The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The President announced, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the receipt of the report entitled "The greyhound report: Investigation into aspects of the greyhound racing industry" dated 30 August 2000.

The President announced that, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, she had authorised that the report be made public.

Ordered to be printed.

Petition praying that any attempt to legalise or decriminalise euthanasia be opposed to ensure that the quality of life of the elderly, handicapped and terminally ill is not subject to unjust or unethical procedures, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that construction of a women's prison at Windsor be abandoned, that the funds be channelled into research to assist girls and adolescent and adult women at risk of offending, and that social programs on crime prevention be introduced, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition opposing the production of eggs through the use of battery cages and praying that the House will stop the unnecessary suffering of hens in battery cages, received from the Hon. R. D. Dyer.

Motion by the Hon. J. S. Tingle agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that private members' business item No. 50 outside the order of precedence relating to the Workplace (Occupants Protection) Bill be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. J. S. Tingle agreed to:

That private members' business item No. 50 outside the order of precedence relating to the Workplace (Occupants Protection) bill be called on forthwith.

Bill introduced and read a first time.
The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.08 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is not a complicated bill and may even be familiar to members who were here during the previous Parliament. The Workplace (Occupants Protection) Bill is essentially my Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill 1998, revisited and refashioned to cover the workplace rather than home. My home invasion bill sought to codify the rights and responsibilities of the householder when it came to defending self, family or property against an intruder in the family home. I first introduced that bill in November 1995, and battled for three years to see it passed, and go into law, in December 1998. What it did was to explain to householders what very few people understood, and that was what the common law allowed them to do when under attack or apprehended attack in their own home—something that, until then, it was impossible for ordinary people to feel confident about.

Sure, we have the common law, which allows self-defence. But what do ordinary people know of that? The common law resides in hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of judgments in myriad court cases in many places. It is not a simple, written-down code of procedure which the ordinary person can look up and understand readily. But what ordinary people are aware of is that there is a mysterious and intangible thing called reasonable force. They have heard about it and are sure it comes into play in a confrontation with an intruder, but they do not know what it is. They cannot get a definition of it, anywhere, but they believe it inhibits them in acts of self-defence and that, therefore, they had better be very careful about how they respond to a threat or an actual attack.

For a long time the law has been seen as being heavily weighted in favour of the criminal—the attacker—who obeyed no laws, and against the victim of his crime or attack, who was, being a lawful citizen, aware of the need to take only a lawful action and felt restrained by the law. Now, at least in the case of a householder, the law is clear and the Parliament has guaranteed, and explained, his or her right to defence of self, family and property. After the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill became law, I had approaches from an impressive array of what we might loosely call business people, who asked whether a similar bill could be devised to give them similar protection in their workplaces.

Individual chemists, newsagents, service station proprietors, liquor store proprietors, TAB branch staff, jewellers and many other people for various reasons felt at risk in their workplaces, or had been the victims of robbery or attack. It was not easy to simply convert my home invasion bill into a workplace invasion bill. Indeed, even as we were working on it, it became clear that we had to widen it out from the original concept, in which it was called a Commercial Premises (Occupants Protection) Bill. People such as stallholders from Paddy's Markets and people working in warehouses and factories pointed out that their workplaces might not strictly be seen as commercial premises for the purposes of this bill.

So it became the Workplace (Occupants Protection) Bill. But, even then, there were problems. For instance, the home invasion bill was based on the premise that the home is sacrosanct; that the door was closed, metaphorically speaking, and that no-one could legally enter uninvited. Commercial premises, or the workplace, come into a different category. By definition their doors are open—open to the street, open to the public—specifically inviting people to enter for the purposes of trade. So, how could the occupants of an open place be given the right to defend themselves against someone who might not be an intruder in the sense of the home invasion bill, but who might be somebody legally in the premises, by implied invitation—but committing an offence?

With great help from Parliamentary Counsel, we arrived at a situation where a person who was reasonably believed to have committed or to be committing a crime in a workplace, and who was not an ordinary occupant of that workplace, could be regarded as what—An invader? An intruder? An interloper? Not really—they might well be in the place legally. So we toyed with various terms and finally, in consultation with the Attorney General, who has been very helpful, came up with "suspected offender." This bill has been ready for about a year, and I gave notice of it on 4 April, but it has been awaiting its turn in the order of precedence of this House—until the John Lee case in Maitland.

After the publicity given to the case—where Mr Lee apprehended a youth he had seen taking videotapes from his store, and where Mr Lee ended up being charged with assault and placed on a bond, and where the youth was merely cautioned—the top blew off this bill. We had previously sent a copy of it, for comment, to the Retail Traders Association, who I am happy to say support the bill. Reporters seeking comment from them on the Lee case were told about my bill and then approached me. The resulting publicity brought a stream of support, including a number of letters to the Premier asking him to support my bill as one answer to the problems facing shopkeepers, office workers and the like.

It also has the support of the Newcastle and Hunter Chamber of Business, the Newsagents Association of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, amongst others, and an impressive number of individuals who have written and offered their support for the bill. Nobody will convince me that John Lee or any other hard-working shopkeeper or office worker, or anyone in a workplace anywhere, wants to spend their work time in wary anxiety, feeling threatened by attack or theft and unsure of what they could do about it if it eventuated.

I believe that people at work—whatever it be—want to be able to concentrate on what is, so often, the hard slog of earning a living, without somebody detracting from that by stealing their stock or their earnings, let alone threatening them. What does the Workplace (Occupants Protection) Bill do? Basically, it seeks to protect persons in their place of work from the consequences of an offence committed in their workplace; and to give them the clearly understood right to use physical force, if the occupant believes on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed.

It sanctions the use of physical force by somebody in the workplace in defence of another person; or to try to prevent theft of property. Again, and in both cases, physical force is sanctioned only where the occupant believes on reasonable grounds—let me repeat that: where the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds—that it is necessary to do so. But what are reasonable grounds? How does the occupant know what reasonable grounds are? We seem to be getting back to that vexed and confusing question of physical force. If physical force can be employed, how much physical force can be applied?

This bill seeks to cut through the confusions and misunderstandings surrounding the use of that term—physical force—and reasonable grounds by proposing a test. That test—the test to decide whether reasonable grounds existed—would be determined by the genuine belief of the occupant, at that time, based on the circumstances as the occupant perceived them to be. So the question is whether or not the occupant believed, on reasonable grounds, that the use of physical force was in fact necessary. The bill tries to do away with the complexities of reasonable force, and deals with force on reasonable grounds.

And, in the event of the occupant being charged, arising from a confrontation with a suspected offender, the bill reverses the onus of proof, by placing that onus on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the occupant did not have the belief he claimed, or that the grounds for the occupant's belief were not reasonable grounds. The bill also provides the occupant with immunity from criminal and civil liability when he or she acts in accordance with the proposed Act. There are other provisions, which I will deal with in more detail later.

First, let me touch on some other matters relevant to the underlying intentions of the Workplace (Occupants Protection) Bill. When the home invasion bill was being debated in this Chamber, some members, who opposed it quite bitterly, expressed fear that guaranteeing householders the right to self-defence against an intruder might see people set upon when they merely knocked on the front door without any evil intent at all. The Hon. Elizabeth Kirkby, in particular, painted a grim picture of a messenger knocking on a front door and being shot by a paranoid householder, or of an innocent arrival being mistaken for an intruder and being attacked without being given a chance to explain the reason for being there.

