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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.

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

Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments set down as an order of the day for a future day.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry Collier, on behalf of Ms Carmel Tebbutt.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.07 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Jury Amendment Bill 2010 will implement a number of outstanding recommendations of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's 2007 report entitled "Jury Selection". The Law Reform Commission's report arose out of a reference given to the commission in August 2006 by the previous Attorney General to inquire into the operation and effectiveness of the system of selecting jurors under the Jury Act 1977 and related matters.

The Government already has enacted legislation to implement a number of the recommendations in the Law Reform Commission's report. In 2007, amendments were passed to enable the court to allow up to 15 jurors to be sworn in for trials expected to last for longer than three months. Amendments also were passed in 2008 to allow judges to discharge individual jurors for cause, due to a mistake in empanelment or a change in eligibility status after empanelment. The bill before the House represents further significant changes to the scheme regulating the participation of jurors in the justice system. However, before addressing the provisions of the bill, it is useful to provide an overview of the current scheme.

Members will be aware that juries in New South Wales are made up of New South Wales citizens who have been chosen randomly from the electoral roll. In practice, the Sheriff sends out a notice of inclusion to advise those people whose names have been selected and included on the jury roll. Approximately 200,000 people are sent a notice of inclusion each year and may subsequently be summoned for jury service. In 2009, of those sent a notice of inclusion, 114,790 people were summoned and required to attend for jury service. Of these 52,766 attended, and 9,039 were selected to serve on juries. Around 50 per cent of people summoned seek and receive approval to be excused from jury duty.

Under the existing legislation, three schedules to the Act provide bases for not serving on a jury: some people are disqualified, some ineligible, and some have a right to claim exemption. Disqualification essentially arises from past criminal conduct. Those who are ineligible cannot serve if they are summoned. This group includes the Governor, the Ombudsman, judicial officers and police officers, and those who cannot read or write English sufficiently, or are too sick, infirm or disabled, to discharge the duties of a juror. In the final group are those who can serve, but have a right to claim exemption. This group includes medical practitioners and emergency service workers, those with full-time carer responsibilities, and vowed clergy.

This bill provides for a number of substantive changes to the Jury Act, with an overriding focus on broadening the pool of eligible jurors to ensure the burden of jury duty is widely distributed and that juries remain representative of society. It is also the case that in rural and regional areas, it is often difficult to find sufficient eligible jurors who do not know anyone involved in the case. The reforms in this bill will ease the pressure. The general approach is to remove a right to be exempt and replace this with a need to show good cause why a person should be exempt.

I will now address the particular areas of reform covered by the proposed legislation. Firstly, the bill provides for a number of reforms in relation to criminal histories and the disqualification of potential jurors on this basis. The proposed new scheme is comparable to that of other jurisdictions and provides a reasonable compromise between preserving the integrity of the justice system and the principle that people who have paid the penalty for offending should be restored to their full rights as citizens, including the right to sit on a jury. Currently, the Jury Act provides that a person is disqualified from serving on a jury if at any time within the last 10 years in New South Wales or elsewhere, they have served any part of a sentence of imprisonment This uniform 10-year exclusion after any term of imprisonment will be replaced with a graduated scheme: life exclusion for serious offences, 10 years after terms of imprisonment exceeding three months, and seven years after terms of less than three months.

The offences for which a person will be excluded from jury service for life are: firstly, any offence for which life imprisonment is the maximum available penalty; secondly, any offence constituting a terrorist act within the meaning of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002; thirdly, any public justice offence under part 7 of the Crimes Act 1900, New South Wales, for example, an offence of intimidating victims or witnesses or concealing serious indictable offences; and, fourthly, a sexual offence as defined in section 7 of the Criminal Records Act 1991. This is consistent with the Law Reform Commission's recommendations. A sentence of imprisonment includes being subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment or being on probation or parole. However, it does not include a sentence of imprisonment that has been quashed or converted to a non-custodial sentence on appeal, a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a conviction that has been quashed or annulled, or for which a pardon has been granted, or a sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay a fine.

Juveniles are currently excluded if at any time within the last three years in New South Wales or elsewhere they have been found guilty of an offence and detained in a detention centre or other institution for juvenile offenders. The Government proposes to retain this three-year exclusion, but to clarify certain matters in relation to it. The Jury Act currently provides that a person is ineligible for jury service where they are bound by certain orders pursuant to a criminal charge or conviction. The bill updates the legislation by providing for a comprehensive list of orders. Additionally, the bill sets other circumstances where a person is excluded from jury service. These include: a person who is awaiting trial or sentencing, a person who is subject to a preventative detention order under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 or a control order or interim control order under division 104 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, or a person who is a registrable person within the meaning of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.

In addition to these changes, and to maintain public confidence in the jury system, the bill provides that the Sheriff has a statutory right to information regarding a person's criminal record in order to determine whether potential jurors should be excluded from jury service on the basis of their criminal history. The New South Wales Police Force will provide this information based upon the national criminal history record check, undertaken via the National Names Index. As to other exclusions from jury service, currently the Act provides that in addition to disqualification from jury service certain categories of people are ineligible. They cannot serve even if they want to. The bill will consolidate this class, and simplify it, with those who are disqualified under the heading "Persons excluded from jury duty". The subcategories in this schedule will more accurately reflect the range of people who should be excluded from jury duty for legitimate reasons, and include persons holding particular office such as judicial officers, Crown Prosecutors, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. These office holders will be excluded from jury service for a period of three years after ceasing to hold office.

People employed in certain occupations in the public sector will similarly be excluded from jury duty for three years after ceasing their employment or period of engagement. For example, employees of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the New South Wales Police Force, the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and people who may have access to information about inmates and other detainees as a result of holding a position with certain Government agencies or related bodies are excluded from jury service during the period of their service. These include employees of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, the Probation and Parole Service and Justice Health.

I will make specific mention of the change in eligibility for former police officers. Almost all other jurisdictions in Australia confine the ineligibility to serving officers. The commission recommended this be the case in New South Wales, and this was supported by a number of submissions. So, in line with the provisions for retired judicial officers, Ministers, and senior public lawyers, under this bill a person will be eligible to serve on a jury three years after leaving the Police Force. The Government takes the view that there is no justification in a modern workforce for lifetime exclusions where someone may serve as a police officer for a few years and then take up another career. Every retired officer will be able to apply for excusal for good cause, and we will ensure appropriate consultation is undertaken when the guidelines are developed.

I turn to exemption for good cause. At present, the Jury Act provides that the Sheriff may excuse a person from attendance for jury service for good cause at any time after they have been sent a notice of inclusion but before being summonsed. They may be excused because of any matter of special importance, or any matter of special urgency, such as urgent medical treatment. Applications based upon good cause are assessed on an individual basis. The concept of good cause is not defined in the Act, although the Sheriff has developed guidelines to assist staff in applying the relevant provisions of the Act.

Random selection is one of the chief means of ensuring a jury is representative of the community. The Law Reform Commission recommended shifting to a general exemption model based upon good cause to create a more level playing field. The commission's recommendations provide that sickness, infirmity or disability should no longer be a ground of exclusion, but should be considered as a ground of excusal for good cause. Similarly, it recommended that no person should be entitled to be exempted from jury service as of right because of personal characteristics or situation or because of their occupation, profession or calling but should be able to apply to be excused for good cause. The commission also recommended the preparation of guidelines to assist the Sheriff's exercise of discretion in excusing jurors for good cause. Under the model proposed in the commission's report, all individuals, regardless of their background or profession, would enjoy the same rights and obligations in relation to jury service. The statutory categories for exemption in schedules 2 and 3 of the Jury Act would be removed, and individuals would apply for exemption on the basis of criteria set out in published guidelines.

The Government supports the intent of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report. However, the Government is of the view that the existing provisions that allow people falling within certain professional and other employment categories to claim an exemption as of right should be retained on the basis of the importance of the services they provide to the community. These groups include medical practitioners, members of the clergy and emergency service providers. I turn now to the groups that must now show good cause. Certain other groups of people will be removed from the schedules to the Act and will now have to apply to the Sheriff for an exemption for good cause.

Two groups currently listed as ineligible will now have to show cause to be excused. They are a person who is unable to read or understand English, and a person who is unable, because of sickness, infirmity or disability, to discharge the duties of a juror. The Disability Council supported removing the ineligibility of those who are disabled, for example, on the basis that it remedies "an unjustified, outdated belief that people with a disability are unable to fulfil juror duties". Clearly, a number of people who were excused from service under the current rule will still be excused for good cause, but the change reflects a principled move away from statutory excusal to showing good cause in each case. It is similar for people who cannot read or understand English sufficiently. A number of applications for excusal are received on this basis, and they will continue under the guidelines. The Act will not, however, designate this group as ineligible.

The Act presently provides that anyone "employed or engaged in the public sector in law enforcement, criminal investigation, the provision of legal services in criminal cases, the administration of justice or penal administration" is also ineligible. There is no good reason to prevent administrative and clerical staff employed in prosecution or defence agencies such as the Director of Public Prosecutions and Legal Aid Commission, who are not directly involved in matters before the courts, from undertaking jury service. Schedule 3 to the Act sets out a number of groups of people who have a right to be excused. This statutory right means that anyone in that category can be excused. For example, presently pregnant women or people over 70 years may claim an exemption as of right.

It is a fact that many people attempt to get excused from jury service. Providing a right to exemption for all pregnant women, for example, means that a woman early in her pregnancy who is called for a one-day trial would have a right to exemption. The Government is of the view that the proper approach should have regard to the circumstances, and so proposes to remove broad-based rights of exemption. If anyone is not capable of serving they will be able to apply for an exemption on the basis of good cause, and the criteria will be set out in published guidelines. We will consult closely with key stakeholder groups when developing the guidelines to ensure that all those with genuine grounds not to serve are able to be excused.

I make it clear that while we are removing the current right to exemption for a person who "resides with, and has full-time care of, a person who is sick, infirmed or disabled" it does not mean that we will require such people to serve. In line with removing other categories of exemption, we will deal with this in guidelines that allow different circumstances to be taken into account. For example, it is possible that someone who lives with and has full-time care of an infirm person has ample capacity to make alternative arrangements for their care, and often does so. If such a person is called for a short trial, and will be no more inconvenienced than any other member of the public, then they should be in the same position as everyone else.

The adoption of guidelines offers a more flexible approach and provides a more equitable means of dealing with applications for exemption. The Government is concerned to ensure that all relevant circumstances are considered. To this end, the Attorney General has asked the Sheriff to consider the inclusion of a broad concept of "carer" in the guidelines. In developing this, he will consult with key stakeholder groups. The bill proposes to introduce a definition of "good cause", which will form the basis for the guidelines. The bill proposes in clause 14A that:

… a person has good cause to be exempted or excused from jury service if:

(a) jury service would cause undue hardship or serious inconvenience to the person, the person's family or the public, or

(b) some disability associated with that person would render him or her, without reasonable accommodation, unsuitable for or incapable of effectively serving as a juror, or

(c) a conflict of interest or some other knowledge, acquaintance or friendship exists that may result in the perception of a lack of impartiality in the juror, or

(d) there is some other reason that would affect the person's ability to perform the functions of a juror.

The Law Reform Commission report proposes that potential jurors, if otherwise eligible to be excused from jury service, should be allowed an opportunity to defer and to nominate dates within the coming 12 months when they will be available. The implementation of this proposal in the suggested form poses practical difficulties in terms of management of the jury roll. Nevertheless, the Government agrees in principle with this recommendation, and will provide for deferral to a later time during the period in which the person is on the roll. The Law Reform Commission report also proposed that the Sheriff be allowed to excuse people either permanently or for a limited period.

In order to ensure that the proposal does not have the effect of encouraging unwarranted applications for permanent excusal, the Government proposes that the Sheriff may exempt a person permanently from jury service when a person has a mental or physical impairment that results in jury service being incompatible with the person's good health or that otherwise renders the person unable to perform jury service. When the Sheriff refuses an application for permanent exemption, the bill provides for a right of appeal to the Local Court. When a person is otherwise incapacitated due to temporary illness or for other reasons, they will be able to apply for an exemption for good cause under the guidelines.

I now address the provisions in the bill that deal with employee protection. The Law Reform Commission report made a number of recommendations aimed at increasing the protection afforded to employees who are summoned to serve on a jury. The commission's report proposed that the employment protection provisions for jurors should apply to both full-time and permanent part-time employees. The Government supports this approach, and is also of the view that the protection should extend to casual employees. Casual workers represent 27 per cent of the workforce, and employers often have a pool of casual employees that they draw upon at any one time. It is therefore important that this group of employees are adequately protected.

In line with the Law Reform Commission's proposals, the legislation makes it an offence for an employer to require an employee to use annual or other leave entitlements in order to serve on a jury. The proposed maximum penalty for breach of the provision is 20 penalty units, which is currently $2,200. In addition to these provisions, the bill adopts the commission's proposals regarding increased penalties for existing offences. Section 69 of the Act provides that an employer shall not dismiss a person in his or her employment, injure the person in his or her employment, or alter his or her position to his or her prejudice by reason of the fact that the person is summoned to serve as a juror. Breach of this provision currently incurs a penalty of $2,200. The penalty in section 69 of the Act was last amended in 1987 and is manifestly inadequate, compared to equivalent offences in other Australian jurisdictions.

It is proposed to increase the maximum penalty to 50 penalty units, that is, $6,000, and/or imprisonment for up to 12 months. In addition, an offence by a corporation will now incur a fine of up to 200 penalty units or $22,000. The proposed increase to 50 penalty units will bring New South Wales into line with the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, which are at the lower end of the scale of financial penalties in Australia. The addition of a financial penalty for a corporation brings New South Wales into line with Victoria and Tasmania.

A number of procedural and other amendments to the Jury Act arising out of the commission's report are worth noting. Firstly, the commission's report proposed allowing jurors who seek to be excused from jury service in court on grounds which may cause them personal embarrassment, or which may relate to their personal health or circumstances, to reduce those grounds to a document to be handed up to the judge. The bill adopts this proposal, which is also supported by the judiciary.

Secondly, the Law Reform Commission's report proposed that, pending the possible introduction of a smart electoral roll, the Sheriff should have the authority and capacity to cross-check data relating to a potential juror's residential address with records held by other government agencies. A system is currently in place whereby the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages regularly updates the Sheriff regarding the names of deceased persons. The bill expands upon this, and provides that the Sheriff may request information from the Roads and Traffic Authority for the purposes of checking the details of a person whom the Sheriff proposes to summons for jury duty. Appropriate privacy protocols will be followed in implementing any such scheme.

I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Jury Regulation 2004 and juror allowances. In order to provide some context for the proposed changes I will briefly outline the national employment standards, which were established under the Fair Work Act 2009 and commenced on 1 January this year. The national employment standards are designed to ensure that employees are protected by minimum conditions and apply to all employees covered by the Federal industrial system regardless of industry, occupation or income. The national employment standards provide for community service leave. Employees who engage in an eligible community service activity are entitled to be absent from their employment for a period while engaging in such an activity.

An eligible community service activity includes jury service that is required by or under the law of a State. The national employment standards also provide that employees undertaking jury service will be paid their base rate of pay by their employer, or the difference between their base pay and any jury allowances, for the first 10 days of jury service. The scheme provided for in the Fair Work Act is also reflected in modern awards and has been taken into account in determining the proposed new juror allowance arrangements. Currently the Jury Regulation 2004 provides that jurors are to be paid a daily allowance that increases depending on the length of time served on the jury. At present different daily rates apply for days 2 to 5, days 6 to 10, and from day 11 onwards.

The proposed amendments provide for a simplified payment model. Under the proposed reforms employed and unemployed jurors will generally be eligible for a single daily rate for days 1 to 10. That rate will be set initially at $100 per day. The result will be that no juror will be worse off during the first 10 days of a trial. From day 11 onwards employed jurors who are no longer entitled to receive their full wage or salary payment by their employers will be paid at a substantially higher rate, which is more than double the rate for the first 10 days of service. Unemployed jurors will continue to be paid at the rate set for the first 10 days of jury service. I note that social security entitlements are not adversely impacted by receipt of a juror allowance.

These changes represent a significant step in ensuring that employed jurors are not left out of pocket as a result of jury service and they will assist in encouraging participation in jury duty. I note that the commission did recommend we move to a full income compensation model. This would pay all jurors a base daily amount, supplemented by a capped measure of compensation for lost income. This would have a cost to the jury system that is not sustainable, and in light of the national employment standards is unnecessary. The proposal in the bill recognises that service can be more difficult for some due to the loss of income, and redresses that as far as possible while maintaining a reasonable cost to society.

I now turn to other amendments in the Jury Regulation. The Law Reform Commission report proposed that it should be possible to summons jurors to serve at any one of the courts within the permitted radius of their place of residence, subject to appropriate exemptions from service. As currently framed, the Jury Regulation provides that, in determining the electoral districts that are to comprise the jury districts constituted by the Act, the Sheriff must ensure that the address of each person whose name appears on an electoral roll is included in one, but not more than one, jury district. It is proposed to amend this regulation so that jurors may be included on the jury roll for more than one jury district. In practice this will mean that prospective jurors will be available to be added to jury rolls and to serve at any court convenient to their place of residence.

Finally, while it is not a component of the bill, I take this opportunity to alert members to the Government's response to the Law Reform Commission's recommendation that Parliament give consideration to the question of the extent and preservation of the statutory exclusion and common law immunity of members of Parliament in relation to jury service. Currently in New South Wales a person is statutorily ineligible to serve as a juror if he or she is a member of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly. Members of Parliament also enjoy common law immunity from service, so repealing the statutory exemption without dealing with this issue would be ineffective.

Given recent developments in the United Kingdom, where the exemption from jury service for members of Parliament has been removed, the commission's report suggests that the ineligibility that currently applies to members of Parliament might be repealed. While the Government does not propose that serving Ministers should be required to undertake jury service, it is important that the question of members of Parliament general immunity from service be further examined. The Government therefore proposes that the issues raised in the Law Reform Commission's report regarding the eligibility of members of Parliament to serve on juries be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of the Legislative Council of the New South Wales Parliament. This issue, in particular that of common law immunity, is properly a matter for Parliament. Terms of reference for that referral have been developed in consultation with the Law Reform Commission.

The proposed reforms to the jury legislation have been the subject of wide consultation with professional and business bodies, community groups, members of the legal profession and the judiciary. We have consulted with medical groups including the Australian Medical Association, the New South Wales Pharmacy Guild, the New South Wales Anaesthetists Association, NSW Health, the New South Wales Nurses Federation, the Australian Dental Association of New South Wales, emergency services stakeholders, the Ambulance Service of New South Wales, the State Emergency Service, NSW Fire Brigades, NSW Rural Fire Service, religious groups including the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, Committees of the Synod Diocese of Newcastle, the Exclusive Brethren, the Law Society of New South Wales, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Industry Group, the Disability Council of New South Wales, the Council for the Ageing and Carers New South Wales.

The Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly also provided a joint response on behalf of parliamentary officers. The new scheme will commence once the necessary administrative procedures are in place. It is anticipated that this will take approximately six months from the time the legislation is passed. It is with pleasure that I commend the bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Frank Sartor.

Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [10.40 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I have been working closely with conservation groups as well as those interested in growing the opportunities for visitors in our spectacular national parks to bring forward the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Visitors and Tourists) Bill 2010. In the course of the consideration of this bill by Parliament I will continue to consult with relevant groups and address any issues that may be raised. This bill seeks to get the balance right between conservation and connecting people with nature by providing memorable and meaningful experiences. It provides clarity about the purposes for which leases and licences can be granted and strengthens environmental standards for those leases and licences. This bill also provides more opportunities for the public to have a say in what happens in their local parks. New South Wales has an enviable park system, with more than 450 new parks created since the New South Wales Labor Government took office in 1995.

Covering more than 6.7 million hectares, our parks stretch from the spectacular coastal wilderness in the south to the lush rainforests of the northeast, across Mount Kosciuszko to the Riverina and the outback beyond. They provide critical habitat to a wide range of native animals and plants; protect significant cultural heritage of Aboriginal communities; and showcase the unique and diverse history of this great State. We have a responsibility to ensure that the people of New South Wales and our visitors can access and experience our national parks first hand, to enjoy and appreciate all they have to offer. Indeed, the New South Wales Government State Plan recognises the importance of our natural areas to people by setting a specific target for increasing visitation to parks and reserves in this State by 20 per cent by 2016.

The Government's rationale is very simple: remaining relevant and raising community awareness of New South Wales's unique natural and cultural heritage is the way in which we will ultimately strengthen long-term support for conservation. The Government's 2008 Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks reaffirmed the importance of encouraging visitation through its consensus report. It contained 20 recommendations for an enhanced level of sustainable visitation and nature-based tourism in the State's national parks, marine parks and reserves. Significantly, it was the first time in New South Wales that conservation and tourism representatives had come together to agree on the types of facilities and activities for visitors and tourists that are appropriate for a national park setting. This bill contributes towards the implementation of the taskforce recommendations.

For the benefit of those members of the House who are not familiar with the details of the park system, it comprises seven different reserve categories that reflect the varying purposes for which land may be reserved under the Act. These include nature reserves, karst conservation reserves, national parks, Aboriginal areas, historic sites, regional parks and State conservation areas. In addition, wilderness areas may be declared under the Wilderness Act over any lands within the park system. The amendments we introduce today have little impact on the most pristine parts of the park estate contained in wilderness areas and nature reserves, which together make up around 43 per cent of the park system. The taskforce reported that, in its current form, the Act is complex and lacks clarity for operators interested in working with the Government to deliver sustainable opportunities for visitors and tourists.

For this reason today we outline our intent to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to streamline the existing leasing and licensing provisions of the Act and clarify the purposes for which leases or licences may be granted on park estate. It sets new standards for environmental sustainability for those leases and licences and introduces greater transparency and accountability measures. The first measure introduced by the bill is to make it clear that both local visitors and tourists are welcome to enjoy and appreciate our parks. The amendments propose the inclusion of sustainable tourist use within the management principles of relevant reserves as well as ensuring there is a clear understanding of what is meant by "sustainable" by inserting a definition of it into the Act that refers to the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

The bill recognises that sustainable visitor and tourist use is an appropriate use within national parks, State conservation areas, regional parks, historic sites, karst conservation reserves and Aboriginal areas. The bill emphasises that tourist facilities are not appropriate in nature reserves and wilderness areas due to the outstanding conservation values of these areas. The existing Act already contains broad powers to grant leases and licences, including for hotels and other accommodation facilities and amenities for tourists and visitors. However, the current powers to grant leases and licences are set out in separate provisions based on whether the proposal is for a new facility or the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. The amendments do not propose to expand the range of purposes already permitted under the existing Act.

The changes we endorse today create a single, simpler provision that sets out, in detail, the purposes for which a lease or licence may be granted. It makes it clear those purposes that are permissible and those that are not. This means that operators and accommodation providers who are interested in partnering with the National Parks and Wildlife Parks Service know what to expect and what is expected of them. It also makes it simpler and easier for communities to know what facilities and activities may occur in their parks. We want to avoid the unnecessary delays and roadblocks to outstanding conservation outcomes such as occurred with the Quarantine Station at North Head in Manly. In that case more than 10 years was wasted on disputes over uses as important as education centres and amenities for visitors and tourists.

The end result is that we now have a world-class accommodation and conservation experience—right on Sydney's doorstep. Importantly, our private sector partner has worked with us and invested more than $15 million to restore the fabric of the heritage buildings and the surrounding precinct. Importantly, for conservation, as noted in proposed clause 151(3), the bill does not in any way override or remove the requirements for the management of reserved land to be in accordance with the relevant management principles. In addition, in determining whether to grant a lease or licence the Minister must give effect to the objects of the Act. It is also a condition of every lease and licence that lessees and licensees comply with the relevant plan of management.

Conservation of our natural areas and cultural heritage is the unequivocal basis upon which national parks and reserves are—and will continue to be—managed. Today I table independent legal advice from Mr Bret Walker, SC, which critiques a recent draft of the bill before the House and responds to recent claims made by Mr Robertson, SC, in his advice to the conservation groups. Mr Walker states:

the amendments proposed by the bill would clarify but not broaden in any significant way the range of purposes for which leases and licences may be granted in national parks.

Mr Walker further concludes that the amendments, in his opinion:

… would strengthen the environmental controls and checks and balances in the Act on the environmental impact of developments in national parks;

… would better secure the protection of the natural and cultural values of national parks than the admittedly already considerable protection given by the Act, and

… the addition of the word "tourist", certainly does not have the vice (from a conservation point of view) of permitting the influx and servicing of a new horde of people hitherto not welcome in New South Wales national parks.

In Mr Walker's opinion:

… both overall and in detail, the assertions of some backsliding from current conservation values, threatened by the bill, are boxing at shadows. There is no substance in any of the strained and melodramatic hypotheticals found in Mr Robertson's Memorandum of Advice. "Disneyland"? "supermarkets"?—really? I do not see any legal merit in Mr Robertson's suggestion … that this would be a closer possibility in New South Wales national parks were the bill enacted, than it is under the Act in its present form.

Mr Walker explains that there is no substance whatsoever in claims that "the floodgates have opened" with regard to rampant "privatisation". In fact, Walker states that the bill proposes a "much better and more thoroughgoing subjection of all powers to lease or licence within national parks to appropriate purposes on conservation-informed terms". Mr Walker's conservation-informed terms are achieved by the new provisions within the bill that strengthen the environmental standards for leases and licences.

The bill does this, first, by establishing that the Minister must not grant a lease or a licence unless satisfied that: it is compatible with the natural and cultural values of the land and its surroundings, it provides for the sustainable and efficient use of natural resources, energy and water, and any new or modified structures are of an appropriate built form and scale, including bulk, height, footprint, setbacks and density. The bill requires the director general to adopt assessment criteria that detail how these matters are to be considered. In addition, the director general must prepare a report for the Minister that assesses leases or licences against these criteria.

This report must be considered by the Minister before granting a lease or licence. Discussions with conservation groups over recent weeks have helped to refine the bill further, particularly with regard to these new assessment criteria. The bill now ensures that they may be varied only if the director general has consulted with the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council—and if the council agrees that any variation, on balance, improves or maintains the environmental outcomes. I note for the benefit of members that this council is an independent advisory body, constituted under the Act, of representatives nominated by organisations including the National Parks Association, the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales and the Local Government and Shires Associations.

This additional check and balance provides certainty that the criteria will remain a robust method of assessing lease proposals intended for national parks in New South Wales. The new assessment criteria will not apply to a lease or licence of land within a ski resort area, as these areas are subject to separate, specific planning controls under a State environmental planning policy; or to some renewals, including those where the renewal results from an option in an existing lease. Our clear intention is to ensure that reputable operators are not deterred from partnering with the parks service to continue delivering visitor facilities and services. The Government recognises that it is important not to "move the goalposts" if it has already entered into an arrangement with a private partner and that private partner has been doing the right thing by the environment and the public.

Some concern has been raised with regard to allowing leases or licences for sporting and recreational activities. I clarify that only low-impact sporting activities such as the very popular annual Oxfam Trailwalker, the Wilderness Society's Wild Endurance and the Anaconda Adventure Race are appropriate for national parks. These events, which involve healthy outdoor recreation such as swimming and kayaking, are the type of activities communities would want us to support. The bill will allow opportunities for these activities to continue while clearly ruling out the development of inappropriate sporting facilities such as stadiums.

A real benefit of the bill is that it improves transparency by requiring public advertisement of all leases that involve new purposes, new buildings, or significant modifications to existing buildings. Currently only leases in ski resort areas and leases for adaptive reuse need to be so advertised. The bill also provides that all leases for new facilities or significant modifications to existing buildings must be referred to the advisory council. In addition, the bill proposes that the Minister may, under clause 151G (1) (b), also refer a lease or licence proposal to the advisory council if the Minister thinks it is appropriate to do so. This provision allows sufficient flexibility to refer major lease renewals, including all head leases as well as leases that involve substantial infrastructure and are for a term of more than 10 years, to the advisory council for advice. In response to recent concerns raised by conservation groups, I confirm my commitment to refer all such leases to the advisory council under this provision.

These are important new measures that improve accountability of leasing and licensing of land within our parks. These amendments will both improve and streamline consultation processes and improve the consistency of decision-making with regard to facilities and amenities of parks. This will provide legislative certainty for private investors and park managers alike who may wish to consider new and innovative accommodation, facilities, events or functions for appropriate parts of the reserve system.

Further proposed amendments will improve equity of access for, and safety of, individuals by allowing licensed tour operators to guide small groups of people into remote wilderness areas. The changes relate only to the types of activities that are currently permissible on a self-reliant basis, such as walking or canoeing. These activities, guided by licensed tour operators, will have no greater impact than the current scenario where small groups or clubs pursue the same activities but on a non-commercial basis. In addition to improved safety, the benefits of this change include building awareness of the immense value of our wilderness areas and creating new opportunities for nature-based tourism experiences in New South Wales. There are people who lack the skills, confidence or equipment to undertake recreation in parks independently, and particularly in more remote wilderness areas. This bill removes some of these barriers and makes it possible for a broader range of the community to experience and immerse themselves in nature.

The bill also proposes the removal of two anomalies relating to leasing and licensing in the existing Act. It corrects the provision that prevents leases and licences being granted in State conservation areas and regional parks that are in Aboriginal lands reserved under part 4A of the Act. The removal of the current restrictions on leasing and licensing in Aboriginal areas and lands conforms with the wishes of traditional owners, and will assist in fostering employment opportunities for Aboriginal communities; and it allows licences for appropriate commercial activities to be granted in regional parks, State conservation areas, karst conservation reserves, Aboriginal areas and nature reserves. For example, this amendment means that commercial licensing of activities that are of a scientific or educational nature may occur in nature reserves, consistent with the relevant management principles. This will allow licensed activities such as bird-watching tours to occur within a nature reserve.

Finally, the bill includes proposals to re-categorise four specific reserves to enable the most appropriate use of these areas. All four proposals have been reviewed and endorsed by the relevant regional advisory committee, ensuring that the communities' views have been taken into account. These re-categorisation proposals improve access to important places such as historic Roto House and other visitor facilities such as the Sea Acres Rainforest Centre. We want to continue to provide park visitors with the sort of high-quality experiences they have come to love—from beachside cottages and lighthouse accommodation to Snowy Mountains cabins and outback homesteads.

Indeed, families and community groups have been enjoying on-park amenities for decades—in fact, the National Parks Association recently enjoyed a thirtieth anniversary celebration at our Woody Head cabins in Bundjalung National Park, on the New South Wales North Coast. The ultimate intention is to work with private operators who share the parks service's commitment to the pre-eminence of conservation and who are, themselves, committed to providing visitors to parks with a range of low-impact and best practice facilities and sustainable accommodation options.

