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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment.

Bill received from the Legislative Council and introduced.

Agreement in principle ordered to stand as an order of the day for a later hour.

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendment.

Consideration of Legislative Council's amendment set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Debate resumed from 5 June 2008.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.07 a.m.]: The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 repeals certain Acts and instruments and provisions of Acts and amends certain other Acts and instruments in various respects for the purpose of effecting statute law revision. I am happy to state that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation, nor will I go through the many bills that are amended in a minor way. I will nevertheless make a few observations. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 is intended to effect minor and non-controversial amendments to various Acts of the New South Wales Parliament. Schedule 1 makes minor amendments to a number of Acts and regulations. Schedule 2 amends certain Acts and instruments for the purpose of effecting statute law revision. Schedule 3 contains statute law revision amendments that are consequential upon the enactment of the Legal Profession Act 2004. Schedule 4 repeals a number of Acts and statutory instruments and provisions of Acts and statutory instruments, regulations and provisions of Acts that contain no substantive provisions but need to be retained, and that merely effect amendments to other legislation and that no longer have any practical utility. Schedule 5 has savings, transitional and other general provisions of a more general effect than those set out in schedule 1. Among the various Acts amended, there is a minor amendment to the World Youth Day Act 2006 to rectify a typographical error. In respect of that Act and the period it deals with, I must say that I look forward to World Youth Day.

There has been some criticism in the media that I believe is unfounded. World Youth Day will provide a great opportunity for Sydney, this State, this nation, and the youth of the world to have in their presence a great spiritual leader, Pope Benedict XVI. It is great for this country, and it is great to do something good. Very often we hear of young people breaking the law or doing silly things such as graffitiing everywhere, causing mayhem and trouble. But not often do we hear of a spiritual leader bringing together good youth—or youth who want to be good—in their hundreds of thousands, to celebrate youth and their beliefs, and to try to build a better world than the one we have at the moment. We should be extremely thankful to have such an opportunity to welcome the Holy Father.

I recall two previous Popes coming to this country. I recall attending the mass celebrated by Pope Paul VI at Randwick Racecourse when I was somewhat younger than I am now, and I also recall attending two masses celebrated by Pope John Paul II, or Pope John Paul the Great as they call him. Indeed, Pope John Paul II established World Youth Day. Of all human beings in this world, Pope John Paul II did more to bring down the wall of communism, and we must be thankful for that. With the assistance of Almighty God, he gave strength to the Solidarity group in Poland and it was his solidarity with that group that brought down communism in Europe. For that we must be eternally grateful.

It is pleasing that the Government refers to World Youth Day in its Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I note that Minister Burney, who is at the table, is wearing orange. I would like to see her wear green as well; otherwise it is the biggest mix-up the world has ever seen—my father he was orange and my mother she was green. The Feast of St Thomas More will be celebrated this Sunday, 22 June. Today members of this House and of the other place will meet in the Speaker's Dining Room, to attend a function hosted across the board by Mr Aquilina, Mr Hartcher, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, various other members, and me, to celebrate the Feast of St Thomas More. It is wonderful that we have in this Parliament a magnificent bronze statue of St Thomas More, which will be moved to a better position in the Speaker's Garden when security arrangements for the Parliament have been improved. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.12 a.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping for his contribution to debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The bill, which is similar to that introduced almost every session of the Parliament, is monumental legislation that does the spring cleaning for all of us by tidying up legislation. I commend the member for his comments on World Youth Day and note his strong commitment to the event. I, and indeed all members of the Government, very much look forward to World Youth Day and its great impact not only on Australia but also on the world. Once again we will have an opportunity to display Sydney at its best, and to display Australia at its best, particularly before the youth of the world, and for Sydney to act as the gathering place for world youth. I know that, given the hospitality of Australians, the volunteers who will work during the event and everyone else involved in it will provide a tremendous occasion that will go down in memory, as the Sydney 2000 Olympics did, as one of the great world events Australia has hosted.

I make one specific reference in reply to the amendments to the State Records Act 1998. I had the pleasure of being a member of the State Records Board for a period of approximately four years. Given that I have a great love for the history of this State and country and am committed to the preservation of our historical records, I really enjoyed my period on the State Records Board and wish to commend the people who work there. The preservation of historical records is becoming an important activity for New South Wales. There is an increasing interest in historical matters, and also in genealogy as people seek to research not only their family history but also places, documents and legislation. One of the areas of concern to a lot of people was their capacity to be able to reproduce some of the historical records contained by the State Records Authority.

Proposed section 36A of the State Records Act 1998 provides the State Records Authority, otherwise known as State Records, with the statutory power to enter into agreements with third parties to copy and publish State archives and provide certainty for the existing regional access arrangements to State archives. This is an important provision. It is important not only that we preserve the archives and historical artefacts that are the basic building blocks of our nation but also that we allow people to obtain access to those records and items whenever possible. I emphasise that the access arrangements outlined in proposed section 36A will only apply to State archives that are already open to public access.

State Records does not currently have the resources to provide public access to State archives via all possible access points, including large-scale online access to digitised copies of State archives. The arrangements for third parties will now allow State archives to be digitised and published online, including on a user-pays basis. This not only will provide for public access to the records but also will ensure that such access is provided economically and does not incur further cost for the State. The arrangements will not affect the free access services to State archives provided by State Records, or prevent future digitisation of State archives by State Records.

The Minister at the table, Minister Burney, who is the first indigenous person to have been elected to this Chamber, has reminded me that this has been critical for members of the stolen generation in tracing their families. State Records has custody of all Aboriginal Welfare Board records. This is a very important point. I recall that during my time on the State Records Board not only did we place great store in the availability of records on the stolen generation, and on indigenous communities generally, but we also went to great lengths to recover a lot of items that had been dispersed. I recall the emotional scenes when we were able to recover, for example, hair particles and bones from the British Museum and have the items brought back to New South Wales and reposited with the State archives. It was essential that these important items be brought back to New South Wales so they could then be appropriately preserved in accordance with the rights, traditions, customs and culture of our indigenous communities.

State Records provides regional access to State archives through community access points, which include universities, public libraries and local historical societies. Having been the patron of the Blacktown and District Historical Society for more than 30 years, I know how much these items are valued by our historical communities. Proposed section 36A of the Act will also allow community access points to continue to copy or publish State archives and provide the public with access to copies of State archives. For these reasons, and particularly given my interest in the State Records Board and matters historical, as well as noting the importance of the State Records Board to the preservation of indigenous records, I have much pleasure in commending the bill to the House. Once again I thank the member for Epping for his contribution to the debate.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr John Aquilina.

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.20 a.m.]: I move:

Page 27, schedule 1. Insert after line 13:

1.21 Payroll Tax Act 2007 No 21
Schedule 1 Calculation of payroll tax liability for financial year commencing 1 July 2007 and subsequent financial years
Omit "2006" from the definition of B in clause IA (2).
Insert instead "2007".
Commencement
The amendment to the Payroll Tax Act 2007 commences or is taken to have commenced on 1 July 2008.
Explanatory note
The proposed amendment to the Payroll Tax Act 2007 corrects a reference to the base year to be used in the indexation of the payroll tax threshold amount.

The amendment to the Payroll Tax Act 2007 has been included in the State Revenue Amendment (Budget) Bill 2008 now before the Legislative Council. However, it has become apparent that the amendment does not work as intended. As members would be aware, the Government's view is that it would not be appropriate, given the constitutional arrangements in the State, for a provision of a budget bill to be amended by the Legislative Council. Accordingly, I propose the amendment through the Statute Law Bill to ensure that the correct base year can be used for the purpose of the annual indexation of the payroll tax threshold.

This is a standard statutory matter. It is a way of tidying up an arrangement that had been overlooked and it will have no import except that it not being appropriate to introduce tax matters into the Legislative Council, we will now be able to deal with the matter by way of this amendment to the Statute Law Bill in the Legislative Assembly. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.22 a.m.]: It is bewildering how such an important Act—the Payroll Tax Act—should be bungled the way it has been. Why the Act has to be corrected I do not really know. I do not know how the mistake crept in there. Have people calculated their payroll tax based on a false assumption? I do not know. I do not know how many accountancy fees have been wasted in recalculating the payroll tax. The Government made a great fuss about gradual reductions in the payroll tax and it cannot even get the legislation right.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.22 a.m.]: Time and time again legislation is introduced in this place that contains errors that the Government has found before the legislation has been transmitted to the other place and the Government has had to amend it in this House. I think it reflects the sloppiness of the Ministers in charge of the carriage of the legislation. Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that when legislation comes before this place it has the correct effect. As the Leader of the House has indicated, the legislation that went to the upper House for review certainly had a different effect. I point to how these kinds of matters can affect people. Just recently, in another place, amendments were made to family tax benefits. But as a result—and I am reading from today's Daily Telegraph—nurses, teachers and charity workers will have their family tax benefits slashed by up to $75 a week in July—

Ms Linda Burney: Because the Howard Government made a mistake.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: —even though the Government yesterday pledged to overturn the cuts. The problem is that unless the Government moves quickly to fix this legislation it will run out of time: it needs to be done before 1 July. Yes, the Howard Government did introduce some legislative changes, but the Rudd Government has introduced its own laws that give effect to the changes. I am not making apologies for anyone. I am saying that when legislation comes before this place and it is deficient and it is passed, it creates complications and it has a domino effect.

The fact that we have to deal with legislation that comes back before this place to be amended by the Government is an indication of laziness and lack of due diligence by the Ministers in charge, or perhaps it is because its staff is too busy running around digging up dirt in other places rather than concentrating on delivering quality legislation that will enact laws and ensure that we do not always have to come back into this place to revisit legislation.

This article in the Daily Telegraph indicates that there have been some serious problems in the Federal sphere. If Rudd Government does not act very quickly some of the lowest paid people in our communities are going to suffer because of the amendments to family tax benefits. As I said, I am not apologising for the actions of previous or current governments, but there is an urgency to amend the legislation. A loss in family benefits of up to $75 a week is a lot of money and it will have a severe impact in everyone's electorate. Again, it highlights the need to ensure that people understand that when legislation is introduced and botched, there is a consequence. There is an added consequence that those people who vote for the member for Bathurst and other members in the House today—those people they supposedly represent—

[Interruption]

I do not know whether the member for Bathurst will be on the front bench but, if he is, he needs to ensure that legislation that is brought before this place is dealt with with due diligence.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.26 a.m.], in reply: The member for Wagga Wagga has drawn a very long bow in his contribution. I was loath to take a point of order to say that what he was talking about was totally irrelevant to the matter before the House. Nonetheless, he knows how to use this Chamber well and he has made his point—regardless of the fact that it was an irrelevant point concerning this legislation.

The contribution of the member for Epping was predictable. The Legislative Assembly has already debated the budget bills and they are now before the Legislative Council. An error was noted in relation to the year in the Payroll Tax Act and consequently it needs to be amended. As the Legislative Council is unable to amend budget legislation, we are doing it here now. It is as simple as that. Everybody had the opportunity to scrutinise them when the budget bills were before this Chamber and to note that point. I commend the amendment to the House and thank it for its indulgence in this matter.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 5 agreed to.

Consideration in detail concluded.

Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That this bill be now passed.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.29 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the passage through all stages forthwith of the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008.

Given the Premier's indications earlier this week, and the notice given regarding the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008, it is no secret that the Government has been intent on debating this matter. This House has only a few sitting days remaining this session. To remove any lingering uncertainty in the community about the Government's intentions on this issue and to deal with the issue most efficiently, it would be best to have the bill debated as quickly as possible. It is therefore the intention of the Government, if the House grants suspension of standing and sessional orders, to commence debate on the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 by way of delivery of and debate on the agreement in principle speech and to effect the passage of all stages forthwith. I commend the suspension motion to the House.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [10.30 a.m.]: The Opposition generally does not support suspension of standing and sessional orders to allow a bill to pass through all its stages on the same day. Notice of this legislation was given on Tuesday this week and the Minister has not made his agreement in principle speech. Only a handful of members in this Chamber have seen the bill in its original form. I assume that most Government members have not seen it, and I believe no crossbench member has seen it. I am aware that a number of crossbench members are concerned about the privatisation of New South Wales electricity assets.

I would like to know what powers this bill would give the Auditor-General, perhaps with a view to expanding them. I know that many members on the Government side are opposed to the plans of the Premier and Treasurer to privatise electricity. They may be interested in seeing and considering properly the content of this legislation and potential amendments to give the Auditor-General the sorts of powers that he needs to protect the best interests of the people of New South Wales. To introduce the bill now, deliver the agreement in principle speech and then ram the bill through all its stages denies members appropriate opportunities, and breaches the standing orders. The proposed procedure is not appropriate and the Coalition will not support this suspension motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Michael Daley, on behalf of Mr Morris Iemma.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.41 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 is the third bill in a package of legislation concerning the proposed electricity restructuring. The Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 and the Community Infrastructure (Intergenerational) Fund Bill 2008 are already before the House. Over the past 12 months the New South Wales Government has demonstrated an overwhelming willingness to undertake meaningful and genuine negotiations. We have entered into these discussions in good faith to secure the future electricity supplies of this State. We have listened to all sides of this complex and, at times, emotional debate. The Government has undertaken extensive discussions with the trade union movement, which has led to the adoption of the overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Unsworth committee. The Government has consulted widely in the community and in this Parliament. This bill represents the culmination of those discussions.

With this legislation, the Government will provide additional authority for the Auditor-General to report to the Parliament on the Government's proposed strategy. It will be an accountable and appropriately scrutinised transaction process. The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 provides for the Auditor-General to undertake a review of the Government's overall strategy for the electricity industry restructuring. This review must be completed and a report presented to Parliament before any assets can be sold or leased to the private sector. The Auditor-General's review will be required to assess the appropriateness of the Government's strategy in terms of maximising financial value for taxpayers. It will review the proposed transaction methods, the sequencing of transactions, the proposed timing—including the impact of external factors such as prevailing debt and equity market conditions—and the proposed emissions trading scheme. It will also review any contingent liabilities that accrue to the State and any other factors that may impact on the sale price of the assets.

After recent discussions between the Government and the Opposition, the following has been agreed. In developing his report, the Government expects the Auditor-General will take into consideration the proposed emissions trading scheme together with the current electricity hedging and coal contracts. Having regard to foreign ownership issues, the Government expects the Auditor-General will also consider the strategy's approach to foreign ownership. The Commonwealth's Foreign Investment Review Board has jurisdiction in this area.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will initially assess the competition effects of the Government's proposals with the benefit of an information memorandum prepared by the Government. This submission will be made available to the Auditor-General. Having regard to the transaction process contained in the strategy, the Auditor-General will be able to engage independent experts to provide him with advice. In the normal course, we expect the Auditor-General would consider issues such as the effect on the net transaction proceeds of the debt levels in the businesses, electricity hedging contracts, coal contracts and incentive payments for the workforce. The review will also assess the financial impact of the Government's proposed community safety net, including the protections that will be put in place for workers, pensioners and low-income earners allowing the Parliament and the community to assess the effectiveness of the Government's policies.

I also take this opportunity to foreshadow that the Government will introduce related amendments to the other electricity bills before the House. Those amendments will further clarify and enhance the Auditor-General's oversight role and will require that the network of Country Energy's customer service centres continues to operate in support of its distribution assets. That is something that Country Labor members—particularly the member for Monaro—have pressed strongly for, especially in the Unsworth committee process. It will also ensure that a charter for the community infrastructure fund is established to guide its operation and purpose and to set out administrative and governance arrangements. I also inform the House that a rural communities impact statement being prepared by independent experts will be available in the next few weeks.

With this, the Government is delivering lock, stock and barrel on the matters brought to its attention by the leaders of the Liberal Party and The Nationals. Each request has been accepted and acted upon on its merits. The legislation and the amendments to be introduced fulfil each and every request, point by point. The implementation of the Government's plans to secure New South Wales' future energy supplies is the most important economic initiative undertaken in this State in a generation. It will put New South Wales on a path to future prosperity. Every member of this Chamber will bear responsibility for the profound economic consequences if we fail to act. We will all be harshly judged if we bring those consequences down on the people of this State because we, as lawmakers, cannot see past the political melee to act in the greater public interest. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [10.48 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. I say at the outset that the New South Wales Coalition supports private sector involvement. Indeed, it is a core principle of these parties that if the private sector can do it both efficiently and in competition then there is not necessarily a compulsion for the Government to intervene. The private sector's involvement in the electricity industry has been effective. Real prices have reduced by between 6 per cent and 8 per cent in Victoria and South Australia under a privatisation model. The Energy Reform Implementation Group's report to the Council of Australian Governments last year shows that New South Wales's electricity assets have underperformed in relation to both labour and capital productivity. Labour productivity in the generation sector from 1999 to 2003-04 across Australia was the lowest in New South Wales, which experienced a 3 per cent decline. Capital productivity in the generation sector across the same period was also lower in New South Wales than in Victoria and South Australia. The Energy Reform Implementation Group report states:

Economic analysis has shown that the potential resource savings within the bulk electricity sector flowing from moving to a fully efficient market would reduce the total economic costs of supplying electricity, within the NEM, by between $200-$300 million per year. At the economy wide level, the long term benefits … include an increase in real GDP of around $400 million per annum.

No doubt the current structure in the New South Wales electricity sector has precluded an element of private sector involvement, although there has been some involvement. The emergence of the national electricity market will ensure that only the most efficient survive. Private operators in the market are concerned about the current structure in which the key participant generates, transmits, sells and regulates. However, these principles and imperatives do not negate the need for social responsibility, and transactions should not occur at any cost. A team that is united and that has demonstrated competence, control and objective reasoning should execute transactions such as this. If we lost that approach we would lose value or, worse still, it would lead to a transaction that was not in the best interests of the stakeholders who, importantly in this instance, are the people of New South Wales.

We have seen the exact opposite from the team that is in charge of this transaction. Members should reflect on the conference and on the issues that were dealt with at that conference. We should ask ourselves whether this management team is in control of this significant transaction. Should the Iemma Government be placing 2011 re-election strategies into this basket against the commonsense strategic objectives represented by this transaction? Should it be playing poker with these assets? Intuitively, I believe that the Government is pursuing this transaction at any cost. It is gambling away potential value for reasons other than the merits of the transaction.

Those are the reasons why the Opposition requested that the Auditor-General conduct an independent assessment to establish whether this transaction was in the broad public interest. I will deal with some of those issues later. Members would be aware that this bill would not have been introduced if it were not for the persistence of the New South Wales Coalition. The bill addresses most of the key issues that were outlined on 8 May 2008. The Auditor-General must assess the Government's power privatisation plans to ensure that the public interest is paramount, and the Auditor-General must report to the Parliament before any sale takes place. This matter must be debated and every member in this House must be informed: the issue is too important for us to rely solely on press releases.

This is a once-only transaction. I believe we would be doing the people of New South Wales a disservice if this transaction were not properly implemented, if we did not have full information about it, and if we did not have an independent view relating to it. The Coalition's remaining community safeguards have been addressed in correspondence between the Coalition leadership and Treasury, and in the Government's Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 and the Community Infrastructure (Intergenerational) Fund Bill 2008, which have been introduced in this place. The Government withheld its support for this final condition until Monday 16 June 2008.

I wish to comment on the many strategic elements of this transaction and on the points raised in the Owen report. I will refer also to the provisions in clause 4 of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008, which highlight the reasons why the Coalition pursued this course of action. That clause refers to the model to be used to restructure the State's electricity industry—the model on which the Auditor-General has been asked to comment. Clause 4 refers specifically to an initial public offering, or IPO—or, for the benefit of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, a clear sale. The Deputy Premier told the public that the Government's plan involved the long-term lease of electricity assets, which was not the same as a sell-off. It is important for members to understand that this legislation provides for a clear sale. Whatever spin the Deputy Premier wants to put on it, members must understand that this is a clear sale. On 1 May 2008 the Deputy Premier said:

The current plan is about maintaining ownership, even though there are long-term leases.

The Deputy Premier must understand that leasing for three generations represents the same thing. I believe that the Deputy Premier is being disingenuous. The legislation will enable a complete sale of electricity assets. I am sure that when the Deputy Premier lies in bed at night he would have difficulty finding comfort from the fact that he has told the truth relating to this matter because, frankly, he has not. Every member in this place must understand that this legislation will enable a sale of the assets. The Premier's record in this regard is worse than the record of the Deputy Premier. His office gave unions written assurances via emails three weeks before the 2007 election that he had no intention of privatising the power industry, and that it would remain in public hands. In May 2007 the Premier said in Parliament:

There will be no sale of electricity generation, transmission or distribution.

Why did the Premier and Deputy Premier not tell the people of New South Wales? Unions have articulated that one-third of Labor voters would have switched their vote at the last election if they had known about this Government's agenda. If that is the Government's approach to this matter, it means that it will stand up for nothing. Why has it avoided public scrutiny? What is it hiding? The people of New South Wales would respect it more if it stated its case and stuck to it. The community wants a government that is honest and transparent; it does not want a government that makes disingenuous statements that it is not selling this State's electricity industry.

I believe that this Government thinks the people of New South Wales are fools. The Coalition wants the Auditor-General to reveal the truth about this matter. Last year the Government commissioned Professor Owen to assess the State's future baseload electricity generation requirements. Professor Owen determined that the State's demand for energy would outstrip supply by 2013 and that additional capacity would be required. Professor Owen recommended that the Government divest itself of its ownership of retail electricity and electricity generation. I wish to comment on a number of aspects in the Owen report.

The conclusions in that report have been well publicised but what has been lost in the detail is the cost of the impact of this Government's mismanagement of the sector over the past 14 years. The Government has neglected generation infrastructure for years. There have been no new assets or no increase in generation infrastructure over the past 15 years, even though there has been a dramatic increase in the population of New South Wales. As surely as night follows day there will be an imbalance in supply and demand. The Government's years of neglect of its generation infrastructure, its inaction on energy efficiency, its failure to seize the opportunity of coal seam methane and its failure to prepare for a carbon-constrained economy have created the energy crisis in this State. In March this year Annabel Hepworth from the Australian Financial Review summed it up perfectly when she said:

NSW, after years of reform inertia, has chosen the worst possible time to privatise. The credit crunch and crisis among bond insurers known as monoline makes debt funding more expensive for possible bidders. That's not great news for trade sales. The turmoil on financial markets makes any initial public offering hard to price. And uncertainty about carbon policy isn't going away.

Bob Carr admitted that this State would have received double the capital if it did not fail in its privatisation attempts 10 years ago. He told the Daily Telegraph:

We didn't pull this one off [in 1997] when we were offered real advantages ... $30 billion in new capital.

The position we are in today is because the Government has not faced up to this emerging crisis. It appears as though it will do that now, at any cost. Infrastructure has been neglected and no new infrastructure has been built for 15 years. The Owen report states:

As no baseload generation plant has been built in NSW in 15 years, the energy consumed in NSW is catching up with supply.

What action has the Government taken? It has failed to invest in carbon technologies. Last year, for the first time, carbon emissions in the United States reduced in generation because, for a number of years, it has been investing in carbon scrubbing technology. We will face many problems, as we are not doing that in Australia. Despite reaping billions of dollars from dividends and taxes there has been no strategic investment in our generators—something that any prudent manager would do. Any company that had assets would prepare for possible market shocks, but that is not what this Government has done. In the United States greenhouse gas emissions from its generators fell by 54 million metric tonnes after it installed carbon reduction technology and increased its use of sub-bituminous coal, which emits less sulfur dioxide.

If this Government takes seriously the reduction of greenhouse gases, why would it not invest in such technology? Government Ministers often make ministerial statements and refer to the Government as a green Government. Investing in technology is a practical solution to reduce greenhouse gases. It should be borne in mind that approximately 40 per cent of emissions in this State come from our generators, but this Government has done nothing to address that issue. A report by Standards and Poor's, which was released in February, stated that this State's relatively aged generation assets and the significant level of investment required were likely to lower the sale price. For the past 15 years this Government has ignored these assets and has not improved their quality. In its submission to the Owen inquiry, the Australian Gas Light Company said that the State's generators were not operating to capacity. It also said:

If existing coal-fired generators in NSW operated at capacity factors comparable to coal-fired generators in Victoria and Queensland (around 80%) an additional 15,000 GWh of energy per annum would be available.

That is important because the total increased energy requirement in 2013-14 is below that level. Yesterday, for the first time, this Government made an announcement about energy efficiency, but it is too little too late. According to an EnergyAustralia survey released this month, households collectively are adding around 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year in New South Wales alone. That is equivalent to putting an additional 500,000 cars on the road every 12 months. If every household in New South Wales reduced its energy consumption by 10 per cent there would be no need for new generation.

We have not been doing enough to improve our energy efficiency, which has obviously led to increased demand. We have not invested in our generation assets or looked after them with up-to-date technology. At the same time, we have an emerging crisis that will hit us in 2013-14, as articulated in the Owen report. A general question for all members is: does that time line hold when they look at the need for energy efficiency and also the investment that could have been made in existing generators?

Coal seam methane is the most significant opportunity this Government has missed. Unlike the other mainland States, New South Wales is forced to import nearly all of its natural gas from its neighbours. Gas-fired power stations emit only 40 per cent as much carbon dioxide as those fired by steaming or black coal and require much less water to operate. However, New South Wales has no pipelines—there has been an announcement, but that is all it is—capable of bringing gas from the coal seam gas fields of Queensland, Gunnedah and the Hunter Valley to major population centres in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. Lucas Energy's Paul Bilston said:

I think the Government needs to focus on the development and legislative environment under which coal seam gas works in New South Wales.

The Owen report states that, "the potential exists for significant coal seam gas supply from New South Wales." Coal seam gas methane has been extracted in the United States for more than 25 years, with production levels now at 1.9 trillion cubic feet a year, and it is on the rise. This is another point the Iemma Government has failed to address.

The desalination plant will cancel out the only announcement about renewable energy generation—the Bungendore wind farm. All renewable energy will be consumed before it leaves the planning table. The 2008-09 budget does not allocate funds for renewable energy infrastructure, and that is another black hole that the Government must address. It is important to note that while the Government is intent on selling old assets, it is forgetting to invest in new ones. It is the Government's role to strategically anticipate renewable sources of energy to meet new requirements when markets are not, and to intervene to stimulate those sources to provide for the future of the State. Only 6 per cent of the State's energy is from a renewable source—lower than Queensland and Tasmania—but the Government has promised that renewable energy will supply 15 per cent of energy needs by 2020, or an extra 7,250 gigawatt hours.

According to the Owen report, only 1,600 gigawatt hours are expected to come from renewable energy by 2016-17, which is obviously far less than the Government's target. Owen said, "There is uncertainty around the likely siting of renewable generation." Are these targets real? Is the Iemma Government taking them seriously or is it developing an energy policy, at the core of which is electricity privatisation, on the run and on the basis of lack of action and management incompetence? Owen says renewable energy will achieve 6,600 gigawatts, including hydro, by 2017. If that is so, how can it reach 13,000 gigawatts by 2020? That is something the Government must address. These are the reasons why the Coalition fought for an independent review and a public interest test on this transaction. We do not want to rely on press releases. We want to see the facts and we want to understand them. We want to determine once and for all whether the Iemma Government has done everything possible to avoid this crisis and that the proposed transaction is in the best interests of the State.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals have led the charge. They have put public interest at the core of this transaction. There is no budget imperative to drive re-election strategies. It is nothing more than making sure this transaction makes sense for the people of New South Wales according to the parameters. I repeat the first five of those parameters. The first is that all sale and lease arrangements be subject to the Auditor-General reporting to Parliament before finalisation. That includes timing and price, conditions for workers, pensioners and low-income earners and price guarantees for consumers. Within this context we asked the Auditor-General to consider the impact of the sub-prime crisis; the impact of the lack of definition of carbon tax; asset management and how the Government has managed its assets; the financial investment of one billion dollars per annum into dividends and taxes; the contract impacts; the coal contract maturity profile from 2009 to 2011, how that impacts on the sale price and why it is such a short-term profile; electricity hedging, why the Government has undertaken the derivatives, what impact that will have on the price and how it affects the assets; and valuation of the assets over the past five years and projections to 2013.

We have also asked for a rural community impact statement. The Nationals are interested in looking after its community. Its members are interested in the transaction if it is in the interest of their communities. That is a big distinction between the way the New South Wales Coalition has attacked this issue and how the Iemma Government has presented it to us. The Nationals have asked for real consultation. We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that there has been consultation. There were no rural community impact statements before The Nationals became involved. The Nationals will look, among other things, at jobs, prices and service levels to communities outside the Sydney central business district that day in day out feel ignored by the Government.