Well, that has not happened and will not happen. To my knowledge, and as far as I can find out, there has not been one single incident such as that since the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill became law. However, I am led to believe that the incidence of home invasions has slowed and that if they have not actually dropped off, they have plateaued. I like to think that that is because the potential home invader—the sort of coward who would assault and rob people in their homes—now knows he will not be facing some frightened and confused person who is not game to fight back.

A television interviewer suggested to me that if my workplace bill became law, shopkeepers might keep guns under the counter to deal with a suspected offender. But the law does not allow ownership of a firearm for self-protection; and an occupant of a workplace who kept one at hand for such a purpose would be liable to be charged under the Firearms Act. Other interviewers have spoken of baseball bats, cricket bats and other instruments being kept at hand. Maybe they will be. I suspect many of them are possibly kept within easy reach even now, but we hear of few instances of their being used.

If a potential thief were to believe that a potential victim might have some deterrent instrument handy, and if the potential thief knew that the law guaranteed that potential victim the right of self-defence, then I like to think that the potential thief might change his mind, and leave the victim in peace. If that happened, that would satisfy the main purpose and intent of this bill. Let me now deal with the bill in some detail. In part 1, clause 3 contains definitions which are worth mentioning in some detail. For instance, the term "occupant", which has been used in the home invasion bill to describe the householder or a person legally in a dwelling place, has been expanded in this definition to include not only the owner or lessee of the workplace but staff and invitees, such as customers, clients and volunteers.

The reason for that is that in a confrontation in a workplace any one of these categories of people might well need to intervene and should be equally covered by the law. The term "workplace" has been deliberately expanded to embrace virtually any place—not just necessarily a building where people work—other than the person's dwelling house, which is already covered by the home invasion bill.

Clause 4 defines the villain in that type of confrontation. We settled on "suspected offender" because it fits neatly with the explicit requirement that an occupant must reasonably believe that the person in question has committed, or is committing, a crime in the workplace against an occupant of the workplace or against the property of an occupant, or within the workplace. It avoids terms such as "intruder" or "invader" which would not be appropriate for someone who had entered the workplace legally but was now doing something inside it which was suspected of being illegal. Part 2, as I have indicated, sets out the case for defence by an occupant of a workplace. Clause 6 declares that it is the public policy of the State that its citizens have a right to enjoy safety from suspected offenders while at a workplace. That clause sets the baseline or the foundation on which the other proposed laws are built.

Clauses 7 and 8 enable an occupant of a workplace to act in self-defence or in defence of another person at the workplace against a suspected offender, if the occupant believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so. Clause 9 simply repeats the common law position which enables an occupant to use reasonable force to defend any property of the workplace or within the workplace if they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so. This places property in a different position from personal safety and suggests that, as in the common law, no more violence may be used to protect property than is reasonable in all circumstances. I feel that most honourable members would agree that life and personal safety are more important than physical property; and that the levels of force allowed for defence of self or another are not, necessarily, appropriate for defence of property. Really there is no change in the right to protect property except that, I hope, it is spelled out more clearly.

Clause 10 sets the test of whether reasonable grounds existed for the level of force used as being the need to determine the belief of the occupant, based on the circumstances as the occupant perceived them to be. It goes without saying that the circumstance which the occupant perceived would have to be taken to include the level of threatened violence, the real fear of the occupant about his or her own safety or the safety of another, and also the stressful nature of such a confrontation, and the real difficulty of carefully reasoned reactions. Clause 11 obviously relates to clause 10, and states that in the event of the occupant being charged after a confrontation, then the prosecution has to prove that the occupant did not really believe that such force as was used was necessary, or that that belief was not based on reasonable grounds, subject to the test in clause 10. This is an attempt to address the public perception—pretty well founded, in my view—that the law, as it is, favours the offender rather than the victim. If charged, the victim has to prove nothing. The prosecution must prove that he did not have a real belief or that his grounds for that belief were not reasonable.

Part 3, in clauses 12 and 13, grants immunity from criminal liability and immunity from civil liability to an occupant who acts in accordance with clauses 7 and 8, which lay out the circumstances mentioned previously under which force may be used in self-defence or defence of others or of property. Clause 12, paragraph (2) also carries forward from the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill the requirement that if proceedings are commenced against an occupant accused of a crime as a result of a confrontation with a suspected offender, the occupant must be brought before the court, whether by way of preliminary hearing, or otherwise, within nine months after the proceedings are commenced. The purpose of this is to avoid the appalling situation which has developed in some notorious cases where a person who would normally have been the victim of a confrontation—that is the person who was attacked—becomes the offender because of something that happens to the original offender.

The situation is that, on occasions, the person originally the original victim of the crime, but now charged, has had to wait two years or even more to go to court and have his or her fate decided. That is an unreasonable stress on somebody who did not originate the crime in question, and the matter ought to be decided as quickly as possible. I take the view that that person ought to be dealt with as quickly as the law can manage, to curtail the pain, humiliation and anxiety that comes from having a charge left hanging over that person when all that person tried to do was defend himself or herself or others from an unprovoked, unexpected attack. So that is the bill, in philosophy, and in some detail. It is not either a weighty or a particularly complex bill. But it is a bill which, I believe, the community—particularly the commercial community—wants to become law. It is designed, as I said, to swing the weight of the law back behind the victim of the crime and remove whatever advantages the law—even inadvertently—offers the offender, the criminal.

There is one aspect of the need for this bill which I will mention briefly. That is that much of the petty crime of the sort that was committed in John Lee’s video shop at Maitland is committed by juveniles. It is my firm belief that the combination of the present confusion about the rights to use force in self-defence, together with the perceptions—and I use the word advisedly: the perceptions—of the effect of the Young Offenders Act, is sending exactly the wrong message to young people about how seriously society views their offence. We seem to be saying to them: "Because you’re young, you will be treated differently, and with leniency. Because you’re young, if you steal a video, or some other item, we will merely caution you and warn you not to do it again. But if an adult tries to stop you, he might well be charged with assault." That message is exactly what we should not be sending to young people, because it suggests that such an offence is trivial. It could even suggest that society can condone it, in some circumstances, and could persuade even a normally well-behaved young person that it is no big deal to steal or commit other crime.

I understand that the Government, which supported the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill in the lower House, indeed even clasped it to its own bosom, is considering wide-ranging legislation to extend to virtually every law-abiding person in the community the same codified rights of defence of self, others and property as the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill gives and which this Workplace (Occupants Protection) Bill would give. I would welcome that. In the meantime, I believe that shopkeepers, office workers, warehouse staff, market stall holders, and all other decent, hard-working, law-abiding people of their kind deserve and are entitled to the protection this bill would give them; and which we, as a Parliament, have the capacity to give them. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.26 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that private members' business item No. 72 outside the order of precedence relating to the summoning of witnesses to the bar of the House be called on forthwith.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Corbett Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Harwin Mr M. I. Jones Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Dr Pezzutti

Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Mr Samios Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Mr Hatzistergos Mr Johnson

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mrs Nile Revd Nile Mr Obeid Ms Saffin

Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Manson Mr Primrose

Mr Hannaford

Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.
Motion by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 72 outside the order of precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.34 a.m.]: I move:

That, under section 4 of the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901:

Mr Paul Forward, Chief Executive, Roads and Traffic Authority,
Ms Sue Holliday, Director-General, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning,
Mr Mick Reid, Director-General, Department of Health, and
Ms Lisa Corbyn, Acting Director-General, Environment Protection Authority,

be summoned to attend and give evidence at the bar of the House on Thursday 31 August 2000 at 11.30 a.m., and afterwards as required, in relation to the M5 East Motorway ventilation stack and related matters, and in particular:

(a) the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 on the M5 East ventilation stack, dated December 1999,

(b) the outcomes of the International Tunnel Ventilation Workshop, held in Sydney from 7 to 9 June 2000, and

(c) the CSIRO report entitled "Investigation Report ET/IR204R Air Quality Impact of the Emissions from the M5 East Tunnel", dated August 2000.