One example of where the Government would like to achieve this mutually beneficial partnership arrangement is in Ben Boyd National Park, on the far South Coast of New South Wales. The existing Light to Light multi-day walk has the potential to become one of the world's great walks—and it is appropriate for the parks service to consider low-impact, safari-style tents or eco-cabins for people to stay in overnight, as they embark on their coastal journey. The bill provides New South Wales with an opportunity to showcase our magnificent natural and cultural wonders. Places such as New Zealand and Tasmania and even our friends in Victoria are already providing nature-based accommodation and experiences that are capturing the hearts and minds of young and old alike. The bill will position New South Wales to provide world-class experiences for visitors and tourists to match those in other places.

This Government is committed to supporting regional communities by providing a range of experiences in parks for visitors to enjoy, which may in turn encourage people to stay longer in regional New South Wales. To this end, it is certainly not our intention for national parks to compete with local accommodation providers or operators. To the contrary, I assure the House that the Government is interested in collaborating with local communities to complement existing options for visitors seeking a unique nature or cultural experience in Sydney and the regions. We are confident that these changes will improve the National Parks and Wildlife Act in a way that enables us to cater for a broad range of visitors while upholding the absolute primacy of nature conservation in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House. I table a document setting out legal advice the Government has received from Bret Walker, SC, dated 1 June 2010.

Document tabled.

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

Debate resumed from 13 May 2010.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [10.57 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Local Government Amendment (General Rate Exemptions) Bill 2010 and indicate at the outset that the Opposition does not oppose the bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993, the principal Act, to enable the separate valuation of parts of a parcel of land owned by a religious body, public benevolent institution or public charity that is used partly in a manner that is exempt from rating and partly in a manner that is not exempt from rating if rates are to be levied on the non-exempt part.

The bill corrects an anomaly in the Local Government Act relating to public benevolent institutions, public charities and religious bodies. These bodies do not have to pay council rates on properties they own and use for charitable purposes. Section 555 of the Local Government Act currently exempts, inter alia, the following land from all rates:

(a) land that belongs to a religious body and is occupied and used in connection with:

(i) a church or other building used or occupied for public worship;

(ii) a building used solely as the residence of a minister of religion in connection with any such church or building (eg a church manse);

(iii) A building used or occupied for the purpose of religious teaching or training; or

(iv) A building used or occupied solely as the residence of the official head or the assistant official head (or both) of any religious body in the State or in any diocese in the State.

Section 556 of the Act exempts, inter alia, the following land from all rates other than water supply special rates and sewerage special rates:

(h) land that belongs to a public benevolent institution or public charity and is used or occupied by the institution or charity for the purposes of the institution or charity.

But the Act does not indicate how rates will be determined if part of the land is used for non-exempt purposes—for example, if it is let to a non-exempt body. So, for example, a church complex that is exempt might let a building to people not associated with the church as a coffee shop. The building that is let might occupy just 5 per cent of the rateable land, yet some councils, I understand, would charge the church rates on all of the land on which it stands. In her agreement in principle speech, the Minister said that Sydney City Council had gone to the other extreme by applying a substantial use test whereby, if the land is substantially used only by the benevolent institution or charity, the whole parcel of land is deemed to be exempt. I think members would see the wisdom of that decision by Sydney City Council.

I understand that some charitable bodies are using section 28A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to obtain separate valuations and apply partial ratings, although the Local Government Act does not provide for this. The bill changes this situation by legitimising the practice of granting a partial rate exemption where part of a parcel of land is commercially let to a body that is not exempt from rates. The bill allows the relevant council to request a separate valuation under section 28A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to enable rates to be charged on that portion of the land which is not exempt from rates. So if 20 per cent or even 50 per cent of the parcel of land were used for commercial purposes and the rest for church or charitable purposes, only that 20 or 50 per cent would be rateable.

It is entirely possible that the coffee shop that I mentioned earlier is on the ground floor of a single building owned and used by a charity or religious body, for example, in the city. In these situations valuations can be undertaken on a stratum basis. There should be no negative implications for benevolent institutions, charities or religious bodies, as in most cases the terms of the lease agreement will allow that body or organisation to pass on the rates liability to the lessee. Where there is an existing lease agreement that does not provide for the lessee to pay the rates, the bill provides transitional arrangements to ensure that the owner of the property will not be worse off than it was previously by exempting the entire parcel of land from rates until that lease has expired. As I said earlier, most people regard these changes as being fair and just. The Government seems to have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, and the Liberal-Nationals support the bill.

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [11.02 a.m.]: I support the Local Government Amendment (General Rate Exemptions) Bill 2010. The bill will clarify and strengthen the rate exemption provisions of the Local Government Act as they relate to public benevolent institutions, public charities and religious bodies. Members would agree that these bodies make an invaluable contribution to the wellbeing of communities in New South Wales. The amendment will ensure that the resources of these bodies are used to the maximum extent possible for these valuable works. It will also ensure consistency in the treatment of rate exemptions for public benevolent institutions, public charities and religious bodies by councils throughout New South Wales.

The bill is a great amendment to the Act because benevolent societies do a great job for our community, looking after people who are less fortunate than we are, and making sure that they receive the treatment that they require by raising money to take care of these people. I think this bill will go a long way to helping them in their work and will help these bodies to manage people less fortunate than us. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [11.03 a.m.]: I support the Local Government Amendment (General Rate Exemptions) Bill, which will allow councils to charge partial rates on property that is partly used for commercial purposes and partly used for exempt purposes. The bill fixes a serious flaw in the Local Government Act, which operates unfairly for both councils and charities. Currently, properties used for charitable or benevolent purposes are exempt from paying council rates. However, the legislation does not specify how councils should deal with property owned by a charitable or benevolent institution but only partly used for charitable or benevolent purposes. It provides only for an all or nothing exemption.

While notionally the city of Sydney has supported the principle of charging partial rates, we have applied a substantial or dominant use test. If the substantial or dominant use was for exempt purposes, then the whole land was exempt. If not, rates were collected for the entire property. Illogically, a charity using 45 per cent of a building for its purposes paid full rates, while a charity using 55 per cent of a building for its purposes received a full exemption and the city received nothing. Some cases were unfair to council, others unfair to the charitable or benevolent institution. Where property is used for both exempt and non-exempt purposes there should be separate valuations and rates apportioned accordingly.

Under the bill a charitable or benevolent institution using part of their property for their purposes while commercially leasing the rest will be levied in accordance with the proportion commercially leased. This provides for an equitable outcome while maintaining the support traditionally provided to charitable and benevolent purposes by the rate exemption. The city did call for these changes after discussions with a charitable institution and both parties support the changes. The city will need to discuss the administration of the legislation with the Department of Local Government. I commend the Government for responding.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [11.05 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Local Government Amendment (General Rate Exemptions) Bill 2010. These are commonsense, practical changes that illustrate the Keneally Government's ongoing commitment to supporting the valuable work of charitable and religious bodies in New South Wales. I am pleased to note that the bill contains transitional provisions that ensure that, where a charitable or religious body is currently leasing part of its land or property to a commercial body and the lease does not provide for the payment of rates by the lessee, the entire parcel of land will continue to be exempt until such time as that lease expires. This provision will ensure that no public benevolent institution, charity or religious body will be inadvertently liable for general rates where they would otherwise be exempt. The amendments are supported by the Local Government and Shires Associations. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [11.06 a.m.]: This bill amends the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to rate exemptions for land partly used by religious or charitable bodies. It provides for the granting of a partial rate exemption where part of a parcel of land is commercially let to a body that is not exempt from rates. Any activities undertaken by a charitable body on the land will be deemed to be part of the charitable body's activities and would be exempt. For example, this includes activities undertaken by the body, such as opportunity shops and cafes.

The purpose of the bill is to clarify the exemptions from general rates that apply for public benevolent institutions, public charities and religious bodies. These bodies are exempt from paying general rates on properties that they own and that they use for charitable purposes. However, the Local Government Act is currently silent on how such a property should be treated if part of the property is commercially let to a non-exempt body. Currently, the Act does not allow a council to partially rate the non-exempt part of a parcel of land. As a result, charitable bodies are being charged rates on a whole parcel of land because part of the land is commercially let. According to the agreement in principle speech:

The bill will ensure a consistent approach between councils and ensure that land owned by a religious body, benevolent institution or charity is afforded a rate exemption to the full extent envisaged under the Local Government Act. It will also ensure that those councils that are currently applying a partial rate exemption are complying with the legislation. There will be no net impact on the level of a council's rating income as a result of this bill, although there may be a minor redistribution in the rating burden within a local government area. There should be no negative implications for benevolent institutions, charities or religious bodies as, in most cases, the terms of the lease agreement will allow the religious body, benevolent institution or charity to pass on the rates liability to the lessee. However, where the terms of an existing lease agreement between a charitable body and a commercial tenant do not provide for the lessee to pay the rates, the amendment provides transitional arrangements to ensure no benevolent institution, charity or religious body will be worse off under these changes.

In such cases, the entire parcel of land will remain exempt from rates until the land ceases to be the subject of that lease. The bill provides for the determination of the rateable and non-rateable components of both land and buildings. In those cases, where part of a single parcel of land is subject to a commercial lease, for example, where a parcel of land has on it a church and a commercially leased car park, a council may request from the Valuer General separate valuations for each part under section 28A of the Valuation of Land Act, and then apply rates to the car park component. In addition, where a parcel of land consists of one building that is partially subject to a commercial lease, the bill provides for the valuation of that building on a stratum basis, thus allowing rates to be charged on those components of the building that are commercially let.

I was privileged to serve on Port Stephens Council for 16½ years, 3½ of those as mayor. Like most of the 152 New South Wales councils, Port Stephens relies on rate income to provide the core services its ratepayers have every right to expect. As this Government continues to shift costs onto councils, balancing council budgets becomes increasingly difficult. As councils consider their budgets, as they come to terms with rate-pegging increases of around 3 per cent, and as they see this State Government increase things like street lighting by 60 per cent or anticipate, in Port Stephens Council's case, a $100,000 bill from Elections New South Wales for a by-election due on 19 June, the balancing act becomes harder.

It is interesting to note that whereas Port Stephens Council's rate base is around $32 million, its total annual budget is around $85 million. That extra $53 million of income is made up of interest, rates and charges and grants—grants that have to be applied for annually at great cost in time and staff. I commend Port Stephens Council's revenue coordinator—what we used to call a rates clerk—Craig Barrass, for reminding me of the ongoing problems that this Government continues to ignore. Mr Barrass said in his written submission:

This legislation needs to be considered in the context of the existing rate pegging legislation.

Under S.509 of the Local Government Act notional rate income is only adjusted by supplementary valuations of rateable land.

Changes in rateability are excluded when calculating notional rate income. This is clearly spelled out in the notes that form part of the Department of Local Government notional income returns provided to Councils each year to complete. What this means is that if land becomes non-rateable (eg property is sold to a church or public benevolent institution), then the rate income is preserved, even though Council no longer issues that particular rate notice, by Council increasing the rate yield the following year to recoup the loss.

Likewise if land becomes rateable (eg Hunter Development Corporation selling the Westrac site to WEPL Pty Ltd) then Council cannot increase its notional general rate income even though it is rating that land and issuing an additional rate notice. Council is required to reduce its rate yield (via a slightly lower rate in the dollar) the following year to ensure it does not receive that additional rate income. Very disappointing in the case of Westrac because the land value is $11,900,000 and rates that we won't reap as additional income is $76,000.

The Department of Local Government has an annual process of granting S.508(2) adjustments to notional general income to allow Councils to increase their rate income where State Owned Corporations included on Sch 1 and Sch 5 of the State Owned Corporations Act sell their land and it becomes rateable. This applies to Landcom subdivisions and Hunter Water Corporation for example (as they are included on the relevant schedules of the State Owned Corporations Act). Council fills in a simple spreadsheet detailing all of those eligible changes in rateability (eg Landcom land sales), lodges it with the Department of Local Government and the Department of Local Government grants a compensatory increase to our rate pegging percentage. However the Hunter Development Corporation for example, is not included on the State Owned Corporations schedules, and sales by churches, public benevolent institutions and state government are also ineligible for a compensatory adjustment to Council's rate pegging percentage.

The effect of the proposed legislation may be different in different Councils. If a Council complies with legislation under S.509 and the Department of Local Government's directions on excluding changes in rateability from their notional general income, then there should be no net affect on the Council's rate income. ie if part of a church parcel, subject to a commercial lease with a clause providing for recovery of outgoings including land rates, becomes rated by a Council, then this land is changing rateability and the Council's rate yield is required to be reduced the following year so that all other ratepayers pay a fraction less.

In Port Stephens the only parcel of land I can think of that is affected by a separate valuation is the Medowie Baptist Church, where we applied for a separate valuation for the Medical Centre that lies within the church/school car park on the same parcel of land as the church and associated buildings. The additional rates we levy on this medical centre are required to be reversed out of our notional income because it was a change in rateability.

In Port Stephens the rate base will not decrease as a result of this proposed legislation and everybody else will not pay any additional rates.

In Sydney City Council some churches will obtain a part exemption and everybody else will pay more (to make up the notional yield which is protected for the reasons I have outlined above).

There may be a financial issue for churches and public benevolent institutions as outlined in the Hansard transcript that would be overcome by this legislation. In my mind the bigger and more important issue to Council is the restriction imposed by S.509 that prevents a Council from increasing its rate yield when land changes from non-rateable to rateable, because sale of state lands particularly is often associated with large scale developments, like Westrac, that will impose more demand on Council services generally and we will be unable to increase our rate yield.

Whilst I support this legislation I call on the Minister to prepare legislation to change section 509 to allow councils to increase their rate base, or notional rate income or rate yield—the total income a council can collect in rates—by adopting Mr Barrass's very just criticisms. Remember that the loss of $76,000 referred to in Mr Barrass's submission is not a one-off, it is forever. It should be emphasised of course that WesTrac is not avoiding paying rates; it will pay rates of $76,000. It is just that other rates collected will have to drop by a collective $76,000.

Rate collection in local government can be very difficult to explain. Every time the Valuer General revalues properties in a local government area my office is inundated with worried ratepayers who believe a 50 per cent increase in their property value will mean a 50 per cent increase in their council rates. "If only," I can hear one of the four mayors in this place sigh! We have to get the message out that changes in property values may adjust the ad valorem component of a rate notice slightly but council's overall rate income remains the same. I should add, of course, that this State Labor Government collects land tax based on property values, so whilst increasing Valuer General valuations mean little to local government they are a major source of income in balancing this Government's books.

On a lighter note, when I was mayor, Port Stephens Council realised that many strata titles were not being rated. These were usually in unit blocks that had garages and parking spaces on separate strata titles. The value of these was added to the rate base with very little comment or complaint. This exercise, however, picked up 119 marine berths at a local marina that some enterprising developer had in individual titles, no doubt with the intention of selling the berths individually. Five years later the owner of the marina has just consolidated the 119 titles into one title and council lost $160,480 per annum forever. The owner was very lucky that they were still all in his ownership. We on this side of the House support this legislation but I ask the Minister to investigate the changes outlined in my contribution.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.17 a.m.]: The object of the Local Government Amendment (General Rate Exemptions) Bill 2010 is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to enable separate valuation of parts of a parcel of land owned by a religious body, public benevolent institution or public charity that are used partly in a manner that is exempt from rating and partly in a manner that is not exempt from rating, if rates are to be levied on a non-exempt part. This legislation has the support of both sides of the House.

However, the member for Port Stephens has raised a number of interesting issues that need to be addressed by the Government because they are crucial to the future viability of local government in this State. As he said, this Government has imposed a number of obligations on local government by cost shifting but has not seen fit to provide additional sources of revenue to local government. Local government is the government that is closest to the people and provides many of the services that are essential to the quality of life in this State. It is essential that the Government address the concerns raised by the member for Port Stephens.

No doubt this piece of legislation will be welcomed by many of the charities, churches and other bodies in my electorate that do a large amount of work that enables our society to have a compassionate and caring approach to the less fortunate. If this work were not being carried out, the cost would be borne by this Government, which, of course, would pass it on to the taxpayers. As I said earlier, the Opposition welcomes this piece of legislation but the issues that have been raised by the member for Port Stephens must be addressed.

Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [11.20 a.m.]: I support the Local Government Amendment (General Rate Exemptions) Bill 2010. We should do everything we can to assist charitable organisations as they do a fantastic job in all our electorates and thousands upon thousands of people benefit from their work. If part of the land that is owned by charitable organisations is sold, rented or leased from other parties, rates will be applied to that portion of land, which is the way it should be. However, the charitable organisations will still be exempt from any of these charges.

The changes in this bill will ensure that where a property is owned by a charitable or religious body and is used partly for charitable purposes and partly for commercial purposes, only the area used for charitable purposes will be exempt from rates. These changes, which are supported by the Local Government and Shires Associations, are a commonsense approach to charities in our electorates, and I am certain will be welcomed by all charities. We must ensure that charitable organisations are always exempt from paying rates in our local areas.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn—Minister for Local Government, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [11.21 a.m.], in reply. I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Local Government Amendment (General Rate Exemptions) Bill 2010. I also thank the New South Wales Valuer General and his staff for their input on the drafting of this bill. The amendments in the bill reflect the Government's ongoing commitment to supporting the invaluable contribution that public benevolent institutions, public charities and religious bodies make to the communities of New South Wales. The bill strengthens the exemptions from general rates that apply for charitable bodies and clarifies how a property should be treated for rating purposes if part of a property owned by a charitable body is commercially let to a non-exempt body.

This bill will ensure a consistent approach between councils and that land owned by a benevolent institution, charity or religious body is afforded a rate exemption to the full extent envisaged under the Local Government Act. It will also ensure that those councils that are currently applying a partial rate exemption are complying with the legislation. It is important to understand that there will be no net impact on the level of a council's rating income as a result of this bill, although there may be a minor redistribution in the rating burden within a local government area. The transitional provisions contained in the bill will ensure that where the terms of an existing lease agreement between a charitable body and a commercial tenant do not provide for the lessee to pay the rates, no benevolent institution, charity or religious body will be inadvertently and adversely affected. In such cases, the entire parcel of land will remain exempt from rates until the land ceases to be the subject of that lease. As such, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

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

Debate resumed from 21 May 2010.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.23 a.m.]: I am not leading for the Opposition in debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010. I am certain that, as I speak, the shadow Minister is making his way to the Chamber as fast as he can. This bill will make amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 as a consequence of the enactment of the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009, which referred certain matters relating to private sector workplace relations to the Commonwealth. The purpose of this bill is to make a range of relatively minor amendments to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 and to update terminology as a consequence of the changes brought about when the Parliament passed legislation that referred private sector industrial relations matters to the Commonwealth under the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009.

The bill also makes provisions relating to the public sector. The Minister for Industrial Relations is empowered to make an order declaring local government or State public service sector entities not to be national system employers as they remain under the State system. The bill also makes provision for State employers subject to Federal awards to continue to be covered by the provision of those awards. As part of updating terminology, the bill replaces references to the previous Commonwealth industrial relations laws, for example, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the instruments under that Act, with references to the current Fair Work laws and instruments under the new national industrial relations system.

The bill will replace references to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the Industrial Relations Act 1996 with reference to Fair Work Australia. As I said earlier, the shadow Minister will further elaborate on the provisions of this bill. I have a great deal of pleasure in making a contribution to debate on this bill. Members agree with 95 per cent of the legislation that is introduced in this Chamber. However, they disagree with 5 per cent of legislation usually because they would like it publicised a little more, or because of their political philosophies.

Ms Linda Burney: You are just talking for the sake of it.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: Much of the legislation that is introduced in this Parliament is passed without debate and without interruption from a noisy Minister.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for the State Plan, and Minister for Community Services to order.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: The Minister is deliberately trying to incite a response from this side of the House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira) [11.26 a.m.]: I support the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, which has as its purpose to make a range of minor but necessary amendments to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 as a consequence of this Government's historic achievement in negotiating a fair and equitable set of national industrial relations laws that apply to the private sector in New South Wales. I will outline one aspect of this bill concerning the proposed amendment to section 146B of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. This amendment will ensure that employers and employees in the national system who are covered by enterprise agreements originating from the old State industrial relations system will continue to have access to members of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales as their provider of dispute resolution services where the parties desire.

These old State agreements are called preserved State agreements in the national system. The capacity of national system employers and employees to choose anyone, including the members of the State Commission, as their preferred provider of dispute resolution services is enshrined in the Fair Work Act 2009 and its predecessor, the WorkChoices legislation. Section 146B is designed to do no more than to make it clear that it is permissible for members of the State Commission to exercise such powers and functions as a national system agreement might bestow upon them. The proposed amendment to section 146B, like the other amendments in this bill, is to ensure a smooth transition from a Federal industrial relations system to a national industrial relations system. Thus the amendment to section 146B will ensure that the range of agreements under the Federal law to which section 146 B applies will also include preserved State agreements where their nominal term has not expired.

In the vast majority cases, the nominal term of most preserved State agreements will by now have expired. The amendment will not apply to such cases. Parties to expired preserved State agreements will need to enter into new enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009. It is worth noting that the Fair Work Act 2009 permits parties to agreements to nominate who they would like their provider of dispute resolution services to be, and this means that such parties may still choose to nominate a member of the State Commission as their dispute provider.

Some employers and employees will have taken advantage of the opportunity provided by the Commonwealth Government to seek extension of the nominal terms of their preserved State agreements. This was an interim measure put in place by the Commonwealth to assist the parties to preserve their old arrangements until the new Fair Work system was put in place. The amendment will enable employers and the unions representing employees with whom they made their old State enterprise agreements to keep their agreement in place during their nominal period of operation, rather than having to negotiate new agreements ahead of time simply in order to maintain access to members of the State commission.

The current exclusion of preserved State agreements came to light as a consequence of the referral of private sector industrial relations matters to the Commonwealth. It is appropriate to deal with that issue now, in this bill, as it ties up any loose ends that are a consequence of referring private sector industrial matters to the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Again, this will ensure a smooth transition into the national system for employees and employers covered by these types of agreements. This bill finishes the job of creating a national system of industrial relations in New South Wales. However, this will not stop the New South Wales Government from continuing to ensure that employees and employers are regulated by a fair, equitable, modern and productive set of laws in this State.

I am pleased to speak to a bill that finalises transition arrangements from the draconian WorkChoices regime of the former Commonwealth Government to the Fair Work provisions of the existing Commonwealth Government. This will mean that employees and employers will have a stronger understanding. The current national arrangements are much fairer and certainly absolutely less draconian than had been the case under WorkChoices. I am pleased to contribute to a debate that puts one of the final nails in the coffin of WorkChoices and provides an opportunity for us to move forward with the national industrial relations system under Fair Work Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [11.32 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Coalition in the debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010. The member for Keira spoke about the alleged draconian legislation that existed under the Howard administration. It is important when we address a bill such as this that we address also the fact that by its very nature an industrial relations bill in covering employees also covers those employees of businesses, particularly, as the member would know, in the Illawarra, as the member for Cronulla would tell the House, which very much relies on the mining industry to provide jobs.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: We could tell him that.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: We could tell him that. You could tell him that. Talking about draconian measures brings to mind the ridiculous and draconian super mining tax that the Federal Government wants to introduce, which will have a devastating effect right across the nation.

Ms Linda Burney: That is so relevant to this debate!

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The Minister says that this is not relevant. Of course it is relevant. You cannot have an industrial relations system if you do not actually have employees.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: It's all about jobs.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: As the member for Cronulla said, it is all about jobs in New South Wales. Under this Kevin Rudd experience there probably will not be any need for an industrial relations policy because no-one will be employed in the industry or in jobs across the nation. Once again we have a State Government that has sold us out to the Federal Government. It supports this super mining tax, a tax that will destroy—

Mr Malcolm Kerr: What's mine is ours, they say.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: As the member for Cronulla has said, "What's mine is ours."

Ms Linda Burney: How many mines are there in Lane Cove? What are you mining for there?

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I acknowledge the interjections, because they raise other points. I notice that the Minister for Commerce now—is that right—is in the Chamber?

Mr Paul Lynch: I am also the Minister for Industrial Relations. That is why I am in the Chamber.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: We are talking about industry and business, and he laughs about it. He will not be laughing when we have increased unemployment. What about the people who live in the electorates of those Ministers who rely on their superannuation after it will effectively have been destroyed by this super mining tax? This ridiculous tax is hitting the mums and dads and is not doing anything for the people of Australia. This ill-thought-out and ill-conceived idea will affect employees across this nation. I move away from that topic for the moment, but I will come back to it.

The bill makes amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 as a consequence of the enactment of the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009, which referred certain matters relating to private sector workplace relations to the Commonwealth. As I stated earlier, there will not be a huge private sector: it will just be the Rudd mining company running mining. If it runs it as well as it runs the Federal Government, we will not have an industry to cover this—but I digress. The bill also makes provision relating to the public sector. The Minister for Industrial Relations is empowered to make an order declaring local government or State public service sector entities to not be national system employers as they remain under the State system. The bill makes provision also for State employees subject to Federal awards to continue to be covered by the provisions of those awards.

Similarly, the bill replaces references to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the Industrial Relations Act 1996 with a reference to Fair Work Australia. As I stated earlier, the Coalition will not oppose this bill as it merely updates legislation and gives effect to the referral of powers enacted last year. The changes in the amendments set out in the explanatory note state:

Schedule 1 [1] provides that federal industrial instruments relating to specified State or local government employers that are declared by the Minister not to be national system employers under the Commonwealth Fair Work Act will be established as either State awards or enterprise agreements under the principal Act. The Industrial Relations Commission of NSW will have power to vary such awards or agreements or provide exemptions where necessary.

Schedule 1 [4] makes an amendment consequential on the enactment of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act to provide that decisions of the Minimum Wage Panel and a Full Bench of Fair Work Australia … will be decisions that the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW must adopt and apply to State awards, unless the Commission is satisfied that the decision is not consistent with the objects of the principal Act or that there are other good reasons for not doing so.

Schedule 1 [10] makes it clear that the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW may exercise certain dispute resolution functions in respect of federal enterprise agreements known as preserved State agreements, which were continued under the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 of the Commonwealth.

The purpose of the bill is to make a range of relatively minor amendments—this is a "make-work" bill to keep the Government busy because not much other legislation is coming through—to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 and to update terminology as a consequence of the changes brought about when the Parliament passed legislation that referred private sector industrial relations matters to the Commonwealth under the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009. The bill replaces references to the previous Commonwealth industrial relations laws—for example, the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

I pay tribute to the shadow Minister in the other place, the Hon. Greg Pearce, who works hard for business in this State—businesses that employ people and provide so much income to this great State of ours, or what used to be the greatest State. New South Wales used to be the gateway to business in this country. We are now merely the transit lounge, as the member for Ryde will tell the House, as we continue to lose businesses and industry to other States because of the mismanagement of this Government, which has no new ideas, no new policy, no new vision and no new plans. This Government has a lot of spin; more spin cycles than a washing machine.

But what is it doing for business in New South Wales? Nothing. Do we hear Government members when it comes to this super tax? No. Do we hear the Minister or the Government condemning this Rudd Government super tax? We do not. Do they stand up for the small engineering firms or the miners, the greatest employers? The only reason we have not gone into recession or depression under this Government is due to the mining industry. What have we done? We are going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because of Rudd's failure to address the economic challenges of this country. We could talk about the Building the Education Revolution.

Ms Linda Burney: Anthony, this is the New South Wales Parliament.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Yes, it is the New South Wales Parliament—but that does not stop this Government sycophantically sucking up to Kevin Rudd and his mates every day. Their challenge is to pick up the phone and call Kev or Swanie, tell them to give us a fair go, and to stop this super tax that adversely affects grandmothers, mothers and working families.

Ms Linda Burney: Oh, sit down!

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: This is a very serious issue. The Minister for the State Plan, and Minister for Community Services may think it is funny that the mining industry is walking out the door and going to Canada or South America—anywhere but here because this country is no longer a decent place in which to do business. We have a government that shifts the goalposts time and again. That will affect our workers. I can tell members opposite from my experience of doorknocking in Penrith that people know that.

Ms Linda Burney: You just love the attention. That is your trouble.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The Minister was not in Penrith. You have not been at Penrith, have you? No! I have not seen any Ministers doorknocking in Penrith.

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: I have been to Penrith. I went to Penrith High School and I lived there for five years.

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

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I think the Minister knows that we have not seen her in Penrith since the resignation of the former member for Penrith. We have seen no sign of Government members in the lead-up to the by-election. That is the relevance of the matter. The Minister may have lived in Penrith, but Penrith has changed. Some people who live there are directly or indirectly employed by the mining industry. They have turned their backs on the Labor Party—the class traitors who sit opposite me. Ministers have big ministerial cars and they do not have to use public transport. I have been talking to the good people of Penrith. The Liberal Party has a great candidate for Penrith, Stuart Ayres.

Ms Linda Burney: He does not live there.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The Liberal Party is listening to people who are concerned about their jobs and what will happen to them. This socialist Labor Government does not care. It has sold out. It sold out to Kevin Rudd.

Ms Linda Burney: Chippendale is a long way from Penrith, Anthony.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: You have to go to Chippendale?

Ms Linda Burney: Chippendale is a long way from Penrith.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I do not live in Chippendale.

Ms Linda Burney: No, but Stuart Ayres does.

Mr Paul Lynch: Your candidate for Penrith does.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I do not see the relevance of those comments. Stuart Ayres lives in Penrith. He will represent Penrith very well on behalf of the Liberal Party. If we want to settle an argument about who lives outside their electorates, one only has to look at the conga line of cars from the North Shore and Labor Party members driving across the Sydney Harbour Bridge—allegedly representing their constituencies in the western suburbs from the leafy suburbs of Turramurra and Mosman.

But I digress: obviously I have been drawn away from the debate by the very good point made by the Minister, who agreed that the Labor Party has abandoned its people and ignores the workers of this State. I thank the Minister for raising that point and for agreeing with me. The bill will not work because this Government has no new ideas, no vision and no new plans. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield) [11.43 a.m.]: The speech made by the member for Lane Cove, who preceded me in this debate, was the most longwinded Clayton's support for a bill I have ever heard. However, I am pleased he finally acknowledged the wisdom of this legislation by indicating that the Opposition will not oppose the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010. Members are well aware of the Government's commitment to the implementation of the national workplace relations system. That commitment has not been given lightly. After the Howard Government's attempts to unilaterally wrest industrial relations power from the States and replace longstanding tried and tested State systems with the failure of WorkChoices, the New South Wales approach to participation and a national system was very cautious.