We have also asked for an independent oversight body comprising the Auditor-General, community representative and a financial expert to monitor the use of funds realised from the sale. We do not want this sale to be a slush bucket for marginal seat funding, which has been a characteristic of the Iemma Government. It should be on the priorities of this State, and that is what we have asked for. We have asked for a parliamentary oversight committee to guarantee the delivery of improvements in clean, green and renewable energy investment resulting from the sale. The Government is selling the power of old and not doing enough to invest in future power or energy sources. That is one of the fundamental, strategic absences in this transaction. More should be done on renewables and coal sequestration, but not enough is being done. We also asked for the retention of poles and wires in public ownership and appropriate safety nets for pensioners, low-income families and employees as determined by the Auditor-General. The Government has substantially agreed to our conditions, and we are pleased that only this week it has agreed to our request to have the Auditor-General oversee this transaction.

I will touch on why some of those concerns are important. We hear about the impact of the sub-prime crisis. Why does that matter and why is it important to this transaction? It is difficult to raise $10 billion to $15 billion in current market conditions. I say $10 billion to $15 billion because the Treasurer has alluded to figures of up to $15 billion. We are not sure what we will receive—somewhere between the Owen report and the optimistic projections of the Treasurer. The cost of raising that sort of money today, compared with 12 months ago, will be $400 million to $600 million more, which is a substantial amount. It is a new school hall for every public school in the State or it is two new hospitals, and it is something that we should be concerned about. The head of Deutsche Bank's financial sponsors group was asked by the Sydney Morning Herald in March if he had ever seen the markets like this in his 20 years in the industry? He replied no. That is the comment I get from around the world, from colleagues still in the marketplace. This is the worst they have seen it in 25 years. Is this a time one should undertake such a transaction? Will privatising the assets, selling the assets, give New South Wales the best value? Delaying the sale might well see some of this cost burden removed. That is what we want, independent advice that addresses that concern.

The uncertainty around carbon tax cannot be underestimated. Gavin Madson from the Finch ratings agency has commented on the uncertainty among potential bidders because of the emissions trading scheme. He told the Sydney Morning Herald in February, "The generators in NSW, being coal-fired, assets which will be at a particular risk of a shock to you to carbon pricing." He believes it is unlikely New South Wales will get the high prices for privatisation that Victoria and Queensland did. Professor Owen stated in his report, "Carbon uncertainty and Government ownership [are] impediments to [private] investment." Recently released projections from both Citibank and Deutsche Bank estimate the cost of a carbon tax to be between $20 and $100 a tonne. Considering that generators emit 57.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, that means a potential annual cost to prospective buyers of between $1 billion and $5 billion.

When asked in the other place whether the huge uncertainty around carbon trading—also a key concern of the Owen report, which repeatedly says this is an impediment to private investment—could significantly erode the price of the generators, the Treasurer admitted that he did not know. He said, "We cannot assess the final impact until we see the details of the carbon-trading regime." He made that statement on 5 June 2008. That is just one of a number of reasons why I have asked the Auditor-General to look at this issue as part of his report, because there is too much uncertainty to give New South Wales any confidence that it will get a fair price for these assets. With such uncertainty apparent, any private investor is likely to focus on the top end of that liability when negotiating a price. In other words, selling with no clarity on the carbon tax may ultimately cost New South Wales billions.

In a climate of uncertainty and with those types of projections in the market while we are negotiating a price and a point of time opportunity—we are only doing it once in a 100-year cycle—we have asked for independent advice on whether we should do it now. Should we wait until we get clarity on the national emissions trading scheme, which the Federal Government is due to announce in the next 12 months?

We need to know also whether market conditions preclude participants from bidding in the process, thereby removing competitive tension and diminishing the value of the sale. Participants with a triple-B credit rating—the rating of many generators and in robust market conditions they would be expected to participate heavily in the process—would be unlikely to raise the debt required in the current market. The Owen report suggests that the private sector needs carbon tax certainty to invest. However, the uncertainty, coupled with the market conditions, may well mean that we are not seeing the competitive tension required to achieve the best results for these assets. That is another reason why we have asked for an independent report.

The Premier, Morris Iemma, said in Parliament on 4 June that "if no private investment occurs … the Government will be able to pursue a baseload power station development". That evokes a huge number of questions. It undermines all his arguments over the past few months. What advice is he receiving? Is it that the private sector will take the assets but not invest in the new generators? And how does this impact on the budget Michael Costa delivered recently, which was devoid of any investment in generation whatsoever? If this is a possibility, should the Government not have a contingency plan for forward estimates, and can we meet those forward estimates if this eventuates? Or is our triple-A rating under threat? Those questions need answers.

The Premier stated, "If private investment does not occur, then we will." My understanding of the transaction is that he will undertake the sale of these assets because that is the only way to achieve private investment in the generation. How does that match with his comments, "If they don't do it, we will" once the assets are gone? It is incongruous. The Iemma Government does not have the best track record in negotiating with the private sector. Its record is appalling. Can the people of New South Wales be satisfied that the Iemma Government's management team will receive the best results on the basis of its track record?

Mr Barry O'Farrell: No.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: No, it will not. We have heard about Star City and the $400 million increase in value the day after the licence extension was announced. The Cross City Tunnel opened in 2005 and was boycotted in protest against street closures. The original owners were placed in receivership in 2006 after the State Government reversed road changes that funnelled cars into the tunnel.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting and allow the member for Manly to be heard.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I quote the words of Don Urquhart, a constituent from North Ryde, the seat of the Deputy Premier. He summarised the feelings of many New South Wales taxpayers when he wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

The sale of the state's power industry planned by Morris Iemma and Michael Costa may and may not be good public policy—that is open to debate. What is beyond debate is that the State Government should not be permitted to undertaken this exercise given NSW Labor's appalling record in managing the sale of state-owned assets and its equally abysmal record in the delivery of services and strategically important infrastructure projects.

The history of mismanagement has eroded trust and thus demands a high level of scrutiny. A transaction of this magnitude and importance demands the involvement of the Auditor-General. The Opposition has concerns that will be addressed in the amendment to be moved in Committee, which seeks to broaden the role of the Auditor-General's report.

Whilst talking about energy and sources, another emerging crisis relates to peak oil and how the Government is managing the industries when preparing for the future. This crisis is looming, yet the Iemma Government is again doing nothing. Australian oil production has already peaked and what is left is significantly harder to extract. The Queensland Oil Vulnerability Taskforce estimates that retail prices of petrol, diesel and gas will be roughly 18 per cent to 22 per cent higher in 2015 than they were in 2005. We must reduce the State's reliance on oil urgently. The inaction of the State Labor Government is adding to the crisis. The State's public transport system is crumbling—commuters have no choice but to drive. There is overcrowding, unreliability of service and fanciful new announcements. If we do not do something about this crisis, we will face a crisis similar to that faced today with electricity generation. This crisis requires action, determination and strategic understanding of the issues this State faces.

We must be sure that the transaction being presented is the best result possible for the people of New South Wales. People's concerns have been deepened by the increasingly inconsistent comments of the Iemma Government. The Auditor-General's review of the proposed plan before any sale takes place will reveal whether it is in the best interests of New South Wales. We are concerned about the Iemma Government's contribution to this crisis—the "all or nothing" approach, the lack of management discipline and the loss of objective reasoning or long-term thinking. We acknowledge the need to open up the electricity market to the private sector and the budget imposts that will be faced if that line is not pursued, but we reiterate that it should not be at any cost at any time or on the back of any deal.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [11.15 a.m.]: I speak to the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. I put on the record that of all the members who have spoken on electricity privatisation, to quote the Bard, I have been as constant as the northern star. From day one I have opposed the policy: I have said as much in Caucus, at the State conference and in my electorate, and I will continue to do so. The member for Manly lectured the Iemma Government on not being competent to handle a transaction of this magnitude. Perhaps he should read the history of his own party. I remind him of the airport rail link. Someone close to him was the Minister involved, and the Leader of the Opposition might have been his chief of staff. The incompetence of the Coalition cost the taxpayers of this State $800 million. It gave away the State Bank because it could not handle the contractual negotiations in tandem with the legislation, which cost the taxpayers of this State hundreds of millions of dollars. The Coalition Government sold the State Bank for a song, and three years later it was sold for about 10 times that amount. The Coalition Government was penalised because of the way it handled the transaction. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition to lecture the Government about due diligence.

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

Mr GERARD MARTIN: If those opposite wish to go through that process, I have no problem with using this bill as a model. However, we should not proceed down this track. I shall reserve my comments when that legislation comes before the House later in the year. My stand and that of my colleague is in stark contrast to that of the Opposition. I presume the Coalition is committed to electricity privatisation; the member for Manly said that in his opening remarks. We should not take any notice of the member for Coffs Harbour, who is still running around trying to find a couple of hundred thousand dollars for defaming the secretary of the Nurses Association.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: That point was raised yesterday. I advise the House again that the matter is still before the courts.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The sensitivity of the matter is well known to the House. I ask the member for Bathurst to reflect that sensitivity.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: I am on the public record as opposing privatisation.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clarence will resume his seat.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: If the member had not taken one too many punches he would have heard. I want to know what he is going to do. He has plasticine in his backbone; he has been flip-flopping. The member for Manly accused the Government of not providing electricity infrastructure. The criticism of the Wran Government was that we had overcapitalised and overprovided electricity-generating capacity. One need only look at my electorate to see there is a very simple solution to Mr Owen's comments.

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

Mr GERARD MARTIN: We already have $3.5 billion that can be put into the baseload at Mount Piper, as recommended in the Owen report, because it was developed to take four units but only two proceeded. The infrastructure and the transmission are there. The way through is good planning by Labor governments. Over the past 60 years, the former State Electricity Commission, with all its name changes, has been a world leader in the electricity industry. The record of Labor governments in this field is excellent, in contrast with what was said by the member for Manly. We can meet the deadlines set by the Owen inquiry to meet that baseload by 2013. Tomorrow The Nationals will tell more lies about this issue. Today I have sorted out the dishonourable Rick Colless in the media.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury will return to his seat or leave the Chamber. It is inappropriate and contrary to standing orders for members to walk around the Chamber calling out while another member is speaking.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: That is the standard of behaviour that we see from those opposite. I put quite clearly on the record where I stand on this matter: I have been constant since day one. I want to know what The Nationals are doing. We have already had a commitment that the Coalition will support electricity privatisation. The Leader of The Nationals and the member for Coffs Harbour change their position every day, but they will do as they are told. They are claiming credit for this, but 99 per cent of it was in the Premier's original submission. I remember arguing about it with Michael Costa and asking him questions. It really is nitpicking. Coalition members have tried to be relevant in this debate, they have tried to sit on the fence and take cheap politic shots. Members on this side who oppose electricity privatisation do so for the right reasons and will be constant until the end. I am quite happy to debate this with the member for Coffs Harbour, or the Leader of The Nationals, or any of their floosies anywhere in my electorate.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [11.22 a.m.]: We are debating a miracle bill. I call it a miracle bill because just days ago the Premier said that it was impossible for the Auditor-General to have any role in reviewing the proposed terms of the sale of the power industry. But now, miracle of miracles, it seems to be possible: the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 appeared the day after the Premier backed down and pulled the legislation enabling the sale of the electricity industry. The miraculous appearance of this bill reflects two important points: first, Labor cannot be trusted to get private sector deals right when it comes to safeguarding the public interest and, second, the review of the proposed process by the Auditor-General prior to Parliament debating the enabling legislation is a legitimate role for his office. That is what happened in 1994 when the State Bank was privatised, with the support of the current Premier who was a member of this Chamber at that time.

The Nationals protest the very short notice given for this debate. Two days after the introduction of the bill the Opposition is expected to digest its contents and consult widely with stakeholders. That is, again, a sign of the disarray of the Government. Six weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition and I delivered a set of conditions—community safeguards—to the Government, which included the Auditor-General oversighting the process from the beginning and before the legislation enabling the sale was debated. Yet only two days ago the Premier finally admitted that it was possible, and only two days ago did we see any legislation. I protest the very short time given for the Opposition to contribute to debate on the bill.

I point out that The Nationals support for the bill is given without prejudice: The Nationals reserve the right to oppose the sale legislation when it returns to the House in September. At no stage, despite the Government's desperate and dishonest spin, have we supported Labor's power sell-off. However, we remain unconvinced that it is in the best interests of country people or the State as a whole. Along with our Coalition partners, the Liberal Party, The Nationals have put forward a number of community safeguards on the understanding that the Government could go ahead and privatise the electricity sector in New South Wales without legislation and, in fact, can still do so. The bill and the other safeguards are an insurance policy, because we know this dishonest Government can proceed without legislation, which is what it originally intended to do. We hope that insurance policy will be in place. However, when it comes to debate on whether the sale goes ahead, our position is not prejudiced in any way by our support for this bill.

Contrary to the Premier's spin, the great majority of these safeguards, including the Auditor-General's role as detailed in the bill, as well as a proper rural communities impact statement, were not part of the Government's processes in relation to the sale. The Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to protect the public interest and only ultimately acceded to these points following the backbench revolt in the Labor caucus. This truly is a Government in disarray. Having said that, the bill represents a set of sensible checks and balances for a government that has bungled every other deal it has attempted, including the Cross City Tunnel and the introduction of a Tcard. The member for Bathurst went off like a roman candle, as he usually does, in his typical contribution to debate.

Mr Andrew Fraser: With no substance.

Mr ANDREW STONER: With no substance whatsoever—it was a rant and a rave. The member for Bathurst should be the last person to raise the Government's dealings with the private sector. I refer to Bathurst Hospital, which was a public-private partnership project. The hospital was not built to the requirements of the medical fraternity—bodies could be taken out in front of patients, operating theatres were too small to swing a cat in, and potentially people could hit their heads on ceilings that were too low. The member for Bathurst should be the last person to talk about the Government's handling of public-private partnership projects.

Mr Andrew Fraser: What about the aluminium smelter?

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

Mr ANDREW STONER: Yes, that was another private sector deal that went down the gurgler. The member for Bathurst really should not spray. The amendments moved by the member for Manly will ensure that the Auditor-General's review of the Government's intentions is comprehensive and that it properly addresses the concerns of the community. They are very sensible amendments. I acknowledge the contributions of my Nationals colleagues in the development of those amendments. In conclusion, the Opposition supports the bill but we put the Government on notice: We will read very carefully the Auditor-General's report and the rural communities impact statement. If the public interest, particularly in country and coastal New South Wales, is not fully served The Nationals will oppose Labor's proposed power sell-off come September.

Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [11.28 a.m.]: I support the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. This is a procedural matter, and that is why I support it. It would be very easy for a group of Government members to cross the floor to vote against the bill—as the Opposition did earlier today. Such a move would have finalised totally the sell-off of the electricity industry. But to do that would be against Labor Party policy and platform. That is something I will not do at any time.

This morning Opposition members have been very keen to talk about the economic performance of the Government. I have been a member of this House for over 20 years, including seven years in opposition. In the seven years Coalition members were on the Treasury side there were seven budget deficits—seven out of seven. The Government has now delivered 13 budget surpluses. From an economic point of view there is no match.

When the Opposition speaks about economic management I remember things such as the $800 million airport rail link that went down the drain, the State Bank and the Port Macquarie Hospital. The doozy of them all was when my mate Nick Greiner was Premier. Coalition members ran at 100 miles per hour to achieve the impossible in those days: they paid off the debt on the Sydney Harbour Bridge! We were paying about 1 per cent interest on that debt. Subsequently the State borrowed money at 5 per cent, 6 per cent and 7 per cent interest. The Labor Government has done a great job on economic management.

Like the member for Bathurst, I have been against the privatisation of the electricity industry from day one, and when the major bill comes before this House in three months time I will cross the floor and vote against it. If I am the only one to cross the floor so be it. Labor members want essential services to be in the domain of government. I am yet to meet anyone from my electorate who supports the privatisation of the electricity industry. People may want to sell a little bit of the farm to get out of trouble or to do a few things that need doing. But what happens in five or 10 years when we need to do something else? Do we sell a bit more of the farm? One day they will turn around and look and the farm will be gone. There is no doubt that people do worry, whether it is a Chinese family or others buying the electricity business in this State.

Last December the electorate of Blacktown suffered a major storm that resulted in damage amounting to $350 million. On the edge of my electorate at Huntingwood 500 people are employed to look after our electricity supply. Huntingwood is the go-between for contacting the linesmen to get the power back on. When people lost their power supply as a result of the storm they rang Huntingwood. If we privatise electricity and there is another storm I will ring and then be asked, "What is the trouble?" I will say, "I live in Blacktown. My electricity has gone out. When am I going to get it back on?" Then some little bloke at the back of Bangladesh will say, "Where in the bloody hell is Blacktown?" I have no doubt service will go out the door.

The people of New South Wales do not support the privatisation of the electricity industry. It does not matter whether this bill originated from the Government side or the Opposition side: there is great similarity between the five points the Coalition wanted and the five points in the bill today. It is not unusual for government to entice the Opposition to seek support to pass a bill, but I want to put on record that what is happening here is unprecedented. The Labor Government is trying to get the support of the Opposition to pass legislation through the House. That is fine, but I oppose the Government seeking the support of the Opposition not only to get legislation through this Chamber but also to go against Labor's policy and platform. That is something I cannot support and will never support.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [11.34 a.m.]: What we see here today are potentially the first steps on the road to Damascus. I do not agree to take those steps. I have stated from the start that I am opposed to the privatisation of electricity and I continue to be. Come September I will clearly let members of the House know of my opposition to electricity industry privatisation. I come from a town where the values of the Labor Party were derived. I represent people from that town that are concerned about the action that the Government is taking. It is not about securing future electricity supply. If it were I am sure that the Premier and the Treasurer would have spoken out about it a long time before today, and a long time before they suddenly emerged saying they had to do something about securing the future electricity supply. It is only about seeking revenue and cashing in the chips. I do not think that either the Premier or the Treasurer gives a damn about the future electricity supply in New South Wales.

This is a government that cleans up afterwards; it is not a government that plans for the future. It has never done that. It has to have a crisis so it can fix it. All of a sudden the Government is saying that the future electricity supply needs to be secured. It saw an opportunity to cash in the chips, to get some money in the tin and probably bankroll the next election. That is all it is. Everyone in this House is breathing a sigh of relief, particularly on the other side, because the inevitable has been delayed. The two puppets in the lower House are pushing around the guys who are prepared to stand up and fight for the rights of the people who have elected them by opposing the sale. The Government is trying to shove and push them by saying, "Come on fellas, support the Government. This is a Government initiative. This is good policy." It is talking up this crazy notion that it is about securing the future electricity supply.

It is absolutely not! Shortie Reville, a citizen of Broken Hill, went to the Labor conference and voted this proposal down. Shortie said to me, "John, what are they going to sell next? What bit of silverware out of the cabinet are they going to sell next?" The rank and file of the Labor Party know what the Government is up to. It has nothing to do with securing the future of this State; it is merely about cashing in the chips. The Premier and the Treasurer may believe this proposal is the solution to passing the privatisation of electricity legislation but they still have a fight on their hands. It is not over yet. While many of The Nationals might be waiting to see the whites of the eyes, I will state where I stand. Come that day in September that we have to vote to privatise electricity in this State, the blood will be on the floor.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [11.38 a.m.]: I support the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. I do not support the sale of the power generators or retailers in any way, shape or form. I have taken that stand since day one. It is good to see the Coalition finally make a decision. At first it did not support the sale; now it has had a win and will support the sale. Nothing has changed! I am not playing politics. Because of the expansion of aluminium smelters, et cetera, and the effect that will have on the generation of jobs within my electorate, privatisation of the electricity industry has raised major concerns. I am very concerned about the benefits of keeping the power industry in public ownership. Essential services should remain in public ownership.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [11.39 a.m.]: I congratulate The Nationals in the first instance on forcing the Government to introduce legislation that will ensure the Auditor-General oversees and investigates the sale.

[Interruption]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I call the House to order.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL: I appreciate advice from the Government benches! The Government also has been forced to agree to a rural communities impact statement and other studies to ensure that electricity privatisation goes ahead. That does not mean that I in any way support privatisation. The Government has seven apostles who were totally against privatisation but they have become the seven dwarfs of the lower House. They are miniature when it comes to ticker. When it comes to the crunch and they have the chance to oppose the privatisation of electricity 100 per cent in full view of their party colleagues and their electorates what do they do? At the first test of their resolve they fold like a pack of cards. The seven giants of the Labor Party have become the seven dwarfs of the Labor Party.

Mr Kerry Hickey: Oh, go away!

Mr STEVE CANSDELL: The member for Cessnock is dwarf No. 1—Dopey.

Mr Kerry Hickey: Point of order: I ask the member for Clarence to withdraw the remark. I find it very offensive.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL: I unreservedly withdraw my reference to the member being Dopey, but I do not resile from my view that the seven apostles or the seven giants of the Labor Party who stood tall in the party room, in the media and before their constituents—85 per cent of people are against privatisation—suddenly folded. They have gone from being giants to being dwarfs. I am reflecting what people in the broader community feel. I expected some display of strength and ticker from members of the Labor Party who stood tall with the unions, especially the 700 delegates who voted overwhelmingly against privatisation at the Labor Party conference. However, at the first test the dissenters failed miserably.

They cannot claim to be against privatisation and also claim to support this bill, because the bill is just one small first step along the path to privatisation. At the first test Labor dissenters folded. The member for Cessnock and his six mates and some Labor members of the upper House have folded big time. We will know everything when the time comes to vote. Of course, there will not be a vote because no Labor members would be game enough to put this matter to a vote. I predict that all Labor members will sit tight and smugly tell their electorates, "I spoke against it. I am against privatisation."

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Government members will remain silent.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL: I appreciate decorum in the House. As the member for Murray-Darling observed, the Government's privatisation of electricity has nothing to do with achieving better outcomes for unions, workers and the community—nothing at all. The Government's privatisation strategy is only about flogging off the family silver to fund fixing up the mess Labor has caused in its 13 years of administration. And what a mess it is! Any portfolio we would like to mention—health, law and order, education, transport—is a total mess. The Government has spent billions of dollars looking after itself and propping up its backroom mates with jobs. The Government's focus is not on the delivery of front-line services.

Ms Angela D'Amore: How much did your electorate receive in the budget?

Mr STEVE CANSDELL: My electorate did okay, thank you very much, with all credit due to the Federal Government.

Mr Kerry Hickey: We will pass on your best wishes to Kevin.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL: It might be Kevin who has propped up the New South Wales Government and bailed it out, but he will not bail out the Iemma Government regarding privatisation of electricity. The seven dwarfs will not bail out the Iemma Government either because they have folded big time.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [11.43 a.m.]: I support the legislation because it will expose the flaws in the Government's strategy for the privatisation of electricity. I oppose the privatisation of the electricity industry—I have stated that publicly—and I will continue to oppose privatisation of the electricity industry. I do so because I believe it is a fundamentally flawed strategy. By virtue of this legislation the Auditor-General will be given a brief to examine the privatisation deal, and I believe that examination will expose some of its flaws.

One cannot debate this bill without referring to the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008. That bill confers extraordinary powers upon the Treasurer, who will not be answerable to the Parliament on the exercise of his powers. The Legislation Review Committee in its consideration of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 identified that. Effectively, the bill will authorise stripping of assets owned by the generator that are not transferred to the proposed new public body.

In my view, the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 is a very flawed bill. As I have indicated, the proposal confers substantive powers upon the Treasurer for which he will not be accountable to Parliament. It also authorises disposal of the assets of the generator that may be leased in the future. That is virtually inviting asset stripping to take place, which is totally unacceptable. However, allowing the Auditor-General to review the deal is to the benefit of the people of New South Wales.

It is my sincere belief that the outcome of this deal will be a redrafting of the proposition. That will enable people to have the opportunity to think about the real issues underlying privatisation. If today's newspaper reports are accurate, the Auditor-General has indicated some reticence concerning his role. Quite correctly, he does not envisage his role as commenting on whether Government policy is good or bad, and he will not comment upon policy. But according to the terms of the bill, especially item [2] of schedule 1 which inserts new schedule 1A (1) and (2) into the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, he will provide an analysis of the process of privatisation. I am pleased the bill before the House has been introduced, but I reiterate that I am utterly and completely opposed to the privatisation of the electricity industry in this State.

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

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [11.45 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill being called on at any time at this sitting or at any subsequent sitting.

Standing orders must be suspended to allow the debate on the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill to continue uninterrupted.

Motion agreed to.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): I welcome to the gallery the Association of Independent Schools Secondary Schools Leadership Program participants. I hope they are enjoying this robust debate.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [11.47 a.m.]: I join in debate on the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 and acknowledge at the outset that the sale of the State's power assets is an extremely contentious issue. The decision made by the Iemma Government has been met with fierce criticism from the media and the general public, and even within Labor Government ranks. The sale of the State's energy supply does not sit well with the people of the Tweed. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the people of the Tweed!

Ms Angela D'Amore: Don't you get sick of saying that?

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: I do not get sick of saying that because I was elected to represent the people of the Tweed. Two young students from Lindisfarne Anglican Grammar School are present in the gallery, and I welcome them to the Parliament. Some years ago I witnessed privatisation of the Queensland power industry. At that time I knew a number of people who worked for Energex. Immediately after the sale, despite guarantees relating to their employment and their future, a large number of them suddenly found they had been made redundant. Moreover, the price of electricity has continually increased, despite assurances given at the time of privatisation. Once again, that was a Labor Government. Perhaps we need to look at the real reason for the sale. It has been stated clearly in this Chamber many times by the Premier and others that the State will run out of power in the near future. That is a fact.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Because of their incompetence.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Yes, because of the Government's incompetence. If you have a State-owned product you need to invest in it on an ongoing basis and maintain it. We have a number of young people in the gallery today and I am sure they do not want to read in 2015 or thereabouts that we should have reinvested in the industry on an ongoing basis and not let it run down. The Opposition has proposed a number of amendments that will be moved later today. What do those five amendments say? Let us be open and transparent. They are not the Labor Government's generators; they are not the Opposition's generators; they belong to the people of New South Wales. They own then and they should be protected. I will support the amendments because we have seen in recent times this Labor Government—

Mr Andrew Fraser: Lie to us.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Lie to us. I refer to the Cross City Tunnel, which was a great business deal. We had to put $25 million into the Lane Cove tunnel to appease the owner.

Mr Andrew Fraser: You could sleep in there and you wouldn't get run over.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: I ask the shadow Minister for Road Safety: Is there much of a problem with the Cross City Tunnel?

Mr Andrew Fraser: Only the fact that no-one is using it.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Tweed will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: A good call indeed. I spoke in the House about my strong opposition to nuclear energy. I notice one of the amendments refers to the national emissions trading scheme. As we all know, the environment is our chief concern. Carbon credit trading will come into being very shortly, but what will be the net cost? What are we not being told? In regard to professional advice, as I previously stated, things such as the Tcard have not been what you would call flash. In fact, you would call them pretty dismal. Also, over Labor's years in government a fairly significant debt has been incurred in regard to the current generators and electricity suppliers. Where is the real debt, and will that have an impact on the terms of the sale? Foreign ownership is an issue dear to my heart. Australians built these products. Without electricity the nation will not prosper or go forward. I for one would be very concerned if there was a large amount of foreign ownership of our generators.

Mr Andrew Fraser: What cost?

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: The cost now but also the cost for future generations when the young people in the gallery have their families. That is when the real cost will occur. With all those factors to be considered, what is the real net price of the sale? Rural impact statements are crucial. But probably, at the end of the day, the Government has the numbers to force the legislation through, even though seven Government members may or may not represent their areas properly and cross the floor. With regard to the application of funds, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed, where there is a chronic shortage of hospital beds, police, schools, et cetera. If all that money is focused here in Sydney none will be available for regional areas.

Ms Angela D'Amore: Oh, come on! What did you get in the budget?

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Yes, let us have a look at the recent budget.

Ms Angela D'Amore: What did you get? Tell us.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Very little—nothing. I encourage the member for Drummoyne to have a look at the budget briefing papers and see what we got. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. I fully endorse the amendments.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [11.54 a.m.]: The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 is a procedural bill in that it allows the Auditor-General to examine the proposal to lease the generators and sell the retail arms of the electricity industry, and to examine just how that will happen before the process happens rather than, as has been a tradition, examining these processes way after the events have taken place. As I have spoken at and voted in all the appropriate Government party meetings against the privatisation proposal, I place on record today my opposition to privatisation of the electricity industry. When the bill comes before the House again I will make a more detailed contribution.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [11.55 a.m.]: First I say how disappointed I am and how concerned I am about the serious deterioration in the management of this Parliament. To suspend standing orders and put this important bill through all stages today at a time when most members have not even seen the bill is a real indictment. It is becoming a too-frequent action by the Leader of the House to treat the management of the Parliament, the members and, therefore, their communities with contempt by not managing the program in such a way that members are able to consult and examine the legislation before they speak on it or vote on it.

