 they went to London and in 1956 to the Olympics. Laura loved The Springs, the land, the home and the people. She had fond memories of riding through the hills, and she loved the smell of gum leaves. She also loved people. She could not go down the street without striking up a conversation. She also enjoyed reading the Sydney Morning Herald and The Land front to back, and was a great royalist. She was a great teacher of good manners. She loved her many nieces and nephews and great nieces and nephews. She never lost her sense of humour. Two weeks ago she went to the doctor and when she returned home she was asked "How was the doctor?" She said, "I think she was quite well."

Laura had a wonderful life. Her grand niece, Kennedy, spoke beautifully in the eulogy. She remembered one of her many sleepovers when she was 10 years old and she learnt to recite My Country by Dorothea Mackellar, which she also recited at the funeral. Flora O'Dea and I worked with Laura at the Commonwealth Bank. Flora said that Laura was the finest person she had ever known. On her second day at the bank Flora asked Laura, "When do you know everything?" Laura said "You never know everything—you are learning all your life". Laura was Flora's bridesmaid. Vianne Tourle was the last speaker at the eulogy. In the last few days of her life Laura was known to read the words of Reverend Gordon Powell and Norman Peale. Vianne said that on the Saturday before her passing Laura raised her wine glass with the private hospital staff and offered, "Here's cheers!" A few hours later Laura died peacefully. The family believe she did, as they said, "Go gentle into that good night."

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.58 p.m.]: I thank the member for Dubbo for her beautiful dedication to Laura. I offer our condolences to Laura's family. It sounds as though Laura was a fantastic woman who will be missed by all.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.58 p.m.]: On behalf of the schools, teachers, students and parents in the electorate of Tamworth, I express concern as to how the Federal Government's proposal to provide every student in years 9 to 12 with access to a reasonably new computer will be implemented in New South Wales. At the Australian Labor Party's Federal election launch in Brisbane last year, Kevin Rudd said that this "groundbreaking reform" would make every secondary school in Australia a "digital school". It would seem, however, that the manner in which the rollout is being administered in New South Wales will prevent this goal being reached. On 26 March 2008 the Australian reported concerns from the States that the $1 billion price tag represents just one-quarter of the cost of this rollout. It said that State leaders told the Commonwealth they face huge flow-on costs from the computer policy in providing cabling, power, security and Internet connectivity.

To compound the problem, it seems the Federal Government's promise to connect fast broadband to classrooms will take a lot longer to achieve than the aim of June this year. It also seems that the program is being introduced without proper planning. As all members know, this will inevitably lead to a waste of taxpayer dollars. It is imperative that our schools be allowed to use the funding in the way that best suits their individual requirements. A one-size-fits-all approach would be a disaster. A matter of great concern is an official email that was sent to schools instructing that they can only purchase laptops and they must use the department's contract, paying about $1,000 each for the computers. It has been suggested to me that the laptops will need to work through a wireless system.

To the best of my knowledge, no such system is yet in place. Worse still, students would have access to only a paltry 54 megabytes per second. That is half the capability of desktops plugged in to an existing network. Further, the actual speed of a wireless service will decrease considerably should additional laptops be connected to the system, meaning students will have an even slower and more cumbersome Internet experience. While considering these negatives, we should also consider price comparisons—$1,000 for contracted laptops as opposed to perfectly suitable desktops that are available for about $650 each. If, for example, a school needs 150 new computers to deliver the desired provision ratio, it can apply to the Federal authorities for $150,000 in funding. That means that 150 laptops under contract at $1,000 each will consume the entire $150,000. Conversely, 150 desktops at $650 each equates to $97,500, leaving $52,500 to spend on the vital infrastructure required for them to be operational. Laptops can be purchased also, if required.

It has been suggested that the decision to instruct schools that only laptops can be purchased may be driven by a desire for students to take them home at night to charge them, thus transferring the electricity charges from schools to parents. A number of other serious long-term problems arise in relation to the security and operation of laptop computers that are constantly on the move between students, with laptops being put at risk and having a shorter operating life than school-based desktops. How many laptops will be damaged, lost, stolen or left at home? If two students share a computer, who takes it home and is one student disadvantaged should it be left at home or a student is sick? It also begs the question: How many of these computers will be still available for use 12 months down the track? On the other hand, a school that retains the laptops on site faces the dilemma of how and where 150 laptops, or more, are to be charged every night, who will be responsible for the task, and how the laptops will be redistributed to students on a daily basis. I fail to see how an instruction to purchase only contracted $1,000 laptops can deliver the best outcomes for students or value for taxpayers' dollars. I have grave fears that many will end up unused and in storage.

I am aware that the President of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales has supported the Department of Education and Training proposal. They believe the laptops will move with the students from lesson to lesson. In high school, the composition of classes changes up to six times a day because of electives and differing academic levels. How will it be determined who gets the machine? It is a logistical nightmare. Every school should be able to accept the funds on offer and determine its own implementation plan. Schools should not be saddled with an unworkable and hastily cobbled together, Government-imposed system. Each school should decide the appropriate ratio of laptops to desktops and then be able to buy at the best price possible to maximize the funds, investing the remaining money in hardware and infrastructure.

All the schools in my electorate—be they central schools or the largest of our high schools—have different requirements. The school staff and school community are much better equipped to deliver the best outcome for their individual campuses than is any centralised controlling body. The Federal Government has promised a $1 billion investment in our children's education. We must make sure that it is spent in the wisest possible manner. On behalf of all students and teachers from the electorate of Tamworth, we must make sure this process is delivered properly. We do not want to ask in a few months time, "Where did the money go?"

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.03 p.m.]: I thank the member for Tamworth for his contribution today. I note that during the week the member asked the Premier a question on this issue, and the Premier provided him with a thorough response.

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

Private members' statements noted.