Before giving New South Wales' commitment, it was imperative that the final form of the Commonwealth's new Fair Work Act was consistent with New South Wales principles of a fair and productive industrial relations system. Those principles are the right of employers and employees to bargain to make workplace agreements without government dictating what can and cannot be agreed to, a fair minimum wage set by a truly independent tribunal after a public hearing, an up-to-date and comprehensive safety net for all workers that is written in plain English, an independent umpire with broad dispute-settling powers including disputes about dismissal, and special protections for vulnerable workers, including protection from exploitative contracting arrangements. These principles have been largely reflected in the Fair Work Act.

The New South Wales Government also considered it imperative that a national system could not be amended unilaterally by the Commonwealth. In contrast to the Howard Government's attempt at a harmonious and cooperative system, the current Commonwealth Government has recognised the role of the States as active and productive participants. The signing of bilateral and multilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and State governments has formally codified the participatory role of the New South Wales Government, establishing consultative requirements for the Commonwealth and a voting mechanism to prevent unilateral amendment.

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

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.45 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Government on its investment in cycleways and shared pathways;

(2) notes that cycling as a means of transport and recreation is good for the environment and good for our health; and

(3) condemns the Opposition for failing to acknowledge the Government's good work in this policy area.

Riding a bike is great. It can improve quality of life and reduce pollution by decreasing our reliance on driving. It is also the fourth most popular physical activity for adults. It can be undertaken by a wide variety of ages and fitness levels. It is affordable and it can be integrated into people's daily lives. It is a form of transport. A recent study commissioned by the Council of the City of Sydney states that every dollar spent on inner city cycleways delivers $3.88 in net economic benefits. The benefits of bike riding are clear, which is why it is an absolute priority for the New South Wales Government to encourage the people of New South Wales to start riding a bike.

To achieve that aim, the Government has instituted a number of cycling programs and initiatives that are set out in the New South Wales Bike Plan, which was recently announced by the Premier, Kristina Keneally. It is a plan for transforming cycling patterns throughout the State. It is a whole-of-government initiative that will be overseen by the Premier and the Premier's Council for Active Living. It describes the program's plan to build on the popularity of cycling so that our State becomes one of the greatest places in which to ride a bike. It is the largest plan of cycleway construction projects and encouragement strategies ever prepared for New South Wales.

As part of the plan, over the next 10 years priority cycleway paths will be funded in metropolitan Sydney, Sydney's river cities in Penrith, Liverpool and Parramatta, as well as in Newcastle and my home area of Illawarra. Of course, I would like to focus on the Illawarra. It is a beautiful place in which to ride a bike and it has many lovely cycleways. It is set to become an even better place in which to ride a bike with the release of the New South Wales Bike Plan. The bike plan will build on work that already has been undertaken in the Shellharbour electorate.

I inform the House of the fantastic work that has been done in my local electorate. In recent years important safety work has been undertaken in the area of the Macquarie Rivulet Bridge in Yallah to create greater protection for local cyclists. The work allows southbound cyclists to gain access to the footpath on the eastern side of the Macquarie Rivulet Bridge. Previously cyclists had to negotiate a very narrow section of the bridge. This is a great improvement and it has already been delivered by the Roads and Traffic Authority for cyclists in the Shellharbour electorate.

In Shellharbour last year the New South Wales Government transferred a parcel of land along the lake foreshore in Koonawarra to the Lake Illawarra Authority. This block of land was not being put to good use. However, transferring ownership of the land to the Lake Illawarra Authority enables the authority to continue its good work of building a shared pathway around the lake and transforming the land into an attractive recreational and tourist resource.

On top of this good work in Wollongong and Shellharbour, as part of the New South Wales Bike Plan, we will be extending the cycleway next to the Princes Highway with an initial focus on areas at Dapto and Albion Park. The Roads and Traffic Authority will be looking at improving access at the Windang Bridge cycleway and links to growth areas such as West Dapto, where I live, which already has great cycleways for families and children as part of the development. Projects in Kiama will include the completion of the shared pathway linking Gainsborough estate to Swamp Road. Cycling is a popular transport choice in the Illawarra and an attraction for major events in the region, such as the annual Sydney to the 'Gong charity bike ride, which attracts thousands of participants.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: I've been in that.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: Yes, it is a huge event on the cycling calendar. It is a large social event that attracts cyclists from every level, from elite cyclists to families that simply want to use the event as a social outing. We also have the Ride Around the Lake event, which is another opportunity for elite cyclists and families and kids to cycle around the lake, have a look at that beautiful tourist area, buy an ice-cream, and have a cup of coffee on the way. It is a great social day and a great opportunity for families to spend time together in an active way. As set out in the New South Wales Bike Plan, cycleways provide access to important community facilities in regional New South Wales, especially in lower density areas where riding a bike is often the best way to get around.

More than half of the international cycling tourists who come to Australia have New South Wales as their riding destination. Cycling tourists are a segment in the tourism market that cannot be underestimated or undervalued. To attract even more cycling tourists to New South Wales and to further develop cycling in rural and regional areas, we also have the New South Wales Coastline Cycleway Program. The New South Wales Coastline Cycleway Program provides grant funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis to non-metropolitan coastal councils for cycleway projects along an established coastline route. Work is already underway in the Shellharbour electorate to connect Shellharbour Village to Reddall Reserve at Lake Illawarra. This is a five-kilometre cycleway in the Illawarra. This program is being jointly delivered with Shellharbour City Council.

Recently the New South Wales Government provided a $242,500 grant for extension of the shared pathway over Little Lake. This is in addition to funding already provided for the project, taking the total funding for the project to about $846,000. That is a significant contribution to enable people to ride a bike from Shellharbour Village to the lake entrance opening, around to Oak Flats and onwards. It provides an opportunity for people who might want to ride, for example, from Oak Flats to Shellharbour Village, have a cup of coffee, buy something there and then ride home.

Mr Thomas George: I want it, too.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: I am not holding the member for Lismore here. Only yesterday Minister Kelly announced this year's round of grants to successful local councils. For example, it was announced that a key link between Jervis Bay and St Georges Basin will be delivered out of the Coastal Cycleway Program. When completed, the cycleway will link the population centres of Basin View, St Georges Basin and Sanctuary Point to the centres on Jervis Bay, Vincentia and Huskisson. Previously Shellharbour City Council has received $534,250 from the Coastline Cycleway Program, and this year's grant brings the figure to $604,000.

Mrs Shelley Hancock: Is that all?

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: I am pleased that the member for South Coast is here. She might want to thank the New South Wales Government for contributing to this cycleway in her electorate. But will she give credit where credit is due? No! She is a naysayer, a whinger, a whiner—and off she goes! The record is spinning but it is stuck in a groove. This is one example of the fantastic connections being delivered in partnership with local councils and the New South Wales Government.

More people riding bikes helps combat congestion in our cities and towns, reduces air pollution and has a positive impact on climate change. It also makes healthy physical activity a part of everyday life. Support for bike riders is at the heart of the New South Wales Government's plan for a healthier, cleaner and fairer State, making this a great place and time to get on a bike and start riding. I look forward to the contributions of members opposite. I am sure they will be full of negatives. They are all naysayers running down the State, rather than giving credit where credit is due and saying thank you.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [11.55 a.m.]: I move:

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

this House:

(1) congratulates local government and the communities of New South Wales on their investment in cycleways and shared pathways;

(2) notes that cycling as a means of transport and recreation is good for the environment and good for our health;

(3) condemns the Government for failing to contribute meaningful resources to this important community wellbeing issue;

(4) reminds the New South Wales public that the current Government has failed to meet its 10-year Action for Bikes plan across urban, regional and remote areas of the State; and

(5) notes continued traffic and transport congestion in our major city, with no major systemic plans or construction of decentralised infrastructure, including cycleways and shared pathways.

I suggest that the member for Shellharbour read the Action for Bikes plan. Nearly two million people across the country ride bikes. Cycling is a popular pastime and hobby for those who participate in sport and for wellbeing. One reason that cycling has increased in popularity across this State, particularly in this city, is traffic congestion. The Coalition supports any government or community that looks toward better infrastructure across our communities. At the start of the twentieth century the average speed of a vehicle travelling along Parramatta Road was 12 miles per hour. It is interesting to note that 100 years later the average speed along Parramatta Road is still 12 miles per hour on the old scale. So we know that our infrastructure has not improved, certainly with respect to motor vehicle travel.

One issue that has been left behind in New South Wales, particularly in more urbanised areas, is the advancement of bicycles. As the member for Shellharbour said, cycling is a healthy pastime and it is something we should be promoting. Cycling is a healthy, low-cost and environmentally friendly form of transport. It offers a flexible and low-impact alternative to the use of private motor vehicles. The bicycle precedes the motorcar as a popular and accessible form of private transport in Australia and is acknowledged as a legitimate form of sustainable transport that is growing in popularity for recreational, health, community and environmental reasons. That came from the section of the bike action plan relating to the Wollongong area. They also say that research has shown that 55 per cent of car trips and 67 per cent of car shopping trips are less than five kilometres in length and, therefore, cycling, is an extremely efficient alternative for trips under five kilometres.

The website of the Roads and Traffic Authority states that it funds a full range of cycling infrastructure and initiatives through its major work program and that infrastructure for cycling is considered in all major works. It is interesting that when I tried to click onto that page on the website, it would not open. Also missing in action on the Roads and Traffic Authority's website is its council co-funding programs and its grants funding. These are outlined as co-funded programs with memorandums of understanding between the Roads and Traffic Authority and local councils. I also could not open that page. What can be found on that website is cycleways, co-funding design and construction programs of on-road and off-road cycleway programs. That 10-year bike plan, which concludes this year, can be viewed. It was started in 1999 by the then roads Minister, Mr Carl Scully. Information concerning bike week, which is in December, can also be found on the website.

The cycling culture is growing. There are plans to develop tourism in and around bicycleways and shared pathways. Bikeways connect our communities and are an enormous untapped resource for travel between one locality and another. One of the reasons the Opposition has foreshadowed amendments goes to the very heart of the 10-year bike plan for New South Wales. That plan has four genuine aims, as set out by this Government. They revolve around extending the bike network, particular in the Sydney Basin area but also across the State, and improving bike facilities. It talks about developing intermodal facilities and making bike riding safer in our communities, a value which we would all aspire to encourage. It also talked about improving personal health and raising community awareness of cycling. Recently under the Federal stimulus package an announcement was made about cycling infrastructure in Sydney, which has been mentioned in this Chamber and goes to the heart of what the member for Shellharbour said. Minister Kelly announced a miserly $604,000 for cycling infrastructure in this State.

Ms Lylea McMahon: On the South Coast.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: In your area. The one announcement in relation to the stimulus package was $12 million, of which the Federal Government contributed $5.4 million to cycling infrastructure across Sydney and the remaining $7.5 million—

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: I am trying to help the member for Barwon. He should not mislead the House because the reference to—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! What is the member's point of order?

Ms Lylea McMahon: I am trying to assist the member because he is about to mislead the House. I am deeply concerned that he is going—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! No. That is not a point of order. I will give the member an opportunity to take an appropriate point of order.

Ms Lylea McMahon: The $604,000 was in relation to the electorate of the member for South Coast.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Shellharbour will have an opportunity to pursue those matters in her reply. The member will resume her seat.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: If Mr Kelly announces more funding across the State it would be welcomed. The fact is that the Federal Government contributed $5.4 million to a large cycling infrastructure project in Sydney and councils—not the State Government—contributed some $7.5 million. It was a $12 million project for this city alone, with not one cent coming from the State Government.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Yes.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: How can the State Government spruik that it is contributing to infrastructure across the regions? It is a shortfall. Bankstown, Blacktown, Campbelltown, Botany Bay, Hunters Hill, Liverpool, Manly, Marrickville, Parramatta, Rockdale, Ryde, Sutherland Shire, Sydney, Waverley and Wollondilly welcomed Federal Government funding but not one cent came from the State Government. One aspect of the BikePlan 2010, of which the Government seems so proud, was to establish more than 200 kilometres of cycleways and shared pathways across the State and in the Sydney Basin each year. If the member for Shellharbour can point to the establishment of 200 kilometres each year for the past 10 years I would be happy to acknowledge them.

In 1999 Carl Scully said that there would be a progress report and an annual review and report on Action for Bikes. The Opposition, as well as the two million cyclists across New South Wales, would also welcome that report. The $251 million program was announced 10 years ago and is to conclude this year. One asks: Where has the $251 million gone under this State Government? It appears that most of the infrastructure for cycleways and pathways in our communities are being funded by our own communities and not by this State Government.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I have great pleasure in welcoming to the gallery Mrs Linda Humphries, guest of the member for Barwon.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [12.05 p.m.]: Cycling is a great way to get around. It keeps our air clean, our bodies healthy and our streets moving and that is why the Government recently announced a new bike plan for New South Wales. BikePlan 2010 outlines how the announced funding in the Metropolitan Transport Plan totalling $158 million over 10 years for the Sydney Metro region, plus an additional $5 million each year for cycleway networks in rural and regional areas, will underpin efforts to promote bike riding in New South Wales communities.

Mrs Shelley Hancock: You didn't complete the first plan, Geoff!

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: That is why plans are updated. Work on the BikePlan involved extensive community and stakeholder consultation. This was facilitated by the peak community organisation, Bicycle New South Wales, which arranged six regional New South Wales workshops in order to receive input from bicycle user groups in local areas. The BikePlan follows on from the Government's strategic Metropolitan Transport Plan. The Metropolitan Transport Plan reiterates the Government's support for active transport. It recognises the opportunities presented by the growing level of bicycle ownership in New South Wales. Since 2009, for 10 years in a row, bicycle sales have outstripped car sales. To put it into numbers, in 2009 Australians bought more than 1,150,000 new bikes compared to 937,000 cars. This is a growing community and one that the Keneally Government is excited to be working with.

I could talk more about the State Plan and the Government's targets but I want to refer to my local electorate. The Government will reject the Opposition's amendments. I will leave it to the member for Shellharbour to detail in her reply the extensive reasons why they will be rejected. We have many keen bike riders in this Parliament, and Premier Keneally is probably the best known one. When my colleague, the member for Macquarie Fields, Dr Andrew Macdonald, stays in Sydney he rides his bike to Drummoyne. I also often see him and his wife cycling around the Menangle township. I do not want to leave out my good friend, the member for Clarence, who has his bike in his room at Parliament House. He used to ride his bike to Cronulla after he finished at Parliament. I always thought he was mad for doing that!

The Camden Bike Walkway is one of the most popular places in Camden. The walkway runs along the banks of the Nepean River and is utilised day in, day out by walking and cycling groups and individuals for their recreation. About a year ago I had my bike refurbished and have been riding around myself. Each year the New South Wales Government gives money to Camden council, as it does to all councils in New South Wales, to complete Camden council's bike plan. We will all be very pleased when the bike trail from Camden to Narellan is finished.

Camden has historical links to bike riding. The Goulburn to Sydney Cycle Classic, which has been going for over 100 years, now finishes in Camden because of the problems inherent in blocking off roads to the city, but we are slowly working towards having it finish outside Town Hall again. I am sure the Lord Mayor of Sydney will be happy to hear that. I wish her well in the public meeting that she is convening for Alan Jones and I am sure some of us will turn up to lend tacit support to the bike plan. The Staysafe committee, of which I am chairman, has recently announced an inquiry to commence in the next couple of months into vulnerable road users, which includes cyclists, motorcyclists and people on things like mobility scooters.

I am happy to support the motion moved by the member for Shellharbour. It highlights the benefits of cycling and, in fairness, the Opposition spokesperson outlined all of those benefits in an excellent way. We appreciate that he has taken the bipartisan approach of talking about the benefits of cycling. However, I am very disappointed in the proposed amendments. I commend the recently announced New South Wales BikePlan funding totalling $158 million over 10 years for the Sydney metropolitan region and an additional $5 million each year for cycleway networks in rural and regional areas, which will underpin our efforts to promote bike riding in New South Wales communities.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.10 p.m.]: I am a longstanding member of Bicycle New South Wales and would like to pay tribute to Professor Chris Rissel, the professor of public health at Sydney South West Area Health Service, who is a well-known proponent of cycling for health. We are determined as a government to complete the key cycling links across the city to encourage more trips by bicycle. Bicycle riding rates in developed countries saw steep declines from the 1950s, but bicycling has now returned, because no other commute leaves you healthier when you arrive than when you set out. There is well-known research on this.

Anderson's study in 2000, involving 30,000 people, showed a 40 per cent decreased risk of mortality for those who cycled to work. The health benefits of physical activity include increased life expectancy; physical fitness; energy; mental health; cognitive functioning—it is said that Einstein invented his famous E = mc² equation while riding his bicycle; social connectedness, and independent living for older adults. Physically active people are less likely to become overweight or obese and to develop cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, colon cancer, breast cancer, osteoporosis and depression. Physically active adults in the workforce have lower rates of absenteeism and increased job satisfaction.

The promotion of lifestyle physical activity, such as walking and cycling, is more cost-effective than structured exercise programs, and the regular short trips most people take to get around in their communities are ideal for accumulating three 10-minute periods of moderate to vigorous physical activity on most days. Thirty minutes of activity on most days per week are recommended for significant health benefits. Frequent short trips also contribute to reduced periods of sedentary behaviour, and this is associated with decreased metabolic risk factors such as adiposity, blood glucose and blood fats.

Commuter cycling has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality; improve physical fitness—especially for those with a low initial physical fitness level; have a favourable effect on body fat markers and body mass; reduce the risk of colon cancer, and breast cancer in women, and improve cancer survival; and to be associated with significant weight benefits. That is why the New South Wales Government has recently announced the New South Wales BikePlan. This is a plan that aims to transform cycling patterns in New South Wales. The reduction of bicycle riding since the 1950s has been disastrous for public health and that is why this plan will deliver new cycleways, but also encourage people to ride their bicycle. We will deliver a cycling website that is a portal to information about how to ride, where to ride, safety and maintenance.

In addition to socioeconomically disadvantaged population groups, other priority groups for the promotion of physical activity in Australia include women, adolescent girls and older adults. In countries with high rates of active travel, such as the Netherlands, these population groups achieve high levels of physical activity through active transport as a habitual part of daily life. The public health literature is quite clear that habitual activity is far better than structured exercise. The socially inclusive population-wide participation associated with active travel helps to explain the inverse relationship between active travel rates and obesity levels internationally.

We will roll out cycling skills and awareness training for adults and prepare teacher resources on student bike-riding skills. Walking and cycling carry a five to ten times higher risk of injury per kilometre travelled than driving a car. However, when viewed from the perspective of physical activity and health, the benefits in terms of life expectancy have been estimated to be 20 times the risk of injury for cycling. That is according to the British Medical Association in 1992 and that is why I am very pleased to see that the Staysafe committee is conducting an inquiry into vulnerable road users.

We will encourage all road users to share the road safely and respectfully. The NSW BikePlan is the most comprehensive package of actions to improve cycling in New South Wales that has ever been developed in this State. We have a Premier who rides to work and is committed to health and cycling. The NSW BikePlan is on top of the Roads and Traffic Authority's 50:50 local council and New South Wales Government program. Since 1999 there have been an average of 233 kilometres of cycleway every year in New South Wales. Over the last three years when I have cycled from Drummoyne, each year I see more cyclists on the road. The bicycle is back.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Thank you, doctor, for being so informative on the health advantages of cycling. I am going to buy a bike this afternoon.

Mr PETER BESSELING (Port Macquarie) [12.15 p.m.]: I am a great fan and supporter of people riding bikes and leading active and healthy lifestyles. We are blessed in my electorate of Port Macquarie to have such a beautiful place to be able to get around and enjoy active and healthy lifestyles. One of the impediments is infrastructure, not only footpaths for young and old people alike, but bicycle infrastructure, not only painted white lines along the sides of roads where people can ride road bikes, whether they are training for triathlons or just keeping fit, but also off-road bicycle infrastructure, which is very important to local communities up and down the coast and regional communities where people want to get out and about and enjoy the great lifestyles that we have.

Having lived in Japan for three years, I am well aware of how the use of bicycles can affect local communities. In areas like Japan and Holland it is great to see people get on their bikes. I remember visiting my great uncle, who was 75 years old, in Holland and he decided to go op de fiets, which means on the bike, and we proceeded across a turnip paddock and rode for probably five kilometres. This was a 75-year-old man who went about his daily business as we do here, but instead of jumping in a car he jumped on a bike and off he went—in the middle of winter—and it was great to see the fitness benefits he enjoyed as a result of it.

We had a stakeholder workshop in Port Macquarie on the New South Wales BikePlan and I would like to commend the people who were involved in that workshop: the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, which had huge input into it; the North Coast Area Health Service; the New South Wales Police Force; the National Parks and Wildlife Service; Tourism; a number of high schools, including Westport High School; the Chamber of Commerce; and mountain bike clubs, cycle clubs, triathlon clubs and cycleries around the place. I would also like to pay particular credit to Jai Cooper, who is very active in our area, particularly in the mountain biking arena. We have a plan for a mountain bike course in the middle of Port Macquarie and that will support a more active and healthy lifestyle for people. Well done, Jai. I refer now to the executive summary regarding the regional bike planning study for Port Macquarie, which states:

Most of the commercial activity occurs in the town centre, supplemented by a number of small neighbourhood shopping centres. The town is set in an attractive coastal location and as a consequence is a significant domestic tourism destination. It is also a place for lifestyle change or retirement and has a significant function in tertiary education and healthcare.

The current level of bicycle journey to work in Port Macquarie is on par with the NSW state average of 0.9%. This is significantly lower than all other Australian states and territories except Tasmania and also lower than most similar regional towns in NSW such as Ballina and Forster.

The executive summary says there is no disincentive to drive, a lack of visible cycling presence, incomplete cycling infrastructure, a small population, nowhere for tourists to cycle, and a sharp decline in cycling to school. This is a really important point. We need to encourage kids to ride to school. It is fundamental if we want them to adopt healthy and active lifestyles. We want them to eat well but we also want them to get out and about and enjoy the lifestyle that Port Macquarie offers. Tomorrow I will have the pleasure of helping with the Walking School Bus, which picks up kids on their way to school and encourages them to walk. We want to see that same application put towards bicycle paths in our area. We need the infrastructure in regional communities as a matter of urgency. It is important for healthy lifestyles that we get people out and about. I cannot emphasise that enough.

We also want tourists to be able to come and enjoy our beautiful areas on a bike. It would be terrific to see infrastructure such as the Googik Track through the middle of nature reserves so that people could enjoy those reserves on a bike. I commend the regional bike planning study for Port Macquarie but I think there is a lot more to be done.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.20 p.m.], in reply: Yet again we cannot rely on the Opposition to give us the facts in a debate. The member for Barwon had only just heard me speak about this issue but chose to quote the total amount of funding given to cycling as $600,000-odd, which I had clearly stated was the amount of money that had been allocated to the electorate of the member for South Coast. If he is interested in the facts, here they are: The New South Wales Action for Bikes—BikePlan 2010 outlines expenditure of a total of $158 million over 10 years. That is over $15 million a year. There is an additional $5 million each year for regional bike plan strategies, such as the one in the Illawarra, which takes the total to over $20 million a year. The member spoke about the past and asked what had been happening. I will tell him about the New South Wales BikePlan 2010.

The New South Wales Action for Bikes—BikePlan 2010 is a whole-of-government document outlining the priorities and plans for the Government going forward. It is a comprehensive plan that will deliver improvements to cycling infrastructure, cycling facilities and training as well as changing behaviours. The New South Wales Government has already demonstrated a commitment to cycling by delivering the majority of projects outlined in the Action for Bikes—BikePlan 2010. Since 1999 the New South Wales Government has spent approximately $400 million on cycling projects and programs against a BikePlan 2010 commitment of $251 million to 2009. That is $400 million against a planned projected outlay of $251 million. An average of 233 kilometres of cycleways have been built each year across the State versus the BikePlan 2010 commitment of 200 kilometres of cycleways each year. Yet again the facts are completely absent from the Opposition's contribution or completely ignored by them. Yet again I am able to stand here and say that the New South Wales Labor Government is delivering for the people of the State and delivering for cyclists, and will continue to do so.

I thank the member for Camden for his contribution to the debate. I will refer to individual electorates to outline what has been delivered under the BikePlan. A cycleway alongside the Nepean River has been jointly funded, with the cycleway from Camden to Narellan nearing completion. The Government has also supported the Goulburn to Sydney Cycle Classic. These things are happening in the member for Camden's electorate. In my electorate over $800,000 of funding has been provided from the coastal cycleways program to connect Shellharbour village to Reddall Reserve at the lake entrance, which connects with the round-the-lake cycleway. People can ride around the lake to Shellharbour village, have a cup of coffee, go shopping, stop for lunch and ride home, all along a shared pathway. This is what the New South Wales Government is delivering for cyclists in this State.

The member for Macquarie Fields referred to the fitness and health benefits of cycling. We all know this and it is certainly known to those people who are avid cyclists. It is an active, healthy lifestyle and a great activity for families to do together, particularly on a Sunday afternoon, by going for a ride along the bike paths. In my suburb there are great bike paths that connect the school to the playing fields and parks and down to the railway station, where there are storage facilities. So if people want to catch a train or go somewhere on the bus they can store their bike at the station. The Government is carrying out a whole range of activities. Our commitment to bike paths and cycling in this State is second to none. Again, the Opposition has its facts wrong. It is wrong on this and wrong on everything.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

[In division]

The SPEAKER: Order! There has been a problem with the lifts. I order that the doors be opened.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that 25 to 29 May 2009 was Education Week;

(2) congratulates our teachers, parents and students for ensuring that the New South Wales public education system is first class;

(3) commends the State and Federal governments for their record investment in schools;

(4) notes that this record investment is an investment in the future generations and the long-term economic prosperity of this State; and

(5) condemns the State and Federal Opposition for their failure to recognise the drivers of economic growth and prosperity and their failure to support investment in public education.

Each year Education Week demonstrates exactly why the New South Wales public education system leads this country. In the past financial year this Government has spent $14.7 billion on the State's education system. That is underpinned by the greatest ever investment in public education from the Commonwealth Government—a refreshing change after a decade of underinvestment under the Howard Government. This Government is continuing to work hard to provide quality infrastructure for the State's students and teachers. The Building the Education Revolution Program continues to benefit schools across New South Wales.

The Building the Education Revolution Program is a $16.2 billion investment from the Commonwealth Government to improve the quality of facilities in Australian schools and to support important jobs in our communities and across this State in the construction industry. In New South Wales this translates to a $3.4 billion funding boost that will be delivered to schools and to school communities. Every eligible school in New South Wales will receive Building the Education Revolution funding under several programs. This funding is in addition to the record funding provided by the New South Wales Government towards building and maintaining New South Wales schools, including the $2 billion Building Better Schools initiative and the $150 million Principals Priority Building Program.

The achievement of which we can be most proud is our progress under the $287 million National School Pride component of the Building the Education Revolution stimulus package, which funds minor capital works and the refurbishment of existing school areas. Not only have all projects commenced—nearly 2,200 in total, an enormous number of projects—but nearly all are finished. The National School Pride program, the first component of the Building the Education Revolution, is benefiting students across this State through school upgrades of most-needed facilities.

In my electorate of Shellharbour over $3 million has gone into public schools under the National School Pride program alone. Students in every school are benefiting from facilities upgrades—the small projects that mean the most to school communities. The most substantial component of the Building the Education Revolution is the Primary Schools for the 21st Century Program, which is providing new facilities such as gymnasiums, halls, libraries and extra classrooms. Over 70 per cent of the projects have commenced under this component, and works at 142 schools already have been completed. In the Shellharbour electorate over $20 million is being invested into local schools. Halls, classrooms and libraries are being built across the Illawarra to benefit local students, local families and, importantly, to keep local tradespeople in work. Clearly, this does not interest the Opposition at all, based on the chitchat opposite. They are not interested in keeping tradespeople employed, not interested in investing in public education, and not interested in supporting our school students and their parents.

Without this stimulus program students in New South Wales public schools would not receive these new facilities, and thousands of workers would be looking for work. Building the Education Revolution is an enormous program. It is the largest single investment in public schools in over 50 years. It is to the credit of everyone concerned that it has operated largely without problems. Members opposite may refer to high-profile cases but I say this to them: Firstly, all complaints were, and are being, thoroughly investigated. The vast majority of cases were found to be either baseless or the product of flawed reasoning. For example, schools claimed to have found bargain-basement prices for projects, but almost without exception those lower quotes had omitted crucial costings. In one case the contractor did not even include the foundations in his quote, and suggested that the building be tied down as a safety precaution. I have heard the claims from the Opposition: it costs $500,000 to build a house. All I say is: put 500 students in it for half an hour and see how it goes.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! Members will not converse across the Chamber. This is a debate. I remind the member for Lismore that he will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: Thank you, Mr Assistant-Speaker, for bringing the member for Lismore to order. The number of concerns raised in the context of a program of this size and scope were absolutely minimal. The number of concerns found to be legitimate were even smaller. In the past year we have overseen one of the largest, most complex and most expensive capital works projects in the history of this State, and we have done it well. The facilities we have built will stand the test of time. Like the other great infrastructure projects delivered by Labor governments, they will continue to be delivered and will survive for future generations. As well as Building the Education Revolution, the New South Wales Government is investing in its own capital works program—the $2 billion Building Better Schools Program, which was announced in 2007.

This program has focused on building and redeveloping science laboratories and vocational education and training facilities in our high schools. We are building and refurbishing over 800 science laboratories in 155 schools across the State at a cost of $145.4 million over four years. I was pleased to have secured science upgrades for four of the five high schools in my electorate. Kanahooka High School science labs have been upgraded, completed and opened; Oak Flats High School science upgrades have been completed and opened; and Lake Illawarra and Warilla high schools science lab upgrades are underway and nearing completion for opening. All of these projects are going super well, which is fantastic.

Indeed, I was delighted recently to visit Kanahooka High School to officially open its upgraded science facilities. These new facilities, along with other Government commitments to our public schools, will provide students with the best resources to tackle the demands of the twenty-first century. Teachers have praised the quality and flexibility associated with the upgrades. I am sure that the students have been impressed by these new learning environments. All the laboratories have the latest in technological tools to engage students in their learning. In an era of declining interest in some areas of scientific endeavour, I hope these new facilities will encourage our young students to renew their interest in this particularly critical discipline. This is yet another example of the New South Wales Labor Government's investment in public education and its commitment to ensuring the best education for all students. During Education Week last year I was principal for a day at Mount Brown Public School. That school is getting a new hall. I cannot describe the delight the students, parents and teachers expressed that day when they heard that as part of Building the Education Revolution they would be getting a new hall.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast) [12.46 p.m.]: I am compelled to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) with a view to inserting instead:

(3) congratulates the State Opposition on its support of teachers and parents during the recent National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy test controversy; and

(4) condemns the State and Federal governments for the mismanagement of the Building the Education Revolution.