Legislation that is non-controversial should lie on the table for five days; legislation that is controversial or landmark legislation such as this should be on the table for 28 days. This would allow the New South Wales community to be aware of what is happening in this democratic body, and it would allow members to examine the bills, consult with various stakeholders and communities and then make an informed decision when the legislation came before us. I condemn the process we have seen today. I am very sorry to see the deterioration in the running of this Parliament. As I said previously, it is the worst I have seen, and I call upon the Leader of the House to start doing some work in managing the very important business of the Parliament and ensuring that all members are in a position to inform themselves before they have to speak or vote upon such important matters as that which we have before us today.

I support the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008, which will require the Auditor-General to review and report to Parliament on the Government's proposal to restructure the electricity industry. The restructuring of the electricity industry is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address global warming through one of the largest sources of emissions: the electricity industry. Australia's ability to achieve post-Kyoto emission reduction targets will depend on a speedy and successful shift to new green energy generation. The terms of any sale and the disposal of any sale proceeds need to be framed around this issue, and ensure that new investment in power infrastructure does not merely entrench our dependence on coal-fired power.

There certainly needs to be a restructuring of the industry and a massive investment in power infrastructure to address global warming, and it is clear that the New South Wales Government views privatising the industry as a way of raising the money for future infrastructure investment without diverting public funds from other important community services. I have real concerns about privatisation, but if the Government is determined and it has the numbers to go down this path then at the very least the proposal must ensure that any future sale is subject to very clear-cut conditions. The negotiation of any future sale agreement must reflect the following conditions: no new coal-fired power stations to be built by the purchaser; a specified mandatory time limit for a transition from existing coal-fired energy production to renewable sources of energy or gas-fired power; no exemption, no compensation and no sheltering of the electricity industry from the introduction of an emissions trading scheme; no proceeds of the sale to be invested in clean coal research—this should be funded solely by the coal industry and the Government should not be subsidising this industry; any Government investment in alternative energy technology research should be directed at renewable and transitional energy sources; an investigation of capacity for decentralised power generation to reduce demand for coal-fired electricity, such as green transformers generating local sources of power through "co" and "tri" generation in city buildings.

I understand that the focus of the proposed Auditor-General's review is the maximisation of the financial value of the privatisation scheme. However, sustainability and the capacity to shift to a new green economy are the most important, indeed, the most compelling, aspects of the debate—that is if any of us in this place care about the future, the planet and our legacy for our children. It is a grave concern to me that these important matters have not been adequately acknowledged or addressed in this debate. They have certainly not driven the decision-making process. I call upon the Auditor-General to address this serious omission in his review.

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [12.01 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I support the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. However, I will make a few comments about the bill and the role of the Auditor-General. Much has been said this morning on both sides of the House and individual members have stated their position on the power privatisation issue. I state on the public record that I will oppose the privatisation of the power industry. I will do so on the basis of one very simple principle: the absolute failure to demonstrate any public benefit as a result of this process. We have experienced the privatisation of many government entities in this State, federally and at the local government level. We should not forget that local government also privatises services. The privatisation of Qantas, Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank come to mind. None of them or the many other privatisations that have occurred in this country have been able to demonstrate a public benefit. If there is no public benefit then we must ask ourselves why they have gone ahead.

I support the Auditor-General's role in reviewing the proposal on the table. He will need to look at many issues, including the proposed method of affecting transactions, the proposed timing of transactions, including the impact of external factors, any contingent liabilities that will accrue to the State—that is, the people of the State, us—and any other factors that may impact on the potential sale price of the assets. That is a wide range of issues, but they are all very important. At the end of this process, the Auditor-General, being the professional he is, and his officers will highlight some deficiencies in the proposal, and that will be a good thing. The public certainly has a right to know and to understand exactly what is involved in this process and the potential risks to the public purse. I know that as time goes on much more will be said about this issue, and I will say more.

Mr Andrew Fraser: You could be Premier.

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: I love these interjections: keep them up. Nevertheless, as the debate goes on much more will be said by members in this place. That is what this place is about. I hope at the end of day that commonsense will prevail. If this is not in the public interest, why the hell are we doing it? It is as simple as that. Stay tuned.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.05 p.m.]: I support the Auditor-General's role in oversighting the proposed sale of the electricity industry and his examination of the potential impacts, especially in country communities. The manner in which this issue has been brought before the Parliament is absolutely appalling. I was speaking to visiting captains of schools an hour ago when the bells rang. I do not know whether it is arrogance or incompetence, but this is another example of the Government's ramming through legislation, allowing no opportunity for members to look at what is being proposed. I have not seen this legislation. How can we support something—or even oppose it—sensibly if we do not know what the damn thing is? That is the height of arrogance. The Government is treating this place with disrespect—not only the members but also the institution itself. There is an appalling lack of information.

To suspend standing orders to ram through legislation in one day when the public is outraged is unacceptable. The Labor Party clearly opposes the privatisation of the electricity industry. The Opposition, by putting up its five-point plan, at least appears interested in the process. I have never been inundated with so many emails and letters in my life. I have been receiving about 400 to 500 emails a day, every one opposed to the sale of the electricity industry. My position has been clear since day one; that is, I have not seen anything to suggest that this process will result in any significant public benefit. Like most people, I am sick and tired of governments continually selling the farm. There will soon be nothing left to sell. While I support the fact that this legislation will allow the Auditor-General to examine and scrutinise the process, the way it has been introduced is appalling.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.07 p.m.]: I support the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. Members opposite, having called for the bill to be introduced, are complaining about it being introduced now. This is yet another example of opposition for opposition's sake. It does not matter which side members take in the power privatisation debate, this bill should be acceptable to everyone. Some of the comments being made are bizarre. Members said that they wanted something, but when it arrived they rejected it. I had the privilege of being a member of the Unsworth committee, which examined the Government's proposals.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I will run through the committee process, which was very interesting. Many inaccurate comments have been made by members opposite about what was said and done about the impact of this proposal on rural communities.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The 12 points in the Labor Party's policy that the Government started dealing with included an assessment of the impact on regional communities. The Government's response to the Australian Labor Party policy as presented to the Unsworth committee did deal with the impact on regional communities. It referred to the location of jobs and how they would be protected. It also addressed a range of other issues. As a member of the committee I raised a number of issues that were dealt with in the report. They included a recommendation that Country Energy stay as a separate entity and guaranteeing that it would not be rolled into the other distribution businesses.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Murray-Darling will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I will be delighted to deal with the member for Murray-Darling in a moment. The Unsworth committee considered a number of issues that are important to regional communities. It also considered where the proceeds of the sale should be directed, and I made a number of strong points about that. However, I want to be very clear about potential impacts. Country Energy employs a large workforce in regional New South Wales to deal with poles, wires and so on. They will not be affected by anything this Government is proposing; their jobs are secure. Unlike Coalition governments, this Government is not proposing to sell the monopoly infrastructure. In fact, 80 per cent of the energy sector is involved in distribution infrastructure and that will stay 100 per cent in government ownership. Members opposite who cannot understand that are dopey: it is a basic point. The distribution infrastructure will be 100 per cent government owned. The Kennett Government in Victoria sold off the poles and wires and the Federal Liberal Government sold off the natural monopoly enjoyed by Telstra. It is obvious that the problems they are experiencing relate to that aspect of the sale process.

The New South Wales Government very sensibly is proposing to keep the natural monopoly infrastructure in place. I ask members opposite to consider retail for a moment. Since the introduction of competition into the retail electricity market in 2002 State-owned corporations have steadily lost market share. This means that State-owned assets, which belong to the people of New South Wales, have lost and continue to lose value. The right thing to do for New South Wales is to realise the value of these assets now and reinvest the proceeds in alternative assets.

Mr John Williams: Rubbish.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The Nationals say it is rubbish. I am quoting the Leader of The Nationals in his reply to the budget last year. That is a direct quote from their leader, and they say it is rubbish. It amazes me to hear that.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The overview of the bill states that it amends the Public Finance and Audit Act to provide for the Auditor-General to review and report to Parliament on the Government's overall program for restructuring the State's electricity industry. The member for Monaro is now debating the sale of the electricity industry, not the Auditor-General's role. I ask that he be brought back to the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Monaro was canvassing issues that relate to this bill. He may continue.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The Nationals are a bit sensitive, having said that their leader's speech on the budget last year was rubbish. Generally his comments are rubbish, but I just wanted to quote that interesting comment. Since then The Nationals have been doing backflips. As I explained to retail employees whom I met with in Queanbeyan, we want to avoid the erosion of their jobs over time with no guarantees. The Nationals are anxious to have their position heard by way of interjections. The member for Murray-Darling, who has been very vocal in this place, was recently asked on the 2BH morning show about Barry O'Farrell giving in-principle support for the sale of the retail sector. The media summary of the interview stated:

Williams says he has the fortune to remain an independent from the Coalition—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Murray-Darling will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: As I said, the media summary stated:

Williams says he has the fortune to remain an independent from the Coalition and is against the sell off.

A previous speaker may have already quoted the interview with the member for Barwon.

Mr Michael Daley: No, let's have it.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Barwon said that he did not support any privatisation at all. The interviewer asked:

Okay, so does that put you at odds with The Nationals then if the rest of The Nationals are saying "We will support it on certain conditions?"

The member for Barwon answered:

No certainly not. The Nationals are not supporting the sale—

Yet, the year before the Leader of The Nationals said—

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The member for Monaro keeps quoting this inane stuff. However, I thank him for the praiseworthy comments he makes about me.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr John Williams: The point of order is that this bloke is a puppet for the—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Murray-Darling knows very well that there is no point of order. The member for Murray-Darling will cease interjecting and raising frivolous points of order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I agree with the member for Murray-Darling on one point: I have been quoting inane comments from inane people. Their own words are coming back at them. I understand their objections because they say one thing in Sydney and a different thing in their electorates, and they think they can get away with it. Electricity generation is now a competitive sector. The national electricity market, which was introduced in the early 1990s by Paul Keating, has resulted in healthy competition throughout Australia. For example, in seven of the past 10 years Victoria's electricity prices have been lower than the cost of electricity in New South Wales. I get frustrated when people make bland comments that prices will go up, without being able to support those comments. That information is shown in great detail on the website of the national electricity market.

There is healthy competition in that sector and already private sector involvement in generation. The private sector has invested heavily in the sector. During question time yesterday when one of the Ministers, or perhaps the Premier, was talking about the new gas-fired plant being built in Wollongong, an Opposition member interjected, "So, why are you selling it?" We never owned it; it is a private sector investment. That comment is demonstrative of the knowledge of the Opposition.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: At the moment the industry is a mixed business with public and private sector investment. Other members may disagree with me and have their own views on this, but I believe government investment in industry should be on the basis that it demonstrably produces a social benefit for the people of New South Wales. The money that needs to be invested in this area could be better used on infrastructure in regional New South Wales. Local governments need more funds to invest in economic and social infrastructure in their towns. Over the past decade under the Howard Government, the real value of the financial assistance grants to councils in New South Wales has slid dramatically. Councils are hard-pressed for funds and now require an extra $400 million to $500 million to bring them back to where they were in 1995-96. If they do get more money for infrastructure, they will not be able to provide for the needs in their area. Opposition members think that the Government's budget is a magic pudding from which it can keep taking money without putting any money back in.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I call the member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: It is okay for the Opposition to think that, but the Government knows that only so much money can be taken out and only a certain level of debt can be reached before people suffer. We want to make greater investment in capital infrastructure and services. I turn briefly to issues that some members are confused about—global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. We need to take action in Australia to combat global warming, and that means introducing carbon trading. As a result of carbon trading, electricity prices will rise—no matter who operates the generators. Carbon trading will put up the price of coal-fired power. Both the New South Wales and Federal Governments must focus on ways to help the people who are least able to afford rising prices. That is why we are working on energy conservation, assistance for pensioners and other measures. If the price of coal-fired power does not rise, people will not move to renewable energy, which is part of the carbon trading equation. It is also a key reason why the Government should not have a conflict of interest by the Treasury, which is dependent on revenue from coal-fired generation, putting forward a position on carbon trading and whether or not permits should be free. Treasury probably does not agree with me on that, but that inherent conflict of interest has to be dealt with. The Nationals do not believe that climate change exists. As I said yesterday in this place, their heads are still buried in the sand. Carbon trading is necessary to address climate change. It will have an impact on the price of electricity. But the operation of carbon trading will be separate from the ownership, management and operation of generators. Some members have difficulty understanding that fundamental difference.

I had the pleasure of serving on the Unsworth committee, with Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre and Reverend Harry Herbert who put forward views for their sectors. It is interesting that the Total Environment Centre endorsed recommendations of the Unsworth committee on behalf of the environment movement while Reverend Harry Herbert announced measures on behalf of those less fortunate in the community. Those recommendations have been included in the Unsworth report. I do not understand why the Opposition is so vehemently opposed to increasing the pensioner rebate and other important measures. No member could really oppose this bill, which puts in a place a provision that allows the Auditor-General to review the matter. It is a sensible provision that has been used in the past. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [12.20 p.m.]: I make a brief comment on the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. I join other members in stating that it is appalling that the Government has dumped the bill on the Opposition and crossbench members with no notice. We have developed a thick skin in this place, but this is an insult to the people that we represent. I am against the electricity privatisation for many reasons, one being the fact that the legislation is being rushed through the Parliament. They pushed the issue through their State conference and they are now rushing it through the Parliament. Many hours have been wasted in the Parliament by members speaking for an unlimited time on hairy-nosed wombats and matters of much less importance than this issue, which is vital to all areas of the State. Electricity and water are our prime resources, and we want to own them. The people of my electorate are against the sale of these resources in the same way that they were against the sale of the Snowy Mountains scheme. The Government, in seeking to push through the legislation, is treating the people of my electorate and the rest of New South Wales with total disregard. The House has been sitting family-friendly hours. I would rather the House sat until midnight or 1.00 a.m. each day to allow all members adequate time to research and consult to ensure that the legislation is correct. What the Government has done is appalling. It is necessary that the Auditor-General be involved. Indeed, in proposed schedule 1A the bill provides that the Auditor-General will review:

(v) the sale price of the assets that is reasonably expected having regard to the professional advice and the Government's preliminary estimates.

I have done research on and read media releases about the benefits of the electricity sell-off. The figures are way out. I hope the Auditor-General can reach a realistic figure. I have heard figures ranging from $10 million to $15 million to $25 million and beyond. I have been told that funding for the North West Metro will come out of forward budgets, not from the sale of the electricity generation. That project has been estimated at $12 billion. As members know, project costs blow out, so the North West Metro could end up like the Glasshouse project at Port Macquarie. If the sale goes ahead for $15 billion, little money will be left over for rural and regional New South Wales, which needs significant investment in infrastructure. Many Sydneysiders who are suffering mortgage stress could buy a luxurious home in a country area, thereby reducing the burden on city infrastructure. Members representing rural electorates would agree that the sale is all about providing motorways and freeways in Sydney, not infrastructure for rural and regional areas. For that reason, we need more time to consider this issue. Although I will agree to the passing of the bill, I ask the Government to particularly note the amendment I referred to, as it is essential for accountability. I reiterate, it is appalling that the people of New South Wales are not being heard and lack of planning has meant that members have not had sufficient time to properly consider this bill.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [12.24 p.m.]: I support the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 as a process of finalising the electricity matter later in the year. In principle, I take on board the concerns of the Opposition and Independents as to how quickly debate was brought on, but members should have regard to the history of the bill. The bill evolved through debate led by the Opposition over the past couple of weeks. The Opposition made this bill a condition of its support for the restructuring of the electricity industry. Legislation is rushed through the Parliament because of governance and timetables. As this bill comprises only two pages, it should not take too long to read its contents and, after all, it is an Opposition-sponsored proposal. The bill was a condition of its support for any electricity restructuring, so it is a bit tongue in cheek for the Opposition to say it is being rushed through the Parliament. The Opposition called for this legislation. As a result, I was somewhat surprised that the Opposition voted against bringing the debate on today. Sometimes I cannot understand its strategy.

The bill poses some difficulty for the Auditor-General. It is the role of the Auditor-General to review legislation and the accounts, budgets and operation of government entities after matters have been finalised. This bill provides that the Auditor-General review a proposal that is yet to have ink put to paper. The Leader of The Nationals stated that a similar proposition was put back in 1994 in relation to the sale of the State Bank. I recall the debate but not the role of the Auditor-General. History shows that we received just over $500 million from the sale of the State Bank, lock, stock and barrel, goodwill and real estate. That was not a good deal for New South Wales. If we are pinning our hopes on the role of the Auditor-General as a guarantee for success, the example of the State Bank sale is not a good one. Indeed, in that case the whole entity just moved from the ownership of government to another entity.

This is an unusual debate in that members have referred to the electricity industry being privatised and have compared it to Qantas and the Commonwealth and State banks. The electricity industry is nothing like those entities. I prefer the term in this bill, which refers to a restructuring of the electricity industry rather than a privatisation of the electricity industry. The Government is not selling the generators but leasing out property. The management of those generators will be in the private sector. The Government is not selling the major part of the electricity industry. The forward estimates show that real growth as far as revenue to the State is concerned is in the distribution sector. If we kept everything in government ownership, the real growth in revenue and dividends would come from the distribution sector of the electricity industry, not the generation sector, which is under severe competition from other States and participants. The marketing area is being privatised. It is now outmoded for the Government to be involved in a national competition fight with other electricity sellers. The Government should not be involved in competing with Western Australia, Queensland or Victorian sellers of electricity. It is a risky game. I hope that the Auditor-General takes into account that this is a restructuring of the electricity industry, not the sale of the electricity industry, as most speakers have stated.

I recognise, as I have pointed out in many letters to people and as many speakers have highlighted today, that it is obviously difficult for a Labor Government and Labor members of Parliament to use the term "privatisation restructuring". The Opposition will not lose the opportunity to bloody the Government's nose on what is a difficult fundamental issue for the Labor Party to handle. We support not only this bill but also the bill to restructure the electricity industry. I have been a member of this place for a mere 25 years. When I was the Minister for Agriculture I was responsible for the deregulation of the dairy industry. It was not something I liked doing, but it was my job, it was the Government's job, and it was industry's job at that time, to be quite honest.

I point out that members of the Government and members of the Opposition sometimes have to stick with legislation regardless of whether they like it. I do not have a fundamental disagreement with this package, nor do I feel uncomfortable with it or with the subsequent restructuring of the electricity industry, which was flagged by the Premier in his agreement in principle speech. However, I recognise just how difficult it is for Labor members to debate this bill. My message is that the bill does not require a conscience vote; it is not a conscience issue. Since 1891 Labor governments have been strong on sticking with caucus decisions and voting in this Chamber as a block. That is the strength of the party and that is why Labor governments hold parliamentary office for so long.

We have our squabbles in conferences, in party rooms and in caucus, but when we come into the Chamber we vote as a block. The Labor Party has always enforced that principle, and in New South Wales the New South Wales branch administrative committee has enforced it. However, in the past 12 months in this debate it has gone off the rails somewhat. As a supporter of States' rights and as a Labor member of a State Parliament, I am concerned that if union leaders continue attacking the Premier, if members of the party continue attacking the Premier and if party presidents—for example, Mr Riordan, who had the dual role with the union—are outwardly attacking the Government, we will invite national executive intervention into the workings of New South Wales against our wishes. The national executive has had to intervene in years gone by. For example, it intervened in Victoria over its preselection process and into New South Wales in the late 1960s.

It was national executive intervention in the 1930s that took away the annual conference policy right to elect the parliamentary leader, and that brought to an end the era of Jack Lang as Leader of the Labor Party in New South Wales. As a State party we have a responsibility to make sure that we get back on the rails. We cannot afford to indulge ourselves in this proposal. If we do, we will lose the right to make important decisions such as this. I do not believe that the national executive and the Federal Government will stand by and allow this policy to fall completely off the rails. The Prime Minister has already said he supports it. This is a competition policy on the national grid, and is consistent with the national policy of the Labor Government and the Labor Party.

This is a difficult issue for us all. In this place we have all had to eat the proverbial humble pie from time to time, but our strength comes from sticking with the caucus decision—caucus solidarity in Parliament—and we will have to do so on this occasion because if we do not we will invite the involvement of the national executive against our wishes. That will certainly sort out a lot of other problems that the party now faces. I support the bill. I know it has been of great concern to the Opposition. It is now before the House and I ask members to recognise that this matter has been brought to the House hurriedly because of a campaign and a condition placed on the Government by the State Opposition.

In effect, it has been a win for the Opposition. But it should not have it both ways; do not give us a serve for bringing it forward so quickly. A lot of pressure is on the ultimate restructuring of the electricity industry, and that has to be addressed. This is a difficult time for all Labor members of Parliament, and a difficult time for the Labor Government. The Premier and the Government have my support for the proposal and the subsequent legislation that will be introduced into the House in the months ahead.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [12.34 p.m.]: I oppose the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. I acknowledge the opportunity to speak on the bill due to the diligence of the Opposition in proposing amendments to it. I am under no illusion that the Opposition would not be necessarily philosophically aligned with a proposition to privatise the State's power industry. I imagine that Opposition members, like most right-minded people in New South Wales, would be absolutely appalled with the process that has brought this issue before the House. A fair and reasonable debate could have been held on this proposed privatisation, and it is about privatisation, no matter how it is dressed up, whether as a lease or a partial sale. Long-term leases for 50 to 99 years are tantamount to privatisation.

The process in this matter has been appalling. Privatising the electricity industry was not part of State Labor's policy at the 2007 election, and the people of New South Wales had no inkling that this would be on the agenda. They would have expected the New South Wales Labor Party to be much more protective of State assets. That certainly has not been the case. Members of Government have many demands placed on them to provide infrastructure and services, and they would look to doing that. This one-off sale, this one-off process, leads to the very real risk of any dividends from the privatisation process to be squandered, dissipated in short measure, and will leave a longer-term burden on the people of the State. I am absolutely opposed to that

I recall that soon after the Government was re-elected, having taken a slight kick in some electorates with a reduction in the expected vote for the Labor Party, the Premier gave an acknowledgement speech. He said he was very pleased and proud to form government once again and acknowledged that there had been a response by the public against the Government. He said that he would take that on board. That undertaking did not last very long, and very soon we saw what I believe amounted to arrogance. New South Wales has a history of problems with privatisation. We could all find examples that either support or oppose privatisation. I am very concerned about the proposal to privatise this significant and essential asset, and that we intend to rely on a process of regulation.

Regulation will be extremely difficult situation. Are we going to see major problems in the short term? No, I do not believe that is the case. Will we see a benefit? Of course we will. There will be money, there will be cash to spend and that will go into capital infrastructure and services. My concern is about the long term. This industry has been able to provide a substantial dividend to the State over a long time. The Owen inquiry found the industry to be in a parlous state that needs significant capital injection to bring it up to the requirements for power generation. That is more of a commentary on the history of the Government that has, over successive years, allowed the industry to fall into that state.

I question some of the outcomes of the limited and narrow Unsworth inquiry, which was not allowed to comment on whether power privatisation should be supported at all, but, rather, on how to implement it, and provide price protection and job protection for five years. I suggest that in the life of an economy such as New South Wales, five years will go in the blink of an eye. We will then start to see the impact of privatisation: the major consideration of private owners and operators will be shareholder profit. I certainly understand that and I am not opposed to shareholder profit.

Electricity is a basic utility. If we can agree philosophically to the privatisation of the power industry there is no reason why the State Government, or a successive State Government, would not be induced to consider the privatisation of other utilities that the public feel are dear to them and essential to protect their future welfare. I am not a huge supporter of the national energy market. I believe that it is a rather artificial construct and once all the States are fully privatised we might find some outcomes have us ruing the day we privatised the industry.

The proposition that has been included in the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill is supported, but we must note that the Government did not wish to take this matter to the Auditor-General prior to the sale. That was an absolutely unconscionable position and I am very pleased to see it has been turned around. The Auditor-General should be able to review and comment on other methods of effecting the transaction, such as transaction sequencing and structuring. Such review will give us an assurance that maximum benefit will be derived from the sale, if the Government ultimately wins the support of the Opposition. I support the expanded powers of the Auditor-General to review the bill. However, I place on record my opposition to the privatisation of the State's power industry.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.41 p.m.]: I support the bill to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act to provide for the Auditor-General to review and report to Parliament on the Government's program for the restructuring of the State's electricity industry. It is pleasing to see that the Opposition supports the bill. I have no doubt that the Opposition would not dispute, but in fact support, the need to reform the State's electricity industry. I believe many people have loosely used the term "privatisation" during this debate. I say upfront that I support the Premier's proposed reform bills.

Firstly, I support the bill for the reform of the electricity industry. Secondly, I support the Intergenerational Fund obliquely alluded to by the member for Lake Macquarie. That is where the proceeds of the leasing as well as the proceeds of the sale of the retail will be invested with a minimum balance for years. Funds invested will provide infrastructure in the form of hospitals, roads and schools for generations to come and will be indexed for some time into the future. I can see that virtually all members of this House will benefit from that. I would not expect any member to put up his or her hand and say, "No, I do not want any extra infrastructure. I do not want any new hospitals, roads or schools built in my electorate from the Intergenerational Fund."

It is important to realise that there are three parts to the electricity industry: the generators, the distribution network and the retail network. I will start with the retail network. Every time somebody from AGL comes to your front door and asks you to swap from EnergyAustralia to AGL, because it will offer you a better deal, and you swap, it takes away business from the State-owned retailers.

Mr Michael Daley: 400,000 people have gone already.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: As the member said, 400,000 people have left the State-owned retailers already. We are running those retailers at a loss. We are competing with 20 other retailers who have offices nationwide, and we are losing money. I understand it will cost the Government about $3 billion to make those retailers competitive. We are not selling infrastructure assets: we are selling a list of customers.

The second question I ask is this: What is our natural monopoly? We have a natural monopoly in electricity. It is not in the retailers because we are competing interstate. It is not in the generators because we have a national electricity market and we receive electricity from other States. It is in the powerlines, the wires, and the poles. Make no mistake about it: we are not selling that natural monopoly—that was on the front of the bill introduced by the Premier several weeks ago. We are not privatising our natural monopoly. It would be more of a cause of concern for many people if we were, but we are not, and the Premier has made that quite clear. We are leasing the generators. We are encouraging private investors in the generators because the cost of a new baseload generator, which the Owen Report said we need by 2012-13 to keep the lights on, is $8 billion.

Many of us in this Chamber would like to see the private sector compete in the national market with the other interstate investors and use the money in the Intergenerational Fund to provide hospitals, roads, schools and infrastructure for the people of our electorates. We are doing our job by serving the people in our electorates. Nobody in this Chamber would dispute the need for energy reform. I have not met anybody yet who would dispute that, but I understand that for some people this is a very difficult issue. So much so that the Premier established a 12-member consultative reference group headed by former Premier Barrie Unsworth, who also has quite a distinguished union background, to look at the impact on the Government's proposal on families, workers and the environment. In his report the Hon. Barrie Unsworth concluded:

The strategy should proceed in the best interest of the people of New South Wales.

That is what I had to consider for my constituents when I made my decision to support the Premier in the bills, which will be before the House in a few months. I do so for two reasons. Firstly, I believe it is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. Secondly, when I joined the Labor Party and the Labor caucus I pledged that I would follow caucus decisions. This is a caucus decision, which I will follow.

Even putting my hat on as a former economic textbook writer, when I look at this I see that we have a natural monopoly that we are not going to sell off, a natural monopoly that will bring dividends to the State for years to come, and a natural monopoly that employs some 78 per cent of workers in the power industry. That is what we are keeping. That is worth keeping. Ross Gittins, the noted economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, made a point about this on 17 March 2008 when he said:

Since the advent of the national electricity market there's no longer any good reason for a government to stay in generation and retailing.

"No good reason." But he concedes that there is absolutely every reason for the Government to stay in the business of the powerlines, the poles and the transmission network. That is what the Premier's bills brought to the Parliament several weeks ago when they were introduced, including the Intergenerational Fund Bill, in fact do. The Premier's plan is about keeping the lights on. It is about protecting consumers, including pensioners who will receive appropriate indexed rebates. It is about maintaining jobs, which have been guaranteed to people in the retailing and degeneration industries. It is about protecting the environment, and I believe $100 million in the Renewable Energy Development Fund is directed towards that.