Once again I bring before the House the controversial issue of the M5 East Motorway ventilation system, with its single unfiltered stack. This issue has been brought before the House many times over the last three or four years and it will continue to be brought before the House until it is satisfactorily resolved. Last week a decision was announced by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning [DUAP] approving a single unfiltered stack of a minimum 35 metres in height with a provision to retrofit filtration equipment in the event of air quality standards being exceeded. Even with dispersal at 50 metres elevation, the stack will still be below the windows of some of the surrounding houses. It will still be the sole outlet for the fumes from some 70,000 vehicles a day. It will still be in a sheltered valley. It will be a visible and environmental blight on the Wolli Regional Park and the new suburb of North Arncliffe as well as for existing homes.

The decision has rightly outraged local communities and many members of this House from all sides of politics, who have been seeking a more sensible resolution over the past three to four years. Measures suggested for improving air quality, such as a buyback scheme for owners of solid fuel heaters in the local areas, only serve to add insult to injury. The decision has also outraged other communities affected by unfiltered stacks associated with the cross-city and Lane Cove tunnels and the northside storage tunnel vent. It is a decision that shows contempt for sensible planning, good government, the democratic process and people's basic right to clean air. It is a shameful decision from a Government that claims to care for the people and the environment whereas in fact it refuses to listen to the people or review its decisions to prevent a monumental disaster in the making.

The M5 East project is the responsibility of a government road building department that I believe now needs much closer community scrutiny of its road building plans, just as the regulatory authorities overseeing the project need closer scrutiny of the appropriateness of their benchmarks and the way they exercise their regulatory powers. What we have seen with the M5 East is not a whole-of-government approach; it is a patchwork of bureaucratic obfuscation, buck-passing and doublespeak. As the parliamentary inquiry established, the M5 East has been in the pipeline since at least the 1940s. Once the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] realised that a motorway through the Wolli Creek Valley was not acceptable to the community, it planned instead to build a road tunnel through the area.

The original preferred option of the RTA was to build three ventilation exhaust stacks for the tunnel on elevated sites, and the 1994 and 1996 environmental impact studies were based on a three-stack proposal. The communities in the areas vehemently opposed the three stacks and the proposal was dropped. The final decision was to construct the 4.5-kilometre tunnel with just one ventilation exhaust stack at the bottom of the Turrella Valley. This decision to exhaust tunnel air through just one unfiltered emission stack was made both hastily and with no public consultation. No published environmental studies or supplementary environmental impact statements were undertaken to support this fundamentally flawed design. It had more to do with saving the marginal seat of Rockdale in the 1996 elections than with good engineering design. It is an intuitively illogical decision to build a stack in a valley, as it is to build a well on a hill.

Since 1997 the Government has tried to justify its decision in the face of clear and damning evidence. From a health point of view, the single stack will concentrate toxic tunnel emissions into one source and add to the pollutant load of the valley. The RTA, DUAP, the Environment Protection Authority and the Health Department have failed to acknowledge the adverse health effects of this increased pollution on the surrounding community—effects that will be measured in increased rates of asthma, heart and lung disease and increased mortality rates. Yet we are told by the Health Department that the difference will not be appreciable, despite evidence from its own research studies on the detrimental effect of air quality below the so-called acceptable levels.

Instead, the department has tried to downplay the studies by using regional ambient measures and acute impacts as the benchmarks, ignoring local cumulative impacts caused by a permanent added load of pollution. From an environmental and aesthetic point of view, such a stack cannot but have adverse impacts on the regional park, public amenity and the value of homes in the area—an area that is currently under massive redevelopment, with over $1 billion of residential development on the drawing board for North Arncliffe. While home owners on top of the road tunnels and near the portals were granted a property value guarantee in 1997, no such provision has been made by those most adversely affected by the stack, despite the obvious adverse impact on property values.

The parliamentary inquiry into the M5 East ventilation system, having heard all of the evidence put before it, was convinced that: the RTA had not done its homework; the conditions of approval and contingency plans were totally inadequate to protect the community; the RTA had not investigated alternative design and treatment options, which clearly existed; and it was unacceptable, in the Olympic city of the twenty-first century, to have untreated emissions dumped on urban areas, and to try to parade this outdated "dilution of pollution" as world's best practice.

The inquiry made the very sensible and moderate suggestion, unanimously supported, that the RTA should call for international expressions of interest for the installation of world's best treatment processes for the M5 East Motorway tunnel. Had this call been heeded, the problem as to whether the equipment was available, whether it would work and how much it would cost would have been solved long ago. The design would have been reviewed, and a 40-metre hole never dug in the valley. Instead of this the Minister decided, after much pushing, to call an "international ventilation workshop", a meeting of international experts to discuss the problem. The vast majority of these experts were selected by the RTA, which also hand-picked a facilitator, a Melbourne barrister who had been commissioned earlier to write a report concluding that the M5 East reflected world's best practice.

It was only after repeated demands by members of this House and the public that a minority group of manufacturers and developers of air cleaning equipment were also permitted to attend. And what was the outcome of this $210,000 workshop? Was there a ringing endorsement of the plans for the M5 East, proudly claimed by the RTA to represent world's best practice? Far from it! It would appear that the ventilation system was as much a representative of world's best practice as was the Titanic! The most positive spin the facilitator could put on the project was to say:

The complex, remotely located M5 East single stack tunnel ventilation design can be distinguished from any other tunnel ventilation scheme in the world.

No other tunnel in the world of a similar length and traffic volume has only one exhaust outlet, unfiltered, in a valley, almost a kilometre away, with a fresh air intake on a ridge 50 metres high! From an engineering point of view, it is an overly complicated and wasteful design, with multiple loops and transfer fans to ensure no emissions come out the portals, but are instead pumped out 800 metres away to be dumped in a sheltered valley. The transcript is full of observations like "it is obvious that the position of the stack is not the best", "I don't think anyone would disagree that a hill mounted stack would be even better" and "the first reaction I had when I first looked at this was, 'Why put one stack in a valley?'" The experts also found that the stack was excessively complicated and would be expensive to run:

… so air is drawn back from the portal as well as coming along through the whole tunnel. Now as far as I am concerned, I would never design a system like that. The energy costs to bring back that bit of flow from the end of the tunnel maybe over 50 metres is incredible.

Expert tunnel ventilation engineer John Day, speaking of Switzerland, the world's richest country, said:

… within our Government we are not allowed to waste energy, and we have to balance resources.

He went on to say:

I've designed a tunnel, which is longer than this. Its installed power for normal operation is ... 100 kilowatts, not 12 megawatts, 100 kilowatts. This is the Islesberg Tunnel—4.9 kilometres, similar traffic.