Mr Kerry Hickey: You and Baird Santa Claus.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Do the parents know that you want to give the halls back?

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK: I will start being nice if you try to be a bit smarter.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! As I said earlier, members will not converse across the Chamber. This is a debate.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr Assistant-Speaker, for asking the members opposite to show some restraint. I commend the member for Shellharbour for moving the motion, especially paragraphs (1) and (2), but my amendment was necessary to correct some of the errors and misinformation in the remainder of the motion and, of course, the politicisation of education in this State, which should not happen. Paragraph (1) notes that 25 to 29 May last year was Education Week. An edifying fact, but it is hardly groundbreaking news. Nevertheless, I am certain that all members from both sides of this place regularly visit schools in their electorates, not just in Education Week. We all are aware of the wonderful work that parents, teachers and students do in their schools. Just last week I visited Culburra Community Preschool in my electorate and was delighted with some of the changes it has made in relation to waterwise initiatives and electricity-saving devices to improve efficiency and reduce power costs to the preschool.

In regard to paragraph (2) of the motion, I certainly join with the member for Shellharbour in congratulating teachers, parents and students on the outstanding New South Wales public education system. It is a shame that none of the Illawarra members of Parliament, including the member for Shellharbour, could translate a motion such as the one we are debating into a real commitment to teachers and support for them. I cite the example of an Illawarra forum on the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] and its problems that was organised by the Illawarra Teachers Federation. Every single Illawarra parliamentary representative sent an apology. It was a huge forum, and the absence of members opposite was noted and criticised. Of course, I attended, and so did the Greens member of the Legislative Council Dr John Kaye. The forum discussed the potentially damaging effects of the NAPLAN tests and their potential to be constructed into very damaging league tables. I encourage members opposite to attend those types of forums in future.

We saw what happened after the release on the MySchool website of NAPLAN results. NAPLAN became the basis of very crude league tables that were published in the Illawarra Mercury. I hope the member for Shellharbour was concerned about some of the schools in her electorate that obviously were demoralised by the publication. It is a shame that Illawarra parliamentary representatives could not show support for their teachers at that time. In contrast to that, I was compelled to move an amendment in the light of the State Opposition's real support for teachers and parents during the recent NAPLAN test controversy. Throughout many meetings with teachers and parents members of the Opposition listened to the concerns of teachers regarding NAPLAN testing. We understand that while NAPLAN tests are an important component of any testing regime—we accept they are important in a school and as a diagnostic tool for teachers—they should not be used alone as the basis of comparison between schools. I have made that point many times in this place previously.

Mr David Harris: Hear! Hear!

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK: Featured in the most recent copy of the Education Gazette, which I am sure is read regularly by members opposite, are comments by our own shadow Minister to Education, Adrian Piccoli. It is important for his comments to be stated for the record. Under the headline "Parties take their stands on league tables", the article states:

From the very beginning the NSW Liberals and Nationals have taken a very strong, principled stand against the publication of simplistic school league tables.

NSW is the only State that has any kind of legislative protection in place to prevent the misuse of NAPLAN and My School data, by making it an offence for newspapers to publish simplistic league tables. The amendment, which passed through the NSW Parliament because of our support and our strong advocacy, has been controversial.

Even though Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard and NSW Minister for Education Very Firth say they don't support league tables, they have done nothing to stop them being created and published.

Surely Ms Gillard and Ms Firth have access to the same international evidence and experience that NSW Liberals and Nationals MPs and members of school communities have …

I pay credit to the Greens' Dr John Kaye. Mr Assistant-Speaker, I ask you to direct the member opposite to contain her comments, which she will have time to make during her reply, rather than interjecting as she is at the moment, which is pretty offensive.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I note that although the member for Shellharbour is interjecting, the interjections are not robust. Dare I say that the member for South Coast is often guilty of such behaviour?

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK: That is a disgraceful thing for you to say, Mr Assistant-Speaker! Dr John Kaye stated in the article:

Schools are not businesses and education is not a commodity. It is 2010 and it should not be necessary to have to assert again the basic truth that the intellectual, moral and cultural development of the nation's young people is a public good.

Yet necessary it is, as Australia's state and federal education ministers wilfully ignore the warnings of teachers, parents and education academics and persist with the publication of the average NAPLAN scores of each school on the My School website.

Dr Kaye's comments are very edifying. Government members should read the comments of both Adrian Piccoli and John Kaye. I know that the member for Shellharbour and others have no choice but to be apologists for the Government instead of being representatives of teachers in this State, and I sympathise. However, that controversy seems to be over, having been resolved in some part, but the Opposition will be watching the actions of the Federal Minister for Education to ensure that she keeps to her word regarding consultation with teachers.

The member for Lismore, who is present in the Chamber, will address part four of my amendment in his discussion of some of the projects carried out in his electorate under Building the Education Revolution [BER]. We should have a very full and frank discussion about the issue. I am sure all Opposition members could raise instances of the gross waste of public money represented by the Federal Government's failure and mismanagement of the BER program. It is not just the New South Wales Opposition or people who discuss the issue on radio that are talking about it—such as Ray Hadley, who has provided some pretty forensic scrutiny of the BER—but also principals who are talking about what has happened through the BER in their areas. Their comments should be noted very carefully:

At the recent public hearing for the Senate Inquiry into the Primary Schools for the Twenty First Century (P21) program, Cassilis [Public School] principal Ross Craven and Hastings [Public School] principal Grant Heaton appeared as witnesses for Federation. Federation's submissions to the Inquiry cited 27 case studies of schools whose members had contacted the union about issues related to their P21 building projects.

It should be noted that previously the member for Shellharbour stated there were just a few examples of problems with the BER. That is simply not true. We all recognise that when things are constructed in our schools we are all very pleased, but we do not want to see a project being mismanaged as BER projects have been. The article refers to some of the issues faced by the Cassilis Public School. The school was allocated $250,000 for an amenities block under the BER program but Mr Craven, who is the principal, was not satisfied with what the school received. The article states:

Specifically:

he was not shown a diagram of the block prior to seeing the builders' copy on February 24, 2010;

taps and bubblers were not included in the new block until complaints were made;

the existing amenities block was removed without prior warning and the drinking water facilities that had been verbally promised before the removal were not provided …

The Hastings Public School was allocated $3 million under the BER for two permanent classrooms to replace two demountables that had been on-site since 1985 and a covered outdoor learning area over its netball court. The article states:

Mr Heaton requested that the two-classroom block be extended to four rooms to meet growing enrolment and to accommodate all children in permanent classrooms. To cover any additional cost, the school was prepared to forgo the construction of the COLA.

Of course, that did not happen. Those schools are just two examples, but they are pretty well indicative of the BER mismanagement throughout the State. Members opposite should accept and reflect on what has happened. The enormous waste of money in this State should not have occurred. The program could have been managed in a far better way.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [12.56 p.m.]: I am very pleased to support the motion. As a father of two young children who attend one of the local public schools in my electorate I have seen first hand the great work of local public schools and the work they do in promoting and supporting the education of young people. The celebration of Education Week last year was a great success in my electorate. Education Week last year was held from 25 to 29 May and had a strong focus on the environment and initiatives being undertaken in our schools to promote environmental sustainability.

Education Week 2009 was launched on 25 May 2009 using a live cross to schools across New South Wales, which gave over 500 students the chance to demonstrate their ideas and achievements for a sustainable future. It was a very significant event. Everyone in the largest public education system in the southern hemisphere was encouraged to get involved in the Education Week celebrations. I am sure that everyone will agree that Education Week 2009 was a success and that Education Week 2010 will be another great success.

This year Education Week will be held from Monday 2 August to Friday 6 August 2010. The focus for Education Week this year will be on New South Wales public schools leading the way. It will showcase the State's Year of Learning for Sustainability. Events for Education Week 2010 are still being planned but the Principal for a Day, Director General for a Day and the Back to School programs will feature once again. I look forward to Education Week 2010. I encourage all members and their communities to participate.

The New South Wales education system is first class compared with those of other countries and other States and Territories around Australia. For example—as I am sure members opposite will be interested to know—the well-regarded Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Program of International Student Assessment ranked New South Wales 15 year olds among the best in the world in reading, maths and science. Australia's National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] also shows that New South Wales compares extremely well against other jurisdictions in Australia. New South Wales is almost always ranked in the top three jurisdictions with the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria on all measures. New South Wales is also almost always significantly above the remaining jurisdictions and the Australian average.

For example, in last year's National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy tests New South Wales was ranked first in year 3 spelling, first in year 5 spelling and numeracy, and first in year 7 spelling and year 9 spelling. New South Wales performed very well in spelling and ranked first on every indicator and at every year level in this field. New South Wales also performed very well at the top end of numeracy where it was ranked first at all year levels, with an equal first in year 3. Furthermore, New South Wales has increased its performance over time. The New South Wales overall mean score in year 3 and year 5 reading, year 3 grammar and punctuation, and year 5 numeracy increased by about 10 score points or more from their corresponding means in 2008. All of these increases were statistically significant.

New South Wales relies on the strong performance of its public education system to achieve these impressive results. For this, the teachers, parents and students should be acknowledged. Their performance reflects on the education system as a whole. It is a testament to the aptitude and perseverance of students, the engagement and commitment of their parents and, importantly, the quality, perseverance and dedication of their teachers. The New South Wales Government and the current Federal Government are to be commended for their record investment in schools. For example, in 2009-10 the New South Wales Labor Government is investing a record $14.7 billion in education and training, which is 25 per cent of the total New South Wales budget.

When I started working for the former member for Hurstville, the education budget in 1994-95 was less than $5 billion. In the intervening period the education budget has virtually tripled, to nearly $15 billion. Funding for schools is particularly important. The New South Wales Government is an enthusiastic partner in the National Partnership. In fact, we have allocated $238 million of new State funding to expand the reach of National Partnership reforms in New South Wales schools. All up, that means that more than $1.2 billion in new funding will flow into the New South Wales education system that is specifically focused on initiatives that have an impact inside the classroom. The partnerships are a commitment beyond one or two budget cycles, demonstrating the long-term commitment of the Rudd and Keneally governments to education reform. [Time expired.]

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [1.01 p.m.]: I am proud to speak on the amendment moved by the member for South Coast. When the member for Shellharbour reintroduced the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill she said that the Government is listening. In the previous week she had told us that the bill was good legislation but the Opposition voted against it, then she reintroduced the bill with amendments. Why? Because the Opposition pressured the Government to amend the legislation. This motion should be amended.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: I am curious about the relevance of the member's contribution to the motion we are debating.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for Lismore has the call.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: My point is that the Government amends legislation after listening to different people. I am referring to the Building the Education Revolution program. At one school in Lismore the total cost of a new building was $893,000. The modular cost of the building was $339,853. Where has the rest of the money gone? The member for Shellharbour should explain that in her reply.

Mr David Harris: They had to get it to the site.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I am sorry?

Mr David Harris: They had to get it to the site.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! Members will not engage in discussion across the table. They will debate the motion. Members will behave in an orderly fashion.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I am pleased that the member for Wyong indicated that it cost $500,000 to get the building to the site. The member for Shellharbour said that the Government had audited all government schools and all of them were happy. Although not one school has complained about having work done, many schools have complained about the quantity of the work supplied for the amount of dollars paid. The member for Wyong has indicated that associated costs amounted to $500,000.

Mr David Harris: Point of order: I did not quote a figure. I said that part of the cost was transportation. The member for Lismore asked what was included in the cost. It includes transportation, site management, occupation health and safety, training, all those sorts of things.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Wyong has made his point. The member for Lismore has the call.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I will debate the figure of $500,000. Where has the money gone? That is exactly what everyone in this State is asking the Government. Recently I visited Tweed Valley College in Murwillumbah, which has had a multipurpose centre built at a cost of $850,000. Government members should visit the school and see what has been built for $850,000. I agree that non-government schools have not complained, because they have run their projects and managed them properly. Kyogle Public School received a hall that cost $2 million, but it cannot seat all the students. It has had to cut back $100,000 because it is over budget. A covered walkway has been removed from the project because it is over budget. I will take members to Tweed Valley College at Murwillumbah and show them what has been built for $850,000. I defy anyone in this House to see the difference in the buildings, but for the cost—$850,000 and $2 million. Government members say there are no problems. However, the inquiry will find that there are problems.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.06 p.m.]: I congratulate the member for Shellharbour on moving this motion. Education Week is a time when schools across New South Wales are able to showcase their wonderful work with our young people and demonstrate in an open way to the community the types of programs their schools are running. I am more and more impressed by the large number of programs our schools, both primary and secondary, are running. Young people now have more opportunities than ever, and all because of carefully crafted policy by the New South Wales Government and now assistance from the Rudd Federal Government. Our schools recognise that young people require skills that will take them into the future and that will assist them when seeking a job; consequently they are now leaving secondary school with a certificate and qualifications that they can use when they enter the workforce.

Just last week when I was at Brisbane Water Secondary College with the member for Gosford and the Minister for Education and Training, Ms Verity Firth, I went to the new trade training centre for aged care nursing. The "ward" that had been set up with showers and other facilities to train students in aged care nursing dumbfounded me. While doing their Higher School Certificate academic subjects students could also obtain a certificate in aged care nursing—an area of great need—through TAFE to prepare them for the workforce. The establishment of such a facility in the new trade school was incredible. Earlier that day we saw the brand new school hall at Wyong Grove Public School, which was downgraded from a P4 to a P5—a project of the Building the Education Revolution—yet members of the Opposition say they are upset with the Building the Education Revolution projects.

Under previous classifications Wyong Grove Public School never would have had a school hall. The president of the parents and citizens association said that the schoolchildren were excited by the new facility. She said her own children, who are not always keen to go to school, rose at 6.00 a.m. that day and got dressed because that day they could dance on the stage of their new hall for the first time. That is what the building program is all about. When the Federal Government stimulated the economy it thought the money it injected would be best spent on our young people. There is no more important asset to our community than our young people. They now have new classrooms, halls, libraries, toilet blocks, canteens and a whole range of other facilities that they would not otherwise have had if this program had not been rolled out.

It is time for people to step back and have a good, close, hard look and know that sometimes money has to be spent to get facilities that otherwise may not be provided. There has been criticism that too much money was spent on the program, but the everyday education of our young people will be better because they now have access to such facilities. I am happy to support the Building the Eduction Revolution program. I am happy to go to the schools and see the smiles on the faces of our young people. On a wet rainy day I saw the smiles on the faces of the children in the kindergarten-year one class as they practised their dance for the Central Coast dance eisteddfod in a hall that they did not expect to have. Yet all we hear from the Opposition is criticism of this program.

When I worked in schools the former Federal Government gifted us with poles on which to fly our flag and programs, such as Values Education, which is very important. However, if my school had not run a Values Education forum the Government would have withheld funds from my school. The current Federal and New South Wales governments provide new facilities for our schools. In August during Education Week we can visit our schools to see the work of our young people and the wonderful facilities that the Building the Education Revolution program has provided.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.11 p.m.], in reply: The most important aspect of this motion is the investment in our children and our future. I thank the member for Wyong for drawing that to the attention of the House in such a concise way. Had the Opposition had its way it would not have supported such a program. The Federal Opposition wants to stop this record investment in our public schools. If it were left to the Federal Liberal Party it would cut $3 billion from the Building the Education Revolution program, which provides critical infrastructure for our public schools to ensure that the quality education we deliver is second to none. The program ensures that important construction jobs are delivered in this State when the economy is struggling globally. The value of that investment, not only in our schools and children but also in the economy through jobs and the community, cannot be underestimated. If left to the member for South Coast or the member for Lismore it would not happen.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Government is sending this country into so much debt! How will you pay for it? Tell everyone.

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

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: However, it is interesting that the only complaints we get are from constituents from their electorates—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I call the member for Lismore to order.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: I suggest that if members opposite did their job, visited their schools and spoke to teachers and principals, they could identify the problems and have them fixed. How hard is that? The Opposition argues the program is too expensive. These facilities have to last not one day or one year but 20 or 50 years. If members opposite took 500 children into their living rooms for five minutes, half an hour or seven hours, five days a week, what would their house look like?

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: I appreciate the challenge from the member for Shellharbour. I have a school hall at Whyalla Road that 500 kids can't fit into.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! There is no point of order. The member for Lismore had an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: There are no better teachers in this country than those in New South Wales public schools. The Australian National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] also shows that New South Wales compares extremely well with other Australian jurisdictions. New South Wales is almost always ranked in the top three jurisdictions with the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria on all measures. New South Wales is almost always significantly above the remaining jurisdictions and the Australian average. For example, in the 2009 NAPLAN test New South Wales was ranked first in year 3 spelling, first in year 5 spelling and numeracy, and first in years 7 and 9 spelling. New South Wales performed very well in spelling and ranked first on every indicator and at every level in this field. New South Wales has increased its performance over time on mean scores in years 3 and 5 reading, in year 3 grammar and punctuation, and year 5 numeracy, all because of the quality—

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order: The New South Wales Australian Labor Party and the Federal Australian Labor Party are ripping billions and billions of dollars off taxpayers under the Building the Education Revolution.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! There is no point of order. The member for Hawkesbury will resume his seat.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: We have a quality education system supported by the New South Wales Government but not supported by the Opposition.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

[The Speaker left the chair at 1.27 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The SPEAKER: I extend a warm welcome to Mr Anthony Nene, MP, Vice Minister for Public Service and member for Oro in the Papua New Guinea Parliament. He is a guest of the member for Miranda. Welcome to the Parliament.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron—Premier, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo) [2.21 p.m.]: I rise today in a dual capacity as Premier, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo on a matter that is beyond politics. The adversarial nature of our parliamentary system means that we spend most of our hours in this place taking opposing positions. There are times, however, when the issue is beyond dispute and when the desire to act is unanimous. There is much to be praised about life in New South Wales. There is so much for a child who is growing up in New South Wales to be optimistic about. But, tragically, it remains a fact that not all children can share this optimism equally A child growing up in Cobar deserves every ounce of the opportunity and optimism that are afforded to a child of Concord or Caringbah.

Today we jointly acknowledge the disadvantage that our indigenous families and communities continue to face in health, education and employment, and we commit to ending this disadvantage together. We join the Commonwealth and the State governments of Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. We will work together in close partnership with Aboriginal communities to obtain equality in health and life expectancy.

The statement of intent that we sign today is part of the Close the Gap campaign initiated by Oxfam and supported by the leading Australian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal health peak bodies and human rights organisations. It calls for Australian governments to take action to achieve health equality for Aboriginal Australians over the next 20 years. While this is a matter of importance to all Australians and the national effort, it is of particular importance to communities in New South Wales. New South Wales has the largest Aboriginal population of any State or Territory in Australia: around one in three Aboriginal people live in New South Wales. In fact, there are more Aboriginal people in New South Wales than in the Northern Territory and Western Australia combined.

I welcome the bipartisan approach of this Parliament today. Today we commit to a comprehensive, long-term plan of action to achieve equality of health and life expectancy by 2030; creating primary health care services to bridge the gap in health standards by 2018; ensuring the full participation of Aboriginal Australians in addressing health needs; working together to address the social determinants that impact health equality for Aboriginal Australians; working on an evidence base and supporting what works in Aboriginal health, and supporting and developing Aboriginal community controlled health services to achieve lasting improvements in Aboriginal health; achieving improved access to health services for Aboriginal people; respecting and promoting the rights of Aboriginal peoples, including by ensuring that health services are available, appropriate, accessible, affordable and of good quality; and measuring, monitoring and reporting on our joint efforts to ensure that we are realising this shared ambition.

This commitment is in addition to the Council of Australian Governments Indigenous Reform Agenda to which New South Wales has committed significant funding. That funding includes a commitment of new funding above $180 million over four years to closing the gap in indigenous health outcomes; $22 million over five years to indigenous early childhood development; $19 million over four years to the Building Strong Foundations for Aboriginal Children program; and $15 million for the enhancement of the existing housing and accommodation support initiative. While there is much that we have done we know that there is much that falls to us to do. The gap in health outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Australia remains a glaring mark against our legacy as a society.

Like all decent societies, we in New South Wales measure our success by how we all share in our prosperity and how we all get a fair go. It has long been the benchmark of decent societies. The words that were written by John Donne in 1624 remain as relevant today as ever, "No one is an island, each is part of the main, for I am part of mankind." When a community of our State is disadvantaged we all stand diminished. Today we unite to end that disadvantage and, as a House, we stand as better servants of the communities that we represent.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [2.26 p.m.]: I contribute to debate on this matter not just as the Leader of the Opposition. Today I am sure that I speak on behalf of the Independent members in this place, including you, Mr Speaker. I contribute to this debate also as the member for Ku-ring-gai—one of the few Aboriginal names that exist within this Chamber. I say historically that I wholeheartedly support all the remarks of the Premier. Of course, this Chamber was the first Chamber in the nation to offer an apology to the first Australians, an apology that was offered unanimously. We are now 10 years on from that magnificent march of more than a million people over Sydney Harbour Bridge, where members of The Nationals, the Liberals and Labor, and Independent members stood side by side as they marched towards a goal that we still want to achieve.

Mr Speaker, you know that every day we acknowledge in this place that the land upon which we stand was, is, and always will be Aboriginal land. We do so out of respect. But there is much more that must be done if we are genuinely to achieve reconciliation, and if we are to attain the goal of full equality for our first Australians. On behalf of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition, and I am sure on behalf of all members in this House, today I am pleased to recommit myself to those goals. Within the few minutes available to us we cannot reflect in detail on Aboriginal disadvantage.

I suggest that members refer to the matter of public importance that was debated in this Chamber on Tuesday in which the member for Barwon, the member for Macquarie Fields and the member for Broken Hill participated, if they want a further snapshot of the gap that we are seeking to close. It is a gap that, amongst other things, sees Aboriginal Australians die 16 years earlier than the rest of the community; a gap that sees women subject to interpersonal, as it is called, or domestic violence at a rate 13 times higher than the rest of the community; and a gap that sees young Aboriginal children aged under five die at a rate twice the State average.

These horrific figures simply remind us that we have to be realistic. We will not eradicate two centuries of indigenous disadvantage overnight. It will need a commitment—a bipartisan commitment that we are prepared to offer in this place but, more importantly, in similar Chambers around the country. It will require full-time and consistent effort by everyone, whether they are members of Parliament, public servants, workers, business owners or simply members of the community. Unless it is in our hearts it will not be achieved.

I should like to make some personal remarks for a moment. I am conscious, for the benefit of the member for Canterbury, that this is not a New South Wales experience. Because of my father's army career I finished my schooling in Darwin. I had the great advantage of being educated with Aborigines from northern Australia. I want to talk about one. His name was Stan Tilpoloura. He was an enormously tall man, even as a kid. He was big-hearted, generous and committed. He taught us much about the Tiwi islands from which he came. He was a man who loved his culture, his language and Bathurst Island, which was his home. He became a leader—President of the Tiwi Land Council. He was elected for the Labor Party to the Northern Territory Assembly as the member for Arafura. Stan Tilpoloura was elected in 1987 and re-elected in 1990, but never completed that second term because he died at the age of 35 from kidney disease.

Kidney disease is endemic across the Tiwi communities. The rate of serious kidney failure and death from kidney disease was amongst the highest of anywhere in the world. That is the personal gap we need to close. That is what this is about. It is not about fine words from both sides; it is about achieving results. Thanks to the Darwin Menzies School of Health Research and Dr Wendy Hoy, research was undertaken and a program has been put in place to tackle kidney disease on the Tiwi islands. With community oversight and a non-judgemental and non-authoritarian approach, the program has had remarkable success not just in the Tiwi islands but also across northern Australia. That is closing the gap. That program was supported not only by the Kidney Foundation, but a mining company contributed almost half a million dollars towards it.

Reconciliation has no meaning if it is not aimed at achieving equality of opportunity, life expectancy, education and life choices. No legislation, no motion and no signing will achieve that. It will take what is in our hearts. It will take a full-time effort that must be remembered every day, whether we are on this side of the House or on that side, or whether we are members of the public sitting in the gallery. Unless we have that commitment and determination, the goal of full equality, of reconciliation and of genuinely allowing people like Stan Tilpoloura to live a full life will not be achieved.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron—Premier, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo) [2.32 p.m.]: By leave of the House, I will join the Leader of the Opposition in signing this commitment.

Leave granted.

The SPEAKER: I invite the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to sign the statement of intent. I will arrange for the statement of intent to be located in Speaker's Square so that any member may sign it.

The Premier and the Leader of the Opposition signed the statement of intent.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I inform the House that the Minister for Police, and Minister for Finance will answer questions today in the absence of the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Rural Affairs, who is inspecting tornado-affected homes and working with our volunteers to assist affected families on the North Coast. The thoughts and prayers of this House are with those families. We are working round the clock to get them back on their feet as soon as possible. I will be leaving after question time to join the Minister in Lennox Head this evening.

[Question time commenced at 2.35 p.m.]

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. How can the Minister pretend that public school Building the Education Revolution costs cannot be compared to those of Catholic schools because, to use her words, "New South Wales Government project costs include pre-design, site preparation, statutory planning approvals, furniture and fixtures" when, despite the huge difference in value for money between the two sectors, the Catholic system pays for exactly those costs in its projects?

Ms VERITY FIRTH: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it is important that we explain what is going on and have a debate that is not driven by hyperbole and misrepresentation. It is difficult to understand how these comparisons of square metre construction rates between public and Catholic schools are made.

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

Ms VERITY FIRTH: I have seen no information about the methodology used to calculate the square metre rates for Catholic schools. We have a good relationship with the Catholic Education Commission and with Catholic schools in this State. I know that construction in Catholic schools is of a high standard. However, it is important to point out that halls, for example, are difficult to compare between our systems. Halls in public schools are constructed in accordance with our strict schools facilities standards to include features such as sprung timber floors, hearing loops, special acoustic equipment, permanent stages, toilets and storage facilities. I understand that halls constructed in Catholic schools may include some of these features, all of these features or none of these features.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister has been asked a question. Members will listen to her response in silence.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: This is exactly what the Catholic Education Commission tells us. That makes global price comparison impossible because Catholic school halls may include some of these features, all of these features or none of these features. Because every school site and every project is different, comparisons are difficult to make without taking these details into account. It is important also to note that we have school facilities standards for a reason. It means we are building great structures that are complete and ready to use on completion and will not burden future maintenance budgets.

When we build to school facilities standards we provide features such as sprung timber floors in halls to protect young bodies and joints because our halls are not just assembly spaces but also learning and exercise spaces. We provide non-slip flooring for safety. We provide heavy-duty, long-lasting, non-allergenic carpet for health and durability. Two layers of insulation are placed in ceiling spaces along with heavy-duty ventilators for temperature moderation to ensure that facilities are comfortable and energy efficient. Our buildings are designed to last the distance. The students of New South Wales public schools deserve no less. But I must say, as I have said many times previously in this House, the question is pretty rich coming from an Opposition that opposed every single dollar of stimulus spending. It is pretty rich on a day when Federal Treasury figures show us that more than 200,000 people would have been out of work if the economic stimulus package had not been implemented.

The latest National Account figures that were released yesterday again prove the positive effect of the stimulus package. Economic growth for the March quarter is up 0.5 per cent. Today's Australian headline states, "Stimulus still sustaining growth", and the Sydney Morning Herald states, "Economy still reliant on stimulus spending". The Sydney Morning Herald article also states, "Without the remaining stimulus spending … the economy would have shrunk 0.2 per cent." New South Wales is the leading economy in the nation. Growth is significantly stronger than any other State. The stimulus that has kept the Australian economy afloat has protected jobs at a time when jobs needed protecting, and I am absolutely proud of that.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: My question is directed to the Premier. How is the Government attracting Defence and related industry contracts and jobs to New South Wales?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I thank the member for The Entrance for his question. I am pleased to inform the House that, yes, again we are creating jobs and opportunities in New South Wales for New South Wales families. Yesterday it was jobs for our creative industries. Today it is jobs for our defence and information technology sectors. We never stop working to build the skills, the opportunities and the investment that our communities depend on.

I am proud to inform the House that today I joined the Treasurer, the Minister for State and Regional Development and the Federal Minister for Defence Personnel to announce a $75 million investment to boost New South Wales's share of our nation's rapidly-growing defence technology sector. This $75 million investment is part of the Commonwealth Government's New South Wales Defence Industry Strategy. That is a strategy to secure 30 per cent of in-country Defence spending within 10 years to secure jobs for our families and our communities in some of the most progressive and skilled industries in the world. They are jobs that do not just bring a wage to our families, but also skills and knowledge to open up more and more opportunities.

The investment will create a high-tech business hub at Macquarie Park. It will be located at the head of our Global Business Arc, which is identified in our Metropolitan Strategy. People can see that when a government has long-term policies and plans, it can deliver against them. That is how good government works. This Government will provide a $50 million site to secure Defence investment in this high-tech corridor of Sydney. We also will provide $25 million through the Major Investment Attraction Scheme to assist New South Wales companies to secure new Defence projects and build defence capacity.

We estimate that this will lead to the creation of 1,500 new defence-related jobs in the next four years. The Federal Government's spending on Defence is set to grow to more than $100 billion over the next decade. Defence jobs are an important part of our future. We recognise that and we are acting on that so that our communities will share the opportunity and benefit of this national priority.

Mr ANDREW STONER: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training. Given that she has ignored an invitation to visit Eungai, Scotts Head and Stuarts Point parents and citizens committees on the mid-North Coast, who want answers on why new buildings under the Building the Education Revolution [BER] are costing three times the non-government equivalent, for how much longer can she dismiss the fact that her incompetence is leading to the biggest waste of taxpayers' money in Australian history?

Ms VERITY FIRTH: As I have explained to the House many times previously, the New South Wales Government took its construction of school buildings under the Building the Education Revolution program [BER] to the market. Hundreds of builders have quoted for works through an open tender process conducted in accordance with New South Wales Government tendering guidelines. The price of these buildings is the price that has been set by that open tender process and by that open tender market procedure.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Wrong!

Ms VERITY FIRTH: The Opposition is not very interested in listening. We have a benchmark value that we apply to our projects. The benchmark value is calculated by comparing costs for other projects under the BER. As I have explained numerous times to the House previously, at the end of the program we will pay a maximum of 105 per cent of that benchmark value. Let me make it very clear to the House and to the Opposition that if costs blow out on a project, that risk is borne by the managing contractor. We will pay only 5 per cent more than we estimate to be a fair price.

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

Ms VERITY FIRTH: All the costs are displayed on our website. In fact, the costs quoted by the member, as we know, are estimates. They are cost estimates that are displayed on our website as part of what is probably the most transparent program of public expenditure in this country's history. We are constructing quality buildings that will last for decades. We are providing our students and teachers with the best possible learning environment for the twenty-first century. There is a greater initial cost associated with these buildings, but we think it is worth it in the long term.