Looking at it objectively—putting my economist's hat on—this plan involves keeping our lights on at no cost to the taxpayer without privatising the essential electricity infrastructure assets, such as the power poles and wires. It protects consumers, jobs and the environment, and it releases literally billions of dollars for schools, hospitals and public transport, which are so necessary to keep the State running. It is necessary to provide for the future of our children, our children's children, and our present constituents. At the end of the day the proposed electricity reforms will also help maintain the State's triple-A credit rating. I believe we are striking the right balance with our electricity reforms and securing our future energy supplies at no cost to the taxpayer, while keeping our exiting energy infrastructure in public ownership. Lest there be any doubt, I fully support the Premier's plan to secure the State's future electricity supplies. I commend this important bill to the House.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [12.49 p.m.]: I support the legislation, but I make it absolutely clear that I remain opposed to privatisation of power. Today is not the time for an extensive debate, but I assure members that when the main debate occurs, I will participate and make it clear why I do not believe privatisation is good for working families throughout Australia, particularly working families on the Central Coast. I take that view because of the privatisation experience throughout the world. Privatisation of power in Great Britain has led to increased prices being paid by ordinary working people for electricity. In Europe, privatisation has had the same result. The experience in New Zealand is that privatisation of power resulted in a mess and also has led to increased prices being paid for electricity by working families. In Victoria, privatisation was an absolute catastrophe in the mid-1980s. Subsequently, it led to the defeat of the Kennett Government.

In 1999 the Victorian Labor Opposition went to an election in total disarray and with an unknown brand new leader—a leader with experience similar to the member for Manly. The then Victorian Leader of the Opposition had been leader of the Labor Party for only six months but won the election—over the privatisation issue—and Labor has been in government in Victoria ever since. The point I make is that electricity privatisation has been proved not to work for working families in the country in which it originated, Great Britain, and in Europe, America, New Zealand and Victoria.

While I am on the subject of the Opposition, last week on the Central Coast a meeting of approximately 500 power workers took place. It was wonderful to see the member for Terrigal and the member for Upper Hunter, each with hand on heart, saying that they would totally oppose privatisation of energy in New South Wales. The problem with the New South Wales Opposition is that every day is a new day, and a new day presents a new position and a new policy. It will be interesting when the substantive debate is held later this year to hear the position of the Opposition at that stage. That will be the true test of the Opposition on this issue.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to the debate, which has been colourful and, shall I say, a foreshadowing of events to come on another day, perhaps. However, what I hope is not being foreshadowed is continuation of some of the inaccuracy that resides within the privatisation issue. Judging by some of the contributions made to the debate today, those inaccuracies continue to surround the issue.

The first item I wish to make clear is the form of the generators or the fate of the generators, if and when the Government successfully has the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 and cognate bill passed by Parliament. Repeatedly throughout the debate the assertion has been made that privatisation is a sale, but members ought to have regard to the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008, particularly part 2 clause 4. Contrary to some of the assertions made by members, particularly crossbench members, during the debate, the restructuring of the electricity industry has not been sprung on members. The Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 and the cognate bill were tabled by the Premier and have lain upon the table of the House for almost a month. Members have had plenty of time to peruse the bill's provisions. Clause 4 states:

This Act authorises the transfer to the private sector of State electricity assets in any of the following ways (and in no other way):

(a) the lease of the power stations of an electricity generator and the transfer of the rest of its business,

(b) the transfer of the retail business of an electricity distributor,

(c) the transfer by initial public offer of the business of an electricity generator (including its power stations).

What form may power stations take after the industry is restructured? They can take no other form than that which is set out in the bill. They may be leased by the Government, in which case the generator, the building in which it is housed, the machinery, and the land upon which it is situated, will remain in public ownership, which is the case currently, or may be transferred by initial public offer to a newly created company that will be listed on the stock exchange and probably have its headquarters in Sydney. The mums and dads of New South Wales and Australia will own the shares of that company.

Mr Mike Baird: Poor devils! That is still a sale.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The Government is not denying that, but there are only two ways in which the generators can be dealt with, and that is set out in the bill in clause 4 to which I have referred. The form of the tenure of those generators will depend upon a number of things, most significantly the advice that is offered by the Auditor-General after the bill is passed and, secondly, most importantly it will depend upon what is in the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of New South Wales. In determining the tenure that applies to generators, the Government will have regard to the best value and maximum benefit for the people of New South Wales.

Contrary to some of the assertions that have been made and continue to be made within and without the House, there is no mention in the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 of the Government's reticulation system. Let me state very clearly what has been said many times by the Premier, the Treasurer and others but has not quite sunk in yet: currently the reticulation system in the New South Wales Government energy industry is owned lock, stock and barrel by the people of New South Wales—every pole, every wire, every frame, every transformer and all other assets, every employee, of which there are almost 11,000, and every one of the many hundreds of apprentices is either owned or employed by the people of New South Wales, and every single last item and individual will continue either to be owned or employed by the people of New South Wales.

Moreover, over the next four years the Government will spend, according to forward estimates, $9 billion to ensure that the reticulation system, the poles and wires that deliver electricity to homes and businesses are as modern as those of anywhere in the world. That $9 billion is currently being spent on maintenance and improvement so that, as is the case today, when a storm occurs anywhere in New South Wales and a pole or wires come down and a consumer picks up the phone to contact the call centre of an electricity retailer such as EnergyAustralia, Country Energy or Integral Energy, when restructuring occurs, consumers will be speaking to someone in Australia, either on the Central Coast, in Queanbeyan or somewhere else in Australia, and that call centre will dispatch someone employed by the Government to fix the poles and wires that are owned by the people of New South Wales.

Furthermore, by any measure the electricity distribution sector is the largest sector of the New South Wales electricity industry. Contrary to some of the quite scurrilous furphies that have been circulated and continue to be circulated about the $1.5 billion in dividends received by this Government from the assets it owns in the electricity industry, the overwhelming majority of revenue, almost $700 million in dividends, is derived from the Government's natural monopoly in poles and wires. That will continue to be the case.

Mr David Harris: They are the facts.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: As the member for Wyong correctly states, they are the incontrovertible facts that are set out in black and white in the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008, which has lain upon the table for almost a month. The other furphy put about in respect of this bill is that there has been insufficient scrutiny allowed to this House and to the public in respect of the oversight of the Auditor-General. This is a very simple bill; it contains a single philosophical proposition: Do you think it is a good idea to have the Auditor-General involved in the oversight of the electricity transactions before they are voted upon by this House? It is not difficult. I would be surprised if there was a single member of this House who did not agree that that was a sound proposition.

Also underpinning this bill is our desire for the Auditor-General to look at the transactions as soon as possible. Every day we delay and, as the member for Miranda said, every day that these retail industries owned by the Government are allowed to continue trading is a day that dollars are lost to the taxpayers of New South Wales. We want to get the Auditor-General working on this issue as quickly as possible. In respect to the role of the Auditor-General in this legislation, it should be made clear that the Auditor-General has always been and will always be a statutorily independent officer. There will be no change to his tenure in this bill. All this bill does is enable him to examine the transactions before they are put before the House, and it confers upon him additional supplementary powers that are set out in clause 3 of schedule 1 to this bill. I will not go through them in detail; they are there for all to see.

It needs to be remembered and repeated that the Government's plans to secure the future energy needs of this State are the most important economic initiatives to be undertaken in this State in decades. This legislation supports the Government's plans and represents the culmination of more than 12 months of inquiry and consultation that will continue to proceed. A number of amendments have been made to the Government's proposals, and these have been made at the suggestion of the trade union movement, the community and environmental groups. This bill will provide additional authority for the Auditor-General to report to the Parliament on the Government's proposed electricity strategy. It will be an accountable and appropriately scrutinised transaction process. As has been clear throughout this debate, the Government has adopted a sensible and practical approach to delivering an outcome that is clearly in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. The Government has been determined throughout this process to ensure that it develops a package that enjoys the widest possible support. The provisions of this bill create time and space for the Auditor-General to review the Government's strategy and report to the Parliament before the commencement of any transactions.

In the past week criticism has been made of the Government about its willingness to work with the Coalition in respect to the content of this bill. I believe that to be one of the strengths of democracy. It is true to say that it does not happen very often in the Westminster system but when it does, as is the case today, a bill is put before the House and passed, and it has the overwhelming support of all members of this House. The member for Manly has foreshadowed he will move amendments to the bill. We agree with those amendments, and the bill will be stronger for them. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Mike Baird.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [10.45 a.m.]: I move the Coalition amendment:

No.1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2] (proposed clause 1 (2) (a). Omit all words on lines 29 and 30. Insert instead:

(iv) the impact of the proposed national emissions trading scheme (including current hedging and coal contracts of State electricity corporations),
(v) the sale price of the assets that is reasonably expected having regard to professional advice and the Government's preliminary estimates,
(vi) the impact of increased debt over the past 5 years in relation to the assets,
(vii) any relevant Commonwealth legislation regarding competition or foreign ownership,
(viii) any other factors that may impact on the potential sale price of the assets.

As we heard in debate this morning, there is some angst among many members about this whole process. Today the New South Wales Coalition is very proud to have secured the Auditor-General to look at this transaction independently. The concerns of the members reflect concerns in the community. The role of any member in this House is to enable community concerns to be addressed and, most importantly, to make sure that they understand the issues being debated in this place.

The Coalition also understands the concern of the Independents because, whilst it pushed for the amendments and is supportive of this bill, it believes in due process. It is very difficult to ask the Independent members in this House to understand this bill in its entirety in the very short time frame that has been provided by the Government. I believe that due process and good legislation are achieved by giving everyone the most information available in an independent form and also by allowing sufficient time for them to consider the proposed legislation. The Coalition acknowledges their concerns.

I will not go through the amendments word by word, but I will point out the thrust of what the Coalition is trying to achieve for the people of New South Wales in this independent overview of the bill. The Coalition asked for the impact of the proposed national emissions trading scheme to be considered. As I said in the agreement in principle debate, that potentially could cost the people of New South Wales billions of dollars. We need to understand the timing, the impact and whether right now is the best time to undertake this transaction when we do not know what the National Emissions Trading Scheme is going to add, in cost, from all these generators, which may mean the people bidding may be either scared away or may provide a price that is not in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

The Opposition has also asked for independent assurance on what is a true and fair value for these assets. The people of New South Wales should not rely on a press release that says they are worth X dollars. They should rely on independent experts' advice so that when the transaction is executed there is an independent expectation of the worth of the assets. The Opposition supports the tenets of the private sector becoming involved in this industry but the assets should not be sold at any cost or at any time. An independent assessment would help the Opposition understand how this transaction fits within that context.

The Opposition has spoken about the impact of increased debt. Over the past five or six years the debt for electricity generation assets in particular has increased significantly, which is almost another form of a hollow log. Electricity generation assets have ramped up dividends back to the Government while the debt has been increasing, but at the same time the Government has not invested strategically in the infrastructure of these assets or in the capital expenditure of these assets. The Opposition wants to know what will be the impact of the sale price on them. The Coalition is concerned also about, and has asked the Auditor-General to investigate, issues of competition and foreign ownership in this transaction, and any other factors that may impact on the potential sale price of the assets.

The Coalition is proud to have delivered the bill to this House, makes no bones about being responsible for its delivery and thinks the people of New South Wales deserve to have before the House all the information that sits with this Government. Members need to understand independently whether this transaction to sell the electricity assets to the private sector is in the interests of the people of New South Wales because that is the basis upon which the Opposition will judge our position on the legislation that will come before the House at some stage down the track. The Opposition is proud that the people of New South Wales will have an independent view of the facts before the House.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Consideration in detail concluded.

Motion by Mr Michael Daley agreed to:

That this bill be now passed.

Bill passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [1.10 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the extreme weather of the weekend of 9 and 10 June 2007 in the Hornsby area and adjoining districts;

(2) congratulates the emergency services personnel involved in assisting those impacted by water damage including the Rural Fire Service, Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade and Hornsby Shire Council.; and

(3) particularly congratulates the Hornsby State Emergency Services and its tireless local efforts as well as its ongoing work in the Central Coast and Hunter regions.

I gave notice of this motion exactly one year ago today. It is an appalling reflection on the speed with which private members' business is dealt with in this House that I am speaking on this motion one year after I gave notice that I would move it. The Hornsby State Emergency Service is the main focus of the motion, but I will also refer to other services. The Hornsby State Emergency Service has celebrated its fiftieth anniversary since I gave notice of this motion, and I congratulate its members on achieving that milestone. I was hoping to move and debate this motion in the presence of students and staff from the Pacific Hills Christian School, which is participating in the school leadership program, but unfortunately time has moved on and they are no longer in the public gallery.

Members of the Hornsby State Emergency Service were awarded medals in recognition of the work they did on the Central Coast and in the Hunter last June. I was invited to present the medals, but the service was instructed that only government members of Parliament were permitted to do so. The director general finally presented them. I was disappointed not to be able to participate in the presentation ceremony.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Disgraceful!

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD: The shadow Minister for Emergency Services is correct; it is a disgrace. Emergency services do wonderful work not only in the Hornsby area but also throughout the State. My electorate is 50 per cent bushland and it also has waterways and so on. It is not uncommon for wildfires to start either within the area, or elsewhere and travel into it, causing a great deal of angst and hard work for local emergency services. Storm and tempest also cause flooding problems from time to time. Hornsby Shire Council oversees fire management in the area and is assisted in that role by a number of agencies, including the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Hazard-reduction works, including prescription burning and fuel-break development, are carried out on a strategic basis to protect life, property and the environment in accordance with risk management plans, fire management plans and associated legislation.

Bushfires are caused by a wide variety of factors. They can be caused by lightning strikes, accidents—for example, sparks from farm machinery, incinerators, powerlines, vehicle crashes, burning off and camp fires—and they most often occur in the bushfire danger period. My electorate has experienced a number of very serious fires over the years, and certainly since I have been the local member. In 2002, 50 per cent of my electorate was devastated by a bushfire. A couple of properties were burnt or were damaged by water, but fortunately no lives were lost, and I pay tribute to the emergency services for that. This motion congratulates the Hornsby State Emergency Service, but I also congratulate the combined efforts of the Rural Fire Service, the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the New South Wales Police Force, the Ambulance Service of New South Wales and other volunteers who do such wonderful work in the face of disasters or potential disasters. A very serious fire started not far from where I live in the Mount Ku-ring-gai and Mount Colah area last October. I visited the scene one evening when Mount Ku-ring-gai was surrounded by flames to congratulate all concerned in fighting it. I toured the area later when time permitted and officers were able to indicate the extent of the fire. It was wonderful to see that response.

My electorate has two local area police commands: the Ku-ring-gai Local Area Command, under the leadership of Superintendent Craig Rae, and the Eastwood Local Area Command, under the leadership of Superintendent Peter Marcon. I have a very good working relationship with both officers and regularly attend Police and Community Team meetings. The New South Wales Police Force is Australia's oldest and largest police service and one of the biggest in the English-speaking world, with 17,000 employees—more than 13,300 of whom are police officers—serving a population of seven million. They certainly play a major role when emergencies occur. The local ambulance service in Hornsby is very responsive, although frustrated about the blocks that occur at local hospitals. Ambulance officers play a valuable role when emergencies arise. During the Mount Ku-ring-gai fire last year, the ambulance service set up in the middle of Mount Ku-ring-gai oval to deal with victims of trauma. The service, which is one of the largest ambulance services in the world, is dynamic and an integral part of the New South Wales health system.

New South Wales Fire Brigades is charged with enhancing community safety, quality of life and confidence by minimising the impact of hazards and emergency incidents on the people, the environment and the economy of New South Wales. It is also one of the world's largest urban fire and rescue services. It manages fires and emergencies in major cities and towns in this State. It certainly works extremely well with other services in the Hornsby electorate. It is also responsible for ChemWise, community fire units and the smoke alarm and battery replacement service offered to the elderly, known as SABRE. I once again commend the activities of the State Emergency Service. The Hornsby State Emergency Service and the Rural Fire Service regularly participate in the Relay for Life, which is fantastic. Volunteers who give up their time and energy to protect us predominantly staff the services. They are always ready and properly trained to deal with any tragedy that might occur in the local area.

The Government does not appear to support these volunteers as much as it could in particular the State Emergency Service, which has raised with me on many occasions the difficulties it has with funding. I note that in this year's budget there is catch-up funding but the service has difficulty purchasing vehicles when it has to have the money upfront and is sometimes not reimbursed until three years after the purchase. It has to organise its own fundraising. The Government tends to forget that these people are volunteers and they are out and about dealing not only with fires but also storm and tempest. They have to raise funds too. I congratulate all emergency services, in particular the Hornsby State Emergency Service, which is 50 years old.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [1.20 p.m.]: Today I too pay tribute to the dedicated and hardworking volunteers who make up the State Emergency Service [SES] around New South Wales. As a community, we are fortunate indeed to be able to rely on this force of volunteers to turn out—around the clock, in the most appalling conditions—to help and protect us in times of natural disasters and other emergencies. The SES motto is "The worst in nature, the best in us." We have seen both over what has been one of the busiest years on record for the volunteers, who have put in an effort that is second to none to protect the community from the ravages of storms, floods and other emergencies. Far from gaining a well-earned rest following the disaster in June last year in the Hunter and the Central Coast and across the State, the State Emergency Service spent the next nine months in constant statewide operations responding to storms as severe weather struck many areas of the State, resulting in floods, severe storms and even a tornado in the Northern Rivers region.

The Iemma Government has a proud record of supporting our emergency volunteers with record funding to ensure they receive the training, equipment and resources they need for their vital work. The Government has recognised the enormous contribution the State Emergency Service makes to the safety and wellbeing of our community with record funding for the service of $57.6 million in the forthcoming financial year. This is a well-deserved increase of $6.1 million—or 12 per cent—on last year's funding. It will enable upgrading of the fleet of emergency response vehicles and provide for accommodation, development and recruitment. I particularly welcome the introduction of a State Emergency Service cadets program to encourage a new generation of volunteers to join the service, ensuring it can maintain its emergency capability in the years ahead.

The record 2008-09 budget also includes $1.6 million for rescue equipment, including motorised hydraulic cutters for road crash rescue units; $1.5 million for enhanced communications and paging systems; $1 million to local SES units towards their day-to-day expenses; $700,000 to purchase up to 25 flood boats for local units and $600,000 for protective clothing including, boots, jackets and gloves. The events of the June long weekend last year were an enormous test for the emergency services and, as always, they faced whatever nature threw at them with the professionalism and efficiency they display in any natural disaster. This was a natural disaster of enormous magnitude, causing damage and hardship for many thousands of residents and businesspeople. Some no doubt are still picking up the pieces.

Tragically, nine people lost their lives and of course our thoughts and condolences are with their families and friends. The SES received almost 20,000 requests for assistance in an operation lasting more than three weeks, making this the second-largest response operation in the service's history after the 1999 Sydney hailstorm. The event resulted in about 90,000 insurance claims for damage totalling more than $1.4 billion, making it one of the most costly disasters in the history of New South Wales. This makes the event three times larger in insurance losses than Cyclone Larry in Queensland, which sparked 27,000 claims totalling $520 million.

Of course, the weather does not recognise our geographic boundaries, so the tempest and damage was not limited to the Hunter and Central Coast. Wild weather was experienced along the coastline south to the Illawarra and beyond, with SES units in many areas turning out to help people suffering storm and water damage. The Hornsby unit was among those. With the assistance of the other local emergency services, including the Rural Fire Service, New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Police Force and the Ambulance Service, the SES dropped everything to give all assistance possible to local residents in real trouble. I know first hand, being the local member, what the volunteers did for Cessnock. The Hornsby SES responded to 469 requests for assistance in its local area, many of which involved tree damage caused by the immense winds—not surprising in such a heavily wooded area of our city.

The Hornsby SES is a large unit, with around 100 volunteers, and is constantly building its capacity under local controller, Bob Corbett, with control, operations, planning and logistics capability. The members are well-trained and equipped, with three response trucks, two four-wheel drives and a storm trailer, along with a flood rescue boat. Not only are they willing to help their own local community; they are happy to travel out of their area to assist in major response operations in other districts of the State, such as the Hunter and the Central Coast. Around 66 members of the Hornsby unit headed up the F3 to help their colleagues in the operation. Special commemorative State medallions have been struck to thank all those who took part in the response.

This emergency showed yet again the value of emergency services to our community, the great work the volunteers do in natural disasters, and the skill, commitment and cooperation of the members. Whether they are paid or volunteers is irrelevant; they are totally dedicated. It is humbling to remember that many volunteers carry out their duties with no reward except the thanks from those they help. We should all remember that all they look for is a quick thankyou on the way, and they work in such horrible inclement weather.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [1.27 p.m.]: I commend my colleague the member for Hornsby for introducing this motion.

Mr Matt Brown: And the member for Cessnock.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I will come to the member for Cessnock and commend him for the spirit in which he has joined in this debate. I acknowledge again the local member, Judy Hopwood, as a major supporter of the State Emergency Service. She is popular locally and works very hard in her electorate. Both members look after their emergency services personnel very well. A recent issue of The Volunteer, the official journal of the New South Wales State Emergency Service Volunteer Association, referred to the wonderful work of the Hornsby SES. The Hornsby unit was formed on 3 April 1958, an Act of Parliament created just three years after the State Emergency Service in 1955. It was originally housed in a small shed in Hunter Lane, Hornsby, as part of the Hornsby council depot. The magazine states that by 1973 the unit had about 20 active members and two response vehicles, an ex-army International truck—the member for Wagga Wagga will know, with his expertise, the old International trucks—and a bushfire brigade twin-cab four-wheel-drive utility.

As the shadow Minister for Emergency Services I pay tribute to the six local controllers who have served the people of Hornsby since the inception of the Hornsby unit. They are L. Williamson, who was local controller from April 1958 to February 1972; Colin Gale, from February 1973 to December 1973; Bob Leske, from December 1973 to May 1982; Laurence Jones, from June 1982 to August 1983; Colin Hammer, from October 1983 to August 2002; and, finally, that wonderful individual and great leader, Bob Corbett, from August 2002 until now.

I pay tribute to our volunteers from the Rural Fire Service, the community fire units, the local fire brigades and the Royal Coastal Volunteer Patrol. As the member for Hornsby has stated time and again, a significant factor that defines a civilised democracy is the level of selflessness voluntarily given by individual members of the community for the benefit of others. What greater reflection of that is the wonderful work our volunteer services do, particularly those in emergency services.

As the member for Hornsby stated as a great supporter of the Rural Fire Service and State Emergency Service, we need to be there as a parliament and as a government providing adequate services and necessary equipment to these volunteer organisations. These people put their lives on the line every time they go out in a storm, or to a flood or to fight a fire. These selfless individuals leave their families worried at home, not sure whether they are going to return. Quite often they leave their families and their homes in danger. State Emergency Service personnel go out on Christmas Day and even if their own roofs have been damaged or blown off, they still go out as part of the well-disciplined combat agency to serve and protect. On occasions they have left their own homes to help others in the community. Members of the Rural Fire Service have been out fighting fires and have returned to find that their own home has been burned down.

One of the major problems facing emergency services in particular is funding. For example, 33 per cent of emergency services vehicles are more than 10 years old, including a troop carrier in Baradine that is 29 years old, a primary accident rescue vehicle at White Cliffs that is 32 years old and a 25-year-old emergency response vehicle in Wilcannia. Our volunteers do their work under hazardous conditions and deserve modern rescue vehicles.

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

[The Acting-Speaking (Mr Matthew Morris) left the chair at 1.32 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The SPEAKER: On behalf of the House I welcome a delegation from the Sri Lankan Parliament visiting Parliament House and its offices today. Welcome to the New South Wales Parliament.

The SPEAKER: I advise the House that, for the first time, Parliament House will participate in an event that celebrates World Refugee Day, which is marked each year on 20 June. This day is celebrated annually by the United Nations to recognise the strength, courage, resilience and potential of refugees around the world. This year World Refugee Day will focus on the need for protection, including economic stability and protection from violence and persecution.

In an initiative led by the Australian Association for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the President and I have agreed for the Parliament building to be illuminated in United Nations blue on Friday night to coincide with the lighting of the Jet d'eau in Geneva and the lighting of key monuments in Australia such as the Captain Cook Memorial water jet located on Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra. This is the first time that a public building in Sydney will be illuminated for World Refugee Day.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. If, as the Premier now claims, John Della Bosca failed to tell him about the additional statutory declarations, meaning that he has misled the Premier a second time about the Iguanas cover-up, when will the Premier stop dithering and simply sack him?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my answer to the question yesterday.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition talks about standards. What sort of standards has he imposed on his team? Sitting two members away from the Leader of the Opposition, on the front bench, is someone who assaulted another member of Parliament.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129, in relation to relevance. The Premier has to answer the question about his team that he is imposing standards on. Also, if he wishes to make a substantive attack he should do so by way of motion, or we could point out the failings in standards of his team.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. The House will come to order. I call the member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is good to see that the member for Coffs Harbour is interjecting on a matter of standards. The Leader of the Opposition wants it both ways. He has chosen the path to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The matter is under investigation by police and the police will do their job. The Minister has been stood aside, Mr O'Farrell.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition speaks about standards. A couple of others in the Opposition who ask questions in Parliament are sanctimonious hypocrites, like him.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: Will the Premier update the House on the Government's efforts to conserve and manage our water resources and related matters?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am pleased to inform the House that today the Minister for Water has announced that Sydney's recent rain has not only boosted dam levels but has now allowed the Government to ease water restrictions for Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Current level three restrictions will be eased to allow vehicle and house washing with a hose fitted with a trigger nozzle from this weekend. Water restrictions have been, and remain, an important part of the Government's response to the drought and to the water crisis. Sydneysiders have saved more than 415 billion litres of water since the restrictions were introduced in October 2003. The community has set such a good example that Sydney today uses as much water as it did in 1974, despite one million extra people to turn on the taps. It is a remarkable result.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is amateur hour over there.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, it is amateur hour from Sahara Stoner. We should all be proud of this remarkable result. As today's Sydney Morning Herald editorial says, "people have become water wiser". On 12 July last year the Government indicated that if dam levels rose above 65 per cent the Government would consider easing restrictions. With dam levels at 66.5 per cent we can now move to ease restrictions. Washing vehicles, boats, caravans, trucks, trailers and other vehicles and homes will now be permitted but only with a hose with a trigger nozzle. The other level three restrictions remain in place. These changes to the restrictions will only have a minor impact on Sydney's overall water use. Sydney Water estimates water consumption will increase by less than half of one per cent per year.

The Government is committed to a long-term water plan to secure Sydney's water supply for the four million residents of Sydney. This water supply is being secured through a record capital investment program of over $5 billion over the next four years. The investment will increase recycling to save drinking water through initiatives such as the Western Sydney Recycling Initiative, saving up to 27 billion litres of water a year through the use of highly treated recycled water for environmental, industrial and residential use. By 2015 Greater Sydney will recycle over 70 billion litres of water a year—more than 11 per cent of Sydney's water needs.

Ms Pru Goward: Hear! Hear!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: "Hear! Hear!" says the member for Goulburn. This is up from seven billion litres in 1995 and a tenfold increase. Sydney's desalination plant, powered by clean, green, wind energy, will be providing up to 250 million litres of fresh drinking water a day by the summer of 2009-10.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I was giving an outline of a good policy that is securing our water supply. Together with Sydneysiders' fantastic response in saving water in their homes and businesses and deep water from our dams, Sydney's water supply has been boosted by nearly 30 per cent. The other level three water restrictions will remain in place. The Government remains focused on delivering the Metropolitan Water Plan, which will secure this city's water supplies—unlike the policy of the Leader of The Nationals, who is on the record many times as saying that he would see Sydney turn into the Sahara Desert before he would take action to secure the city's water supply. The shadow Minister, the member for Goulburn, in addition to saying that saving on energy was a waste of time and money, has come up with the Opposition's policy: to one day have a policy. If they ever did get into government, so they could write a policy.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Premier, given that your department's code of conduct requires employees to carry out their duties with "political neutrality and impartiality", why has Paul Lister, one of your department's public servants, been used by the Labor Party to dig dirt on the Iguanas workers who provided statutory declarations?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is another nonsense question from the conspiratorial hub.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Will he update the House on the Iemma Government's latest initiatives to allow police to spend more time on the front line fighting crime?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the member for Penrith for her question and I am sure that front-line police in Penrith are using the mobile police station to good effect. The public expects high impact, high visibility policing of our streets to ensure that our communities are safe places in which to live and work. The New South Wales Government is delivering on this commitment every day. We have increased police numbers to a record authorised strength of 15,206 with a further 750 police appointed over the next three years. But more than that, as the Minister for Police I am committed to cutting red tape and paperwork for our front-line officers so that they spend less time behind their desks and more time on the beat, deterring crime and locking up thieves, thugs and street-level drug dealers.