The M5 East will have 12 megawatts of installed equipment and will use 32,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year, at over $2 million, enough to run a good sized country town. It will produce an additional 30,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, at a time when Australia is already lagging behind meeting its Kyoto agreement. Other experts were rightly concerned about the implications of this massive waste on greenhouse gases and the "export" of pollution from energy that is generated using coal. The almost plaintive comment of yet another international expert, obviously confused by our lack of attention to such an important aspect of the flawed design, was:

I think that the aspect of energy is quite a strong argument against stacks. If we talk about energy consumption in your country then it is ... directly related with pollutants too, because you burn coal. Is that right? So you are producing at least C02 somewhere else and C02 adds to the unwanted effect as an ozone killer"

Overall, the outcome of the meeting was very critical of the approaches of both the RTA and the regulators for their failure to balance outcomes and resources. In contrast to other more intelligent approaches used overseas, the complexity of the M5 East ventilation system, with its multiple loops and transfer fans, means that it will never be able to be significantly reduced as improvements in vehicle emissions occur. The Swiss, for example, report that their ventilation systems, without filtration, are being progressively turned down as vehicle emissions decrease, thus reducing costs. But then, the average age of the vehicle fleet in Switzerland is less than four years and diesel traffic is strictly controlled. Such flexibility can never happen with the present design of the M5 East. The facilitator stated that, according to the experts, the tunnel "design is expected to meet all Sydney's comparatively strict environmental performance requirements'', inferring that satisfactory health outcomes resulted. Such a claim, however, does not seem to be supported by the transcript.

The workshop proceedings clearly demonstrated that the "stringency" of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning [DUAP] conditions, as interpreted by the designers of the ventilation system, in fact resulted in overly restrictive design specifications being applied to the system. The strict requirements are to do more with there being only one outlet than guaranteeing health outcomes. But the validity of these "strict" air quality goals themselves is highly doubtful as they relate to regional and not local impacts, and do not take into account the cumulative impacts of continual exposure to pollutants at levels below the limits. The overwhelming impression was that it was thought to be a clumsy, expensive and wasteful solution, one that did not take into account the adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts, any more than it did the health impacts. Certainly, that is not a project that this Government could be proud of, or that the community could happily live with.

It is a wastefully expensive project, when we consider the $800 million capital cost along with its lifetime cost, the sum of capital, running, maintenance and eventual replacement. It is also a wasted opportunity in terms of doing something about Sydney's air quality, given that we have never been able to capture the emissions from 21 million vehicle movements a year. Yet this could be redressed with some changes to the fundamental design, and many were suggested, such as: relying on more than one ventilation outlet; changing the position of the stack; and the fitting of electrostatic precipitators and gas cleaning equipment, as well as other operational modifications.

The workshop established, as had the inquiry, that electrostatic precipitators were highly cost effective in removing 95 per cent of fine particles. The facilitator's report made a number of recommendations for further data collection and policy review, and in particular for more meaningful and comprehensible air quality benchmarks. He recommended a more holistic approach to tunnel design and air pollution, and more genuine community consultation. Interestingly, he also recommended the RTA investigate the costs of installing filtration systems, an investigation they should have carried out on a yearly basis since 1997, as part of the approval conditions.

The facilitator recommended that work not stop on the problematic, unapproved design on the grounds that such a decision was outside the scope of the workshop, and filtration systems could be retrofitted, despite evidence that such an option would preclude significant savings in energy costs as well as the opportunity of designing a more effective and acceptable ventilation system. In the meantime, DUAP commissioned the CSIRO to independently review the air quality modelling undertaken by the RTA consultants. Contrary to the workshop facilitator's claims, this review, carried out by well-respected scientists, casts serious doubts on the stack and its effects on local residents and workers. It found that stack emissions of particulate matter were underestimated and would be more than double what was expected. This means that air quality goals would be exceeded, even with a 35-metre high stack.

The CSIRO report "could not agree with the approach followed" by the RTA consultants in parts of the report. It also found that the unfiltered stack would need to have an effective height of 50 metres to be safe, and that the modelling was not valid under conditions of calm winds or recirculation of pollutants by local winds, which occur up to 50 per cent of the total time. It rejected the RTA's claim that the physical—wind tunnel—modelling could be used to prove that the numerical model predictions were conservative estimates of real-world conditions.

In what will be a serious blow to the planned $1 billion developments by Meriton and other companies at North Arncliffe, the CSIRO scientists predicted that the plume of pollution would strike tall buildings nearby and that building height restrictions would need to be considered. It also established that future improvements in vehicle emissions would be less than the RTA estimate. The only good news was that NO₂ emissions were probably overestimated and would not be as bad as expected. Minister Scully had written to the crossbench in April advising that he had asked his colleague Dr Andrew Refshauge to "delay any approval of the tunnel ventilation system until after the International Ventilation Workshop is held so that any recommendations arising can be considered in DUAP's assessment of the ventilation system".

However, it would seem that the RTA submitted the design without seeking any modification, presumably expecting DUAP to make the necessary considerations. The RTA seems to view itself as a road builder, with no need to be socially, economically or environmentally accountable. It will go as far as the regulatory authorities will let it. Instead of rejecting a design found to be problematic on technical, environmental, economic and social grounds, DUAP has now, in consultation with the EPA and Health Department, approved it.

It seems as though the Roads and Traffic Authority submitted the design without seeking any modification, presumably expecting the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to make the necessary considerations. The RTA seems to view itself as a road builder with no need to be socially, economically or environmentally accountable. It will go only as far as the regulatory authorities will let it. Instead of rejecting a design found to be problematic on technical, environmental, economic and social grounds, DUAP, in consultation with the Environment Protection Authority and the Health Department, has approved it. It would seem that, while DUAP is an approving authority, the only aspect it believes it is able to alter is the height of the unfiltered stack.

The community, for its trouble, is being offered an extended stack of at least 35 metres, with a promise of retrofitting filtration at a later date after air quality standards have been exceeded. If the emissions from the tunnel were filtered and the necessary design changes made, the stack would not need to be such an intrusive polluting eyesore. It is a classic catch-22 situation, which is guaranteed to deliver a disaster of monumental proportions. Is it any wonder that we have an outraged community abused by 3½ years of government obfuscation and buck-passing? This hotch-potch that passes for urban planning, health and environmental protection is being duplicated across Sydney in the Eastern Distributor, the cross-city and Lane Cove tunnels, as well as the northside storage tunnel.

Enough is enough. It is time to make public servants accountable for their decisions. We must demand that they fulfil their obligations by exercising their responsibilities to the public they serve. They must pay more than token attention to the triple bottom line, stop hiding behind bureaucratic guidelines and seek workable solutions that deliver viable sustainable infrastructure. Recently the Legislative Council passed a bill banning smoking in public places because of the known adverse effects of cigarettes. I doubt whether such a bill would have been contemplated let alone passed 10 years ago.

Today the same principles that guided that decision should also lead us to demand that government authorities, and specifically the Roads and Traffic Authority, exercise a duty of care with respect to infrastructure projects. Children should not have to die before we get safe street crossings outside schools and they should not have to get sick so that people can drive from Liverpool to Botany without a set of traffic lights. The community should not have to go to such lengths, as have people in relation to the M5 East, to have their valid concerns recognised and obviously poor decisions reviewed. We should allow these people to get on with their lives and demand that the Government does its job properly.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [11.52 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I believe that, in the future, the M5 stack will stand as a monument in remembrance of Bob Carr and his bad, uncaring and arrogant Government. I support this motion on a number of grounds. It is evident that this project represents the world's worst practice and not its best practice. As a medical practitioner I find it hard to believe that dumping unfiltered fumes from 70,000 vehicles a day—20 per cent of which are diesel trucks—poses no health risk to people near the stack or that the fumes that are dumped would be negligible, as claimed by a Health Department officer at a workshop which was recently held in relation to this matter. Perhaps those people made this claim because they simply do not live in the vicinity of the M5 stack.