Most importantly, the BER and other stimulus activities that are being funded by both the State and Commonwealth governments helped to save Australia from the effects of the recession, as I stated in response to the earlier question. That might not matter to members of the Opposition but it matters to the Government, and I will tell the House the reason.

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

Ms VERITY FIRTH: I have travelled throughout the State inspecting BER projects and have met some of the people who have directly benefited from the stimulus package. Recently I was in the North Coast electorates of the member for Tweed and the member for Ballina. At the Tweed Heads South Public School I met local builder, John Jones from JVJ Constructions, who is building a $2 million hall and a covered outdoor learning area. He had found work at three schools and said that he needed to double his staff numbers because of the education stimulus package.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The Minister has the call.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: John has engaged local contractors to work on this site. The electrician and bricklayer who were on the site when I visited were from the area. He also told me that the school had advertised in its newsletter, asking parents to tender for the work. While I was visiting the site, I met a young guy by the name of Sam Watfield, who is a third-year plumbing apprentice studying at the North Coast TAFE Institute. Sam told me that when the global financial crisis first hit, it decimated the building and construction industry on the North Coast and he lost his job with another builder. However, he was able to continue his apprenticeship with JVJ Constructions and that was entirely because of the work they were doing on government schools.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order. I call the member for Murray-Darling to order for the second time.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: These stories were replicated in every school I visited. These are real stories of real people who would have had a very different expectation had that type of stimulus spending not been applied to the economy when it was needed. I am so proud to be part of a great Australian Labor Party that actually cares about the little people when a recession grabs, that actually cares about making sure that people have jobs, and about making sure that people can take pay packets home to their families. That is what matters.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. I call the member for Bega to order.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: There is no doubt at all that this stimulus package has been a success in saving Australians and New South Wales from the worst impacts of the recession.

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. How is the Government improving resources for the New South Wales Police Force?

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: Recently I had the pleasure, along with the member for Menai, of visiting and seeing firsthand the great work of the New South Wales Police Dog Unit, which resides in the Menai electorate.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members who wish to conduct conversations will do so outside the Chamber.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: No doubt police dogs are, and always have been, an important police resource, and they are becoming increasingly so as time goes by. They support our front-line police on a day-to-day basis—

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: —and often put themselves in the line of danger in order to protect their handlers, the police and members of the community. There are nearly 100 police dogs working with front-line police to drive down crime across the State.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: The member for Lane Cove should be careful about what he wishes for.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: He has distemper, Mr Speaker. It is not widely known but police dogs have different capabilities. General purpose dogs are used to protect and apprehend, and to keep order and control.

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: There are drug detection dogs, firearms and explosives identification and detection dogs, and human remains detection dogs. I am proud to say that the New South Wales Police Dog Unit is the best in the country and one of the best and most innovative in the world. During our visit to the unit I heard stories and watched the impressive abilities of these dogs. For example, I was told of a general purpose dog team responding to an attempted murder in Oak Flats in April; an assailant had fired a crossbow at his intended victim and fled the scene on foot and headed into heavy bushland. The dog unit was called. It tracked the armed offender and located him some distance away in heavy bush; it also located the weapon he had discarded as he fled the scene.

I was also told how drug detection dogs can detect the smallest traces of drugs or explosives in a vehicle in a packed car park, and how a dog can locate a person in a crowd with only residual traces of drugs in their clothing. No doubt the capabilities of these dogs are amazing. They have super abilities to locate the smallest trace of substance. Despite these impressive abilities, there is one thing these dogs would not be able to do. They would not be able to detect a new law and order policy from the Coalition—or at least one the Coalition has come up with on its own! What is the latest law and order offering from the Coalition? The policy is to lock up drunks in cells and have front-line police babysitting them until they sober up. That has been tried before and it was unsuccessful. Forgetting the inherent flaws in that policy for a moment, where did the policy come from? That is the interesting question. Eight months ago, on 30 September 2009, a fellow by the name of Craig Bell, a concerned citizen, wrote to the Liberal Party website. It is all on the Liberal Party website. Craig Bell said:

Detaining high risk, intoxicated persons in Police cells for 8 hours or until they are no longer intoxicated is the most effective way to prevent these people from committing crime or being victimised by crime …

Mr Bell wrote that on 30 September last year.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: Under Standing Order 129, the Minister is no longer going to the dogs.

The SPEAKER: I cannot rule on that. It was not even funny.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: What was the response of the Leader of the Opposition to Craig Bell's proposition? Eight months later the Leader of the Opposition took two swift actions: cut and paste. He cut and pasted Craig's idea, word for word, into Liberal Party policy. The beauty of the policy is that the Leader of the Opposition did not even have to get off the couch. Before Craig Bell's idea, the Coalition had one law and order policy: more highway patrol police. However, it failed to mention where they would come from, how they would be paid for and which local area commands they would be taken from to put that resource into play. Cut and paste—double your capabilities, double your policy output in one fell swoop. Wonderful stuff!

I have had my differences with my friends opposite, but I am happy to offer them some advice today. Members opposite should put Craig Bell on the Opposition bench. The Leader of the Opposition should move everyone to the right, and if the member for Manly falls off the end and goes perpendicular I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will help him up. Over the past 12 months general purpose police dogs have been used in more than 12,000 incidents. That is roughly an average of 33 incidents a day. The drug detection dogs are also used regularly in targeted police operations with a very high success rate. Last year they were involved in more than 1,300 drug detection operations, which led to the seizure of approximately 47 kilograms of illegal drugs.

I was impressed by the capabilities of the Police Dog Unit, and the good news is that there are more dogs on the way. The New South Wales Police Dog Unit not only trains dogs but has an internationally recognised breeding program that is continually producing high-quality puppies and experimenting with new breeds to succeed our police dogs. In this breeding program the best performing and most capable dogs are selected, ensuring that the police dog bloodline remains strong and the best dogs are put to use. I congratulate the dog unit on its work. The member for Menai and I were impressed with the unit. One thing that is readily apparent on visiting this impressive unit is the pride the officers have in their unit, and they have every reason to be proud.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: My question is directed to the Premier. If the Minister for State and Regional Development, Ian Macdonald, has nothing to hide, why was his January 2008 trip to Dubai the only one out of 18 ministerial trips provided by the Premier's department in response to a freedom of information request that failed to detail who accompanied him? Does this prove that there is a cover-up going on?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Clearly members opposite have no other matters to bring before this House. They are not asking me about the 700 train carriages that this Government has on order. They are not asking me about the 300 rigid growth buses and the 150 bendy buses.

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

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: They are not asking me about how our children in our public schools are leading the nation in literacy and numeracy. They are not asking about the health survey that showed that 90 per cent of patients in our hospitals consider the hospital care good, very good or excellent. They are not asking me about the river red gums and the historic protection put in place by this Government. They are devoid of policy and questions.

Mr George Souris: Point of order: I did not ask for a wet weather ride around all the portfolios in the Premier's coterie. I want to know why she is covering up for the Minister in the other place, Ian Macdonald.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Upper Hunter will resume his seat. I will hear further from the Premier.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: They are not asking me about any policy matters because they have no policy. I spoke to this issue yesterday. I gave a full answer to the House.

[Interruption]

There they go—the predictable braying from members opposite. I refer the member for Upper Hunter to the answer I gave yesterday.

Mr DAVID HARRIS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). What is the latest information on the take-up rate of the power savings rebate across New South Wales?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The member for Wyong is an excellent member. He is particularly aware of all the water and energy conservation issues that are important to his electorate. During my answer I will explain how Wyong constituents have benefited.

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Let me summarise this massive achievement for the House. Since this Government introduced the Home Saver Rebates program, 250,000 households have availed themselves of the program—that is, 1 in 12 of all households in this State. We have handed out $125 million in rebates. This represents a massive cultural change. We have estimated that we have saved $3.5 billion in water across the State, 300,000 tonnes of carbon pollution equivalent to 67,000 cars on the road, and water and energy bills of approximately $26 million.

If members do not believe that these rebates, household by household, add up to something meaningful I will provide statistics of an amazing achievement. In 2001 Sydney used about 625 billion litres of water every year. The Minister for Water has been working very hard and doing a great job in this area. As he knows, we are now only using 485 billion—that is, a cut of 150 billion litres of water every year. That is massive. We are now consuming less water in Sydney than we were in the 1970s yet we have 1.3 million more people.

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: This is a dramatic achievement of this Government.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Which Minister introduced that?

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Brad came in on cue.

The SPEAKER: He should help himself.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I always know what Brad does because he is so predictable.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: I'm glad you think so!

The SPEAKER: I accept that interjection.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: That was a very good interjection, Barry!

The SPEAKER: That is one of the good ones.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I called Brad predictable and Barry said, "I'm glad you think so". In 2004 the then water and energy Minister, supported by the shadow Minister, I think, introduced a Water Energy Saving Scheme. In 2007 the Government introduced the Home Saver Rebates program. Initially it provided $100 million to assist families in this State with rebates for anything to do with solar heat pump, gas hot water systems, rainwater tanks or more water efficient appliances. Due to an overwhelming response, we expanded that to a $150 million program.

For members to get an idea of how dramatic it is, we should compare it to what Melbourne has done, and that is a two-year program worth $10 million. We provided $170 million of support causing a major cultural shift in the way our houses deal with water energy. It is a major cultural change which cannot be seen anywhere else in this country. This is an exemplary performance for which the Minister for Water deserves a lot of the credit. For example, we provide a $200 rebate for installation of dual flush toilets, which saves every household about 25,000 litres of water a year, and $150 for installation of hot water circulators, which saves 17,000 litres of water a year, and so on. This cultural change is sweeping right across New South Wales.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Go on!

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Possibly even in the area of that babbling goose from Coffs Harbour. Coffs Harbour is a great place with a very good magistrate, but I will not talk about that. I promised the member for Wyong I would relate to his electorate, and that is exactly what I am doing.

The SPEAKER: Order! I encourage the Minister not to respond to interjections.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: But I enjoy them, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: That is the problem.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: On the Central Cost, in the Lake Macquarie local government area, 9,000 rebates were paid to households worth more than $6 million, thanks to the good work of the member for Wyong and the member for Lake Macquarie who also was in there pitching. In Wyong 7,600 rebates were paid to residents. In Gosford, the member for Gosford has been busy, 8,100 rebates were paid worth $4.3 million. In the Illawarra, the Wollongong local government area, the member for Wollongong has been frantic, with 8,200 rebates worth $4.2 million—she is exhausted and had to leave the Chamber. More rebates: Shoalhaven 6,600; Sutherland 6,700—the member for Miranda has done a good job; the Tweed 7,400; Port Macquarie 6,000; Western Sydney, Blacktown 5,900; and in the Hunter 5,600.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lane Cove will not encourage the Minister.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: In the first week in May, there were 692 applications for hot water rebates, 208 for rainwater tanks and the list goes on. We are being swamped with people wanting to engage in water and energy conservation. This is cultural change. We can do this and that but if the culture is changed it is lasting and a real change. We are introducing a conservation culture in New South Wales, not like those members opposite. According to Tony Abbot, Barry's only policy is to roll himself into a little ball and hope that he can roll through to the election. I will not talk about their waste policy, or maybe I will later. We introduced a basic system that is saving a lot of money. We are basically changing the culture of this State. I remind members that approximately 150 billion litres of water are being saved every year under Sydney Water alone. That is massive change.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: What about the Murrumbidgee?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Murrumbidgee is doing well too. He is desperate! Murrumbidgee has 2,270 rebates worth $1 million. If I lived in Murrumbidgee it would have been better than that but he cannot do as well as I can. Murrumbidgee is one of the poorer performers but the member has a bit of an obsession with sexual matters so he is obviously distracted at the moment. Hopefully he will focus on his constituents and improve the number of rebates. Ku-ring-gai 2,000 rebates—the Leader of the Opposition needs to lift his game.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Rockdale?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: No, I don't have Rockdale but it is massive! North Shore, 2100—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been too angry. She should focus on the positives. Willoughby has 2,018, and is actually last behind the Leader of the Opposition who is second last. That is their leadership team—they do not know how to engage the community and change the culture of conservation. They do not care about conservation.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health. What is the impact on the hardworking Nepean Hospital maternity unit staff where 20 nurse positions are vacant, and when mums from the Blue Mountains have to be brought down the mountain to deliver their babies because again the Government this week closed Katoomba Hospital maternity unit, of breaking a promise that it would be permanently open?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. Once again she has raised the issue of Nepean Hospital. Is there an election in the air? I do not know that I have ever had so many questions about Nepean Hospital. Nonetheless, I am willing and happy to provide the member with a response to her questions.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order for the third time.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: There is no question that we have had difficulties with maternity services at the Blue Mountains Hospital, as has been outlined previously in this Chamber, for a range of reasons. There is a global shortage of anaesthetists, obstetricians and midwives, which creates challenges for many regional hospitals. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can shake her head but does she have any solutions or answers? No, she did not support all of the proposals that came out of the Council of Australian Governments that will help strengthen our health system. She did not support the improvements to training that came out of the Federal budget. No, she would rather shake her head and carp and criticise. These are real issues and challenges that require hard work and diligence to devise policies and programs to address them. And that is what the Government does. Every effort is being made to make sure that the maternity section at this hospital is fully functional and properly staffed.

Recruitment has remained a priority at the Blue Mountains hospital with a continuing focus on obstetrics and gynaecology, anaesthetics and paediatrics to support maternity services in the hospital. A training program for career medical officers in obstetrics and anaesthetics is well underway at Nepean Hospital and doctors who participate in the program are currently rotating through the Blue Mountains hospital. I am advised that, over more recent periods, the interruption to birthing services at the Blue Mountains hospital have been brief and have related to problems with the resignation of specific clinical providers in paediatrics and anaesthetics.

The hospital continues to work for the permanent replacement of the paediatric position. This is all evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to ensuring the ongoing sustainability of birthing services in the Blue Mountains but I will make no apologies, and I make it absolutely clear that the safety of mothers and babies must be our No. 1 priority. The safety of mothers and babies must be our No. 1 priority. Of course, wherever possible, a child should be born as close to home as possible, but in some cases the most effective and safest option may be for a mother to travel to access the most appropriate level of care for her circumstances, and the fundamental rationale, as I have outlined, is always the safety of the mother and the safety of her baby.

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads. What is the latest information on the Pacific Highway upgrade?

Mr DAVID BORGER: I thank the member for Charlestown for his interest in the Pacific Highway. The Pacific Highway is amongst the most critical roads in the country. It is important for families and local communities, and it is important as a place that links key thoroughfares, cities and coastal communities. It is important to New South Wales and Australia, and our Government has invested more than $2.5 billion since 1996—

Mr Michael Daley: A record amount.

Mr DAVID BORGER: A record amount, as the Minister for Police says, to provide its 30,000 daily users with a safer, quicker and more comfortable trip. We have made real progress and we have real results, but we are not resting on our laurels. We are continuing to work to deliver this major infrastructure project. Just last week, with the member for Port Macquarie, I opened a four-lane dual divided 10.5 kilometre section of the Pacific Highway at Johns River, which was welcomed by the local community, including Mrs Kidd who cut the ribbon. The bypass is part of a $580 million 33-kilometre Coopernook to Herons Creek upgrade, which is due to be completed next month, weather permitting.

This is a very real demonstration of how the New South Wales and Federal governments are joining together to make the Pacific Highway safer. It is not just about road safety. The project has also been a great stimulator of jobs and local economy. The upgrade is supporting 750 construction related jobs. There is not a single town or suburb along that corridor that has not been touched in an employment sense by this project. Around 60 per cent of the people constructing the Coopernook to Herons Creek upgrade come from local areas. They appreciate the opportunity to have that work. This project is a big win for road users, for the community and for the economy.

Next month, when we complete the Herons Creek project, there will be 163 kilometres of continuous dual divided carriageway between Bulahdelah and Port Macquarie. I am sure that the member for Oxley would have noted the Labor Government's good work when he recently took his first trip in a truck travelling south from Port Macquarie—he was off the surfboard and into the big rig, which was good to see. When we complete Herons Creek there will be more than 330 kilometres of dual carriageway on the Pacific Highway in New South Wales.

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

Mr DAVID BORGER: Compare that to 1996.

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

Mr DAVID BORGER: Then there was, on average, twice the amount of road deaths on the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. Compare that to 1996 when there were just 67 kilometres of dual carriageway along the Pacific Highway—from 67 kilometres to over 300 kilometres! Between our work and the work of the Federal Government there is not a single road in Australia that has more activity, more work, more jobs and more safety than the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. The Keneally Government together with our Federal Labor colleagues are working to make family journeys on the Pacific Highway safer, smoother and quicker.

Mr PETER BESSELING: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Given that the Stingray Creek bridge at North Haven carries more than 10,000 cars daily, has an expected lifespan of only five years due to concrete cancer, is on a regional road, and has replacement costs estimated at more than $12 million, what funding support will the State Government give to a replacement option?

Mr DAVID BORGER: I thank the member for his effective advocacy to improve roads and other services in the Port Macquarie electorate. When I first became the Minister for Roads, the member for Port Macquarie was one of the first people who fronted me about coming to his electorate. Last Friday, on my seventh day as Minister for Roads, I joined the Minister for Local Government and the member for Port Macquarie—and the administrator of Port Macquarie council was there as well—to talk about local issues, including the Stingray Creek bridge.

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

Mr DAVID BORGER: We went to the bridge and inspected the site to see what the issues were. I understand that Port Macquarie council completed a feasibility study on the bridge in 2003 and adopted a site for a new bridge. Following community feedback, I am advised that the council conducted an independent review of route options and adopted an option to build the bridge immediately upstream and adjacent to the existing bridge. On the basis of cost estimates in 2002, the Government, through the Roads and Traffic Authority, agreed to assist the council with a financial contribution of up to $3.2 million. Of course, that cost would have increased in today's dollars and there is also the local council's well-documented financial situation. This is a local road, a local concern in Port Macquarie. When I was in Port Macquarie recently I had the chance to drive past the Glasshouse and, frankly, I think the National Party councillors in that area would have better spent the money fixing their road and their bridge. It is not even an attractive building, this $50 million white elephant.

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

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. I drove past Rozelle and saw part of the $500 million the Government wasted on the Metro.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.

Mr DAVID BORGER: As I said, I was very interested to go with the member and the Minister for Local Government to see what we could do to help the local community with that local concern that was the council's responsibility, but instead of fixing the Stingray Creek bridge the council decided to spend millions and millions of dollars on the Glasshouse, which is a white elephant in the middle of town, and it could not face up to its responsibility of maintaining the basic asset infrastructure of the council.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr DAVID BORGER: I give an undertaking to the local member to seek advice about possible courses of action to assist the council with that bridge.

Mr PAUL PEARCE: My question is addressed to the Premier. How is the New South Wales Government making information accessible to the public?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I thank the member for Coogee for his question. As we have discussed in this House before, the age we live in is defined by our unprecedented access to information and our unprecedented demand for it. Our communities want to know more and more about our schools, our services, and about how we are managing the State in their interests, and I am pleased that we are able to support that demand. Last year we introduced comprehensive information to overhaul freedom of information laws in New South Wales. These initiatives make the Government more transparent and more accountable. They promote a strong culture of openness. The new Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 will shortly commence operation on 1 July 2010. I have made it clear that Ministers and heads of agencies need to set the tone across Government, overtly supporting the release of Government information. Agency staff will be given the confidence and support they need to support this culture of openness.

The Office of Information Commissioner has been established, and Deidre O'Donnell has been appointed as the State's first Information Commissioner. She will be an independent champion of open government in New South Wales, reporting directly to the Parliament and subject to oversight by a joint parliamentary committee. Members opposite can read about this great initiative in Premier's memorandum M2010-05. I provide this detail to the Opposition, particularly to the "shadow Minister for memos", Chris Hartcher, who I know has been very concerned about the lack of memos being issued.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members who are not conducting business as Whips will resume their seats.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: They are so excited about Premier's memorandum M2010-05 and they are anticipating eagerly reading it. I digress. Transparency of information is of vital importance to our community, so while we are discussing transparency of information I will refer briefly to statements by the member for Willoughby. On 12 May we heard a breathy personal explanation from the member denying that she or any member opposite had ever received electoral funding from tobacco companies. She said:

Members on this side of the House have never received personal donations for campaign purposes...In fact, it is against the Liberal Party constitution to do so.

That is from Hansard on 12 May 2010. She said, "Hear, hear" to that comment right here. We know that such statements are never to be made or taken lightly as they go directly to a member's personal credibility. But in an information age it is surprising the information you can discover. So, it gives me no pleasure to reveal to the House that there is an electoral funding declaration from British American Tobacco, a legally binding document—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Willoughby will come to order. Members will cease interjecting. I call the member for Upper Hunter to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: It is a legally binding document, a funding declaration by the British American Tobacco company signed by their company secretary on 19 February 2009. Say what you will about tobacco companies, they generally have pretty good lawyers. When they have pretty good lawyers and they sign these legally binding documents—

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

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Seeing as the member for Willoughby has told the House that no member opposite has received personal donations from tobacco companies perhaps she can explain how it is that British American Tobacco's legally binding document says—

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Wakehurst that he is already on two calls to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: —that on 21 May 2008 they made a donation to Gladys Berejiklian. On 27 June 2008 they made a donation to Gladys Berejiklian. On 30 June 2008 they declare they made a donation to Gladys Berejiklian.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Willoughby to order, which is disappointing because this is the last question. I call the member for Willoughby to order for the second time. I remind the member for Willoughby that she may make a personal explanation at the conclusion of question time.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Perhaps it is the case that British American Tobacco's lawyers made a mistake, but tobacco companies do tend to have pretty good lawyers. Perhaps it is the case there is another Gladys Berejiklian in the Liberal Party. We do know this: Unprecedented access to information, openness, transparency and accountability is fundamental to good government and fundamental to democracy, and this Government is happy to support it.

Question time concluded at 3.24 p.m.

Mrs Judy Hopwood, on behalf of the Chair, tabled the report entitled "Operation of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993: Final Report", Report No. 7/54, dated June 2010.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Mrs Judy Hopwood.

The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 282 (2) I advise the House that on 3 June 2010 Richard Sanderson Amery was elected Chair of the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Petition requesting funding for and the commencement of construction of a new Wagga Wagga Base Hospital in this parliamentary term, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

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

Petition requesting funding for a second respite house and the provision of accessible access to the existing respite premises in the Wagga Wagga electorate, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast line, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing the reallocation of and reduction in staff on the South Coast Illawarra rail line, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition praying that the Government urgently improve bus service 311 to make it more frequent and more reliable, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting improved services on bus route 389, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting fair negotiations with TAFE teachers, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petitions opposing the proposed ethics classes and requesting continuation of the scripture classes, received from Mr Matt Brown and Mr Phil Koperberg.

Petition opposing the proposed expansion of sandstone quarry operations at Champions Quarry in Tuckurimba northern New South Wales, received from Mr Thomas George.

Petition opposing the construction of tourism developments in national parks, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a new police station in the central Shoalhaven area, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petitions objecting to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal recommendations to increase retail electricity prices, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock and Mr Greg Piper.

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

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

Petition requesting adequate toilet facilities on the corner of the Princes Highway and Sussex Road, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting the opening of Burrill Lake, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.25 p.m.]: My motion to be accorded priority states:

That this House:

(1) notes that State Final Demand figures released yesterday show the New South Wales economy grew by 4.4 per cent in the first nine months of this financial year;

(2) congratulates the Government for its sound management of the economy during the global financial crisis; and

(3) condemns the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer for fabricating New South Wales Budget figures and misleading the State's business leaders.

This motion deserves to be accorded priority because of the false and misleading claims of the Opposition that New South Wales has been lagging economically behind the rest of Australia over the past 10 years. This claim ignores the facts. Yet again the Opposition cannot identify or handle the facts. In relation to the State's economy, no-one can deny that that we have secured a triple-A credit rating in the most difficult financial circumstances that the world has seen. We have overseen the State's economic recovery. It is not even 12 months since the Treasurer stood in this Chamber and stated that the budget was a beacon of hope. Since then we have seen significant green shoots of recovery. These are facts that the Opposition has denied or failed to acknowledge.

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

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: We are also delivering a record infrastructure program as well as delivering help to businesses through the reduction of payroll tax.

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

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: The Opposition claims that it wants to cut payroll tax by 15 per cent across the board in 2009-10. How misleading is that statement? Firstly, they are not even in Government.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will contain himself.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: How easy it is for the Opposition to make promises when there is no hope of delivering on them.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have extended a degree of latitude during this debate but I will not extend any more.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: The question is: Would Opposition members cut payroll tax in 2011-12 if they were elected to office? Of course, the answer to that question is no. Opposition members do not have policies on anything for which they can be held accountable.

Mr Andrew Fraser: That is a lovely smoking jacket.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: Is the member for Coffs Harbour looking for the drinks trolley?

The SPEAKER: Order! Those interjections are inappropriate. The House will come to order.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: New South Wales has led the nation's economic recovery for the first half of this financial year. State final demand, the best reflection of the State's economic strength, grew by 3.9 per cent over the first half of this financial year, significantly stronger than the 3.3 per cent in Victoria, the 0.9 per cent in Queensland, and the 2 cent in Western Australia. Growth in New South Wales over the first half of the year was about twice that in Western Australia and more than four times that in Queensland.

But, clearly, Opposition members are not interested in the performance of New South Wales. Clearly, they are not interested in protecting jobs, ensuring that construction jobs, jobs in the arts, jobs in defence and jobs in the technology sector are looked after and protected through sound economic management. Opposition members, who are interested only in little quips and flippant remarks, are not taking seriously this important issue of the State's economy in looking after jobs, looking after the community and looking after families in New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.30 p.m.]: Today my motion deserves priority because it is about a scandal that is beginning to make the home insulation debacle look like kids stuff. The Building the Education Revolution [BER], which is an appalling waste of taxpayers' money, is said to be the biggest scandal in the history of the entire nation. Nowhere have the rorts, the waste, the rip-offs and the sheer incompetence been greater than in New South Wales. The Keneally Labor Government's role in this unfolding tragedy is simply disgraceful. The Building the Education Revolution is fast becoming known as the Big Education Rip-off, or the Builders Early Retirement fund.

Today the New South Wales delivery model for this program, acknowledged by the head of the Federal BER task force as "centralised and inflexible", has caused no end of problems. While the BER was probably created with the right intentions in mind, that is, economic stimulus and better buildings in our schools, it has been an appalling flop on the ground, which is a damning indictment against this New South Wales Labor Government.

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

Mr ANDREW STONER: Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been unnecessarily wasted. In fact, the estimates range between $5 billion and $8 billion of a $16 billion program wasted across the nation. As I said, nowhere have the waste, the rorts and the mismanagement been more outrageous than in New South Wales. The Keneally Labor Government and, in particular, the Minister for Education and Training, Verity Firth, are responsible for this and should be held accountable for it. For the benefit of members on the Government benches, let me make myself abundantly clear. Opposition members welcome money being spent on schools. In fact, one of the policies that the Leader of the Opposition and I put forward early in this term of Government was that we would invest considerably in school buildings.

But the Minister for Education and Training, the Treasurer and the Premier pay three times the going rate for buildings that school communities often do not want and that in many cases are substandard, for example, with no fire safety exit doors, or buildings that do not fit properly on their footings, which is a crying shame and a gross waste of taxpayers' money. This motion deserves priority today because there is a difference between spending money wisely and wasting money frivolously. This Government, on this program alone, has been throwing money around like a drunken sailor. Let me offer members some examples. Tottenham Central School received $600,000 for a tuckshop in which one could not swing a cat and which had no room to fit in a pie warmer. Eungai Public School was allocated $850,000 for a new two-room classroom, but it is now way over budget and the school will not receive the other items that had been promised, such as air-conditioning, interactive whiteboards and covered walkways.

The school community wanted a hall but instead it received a prefabricated classroom, the concrete walls of which were transported from Brisbane. The school did not want it and the concrete walls were delivered appallingly. At Stuarts Point Public School a $931,000 library had to be chocked with bricks and wood because it would not fit on the footings. The school community is now concerned about safety issues. Willawarrin Public School was allocated $850,000 for a new library and the school community had to find the money for fire safety doors as the ones they got had only one entry and one exit. This motion deserves priority today because Catholic schools are getting between two or three times more value for money on these projects, depending who you talk to. In some cases there is a suggestion that it is up to 10 times better value.

This is a slap in the face for public school students and taxpayers alike, yet Minister Verity Firth continues to stick her head in the sand when it comes to the BER, scrambling for excuses. She said that non-government schools were of inferior quality. Wrong! She claimed that repairs to playgrounds have explained away additional costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars. She claimed that non-government school costs did not include pre-design site preparation and statutory planning approvals. Wrong again! This Minister clearly is not across her brief—a Minister who thinks that half-baked implausible excuses cover a multitude of sins—and she should resign.

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

The House divided.


Question resolved in the affirmative.
Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that State Final Demand figures released yesterday show the New South Wales economy grew by 4.4 per cent in the first nine months of this financial year;

(2) congratulates the New South Wales Government on its sound management of the economy during the global financial crisis; and

(3) condemns the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer for fabricating New South Wales budget figures and misleading the State's business leaders.

Yesterday we received excellent news about the New South Wales economy: it continues to lead Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics released State Final Demand data that shows that economic growth in the $380 billion New South Wales economy leads every other economy in the nation. We lead every State and Territory. New South Wales has recorded 4.4 per cent growth over the past nine months, with 0.6 per cent growth in just the March quarter. These State Final Demand figures show that New South Wales contributed around 46 per cent of economic growth across all States and Territories so far this financial year. This is a phenomenal contribution.

Let us pause for a moment to consider that. Even though New South Wales comprises roughly only one-third of the country's population, we contribute almost half of Australia's economic growth. Importantly, this is excellent news for New South Wales families and businesses. The green shoots of recovery are flourishing in the New South Wales economy. The 4.4 per cent growth in New South Wales over the first nine months was significantly stronger than elsewhere: 3.4 per cent in Victoria, 0.1 per cent in Queensland, 2.2 per cent in Western Australia and 3.5 per cent nationally. Clearly, the New South Wales economy continues to lead the nation.

New South Wales now has enjoyed five consecutive growth quarters. Let us compare our growth this financial year with that of other States. In the first nine months of this financial year our growth rate was twice that of Western Australia and about 40 times greater than that of Queensland. Victoria has recorded only four growth quarters while Western Australia and Queensland again went backwards in the March quarter. In that same nine-month period Victoria had 3.4 per cent growth, Western Australia had just 2.2 per cent growth and Queensland had just 0.1 per cent growth. Out in front is New South Wales with 4.4 per cent growth. Only South Australia comes close, with 4.3 per cent growth.