We have streamlined the police complaints system to free up police time and reduce undue stress on officers. Now we are also implementing dramatic changes to the paperwork that police use to charge crooks. The streamlined arrest-to-charge process will cut down significantly on the time that police spend filling out forms and waiting around after they lock up a criminal. The new process is expected to save up to 100,000 police hours a year. The formula is simple: the less time spent by police in filling out forms, the more time they have to spend on the front line. The streamlined system will be introduced across New South Wales. It has been drawn up in consultation with senior and front-line police officers. I am confident it will be very popular among front-line officers.

I have visited dozens of police stations right across New South Wales where time and time again officers have told me how frustrating the current system can be, and how they hate unnecessary paperwork. As Minister for Police, I cannot justify two police officers being delayed for an average of five hours each after arresting a person and taking that person to the station to be charged. It is estimated that at least half of that time is unproductive. That old-fashioned system has no place in modern policing. That is why we are making the changes that are necessary—to cut down time and make arresting and charging simpler and less taxing on officers.

The changes are simple but effective and include introducing a system whereby property seized by police during a search warrant needs to be recorded once only whereas currently exhibits are written up once in the field and again at the police station; introducing tamper-proof property bags, resulting in a suspect's property not needing to be itemised and recorded in a police inventory; more often photographing exhibits and storing fewer of them in the knowledge that 90 per cent of all exhibits are never used in court; simplifying data entry on the police computer system [COPS]; simplifying a summary of the legal rights read to criminals upon their arrest which, under the current system, takes six minutes to read; and stopping the practice of requiring an officer from a separate station to attend in relation to a search warrant.

A government can provide funds and resources to train and recruit police officers. Since the last election campaign, the Iemma Government has committed 1,500 extra police officers of whom more than half have been appointed already. But the real test is ensuring that our police officers are used most effectively. "Most effectively" does not mean pushing pens but, rather, walking the beat, talking to the community, investigating crimes and being police officers in the true sense of the occupation. Initiatives such as our arrest-to-charge streamlining project offer changes to simplify the police process for putting together briefs of evidence and the streamlining of the police complaints system.

The initiatives support the New South Wales Police Force in its ongoing effort to meet the Government's crime reduction targets under the New South Wales State Plan. Under the State Plan, the Premier has set crime reduction targets, including a 10 per cent decrease in violent crime and a 15 per cent decrease in property crime to be achieved by 2016. The State Plan focuses also on fostering the values of respect and responsibility and ensuring that high community standards are maintained by targeting noisy neighbours, public drunkenness and hoon drivers. Police are doing a great job driving towards achievement of those targets.

I remind the House that all 17 of the main categories of crime either are stable or are decreasing, according to the latest report from the independent Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Police deserve to be congratulated. The Government will continue to push new initiatives to make the working lives of police officers more productive and to ensure that they will continue to drive down crime.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. How can the public take seriously his Government's rhetoric about protecting children from sex offenders when documents obtained under freedom of information show there is only one part-time Aboriginal child sexual assault counsellor in New South Wales and that most government agencies have not even responded to performance measures set out in the Breaking the Silence report, which is now 18 months old?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is gratifying that the Leader of The Nationals has relied on that report. I will now update the House on the facts and the progress of the implementation of the report's 88 recommendations. I take this opportunity also to update the House on budget allocations that were made a fortnight ago to child protection. First, $22.9 million was allocated for additional resources to expand services and to recruit additional staff. Child protection and child sexual assault workers and child protection and domestic violence support workers in Aboriginal communities were provided for in the budget—while the Leader of The Nationals was asleep.

The Government provided additional resources for child protection because child protection is a top priority for this Government. The Leader of The Nationals should not come into the House and refer to documentation that is out of date or documentation that is many months old. There is no substitute for good research. His freedom of information documentation was provided many months ago. Meanwhile the Government has been getting on with the job of implementing the report's recommendations and providing additional resources.

Mr Andrew Stoner: How many counsellors do you have?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will come to specific figures shortly. In May an infrastructure partnership with Aboriginal communities was allocated $6.3 million for the first three years. That funding will extend over a period of two decades for the repair of water and sewerage infrastructure in Aboriginal communities. If the Leader of The Nationals is interested in actions that have already been implemented since the report was produced and in our implementation of its 88 recommendations, I will list them for him. The actions include employment of an Aboriginal family violence officer with the New South Wales Police Force. The officer is responsible for the development of Aboriginal sexual assault standard operating procedures as part of the strategic directions of the Police Force, which is at work in Aboriginal communities on this issue.

The actions also include development of a rural community-based early intervention treatment service for families in Armidale that addresses sexually offending behaviours of children and young people aged between 10 and 17 years, technology support for child sexual assault cases that is now in 30 of the 31 District Court criminal sitting locations, implementation of reforms relating to apprehended violence orders, introduction of anti-grooming legislation relating to children, and the identification of schools with attendance rates that are of concern. Implementation is under way to lift school attendance.

Mr Andrew Stoner: What is happening at Boggabilla?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals should confine his concern to the representations he has been making recently.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals should just concern himself with those representations he has been making. The JIRT—

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Do you think he knows what JIRT stands for?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Joint Investigation Response Team, which has recently been boosted. You will find this interesting because this is evidence that they are succeeding: we had a report, recommendations and implementation. I can give the House an update on what actually happened. The JIRT has made several arrests in recent times relating to the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children. In April a 70-year-old male was arrested and charged with 11 offences relating to the abuse of three Aboriginal girls aged between 12 and 14 in Taree. I am further advised that last week two males were arrested in relation to the sexual abuse of two Aboriginal boys aged 11 and 15 in Coffs Harbour. I am further advised that there are 49 sexual assault counselling services across New South Wales and that two Aboriginal specialist child sexual assault counsellor positions were filled last week in the Hunter New England Area Health Service.

[Interruption]

These are additional ones. The Opposition is easily entertained. Recruitment is underway for two more counsellors based in Nowra. I am further advised that NSW Health funds 21 women's health centres across New South Wales providing counselling services to all. That is a rundown on the implementation of those 88 recommendations—88 recommendations that were funded to the tune of $30 million, and in addition to that, an extra $22.9 million in the budget on top of the package announced in May. I have just provided to the House updated information on the success the JIRTs are having in working with police and getting charges brought against people who abuse Aboriginal children.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Could the Minister update the House on plans to protect the community and prepare health services against the ongoing threat of an influenza pandemic?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: In recent years the threat posed right across the world by large-scale infectious diseases has been highlighted by the appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] in 2003, the H5N1 avian influenza in 2004, and by the perennial threat of pandemic influenza and bioterrorism. According to the latest information from the World Health Organization, there have been 383 documented cases of avian influenza worldwide resulting in 241 deaths, primarily in Asia but also in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan and Nigeria. This year alone there have been 32 documented cases resulting in 24 deaths, the majority of these deaths occurring in Indonesia.

The latest notification of avian influenza came just last month when the Ministry of Health in Bangladesh confirmed on 28 May its first case of human infection with H5N1 avian influenza. In short, pandemic influenza is a type of human disease caused by the development of a completely new influenza virus that almost no-one will be immune to. Influenza pandemics occur every 10 to 50 years and the most recent pandemic—the Hong Kong flu—occurred in 1968. While the threat of avian influenza may no longer appear in the news headlines every day, using the World Health Organization's six-point pandemic-phase scale, there remains a very real fear that this virus could mutate into a pandemic influenza strain that may lead to widespread sickness and death across the world.

In response, the New South Wales Government has devoted considerable investment and resources to programs aimed at countering these threats. For example, in 2005 $2.5 million was allocated to prepare for large-scale infectious disease emergencies such as avian and pandemic influenza, bioterrorism, severe acute respiratory syndrome and other emerging infectious diseases. In November 2005 an additional $1.6 million was allocated to establish a dedicated biopreparedness unit within NSW Health and to start up a number of other biopreparedness projects. Last year $3.5 million was committed to continue these activities and an additional $10 million was allocated to enhance the State medical stockpile with personal protective equipment for use by health care workers in a pandemic and to procure other essential medical items.

Funding of $3 million was allocated in the current year to continue preparedness activities for infectious disease emergencies. I am sure that members would be interested to know that New South Wales continued an ongoing commitment of $2.2 million per annum to build on our achievements in this area and to maintain our high level of preparedness. The decision to continue funding of biopreparedness is based on advice from independent assessments of our structures and plans. Unlike the Opposition, we have plans. We have plans to protect the public of New South Wales and to make a contribution to our national protection.

In recent times I have been a little harsh on the Opposition and I may have suggested that it had no new ideas for health policy. I am prepared to acknowledge that that is not entirely true. In recent weeks we have seen the member for North Shore advance a new health policy. It is very special and I believe it deserves very special consideration. I will share it with the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will remain silent.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: An article appeared in the Western Advocate on 11 June relating to a visit by the member for North Shore to the city of Bathurst with the health task force set up by the Coalition. They were consulting with people. The member for North Shore did not visit the hospital but she had a chat to people while she was there. As a result of that visit, the Coalition has advanced an incredible idea: to establish a health hotline. It was reported that Ms Gardiner—the Hon. Jenny Gardiner from the other place—announced that:

The Opposition Health Taskforce would establish a Health Hotline next week to receive direct complaints that Opposition Shadow Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner could take straight to the floor of State Parliament.

What the Opposition fails to acknowledge is that a number of established organisations already deal with patients' complaints.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: And they all came to see us.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Jillian, be careful. The Opposition fails to acknowledge the role of the New South Wales Medical Board, the Health Care Complaints Commission, the Clinical Excellence Commission, the area health services and the patient contact liaison officers and all of their work.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Tell us about Dr Reeves.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: I am glad you ask me to tell you about Dr Reeves because that is exactly what I am going to do.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: It is very interesting that the Coalition suggests it is going to bring complaints straight to the floor of State Parliament because, in fact, it does not have a very good record of doing that. The member for North Shore is not really committed to making the New South Wales health system more robust and to enhancing patient safety—she is about scoring political points. Here we have it: the member for North Shore is going to bring these complaints straight to the floor of the New South Wales Parliament—but she cannot get that right. The record of the member for North Shore on this point is very disturbing. Patients should reasonably expect, based on her record, to wait two years until their concern is raised in this Parliament.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Standing Order 130 requires the Minister not to debate the issue. But if she does, she should remember that the member for Bega raised this issue on the floor of the Parliament in November last year and she did nothing.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Minister of the question before the House.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The member for North Shore has variously said that the Reeves matter first came to her attention when she met with the member for Bega in his electorate on 18 July 2007. That is what she told this Parliament on 15 March.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: You said there has been no reference to it. You lied.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Say that outside this Chamber on the steps of Parliament!

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The member for North Shore then told this Parliament on 3 June that she met with Carolyn Dewaegeneire in July 2006 and that she was horrified and almost moved to tears by her story.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, I ask you to direct the Minister to comply with Standing Order 73. If she wishes to launch a substantive attack she can do so under that standing order.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: It gets worse. In a report in the Sunday Telegraph of 2 March this year, we were told that the member for North Shore was first made aware of patient concerns in April 2006.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Under Standing Order 59 I ask that you direct the Minister to cease this tedious, irrelevant repetition of false allegations—

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Wakehurst will cease taking points of order simply to disrupt the flow of debate.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Let us be clear. An independent member of the community has said that she raised these concerns with the member for North Shore in April 2006. The member has told this Parliament that she did not know about it until July 2007 and then changed her mind and told the House on 3 June that she knew about it in July 2006.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bega will come to order.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: This lazy and silly opposition spokeswoman—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cessnock will come to order.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: —cannot get it right. That means that if anyone raises concerns with the member for North Shore at best it will be 15 months and at worst two years before she raises them in this place. You are not interested in making a contribution to the health care system.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will make her comments through the Chair.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. The question related to influenza. How on earth can she descend into a personal attack on another member in response to a question about influenza? Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask the Minister to cease attacking the member for North Shore and to come back to the leave of the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Minister that the answer must be relevant to the question.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: I totally concur with your ruling, Mr Speaker. The decision to continue funding bio-preparedness is based on advice from independent assessments of our structures and plans.

[Interruption]

The member for North Shore interjects again. She is inviting me to continue.

The SPEAKER: Order! No, the Minister will not accept the invitation. Members will come to order, including the member for East Hills and other Government members.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The problem with the Minister is that she continues to debate. The standing orders prohibit debating the question in the answer. Mr Speaker, I ask you to draw the Minister's attention to that standing order.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will continue her answer without digressing to respond to interjections.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: In 2006, the Audit Office of New South Wales released a performance report entitled "Major Infectious Disease Outbreaks: Readiness to Respond". The report made 13 recommendations, including measures to strengthen organisational arrangements and to address the need for improved information systems and the creation of surge capacity in the event of an emergency. The gradual implementation of all of these bio-preparedness strategies has considerably enhanced our ability to respond effectively to a large-scale infectious disease threat.

Several achievements to date are worth noting: our State medical stockpile for use in public health emergencies has been greatly enhanced; area health services have employed bio-preparedness officers and epidemiologists and individual area health service influenza pandemic plans have been developed; an electronic notification and public health communications system has been established to enhance public health surveillance and notification of communicable diseases; and a number of State and national simulation exercises to test policies and procedures have taken place.

The latest of these national bio-preparedness exercises—Exercise Sustain 08—is taking place in Melbourne today, and Dr Paul Armstrong, the Director of the New South Wales Bio-Preparedness Unit, represents New South Wales. Previous knowledge-gaining exercises include Exercise Paton, which was conducted in 2006. It was a statewide simulation exercise that tested the response of emergency departments, multi-purpose services and public health units in the early stages of an influenza pandemic. A report on Exercise Paton was released in July 2007. Exercise Yellow Jack was conducted in December 2007. It was a multi-agency discussion exercise that considered the whole-of-government response to the management of people in home isolation or quarantine during an influenza pandemic.

Exercise Ring O'Rosies, which was conducted in March 2008, was organised by the Hunter New England Area Health Service to test the New South Wales policy of vaccinating large numbers of people in an influenza pandemic. This was the first such exercise carried out in Australia and one of the first in the world. Further pandemic influenza exercises are planned for 2008-09, including the public health management of pandemic influenza cases and their contacts, and the rapid deployment of medical equipment from the State medical stockpile.

The New South Wales Bio-preparedness Unit works closely with the New South Wales Counter Disaster Unit to progress planning for pandemic influenza and other public health emergencies. I look forward to providing the House with updates on the activities of the New South Wales Bio-preparedness Unit in the near future.

Mr GREG SMITH: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Given that both the Minister and Police Commissioner Scipione have admitted that the 2000 investigation into the murders of Pam and Bill Weightman was botched, with Commissioner Scipione describing the investigation as "deficient" and "wholly inadequate", will the Minister explain to the Weightman's relatives—who are sitting in the gallery today—why he does not give them the public and independent inquiry into the botched investigation that they have requested?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: This case was handled inappropriately, and that has been acknowledged by me and by the commissioner. It has also been the subject of private discussions between the commissioner and relatives of Mr and Mrs Weightman—and that is as it should be.

The relatives of Mr and Mrs Weightman pursued this issue and subsequently, I understand, two people have been found guilty of murder and are being dealt with appropriately. As I have said, the commissioner has acknowledged that the initial investigations were less than adequate. The commissioner has also had discussions with the family. As an organisation that goes through a process of continuous learning, the police have changed standard operating procedures and investigation methods as a result of learning from this experience.

Mr ROBERT COOMBS: My question is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. What is the Iemma Government doing to boost security inside New South Wales Juvenile Justice Centres?

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: The Iemma Government will soon complete one of the biggest security upgrade programs in the history of juvenile justice in this State. The four-year, $6 million security enhancement program has upgraded security arrangements and infrastructure in the State's eight juvenile detention facilities. This major investment in juvenile justice is also delivering dividends for the community with a safer, more secure detention environment, and better opportunities for reforming the behaviour of juvenile detainees. A range of hard-hitting measures has been implemented to ensure the highest level of safety and security in juvenile detention centres.

The security enhancement program, includes the provision of new and advanced camera surveillance systems and secure razor wire fencing. During the 2007-08 financial year, which is about to come to an end, $1.6 million has been spent on upgrading, or continuing to upgrade, these security measures. Close-circuit television cameras are used throughout the State's detention centres. In the past four years, more than 600 cameras have been installed in detention centres. They are used to prevent incidents, to ensure staff safety and detainee wellbeing, and to detect attempts to bring contraband into the centres. Since 1995, over four kilometres of secure fencing has been installed around our juvenile detention centres to ensure that detainees cannot scale the fencing. I have previously reported to the House successful efforts in detecting contraband and preventing its entry into centres. Those efforts will continue.

The effort behind the four-year plan to improve safety and security has yielded many favourable results. Perhaps the most striking statistic linked to the plan is in the area of escapes from detention centres. No custodial system can guarantee there will be no escapes, but we know that a combination of smart security strategies and substantial funding to support new initiatives will have a positive impact in reducing escapes. It is in this vein that I advise the House that in the 2006-07 financial year, and so far this financial year—which has less than two weeks to run—there have been no escapes from juvenile justice centres in New South Wales. Compare this to escapes in 1989-90—when those opposite had an iron grip on everything custodial, except the gates of juvenile detention centres. That year there were 266 escapes from juvenile detention centres—which makes Stalag 13 of Hogan's Heroes fame look like Alcatraz. The department's initiatives also reduced the incidence of violence against front-line workers such as youth officers, whose work is invaluable. Over the past four years there has been a significant reduction in staff assaults. In consequence of the reduced number of injuries to centre staff, workers compensation claims have also been significantly reduced. The department uses the Department of Corrective Services' K9 Unit—the department's drug detection dogs—to search facilities and visitors for contraband items that may pose a security risk.

An extensive review of behaviour management policies and procedures led to the implementation of a risk-based approach to managing detainee behaviour. My department's objective classification system is used every day to ensure the safety of staff, other detainees and the community in general. If a detainee presents a risk of escape or has a history of violence and non-compliance, such as assaults, that detainee will be given a higher security rating. A higher security rating increases restrictions on detainees, such as limited access to programs and restricted routines within the centre. Male detainees aged over 16 years with a heightened security classification are detained at Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre, under the supervision of the Department of Corrective Services. Males under 16 in the highest risk classification are detained at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre. All females, regardless of classification, are detained at Juniperina Juvenile Justice Centre. The level of security rating, as well as other variables, determines the centre at which the detainee will be accommodated, their leave eligibility and appropriate case management strategies.

Of course, the Coalition's new—although I am not so sure it is new—juvenile justice policy says that anyone up to 21 years of age should continue to be detained in juvenile detention. This is despite the policy it took to the last election, which was that once detainees turned 17 they would be turfed out of juvenile detention and into the custody of Corrective Services—no questions asked. Today I ask for clarification of the Opposition's policy. Is it the one it took to the election or the one it is propagating now? The Iemma Government has progressively improved safety and security in the State's eight juvenile detention centres. Any successful juvenile custodial system working to rehabilitate young offenders must be underpinned by strong safety and security. Safer, more secure environments are more conducive to the delivery of education and properly targeted rehabilitation programs to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour in young people and to ultimately break the cycle of reoffending. This is an investment in providing better outcomes for our juvenile justice system and the community.

Ms CLOVER MOORE: My question is to the Premier. When we launched Earth Hour earlier this year the Premier said that climate change was the greatest political and moral challenge of our time. Therefore, will he give an assurance that the Government will not shelter the electricity industry, or any purchaser of State electricity assets, from the impact of a future national emissions trading scheme, as power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Sydney is correct about what I said at the launch of Earth Hour. No sector of the Australian economy will remain unaffected by a national emissions trading scheme [NETS]. The proposed NETS will be the largest economic and social reform in this country since the trade liberalisation of the 1980s. At the moment all State governments are working with the Commonwealth to get the modelling right. The impact on electricity generation and other sections of the electricity industry, plus the steel industry, the smelting industry, the manufacturing industry, the transport industry and all other sectors of the Australian economy, will be determined by the rules of the trading scheme. It will be determined by caps and by issues such as permits, transitional arrangements and the structure of the scheme. That is why the Commonwealth Minister has given a commitment to work together to establish the scheme and to closely examine the impact on industry. Members opposite might find that funny, but the Government wants to retain its steel industry in New South Wales.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government wants industries such as aluminium smelting to remain in New South Wales, while at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet targets. We have always said that a strong economy and a strong national emissions trading scheme—based on the rules, the price, the caps, permits, options and the transitional arrangements—can happen together. The Commonwealth is working with the States to decide what those transitional arrangements will be so that we can take strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a national emissions trading scheme. The Opposition has never had much to say about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme [GGAS] or a national emissions trading scheme [NETS], let alone Kyoto. I assure the member for Sydney that the modelling will continue and careful analysis will take place. The commitment remains unchanged for the establishment of a national emissions trading scheme. All the States are working with the Commonwealth to ensure that we have the best possible scheme, one that will provide the right incentives and send the right price signals to get investment in alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar.

Mr George Souris: Price signals?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, that is what happens under a trading scheme, George. It did not happen when you had charge of Luna Park.

Mr Gerard Martin: Or Eastern Creek.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Or Eastern Creek.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Upper Hunter and the member for Bathurst will remain silent.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: One can save a lot of money with energy-efficient light bulbs, George. The Government will ensure that the scheme sends the right signals for investment in alternative sources of energy and also provides incentives to clean up coal-fired generation.

Mr DAVID HARRIS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Can the Minister inform the House how sports facilities created as part of the 2000 Olympics, including Sydney Olympic Park, are helping Australian athletes prepare for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the member for Wyong for his question and his ongoing interest in the positive legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympics. I note that two children from the Wyong electorate, Aaron and Nirvana Zibarrah, have been selected to participate in the Beijing Opening Ceremony as members of the World Youth Orchestra. I offer my congratulations to both of them. In just over 50 days, on 8 August 2008, the lighting of the cauldron in the Olympic Stadium of Beijing will mark the commencement of the twenty-ninth Olympiad. When Australia hosted the 2000 Olympics it cemented our place as a global destination and New South Wales inherited the fine, world-class sporting facilities that continue to help our athletes at an international level.

Homebush, which was once an industrial wasteland, is now Sydney Olympic Park, and includes some of the world's most impressive sporting facilities. The Sydney Olympic Park Authority is building on that legacy by creating a unique integrated sports town that incorporates venues for major events, education and training, science and administration conferences and sports participation for all from the community to the elite levels. Sydney Olympic Park plays host to over 50 different sports regularly and hosts 100 football clubs, including the New South Wales Blues.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: What about the Tigers?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The Tigers, the Rabbitohs, and others. I can list them all. The Sydney Swans, the Bulldogs, the West Tigers, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, the New South Wales Blues and we should not forget the Swifts. School and community groups use extensively many of Sydney Olympic Park's world-class venues. They were used recently for the Olympic trials and are now helping athletes train for the Beijing Olympics. For many months now Australian athletes have been preparing to represent their country in China, and many of these athletes have been using the facilities at Sydney Olympic Park. I shall just mention a few. The 2008 Beijing Olympic swimming trials held in March at Sydney Olympic Park revealed two new stars Kendrick Monk and Grant Brits, who continue to train at the aquatic centre for their first Olympic Games.

Divers Alexandra Croak and Matthew Mitcham are also preparing for their Olympic debuts at the aquatic centre. Jane Saville will compete in the 20-kilometre walk at her third Olympics in Beijing, hoping to better her bronze model at the Athens Olympics. Another Olympic veteran hurdler, Jana Rawlinson, has made a remarkable return to athletics and together with Olympic debutant John Steffensen has trained at Sydney Olympic Park's athletic centre before they continue their Olympic preparations in Europe. The Olympics led to facilities being built outside Sydney Olympic Park, and a range of our Olympians are training at those facilities. I am pleased that we have been able to support the Olympians with their very important preparations at Sydney Olympic Park and other sporting facilities. As a result of our commitment to sport and to the Olympic ideal, we have been able to support our athletes and we wish them every success at the Beijing Olympics. I commend them to the House.

Question time concluded.

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, as Chair, tabled Report No. 2/54 entitled "Review of the 2006-07 Annual Report of the Commission for Children and Young People", dated June 2008.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Ms Carmel Tebbutt.

Mr Paul Pearce, as Chair, laid upon the table the report entitled "Further Review of the Consultation Draft Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Amendment Regulation 2008".

Ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Paul Pearce.

Petition asking that the Government restore regular rail services from the Southern Highlands to the central business district during peak hour and commit to electrifying the Southern Highlands line, received from Ms Pru Goward.

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

Petition requesting a 10-minute bus service between Pyrmont foreshore via Broadway to Town Hall, received from Ms Clover Moore.

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

Petition asking that a public haemodialysis centre be established in the Hornsby area, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition praying that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting that the hydrotherapy pool remain open at Royal North Shore Hospital and that a hydrotherapy pool be included in the redevelopment plans for the hospital, received from Mrs Jillian Skinner.

Petition calling for allocation of more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Petition asking that the Wymah Ferry service continue, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Petition requesting that construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton commence in line with the Government's commitment of 21 February 2003, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Petition requesting that the jobs of drought relief workers be protected, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Petition requesting funding for local councils to conduct fruit fly eradication programs in the Albury electorate, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

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

Petition requesting a total ban on sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting the retention of the infrastructure and systems for generating and retailing electricity as public assets, received from Mr John Turner.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I first heard the name Carolyn Dewaegeneire and Dr Graeme Reeves when I met Carolyn in the office of the member for Bega, as I have previously indicated. The Minister for Health's suggestion today during question time that I had heard about it earlier is simply untrue and another example of her misleading the Parliament.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: This motion should be accorded priority because climate change is one of the most important issues confronting our State and the world today. The science is very clear and global experts agree that we do not have time to waste if we are to address climate change. Only today we heard about the devastation of corn crops in the United States of America because of floods. According to the World Wildlife Fund there has been a 25 per cent reduction in krill, due to the melting of ice. That is having an effect on the blue whale, the minke whale and other whales. The motion is urgent because there is no time to waste. The New South Wales Government is taking action with its energy efficiency package to assist the people of New South Wales to reduce their carbon footprint and energy bills—but one would not think so, to listen to the Opposition.

It is incumbent on this Parliament to make sure that the people of New South Wales are made aware of these important initiatives and that they understand the benefits of this package. It is urgent to debate my motion today because we must ensure that the people and businesses of New South Wales are well aware of the Parliament's commitment to addressing energy efficiency measures. Debate on this motion will make people aware that the New South Wales Parliament is committed to addressing climate change and will provide an opportunity to rebut some of the myths peddled by members opposite.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: My motion is urgent, and it is genuinely important—as opposed to the rehashed motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He has used it just about every day this week, simply as an excuse for more muckracking and political point-scoring.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The people of New South Wales look to this Parliament for leadership.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will take his screaming match outside the Chamber.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The people of New South Wales look to this Parliament to show that we are committed not only to addressing climate change but also to supporting them in doing their bit to address climate change. The people look to this Parliament to make sure that we show the community the measures that are available to them. For all those reasons, my motion is urgent and I urge members to support it.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [3.31 p.m.]: I am shocked by the crocodile tears of the member for Marrickville. That strong performance and the standard she sets are in stark contrast to the performance and standards of the Premier. When I gave notice of my priority motion about the Premier's lack of leadership, his weakness and his failure to impose standards, the biggest cheer I heard was from the member for Marrickville, the premier-in-waiting. When the member for Marrickville spoke to her priority motion there were more Government members present than for any other priority motion this week. They are her supporters. They, like members on this side of the House, deplore the weakness and the lack of standards shown by the Premier.

Today we woke to the appalling revelation that across New South Wales there is one part-time Aboriginal specialist child sexual assault worker—one for the entire State, despite a report two years ago that found that children in Aboriginal communities are four times more likely to suffer sexual assault than in any other community. This Government cannot find sufficient child sexual assault workers. However, it can devote one full-time employee in the Premier's Department to dig dirt on the Iguana workers who dared to stand up to John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal. My motion is all about standards and the Premier's refusal to do anything about the standards of behaviour of his team. It is about the failure of his third most senior Minister, John Della Bosca, to apologise for either his wife's or his own behaviour at Iguanas on 6 June 2006.