I seriously question the health risk assessment that was carried out in relation to this project, that is, if a health risk assessment was ever carried out. One of the main pollutants at issue—particulate matter [PM]—is harmful at all levels. There is no safe exposure limit. It is widely known and accepted that adverse health effects will result if the level of pollutants in the air is below the goals under national environment protection measures. Any increase in PM10 levels is harmful. Every effort should be made to reduce such exposure to pollutants. Supposed improvements to air quality in other areas are bought at the expense of residents near the Turrella stack. A report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] clearly establishes that PM10 emissions, specifically those produced by heavy diesel vehicles, have been significantly underestimated by a factor of two or more.

The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] claimed that diesel emissions are likely to decrease in the future as Euro-standard emission rules take hold. By implication, it is stating that the air quality situation will improve. However, the CSIRO report suggests that this improvement in air quality is unlikely to occur because other changes in petrol motor design will result in a compensating increase in particulate emissions by a factor of three or four, thus removing any air quality benefit. Air quality goals have been predicted by the Roads and Traffic Authority to be marginal at best. The finding by the CSIRO of a gross underestimation of particulate particles will ensure that PM10s are exceeded in stacks of 25 metres and 35 metres with the current mix of vehicles. Add to that the prediction of a future increase in particles from cars, which will increase emissions both in the tunnel and increase background particulate levels, and we will have a disaster in the making.

It is clear from a recent inquiry and workshop into this issue that alternative cost-effective designs and technology exist for treating exhaust emissions. This technology is cost effective in basic engineering and construction terms as well as health and environmental terms. It is absolute rubbish for the RTA to argue that, because there is no technology to remove all the harmful pollutants, there is no point in removing any pollutants. The RTA has consistently tried to play down and misrepresent the effectiveness and utility of electrostatic precipitators, which remove between 90 per cent and 95 per cent of the most harmful components of vehicle pollutants—the fine particles. The effectiveness of these electrostatic precipitators was acknowledged by all those international experts who attended the workshop. Mr John Day, one of the most prominent of the experts invited to the workshop by the RTA, said:

Let me just add to this before we go any further in this conversation. I believe that electrostatic precipitators are one of the great things that have come in for tunnel ventilation.

There is absolutely no question about the fact that they are anything other than useful tools in tunnel ventilation. The RTA has been deliberately misleading the public and this Parliament with its continual denial of the effectiveness of this technology. It has attempted to do so by overstating the costs, by denigrating its effectiveness and by deliberately confusing local air quality effects with regional air quality effects and established treatment systems for particulates with more emerging technology for treating gases. The RTA has been aided and abetted in this area by the Environment Protection Authority [EPA]. Apparently, the EPA is concerned about how the waste from environmental sustainability practices might be disposed of, but is not so concerned about the prospect of human lungs being used as repositories for these pollutants.

The cost of electrostatic precipitators referred to by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and the RTA varies from $60 million and, more recently, $35 million to $40 million. Two weeks ago the Minister, who was interviewed by a radio station, referred to a figure of $50 million. The developer of the Norwegian system, both at the inquiry and at the workshop, said that all-up costs for the installation of equipment, complete with necessary cleansing and maintenance systems, was between $8 million and $9 million, depending on the Australian dollar and the Norwegian krona exchange. The treatment, previously identified by the RTA as an extreme waste of energy, was shown to have an installed capacity of only 24 kilowatts, which is equivalent to about 10 domestic room heaters.

It is clear from the workshop that every tunnel is different and requires its own solution. Both the Norwegian and Japanese authorities have made use of longitudinal ventilation and electrostatic precipitators to preserve and improve local air quality. They use this technique because it is more economical to do it this way. The simple longitudinal ventilation system responds easily to changes in traffic and the amount of emissions and maintenance costs are reduced. It is not good enough for the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads to try to justify the RTA's position by listing all the tunnels that do not use air cleaning systems, as he did in a recent letter to me on this issue. Those tunnels may not need them, because they have been intelligently designed, unlike this one, and have a number of outlets, mostly on high or level ground and not in the valley. Many of the countries that do not use filtration technologies have much better fuel and vehicle emission standards. Their cars and trucks do not pollute as much as ours do. The workshop found:

The complex, remotely located M5 East single stack tunnel ventilation design can be distinguished from any other tunnel ventilation scheme in the world. It is uniquely problematic because of its geography and political history, as well as its complicated design.

Given the serious questions identified by the workshop, the inquiry before it and the CSIRO report commissioned by DUAP, how was it possible for DUAP to proceed with its approval of the stack design? The new conditions of approval imposed by DUAP are clear:

4. Should the results of monitoring required under Condition 75 and from the Community based monitoring station (referred to below) show that the PM10 contributions from the exhaust stack results in exceedance of the goals specified in Condition 72, the RTA shall install electrostatic precipitators within 6 months of the direction by the Director-General —

Bearing in mind that the provision is activated if the goals are exceeded on one occasion, that the modelling produced so far has suggested this is almost certain to happen, and that the later fitting of the required implement into an already operating tunnel will inevitably be much more expensive than fitting it now, how can it be a prudent policy to fail to proceed immediately to fit the filtration equipment? This stack has a very risky design, and the precautionary principle and the common law duty of care require that every possible measure must be taken to minimise the risk to the local population—now, not later. Merely because most of the people affected happen to be in a safe Labor heartland and many are from non-English speaking backgrounds does not mean their lungs are immune to the effects of the pollution, or that they can put up with it for longer than the rest of the population. It is critical that we get this project right before it opens, not after.

I am particularly concerned at the lessons we can learn from the M5 East. It would appear that the RTA, DUAP and the EPA have not learned much from that project as the design for the cross-city tunnel uses the same wasteful, expensive and unnecessary techniques. Why transport air all the way from Darling Harbour to Kings Cross and bring it all the way back to eject it, unfiltered, in the bottom of an urban valley amongst all the tall buildings? Electrostatic precipitators and similar technology will never solve the city's air-quality problems, but the development of a sensible free running motorway network might help.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Following the Minister's advice on Tuesday that I should ask specific questions, will he now inform the House whether any of the companies in which he or his immediate family have an interest has been a successful tenderer for State Government business since he was sworn in as a Minister? Given the Minister's refusal to answer this question on Tuesday, what has he got to hide?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I think this issue has been canvassed sufficiently. My pecuniary interest is registered with the Clerk for the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Coalition to see. If the Leader of the Opposition is not capable of understanding what my obligation is under the requirements of the pecuniary interest register he should get some assistance.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast. Is the Minister aware of an application by the Transport Workers Union [TWU] to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to insert into awards provisions that will ensure that Army reservists can return to their jobs after undertaking peacekeeping duties?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member's question is important for a number of reasons. First, let me once again state for the record that the Government has great admiration for the men and women who are serving and have served their country so well in East Timor and Bougainville. In relation to the TWU application to vary their State awards, I am informed that the union has made application in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to insert a clause into awards that would provide security of employment in the form of defence service leave for Army reservists when on peacekeeping duties. Currently, only those reservists called up in wartime have legislative protection under the Federal Act. That is clearly unsatisfactory, as Australia will find itself increasingly involved in peacekeeping operations, particularly in our region.