New South Wales is leading the way. This is great news for New South Wales families and businesses. I repeat: New South Wales continues to lead Australia's economic recovery. Unlike other States, the growth of the New South Wales economy so far is broad based. The Government, households and businesses have all contributed significantly to the State's growth so far this year. New South Wales has led the nation's retail recovery following the worst days of the financial crisis. Since 2008 New South Wales retail sales have grown by 10.2 per cent, which is a rate equal to that in Victoria, compared with 8.3 per cent nationally and 5.2 per cent in Queensland and in Western Australia. The New South Wales retail sector employs approximately 10.8 per cent of the New South Wales workforce, which equates to more than 360,000 jobs, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data for the February 2010 quarter.

Both consumer and business confidence are at above average levels. Business confidence and business conditions remain above the long-term average. Dun and Bradstreet figures show that profit expectations for the September 2010 quarter remain at a five-year high. As we head into budget week it is important to reflect on last year's budget and our Treasurer's reference to a beacon of hope. Just one year ago the economic outlook was very grim indeed. Business confidence was down, consumer confidence was down, and the financial crisis was gripping the world. Certainly, recovery looked to be some way off. Yet in just a year Australia's economic growth leads the developed world and New South Wales leads the country.

Last year our Treasurer spoke about a beacon of hope, and he was right. Last year's budget set a new foundation for growth in New South Wales. Now that beacon of hope is shining over our State. The Premier and Treasurer are to be congratulated on their stewardship of the New South Wales economy. Their success has been confirmed by the nation's official data keeper, the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The member for Shellharbour should put propositions that the Opposition can rebut. Instead she is speaking in vague generalities.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for Wakehurst knows that that is not a point of order.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: Yesterday's data comes on top of official building data released last week showing that New South Wales leads Australia's growth in new private infrastructure investment.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [3.52 p.m.]: Talk about leading with one's chin! It is quite amazing that Government members want to talk about the Government's economic record. I move:

that the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That:" with a view to inserting instead:

this House condemns the Treasurer and the Government for failing to meet their growth and budget forecasts for the past 10 years.

As we move towards budget week the important point is the Government's failure to meet economic and employment forecasts. The economic performance of this Government is nothing but a sad and sorry tale. I am pleased that the member for Fairfield is in the Chamber because, of all members of the Government, he alone is interested in reform. Unfortunately, he no longer plays any significant role, except for selecting Premiers. He should be following his policy interests because no other Government member has any interest in policy. That is part, but not all, of the reason—there are many factors I could list—that we in New South Wales find ourselves in such a sorry state.

Figures released yesterday showed there was an improvement in demand, but the member for Shellharbour failed to disaggregate two factors during her speech on the State's economy. Over the past 12 months the Federal Government's economic stimulus expenditure both insulated the State's economy against a severe downturn and ensured that future generations will bear the burden of an extraordinarily heavy deficit. There was no disaggregation in the speech of the member for Shellharbour of the impact of low interest rates on the economy. When those factors are taken out of the equation, it raises the question: What has the State Government done to improve the State's economy?

The State's economy resembles a Mother Hubbard experience—there is nothing in the cupboard. Furthermore, nothing has been delivered by the Government to support the State's economy. The State's current economic climate is an appalling indictment of the Government. The member for Shellharbour intended to condemn the Opposition for producing forecasts about the State's economic performance and economic downturns, but the time allotted for her speech expired. Obviously, that was not the main focus of her speech. I can understand that because the Opposition's argument was based on the Government's GST revenue windfall, which the Government is trying to hide.

The Government will be the beneficiary of a GST revenue windfall and that will bolster its budget. The question is what the Government will do with it. The Government probably already has spent most of it. The Opposition's economic forecast projected that growth under the old formula would have been the same as the growth rate of the previous two years, which is 7 per cent. Government members became quite excited about that during their speeches—ignoring the fact that the Opposition used the Government's estimates and forecasts of growth rates over the past year—but what they were unable to dispute was everything else. I have a graph that shows some great economic downturns, which I am sure the member for Shellharbour will be interested in. I would be happy to table the graph, if that is what is desired.

Ms Lylea McMahon: No.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The graph shows the economic growth of the State from 1995 to 2010. It is not hard to see the trend. The member for Fairfield can see the little part that is coloured red, which represents New South Wales, whereas the entire rest of the country is in the black. The member for Fairfield has got it. He is nodding his head in acknowledgement.

Mr Brad Hazzard: But he is the only one who gets it.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: He gets it.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: I draw attention to the member's use of props.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for Manly knows that he cannot use a prop. He has not tabled the graph.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I am very happy to table the graph. The economic performance of this Government is obviously dismal. Whatever way Government members want to cut it, they cannot spin their way out of the State's economic performance over the past 15 years. Irrespective of how or what they try, the facts will remain. In desperation they grab statistics of just one economic quarter, which in large measure has been bolstered by the Federal Government mortgaging the future of our children with a huge deficit, the effect of which will eventually impact on the State's economy. Part of the Federal Government's strategy makes sense, but combined with the lowest interest rates on record and high retail spending, New South Wales is experiencing a small economic blip. But that is not the point. The Government is responsible for the State's economy, reform, making the State competitive, restoring confidence, reducing regulation and making savings. I cannot wait to see the savings that the Government produces in the budget.

Mr Joseph Tripodi: We have a great record on that.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The member for Fairfield is smiling because he knows that, contrary to the forecast for next year, the Government will not get down to 2.1 per cent, but that is entirely his Government's responsibility. The Opposition remains very concerned that budget forecasts do not materialise. It is not surprising that the forecast growth of the economy is not achieved. The trends are reflected in the graph, as members opposite can see.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: Again the member for Manly is relying on props instead of debating the motion.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I remind the member for Manly that he cannot use a prop. He will desist from doing so.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: For 10 years there has been a huge gap between forecasts of economic growth and the actual results. Not surprisingly, the State has underperformed at every level. Everyone in the State should have a close look at the forecasts that are part of next week's budget. The Government has a long history of underperformance. Obviously, the Opposition will not believe budget projections, and the facts support the Opposition's position. As the member for Shellharbour so clearly has shown, the Government finds it very difficult to discuss economic trends.

Another factor that shows the Government's poor performance is the increase in unemployment rates. I will not show the graph because it upsets the member for Shellharbour. However, for five years New South Wales has had the second-highest rates of unemployment of all the Australian States. Currently we are at the tail end of employment statistics across all Australian States. Government members cannot dispute the facts, though they try. They use spin instead of addressing the issues. The culture should dictate that the Government confront economic issues head-on. The Government should be asking itself what it will do across all economic parameters to make the economy of New South Wales competitive and to attract investment, give confidence to businesses and start to create real jobs, instead of jobs that have been created by infrastructure spending. But, no, the Government is all about spin, grabbing at figures on quarterly indexes and grasping small sets of statistics to justify its economic performance.

The truth is that the Government is not performing strongly in economic management. This State has the highest costs of doing business. Surely I do not have to show the graph showing that trend. The statistics were not disputed last week by the Treasurer when they were produced to counter his press release. A small or medium enterprise with 60 employees pays the highest business costs in Australia—$170,000 in New South Wales compared with $150,000 in South Australia. To take the State's economy forward the Government must become competitive. The Government should create real jobs, which is what the Opposition commits to in its jobs action plan. Quite frankly, everything that is done by this Government is nothing short of embarrassing. In every instance, such as the mini-budget and the Government's lack of action at a critical time in the global financial crisis, the Government has let the economy lapse into ruin. The Government's record over the past 15 years speaks for itself.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield) [3.59 p.m.]: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak against the amendment and in support of this motion, which is credible and clearly details the Government's success in helping the economy to continue growing. There are some simple facts. Of course, the shadow Treasurer refused to recognise these facts and referred to other misleading facts. The first fact is that economic growth in our $380 billion New South Wales economy leads every other economy in the nation. That is, New South Wales leads every other State and Territory in this country. The second fact is that New South Wales recorded 4.4 per cent growth over the past nine months and has experienced growth of 0.6 per cent in the March quarter.

New South Wales has now enjoyed the fifth consecutive quarter of growth, which obviously dispels the concerns of investors and workers about the pending recession that has been experienced around the world as a consequence of the global financial crisis and the potential double-dip in world economic growth. New South Wales is surging ahead, despite the fact that the rest of the world is experiencing difficult circumstances and struggling with high levels of unemployment and low levels of investment. New South Wales leads Australia's growth in new private infrastructure investment. New South Wales does not just have a record level of public sector infrastructure investment; we are leading Australia in new private infrastructure investment. That is only possible because of good administration by the Government and because we have a competitive economy that attracts investment and encourages investors in boardrooms around the country to invest funds in New South Wales and share in the economic growth we are currently enjoying.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics data released last week shows that about $2.4 billion was invested in private infrastructure in the March quarter. It is important to distinguish that we have not only a historically high level of public sector infrastructure investment but also a historically high level of private sector infrastructure investment. We are changing the fabric of our economy so that we continue to grow into the future and provide employment opportunities and prosperity for our State. In the past two months more than 40,000 full-time jobs have been created in New South Wales, but the Opposition conveniently overlooked that important fact. That is a great record. It is good news for the people of New South Wales, but it is bad news for the Opposition.

Mr Brad Hazzard: How many months? Two months?

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: That is right, two months.

Mr Brad Hazzard: In the last 16 years.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: No, two months. It is a great performance. It is difficult to accept economic selections from the member for Wakehurst. He is a wonderful guy but he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to economic matters. We refuse to accept what members opposite believe is the situation because they think they have the right to make up news and figures. It is embarrassing that the shadow Treasurer pulled budget figures out of the air and then had to defend them. It is a big blow to the Coalition's credibility in terms of economic management when members make up numbers and try to sell them as fact. It was embarrassing for the shadow Treasurer and the Coalition, which already has seriously damaged economic credibility in terms of its capacity to be serious on policy issues. The Coalition's long history in Opposition means that it has no credibility when it comes to economic management. I do not need to remind people about the Coalition's position on the electricity reform agenda.

Mr Mike Baird: Point of order: In terms of the leave of the motion, I understand if the Government is ashamed of its figures—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! There is no point of order. The remarks of the member for Fairfield are pertinent to the motion before the House. The member has the call.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: It was a new low for the Liberals when it came to credibility.

Mr Thomas George: We are not your enemy!

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: The Nationals are not off the hook; they are worse than the Liberals. It was a big blow to the economic credibility and reputation of Coalition members as capable fiscal managers. They have no credibility. They make it up as they go along, which is of concern to the people of this State. [Time expired.]

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [4.04 p.m.]: This is yet another motion from a Government that is trying to congratulate itself. The Government is absolutely delusional and arrogant. The shadow Treasurer admitted that there were some good figures yesterday. Indeed, it was a one-off figure—not a consistent continuance of good figures. The Government has been hit over the head with its own bricks for years and years, but if the hitting stops for a moment that does not demonstrate that the Government has done well in those previous years. To reinforce the message that has been delivered with facts and figures, we should not forget that the Labor Government has continued to mismanage the New South Wales economy over 15 years. This graph says it all.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: Members opposite should not rely on props.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The member for Davidson will not use a prop.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Let us look at the authorities. Access Economics—the member for Fairfield has quoted Access Economics in this House on a number of occasions—

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: I draw your attention to the fact that the member for Davidson continued talking throughout my point of order and your ruling.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The member for Davidson was asked to put down his prop and he did put it down. He will not use it again.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Access Economics, in its latest business outlook, reported that New South Wales was the worst performing State economy in Australia. Fact! The CommSec State of the States report—a report by an independent authority that measures a variety of economic indicators, including unemployment, new business starts, demand for resources and business investment State by State—shows that New South Wales came out last when compared with the other States against these indicators. I do not know whether Government members are reading the chart upside down but last is at the bottom. If they turn things upside down—obviously, that is the way they read things—they might see that New South Wales is on top, but that is not where New South Wales is.

New South Wales came last in four categories: economic growth, unemployment, construction and dwelling starts. Not only has the Government demonstrated its mismanagement and financial ineptitude; we have seen the cost of that in terms of the opportunity cost of all sorts of projects. The $500 million wasted on the CBD metro was bad in itself. It meant that every person in New South Wales lost money from their pocket, and that many deserving causes went without. In my area, the Spit Road and Spit Bridge upgrades, which the member for Manly and I want to see, were abandoned promises. That $500 million could have paid for a hospital on the northern beaches, but that has been abandoned. The Mona Vale Hospital upgrade—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: —and Mona Vale Road upgrades—all lost! Obviously, the puppet master is trying to save his career. The Labor Government is so focused on its internal issues that it has not focused on critical issues for the State's economic wellbeing. That is the problem. Government members are so focused on their internal power situation that they are unable to focus on what is important for New South Wales.

Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: As difficult as it is to do this, I raise Standing Order 76, relevance. The member is straying a long way from the motion before the House. Furthermore, it is clear that he has nothing of substance to contribute to this debate, otherwise he would find it easy.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The latter is not a point of order. Given that the Opposition has moved an amendment, the member for Davidson has some scope to address his concerns.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Some quick examples of mismanagement are: the electricity asset sale still has not gone through in any shape or form. All we see is further internal wrangling with Prime Minister Rudd having backstabbed former Premier Iemma; the Building the Education Revolution, which the Leader of The Nationals well articulated in his contribution; the defence industry spend has not materialised; and the People First information technology program earlier this afternoon has not been delivered as promised. We see new taxes that have had to pay for the ineptitude of this Government that are unacceptable. [Time expired.]

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.09 p.m.], in reply: The member for Manly resorted to the use of children's fairy tales and stories. He talked about Old Mother Hubbard. Let us talk about another one: Chicken Little running to the King to tell him "the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in". What is his evidence? None, zip, nada. It does not matter how it is spun. Yes, the economy is growing. Yes, the economy is doing well. The Federal Government is investing in it because interest rates are low.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: When Noreen isn't here to back you, you don't have the numbers.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr Brad Hazzard: When Noreen is not here to back you, you don't have the numbers.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The member will state his point of order or resume his seat.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You have to listen to my point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the House. There is no-one here to back her. [Quorum called for.]

[The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, business resumed.]

[Business interrupted.]

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.13 p.m.]: I move:

That standing orders be suspended to restore the full speaking time in reply of the member for Shellharbour.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [4.13 p.m.]: Such a motion will set a dangerous precedent. A quorum is designed to get an adequate number of members in the Chamber. If the member for Shellharbour attracts no attention or interest from her own side, why should we restore the time of her speech? I can understand that all those Labor members who were not in the Chamber did not want to listen to such dribble, but the standing orders of this House legitimately allow for a quorum to be called. For the Leader of the House to move a motion directly contradicting the effect of that standing order will set a dangerous precedent, and it should not be allowed.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Besides, she is full of dribble!

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: It is not as though we were hearing anything of great merit. It was absolute dribble. We have heard enough from the member for Shellharbour. She has wasted the time of the House through repeated interjections that had very little or no substance.

Mr Daryl Maguire: And she has been disorderly.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: She has been disorderly. She continues to interject and offend people. I strongly suggest that we continue with this debate in the normal course, without allowing a suspension of standing orders and restoring the member's speaking time.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.15 p.m.], in reply: The member for Davidson cannot make a judgement on the value of the contribution of the member for Shellharbour. Members have a right to listen to the member for Shellharbour and she has a right to have the full time as allowed under the standing orders for her contribution. The Opposition knows it used a political stunt to cut back the speaking time of the member, obviously because it did not want to hear her valid points. It is only right that the member for Shellharbour is given the full time to make her points to drive down the relevant and pertinent reasons why her motion should be agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

[Business resumed.]

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.16 p.m.]: The member for Manly referred to nursery rhymes and talked about the experiences of Old Mother Hubbard. Another fairy tale that is completely relevant is Chicken Little.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I foresee that the member for Wakehurst will refer to the speaking time of the member for Shellharbour as currently shown on the clock.

Mr Brad Hazzard: That is exactly what I was going to point out. The Clerk is being good in encouraging more speech, but we do not want that. We would rather it be brought back to the bare minimum.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The Leader of the House moved a suspension motion to restore the full speaking time of the member for Shellharbour. She had four minutes remaining when the quorum was called.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: Members of the Opposition do not want to hear the story of Chicken Little because it is a bit too close to the truth, is it not? Charging out of the Chamber, got to get away from—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The member is behaving like a chook without a head. I refer to Standing Order 76, relevance. If the member wishes to continue to have the benefit of the motion moved by the Leader of the House, which the Opposition has allowed her to do, she should be brought back to the subject of the motion.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I remind the member for Wakehurst that the member for Shellharbour is speaking in reply. Fairy tales were mentioned during the debate. However, I am sure the member will move on to more substantial matters.

Mr Brad Hazzard: We have reached the stage where this State is governed by fairy tales? Fair enough!

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: Yes. It does not matter which way it is spun, the facts are the facts: the New South Wales economy is powering along. The beacon of hope that the Treasurer came into this place and spoke about less than 12 months ago is shining over the economy of New South Wales. The Opposition cannot hear it and charge out the Chamber, "The King, the King, the sky is falling in!" New South Wales not only has a triple-A credit rating in a global financial crisis but it has also overseen the first of the State's economic recovery and delivered—

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Point of order: I issue a red card.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The Chair takes a dim view of the prop used by the member for Davidson. He has already been advised not to use props in the Chamber. I warn the member against using props in the future.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: We have reduced payroll tax, benefiting all businesses across the State. We are providing upskilling opportunities for the workers of this State.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I hope the member for Wakehurst rises on a legitimate point of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Madam Assistant-Speaker, I understand your cynicism, but I hope you listen to my point of order. The member for Shellharbour is speaking in reply to the debate. She has just introduced new material: payroll tax. At no point did she or any other member refer to payroll tax.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! Payroll tax was mentioned during the debate. The member for Wakehurst may not have been present in the Chamber when payroll tax was mentioned, but I certainly heard reference to it. There is no point of order.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: We have declining unemployment, strong growth in the retail sector and business investment has grown by 11 per cent in the first half of the financial year. New South Wales leads the State in construction. What we see is the green shoots of recovery growing and flourishing, and what we see in those opposite is a group of people who want to mow them down.

[Interruption]

Did the member for Coffs Harbour find the drinks trolley?

Mr Andrew Fraser: I did. Thank you for bringing it around.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will not walk into the Chamber and hold court. He will sit down.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: The significant contribution of the member for Davidson was to say that he had been hit over the head with a brick. All I can say is: Well, that is clearly apparent! [Time expired.]

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): It being just after 4.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to General Business Orders of the Day (for Bills).

Debate resumed from 20 May 2010.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [4.31 p.m.], in reply: As the member who introduced the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Care and Responsibility) Bill 2010, I shall respond to members who contributed to the debate and conclude it. I thank the Minister for Community Services and the members representing the electorates of Hawkesbury, Tweed, Burrinjuck, Hornsby, Orange, Dubbo, Macquarie Fields and Wakehurst for their contributions. The safety and protection of children and hope for their future depends on members of this House, and it is always gratifying to see how many members of Parliament care enough to speak.

I begin by addressing the myths that have been peddled by the Government and, in particular, the Minister in relation to this bill, its purposes and its effects. For the record, I am deeply disappointed in both the Minister, who I would have hoped knows better, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and member for Macquarie Fields, who I have always believed was intelligent enough to research his own speeches. I should have known better than to expect that the Labor Party, with its long history of dishonest intellectualism, would have encouraged its members to think issues through for themselves and to judge them on their merits. I am, however, deeply disappointed and I thank God for the day I realised that the Labor Party was not the party that championed opportunity and an end to intergenerational disadvantage, but instead was the party that lived off it.

Let us be clear: The Labor Party is the party that sucks off disadvantage and relishes the rhetoric of class warfare instead of passionately involving itself in change for the better, as it should. It is Labor Party members that look to see how many poor and broken people they have living in their electorates. It is the Labor Government that welcomes public housing estates in its members' electorates. However, it is not because it believes the disadvantaged should be housed—if the Labor Government believed that it would do something about the appalling standards of public housing accommodation. It is not because it wants better for the disadvantaged. It is because Labor members enjoy its spin-offs for them and, in particular, its political spin-offs. So, it is the Labor Party that does not want to see an end to intergenerational disadvantage because that threatens its vote.

Perhaps that is why the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were so determined to malign this bill and its intentions. They have no respect for the truth and, disappointingly for a scientist such as the member for Macquarie Fields—who knows whether the Minister even knows the meaning of intellectual rigour—did not, it appears, even read the bill. Once they had read the bill they might have gone to the next step and compared the amendment proposed with that section of the existing legislation to which it is related. It is a very short bill and not difficult even for Labor members of Parliament to read.

The bill relates to section 34. Section 34 is the part of the existing Act that identifies what should occur once the director general has determined that a child is at risk of harm. It is not about parents who think they might need a bit of extra help or a kindly schoolteacher who believes the child could do with regular meals but is otherwise okay. This is about children assessed by the department as being at risk of harm. In other words, they have been psychologically abused, physically abused, occasionally sexually abused but more often psychologically or physically neglected. Children who have witnessed domestic violence repeatedly and frequently copped its aftermath; children who have not been cuddled, fed, washed, dressed and supervised adequately or regularly. Forget being read to or played with!

The member for Macquarie Fields knows all this because he saw thousands of children like this in his surgery. I do not know what the Minister has ever seen. Their parents were drug or alcohol affected, suffered mental illness or were themselves the products of violent and dysfunctional homes and do not know how to parent differently. These are not children who are merely a little bit grubby, do not eat enough vegetables or sit down at the table for a meal with mum and dad and do not get read to every night. If only it were as simple as that. The circumstances of these children, by the time Community Services has them on its radar, are a great deal more dire than that.

Before the Keep them Safe reforms, there were almost a third of a million reports of children being at risk in New South Wales. As Justice Woods noted, far from all reports are investigated. We know however that the number of reports that precede an investigation by the department is extensive. In other words, the department does not investigate anybody until there is a sufficient number of reports to send a signal. We know that an investigation by Community Services under the preceding part 3, sections 30 to 33, is the entry to the child protection system and that one in four of these investigations in New South Wales leads to the removal of the child when the risk to the child is so dire that that is the only option. Of the remaining three in four investigations, the department may find that there is no risk of harm or it might find that the child is in need of assistance but that this can be provided with the child remaining in the family home. It is these cases where the bill before us is relevant.

Under section 34, when the department's investigation finds that the child is at risk of harm, the director general may decide to remove the child, or may order the family to take up parental responsibility contracts or care orders, or to refer the child and family to a number of other useful services. In other words, we are talking about children confirmed to be at risk of harm. The only issue is how we deal with it—is it a maybe or a must? This bill says we must deal with it. The Government is secretive about this so it is not easy to establish what currently happens next. But let us look at how section 34 works with the Government's only known prevention program, or program alternative to removal, which is the Brighter Futures program. Under section 34 the director general, having assessed a child as being at risk of harm, may refer the child and their family to Brighter Futures.

These children, judged to be in need of protection, make up more than 60 per cent of referrals to Brighter Futures. It is supposed to be 80 per cent. We know from the interim evaluation of Brighter Futures that these families have a mean number of 11 reports to the Department of Community Services and five reports per child—families who often cannot feed, clothe, give affection to or wash their child, or get their child to bed on time or to school on time, or who abuse them psychologically or physically. I think everyone in this Chamber would agree that five reports per child is a lot of reports and 11 reports per family is a lot of reports. These are very vulnerable families, well past the stage of early intervention. The Minister has correctly quoted a leading children protection researcher in Australia, Professor Elizabeth Fernandez from the University of New South Wales, thus:

Families are more likely to engage with intervention when the process is collaborative. Parents acknowledge positive changes, attributing these to caseworkers' intervention and "their own hard work", a finding that encapsulates caseworkers' empowerment orientated philosophy.

Undoubtedly that is true. It is particularly true at the prevention and early intervention stage of community development work when families that are struggling are encouraged to seek extra help, and kindly agencies start dropping in at home and setting up the mobile toy library at the end of their street. But that is not these families. Anyone remotely connected with the Department of Community Services and children at risk and Brighter Futures who thinks that these parents—the Brighter Futures parents who come through the child protection system—voluntarily join up to parenting classes, extra childcare and drug and alcohol management obviously has no idea how much intervention and criticism of these families there has already been.

By the time families are being introduced to Brighter Futures through the child protection system, they are well aware of what is before them. Whether it is the firm voice of the local DOCS officer, or the firm voice of the Brighter Futures auspicing non-government organisation, someone tells the family members at that point the good and bad news. They all know by now that the child has been found to be at risk of harm. The good news is that if they agree to engage in this program it might help them to keep their children. The bad news is that if they do not agree most likely the director general will take away the children anyway, so these parents know it is their last chance.

I do not think anyone could honestly say that engagement at that point in Brighter Futures for the 60 per cent of children who come through the child protection system and who, therefore, are of relevance to section 34 is voluntary, and it is exactly the doublespeak which George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four would have been proud of. Of course, after a family has walked through the door of section 34 of this Act, it is a complete nonsense to say that it volunteers for Brighter Futures. That family is begging for Brighter Futures, desperate to keep its children. It knows and DOCS knows that there is no choice if it wants to keep its children; it is not voluntary at all. The Minister's protestation that this amendment would undermine the voluntary nature of Brighter Futures is, therefore, a complete nonsense. It was only ever voluntary for 40 per cent of participants referred by the non-government agencies or self-referred. It never applied to the section 34 children and their families, and that is what this amendment is about.

Let us be clear: the amendment before this House relates to applications for care orders and section 34 was originally included to give families a last chance of being able to bring up their own children, and to do it better than they had before—a last chance before the children were removed. That section is meant to empower parents and families by requiring "the director general to consider a variety of alternative means to provide for the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the child or young person before commencing proceedings in the Children's Court". It is very much an "instead of" provision. The only problem with section 34 is the enormous discretion it gives to the director general. The director general may do any number of things in this section, including referral to Brighter Futures, and including instant removal. That discretion for the director general and its consequences are what this bill is intended to fix.

I am particularly disappointed that the member for Dubbo, who launched such a personal attack on me when speaking in debate on the bill, never thought to read the amendment bill and to compare it with section 34 of the existing Children and Young Persons (Care and Responsibility) Act. The member has been here long enough to know how to read an Act, and I thought better of her. Her snide remarks about my recent visits to Dubbo, which also included meetings with a number of children's welfare organisations, and later an extensive consultation with Aboriginal women in Walgett, do her no credit. Yes, I did address a businesswomen's lunch and, no doubt, she would have too, had she been asked. I also met a representative from the Buninyong Community Centre and I was especially alarmed by the shocking lack of emergency accommodation in Dubbo for women and children, and how overburdened and underresourced their services are. I trust that the member for Dubbo shares that concern.

I then met with members of the Dubbo Violence Prevention Collective, who are drawn from government and non-government organisations and include social workers, police, and counselling services. For the benefit of the member for Dubbo, their principal concern is the absence of specialists able to do rape assessments—able to use the special rape assessment kits. I was horrified to learn of the four-year-old girl who was forced to sit in the waiting room of a hospital for six hours following alleged full penetration rape because appropriately qualified medical personnel who could use and administer the kit could not be found to attend to her. This issue has been raised many times by the Opposition as a fundamental need in regional areas, and one that is not being met by this Government.

I note that at least in her parliamentary speeches the member for Dubbo has not raised this issue, and I would be pleased to refer her to the appropriate people in Dubbo who might be able to inform her about this disturbing problem. Sadly, when it came to addressing the substance of the bill before the House, the member for Dubbo preferred to rely on the Government's briefing note. Clearly, her three staff members did not think to check it either. Obviously it was easier than checking the facts for themselves. If they had they might have found, as all members might have found, that we are referring specifically to the beginning of the mandatory child protection system, where formal intervention of some kind clearly is required. We are not—and I repeat not—referring to the prevention and community development phase. I strongly advise members of Parliament to read legislation before they speak in debate on it.

The problem with the existing system is that alternatives for removing a child are not easily come by. For example, not all families who need Brighter Futures can get into it, so limited are the places. Justice Wood in his report made frequent references to the low number of families—13 per cent—who were seen and assessed by the department. Families on the Brighter Futures waiting list have to find other ways of developing their parenting skills, managing their drug habits or their anger management, or whatever it is that is stopping them from caring for their children. I am told that since Keep Them Safe began, referrals to Brighter Futures have dried up since so few children are now being assessed under section 34, which might be convenient for government resources but who knows what it will mean for children in the longer term. In any event, there is a shortage of Brighter Futures programs and places, and vulnerable families are clearly missing out.

Under the current legislation there is no requirement that they be provided with support and services if the child is not to be removed, only that they might be. That is the crux of this bill and that is why the Government opposes it. It is not because it is nasty to parents—there was no mention of the words "bad parenting" in the bill—but because it imposes accountability on the Government as well as on parents. It imposes a requirement that there be services and undertakings to the families of all children determined to be at risk of harm, but clearly not seriously enough to be removed. On many occasions I have met with families whose children have been removed without any discussion with the department about a plan or a contract to improve their parenting and, of course, with assistance for that development.

I give members an example in my electorate of a mother with bipolar disorder who has an 11-week-old baby. She and her partner were living with her mother—a sensible former teacher who assisted and encouraged that little family as much as she could. The grandmother raised concerns about the fact that her daughter needed an improved medication regime so that she could focus properly on her baby at all times. The grandmother, an honest woman, made the mistake of raising her concerns with the department, and the department became very interested in the young mother and the child's progress, and two weeks later removed the child. Two weeks ago, the Department of Community Services told the young mother what it wanted her to change. It was instructions, not negotiation, but at least it had that conversation. The problem was that it was not in writing—nothing was written down on paper. I am talking about someone with bipolar disorder who needs to be able to see things on paper because sometimes her concentration is not as good as it could be.

As the grandmother said originally, a medications review would have been very helpful. Two weeks later, after receiving nothing in writing—the grandmother and her daughter were not clear on what was being expected—the grandmother told DOCS staff in her own living room when they came to call that she did not want to be the baby's primary caregiver and to have her daughter live elsewhere. If she had been asked whether she would like to be the baby's primary caregiver and to have her daughter stay with her she would have agreed. But because she rejected the double proposition the Department of Community Services called into the room four police officers who had been waiting outside and they took the baby away. No written plan or contract was given to the young mother, just a verbal warning two weeks earlier in a discussion about smoking cigarettes in the baby's presence—which I understand did not happen. The baby was taken.

We are concerned about the safety of children, but would any member of this House consider that was a fair process? It would not take days to put together a written plan or contract, which then would have been something on which that young mother could focus, work with and adhere to. Discussions could have been had with Mental Health or her local general practitioner about her medications regime. The grandmother thought all of this would have been sorted out if the Department of Community Services had listened to her original request to have the young mother's medications reviewed. Such a review or a written plan would have made the Government's expectations clear. People could have worked to that plan with assistance. That family then might have had a chance of keeping that baby. The grandmother went to the Department of Community Services for help for her daughter, but instead of a written plan to make that help possible, the baby was taken.