This is about the failure of Government members to stand up for the restaurant workers involved in that incident. This week I read that caucus cheered when John Della Bosca entered the meeting. What a great signal to the community about that side of politics and their so-called concern about "Your rights at work". They were happy to talk about workers' rights last November and they were happy to stand up for workers last March, but they are not prepared to stand up for workers who deal with them in nightclubs. Today we heard from the only Labor member who is prepared to stand up for staff and against assaults on staff. Regrettably, the Minister for Juvenile Justice was concerned about assaults on staff in juvenile detention centres only, not about verbal assaults on and intimidation of staff in nightclubs.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: As much as I am enjoying another of Barry's magical mystery tours—

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

Mr Steve Whan: My point of order is that so far we have heard nothing relevant to the wording of the motion for which the Leader of the Opposition seeks priority. I ask you to draw him back to establishing priority for his motion. I know it is a grab bag, but at least—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will speak to his motion.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Standards of behaviour do not encompass my motion. The motion just explains that the problem the member for Monaro and the Labor Party has is not an ethical problem. It is a cultural problem. Government members do not understand the truth, they cannot recognise the truth and they will not ever say the truth, even when the public interest demands it. Forget that Paul Lister is a member of the Labor Party and that he has worked on a number of campaigns for the Government. He is a full-time employee of the Premier's Department, and he was instructed by the Premier's Office to go out and dig dirt on young restaurant workers. Why? Is that in the interests of the Premier's Department? Is that in the interests of the people of this State? No. It is in the interests of John Della Bosca, Belinda Neal and Morris Iemma.

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

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you have consistently ruled in this place that attacks on persons, particularly persons who are not able to defend themselves in this place, must be by way of substantive motion. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to do with the individual named. It makes no mention of him. It is not a substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the member for Monaro. The Leader of the Opposition will keep his remarks within the leave of the motion.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Government members—whether it is the member for Monaro, other members or the Premier—have shown a pattern of behaviour: whatever it takes! Say whatever it takes, do whatever it takes, use public resources to whatever purpose. After 13 years in office they believe that they own the State and can treat the people of the State in any way they choose. They do not need anger management counselling, they need a few lessons in telling the truth. We have a dopey, dithering, deceptive and disreputable Premier who in America would be called a doofus. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion of the member for Marrickville be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [3.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Iemma Government on taking urgent action to address climate change through its energy efficiency package;

(2) applauds the community for their efforts in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and

(3) condemns the Opposition for its complete lack of commitment and policies on this important issue.

As I have said, there is no greater environmental challenge than the threat of global warming. The science is in and experts globally agree that urgent action is required.

Ms Pru Goward: So why don't you do something?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: We hear from the member for Goulburn that we should do something. In fact the New South Wales Government has been doing something about climate change for a long time. We are a leader in tackling climate change, unlike those opposite and their colleagues in the Federal Parliament. The New South Wales Government initiated one of the world's first mandatory carbon emissions trading schemes. It has already cut emissions by more than 60 million tonnes, which is the equivalent of taking more than 12 million cars off the road for a year. In 2005, New South Wales was the first Australian jurisdiction to set ambitious targets to reduce emissions: a 60 per cent target by 2050. That is not a crown that fell to the Federal Coalition when it was in office: it fell to the New South Wales Government. Our land clearing policies were instrumental in Australia being able to meet its Kyoto targets. Under New South Wales leadership we started work on a national emissions trading scheme and with Labor now in office, the Federal Government is developing that scheme.

Yesterday we saw the Premier of New South Wales take yet another major step forward in the effort to tackle climate change, with the announcement of a $150 million energy efficiency package. This is world-leading policy. We know that if we are going to genuinely address climate change, we must invest in renewable energies and reduce the impact of coal but we must also support the community and businesses to adopt more energy-efficient measures—the two go hand in hand. I was surprised to see the response of the member for Goulburn who seemed to indicate in her press release that this is a vote of no confidence in a national emissions trading scheme. That there is in some way a conflict between what the New South Wales Government is doing with its energy efficiency plan and what is happening on the national front with a national emissions trading scheme could not be further from the truth.

Ms Pru Goward: You do not understand how it works.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: With all due respect, the member for Goulburn does not understand how it works. I think there is a complete lack of understanding amongst those opposite about how climate change policy instruments actually work. A national emissions trading scheme will be the principal instrument to drive emissions down. That is why we on this side of the House have supported a national emissions trading scheme for a long time. That is why we took action to make sure that when Labor was elected nationally it was in a position to move quickly and smoothly on a national emissions trading scheme. No-one can doubt the commitment of members on this side of the House to a national emissions trading scheme. However, we also know that to drive emissions down, the emissions trading scheme, along with other factors, is expected to push energy prices up. Therefore, it is incumbent on the New South Wales Government, and on the New South Wales Parliament, to support the community of New South Wales to manage that transition to an environment where carbon is constrained and where carbon will cost more. We must assist and support the community of New South Wales to reduce their carbon footprint and to reduce their energy bills. That is what the Energy Efficiency Strategy is all about.

All the experts agree that a national emissions trading scheme and energy efficiency measures are complementary in assisting to reduce the carbon footprint of the New South Wales community and to reduce the community's energy bills because they cut emissions and also save money. The alternative is to stand by while prices rise, which will impact on families and businesses. The Government's package is a $150 million investment in energy-saving measures that are expected to save the New South Wales economy a massive $415 million in the avoided wholesale cost of electricity.

Members do not have to listen only to me on this subject. Any number of experts has welcomed the New South Wales Government's plan. Predictably the Opposition attacked the plan but, by contrast, a number of interested groups and stakeholders welcomed the Government's announcement. For example the head of Planet Ark, Mr John Dee, was reported on radio yesterday as welcoming the plan, in particular the Government's measure to set an energy efficiency target. He said:

One of the easiest ways we can reduce the country's climate change impact is to get businesses to have real targets that they have to meet.

Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre has described the plan as, "a breakthrough set of policies aimed at reducing energy bills and energy consumption of households and businesses". He went on to say:

Proactive energy efficiency programs and targets like this are essential to complement an emissions trading scheme …

It can deliver big and early greenhouse gains in response to growing alarm about global warming.

Energetics, which is a major Australian climate change and energy solutions company, also welcomed the announcement:

Energetics welcomes the NSW State Government's 'Action Plan for Energy Efficiency' released today.

Many have welcomed the Government's package.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [3.41 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" and inserting instead:

1. condemns the Government for its failure to mitigate the impact of anthropogenic climate change; and

2. applauds the community for their efforts in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite the lack of support from the Government.

I am absolutely staggered that the member for Marrickville, who has ambitions to become Premier, has moved the motion because the Iemma Government has an incredibly tacky track record on climate change. For example, the Clean Energy Roundtable established by the Government met only once, in May last year, and made no recommendations. So much for green energy! The Treasurer referred to the Australian of the Year as an idiot for being concerned about climate change, referred to his own Government's "bogus" policies on climate change and provided no additional funding for climate change in this year's budget, instead simply riding off the back of funding that was announced last year, despite significant inflation increases having occurred in the meantime.
The State Government has not produced a policy on public transport—the best and most recognised way of addressing greenhouse gas emissions—to get cars off the road and to encourage people to instead use public transport. Where is the Government's policy on public transport? The Government has no policy on the promotion of solar power. The South Australian and Queensland governments have buy-in tariffs, yet the New South Wales Government is not even talking about a buy-in tariff—presumably because the Treasurer and the Minister for Energy are eager to avoid damaging the Government's power sell-off.

When it comes to big picture policies that can make a difference to climate change, the New South Wales Government refuses to take action. The reason that some, but not all, businesses were supportive of yesterday's announcement is that they are relieved not to be flogged and slugged with more regulation. They were also relieved that there was nothing compulsory about the package and that all that was being asked for was a little bit of public education. One would have thought that public education might have been undertaken well before this point. If it is so easy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and solve climate change, one would have thought that a public education campaign would have been underway already.

The reality is that merely encouraging people to improve their energy efficiency cannot address climate change. Governments have to provide people with materials and technology with which to effect the change and governments must send the correct pricing signals. None of those actions has been taken. I highlight the lack of adequate public transport, despite fuel prices in Australia having reached record high levels. The one exciting measure yesterday was the introduction of a further regulatory impost upon the top 200 companies in New South Wales. The Government proposes to double its regulation of those companies—they are regulated already under the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme—and that is evidence that the Government recognises its Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme has failed.

Every year in New South Wales, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. Yes, the rate of the increase is not as high as it once was, but the reality is that emissions continue to increase. That is incontrovertible evidence of the scheme failing to achieve what it has set out to accomplish by 2020—a target date by which most members of the House, except for younger members, will no longer be responsible for the Government's tired old lies. The year 2020 is a conveniently distant target. In the meantime, emissions in this State will continue to increase.

Yesterday's desultory package of $150 million spread over 40 per cent of Australia's population is totally inadequate for improving energy efficiency. As I say, the Government avoids big picture policies, such as encouraging the adoption of photovoltaic cell technology and buy-in tariffs that would result, as they have in Germany and in other countries throughout the world, in significantly reduced emissions. Members opposite have espoused no such policies because the Iemma Government is totally committed to grasping revenue from the sale of electricity industry assets but has no commitment to climate change, except climate change rhetoric.

Yesterday's announcement is acknowledgement that the Government does not believe that a national emissions trading scheme will be forthcoming. As business has said, if a government believes in a national emissions trading scheme, it sends a price signal to get the point across about energy savings. Greenhouse gas abatement certificates issued to going-green companies that supplied households with high efficiency and low energy light bulbs failed and the companies went bankrupt. The Government badly mismanaged the scheme and the pricing of certificates. It also failed to manage the uncertainty created by the advancement of a national scheme. If the Government had cared about households using low-energy high-efficiency light bulbs, it might have done more last year to assist those companies but instead it stood by while they went to the wall. The Government's greenhouse gas abatement scheme has been extremely ineffectual.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [3.48 p.m.]: The Iemma Government takes the challenge of climate change seriously. The New South Wales Energy Efficiency Strategy, which was announced by the Premier yesterday, is the next stage in our comprehensive plan to reduce the State's emissions and meet our strict climate change targets. We already have created the landmark $340 million Climate Change Fund that is designed to help New South Wales families, schools, community organisations and businesses to do their bit to reduce our State's emissions. Part of that fund is earmarked for the Residential Rebate Program, which provides financial assistance to families who wish to install energy efficient solar water heaters, insulation, or rainwater tanks in their homes. The community's response has been overwhelming. In just 10 months since the program commenced, over $10 million in rebates have been distributed.

More than 20,000 rebates have been issued to New South Wales families across the State. With the assistance of the Iemma Government, the devices installed in homes across New South Wales will save an estimated 585 million litres of water and almost 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year. That is the equivalent of taking more than 3,000 family cars off the road for a year. I am proud to say that, to date, my electorate of Wyong has taken up more rebates than any other community anywhere in the State. I congratulate the people of the Central Coast on taking the climate change challenge to heart.

The strong response to the rebate program shows that the New South Wales community cares deeply about climate change and the Iemma Government is giving them the right tools to do their bit. But what does the Opposition think about helping families play their part in the fight against climate change? The member for Goulburn has described assistance to families to install energy efficient appliances as throwing money around willy-nilly. She also said we should not bother with measures to reduce our emissions in Australia, because "even if we did all of these things at an incredible cost to the Australian economy it would make no difference to the world".

Australia has the second-highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world. We are a developed nation and we should lead by example. Thankfully, the community, like the Iemma Government, disagrees with the member for Goulburn, and we are getting on with the job of slashing our emissions. The Climate Change Fund also includes our $20 million school energy efficiency program, which helps New South Wales principals modify their buildings to improve energy efficiency and teach kids about sustainability in the process. Our $40 million Renewable Energy Development Fund supports innovative renewable energy projects to help power New South Wales homes and businesses into the future. The Climate Change Fund is another example of the Iemma Government's comprehensive strategy to tackle climate change—a multipronged strategy that looks at emissions from all sections of the community and industry.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [3.51 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, but, sadly, I do not have the opportunity to read a speech prepared by some ministerial staffer. Sadly, I am not given that privilege. I am only given three minutes to debate a matter that I would happily debate for hours because I believe it is really important. I challenge the assertion that the Government is taking effective action to combat and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic climate change. If it were, then the energy efficiency requirements for new buildings would be applied to high-rise residential flat buildings. Evidence shows that they are the most unsustainable form of construction, yet for some reason—perhaps the power of certain developers—and somehow high-rise residential flat buildings are immune from BASIX.

If the Government were really committed to reducing the impacts of anthropogenic climate change then it would challenge the Federal Government's decision to impose income thresholds on solar panel rebates, which has just delivered a king hit to the New South Wales solar industry. If the Government were serious it would get real about setting renewable energy targets today and not for some date in the distant future. I note the question that my friend and colleague the member for Manly asked the Minister for Energy today, which was:

What steps has the Government taken to reach its renewable energy targets in 2008?

The Minister's reply was:

The New South Wales Government has not set a renewable energy target for 2008.

If this Government were real about climate change it would set targets for reducing the incredible rates of increasing power consumption from coal-fired power stations and it would fight rising household energy demand by investing in smart meter technology that clearly displays energy consumption and cost so that home owners are visibly conscious of unnecessary energy use. It would mandate strategic planning controls to cater for the impacts of rising sea levels in coastal communities—and I note the presence of the member for Wyong, whose electorate, like mine in Pittwater, is vulnerable. Yet we have no strategic controls setting a flood level to take account of the impacts of rising sea levels.

The meagre resources that this Government has directed to address climate change fail to recognise the reality that New South Wales is naturally blessed with renewable energy resources and should be at the forefront of the development of renewable energy technologies, such as the Coalition's commitment in the 2007 election to develop a solar power station and to focus on water recycling rather than desalination. For those reasons I support the amendment moved by the member for Goulburn.

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [3.54 p.m.]: I support this priority motion because, as members would be aware, the Hunter region is the centre of coal and power generation, so we have a significant interest in what is occurring in energy research and reducing our carbon footprint. We have two significant projects in the area, not including the clean coal technology: the CSIRO energy research facility and the University of Newcastle's climate impact change research facility. If the shadow Minister is having difficulty coming up with a response that adequately deals with energy efficiency measures, I encourage her to come up to the region and have a look at what we are doing.
To recap on the energy efficiency strategy, which I am pleased to support, the Government is allocating $63 million to enable 220,000 low-income families to receive door-to-door home energy advice and free energy saving kits; $15 million to begin an energy efficiency program with on-site advice for 6,000 small and medium businesses; and $20 million to work with 800 medium to large businesses on leading-edge waste energy and water saving measures. We will also establish an economy-wide energy savings target to be implemented by 1 January 2009, as well as tough new targets under the Government's revamped world leading greenhouse gas abatement scheme.

As the member for Marrickville said, green groups and energy experts have described the energy efficiency strategy as breakthrough policies that cover all the bases. The member for Goulburn and the member for Pittwater launched into a range of contradictory criticisms. While criticism is sometimes justified, if those opposite are going to criticise I believe it is important to put up an alternative, but we have not heard any of that. We have heard nothing from the Opposition. The question we ask is: when will we hear something about climate change policy from the Opposition? When will we hear what it intends to do on this, the most urgent environmental challenge of our time.

Ms Pru Goward: I've said quite a lot.

Ms JODI McKAY: The member for Goulburn says she has said a lot. The member spoke of her policy development process and told the Lowy Institute in November last year that she was going on a two-year listening tour. She said, "If you ask me in two years time I hope I have an answer then." It is important to note that in two years time when the member for Goulburn is still listening we will have the national emissions trading scheme virtually up and running; we will have the energy efficiency package fully rolled out and we will have increased wind energy generation in New South Wales by 700 per cent. And the member for Goulburn will still be on her climate change tour, listening. It is important to note that the Iemma Government is delivering a comprehensive strategy to ramp up energy efficiency, to develop innovative clean energy technologies and to slash our State's emissions.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [3.57 p.m.], in reply: I urge members to support the motion and to reject the amendment moved by the member for Goulburn. It is simply not credible for the Opposition to come into this place and criticise the New South Wales Government's record of action in addressing climate change. For 11 long years New South Wales battled a climate change-sceptic Federal Government that resisted every step of the way any decent initiative to address climate change. It was not interested in ratifying Kyoto; it was not interested in a national emissions trading scheme—its one solution was nuclear. For the Opposition now to claim that the New South Wales Government has not taken action to address climate change is, frankly, laughable.

We know that the member for Goulburn, the shadow spokesperson on Climate Change, believes that debating climate change is a waste of time, so I guess it is not surprising that she seeks to amend my motion. The member for Goulburn believes that the Kyoto Protocol is simply a piece of paper and that signing it would have been a waste of time. She has attacked the Green Business Program despite the fact that it raised the bar for industry and funded innovative, energy-efficient measures. The member indicated today that the Government's energy-efficiency plan in some way means that it does not have any faith in the national emissions trading scheme. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When all else failed, the member for Goulburn played the person rather than the policy with her unprecedented personal attack on the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water (Environment). The people of New South Wales will see through what the Opposition is putting forward. Members on this side of the Chamber know that, while the Federal Government continues its work on the development of a national emissions trading scheme, one of the challenges for the New South Wales Government is to support this State's population in adapting to an environment in which the cost of carbon will increase and the price of energy will rise. Adam Lewis, the managing partner of McKinsey and Company, wrote about climate change in The Australian earlier this year as follows:

To make it achievable and affordable, a portfolio of opportunities needs to be pursued simultaneously…early action is critical …

We have already done that. The report continues:

…opportunities that will save money, such as in the building sector and energy efficiency, need to be pursued as vigorously as those that cost money, like the move to clean coal or solar power.

I could not agree more, and that is why I have moved this motion.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [4.11 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the introduction at this sitting of the Thoroughbred Racing Amendment Bill before consideration of General Business Orders of the Day (for Bills) and its passage through all remaining stages on Friday 20 June 2008.

I move this motion with the agreement of the Opposition. It is everyone's desire to progress the bill as quickly as possible. It is the Government's intention as soon as this motion is dispatched to bring on Government business and have the Minister deliver the agreement in principle speech. Notice of the bill was given several months ago so having the agreement in principle speech delivered now complies with the sessional orders of the House, but for the bill to be passed through all stages tomorrow it is necessary to suspend standing and sessional orders. So I have moved this motion to ensure that we can continue to gallop through the legislation at hand at record speed.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.12 p.m.]: As the Leader of the House indicated, the Opposition will not oppose the motion, but the Government could have been a bit more organised. We will agree to the suspension as long as we have a clear understanding that there will be time for private members' statements tomorrow.

Mr John Aquilina: Absolutely.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: On that understanding, we do not object.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [4.13 p.m.], in reply: Not only will private member's statements proceed tomorrow; if additional members wish to speak the Government will accommodate them.

Question—That standing and sessional orders be suspended—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Graham West.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [4.14 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The main purposes of the bill before the House are to reform and update the statutory arrangements that underpin the governance arrangements for Racing NSW; to clarify the powers and functions of Racing NSW for its controlling body responsibilities in relation to the thoroughbred racing industry in New South Wales; and to provide for necessary savings and transitional arrangements. The opportunity to make these reforms is essential, timely and significant. The objectives of the reforms are to promote the future viability of the thoroughbred racing industry, to give certainty to the many thousands of participants that depend on it for a living, to give appropriate acknowledgement to the custom and tradition of our racing heritage, and to ensure that the many participants and members of the public that enjoy the spectacle of racing continue to do so.

The centrepiece of the reforms is the creation of an independent Racing NSW Board selected against prescribed skills based on criteria and merit. It is essential in the twenty-first century to recognise the need to recruit persons with high-level business and management skills. The bill carries forward the existing duty of members of Racing NSW to act in the public interest and in the interests of the industry as a whole. The fundamental issue in question is that the current nominee structure tends to the expectation by the nominating body that its nominee will promote its narrower factional interest. An independent appointee will not be bound by a nominee structure. Eligibility for appointment on this basis will require the severing of factional ties. The structural failure is not one created by previous board members, and no criticism is implied or levelled at them. They are all highly respected professionals committed to the wellbeing of the racing industry.

The bill prescribes the following skills criteria: experience in a senior administrative role; or experience at a senior level in one or more of the fields of business, finance, law, marketing, technology, commerce, regulatory administration or regulatory enforcement. A maximum eight-year term for future members of Racing NSW is also important to ensure that there is a regular reinvigoration of talent. The bill also provides for an appointments panel to select candidates with the assistance of an external recruitment consultant and a Government-appointed probity adviser. The 10-member appointments panel will include a non-voting Government-appointed probity adviser, and representatives from the Australian Jockey Club, the Sydney Turf Club, Country Racing NSW, Provincial Association of NSW, owners of thoroughbred racehorses, breeders of thoroughbred racehorses, licensed trainers, licensed jockeys and apprentice jockeys, and Unions NSW. The bill also provides for the Racing Industry Consultation Group [RICG] and other requirements aimed at facilitating formal and robust consultation between Racing NSW and stakeholders.

Owners, trainers, jockeys and breeders will each have individual representation on the RICG. Joint meetings between the RICG and Racing NSW are provided for at least 12 times each year unless otherwise agreed. Racing NSW must respond formally to any recommendation made by the RICG, including by providing formal reasons when it does not agree to a recommendation put by the RICG. The bill also requires Racing NSW, in consultation with RICG and industry stakeholders, to prepare an industry strategic plan within 12 months of the commencement of the amending legislation; and regularly undertake formal consultation in relation to the initiation, development and implementation of policies for the promotion, strategic development and welfare of the industry.

The bill also answers important questions about the powers and functions of Racing NSW, which have been the source of uncertainty. There are three major reforms in the areas of the distribution of TAB payments to race clubs under the intra-code agreement, the role of Racing NSW in coordinating race broadcasting arrangements, and the setting by Racing NSW of conditions, standards and operating requirements for the conduct of races and race meetings. Presently, the 99-year thoroughbred intra-code agreement provides for a triennial review of distribution payments to race clubs but no amendment of the distribution arrangements is possible unless there is unanimous agreement of the signatories. The relevant provision in the bill requires that Racing NSW undertake a review of the distribution arrangements with the obligation that any proposals for change are considered necessary or desirable for ensuring that the arrangements are, or remain, in the best interests of the industry as a whole.

The statutory intervention which breaks the deadlock is that, unless the parties agree to the proposal or, after consultation, a variation of the proposal, Racing NSW may give a written direction which specifies the changes to the intra-code that are to be given effect. Without such a statutory intervention the arrangements for distribution of TAB payments that were agreed to in 1998 may well be in place for the life of the 99-year agreement. This inflexible state of affairs would continue irrespective of the wishes of the majority of signatories of the agreement, or the appropriateness of rewarding good performance.

The bill also provides Racing NSW with an express power to prohibit race clubs from entering into any future agreement for the broadcasting of races unless first approved by Racing NSW. A key issue of concern, expressed in submissions and consultation in the course of the independent review undertaken by Mr Ken Brown, is to clarify that Racing NSW should be able to prevent an individual race club, or group of race clubs, exercising broadcast rights in a manner which would be detrimental to the industry as a whole. When making optimal arrangements for the racing industry regarding racing broadcasts Racing NSW must have regard to balancing the interests of all race clubs including those in regional areas. By doing so Racing NSW is fostering economic and social benefits for all industry stakeholders. That is a goal that accommodates both the public interest and racing industry interests.

The race broadcasting amendments have been developed with the assistance of detailed Crown Solicitor's advice. Based on that advice the proposed amendment applies to future arrangements only, including extensions of existing arrangements. There are a number of concerns and fears that the broadcasting power in the bill assigns a race club's broadcasting rights to Racing NSW. Those concerns are unfounded. The power in the bill is limited to prohibiting a race club from entering into future arrangements. The provision does not transfer the ownership of broadcasting rights to Racing NSW. In addition, Racing NSW may only negotiate such arrangements if a race club has authorised it to do so. Racing NSW may not, of its own volition, negotiate broadcasting arrangements.

There is also an appropriate exemption for the provision in favour of Racing NSW in terms of the Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Commonwealth and the Competition Code of NSW. The provision also includes appropriate procedural safeguards such as providing the affected body with the right to make submissions and for Racing NSW to give written reasons for refusing approval to enter into the broadcasting agreement, if that is the case. The final major reform is to provide Racing NSW with the power to set conditions, standards and operating requirements for the conduct of races and race meetings. The power does not extend to the ability to direct a race club to sell its land. It is limited to ensuring that optimal arrangements are in place by way of industry benchmarks for the conduct of race meetings and training facilities.

The minimum standards apply to racing matters, not such things as catering or non-racing event management. This includes the power to compel race clubs to provide information and documents, which will enable Racing NSW to undertake its statutory consultation functions, including developing an industry strategic plan. A complementary provision allows Racing NSW to impose specified sanctions for non-compliance of its statutory directions. The imposition of sanctions is subject to safeguards including the right to make a submission and the right of review on procedural fairness grounds. The bill also contains necessary savings and transitional arrangements to ensure the continuity of operation of Racing NSW.

Two important transitional issues which merit special mention are the provisions that relate to the caretaker period and the facilitation of ancillary appointment processes before the commencement of the amending legislation. The caretaker provision has effect upon the introduction of the bill. It affords the existing members of Racing NSW with the recognition and protection that they are in caretaker mode in expectation of the appointment of a new board. I place on record my thanks for the cooperation and assistance of the existing board members and their leadership of the industry. The new appointment processes require a lead-in time with the need to convene an appointments panel, appoint a probity adviser and engage a recruitment consultant. The earliest possible resolution of this process is essential in the interests of good governance for the racing industry. The bill provides for as many administrative matters to be put in train as possible in anticipation of the commencement of the amending Act.

The bill is a significant milestone for the thoroughbred racing industry. The opportunity for genuine reform to provide a platform for modern best practice governance is one that should not be squandered. There is a longstanding and bipartisan approach to the racing industry that acknowledges its independence, and respects the desire for self-determination in the management of its affairs. Put simply, the industry runs it own race. However, the Government is a major stakeholder, both in terms of the industry economic contribution to the State's economy and of the public interest in terms of gambling integrity. It follows then that the Government's role is to provide a statutory framework that facilitates sustainable economic development and the future viability of the racing industry and ensures the integrity of the conduct of racing and associated wagering on racing.

A powerful example of the practice for providing industry self-determination is the provision in the bill for the appointments panel to seek the Minister's approval for that panel to reconvene for the purpose of a fresh recruitment process. If a 75 per cent majority of the appointments panel is of the view that the Board of Racing NSW should show cause against specified grounds and if Racing NSW does not provide a satisfactory response a fresh recruitment process will be undertaken. This is an extreme step that will be taken to address the serious problem of a dysfunctional or non-performing board. In effect, it is a "break glass in emergency" mechanism that ensures the board is always responsible to its shareholders, the racing industry.

The appointments panel will be required to provide reasons for its decision to the Minister and the Board of Racing NSW. The Government is committed to implementing practical solutions to ensure that racing has a sustainable future, and this bill is one example of its racing industry reform initiatives. Nothing in the bill will impose any undue regulation. The provisions relating to the distribution of TAB payments to race clubs, the role of Racing NSW in coordinating race broadcasting arrangements and the setting by Racing NSW of conditions, standards and operating requirements for the conduct of races and race meetings have been carefully considered and developed in accordance with legal advice and keeping in mind the public interest and the interests of the thoroughbred racing industry as a whole and a detailed consultation process with the industry and with the Opposition. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Debate resumed from 16 May 2008.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [4.27 p.m.]: I support the Energy Services Corporations Ownership (Parliamentary Powers) Bill 2008 introduced by the Leader of The Nationals, who I am sure is on his way to the Chamber to urge members to speak on the bill. The bill was introduced because of the Iemma Government's determination to privatise electricity. It is designed to prevent the sale, lease and disposal of the main undertakings of the energy services corporation or subsidiaries without a mandate from the people's elected representatives in Parliament. The bill requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament before the main undertakings of an energy services corporation may be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of.

When the Government announced that it was going to sell, privatise, corporatise—or whatever word the Government chooses to use—on the path it is now progressing along, the deals were being done behind closed doors. The Government was not transparent in its intentions with this important industry. As we speak, communities are talking about the way the Government has mishandled the whole issue of privatisation, the way it has ducked and squirmed and tried to keep these backroom deals with unions and others out of public view.

Indeed, when I tried to table the bill, which was enabling legislation, Government members who had sworn to cross the floor in a vote, prevented me from tabling it and having it recorded in Hansard. The tabling of the bill would have enabled members of the public to access the bill via the Internet and understand first hand exactly the Government's intentions. But, no, the bill sat on the table of the House for a fortnight before the Premier found time to have it introduced. In the meantime negotiations were continuing with the unions and the backbenchers who today expressed their opposition to the Premier's intention. The debate earlier today was very enlightening. This bill is very important. Just yesterday, Wednesday 18 June 2008, an article in the Australian Financial Review stated:

Mr Costa has said deferring enabling legislation until September would not affect the timetable.