The House should note that the TWU can only seek to insert this type of clause in a State award in the New South Wales jurisdiction, because it is not one of the 20 narrowly defined so-called allowable matters provided for under Federal law. Unlike the Federal system, the New South Wales system allows parties to respond to changing circumstances, such as those in East Timor and Bougainville, and to protect the reservists returning from such theatres of conflict. What is extraordinary about the Federal Act is that Peter Reith specifically removed defence service training leave from awards in 1996 and it is not an allowable matter.

Under the award simplification program Reith stripped out a basic and important protection for armed forces reservists. He had no regard for the national interest and he had no regard for the impact upon the recruitment of reservists. In Reith's rush to downgrade the role of awards and to hack away at the safety net for workers, he disregarded the importance of the Army Reserve. Instead of allowing the industrial parties and the commission to sensibly review awards, he proscribed protections for reservists. My colleagues in the Federal parliamentary Labor Party took the view that this matter had to be addressed. They took the New South Wales approach and proposed a bill to reinsert defence training leave into the Federal award system.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: A totally academic exercise, totally ineffectual.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It is hardly an academic question. Protection of your job while you are serving your country is hardly an academic question. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn has interjected that it is an academic question whether or not workers have protection in their employment—

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Get on to State issues.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: This is a State issue. It is a very important issue.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The level of interjection is such that I cannot hear the Minister's reply.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Opposition does not want to hear and does not want to understand that the laws that the Leader of the Opposition so avidly supports and that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn supports—and, I assume, even the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti supports—mean that reservists come back from serving their country with no protection under the laws of the land. Those opposite think that is a fair go. After all of the emotional clap-trap we heard last night, the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn interjects while I am making the point that the Federal laws do not protect workers returning from duty in the service of their country. It does not count for much. They fought and returned only to have the Federal Government take away one of their basic industrial rights.

The proposal would have allowed those clauses deleted by Reith to once again operate as a guaranteed protection for reservists. It was supported by the Defence Reserves Association, which is not a radical or militant union in anyone's estimation. What was the Federal Government's view on this? It killed off the proposal. The Commonwealth specifically removed the rights of reservists from awards. Caught on the hop, the Prime Minister directed his defence Minister to come up with the recently announced package. We still have not seen just what protection reservists will have in the Federal jurisdiction. Will reservists be guaranteed jobs? Will they be guaranteed training leave? Will they be guaranteed unfair dismissal rights? How will regular casual employees be dealt with? All these questions remain unanswered. The TWU proposal, with the protection of rational, fair New South Wales industrial legislation, is the only way in which the rights of reservists can be protected.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Is it correct that the Minister had the good fortune to have had substantial business debts written off by major banks? Is it also correct that the National Australia Bank wrote off $2.5 million? Did the Minister then have the further extraordinary good fortune to have the ANZ Bank write off nearly $3 million in debt? Can the Minister understand the bewilderment and anger in the community at a situation where nearly $5 million in debt has been written off by two major banks? Will the Minister explain to the farmers and commercial fishermen across the State, some of whom are facing bankruptcy because the banks will not excuse their relatively minor debts, how these events transpired?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: The question the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked relates exclusively to matters that are not public affairs. The question relates to the Minister's commercial relationship with a bank. Unless there is some connection between public affairs and the Minister's conduct of his portfolio, the question is out of order. I noted that some of the questions asked yesterday seemed to be linked to issues of public affairs, but the question asked today by the Leader of the National Party does not have any such connection.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: To the point of order: On 10 November last year the Minister said:

I have no problem answering any question that is put to me on any matter that I have ever been associated with.

It is pertinent to note that at that time you said, Madam President:

… it is not in order to ask questions about a member's background if it has nothing to do with either a previous question that has been answered in the House …

The Minister has been asked about this matter on previous occasions. The question is consistent with your ruling, and the Minister stated to the House on 10 November that he will answer any questions put to him.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point order: Most honourable members would probably be quite happy to answer any question asked of them about anything, but that is not the point. I am quite happy to answer questions about my performance as a member of the Cronulla swimming club in 1962, 1963 and 1964. The fact remains that the question is irrelevant to public affairs. I have had questions asked here about my dog, and I was quite happy to answer them, but those questions were irrelevant to public affairs. It is time members of the Opposition followed the rules about questions and restricted their questions to matters that involve public affairs.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: To the point order: This question is quite relevant to public affairs. These allegations, which concern a Minister of the Crown, have been out there for more than a week. The allegations are not insubstantial: they concern amounts of money totalling nearly $5 million. There is an expectation that these questions need to be asked and answered. The Minister certainly has not been forthcoming on the matter. When anyone has the excellent good fortune to have a large amount of money written off by a bank, and the incredible coincidence that two banks have now written off huge amounts of money, the taxpayers of the State and the shareholders of those banks certainly have an expectation that if there is no truth in the allegations—and I put the allegations as they came from the press—they need to be answered. I would have thought that if there was no truth in the allegations the Minister would have confronted the issue on the first day of this sitting week and I would not have had to wait until the last sitting day of the week to try to extract an answer from him, with the Treasurer trying to cover his tail. It is certainly in the public arena and it is certainly a proper question for a shadow minister to ask. It is one that should be answered.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point order: I find it difficult to understand how private dealings between citizens and their banks relate to the public affairs of the State. They are private, commercial—

The Hon. D. J. Gay: They are in the public domain.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What do you mean "They are in the public domain"? The fact that someone has written about them publicly does not make them matters of public affairs.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It could be in the Kings Cross Whisper.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: But that is not the point. The fact that somebody writes in a newspaper a story about the prospects of one of our Olympians at the Sydney Olympics does not make that a matter of public affairs in New South Wales. Neither does it have anything to do with the Minister's portfolio, and neither does the question.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: To the point of order: Each and every member of Parliament is required annually to declare in a pecuniary interests register details of their debts. That requirement is laid on us by nothing less than the Constitution of New South Wales. There could be no better document from which we could define a public interest matter than the Constitution. If we are required to give details of those things as part of our membership of this place, how much greater is the onus on a Minister of the Crown, who obviously has much higher levels of responsibility? Questions to Ministers about their relationships with financial institutions and their debts are highly relevant both to the people of New South Wales and to public affairs. The relationships Ministers may have and potential conflicts of interest and obligations they may bear to parties outside Parliament are without a doubt considered sufficiently relevant to the public affairs of the State that we are required to declare them by nothing less than the Constitution. Given that the Minister has that obligation, it clearly qualifies as an item of public affairs. There is a greater onus on a Minister to declare these details than there is on any other member of Parliament.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point order: The Hon. J. F. Ryan obviously did not hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question. The question had nothing to do with declarations of pecuniary interest. It was an entirely unrelated question concerning the private relationship between a member and his bank.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: He has to declare his pecuniary interest.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: In that case, why was the question not about the declaration of pecuniary interest? It was not about that at all.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: To the point of order: The question is directly related to the administration of the Minister's portfolios and, de facto, relates to the issue of public confidence in the administration of government by a Minister. The issue of whether a bank forgives a debt, particularly in an amount approaching $5 million, goes directly to whether the Minister may in some way, previously or in the future, have his position compromised by the fact that such a debt was forgiven. The House will be well aware that the forgiving of a debt constitutes, in real terms, a gift by that particular organisation.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It does not!