It seems that the reason there is no formal mandate for care plans or parental contracts in section 34 is that it suits the Government. These mights and maybes give the Government and the department flexibility at the expense of the family and, ultimately, very often of the child. A mandatory process de jure instead of the existing de facto process would ensure a transparent and accountable process with no-one—parents, grandparents or the department—being able to say to the Children's Court they did not know what was expected of them. Such a process puts more responsibility on parents but also ensures the requirements of the department. Better outcomes would be produced. The current system is completely non-transparent and often baffles families. Of course, I hear only one side of these stories, but I am told repeatedly that Department of Community Services staff threaten families, require undertakings and then change their minds about verbal or oral negotiations regarding a child's care.

These parents—many of whom we agree are extremely vulnerable and who have the sympathy of members opposite, including the Minister—frequently lack concentration or comprehension, which may vary from meeting to meeting. Therefore, they need information to be given to them in writing. Through my proposal they will know what to do and other people can check on them. This simple bill solves that problem. It will also make the work of the Children's Court and any subsequent proceedings easier. Sadly, in her rush to oppose this bill, the Minister failed to understand how a mandatory contract system would complement the collaboration envisaged in the Brighter Futures program, rather than contradict it. Parental responsibility contracts and care plans as proposed under section 34 will allow for a collaborative approach between parents and a caseworker employing an alternative dispute resolution process.

These contracts and plans are to enable the department and parents to identify solutions and propose outcomes that the parents should aim to meet mostly, it is assumed, with the support of the department. The obvious purpose of these contracts or plans is to find an agreed way forward to reduce the risk of harm to the child without having the child removed from the family. It must be remembered that the child already has been assessed as being at risk of harm. Certainly, a contract or plan would require parents to take action to change and to take responsibility, as they are required to do already if they want to keep their children. This bill makes that mandatory for parents and thereby empowers parents because it will be in writing after a discussion phase envisaged for all families. The proposal must be offered by the department. This is the parents' last-chance bill.

I remind the House that, again, much like Brighter Futures, under the current legislation contracts and care plans might be undertaken. However, in practice, if the director general proposes a care plan or a parental responsibility contract, no parent in New South Wales would disagree. If they did, they would know their children were likely to be removed. Again, this confident assertion that the contract or plan is voluntarily entered into is a nonsense in practice. In effect, it is already mandatory. The difference is that currently only the Government decides whether the parents have a chance. The Minister claims that compulsory contracts "will erode the caseworker's efforts to engage the family voluntarily." Again, the Minister uses this misleading guise to misrepresent the bill and the current situation.

The present situation is that if a child is the subject of a substantiated report, the Department of Community Services must engage the family, whether or not voluntarily. Of course, whether that happens currently is a question of how well the department is being run. The Minister claims that my bill is aimed at hurting parents. Nothing could be further from the truth. My bill aims to simplify the process for families and parents. I speak to many parents whose children have been removed. Their most regular complaint is that they did not know what was expected of them. Stories always have two sides, but if a contract exists in conjunction with a caseworker engaging parents and intervention services, it will provide the highest chance of a positive outcome and the parent being able to retain custody and care of their child.

The Minister claims that the bill somehow says we know better than caseworkers. I do not see how the change I propose to section 34 does that at all. Caseworkers will maintain discretion when it comes to the content of those contracts. As the experts, they will put proposed services and ideas in which to engage the family and link them with the services they need. They will continue to monitor the family and provide assistance and advice where necessary. Mandatory contracts simply ensure that such a process is adhered to by all parties, not just by parents. However, we cannot begin to think that mandatory contracts dangerously simplify child protection. The contracts can and will contain many ideas, services and regimes. They will be put together collaboratively by the caseworker and the family to suit the unique needs of every case.

All that is simplified is the process because it will become transparent. As I stated earlier, these plans will mean that parents will be empowered by the expectations and goals placed on them. The caseworker will be empowered by knowing clearly what outcome is required and being able to pursue that outcome with vigour. The right balance of stick and carrot will be struck and discretion, which is always so very non-transparent, will be removed. In her media release relating to this bill the Minister stated that mandatory contracts would require parents to change their behaviour. That is true. I would have thought the Minister would be pleased that that was the case. These children have been assessed as being at risk of harm because their parents are not able to look after them properly due to their current behaviour. Apparently, the trend is not to comprehend the obvious.

The department has no shame in telling the parents of children at risk that the continuation of such a situation is untenable. We all recall stories being told to us in our electorate offices by parents claiming they were told exactly what the department thinks of them, their weight or lack thereof, their looks, manners and a host of other things when it comes to caring for their children. There is no shame in agreeing that this part of the bill does not remove the right of Department of Community Services staff to tell parents that they should change their behaviour. However, this bill ensures that every parent is given a chance and that it is not at the discretion of the director general. The decision will be part of a process that in a de facto sense has become mandatory.

Sadly, the Minister also attacked the Leader of the Opposition for stating that the budgetary situation an incoming Liberals-Nationals government would face would be restricted without economic growth. The Minister implied that the Coalition would do terrible things to the Department of Community Services budget. In a capitalist economy such as Australia's, democratically elected governments cannot walk away from that. Of course, economic growth provides more money for services to these families. Without a commitment to economic growth and management, to which the Liberals and The Nationals commit, we have no opportunity to help the most vulnerable children in our community. The State has sufficient resources, but if we wish to increase our capacity to look after these children, the economy also has to grow.

Having 16,524 children and young people in the State of New South Wales in out-of-home care is a very expensive solution. It represents more than 1 per cent of children and young people in New South Wales and represents thousands of tragedies for them and their families. It is the highest rate in the country.

The costs associated with constantly increasing out-of-home care will bring the department to its knees. Last financial year alone, more than $500 million was spent on out-of-home care, which represents a massive 19.1 per cent increase in just one year. In the time the Minister has been in charge of her portfolio, the rate has increased by another 1.1 child, or young person per 1,000, and that trend has continued over a number of years. The point about mandatory contracts at the section 34 stage is that it might enable us to head off some of those children being put into out-of-home care and stop this terrible trend.
We know that continuing the current policy course will lead only to further failure. We cannot continue to put more and more children into out-of-home care: it is unsustainable, both socially and economically. We must begin our work of fixing families and their problems. The old saying is that the first step to a solution is knowing the problem. The tragedy for the children of the State is that the Keneally Government thinks that the problem relates only to money. Too much money is being spent on out-of-home care and too many children are in out-of-home care, and it costs a lot. But the Government does not recognise that the solution is not to squeeze the non-government sectors out-of-home care contracts or exploit the love that grandparents have for their children by taking away their allowances. Instead of doing those things, the solution is to put more effort into families so that people might become the parents they need to be, and give their children a chance at life in a land of wonderful opportunity, the State of New South Wales.

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.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.09 p.m.]: I move:

That standing orders be suspended to permit consideration of the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill to take precedence of all other business in the time remaining for General Business Orders of the Day (for Bills).

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [5.10 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support this motion to suspend standing orders because I believe it has been moved to prevent debate on the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment (Independent Election Costings) Bill 2010, which was introduced by the member for Manly. The Government is dedicated to opposing that bill. This is the great Keneally lie. During the debate with the Leader of the Opposition the Premier made a commitment, in front of journalists and members of the public, to having election policies costed by an independent body. Instead, the Government has sought to perform its usual trick and have Treasury cost its promises. We saw what happened at the last election when Treasury costed Labor's election promises.

We saw what happened in the upper House—that excellent House of review; we support the continuation and retention of the upper House, at least until the next election—where substantial changes were made to the Government's bill. The Opposition would have supported that bill as amended. If the Leader of the House had any decency he would suspend standing orders to bring on debate on the Government's bill, and we would support and agree to the amendments passed in the upper House so that they form part of the bill. If the Premier can lie in a public debate—

Ms Gladys Berejiklian: And give a handshake.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: —and make a handshake deal, not only to the Leader of the Opposition but also to the public of New South Wales, what will she not lie about? I thought that if anybody in this House wanted to make good on that promise it would be the Premier, to prove that she can be trusted as the leader of the Government. Each time the Government defeats a private member's bill—now it is trying to defeat the amendments passed in the upper House—it reinforces the fact that the Premier cannot be supported. For those excellent reasons the Opposition will not support the motion to suspend standing orders.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.12 p.m.], in reply: Once again the Opposition has shown its hypocrisy on this matter. The issue was fully canvassed yesterday when members debated the reordering of business for today. The shadow Leader of the House raised these arguments yesterday, and they were shown to be false. The issue is that the Coalition is reluctant to have its budget promises costed by government and overseen by the Auditor-General. Members opposite do not trust the Auditor-General. That is the basis of their opposition to this motion. However, that is not why I moved this motion. It is necessary to suspend standing orders to enable consideration of the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 to be completed, and that is what we hope to do in the time remaining.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield) [5.20 p.m.]: In contrast to the Howard Government's contempt for a harmonious and cooperative system, the Commonwealth Government has recognised the role of the States as active and productive participants. The signing of bilateral and multilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and State governments has formally codified the participatory role of the New South Wales Government, establishing consultation requirements for the Commonwealth and a voting mechanism to prevent unilateral amendment. An extension of that has been the Commonwealth recognition of the experience of institutions and agencies in New South Wales in successfully delivering productive and harmonious industrial relations in this State for more than a century.

The Fair Work Act provides for the appointment of members of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales to the national tribunal and for the appointment of New South Wales industrial inspectors as Fair Work Inspectors. I am pleased to report that those provisions have been utilised, which has contributed to the cooperative and successful initial stages of transition and implementation. The New South Wales Government's commitment to the national system was given legislative force under the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 when it passed last year with Opposition support. This legislation referred certain industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth to enable the establishment of the national workplace relations system.

With that legislative commitment to the national system came ongoing responsibility. The referring legislation was drafted and progressed through Parliament with the highest priority to ensure that the national system could be delivered smoothly and in line with the promised time frame. As we now progress further along the path of the implementation for the national workplace relations system, it has become evident, as expected, that some minor consequential technical amendments are required to ensure that the legislation establishing the national system operates as intended.

Accordingly, the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 proposes to: update references in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act so that it refers correctly to the Fair Work Act 2009, its provisions, institutions and associated legislation; establish transitional arrangements for Federal industrial instruments of employing entities who move from the Federal system into the New South Wales system; confirm that a national decision made under the provisions of the Fair Work Act is considered a national decision for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act; and clarify that a member of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales has the authority to deal with a dispute referred to it under a preserved State agreement. Consistent with our commitment, it is now our responsibility to make sure that these amendments progress expeditiously. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Energy, Minister for Public Sector Reform, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [5.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Fairfield and the member for Keira for their contributions to the debate, and note the contribution of the member for Lane Cove. The Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 makes a range of minor but necessary amendments to update the terminology in the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and the Long Service Leave Act 1955 to reflect the new national industrial relations system.

The bill also finetunes other provisions that are necessary as a consequence of enacting the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009, which referred sufficient power to enable the Commonwealth to create a national industrial relations system for the private sector. Due to the extremely short time frame to draft and pass the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 through Parliament before 1 January 2010, there was insufficient time to then draft all the miscellaneous amendments that needed to be made to update New South Wales industrial relations legislation.

This bill updates the terminology to accurately identify the new Commonwealth legislation, for example, the Fair Work Act 2009, the new institution Fair Work Australia and the new definitions of industrial instruments established under the Fair Work Act 2009. The bill also finetunes some provisions and ensures that transitional arrangements are in place to achieve a smooth transition for entities that may move in future from the Federal system to the State industrial relations jurisdiction. In summary, this bill replaces references to the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in New South Wales industrial relations legislation with the Fair Work Act 2009 and, where relevant, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

If a local government entity or a body established for a public purpose under a New South Wales law is declared not to be a national system employer and hence becomes covered by the State industrial jurisdiction, the bill provides transitional provisions recognising Federal awards and agreements covering those entities. The bill replaces references to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission with references to the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia and the Minimum Wages Panel, the new independent umpire established under the Fair Work Act 2009. In that context, the bill provides that national decisions of the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia and the Minimum Wages Panel will be considered by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales as to whether those decisions should be applied in the New South Wales jurisdiction.

The bill also makes consequential amendments to section 146B of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to confirm that the definition of a Federal enterprise agreement includes a preserved State agreement where the agreement is within its nominal term. This will ensure that the parties' wishes will be respected where they had chosen a member of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales to provide dispute resolution services. The proposals in this bill finish the job of enacting legislation to refer private sector industrial relations matters to the Commonwealth to make sure that the transition to the national system of industrial relations is as smooth as possible.

The New South Wales Government will continue to play an important role in monitoring the national system to ensure any proposed amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 or developments in case law in the national jurisdiction are consistent with the fundamental workplace relations principles under section 30L (9) of the Fair Work Act 2009. That is, that the Fair Work Act provides: a strong, simple and enforceable safety net of minimum standards; genuine rights and responsibilities to ensure fairness, choice and representation at work, including the freedom to choose whether to join and be represented by a union or participate in collective activities; collective bargaining at the enterprise level with no provision for individual statutory agreements; fair and effective remedies available through an independent umpire; protection from unfair dismissal; and, that there should be, and continue to be, in connection with the operation of the Act, an independent tribunal system and an independent authority able to assist employers and employees within a national workplace relations system.

Indeed, the Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 conforms with the national workplace fair work principles. Of course, if it becomes apparent that it is necessary to further finetune the industrial relations legislation in New South Wales to maintain a fair, balanced, modern and efficient industrial relations environment in this State, the Government will move amendments to achieve that objective.

The context of this legislation is that in January 2010 the New South Wales Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act commenced. That Act gave effect to the New South Wales Government's commitment to participate in a national workplace relations system by referring certain industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. Importantly, this Act was passed through the New South Wales Parliament without opposition. The development of a national workplace relations system has been the product of many months, indeed years, of discussions, negotiation, cooperation and innovative policy development on behalf of the participants to the system, that is, the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments.

It has always been envisaged that in implementing the national system there would be procedural and consequential amendments required to ensure that the new system and its transitional amendments operate smoothly and seamlessly. The Industrial Relations Amendment (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 includes such provisions. The provisions in the bill are comparatively minor, but they provide important clarification and protection for small groups of employers and employees. The bill corrects some definitions relating to legislation and institution names that were not finalised at the time the parent legislation was passed. The bill makes provision for the continuation of Federal industrial instruments that apply to an entity in the event that it moves from the national system to a State system. This means that where, under the existing provisions of the Fair Work Act and the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Act, a government-related entity is declared not to be a Federal system employee, the existing Federal instrument can be recognised in the New South Wales system.

The consequential amending bill also ensures that where parties to a Federal enterprise agreement have, under the Federal legislation, lawfully agreed that the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales is their dispute resolution provider of choice, the New South Wales commission has legislative power to provide this service. I must point out that in the majority of cases this power already exists. Only in the limited circumstance where a preserved State agreement has had its nominal term extended is the capacity for the commission to hear the matter in doubt. This provision removes any such doubt.

To further provide for a truly harmonious and national workplace relations system the legislation also proposes that national decisions of the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia and the Minimum Wages Panel can be considered national decisions under the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. This, in my view, is the most significant of the proposed amendments. The result is that inconsistencies in test case standards and minimum wages introduced by WorkChoices can be removed. WorkChoices did not recognise the importance of flowing on national decisions into State jurisdictions.

The Australian Fair Pay Commission made decisions behind closed doors and its capacity to make fair decisions was severely constrained by the legislation. Indeed, the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales found that decisions of the Australian Fair Pay Commission could not be considered national decisions for the purposes of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. This resulted in minimum wages and test case standards varying between jurisdictions.

The Fair Work Act, however, provides for national decisions before an independent umpire with an opportunity for all parties to present their evidence. The principles of the legislation under which these decisions are made are consistent with those of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. These decisions should now be considered by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission for flow on into the New South Wales jurisdiction. This amendment confirms the commission's responsibility to do so.

In relation to the commentary by members of the House on the legislation, I note that the members for Keira and Fairfield supported it and the member for Lane Cove did not oppose it. Indeed, I note from the speech of the member for Lane Cove that he in fact said nothing about this bill. He spoke about matters that were subject to decision in another forum—in the Federal Parliament. If he had read the bill before he spoke he might have enlightened us all. I once called him the idiot son of the ruling class. I think I was too kind. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

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

Mr PHIL KOPERBERG (Blue Mountains—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.32 p.m.]: I pay tribute to the wonderful community work of Dianne Jacobus, who for almost a decade and a half tirelessly served my electorate—the Blue Mountains community—in many fields, but most recently as the manager of the Katoomba Neighbourhood Centre. As this House well knows, the work undertaken by neighbourhood centres meets so many social and human needs in constituencies as to make their management very difficult. Dianne Jacobus moved to the mountains in 1990 and became the first coordinator of the Blue Mountains Home Modification and Maintenance Scheme as well as working for the Blue Mountains Volunteer Carers at the Katoomba Neighbourhood Centre. She worked at Blackheath Area Neighbourhood Centre and then Mountains Outreach Community Services before becoming the manager of Katoomba Neighbourhood Centre in 1996.

After Dianne's decade and a half of selfless and tireless work for the community, I am pleased to say that she and her family have moved to Bellingen, in the electorate of the member for Coffs Harbour. That notwithstanding, she will enjoy her retirement in that wonderful environment. Her character and commitment to work are replicated many hundreds of times throughout New South Wales. Neighbourhood centres do work that most people rarely hear of—they are not highly profiled—but they struggle with the aid of volunteers to do many things and it takes a special kind of character to commit one's life, or much of it, to ensuring that those human services are met. I need not tell anyone in this House the depth and breadth of the activities that neighbourhood centres become involved in.

The Vale Street project in my electorate is something about which I and many others are particularly passionate and for which Dianne Jacobus fought tirelessly to have appropriate levels of funding. The Vale Street project is a home in the Blue Mountains where, on a number of days a week, people with mental illness can find some respite, be entertained and be taught arts and craft and various forms of communication. This is one of many programs funded through the Community Services Grants Program, which leads me to remind the House—as if members needed to be reminded—of the vital nature of the Community Services Grants Program funding mechanism, without which places such as neighbourhood centres simply could not function.

Dianne Jacobus was at the forefront of arguing passionately and advocating for continuous improvement in the levels of funding so that the many dozens of people like her throughout the State could administer these schemes and bring some respite and relief to people who would otherwise be confined to their homes, not having the benefit of being entertained or being taught creative arts, being taught to communicate with one another and all manner of things. Projects such as this keep people out of our health system because they are catered for and looked after by their own communities, and therefore their work is absolutely vital. I urge the Government to continue to support people like Dianne Jacobus in their work by ensuring that the Community Services Grants Program system continues and is funded to the same or greater levels than in the past, because otherwise some of the work of Dianne Jacobus, who has done so much for the community, may perhaps have been in vain—but I suspect that that will not be the case. I commend the years of service of Dianne Jacobus to this House.

Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO (Ryde) [5.37 p.m.]: Tonight I speak on a matter of significance to local business owners in Eastwood. Unfortunately, power blackouts have become an all too common occurrence in the area and a cause of great frustration and economic loss. Earlier this year the president of the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce, Peter Sullivan, approached me seeking my assistance in bringing the plight of local business owners to the attention of the New South Wales Government. A petition calling on the New South Wales Government to address the poor electricity provision in Eastwood and ensure reliable power supply in the area was circulated. On 19 May 2010 I submitted a petition of 108 signatures to this House. On 26 May 2010 the Northern District Times ran a story titled "Eastwood 'utterly powerless"'. The article chronicles how, over the past few years, local business owners have become accustomed to power blackouts several times each year.

Business proprietors in Eastwood Mall on Rowe Street and Glen Street have been worst affected, with thousands of dollars in revenue lost on each occasion. Most frustrating is the fact that only certain sections of shops seem to be affected. On many occasions it is only the shops on the north side of Rowe Street mall whose power is shut down. Let me provide some examples. There is the story of a coffee and cake shop owner. He was required to close his shop for an entire afternoon during the most recent blackout on 28 February 2010. Unable to use his coffee machine or keep his cakes refrigerated, he was required to turn customers away. Then there is the story of a pharmacist who was required to serve customers in the dark by the light of candles. This pharmacist recalls five blackouts in 2008, one in 2009 and already two in 2010. During the most recent blackout in February, the pharmacist lost large amounts of stock and had to transfer cold chain material such as tablets and vaccines for storage to her home fridge. Due to health regulations, $3,300 worth of cold chain stock had to be discarded. To make matters worse the pharmacy's fridge was damaged during the blackout.

Then there is the story of a greengrocer. He lost produce and was forced to close his doors during the blackouts. The greengrocer estimates that he sustains losses of between $5,000 and $8,000 every time a blackout occurs. He says it has affected his business at least every few years in the seven years he has been operating in the area. Then there is the story of the local medical centre that lost its entire patient records held on its computer server during the 28 February blackouts. Mr Ricky Liu, the Vice-President of Eastwood Chamber of Commerce, believes the cost to the local business community is in the tens of thousands of dollars. What is particularly distressing is that these blackouts are impacting on small local businesses. Small businesses do not have the commercial clout to absorb the significant losses sustained during these blackouts.

The reality is that the New South Wales Labor Government has allowed a backlog of network maintenance to build up. It is scandalous that the New South Wales Labor Government has taken more than $11.4 billion out of energy companies in dividends and taxes over the past 15 years and has obviously not put the money back in to upgrade our infrastructure. What is also scandalous is that over the past 13 years the New South Wales Government has received more than $17.5 billion in windfall revenue. These blackouts provide clear evidence that this revenue has been squandered. With the taxes and power bills paid by the business men and women of Eastwood over the past 15 years, they are entitled to expect a reliable power service without any blackouts.

I am due to meet with a representative from EnergyAustralia on 16 June to discuss local power issues. I will take this opportunity to bring these stories to his attention and seek answers as to what action EnergyAustralia will take to minimise—and hopefully stop—disruptions for Eastwood business owners. I have also written to the energy Minister about the issue. I will continue to work closely with the Eastwood business community on this issue. I congratulate the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce, in particular president Peter Sullivan, vice president Ricky Liu and secretary Trina Moseley, on its leadership and hard work. I also acknowledge the hardworking business people of Eastwood, particularly Johan Boen, Rebecca Tu and Joe Bova, who continue to fight hard on this issue for the people of Eastwood.

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai) [5.42 p.m.]: On previous occasions I have stood in this Chamber to offer a bouquet to the local councils serving the Menai electorate. However, this evening I must voice the serious concerns of constituents residing in the Liverpool local government area regarding the behaviour of the majority of their councillors. For the record, as a matter of principle I personally support democratically elected local government. Councillors have a unique opportunity to help achieve improvements and other positive changes to council policies and priorities for the benefit of their local community. But in the current circumstances, I can only agree with the view expressed by so many local people of all political persuasions: following council's period of administration, our return to democracy has done us no favours.

I acknowledge that Mayor Wendy Waller and at least a few other councillors have the best interests of Liverpool at heart and make a substantial effort to truly represent our community. Those councillors have my sincere sympathies in their attempts to cope with the current situation. I challenge any member to spend even five minutes at a council meeting—if they can bear it—and they will see that, for the majority of councillors, self-serving decisions are the order of the day. If those people reject this assessment of their performance then the only other conclusion that can account for the ad hoc decision-making is that they must be ineptly making it all up as they go along. Either way, it is the sort of behaviour that characteristically gives local government a very bad name.

Time available today permits me to detail only a few examples of recent events and decisions that are causing major problems for our community. Jacqueline Frew and Beverly Wilden have contacted me regarding their strong objections to the proposed reduced operating hours and changes to staffing arrangements in council-run childcare centres. I am aware that some councillors have openly questioned why council is even involved in providing this vital community service. I will read from Ms Frew's recent letter to the councillors regarding a later opening time for the Wattle Grove Children's Centre and other centres. It states:

There are a lot of working families who are required to commute to the city for work and require the earlier opening time of 6.30 am at the centre. This time enables families to drop off their children to the centre, commute to the city and arrive on time for their work requirements. Your decision to change the opening time has a detrimental affect on many families including my family and puts us all at a severe disadvantage. Therefore, I request that the opening time of Wattle Grove Children's Centre be left unchanged and that you act on our behalf to remedy this injustice.

Ms Wilden and Ms Frew have pointed out that these changes were made without any consultation with the affected families. They were even denied the opportunity to leave a petition for people to lodge their protest about this decision. Their children are well settled in these facilities and if they want to change to another centre there are long waiting lists.

As members would know, the Holsworthy army base is in my electorate and many defence families also use these facilities. There is a standard start time of around 7.20 a.m. for all defence personnel, so I wonder what options the councillors think these families will have before the centre doors open at 7.30 a.m. The situation is all the more extraordinary given that when it was crisis time for ABC childcare centres one councillor asked that the council explore the possibility of purchasing the ABC centre she used. One of her colleagues came to her aid and suggested that her proposal be extended to include all Liverpool ABC centres. It is a huge jump from that proposal to council's current actions to minimise its financial commitment to its own centres. On behalf of my community, I call upon the council to listen to our community and immediately abandon its intention to reduce childcare hours and staff.

As a former local councillor, I know only too well the criticality of having qualified and well-managed staff to deliver the range of council services that are so important to Liverpool residents. For that reason I am appalled by the impact of these councillors' actions upon Liverpool council staff. A majority of councillors voted to change certain working and leave conditions of the employees, refusing to accept the general manager's legitimate advice that he was the one employed and accountable for managing staff issues, not the elected members. It is clear to me that on this and many other issues, certain councillors harassed the general manager, Mr Phil Tolhurst, to the point where—very regrettably, but understandably—he recently resigned. In my capacity as a local member of Parliament, I had made numerous representations on behalf of constituents with concerns about local government matters to Mr Tolhurst, and he always dealt with those issues professionally and comprehensively.

The reaction to his resignation from the community has been uniform, regardless of what side of the political fence people sit. A former Liberal councillor made the comment that non-Labor councillors had hounded Mr Tolhurst and should have given him a fairer go. If the majority of councillors had acted even half as professionally by getting on with what they were elected to do and allowed him to get on with his job, Liverpool would be a whole lot better off and Mr Tolhurst would not have resigned. This evening, the Department of Local Government will be conducting training programs for Liverpool councillors. I can only hope that they pay very strict attention and improve their performance for the sake of all residents in the Liverpool local government area.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.47 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to place on record my admiration for Mr Tolhurst. I was privileged to work with him as General Manager of Liverpool City Council. As a new politician, I found Phil to be a natural leader and a wonderful employer. He was loved by all the staff and highly respected by everybody who had to deal with him for his commitment, his professionalism and his dedication to the people of Liverpool. His loss is tragic for the people of our area. He has been a fantastic employee of the people and has contributed an enormous amount to the community. This is a great loss, and he will be very hard to replace.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.48 p.m.]: Twenty years ago in April I sat next to my wife in our doctor's surgery when the doctor broke the news to her that she was suffering from cancer. We were basically given a death sentence. They did not think she would survive. After seven months of chemotherapy and another six weeks of radiotherapy she came through with flying colours, and, 20 years on, is still going well. After that, about 18 years ago, she set up the Cancer Council's shop in Coffs Harbour, which sold Cancer Council gear, and employed one person. She worked voluntarily and established the Cancer Council in Coffs Harbour. We now have Patty Delaney as the Chief Executive Officer of the Cancer Council. Last weekend we took great pride in attending the Relay for Life, which was organised by Fiona Fowlkes under the chairmanship on the day of Joe Mace, who heads a committee of about eight people. Hundreds of people walked in that Relay for Life.

On the Friday night prior to that, Bob Tarry from Coffs Harbour Plumbing Supplies held a fundraiser. Tragically, he and his wife lost their daughter to cancer about 12 months ago. Not to be beaten by this disease, he raised some $40,000 on that night for the Cancer Council. I think quite a few dollars came out of his own pocket. Steve Hutchinson, who works for Brown and Hurley, and a group of workmates got together and bought an old trailer. With assistance from suppliers around the place they restored the trailer, and Doug Hurley bankrolled it for them. Doug's first wife died of cancer some years ago. They raised about $28,000 and have already passed over $25,000 to the Relay for Life. In total at the weekend the Relay for Life raised $175,000 to be spent by the Cancer Council in combating this hideous disease.

My wife, Kerrie, and hundreds of others, I would suggest, are testament to the fact that cancer can be beaten. The research done by the Cancer Council and the great service it provides to the community were recognised last weekend with a great rollout at the Relay for Life. I will read from an article in the Coffs Coast Advocate, which stated:

Lynda Toohey, who is being treated for cancer, completed the full 24 hours up to 10am yesterday, accompanied by her two daughters and carers Jacqueline and Nicole.

"It's the first time I've done the 24 hours and it was very emotional to see how many people have been touched by cancer," Mrs Toohey said. She lost her husband to cancer in January.

There were dozens of people with stories like that at the Relay for Life last Saturday morning. I saw many people who have survived cancer in its many and varied forms as well as a large number of carers. Until you have been touched individually by having a relative or dear friend affected by cancer you really do not understand the emotional trauma that families and friends go through. You then come to recognise and accept the great work that people in the Cancer Council do not just to reduce the incidence of cancer but hopefully to eliminate it across the board.

There were many success stories. Bill Tindal, a good mate of mine who had a very severe form of prostate cancer, was out there walking. He is fine; he is cured. I really could not name all the dozens of people I saw walking around on Saturday morning. My thanks go to Fiona Fowlkes, Joe Mace, Bob Tarry, Steve Hutchinson, Doug Hurley, the committee and all those who banded together to do such a fantastic job in our community and raise such a phenomenal amount of money. To pull $175,000 out of a community that is socioeconomically down the list in New South Wales is a wonderful achievement. The weather was not good but the camaraderie was fine. It gave us an opportunity not only to thank God for the lives of those who have survived, such as Kerrie, but also to reflect and remember those who have died, such as my brother-in-law, Ian Jeffree, who passed away a couple of years ago from melanoma, and all the friends we have lost. Once again, congratulations and commendation to all those involved.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.]: I thank the member for Coffs Harbour for bringing to the attention of the House the fabulous effort of the people in his electorate in the Relay for Life. Raising $175,000 is truly a fantastic effort. I did not catch all the names he mentioned but I think I heard him refer to Fiona Fowlkes, Joe Mace, Bob Tarry, Steve Hutchinson and Doug Hurley. It is people like them who have been touched by cancer who understand fully what it is like to suffer from cancer or have a relative suffer from cancer or to care for them. All too often those relatives pass away. I lost my father, Joe, at 60 to cancer, and my mother at 64 to leukaemia. I think of my mother's case and wonder whether she might still be alive today if more research had been done at that time.