Mr Costa meant that the bill introduced by the Premier would not be debated until Parliament resumes in September. The Premier has been dragged kicking and screaming by the Opposition to bring forward another bill, which members spoke to and was voted on today. That bill ensures that the Auditor-General will be involved in the proposed sale and will deliver his findings on the integrity of the Government's actions to this Parliament. That was an important step. Michael Costa has said that no matter what happens he will sell this asset. My interpretation of that newspaper article is that certain backbenchers are doomed. The article is very enlightening.

This bill is important in that it will protect the taxpayers of this State from an incompetent Government. Today a Sydney Morning Herald Internet article was damning of the Government, naming it a "muppet government run by Miss Piggy and Kermit". I fell off my chair with laughter when I read the article, which will be published tomorrow in the Sydney Morning Herald. This important bill will protect taxpayers from any moves by Michael Costa, the Premier and others to act, dare I say, underhandedly, and enter into negotiations for the sale of those entities. In fact, before Parliament resumes in September a lot of money will be expended on initialising this sale. Members may think that the Premier has listened to their calls, but the Opposition has stood up for taxpayers to ensure that their rights and capital are preserved.

It is important that members support this bill, because it ensures that whatever happens the proposed sale must come before both the Houses of Parliament for scrutiny. If the Premier finds that he is unsuccessful—and the odds are that he will be—what will be next? Will it be water? A review is underway across all New South Wales councils. The Minister has encouraged them to do more to find savings. Councils are very concerned that the next step will be the privatisation of water or that the Government will take control of the water industry and sell it, or flog it off, as it intends to do with the electricity industry. Members of the community cannot be blamed. They have been concerned about the future of service delivery companies that are owned by the Government and of which the Treasurer is the number one shareholder. The Treasurer can sell those entities on a whim, because he does not need parliamentary approval.

That is why this bill is so important, and that is why I want members to support it. I urge members on both sides of the House to support the bill to put into place a safety net to prevent the sale of entities, whether they be water, gas or whatever public utility the Government controls. Any proposed sales must come before Parliament. That is a reasonable request. Transparency and honesty with the taxpayers, the voting public, is important and that is why members opposite should consider that this bill is needed as insurance. They know that when it comes to the crunch and when Parliament resumes in September, the bill may not progress the way they anticipate. It is important to put in place this stop-gap measure to protect the people and the entities of New South Wales. I congratulate the Leader of The Nationals on introducing the bill to the House.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.35 p.m.]: I do not know what planet the member for Wagga Wagga is on, but earlier today we had three or four hours of debate about the principles involved in divesting State-owned energy assets and the rights of government to do so in an unfettered way. I suppose the member for Wagga Wagga was taken by surprise because the Leader of The Nationals is running late. So the member had to filibuster for 10 minutes to make up for his leader's tardiness. Some important principles are at stake with respect to the Energy Services Corporations Ownership (Parliamentary Powers) Bill 2008—even though it is a stunt by the Greens in the upper House. Its propagation into the lower House with the assistance of The Nationals does not render it less a stunt.

The fact that The Nationals would cooperate with the Greens to bring this joke of a bill into the lower House proves what we have known all along: The Nationals, as evidenced by the vote at its party conference last weekend, do not have a philosophical position on this issue. That is quite apparent from what the member for Wagga Wagga said, and it will be even more apparent when the Leader of The Nationals attempts to justify this silly bill. Clearly, this bill is unnecessary. Notwithstanding debate as to whether the Treasurer requires legislation to undertake the Government's current plans in relation to the restructuring of the electricity industry, the Premier and the Treasurer have said that they will introduce legislation to put into effect the Government's restructuring. Therefore, there are three bills before the House: the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008, the Community Infrastructure (Intergenerational) Fund Bill 2008 and the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. Those bills are evidence of the Government putting into action its stated intention to ensure that there is full transparency in the restructuring of the industry.

The intent of this bill, notwithstanding its crass political motivations, is to ensure that the Parliament has a say on the future of the New South Wales electricity industry. As I said, we did just that this morning and we will do it again in a few months time when the substantive bills return to the House and the report of the Auditor-General is provided to Parliament. This bill is just grandstanding by The Nationals—a party with no philosophical position on this issue. The Nationals are all over the place on electricity. I was shocked to see that the member for Upper Hunter recently came out against more jobs and investment in the Upper Hunter. The member for Upper Hunter, who was the Assistant Treasurer and Finance Minister in the Fahey Government, should have been embarrassed by his lack of knowledge of the energy sector and the Iemma Government's plans and about his lack of support for new jobs in his electorate. In February, on local radio station 2NUR, the member for Upper Hunter said:

I don't really see any benefit whatsoever in private ownership.

As a matter of bald principle that is astounding, coming from one of the two pre-eminent conservative parties in Australia. It is embarrassing. The Iemma Government's plans encourage private sector investment in new power generators to meet growing demand. That is the crux of the Owen report. It is all about encouraging new investment by private sources in the public electricity industry. One of the two approved locations where a new generator could be built is in the Upper Hunter. A recent independent study by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation found that a new privately built generator in the Upper Hunter would inject more than $5 billion into the local economy and generate around 800 new jobs. What member would say no to that sort of economic activity opportunity in his or her electorate, with 800 new jobs for mums and dads and their families? Yet, on local radio the member for Upper Hunter said he was against this proposal, which would lead to a massive injection of dollars and employment in his electorate. It is embarrassing for the member for Upper Hunter and for the Leader of The Nationals that a member of Parliament who represents an area where electricity generation is a key industry is prepared to reject more jobs and investment purely on political grounds. The member for Upper Hunter also revealed that he had no idea about the Government's plans, telling the radio station:

It is the wires that the distributors own [that are] being privatised.

Wrong! As every member in this place knows, under the Government's plans we are retaining in public ownership every single bit of existing electricity infrastructure, and that includes the distribution of the poles and wires, as well as transmission and generation. The only thing that is being sold is the retail function of our electricity businesses. We have made that clear from day one. But, as I have said, there is the possibility of an interim protection order with respect to the generators. That is dependent on the Auditor-General's review. The member for Upper Hunter also suggested it would be cheaper and better to leverage the State's triple-A credit rating and to borrow money to build a new power station. As a former Finance Minister he should know that the ratings agencies have said that any additional borrowings could jeopardise our credit rating, potentially slapping taxpayers with an additional $100 million in interest payments a year. I would suggest that $100 million could be better spent in other areas. Quite responsibly, the Government is not prepared to take that risk. In February the Treasurer outlined the Government's coming legislative package to secure New South Wales' energy future. That package has now been revealed.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: In his contribution to this debate the member for Maroubra talks about a number of issues relating to the electricity industry and, in particular, criticises the member for Upper Hunter. His contribution is well beyond the leave of the bill. The bill is simple. The broad issues raised by the member for Maroubra in relation to the electricity sale legislation should be debated in this place at a later time. It is not in keeping with the provisions of this bill to go into detail about the pros and cons of privatisation. We simply want to have it debated in this place.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: On a previous occasion, in response to clarifications sought by the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters Party in the other place, Mr Costa provided details of the legislation that has now come before the Parliament. So the legislation is not a surprise. No-one could pretend to be surprised by any of the Government's plans in this regard. It was always the Government's intention to ensure transparency and certainty in order to facilitate our plans to secure New South Wales future energy supplies. Earlier today we heard in great detail that the Government's package of legislation includes: price regulation until 2013, or until the Government is satisfied increased competition is putting downward pressure on prices; job guarantees for employees; generous transfer allowances for employees who transfer to the private sector; the option for retail workers to move to a new operator or remain with the Government-owned network businesses; and the establishment of a fund to provide an ongoing funding source to replace foregone dividends and to maintain funding for key priorities such as health, education and infrastructure.

This legislation will guarantee the Government's commitments to consumers, workers and the environment. It strikes the right balance by securing our energy supplies for the future while keeping all electricity infrastructures in public hands. The legislation provides assurances to electricity customers that consumer protections and price regulation will remain. It provides certainty to affected electricity workers that their jobs, conditions and superannuation arrangements will also remain in place. The establishment of the multibillion-dollar fund will see the income earned from the sale and leases invested in key priority areas such as health and education.

The bill introduced to the House by The Nationals is clearly unnecessary and has only been introduced as a stunt. The claim that the bill is neutral on the Government's plans is obviously disingenuous. It is a stunt dressed up as concern. I am shocked to see The Nationals getting in bed with the Greens, who originally introduced this bill in the other place. The member for Murray-Darling sits there and smirks. He should go back to his electorate and tell the mums and dads in the seat of Murray-Darling that he is well and truly in bed with the Greens on this issue and see what they say about that.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.46 p.m.], in reply: This is one of the most important issues to have been decided by a State government over the past decade or more—a $10 billion sale of assets that deliver essential services to the people of New South Wales. From the start the crash-through Labor Treasurer, Michael Costa, has been hell-bent on selling the State's power assets with or without the agreement of members of his own party and with or without proper debate in the Parliament on the issue. He wanted not only to ignore his Labor conference, which voted 700 to 100 against the privatisation, but also to bypass debate in this place.

Without the introduction of the bill in this place and in the other place by Dr John Kaye, the arrogant Labor Government would have gone ahead and privatised the electricity industry in New South Wales. This bill has been introduced to ensure a principle of democracy: that representatives in the Parliament can debate this most important issue. The bill has forced the Government's hand in that regard. Legislation relating to the sale was introduced only after the bill came before both Houses. The legislation mysteriously appeared. The Premier tabled it one day during question time, following an obvious backbench revolt about the arrogant approach taken by him and his Treasurer.

I thank the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Maroubra for their contributions to the debate on this bill. Bizarrely, the member for Maroubra described this bill, which is simply about ensuring parliamentary democracy, as a stunt, as a joke, as silly and unnecessary. As I have said, the sale legislation only appeared after this bill was introduced in both Houses. So neither the member for Maroubra nor his Treasurer can be believed on this issue. It is very interesting that, unlike Assistant Speaker Mr Grant McBride, the member for Maroubra has nailed his flag to the mast of Morris Iemma and Michael Costa. The question is: Will it pay off? Will he get the white car, or will his political fortunes go down the gurgler with Morris Iemma and Michael Costa?

The other point made by the member for Maroubra was that it was always the Government's intention to ensure transparency and openness. As I say, the Opposition only ever saw a Clayton's bill. It was not real legislation that was laid on the table of the House by the Premier, and it appeared only after the Opposition's bill had been introduced. Up to that point both the Premier and Treasurer were of the opinion that they could go ahead without legislation being debated. We have reached the stage at which members of this House have to decide whether they will support a bill that ensures proper debate will take place on an issue that is extremely important to the people of New South Wales. If Labor votes against this bill, that will be a clear indication that Labor fully intends to go ahead with its power sell-off, with or without legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill not agreed to in principle.

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

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [4.58 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the Beacon Foundation's No Dole Program and the signing of a charter this week at Nepean High School. I congratulate many year 10 students attending Nepean High School in the Penrith electorate who recently signed a No Dole Charter that is sponsored by the Beacon Foundation. The charter program involving year 10 students has been in operation since 2004. I have witnessed many signing ceremonies marking the commitment of students and the school to the foundation. The Beacon Foundation was established in 1995. The No Dole Program aims to increase young people's transition from the school to the workforce, consequently reducing rates of youth unemployment and welfare dependency. The program aims to develop each student's individual will to achieve personal success for themselves and their community.

Currently, 97.4 per cent of No Dole signatories have achieved a positive pathway to further education, employment or training. The success rate shows how seriously each student takes this commitment. I am particularly proud to note the success of this program within the electorate of Penrith. The No Dole signing ceremony is just one part of what Nepean High School undertakes for its participants. This year 87 year 10 students voluntarily took the pledge, and by next March they will be involved in further education or training, or making a positive contribution to their life path into the workforce. I acknowledge that in undertaking such a commitment the students have demonstrated their motivation to secure a successful career, whatever that may be in whatever field they may choose, and contribute to the future of Penrith in particular.

As can be seen, the future of Penrith is thriving, given the action undertaken by Nepean High School through the initiative of the Beacon Foundation No Dole charter signing. I acknowledge the year 10 students who have taken part in the program. We heard from two ex-students at the signing, Shaun Oudkerpool and Brett Eichorn, who had undertaken the program and been through a period of work and then TAFE. They are both now at university. But they did not go to university straight after completing the Higher School Certificate; they took a slightly different path. One is undertaking study to teach personal development, health and physical education, and the other is undertaking a nursing degree at the University of Western Sydney.

I also acknowledge the principal, Mr Tony Baldacchino, the No Dole committee members, the deputy principal, Ms Anne Caro, the New South Wales manager and foundation representative, Ms Jane Artup, the patron and business liaison officers, especially Ms Denis Charlier, and representatives Mr Steve Carpenter and Mrs Julie Tylers, all of whom deserve acknowledgement for the integral success of the program. The Iemma Government is committed to supporting education. It is committed to addressing skills shortages in New South Wales, as seen by the announcement of 10 trade schools based in schools and TAFE colleges as part of an $18 million four-year plan. I also acknowledge the TAFE program that is offered at Jamison High School. Since 2004 Nepean High School, through Mr Tony Baldacchino and his teaching staff, has offered activities such as work experience programs, business days when business professionals have spoken to the year 10 students, grooming sessions, how to knot tie, and a film for the year 10 boys to help them upgrade their skills and presentation for interviews.

I particularly acknowledge Mr Gavin Robinson who was the guest speaker. Members might know Gavin Robinson as the cricketer of note between 1994 and 1998, but in particular Mr Robinson outlined in his motivational speech what happened after he stopped playing cricket: how it was great during high school, but that his skills for life after cricket were particularly low and he had to strive to get a job after his cricketing career. He gave an exceedingly motivational speech. I commend the No Goal program auspiced by the Beacon Foundation and also commend Nepean High School students.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn—Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.03 p.m.]: I thank the member for Penrith for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It certainly sounds like the partnership between Nepean High School and the Beacon Foundation, and the programs the school runs, are extremely successful. They are the types of partnerships that should be encouraged: partnerships not only in schools but also in the wider community. Anything that addresses youth unemployment and improves young people's self-esteem, to create positive pathways for education and training, should be applauded and acknowledged.

I thank the member for Penrith for her strong advocacy and support for her schools and her community, and in particular young people. It is wonderful to see that young people like Shaun and Brett have got so much from the program. The program showed them a pathway from school through to TAFE and subsequently through to further tertiary studies. I wish Shaun and Brett every success for the future. I wish each and every individual at Nepean High School—the principal, teachers and other staff, and students—ongoing and continuing success with this program and any other programs the school provides.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [5.05 p.m.]: I pay tribute to Aung San Suu Kyi, whose birthday is today. An impressive "Don't Forget Burma" event was held in the Jubilee Room today at one o'clock. I have the privilege of sharing her birthday and I had the honour of blowing out her candles. I mention the event in the context of homelessness and out of extreme concern for the many people left homeless as a result of Cyclone Nargis and its effect on the Irrawaddy Delta. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Act 1994 defines a homeless person as:

… a person is homeless if, and only if, he or she has inadequate access to safe and secure housing.

The Act goes on to define "inadequate access to safe and secure housing":

… a person is taken to have inadequate access to safe and secure housing if the only housing to which the person has access:

a. damages, or is likely to damage, the person's health; or

b. threatens the person's safety; or

c. marginalises the person through failing to provide access to:

i. adequate personal amenities; or

ii. the economic and social supports that a home normally affords; or

d. places the person in circumstances which threaten or adversely affect the adequacy, safety, security and affordability of that housing.

There are degrees of homelessness: from the seemingly destitute rough sleeper to the person who has a shelter but who is unsafe in that shelter, or who lacks security of tenure and is therefore at risk of being homeless. The ActNow User Survey 2008, which refers to homelessness in Australia, states:

For many people, having a home means having a place where they belong. Being homeless means belonging nowhere, as well as having nowhere to sleep. There are many Australians today that do not have a place where they belong.

It is believed that almost 100,000 Australians are without safe, secure and affordable housing for numerous reasons, including poverty, unemployment, not enough affordable housing, poor physical and mental health, intellectual disability, drug and alcohol abuse, gambling, family and relationship breakdown, domestic violence, and physical and/or sexual abuse.

It is estimated that more than 600 people in the Hornsby electorate are homeless and desperate The St Vincent de Paul Society has 266 open files—just to name one organisation. The situation is becoming critical in view of certain incidents at the Hornsby country women's association premises. Recently I called a roundtable meeting with the police—superintendent Craig Rae and Steve Ford—and representatives from St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, the Department of Housing, Hornsby Shire Council, the community drug action team, and the country women's association to discuss the incidents. We determined that certain actions must be taken to assist homeless people in the Hornsby area.

The Hornsby Shire Council social plan makes no mention of homelessness, but I am seeking to correct that. Up until the end of last year the Department of Housing was unaware that homeless people lived in the Hornsby area, which is very surprising considering that they have lived in the area for decades. When Philip Mangano, the Executive Director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, visited Australia recently as a guest of the Parliament to speak to Friends of People with a Mental Illness under the auspices of the Schizophrenia Fellowship, he pointed out that the one thing that makes a difference to people who are homeless is providing them with four walls and after that adequate services.

I call on the Iemma Government to look favourably on the Hornsby area and other areas in New South Wales that have a problem with homelessness and give them every assistance to help turn around the lives of people who choose not to be homeless but who, in many cases, are homeless through no fault of their own. People may be homeless because they have been thrown out of public housing, they could have a drug problem, or they could suffer from a mental illness.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.10 p.m.]: Members will recall my statement of 5 June about the development proposed for the Kirrawee brick pit. This includes two supermarkets—Woolworths and Coles—shops, possibly a bank, 65 apartments and a park. I wrote to all Kirrawee households seeking their views and encouraging their comments about the proposal with the Sutherland Shire Council by the closing date for submissions. I have also spoken to Kirrawee shopkeepers on the Oak Road strip. I thank all residents and shopkeepers for their time and frankness in providing me with their views. I received more than 100 letters from residents. Of them, 52 per cent favoured the proposal and 48 per cent did not. If these responses are any guide, it is fair to say that residents are evenly divided on this issue. Those supporting the proposal generally focused on the need to improve the brick pit site and the amenity of Kirrawee. The following quotes are instructive:

The development proposal for that eyesore … will enhance Kirrawee as a part of the 21^st century Sydney (MGB)

A wonderful solution to a long term wasteland (JC)

Currently we're the poor cousins to the rest of the shire. Time to back us! … Improve our area, clean up the pit … (KC)

It's time for Kirrawee to be put on the map, and I believe this development will do that (TG)

… a development like this, if done well … can only give Kirrawee the boost it so desperately needs (SC)

But, by far the most common single reason given for residents supporting the proposal was the promise of more convenient grocery shopping. This was particularly true of the many local seniors who responded, including those from a nearby retirement village. Residents stated:

I currently drive all the way to Miranda or Southgate to do my grocery shopping as I find the current Kirrawee shopping area inadequate for all of my needs. (MD)

To have a shopping centre within walking distance that can offer much more than the present Kirrawee shops do, can only be of benefit. (ES)

… as a 77 year old pensioner with a disabled wife … I firmly believe the development will assist local residents and be of substantial benefit to us seniors. (BM)

I am 71 years old … I may not always be able to drive. If we have supermarkets on the brick pit site, I could easily walk there and it would make life much easier for years to come. (MH)

I feel that it will be a benefit to me as an elderly person without my own transport. (EH)

As a working mother of a 3 year old and my husband does very long hours each day, I think that the proposed development is a great idea. (TS)

Other reasons given by residents for supporting the proposal included "growth for the shire and jobs for our children" (MH). Some residents spoke of their "great relationship" with existing Kirrawee businesses and said that they "would continue to support the local shopping strip if the development application was successful" (KC), including "the chemist, the hairdresser, the fruit shop" (BM). One said:

I don't think it (the development) will hurt the small businesses, if anything, it will bring more people into the area. (NN)

By far the major concern of residents opposing the development application was the potential impact on traffic and parking in and around the centre. The following quotes typify those concerns:

We will have a massive increase in traffic and parked cars in our street. (R&JW)

Exiting this development onto the Princes Highway … will cause traffic to build up in Flora Street, Oak Road and the busy Highway. Peak hour traffic could be chaotic. (J &NT)

We are concerned at the impact … on local traffic given its proximity to the Princes Highway and additional traffic … generated by the Bunnings development … 300 metres away. (P&RC)

… Access will be a major problem as each road surrounding this site is narrow and busy with lots of factories and cars parked in Flora Street. (R&JW)

It is almost impossible to move around the area now … and this development will only make the situation worse … (D&JC)

How will the roads as they are now cope? (JW)

… a supermarket on the site will create traffic chaos. (M&GE)

Close proximity to local schools … increasing the danger of motor vehicle incidents and injury to children. (LM)

A number of residents opposing the development are concerned at the potential impact on Kirrawee shopkeepers. One said:

I strongly feel it will be detrimental to the small shopkeepers in Kirrawee, certainly the deli and fast food outlets. (CH)

Very few residents opposed the construction of apartments. Some were concerned about birds and wildlife.

However, if there is one thread uniting residents for and against the proposal, it is their opposition to the two major supermarket chains—Woolworths and Coles—on the site. One resident who supplies local shops says:

… if Coles and Woolworths swamp the market any more, small businesses like ours will … cease to exist in the Sutherland Shire. (LC)

The proposed stages for the future are excellent but please no more Coles or Woollies. (LL)

Some believe an Aldi supermarket would be far more beneficial because it would provide genuine competition and lower prices than Coles and Woolworths.

The Kirrawee shopkeepers were open and frank in their views. These were mixed, and depended very much on the nature of their businesses. Six genuinely fear the development will drive them out of business and are very worried about their future. The duplication of their shops and/or the sale of their products within the proposed development are, understandably, of real concern to them. Four speciality businesses attract customers from all over Sydney and say they will not be affected at all. Some long-established businesses with loyal customers see the impact on them as negligible. While some said the impact on them will depend on what other shops are established in the complex, all favoured the return of the bank, which was closed in 2000. Others saw the development, together with the railway station upgrade, as bringing more customers to the Kirrawee shopping precinct, thereby increasing the potential for business growth. Several businesses say they will consider relocating to the development, if it proceeds—depending on the rents.

I acknowledge the genuine concerns of the Kirrawee shopkeepers. Overall, however, I found the shopkeepers generally favoured the development. The most common concern among shopkeepers was traffic congestion, particularly at the Oak Road-Flora Street and Princes Highway intersections, and the exacerbation of existing parking problems for shoppers and commuters. The provision of parking at the proposed development, commuter parking, building heights, density, floor space ratios, road safety and access for heavy delivery vehicles, particularly into and out of Flora Street, were also important issues for shopkeepers. I have always acknowledged that Sutherland Shire Council is the consent authority for the proposed development. I will pass the views of residents and shopkeepers on to the council, and ask that they be taken into account when making its decision about the future of the proposed development and about the future of Kirrawee itself.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [5.15 p.m.]: In regional and rural centres across New South Wales community colleges provide many cultural, social and economic benefits to the elderly, unemployed and people seeking to enhance their lives and broaden their economic opportunities. Community colleges benefit their local community by providing a connection for isolated people and a place for like-minded members of that community to bond and grow; additionally, they provide a valuable asset to the local community and offer good value for money to the New South Wales Government when compared with other education-based funded organisations.

It is with that preamble that I address the House today concerned about the Government's attitude toward community colleges and those who attend classes offered by them. In April this year I was contacted by Mrs Grace Baston of Broken Hill, who is concerned about the drastic increase in fees, specifically for pensioners, who are charged to attend courses at Robertson College, Broken Hill. The fees jumped from $20 a term in 2005 to $25 a term in 2006 and 2007, and to $30 a term for term one of 2008 to $40 a term for term two in 2008. Such a rapid increase in course fees has placed considerable strain on pensioners, many of whom rely on programs offered at Robertson College for a great deal of their social interaction with others of their own age and to keep their minds stimulated. In an age when people are living longer, once they finish their working life, many need a way to maintain contact with others and to reap the benefits of maintaining an active lifestyle.

Community colleges, such as Robertson College, have been forced to abandon much of their previously offered hobby and leisure courses, which offer great community value, in favour of vocational education and training courses. This Government has taken the stance that, since hobby and leisure courses do not earn it as much revenue as vocational education and training courses, the former are of less value and therefore less importance is placed on retaining them in community colleges.

I disagree with the Government about this assessment, as do many who regularly attended such courses at Robertson College before the cost became prohibitive. In recent years Robertson College has been subject to a steady decline in New South Wales Board of Adult and Community Education funding and is now forced to focus its activities towards funded vocational education and training courses, including mature aged return-to-work courses and nationally recognised training for Aboriginal people courses. This has been at the expense of the courses previously enjoyed in large numbers by seniors, such as Grace Baston. Those courses cater to computer clubs and graphics groups, and they are of great value to the community and those who attend them.

Robertson College is now required to work on a business model due to a lack of government funding, which means that the further removal of courses from the curriculum, or additional increases in course fees, is inevitable. That is unfair to the Broken Hill community, which depends on Robertson College to undertake courses otherwise not available. Additionally, with regard to funding for community colleges, between 2002 and 2006 Robertson College did not receive a CPI increase in its funding, despite the increased costs involved in course delivery, including wages and utility costs, to name but a few.

I call on the Acting Minister for Education and Training, John Hatzistergos, to address the funding issue, and to ensure that pensioners such as Grace Baston are able to continue to attend courses at Robertson College. As a postscript to this situation, Fred Peters, a well-known Broken Hill identity and upstanding community leader, contacted me earlier this month to share the concerns of pensioners about this issue.

Mr Peters has offered to take the plight of seniors having to pay markedly increased course fees at Robertson College to a local service group, Broken Hill South Rotary Club, in an effort to find a solution to the problem. That kind of initiative is wonderful but should not have to be shown as the Government has the responsibility to provide community college courses at reasonable fees and not increase them dramatically over a short time. I hope the Acting Minister for Education and Training sees the value of these courses more than the Hon. John Della Bosca did.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.19 p.m.]: In June 2005 an intellectually handicapped young lady by the name of Sharon Hempel was admitted to Bathurst Base Hospital for a minor surgical procedure. Subsequent to the treatment Sharon received at the hospital her parents and carer, David Hempel, initiated complaints against hospital staff about her treatment. The matter was subsequently sent to the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC], which has investigated the matter twice. Both findings by the HCCC were unsatisfactory to the Hempel family. Sharon has had ongoing issues about her treatment at various hospitals: her carers have raised a number of issues about the treatment of handicapped people. Their allegation is that they are not being treated equally.

A number of issues have been raised with the Greater Western Area Health Service in relation to Sharon's care, particularly at Orange Base Hospital. These matters have not been satisfactorily resolved according to Sharon's carers and parents. David Hempel, Sharon's father and carer, also made a submission to the Garling inquiry when it took evidence in Bathurst. Whilst the matter was outside the terms of reference of the Garling inquiry, the commissioner agreed that he would pass the submission on to the Health Care Complaints Commission. I have raised the matter with the Minister for Health and, over months, have placed questions on notice. I would like to add more today.

Is the Minister aware that intellectually disabled people continue, according to David Hempel, to be subject to mistreatment because hospital authorities are not using substitute consent forms and therefore are not getting the carers' input into the treatment? The status of persons responsible for ensuring the best interests of the patients is not being recognised. Is the Minister aware that in June 2005 a minor surgical procedure was carried out on an intellectually impaired person, namely Sharon Hempel, despite strong objections and protests from Sharon and the person responsible, her carer and father, David Hempel? The procedure was carried out after five hospital staff physically restrained Sharon on the basis that the procedure was urgent, which Sharon's carers reject. Mr Hempel objected to Sharon being forced to the theatre by medical staff, given her distress and her objections to the ongoing procedure. Medical staff overruled Mr Hempel's objections, not recognising, according to Mr Hempel, his rights as Sharon's responsible person or Sharon's right of objection.

Is the Minister aware that since this alleged mistreatment at Bathurst Base Hospital in June 2005 Sharon has lost mobility, has extreme breathing difficulties and can no longer sit on a chair or toilet, is incontinent and bedridden, and suffers excruciating pain, and that Sharon has not received any treatment for her injuries sustained at Bathurst Base Hospital, injuries confirmed by Hopkins Hospital—second medica opinion—and also by the HCCC investigation? Mr Hempel is alleging that the initial problem, the lack of the proper substitute consent form, meant that doctors did not fully consult with Sharon's carers, her parents who have lovingly cared for her with her severe intellectual disability for more than 20 years. Mr Hempel worries that this could be a common practice. He is keen to find out exactly whether proper procedures are being followed across the health system.