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: It does. If I owe the Minister $5 million and he makes the decision to waive my debt to him, he is giving me $5 million. I do not have to pay it back.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: You are making a commercial decision.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Exactly. The Special Minister of State says it may be a commercial decision. That is directly relevant.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: I did not say that.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: When a bank makes a decision to forgive $5 million to a person who is now a Minister, the public is entitled to know the circumstances in which that decision was made and the extent of that member's involvement in the making and obtaining of that decision. The public is entitled to know whether there is a potential for that person, a member of Parliament who is now a Minister, to put himself in a position where he may be compromised in the decisions he makes as a Minister.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: The Hon. J. P. Hannaford's remarks on the point of order have now reached the stage where they contain an imputation. He should withdraw that imputation. Anyone who wishes to make an imputation against another member is perfectly entitled to use the proper forms of the House to do so, and that is by means of a substantive motion.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Further to the point of order: I made no imputation against the Minister. What I said is that it is relevant that these questions be allowed to be asked so that imputations cannot be made. I have made no imputations and the Minister knows that. As far as the point of order as to whether the question was out of order, it is appropriate that the Minister be required to answer that question so that issues in the public domain are appropriately resolved.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will rule on both points of order at the same time. In these discussions one is advised by what is in the standing orders and also by previous rulings of Presidents. Standing Order 29 is quite clear. It provides that questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other members relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House. Various Presidents have, of course, been more specific in their rulings with regard to which questions are in order and which are not. President Peden made it perfectly clear that an imputation can be dealt with only by way of substantive motion or a specific notice of motion. Deputy-President Healey and President Johnson have made it quite clear that a question can relate only to public affairs, and they defined the matter more clearly. Deputy-President Healey said:

Members should confine their questions to matters that can be attended to by members of the Cabinet of the New South Wales Government.

President Johnson said:

Those Standing Orders provide, first, that to be in order a question addressed to a Minister must relate to public affairs. This implies that a question must relate to a matter within the Government's responsibility, or which could be dealt with by an administrative or legislative action.

If the question imputes or implies an improper action, that can be dealt with only by way of substantive motion or by notice of motion. If the question does not impute an improper action, it must relate to a public affair that the Cabinet of this Parliament can deal with. Accordingly, I rule that the question is not in order.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Will the Minister confirm media reports that there will be substantial changes to the system of premiums for green slips for motorists after the freeze on green slip premiums ends on 5 October? Will the Minister indicate whether premiums will rise for some motorists and, if so, by how much? How many motorists will be affected by premium increases? Will the Minister confirm reports that some motorists now in areas classified as outer metropolitan will be transferred to metropolitan status, and so will pay more for their compulsory green slips?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I confirm that there will be no change to the system of green slips, as implied by the honourable member's question. The Motor Accidents Compensation Act is in operation and provides for no significant change, and none is forecast by either the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] or the Government. Shortly I will be able to confirm the premium filings lodged with the MAA by the eight insurers engaged in compulsory third party insurance. I am confident that premiums will remain stable and, for the majority of motorists, will decrease. Last October the best price available for a green slip premium was $318. I am advised by the MAA that that figure will be less this year.

During debate on the Motor Accidents Compensation Act, I advised the House that the majority of motorists would pay premiums of $330 or less. At a subsequent estimates committee hearing in June I advised that 70 per cent of policy holders paid a premium below $330, which is $100 less than the average premium paid under the 1999 Act. I assure the Hon. J. S. Tingle that when I announce the new premium filings I will provide the premium costs under which the majority of motorists will pay less than last year. In answering the remainder of the question, I must clarify one point.

Under the previous arrangements there were four geographic zones: Sydney; Newcastle, which paid 80 per cent of a Sydney-based class one vehicle, a typical family sedan; Wollongong, which paid 90 per cent of a Sydney-based class in one vehicle; and country, which paid 80 per cent of that class one vehicle. The reduced percentage reflected the lesser cost of claims in those regions. The MAA commissioned a report to assess changes to the cost of claims in the State and suggested the creation of five geographical regions. I expect that there will be a small difference, less than $10, for 100,000 motorists. However, the change is revenue neutral and will benefit 778,000 country motorists whose relativities will reduce to 78 per cent of the Sydney rate.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister say whether he has been briefed by the insurance industry as to the revenue impact of any changes to the premiums?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have not been briefed by the insurance industry about the impact of changed premiums, but I have been briefed by the Motor Accidents Authority on a number of occasions over the past few weeks.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast. Will the Minister inform the House on proposals for a national employee entitlements scheme?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have already informed the House about the Government's concerns regarding the Federal Government's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. The Federal scheme disadvantages employees as it unfairly limits the payment of workers entitlements to a maximum 29 weeks pay, regardless of how many weeks pay they are actually owed, and is capped at a maximum income level of $40,000 per year. The administrative scheme put forward by the Federal Government also disadvantages employees as it caps the maximum payment for an employee at $20,000, which is clearly inequitable.

The inadequacy of the Federal scheme is demonstrated by the fact that no State Government, Labor or Conservative, has yet agreed to participate in it. In addition, the Federal Government has failed to commit to legislative amendment that would hold a related body corporate liable for employee entitlements in situations in which corporate restructuring has occurred, leaving workers technically employed by insolvent companies. The Patrick waterfront dispute is one recent example. In contrast to the shabby scheme, the Federal Opposition proposed that any national scheme should cover all employees. It should be established by legislation that is based on the principle that employee should receive 100 per cent of the entitlements they have earned and are legally entitled to.