I have attended Relay for Life in the Sutherland shire and seen people walking around in groups for 24 hours. We had a fantastic walk in the shire this year. As the member for Coffs Harbour said, it is not only the general community who raise money for the Cancer Council but also the survivors, the carers and all those who have been touched by cancer or who may in future be touched by it. It is a fabulous community effort and I congratulate all the residents of Coffs Harbour.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.55 p.m.]: Roads, roads and more roads is the Government's policy for the Central Coast road network. That momentum continues. The Labor Government is building a road network for the whole of the Central Coast, not one for Gosford City Council and not one for Wyong Shire Council. The Labor Government and my Labor colleagues on the Central Coast—the member for Gosford, the member for Wyong and the member for Swansea—appreciate that roads are a top priority for the Central Coast community. The challenges are enormous given the difficulty of the terrain and the need to maintain continuous road and pedestrian access 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at the same time. Innovative solutions are required and I congratulate the Roads and Traffic Authority on finding those solutions in carrying out its work.

The New South Wales Government has already committed more than $300 million over four years between 2007 and 2011 to upgrade the road network across the Central Coast. This level of funding commitment recognises that the Central Coast is one of the fastest-growing regions in New South Wales. A raft of high-profile projects has been completed with major projects still underway across the coast. Right now the works underway include the intersection of the Central Coast Highway and Woy Woy Road at Kariong, the Central Coast Highway between Erina and Wamberal—I will say more about that later—and Avoca Drive at Green Point.

We recently heard the announcement of the preferred option for the upgrade of the intersection of Central Coast Highway and Brisbane Water Drive at West Gosford. It is an issue that has been running for some time but has now been resolved. The Government's investment in Central Coast roads over the past years is apparent to all residents and, I point out, to visitors to the Central Coast as well. However, further works are needed and the Minister for Roads has been advised of the need to progress other essential works, including the need to plan for an upgrade of the intersection of Wyong Road and the F3 at Tuggerah as well as the intersection of Wisemans Ferry Road and the Central Coast Highway at Kariong. We will continue to work with the Central Coast community in determining priorities for essential road infrastructure into the future.

Recently completed projects on the Central Coast include the $42 million upgrade of the Pacific Highway to a four-lane dual carriageway between Tuggerah and Wyong, which was completed in October 2009. That section of road is a little over a kilometre long and it cost $42 million to construct. The issue on the Central Coast with roads is that the cost is equivalent to building a road in the inner city. Why is that? It is because there are no alternative access roads other than the main roads when you move around the Central Coast. It means that our local roads, secondary roads and arterial roads are our main roads as well. It does not matter where you are on the Central Coast, if you want your hair cut or you want to shop you will always end up on our arterial roads.

There has also been a $52 million upgrade of the Pacific Highway through Ourimbah to a four-lane dual carriageway, which was completed in January this year. That is from the intersection of the F3 past Ourimbah RSL, Ourimbah Public School and the railway station to Glen Road. An amount of $104 million was spent in widening the F3 to six lanes between Sydney and the Central Coast to better serve the 70,000 motorists who use that freeway every day. That was completed in 2009. I point out that under Minister Costa at that time the New South Wales Government put $100 million into the construction of our national highway. That was the first time any State or Territory had put money into that highway. It is recognised that it should be fully funded by the national Government and in the past it has been, but because this Government and members on the Central Coast saw it as a priority the New South Wales Government put in $100 million to get that project going. It was the first State Government to do that. That project has turned out to be a massive contribution to moving traffic through the F3 to the Central Coast and also to Newcastle and further north.

In addition, the $15 million upgrade of the Central Coast Highway between Terrigal Drive and Carlton Road was completed in 2007 and the $40 million upgrade of the Central Coast Highway between Ocean View Drive and Tumbi Road was completed in 2008. Other projects completed include the widening of the Pacific Highway to four lanes between Tuggerah and Wyong, which opened in October 2009, and the widening at Ourimbah from Glen Road to Burns Road, which opened in January 2010.

The Government has constructed a 120-space car park for motorists to car pool at the Ourimbah exit of the F3. The car park is full on any weekday and has been of tremendous advantage to workers on the Central Coast. This dedicated car pool area for 120 cars has improved the quality of life for people on the Central Coast. An additional two new projects are now underway on the Central Coast Highway after detailed analysis, consultation and design. Indeed, as one project comes to completion, another project on the Central Coast is already underway. [Time expired.]

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [6.00 p.m.]: On 23 February 2010 I raised in this place the impact that the closure of Burrangong Meat Processors has had on the community of Young in my electorate of Burrinjuck. At 2 o'clock on the afternoon of 1 February work at the abattoir was stopped and employees were told that they were unemployed. The abattoir was the largest employer in the town and more than 300 jobs were lost. Burrangong Meat Processors was placed into the hands of receivers, owing about $23 million to creditors, many of them other businesses in Young.

I welcomed the declaration of the Regional Economic Transition Scheme for Young, following my representations to the Minister for State and Regional Development. The receiver has informed me that the announcement of the successful tenderers is imminent, with only a few minor details to be worked through. Currently about 150 former employees are still waiting to see whether the abattoir will reopen from Young. Those former employees are from Young, Cootamundra, Harden, Grenfell, Cowra and Boorowa, all towns surrounding Young. Many of the former employees have left the town to find work and only a few have found alternative employment in Young.

In regional New South Wales business owners have a leading role in their community. Often they live in close proximity to their employees, frequently socialise with them and contribute significantly to the community in general. Employers hold a position of trust, which I believe is probably much more intensely felt in regional towns than metropolitan areas, and business ethics take on a whole new significance. I was disgusted to learn that the former owner of Burrangong Abattoirs, Grant Edmonds, has sought to regain control of the company by putting in a bid to the administrators.

I bring to the attention of the House several irregularities that have come to light since the closure. The company's records were stolen shortly before it collapsed, no signs of forced entry were apparent after the theft, the security cameras were turned off and the alarm was deactivated, and the thief removed the computer hard drives containing the records and reset the alarm before exiting the building. Another concern is that over $1 million worth of meat went missing from the abattoir's cool rooms before the administrators took over. About $2 million in workers' leave and superannuation entitlements has gone missing. This cost has now been passed on to the Federal Government under its General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme.

The receiver of the Burrangong Meat Processors has sent a report to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I have not seen the report but I hope that it explores the concerns that I have just raised. Significant doubt has been cast upon the probity and character of the previous owner of Burrangong Meat Processors. The ABC recently reported that Mr Edmonds was the Manager of the North Auburn Branch of the Commonwealth Bank about 25 years ago. A report by fraud investigators stated that he was deceptive and dishonest. He was accused of abuse of his position and abdication of his management responsibilities, of approving risky loans, falsifying loan applications, overvaluing assets, using fake company seals, forging signatures and operating fake bank accounts. This investigation did not result in criminal charges but from all accounts it is quite clear that it should have.

I understand that it is very unlikely that Mr Edmonds will regain control of the abattoirs. I do not believe that any good would be served for the community of Young by allowing Grant Edmonds to squirm out of the debts owed to his former employees and to many businesses in Young. Mr Edmonds should not have put in a tender to reopen the business. I believe, and so do many others in the community, that this guy should be behind bars because his actions show that he is clearly unethical in business practice and clearly incapable of managing a business. On no occasion has he expressed any remorse or regret for the pain and suffering that he has inflicted on former employees. The best conclusion that can be drawn from his actions is that Mr Edmonds is an unethical crook.

I call on the State Government to do everything in its power to ensure a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Burrangong Meat Processors is undertaken. Too many people in Young had been hurt by Mr Edmonds' unethical and criminal behaviour. He should not receive a reward. I call on the appropriate authorities to pursue every avenue available to prosecute Mr Edmonds to the fullest extent of the law.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.05 p.m.]: On 19 April 2010 my wife, Jeanette, and I attended the fiftieth annual general meeting of the Sutherland District Trade Union Club, better known as the Tradies. I have the privilege of having this club, the shire's premier club, in my electorate of Miranda. The club was registered on 20 October 1960, with the first board meeting held at the Sutherland Scout Hall in December the same year. This year's annual general meeting was much more than a formal recognition of the club's continuing and outstanding success over the previous financial year. The fiftieth annual general meeting was really a landmark—the first step in celebrating the Tradies' achievements over half a century, from very humble beginnings to the first-class, community-focused club we have in the shire today.

The Tradies has been recognised by its peers for its excellence, winning the coveted New South Wales Club of the Year Award in 2003 and 2004, as well as awards by Clubs New South Wales for outstanding financial management in 2005 and outstanding human resources management in 2008. But more than these is the Tradies' legendary commitment to the people of the shire through its generous ongoing support of more than 40 community groups and sporting organisations, as well as key community events. These community groups include Amelie House Women's Refuge, the Bridge Youth Service, Older Women's Wellness Network, Bush Care, Margaret House Respite Care and the Sutherland Early Support Service.

Sporting groups sponsored by the Tradies include Cronulla-Sutherland Baseball Club, Gymea Gorillas Junior Rugby League Club, Sutherland Women's Hockey Club, Miranda Bombers, Sutherland Little Athletics, Miranda Magpies Netball Club and the Sutherland District Cricket Academy. The Tradies is a major sponsor of Australia Day celebrations, the Sutherland to Surf and the Shire Relay for Life. The Tradies has been a major sponsor of the Eleoura Surf Lifesaving Club for more than 16 years. It proudly supports the week-long surf awareness clinic held at the beach. Every January 300 to 400 children learn basic surf safety, resuscitating and safe swimming techniques from experienced Eleoura lifesavers. With the generous ongoing support of the Tradies, more than 10,000 children, including some from western New South Wales, have participated in this valuable program.

When it comes to Tradies' support for key community organisations dealing with individuals and families suffering hardship or in crisis, the word "generosity" is an understatement. This year, and over and above its budgeted community development and support expenditure commitment of $400,000, the Tradies has donated $125,000 to the Salvation Army and to Lifeline Sutherland. In fact, Tradies was instrumental in establishing the nationally known telephone counselling service in the shire, beginning with a major fundraising drive in 2002. While I was able to assist with some government funding to the local service, Lifeline Sutherland would not have been possible without the ongoing support of Tradies.

Tradies staff and volunteers continue to raise funds for Lifeline Sutherland through its annual book fair. Tradies' support for the shire community could find no more tangible expression than during the 2002 Christmas bushfires and emergency when the club opened its doors and its heart, feeding and caring for 500 residents evacuated from their homes. Over the past 11 years in public office I have had the honour of working with President Graham Hill, the Tradies' director, and chief executive officer Tim McAleer, supporting their initiatives and helping to fulfil their community commitments—everything from play equipment for special needs children at Miranda Public School to Lifeline Sutherland at Sylvania.

Tradies is justly proud of its commitment to the people of the shire and nothing encapsulates this more than its Community Service Volunteer Program. This involves every Tradies staff member giving of themselves, their time, their hearts and their hands to support those in need. Tradies' volunteers have assisted, and continue to assist, the Red Cross, Gymea Community Centre, Vision Australia, the Shire Animal Shelter, Meals on Wheels, the Heart Foundation, Daffodil Day and 14 other community organisations. In 2008 Tradies' employee Amanda Grant won the New South Wales Youth Volunteer of the Year Award and in 2009 Tradies' volunteers received the New South Wales Premier's Community Service Award.

Tradies looks to the future of our young, supporting local high school students with Southern Cross Peace Scholarships and assisting deserving TAFE students financially through the Mick Young Scholarships. I congratulate President Graham Hill, Vice President Dennis McHugh, Directors Phillip Bowering, Ron Crawley, Karen Howell, Mark Noble, Barry Purssell, Bob Sharkey, Ken Smith, Bob Taylor, Brian Thompson and Bob "Paddy" Rogers, chief executive officer Tim McAleer and all the Tradies' staff, life members and members, past and present, on their contribution to our shire community. This is a club of which I am proud to be a member and I am privileged to have in my community. We in the shire can be very proud of the Tradies and its achievements over the past 50 years. I wish the club every success for the next 50 years. Happy golden anniversary Tradies.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [6.10 p.m.]: Tonight I again refer to the unfolding housing strategy of Hornsby Shire Council. I refer to an article in the Advocate on Thursday 20 December 2007 entitled, "Glowing prediction", which states:

Fire blasts us every Christmas—yet we never change tactics.

No new roads
No new railway strategies
No new powerline routes
No new water sources
No new evacuation plans

I refer also to an article in the Daily Telegraph dated Tuesday 13 April 2010 entitled "Truckies booked in F3 traffic snarl debacle". The article refers to a massive traffic snarl that occurred on that day and for many hours people were trapped along the F3. By way of analogy I emphasise that an accident or a fire could result in a similar occurrence. The State Government informed Hornsby Shire Council that by 2030 it would have to increase the number of dwellings in the Hornsby shire area by 11,000. When last year's housing strategy was announced the local community resoundingly rejected it. Hornsby Shire Council received more than 1,600 submissions in which Hornsby shire residents indicated that they were not happy. Nothing much has changed in the recently announced revised housing strategy. The council is making lame excuses and there is a lack of community consultation, and that is a disgrace.

I wish to read onto the record some of the comments that were made by residents in Hornsby shire. I call on the council to take another look at the way in which it is implementing its housing strategy. The State Government might require Hornsby Shire Council to increase the number of dwellings, but nobody is telling it how to do that. I received a letter from Mrs Helen Hajduk dated 12 April 2010 entitled "Reference: Revised Housing Strategy 2010". That letter states:

Dear Councillors and Representatives of the residents of the Bushland Shire

We oppose the revised strategy on the grounds that our area is unsuitable to support 5 storey High Rise North of Hornsby due to the fact that we a are fire prone area surrounded by National Parks and we are ridge dwellers.

One road way in and one way out.

The Pacific Highway the main route north of Sydney for all residents living from Hornsby to Gosford and for all Australians wishing to exit Sydney to the North.

On 22 April 2010 Suzanne Speck and Jeffrey Goodman wrote to the General Manager, Hornsby Shire Council, in the following terms:

Amended Hornsby Shire Council Housing Strategy

We own and reside at number 3 Amaroo Avenue Mt Colah and wish to register our strong objection to the Amended Housing Strategy. We chose to reside in Mt Colah because of the bushland setting and the village and neighbourhood nature of the area.

The Amended Housing Strategy will destroy the village and neighbourhood nature of Mt Colah.

Our objections relate to:

1. The proposal to include 2 Amaroo Avenue Mt Colah in the precinct so that a road can be constructed between Judith Avenue and Amaroo Avenue for the use of the residents of and visitors to the 148 apartments proposed to be constructed between Judith Avenue and Amaroo Avenue. This proposal will impact on my property in particular and Amaroo Avenue in general.

2. The proposal to construct 5 storey housing in Mt Colah is a danger to property and life (in the event of a bushfire) and is an affront to residents. It will impact substantially on the smaller village and neighbourhood centre nature of Mt Colah.

The third letter from John Lambeth, which again is addressed to the General Manager, Hornsby Shire Council, states:

Hornsby Shire Housing Strategy impact on bushfire prone areas north of Hornsby

I write on behalf of the North of Hornsby Residents Action Group.

We remain concerned with the manner in which the Council is managing and representing residents' interests and wishes. We are deeply concerned that in some instances Council is expressing opinions diametrically opposed to the wishes of their residents and indeed can be seen as representing outside interests over the interests and wishes of their constituents.

For example the Mayor, in recent statements, appears to represent the views and mission of the Department of Ageing, Disability & Health Care by indicating that he was compelled by the Department to rezone to allow for five storey development so that young families with prams and older residents can be placed in high-rise with lifts.

This is proposed in the neighbourhood village of Mount Colah and is in direct contravention of Mount Colah residents' wishes.

To put it simply the plan is to dump these people away from regional shopping centres, medical services, friends and transport hubs; in west facing, heat absorbing concrete high-rise, sandwiched between the Pacific Highway and the main railway line on bushfire-prone land. To make matters worse the land is bushfire prone from both west and east.

Will Councillors be on site to help evacuate the aged, infirmed and the infants in prams when a bushfire comes?

That is an absolute disgrace. Hornsby Shire Council must listen to the concerns that are being expressed by residents in that shire. [Time expired.]

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.15 p.m.]: Each year for the past six years the Rotary Club of Shellharbour city has organised and hosted the presentation of its Service Person of the Year awards. The main focus of these awards is to recognise the good work being done, day in and day out, by the men and women in emergency services working in the Shellharbour area, who on many occasions are required to work side by side in crisis situations. It is hoped that these awards will encourage the community to appreciate the duties and difficult situations faced by these dedicated service personnel.

With this in mind, the Rotary Club formed an association with the New South Wales Police Force, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service and the Ambulance Service of New South Wales to present awards for excellence for the most deserving recipient. Respective command groups nominate each candidate. The organising committee comprises Rotary members Jim Gough, Wayne Hockey, David Hooper, Adam How and Larry Howe, who has been chairman for the past six years. This year the Rotary Club also presented an award to the overall Service Person of the Year who was selected from the individual category winners.

This year's annual awards night was held on Friday 28 May at the Warilla Bowls and Recreation Club—a great sponsor and supporter of this awards night. Other ongoing supporters include Nick and Greg from Blooms the Chemist and Bunnings, Shellharbour. I will list the Police Officer of the Year nominees. Detective Senior Sergeant Darren Kelly is currently investigations manager at the Lake Illawarra Local Area Command and leads the criminal investigation office. Detective Senior Sergeant Kelly not only undertakes his duties relating to the role of investigations manager; he also investigates and leads significant, protracted and complex investigations within the command.

Recently Detective Kelly conducted a series of operational briefings to staff from Lake Illawarra Detectives, General Duties, Operational Support Group officers, Dog Squads and other specialist technical areas. As a result, a number of search warrants were executed and several arrests were made with significant seizures of drugs, cash, firearms, documents and property. The estimated street value of the items seized was around $5 million. Sergeant Kelly's knowledge, maturity and enthusiasm are an inspiration to the younger members of the command. Detective Kelly is also a mentor to general duties police and also to other detectives in the area. He leads by example and is highly regarded by his peers.

It has been said that Leading Senior Constable Jason Bentley performs his duties in an extremely professional manner, shows compassion for members of the community, and often puts himself before others. An example of this was when he and another officer recently dived into dangerous seas in an attempt to save a fisherman. The rock fisherman was swept from the rock shelf by a wave and Jason and his partner swam out to the fisherman using life rings. Jason and his partner stayed with the fisherman until the ambulance rescue helicopter arrived and winched them to safety. Despite the best efforts of all the emergency services involved the fisherman could not be saved. During the ordeal, Jason and his partner showed great bravery and selflessness.

Senior Constable Michael Kingma has continually been one of the leaders at the Lake Illawarra Local Area Command. In the past six months he has achieved the highest number of person searches and proactive interactions with members of the community. Michael has also achieved a high level of reactive events for an individual officer. Michael's input at a command level is focused solely on crime and the constant reduction of crime at all levels. As an example, he has attended 13 domestic violence incidents and later arrested 13 offenders as a result of those incidents, achieving a 100 per cent arrest rate. Constable Connie Sammut was previously a hardworking schoolteacher committed to her profession. Connie has always worked for the community and she gets great pleasure from providing that assistance. Connie continually tops the reactive crime statistics for her team. The Blue Team has had the highest rate for reactivity in the command over the past three months, so that makes Connie one of the hardest workers in the command. Constable Connie Sammut is very thorough in her investigations and is always determined to do her best to give her local community the service it deserves.

Constable Daniel Houweling has performed general duties in the Lake Illawarra Proactive Crime Unit. He is an extremely professional police officer who actively contributes to reducing crime in the command through proactive policing. From August 2009 to January 2010 Daniel recorded 57 proactive policing interventions, including person searches, bail compliance checks and move-ons, and business inspections. He also has a high rate of initiating legal action. Although Daniel is a high performer, he is a quiet achiever with a solid work ethic. He never asks others to do what he is not prepared to do himself and others often note his attitude and commitment. For such a junior member of the New South Wales Police Force, Daniel obviously has a bright future in the organisation.

The Police Officer of the Year was Leading Senior Constable Jason Bentley. The Ambulance Officer of the Year was John Mayfield. John gained employment with the Ambulance Service of New South Wales in 1987 as an apprentice mechanic working from the Oak Flats workshop until 1991, when he transferred to Carringbah station working as a mobile mechanic for the service until he returned to the Oak Flats workshop in 1993. John applied for and was successful in obtaining the position of leading hand in 1995. In 1996 he commenced his on-road probation period in Wollongong, and after serving his 12-month probation period he was up for his permanent posting. [Time expired.]

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [6.20 p.m.]: On behalf of the community I condemn any proposed transfer of Moore Park from the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust to the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust. At the very time we are celebrating the visionary legacy of Governor Lachlan Macquarie with light installations on Macquarie Street, the Cabinet is considering a betrayal of one of his most lasting and valuable actions. Governor Macquarie gifted the Centennial and Moore parklands to the people of New South Wales in 1811 as the Sydney Common, for the benefit of the people of Sydney and for future generations. The parklands are a vital green lung for densely populated inner Sydney, where people live with little or no private open space and where urban renewal projects will result in dramatic increases in the number of residents and workers.

Urban consolidation is only sustainable if open space is protected and expanded. The parklands are essential for active and passive recreation for inner-city communities. Only one-third of Governor Macquarie's original 405-hectare Sydney Common bequest remains open public land. Part of the bequest was used for a temporary tram shed and should have been returned to Moore Park but was sold for a super centre retail complex. The proposal for a McDonalds fast-food outlet was only shelved after a strong community campaign, which led to heritage listing of the parklands.

Notwithstanding my Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) amendment law, which guaranteed public ownership of the former showground site by transferring control to the parks trust, the Government leased the site to Fox Studios, which onsold the lease for commercial purposes. Some 2.2 hectares of Moore Park was carved off, removing the western edge forest for the Eastern Distributor. In 2006 both the Australian Labor Party and the Coalition supported the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust's request to rezone public land for commercial and residential development. Offices have been built and the trust has now announced plans to build new rugby league headquarters.

The most recent threat has been around since 2008, when it was revealed that the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust wanted Moore Park East for a car park. This week it was revealed in a leaked letter to the Premier from the chair of the parks trust that the Government was considering handing Moore Park to the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust. There has been no community consultation, no consultation with the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust, which administers the public land, no consultation with the Council of the City of Sydney, and no consultation with me as the State representative.

Under the management of the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust, Moore Park will be further commercialised and alienated with car parking expanded further onto parklands. What long-term plans does the trust have for its gold members' car park that got rezoned for development? If it is developed, where will the trust's members park every day? The trust's objective is to promote major commercial sporting events, service private members, provide for professional sports training, and provide car parking to members and patrons. Management under the trust will focus on facilities, particularly car parking, reducing Moore Park's existing protections under a public lands trust, the role of which is to manage and maintain open and accessible parkland for the whole community. Any revenue will be reinvested in sporting events, not parkland management.

It was not that long ago that most of Moore Park was regularly alienated by a sea of cars during sporting events. This latest proposal will take us back to those days, burying for good the 1993 Moore Park plan of management commitment to phase out on-grass parking after the Royal Easter Show transferred to Homebush in 1997. What of the $4.5 million set aside for alternatives to on-grass parking to compensate for the loss of parklands to the Eastern Distributor? A light rail link between Central and the sporting stadia that provides an efficient, reliable and affordable service is the solution and is urgently needed.

The current situation is unacceptable and unsustainable. The area surrounding the Sydney Cricket Ground is gridlocked before and after matches, and patrons can sit in congested traffic for hours, whereas the 80,000 persons who attend matches at the Melbourne Cricket Ground can leave the area in 20 minutes—on light rail. The City of Sydney has unanimously condemned the transfer, and the community is outraged. We will continue to defend precious public land for present and future generations. I call on the Government to stop any transfer of parklands from the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust to the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust, increase funding to the parks trust to maintain the parklands, and ensure public consultation on any future proposals that could affect public access to the parklands.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [6.25 p.m.]: Police working in the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command are weighed down by an excessive workload caused by an inadequate authorised strength, an even smaller number of officers effectively working, a challenging geographic area and inadequate facilities. The residents of Lake Macquarie do not receive the police staffing to which they believe they are entitled. I have brought these matters to the House before, particularly in regard to the poor level of staffing, and yet the situation remains much as I first described in May 2007.

The Lake Macquarie local area command covers the local government area of Lake Macquarie, now the third most populous local government area in New South Wales, with an adjusted estimated population of over 200,000. The current authorised strength of the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command is 213 officers, but the actual strength is only 210. This level of staffing is greatly eroded by the fact that there is an effective operational strength of only 177 when absences for leave and other reasons are taken into account. There are 79 local area commands serving the State's population of almost seven million people; therefore the average population per command is 88,000.

Lake Macquarie Local Area Command serves a population 2½ times the State average and faces logistical challenges to service the 92 suburbs and villages spread around much of Lake Macquarie's 175 kilometres of shoreline. Clearly, managing the local area command is a major undertaking, one that must be adequately and equitably resourced. The Minister for Police advises that the New South Wales Police Force has an authorised strength of 15,556. With a State population of 6,980,000, I calculate that the police to population ratio is 1:448.

Lake Macquarie Local Area Command, with an authorised strength of 213 for a population of 200,000, has a police to population ratio of 1:938, less than half the State average. This is utterly inequitable and is a situation the Lake Macquarie community is completely dissatisfied with, as the Government should be. This lack of adequate police numbers accounts for much of the concern felt by residents and, most importantly, it accounts for much of the unreasonable work stress felt by serving officers. I am told by serving police that being effectively understaffed by 36 officers is making a difficult job even harder, with all remaining staff left to carry an increased workload. It is understandable that this shortage of staff and poor working conditions is affecting staff morale.

Yesterday I asked the Minister for Police whether he supports an increase in numbers for the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command. The Minister responded that it was the Government's job to resource the Police Force but not to interfere in the running of it. I respect and support the view that a Minister should not interfere in the running of departments, but I believe there is a moral obligation to ensure they are operated efficiently and equitably. The area covered by the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command corresponds exactly with the Lake Macquarie City Council local government area, which is the third-largest of 142 local government areas in New South Wales. The latest data from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research shows that this area is in the top 50 local government areas for four of the 14 categories of crime.

Understandably, Lake Macquarie residents who are victims of the offences of motor vehicle theft, break and enter non-dwelling, stealing from a motor vehicle or stealing from a retail store could conclude that they are suffering these crimes to subsidise the higher police presence in other areas. The New South Wales Police Force's website describes local area commands as "the backbone of the NSW Police Force … your local police". Whilst this can be easily accepted as a valid statement of the Police Force's organisation, it calls into question the provision of a less than equitable level of staffing for the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command. I have previously called on the Government to provide greater numbers of police for the area. Following the Minister's recent visit, I now repeat that call and specifically ask the Minister to champion the cause of an equitable provision of police numbers for Lake Macquarie with the Commissioner of Police.

There is no valid reason for the Lake Macquarie local area command to continue to be understaffed. The Government, while deferring to the commissioner on day-to-day operational matters, cannot escape the fact that the Government and the Minister are ultimately responsible for the provision and deployment of police resources. Lake Macquarie residents will not give up on this matter, and I hope that all local members of Parliament work together to secure a better deal for local police and residents. In closing, I acknowledge and thank the hardworking members of the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command who, despite a lack of numbers, poor facilities and a difficult geographic area to patrol, continue to provide excellent service to the residents under their protection.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): With the concurrence of the House, I shall allow the House to continue to sit after 6.30 p.m. to permit the taking of one further private member's statement.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [6.30 p.m.]: On previous occasions I have raised in this House the need to upgrade Gocup Road, which leads from Tumut to the Hume Highway through Gundagai. This important road services an enormous geographical area and the towns of Tumut, Batlow and Tumbarumba. Due to the expansion of the timber industry with enormous plantings, together with investment in the Visy, Hyne and other timber mills, an upgrade of Gocup Road is needed desperately. It is a single carriageway, thereby lacking overtaking lanes and many safety measures. Trucks on Gocup Road have increased and are forecast to double by 2020. The Gocup Road maintenance task has increased enormously since the expansion of industry. Gundagai and Tumut councils had acknowledged that the road required investment of about $22 million.

When Mike Kelly was elected the local Federal member he requested a study be undertaken. The Roads and Traffic Authority completed the study revealing that the price had escalated to $88 million. Clearly, that was unachievable for two local councils. At that time steps were taken to have Gocup Road declared a State road. Since then an enormous amount of lobbying has taken place. I pay tribute to the leadership of Mayor Len Tozer of Gundagai Shire Council and Mayor Trina Thomson of Tumut Shire Council along with their respective general managers. I acknowledge also the enormous contribution of local members of Parliament from both political persuasions. This issue has united all of us. Members of the Legislative Council, members of the Legislative Assembly, the Federal member, Desmond "Demon" Downes and others took up the challenge along with the softwoods industry group, which pledged money for the upgrading of this road, in an effort to improve road safety for the travelling public.

Since I last raised this issue another accident occurred. Thankfully, no-one was killed, but injuries were sustained. It is only a matter of time before someone loses their life. Today's announcement by the Minister for Roads that he will declare Gocup Road a State road is welcomed by the community, although it is long overdue. A number of Ministers have viewed the road and others accepted an invitation to Tumut and Gundagai but never came. Federal Minister Anthony Albanese was invited as part of our push to try to attract Federal funding to view the road, but he never saw it. Minister Borger, who has never viewed the road, understands the problem. The councils, in conjunction with the softwoods industry group and local members of Parliament, mounted a terrific campaign. Road safety should unite all of us. To limit the number of tragedies and deaths on our roads we need decisions such as the one announced today for Gocup Road.

Trina Thomson, Mayor of Tumut Shire Council, attended the Country Mayors Association and raised the matter with the Minister, who invited her to discuss the matter in his office. The result was that the announcement was made today by Minister Borger. As I speak now this announcement is being broadcast over Riverina airwaves. The travelling public will welcome this announcement, as will the industry. The only catch is that whilst the acknowledgement has been made, which probably will be gazetted through the Parliament, and certainly would be supported if legislation is required, Gocup Road requires funding now. We cannot wait on the promise that it will be upgraded. An allocation of funds is needed now to ensure that those important works can commence to build the overtaking lanes. The two councils began rectification work, which used up much of their funding. Now that funding can be used on services councils should provide. I ask the Minister to indicate what funds will be made immediately and whether the Federal Government will match those funds. I thank everyone for their help in lobbying for Gocup Road to be declared a State road.

Private members' statements concluded.