The Hempels are looking for better treatment for people like their daughter. The allegation is that in some cases people are being diagnosed with mental problems—intellectually impaired people—when they should not be, and if they go to a mental facility they do not get the same medical treatment as they would in a general hospital. If that is the case, something must be done. As I say, this matter has twice been to the HCCC. Whist many of the allegations from the family about the treatment of Sharon were substantiated, she has, according to them, ongoing injuries from that treatment. They are looking for answers, as I have outlined in these questions today. I will ask the Minister to respond.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.24 p.m.]: On Saturday 7 June 2008 I was honoured to attend, along with 500 timber workers, their families and supporters, the official opening of the national timber workers memorial at Eden's Wellings Park. It was a day of remembrance for those who had lost family members and loved ones in the bush, and in particular those who knew the 85 workers named on the memorial plaques. The timber industry is a strong and important industry in my region, employing 696 people. It is a dangerous and risky industry and the people who work in it are the salt of the earth. They are people who want to keep feeding families and know the enormous importance of the industry to our nation—its past, present and future.

The memorial stands in the heart of Eden. It honours those men who have given their lives in their workplace while building our region, State and nation. A statue titled "Hand of Fate" by sculptor Rix Wright of Delegate depicts a man helping an injured timber worker, and this is the centrepiece of the memorial. There is a memorial wall with 85 workers' names on plaques, six timber bollards with local timber industry history on plaques and an entrance made of timber from the old Tarraganda Bridge at Bega. The emotional project started after the loss of Geoffrey Munday in 2001 following a tree-felling accident. The Axeman's Association, along with the Eden Killer Whale Museum, Eden Services and Social Club, the Eden Access Centre and a community-based steering group formed in 2002, started work on this project.

On behalf of the community I express enormous gratitude for the work undertaken by these organisations and the steering committee, in particular its chair Marie Slater, secretary Gillian Munday and treasurer Frank Whitelaw. Other committee members include Barry Rolfe, Bob Munday, Mark Boller and Councillor John Aveyard. They have done a terrific and almighty job. Whilst many words were spoken by dignitaries on the day the greatest and most appropriate words were in a poem written by Gill Munday, the mother of Geoffrey, and read by local poet Kevin Warren. I place it on the record.

No longer the swish of a cross cut saw, the clunk of the broad axe blade, the squared off logs from the big round trees that the sleeper cutters made.

The crack of a whip, the bullockie's cry, the swirling dust and flies, the hot constant toil of the timber worker beneath these southern skies.

The horses pull, the harness creaks, the big logs slide along, the men work hard to mill the logs accompanied by the bellbird's song.

As time progresses and tools improve the work now done by machines. The work is still hard, for now we have several wood products on the scene.

In the early hours of breaking day, the men leave to go to their job, their loved ones stay at home and I know to place their faith in God.

But God has plans for each man on Earth, this plan beyond Man's control.

And the bushies job, dangerous and hard on some loved one leaves its toll.

The flying limb, the rolling log, the swish of a falling tree, a speeding truck and all too soon a bushman's soul is set free.

For those alone and left to grieve it is hard to understand why God should want this person's life, this hardworking timberman.

We will never know the reason why their lives were taken away, but as years go by, we accept the change and think of them when we pray.

Together in this place of peace we gather our thoughts as one, and feel proud of the work among the trees that our bushman all have done.

As the treetops sway and the bush birds may sing God bless their souls wherever, and the courage shown by our bushmen lost, stay in our hearts forever.

This fitting tribute by Gillian Munday, who lost her son in 2001, demonstrated the feeling on this wonderful day—Saturday 7 June. The industry was out in force to recognise this important memorial—a national memorial, not just one for Eden and districts. The industry is a tough one. It is incredibly strong and incredibly vital for the social and economic wellbeing of far South Coast communities. As I indicated earlier, some 696 workers are employed in the native timber industry in the southern region. On top of that, of course, are 80 to 100 staff who work in State forests.

The timber industry has faced tough times in the past and will do so in the future. It is a solid industry and we are incredibly proud of it. We should acknowledge and pay tribute to its culture. A number of people throughout the community constantly run down this industry but it is extremely vibrant and will be important to our nation's future.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour) [5.29 p.m.]: On Saturday the 7 June 2008 I attended the Shellharbour Surf Life Saving Club 2008 Club Person of the Year Presentation Ceremony at Warilla Bowling Club. The evening was a great success and I use this opportunity to thank all the organisers, nominees and sponsors whose contributions made this evening possible. As with most surf lifesaving clubs, this club relies heavily on the support of the public, as well as the business sector, to allow them to continue their efforts. The Shellharbour branch has a strong band of local organisations, which have supported them for several years, in either cash or kind. These include: Shellys, Warilla Bowls and Recreation Club, Bendigo Bank, Oak Flats Bowling Club, Kel Campbell, P&D Envirotech, Steve Burton Plumbing, Notts Smash Repair, BJ Love and Associates, Pipeline Rigging and Scaffolds, Ray White Real Estate Shellharbour, Transfield Services and Surf Rider Caravan Park. I acknowledge also Oak Flats Bowling and Recreation Club.

As a result of continued growth in all areas the club is currently in a strong position and looking to the future with a sense of real optimism. The following are some examples of these growth areas: membership continues to grow steadily; association awards have maintained high levels, with competitor numbers increasing at all competitions; patrol strength is at an-all time high; 100 per cent patrol attendance achievement has surpassed all previous levels; community profile is higher; and, most importantly, once again the local beach was free of any major incidents despite record numbers of patrons visiting Shellharbour Beach.

Each member of the Shellharbour Surf Life Saving Club was rostered for an average of 40 hours patrolling this season, resulting in an accumulation of 5,294 patrolling person hours. Of the 80 patrolling members, 100 per cent patrol attendance was achieved, and I congratulate all those dedicated members on that outstanding effort. In particular, I acknowledge the commitment of Mr Bruce Kejda, who clocked up 21 continuous years of 100 per cent pool attendance; Irene Pickard, who achieved 15 years continuous service this season; and Trina Jensen, who reached 10 consecutive years this season. I take this opportunity also to highlight the number of association awards granted to this club. Over 100 awards have been granted, which is the highest amount in the branch and in the Illawarra. This is due in part to the instructors, who contributed a huge number of voluntary hours to coordinate and facilitate training programs for club members. Special thanks go to Paul Schloeffel, Wayne Cavanagh, Lauren Helmer and their crew.

Thanks go also to Peter Stolk, junior activities committee chairperson, and his team, who have done a great job in coordinating and managing the varied issues that come with such a vibrant section of the club, not an easy feat as there are currently 300 registered nippers. As in previous years, this past season has seen an increase in membership, creating greater participation at all levels of competition. Some of the club's achievements include Jo Helson receiving a silver in the Australian Titles; the reserve boat crew made it through to the semi finals and took out the reserve crew first place in the Warilla Bowls South Coast Boat Series; the women's boat crew made it through to the quarter finals; and the open women's march team travelled to branch, State, metropolitan Sydney and country carnivals to represent the Shellharbour Surf Life Saving Club.

I pay tribute to Richard Plummer and Dene Herbert, who officiated at the Australian titles this year, with Dene also acting as beach sectional referee. It must be remembered that at events such as these medals are not the only measure of performance, as highlighted by Chelsea Flood, who not only achieved status as the female South Coast Junior Life Saver of the Year but also was successful in achieving runner-up in the State award as well.

The main focus of the evening was to announce the 2008 Club Person of the Year. The talent was fierce. The nominees were: Laura Elkerton, Tracey Freeman, Dene Herbert, Paul McKinley, Peter Stolk and Carol Tyne. In my observation, each and every one of the nominees is a true champion and each is deserving of this prestigious award. This year's winner was Dene Herbert, a committed and deserving recipient. I wish Dene every success. In conclusion, I pay tribute to Mr Rob McAlister, Club President, who has decided to make this his last season. His tireless efforts in trying to improve the services, equipment, membership and overall standard of competition produced by the club have been admirable. I look forward to working further with the club.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.34 p.m.]: I thank the member for Shellharbour for drawing the Shellharbour Surf Life Saving Club to the attention of the House. These marvellous volunteers are doing a fabulous job in the Illawarra. The club has 300 nippers so it obviously has a great future. On behalf of the Government I thank surf lifesavers, their supporters and club members, who give up their time and make a dedicated and committed effort to keep our beaches safe. I am sure all members of the House join me in thanking them. Shellharbour Surf Lifesaving Club is a club of achievement with a bright future and I again thank the member for drawing it to the attention of the House.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [5.36 p.m.]: On Saturday 21 June 2008 the member for Coffs Harbour, Andrew Fraser, the Federal member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, and I will join in a protest march some 500 strong against the arrogance of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and its political masters in the Labor Government in relation to selecting routes for the Pacific Highway. Protestors will march across Macksville Bridge from the southern side of the Nambucca River to the northern side.

The Roads and Traffic Authority has demonstrated a consistent pattern of arrogance with respect to these upgrades and route decisions, as identified by an upper House committee a couple of years ago. The Warrell Creek to Urunga section of the upgrade—mostly in the Nambucca Valley—is a good example of this arrogance and the reason for the huge protest this weekend. Initially, the 500 marchers were going to close the highway by marching on the road section of the Macksville Bridge, but following a request by local area commander Paul Fehon they will stay on the pedestrian walkway across the bridge. One of the local residents, a respected accountant and tax agent, Geoffrey Miller, has studied Roads and Traffic Authority documents associated with the route decisions. Mr Miller has listed 49 inconsistencies and anomalies in the assertions and decisions made by the Roads and Traffic Authority. He said:

The examination has led me to the belief that the processes used to select the route to the highway were rigged to confirm a route already selected by the RTA project team before any investigations commenced. I'm hoping you may be able to use some of the material to put more pressure on the Government in this matter. At least I would hope to make the Minister a little less trusting of the ability of his staff to pull the wool over the eyes of the voters. At best I'm hoping there may be a re-examination of the route selection process and a proper investigation into the best route for the highway in this area. The social impact of the preferred route has not been considered in any of the consultation forums, including the value management workshops. The impact on people seems to be of no concern to the RTA. They are only interested in property.

I will send these documents to the Minister for Roads. I am somewhat sceptical, however, as he would easily be the most incompetent and arrogant Minister I have dealt with in 10 years in terms of responses to representations.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: If the member wishes to make disrespectful remarks about another member of Parliament he should do it by way of a substantive motion, not just blatant statements in the Chamber.

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

Mr ANDREW STONER: Basically, there are three major issues associated with this route decision. Firstly, in the Warrell Creek to Donnellyville area, the Government has changed a previously approved route decided in the late 1990s. It changed this route without notice, which has caught people who bought property based on the former route. The properties are now affected either physically or with noise and pollution. If the Government is intent on sticking with that new route decision it should immediately purchase those properties at full market value and pay associated moving costs to allow the owners to get on with their lives.

Secondly, in the East Macksville area, particularly River Street, the route is much closer to the central business district than Government policy dictates. This affects residents on the eastern end of River Street, towards Gumma. The elevated highway will cast shadows and cause noise and pollution. The Government should reconsider its route decision and move the route further east. Otherwise, it should immediately purchase the properties near the new route, if the residents wish to move, so they can get on with their lives. Thirdly, the Old Coast Road section of the route upgrade, which is north of the Nambucca River, goes through the maximum possible number of properties. It is like a join-the-dots exercise, the dots being houses.

The local residents have put forward a very sensible alternative route, just east of Old Coast Road, which would go through marginal farmland with minimal impact socially and environmentally. The Roads and Traffic Authority has again used spurious arguments to scuttle that alternative route. I will join in the protest and will continue to represent the concerns of the residents affected by the arrogant, and some would say dishonest, way in which the Government and the Roads and Traffic Authority have gone about justifying their route decision. I hope that the Minister for Roads reads my speech and responds to it. I will send him the documents from Mr Miller.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [5.41 p.m.]: The $99-million Revesby turn-back is nearing completion, and the $450 million Kingsgrove to Revesby quadruplication project, part of the Government's Clearways Program, will be completed by 2010. That project involves 25 per cent of the $1.8 billion funding for the railway Clearways Program and is the biggest in the Sydney area. The turn-back project has already provided three easy-access lifts to platforms, new ramps, et cetera. It is a fantastic addition to my electorate. Some minor works will continue through June and July. They involve minor earthworks within the rail corridor, reinstatement of Blamey Street, repairing kerbs, asphalting and installing street furniture.

In River Road footpath work will continue and signal testing will be carried out. It would seem churlish to receive such a fantastic new station in my electorate—at a cost of $99 million—and then bring to the attention of the House a serious complaint, but I have to. Extra car parking must be found to enable that turn-back, and later the Clearways Program, to work at optimal passenger capacity. Earlier this week the Minister for Transport, the Hon. John Watkins, detailed for the House the strong increase in passenger travel on buses and trains. The East Hills line has had the largest percentage increase. Clearly, the aim of the turn-back is to get commuters to use the railway system and leave their cars, if not at home, at or near Revesby station. With fuel prices unlikely to ever decrease to the figures of the past, greater public rail use is inevitable.

Last year the Minister said that several commuter car parks would be built at stations on the city network. He indicated that Revesby would be examined and analysed for additional parking. In the Minister's recent announcement he once again outlined sites for commuter car parking and advised that Revesby was still to be examined. RailCorp is examining sites along the whole East Hills line, but surely the $99 million turn-back at Revesby, soon to be operational, needs a huge increase in parking availability. It does not make sense to spend nearly $100 million dollars and not spend a few extra million to provide necessary car parking.

There are possible sites for car parking in the Revesby area: perhaps another couple of decks on a council car park in the shopping centre precinct; or an arrangement with the Revesby Workers Club by lease with RailCorp, as the club is planning new car parking for its substantial development. I do not expect the Government to fund extra car parking facilities at every railway station in my electorate or across the city and regional networks. In my electorate in the past several years commuter car parking has been installed at Panania, East Hills and particularly at Padstow. Commuters may have to get used to walking some distance from available parking to the station, but they will save a great deal of money by taking a train instead of driving their car.

In East Hills and Padstow many residential streets are completely parked out by people who catch trains from the stations. I am sure the situation is similar in most electorates that have the advantage of railway stations. Revesby was identified by the Government and Bankstown Council as a regional precinct some years ago and it has attracted extra State and council funding. It is a hub for buses and trains. Dozens of new shops, units and houses have been constructed in the area. Many people now use Revesby station, and more will in the future. Commuters also come from outside the East Hills electorate, from Menai and Miranda. People from the Sutherland shire will find that duplication of the Alfords Point Bridge allows them to venture to the East Hills area and catch a train from Revesby or Padstow, if they are brave enough. Clearly, with the greater use of Revesby station extra car parking is needed. It will be much quicker for people from the shire to travel to Revesby or Padstow to catch a train than to use the Sutherland or Liverpool lines. I urge RailCorp and the Government to expedite the study for car parking at Revesby station, to find the money as soon as possible and commit to building extra parking at Revesby to complement such fantastic new railway infrastructure, the Revesby turn-back in my electorate.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.46 p.m.]: Those of us who reside in the Sutherland shire do leave it from time to time, and we do cross the Alfords Point Bridge. The duplication is a fabulous project and I congratulate the member for East Hills and the member for Menai on their work in getting that project underway. The bridge duplication completes a number of major road infrastructure developments in the shire including the Miranda Fiveways, the Woronora Bridge and the Bangor bypass. I congratulate the member on his work. I grew up in the marvellous suburb of Revesby. I am sure that all Revesby residents will welcome the upgrade of the station.

I remember as a kid walking to the station a mile away and walking up the long ramp. I recall watching a young boy who attended my school and who wore callipers as he suffered from polio. His father carried him up that ramp every morning to catch a train to school. That would have been very difficult as the boy grew. The Revesby station upgrade is a boom for the residents of Revesby and I congratulate the local member on his work.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [5.47 p.m.]: Mona Vale Hospital has served residents and visitors to the northern beaches of Sydney for more than 40 years, and has effectively addressed what might be considered the three central tenets of modern hospital service, namely: early access, early diagnosis, and early treatment. For almost 20 years a vital tool in meeting the second of those criteria, early diagnosis, has been computed tomography [CT]; and for later diagnosis, computed axial tomography [CAT]. This is a form of medical imaging that supplements X-rays and medical ultrasonography through machines that we know as CT or CAT scanners. The radiological technique employed by CAT scanners provides a slice-by-slice view, a transect if you like, of specific regions of the body. Originally CT scans were able to provide a single slice view, or a four or eight slice view, which has been useful in detecting stroke, cancer, head injuries and herniated disks, as well as for locating fractures and evaluating bone and tissue damage in trauma patients.

However, recent advances in the resolution and speed of images captured by CAT technology mean that up to 64 slices of a particular region can be taken at once. Consequently, CAT scans are now a powerful tool in providing images of coronary arteries. Multislice scanners are also faster, saving time and cost for patients and medical staff. As a recent article in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre Journal explained, the advantage of the 64-slice CT scan is that it can acquire clear images of the heart in multiple slices in rapid sequence so that the effects of cardiac motion are reduced. The speed advantage of a 64-slice, multi-slice computed axial tomography [MSCT], has rapidly established it as the minimum standard for newly installed CT scanners intended for cardiac scanning. A journal article in applied radiography notes that manufacturers are now actively developing dual-source CT and 256-slice primarily for improved cardiac scanning performance.

Despite all these technological advances, Mona Vale hospital is left with a CT scanner that can only take a single slice, making it one of the two most obsolete CT scanners in New South Wales. Along with the CT scanner in Hornsby hospital, Mona Vale's has the dubious honour of being the oldest CT scanner in New South Wales. Our CT scanner belongs in a museum, not a hospital. While the staff at Mona Vale hospital continue to use our old CT scanner, it is simply unable to capture the quality of image required to clearly identify some serious conditions. Most significantly, this includes the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, which is a potentially life-threatening condition in which a blood clot blocks a pulmonary artery in the lung. Doctors at Mona Vale Hospital have told me that they do not trust the existing old scanner to diagnose this condition in milder forms and therefore have to have patients transported to other hospitals or to private facilities for a scan. This requires a return ambulance trip plus a nurse escort and all the hassle and potential risk to the patient.

Poor quality scans obviously make it easier to miss, and therefore difficult to diagnose, small or subtle lesions, and the existing scanner cannot perform three-dimensional reconstructions of bone injuries required by surgeons. Radiologists, who report on the scans to the doctors at the hospital by phone after receiving the images electronically, often preface a verbal report with "allowing for the poor quality of the images from the Mona Vale scanner". The response to inquiries as to when a new scanner will be provided has always been, "It is being negotiated". A formal announcement about the provision of a modern scanner has not been forthcoming. Consequently, in October last year I asked the Minister for Health in this place when the old CAT scanner at Mona Vale hospital might be replaced with a new scanner. On 23 November 2007 the Minister replied:

The submission for replacement of the computed axial tomography [CAT] scanner at Mona Vale Hospital is currently being assessed.

It is now six months later. I suggest that the health department should have had sufficient time to assess the request for a new CAT scanner to cater for the needs of my growing community and its busy local hospital. I request that the health Minister advise my constituents when Mona Vale hospital might expect to receive a new multi-slice CAT scanner.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [5.52 p.m.]: Tonight I speak about an area that is of great importance to many people in Sydney: thriving creative industries. The New South Wales State Plan aims to increase visitation and cultural participation by 10 per cent by 2016. Tonight I call on the Government to go further and create thriving creative industries, support artists and promote innovation. Sydney has gone from the number one Asia-Pacific city for conventions and exhibitions to eleventh. Arts funding is declining, and the Cultural Grants Program review identifies no arts policy, unfocused grants and long funding delays. The Events NSW budget is less than half of Victoria's, and Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that the New South Wales Government underspends most other States. The local film industry is suffering, with productions moving interstate or overseas. The New South Wales Filmmakers Group estimates that we are missing out on $200 million to 300 million a year.

Cultural development in New South Wales is not a whole-of-government activity, and arts are tacked on the end. While the Western Australian Government has boosted arts funding by $73 million, New South Wales has fallen behind. New South Wales is home to more than a third of our artists; and creative and leisure industries are the fastest-growing employer with nearly one million people employed. Around 2.2 million tourists visit an artistic or cultural event, and 4.3 million people or 79 per cent of people over 15 years engage with artistic events each year. The Children's Voices Report found that almost 70 per cent of children aged from 5 years to 14 years attend arts events outside school hours.

The arts can make a vital difference to marginalised communities. Witness Big hART and Surry Hills tenants' photographic exhibition, Sydney Festival theatre and films for the Sydney Film Festival, allowing tenants to tell their stories, reducing crime and building a stronger community. Open Art ACT, Ignition Theatre, and Northern Exposure give people with disabilities opportunities for community participation, socialisation and employment. The Holdsworth Community Centre in my electorate has helped people with a disability get a start in acting, and break down stereotypes about disability. The Myer report entitled "Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry" concluded that States and Territories should provide funding as there are too few grants opportunities. Artists in Australia must have more than one job to earn enough to live. Nor are they given high social value, as David Marr noted in his analysis of the Australia Day list.

The Government's support for the Eveleigh Carriageworks and improved space at the Australian Museum and Art Gallery of New South Wales are valued; however, the proposed museum amalgamations were a mistake. I commend corporate contributions such as the Frasers Broadway use of buildings in the former Chippendale brewery site as temporary artist's spaces. Individual giving to culture has increased, but government must lead the way and contribute. The City of Sydney Council sponsors the Sydney Festival, the outstandingly successful Sydney Writer's Festival, the Sydney Film Festival and the Biennale, the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, Chinese New Year, Living in Harmony, and the $25,000 International Piano Competition, as well as exhibitions at Customs House and community arts at the Pine Street Creative Arts Centre.

About one million people attended Sydney Festival events this year, with free first night entertainment for 200,000 in the city, showcasing over 200 artists, and cheaper tickets. The City of Sydney Council will promote an Oxford Street cultural hub, built around the education facilities, centres and galleries, cinemas, bookshops, designers and the Burton Street Tabernacle, which council is renovating for theatre and arts purposes. The City of Sydney Council is responsible for and committed over $500,000 this year to 220 art works valued at over $23 million, while commissioning new civic art and incorporating art into new developments and street and park upgrades. The Sustainable Sydney 2030 Strategy sees art and culture playing a crucial role in community building and inclusion, as well as setting an international profile for the city. We envisage an indigenous cultural centre and the Eora Journey, an indigenous walking trail from Redfern to the harbour, with indigenous artists' work following the ancient pathways.

The Platform Papers report entitled "A Sustainable Arts Sector" recommends tax incentives, and interest-free and cash-flow loans. The New South Wales Film Makers Group has called for a Sydney Film Authority to oversee filming, with increased funding, payroll tax incentives, and crew rebates. Funding for new and digital media is needed, and we should harness information technologies. Queensland's Quick Start loans are a good model for helping emerging artists. The Government must work with the industry to revitalise live music.

I again ask the New South Wales Government to make the National Art School a national centre of excellence, including Commonwealth Government funding for its unique atelier model. The arts have the capacity to challenge and delight us, to help us understand ourselves and our world, and to express who we are, and to give voice to our fears and aspirations. They help make life worth living. The relationship between culture and urban vibrancy is vital and well recognised in cities from New York to Singapore—cities whose governments are actively investing in their cultural life. The Government must invest in our cultural industries to support and encourage a thriving knowledge economy and keep artists working in the city so we will continue to be inspired, challenged and delighted by their work.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [5.57 p.m.]: I bring attention to the valuable contribution of community members involved in the 2008 Forbes Heritage Week Festival. The theme of this year's festival was "Our Place" and highlighted an extensive presentation of past and present facets of the town. Festival organisers provided a range of activities for residents and visitors of all ages to celebrate and explore the Forbes district's European and indigenous history.

An appreciation of the work of local artists, writers and photographers took place in the Forbes Town Hall on Tuesday May 6 and coincided with the awarding of the esteemed Forbes Medal to St John's Anglican Church for the restoration of its century-old Vocalion reed organ. Festival participants were entertained by former resident, and current Canberra City News and Capital Magazine writer, Helen Musa, who regaled guests with her memories of Forbes and the history created by her father Gordon Duff.

There was much positive feedback from residents and visitors throughout the festival week, with many declaring the unveiling of the Forbes historical museum's new shed signage and the Mezzanine Cafe's high tea as being among the most memorable highlights. The Forbes museum shed signage project involved the erection of new signs throughout the machinery display area and was funded by a $15,000 grant from Arts New South Wales. It was a great pleasure to be among the official guests invited to the unveiling, along with former State member the Hon. Ian Armstrong, Forbes Mayor Rhonda Keane, local historian Wilf Norris and Linda Raymond and Margot Jolly from Museums and Galleries New South Wales.

Guests were treated to an informative address from Mr Norris, who spoke on the history of Peak Hill, Eugowra and Forbes regions spanning the past 60 years. Later in the day the Mezzanine Cafe hosted the inaugural Forbes District Hospital maternity unit "Old Gown" fashion parade. The popular café, located in an attractive century-old building in the town's central business district, was filled to capacity with guests enjoying high tea and delighting in the fashions of yesteryear. Heritage Festival coordinator, Helen Herbert, and her hardworking team are to be commended for the success of the event. Major sponsors Country Energy and the Forbes Shire Council must be acknowledged for their contributions. It would be impossible to stage the festival without their support.

A key feature of the Forbes Heritage Week Festival was an Indigenous Cultural tour, which was conducted on Saturday 3 May. Forbes Wiradjuri men Russell and Bill Hill conducted the highly informative tour. Participants were taken to indigenous cultural sites around Forbes, including a number of scarred trees, a repatriation burial site and the old Forbes mission. Before boarding the tour bus, Bill Hill extended an official welcome and a background talk was given on the indigenous history of the Forbes district. Participants heard of the diversity among the local Wiradjuri nation, and that up to 30 dialects were spoken among the group. They heard that Australian history goes back further than the 200 years of European Settlement and the early explorers and noted the presence of an Aboriginal group in the Forbes district in the 1820s.

Mr Hill explained indigenous family structure—how each family member specialised in a species of plant or animal. This gave an intricate knowledge of the land, and where to gather foods and the best times to do so. The tour group was told how the district once had a large area of wetlands, which provided the food, fish and water to make Forbes a hub for indigenous people. At the scar trees site, it was explained that scar trees were created by Aboriginal people through the removal of the bark for use as coolamons. Coolamons were used as containers and digging instruments and were taken from the trees only during the wet season to ensure ease of removal. The group was told more than 30,000 scar trees had been discovered in the Forbes region between Cowra and Lake Cargelligo. Coolamons were not the only reason indigenous people scarred trees: they were also used to signify burial sites and women's areas, and for a variety of other reasons.

The group visited the old Forbes mission—a 10-hectare site on the edge of town that was home to the district's Aborigines from 1909 to the late 1960s. The group also was taken to a site where the body of an indigenous man had been discovered while the property owner had been conducting renovations. The man's body has now been repatriated to a site beside the Lachlan River. Mr Hill said the body of the man had been carbon dated at more than 500 years old and had been discovered buried upright and facing east, in keeping with local tradition. The tour ended with a number of seminars on Wiradjuri artefacts, language and culture, prior to the group being treated to a meal of emu, kangaroo and the infamous johnnycakes. The combination European and Indigenous history showcased during the Forbes Heritage Festival was a great example of community reconciliation. I personally acknowledge all involved for their efforts. I also acknowledge the contribution of the Forbes and District Historical Society and the Forbes Advocate for its coverage and support of the Heritage Week Festival.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [6.01 p.m.]: I thank the member for Dubbo for her contribution and for bringing to the attention of the House the work of the Forbes and District Historical Society. I thank her particularly for the issues she has canvassed. I commend the society on its great contribution in documenting the history of Indigenous and European communities in the Dubbo electorate. It is wonderful that members with specific local knowledge have the opportunity of bringing important information to the attention of the House so that it becomes part of the historical record of Parliament and all that Parliament represents. The opportunity benefits members by drawing to their attention issues and facts that they would otherwise not be aware of. This great nation and the state of New South Wales is a wonderful place of great history and tradition. The cumulative contribution of many different historical societies and individuals who have documented European and Indigenous history is often understated, and it is important for all of us to bear that in mind. We should use every opportunity to highlight, record and commend our history. The member for Dubbo is to be congratulated for having done so. I thank her very much for her contribution to the House.

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

Private members statements noted.
Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That this House do now adjourn.