The major costs of company failure should be borne by the corporate sector, not by the taxpayer. The Federal Opposition and the New South Wales Labor Government support a scheme that, as far as possible, offers complete protection of entitlements commonly held by Australian employees. Payments from the scheme would be timely. The cost burdens on employers would be minimised. Existing schemes that provide adequate protection for entitlements would co-exist with any new national scheme. Complementary laws could be introduced in the Corporations Law to restrict corporate access to restructuring and to other strategies which are solely designed to avoid paying employees their entitlements. Recently the Leader of the Opposition had something to say about workers entitlements.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: I've got more to say too.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: And he says that he will have a lot more to say. I look forward to hearing it all.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You are going to need some ideas, because you've got no-one helping you now.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: If you come up with a good idea, I promise to steal it. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the adjournment debate on 29 August was of particular interest. He appeared to confuse the fact that a company may go out of business with the fact that only some companies go out of business owing workers their entitlements. The Leader of the Opposition also stated that he held the view that protecting employee entitlements is a matter for the State Government rather than the Federal Government. I am not sure whether he was stating that as policy or as rhetoric on States' rights. But I am sure that he demanded that the New South Wales Government contribute to the Federal Employment Entitlement Scheme, but limited the Opposition's commitment to appointing a committee to examine appropriate mechanisms relating to workers entitlements. All that was said not in one speech but in one paragraph. I look forward to further statements about the Leader of the Opposition embracing the Federal scheme, and I look forward to listening to more of the honourable member's ideas about industrial relations, workers compensation and employee entitlements.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that not one of the 12 members of the Police and Ethnic Communities Advisory Council [PECAC] is of Vietnamese background? Given the high proportion of Vietnamese people living in the Fairfield-Cabramatta area and the many police and Vietnamese community issues raised in that police command area, does the Minister not feel that it would be more appropriate for at least one Vietnamese person with relevant experience to be on the Police and Ethnic Communities Advisory Council? Will the Minister explain the process for selecting members to that committee and how not one Vietnamese person was selected to be on the committee? What will the Minister do to rectify this situation and appoint a Vietnamese representative to the PECAC?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sure the honourable member appreciates that I do not know the answer to his question. It is not a matter with which I am familiar, so I will refer it to the appropriate Minister. Once again I draw to the attention of honourable members, particularly those on the crossbenches, that I see little point in their asking detailed questions without notice, especially of Ministers who do not have direct ministerial responsibility, because all we can do is take those questions on notice. It would be better if honourable members placed such questions on the notice paper and, therefore, did not take up the time of question time, which should be for questions that one hopes a Minister is in a position to answer immediately.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. This is a question about which there has been plenty of notice. Does the Treasurer recall that on 17 November last year he was reminded in this House that in 1998 the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended to this Parliament that as a priority a new ministerial code of conduct should be implemented and that the code should reflect the greater responsibilities and duties of Ministers, compared with other members? Does he also recall that on 7 December last year he told this House, on behalf of the Premier, that the Government is revising the ministerial code of conduct for consideration by Cabinet? Why has a code not been produced? Does he agree that the current concerns over the business dealings of one Minister highlights the need for a code of conduct as a matter of urgency?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Premier for a response. I remember the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asking a question, but I do not remember when she asked it or the details of my response at the time.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. What information can the Minister give the House about a new program to give special training to clients of her department to help them get jobs?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I know of the Hon. R. D. Dyer's keen interest in juvenile justice matters and of his many achievements during his time as Minister for Juvenile Justice, together with his other ministerial responsibilities. The New South Wales Drug Summit last year produced a broad range of innovative proposals for dealing with the continuing problem of drug abuse in our community.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: We haven't seen any of them.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Despite what the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans says, we are now seeing the roll out of those proposals in a range of different areas. The proposals for which I have responsibility tackle the issue of drugs and young people, particularly young offenders. These projects recognise the difficult task facing not only the Government and the Department of Juvenile Justice but also the community in trying to break the cycle of addiction and offending behaviour among young people, which has been well documented. Recognition of the links between the two was reflected in additional funding that was provided to the department to improve drug and alcohol programs. More than $14 million has been provided to the department over four years for such programs. This money is being spent in a range of different ways. It is already providing better detoxification services at some of our detention centres and comprehensive training for departmental staff in how to handle drug-affected young people. It is also funding hostels at Dubbo and Coffs Harbour to be drug rehabilitation centres.

The magnitude of the problems we are dealing with is huge. As many as 85 per cent of young people who are admitted to detention centres admit to serious problems with alcohol and/or other drugs. Unemployment is often a key contributing factor in this cycle of drug addiction and criminality. The Drug Summit agreed that, apart from consigning young people to welfare incomes, the inability of some young people to get steady jobs left them with feelings of aimlessness, frustration and deep-seated anger—underlying factors that often lead young people to get involved in offending behaviour. In an effort to improve this situation, to stop the cycle before drug dependency takes hold, the Department of Juvenile Justice has launched a scheme to help young people gain access to jobs by training them in the skills of seeking and securing employment.

The Pre-employment Skills Training and Mentor Support program will operate in 11 locations in Sydney and in regional and country New South Wales over the next year. During that period it is expected that several hundred young people will receive help. In effect, the program will seek to advance the employment prospects of clients of the department by teaching them how to find job vacancies, how to apply for jobs and how to win positions. In many cases it will also give them vocational training to better equip them for the work they seek to do. Figuratively speaking, the program will hold the hands of these young people, guiding them through the often daunting trials of job seeking, advising them and pointing them in the right direction. Most importantly, after jobs have been secured, the program will mentor these young people, encouraging them to maintain a good work record and helping them through the sorts of problems they can expect to encounter.

One issue raised by employers who are often willing to provide employment for young people who have perhaps ended up on the wrong side of the law at some stage in their lives is that they do not think it is their job to ring up young people to tell them that they have to be at work at a certain time, to play that mentoring role. It is unfortunate that the mentoring role must be played, but no doubt clients of the Department of Juvenile Justice often need a mentor because they do not necessarily have a family background or the support and assistance that means they are inculcated in those sort of processes. The mentoring aspect of this program is particularly important. The total cost of the program is $571,658. About three months ago the department advertised widely for tenders to provide the training, and the response from providers of employment, education and training services was very encouraging.

I am pleased to announce the appointment of the agencies that have successfully tendered and the locations in which those agencies will operate. They will operate in Campbelltown, metropolitan Sydney, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Parramatta, Blacktown, Penrith, Fairfield, Kempsey, Taree and the Newcastle-Hunter region. To be eligible for inclusion in the program, a young person must be 15 years or older, subject to the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice, willing to participate, in stable accommodation, not dependent on alcohol or other drugs, and a person with previous difficulty gaining admission to other employment and training services. This program is a first so for its initial year there will be continuing comprehensive evaluation of its operation. Independent consultants will assess whether the program is meeting its objectives and outcomes, identify strengths and weaknesses, and suggest how it can be improved.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Where is the rehabilitation service?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Where are the positive policies?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The interjections from members opposite reflect their lack of commitment to assisting this group of young people and their lack of understanding about what is needed to assist young people to maintain secure employment. I hope that at the end of the first year the program has been successful in finding work for many young people and keeping them in employment, thereby helping to divert them from the bleak path of drug abuse and criminality.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that Australian Silicon plans to run its 75 semitrailers, or B-doubles, through the main street of Gunnedah every day? Has the Government considered the impact on the local amenity, which is focused on a more people-friendly main street with pedestrian crossings, roundabouts, trees and some outdoor dining? What volume of carcinogens is likely to be emitted within the precinct of Gunnedah from this additional truck traffic in the main street?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank crossbench members for asking sensible questions about issues that are relevant to the people of New South Wales. I assure the Hon. P. J. Breen that my colleague the Minister for Transport is concerned, as is the Carr Government, about any development that would affect the amenity of a community. I have no doubt that my colleague in the other House will provide an answer that will fully complement the honourable member's question.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Is it correct that the Minister had the good fortune to have the National Australia Bank write off a $2.5 million debt and the ANZ Bank to write off nearly $3 million in debt? If so, why did the Minister not list that debt as part of his pecuniary interest? Why was it not listed as a gift in his register of pecuniary interests?

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Point of order: I suggest that honourable members look at the change to the Constitution that took place as a result of a referendum in relation to our pecuniary interests. Pecuniary interest returns do not require a member to list his or her debts. A considerable number of members volunteer that information, but it is not a requirement under the Constitution. Clearly, the Minister has not transgressed his obligations under the pecuniary interest return.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: To the point of order: I do not know whether the Hon. J. R. Johnson was actually taking a point of order. The question was in two parts: one, on debts; and, two, on gifts. It is not up to the Hon. J. R. Johnson to answer questions that are directed to Ministers.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. J. R. Johnson was speaking to the point of order. It is true that the pecuniary interest register does not require members to state a debt to any institution whose ordinary business is lending money.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: With great respect, Madam President, it is for the Minister to answer, not you.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am ruling on the point of order that was taken. I refer to my previous ruling which is that questions without notice have to relate to the public affairs of the Government.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Madam President, are you ruling my question out of order?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Would you rephrase the question?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I asked the Minister for Mineral Resources why he did not include the amount in his debts and gifts areas. That is a proper question which the Minister should be able to answer. It is up to the Minister as to how he answers it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled before that members can ask questions about Ministers' pecuniary interests. That aspect of the question is in order.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have complied with the requirements of my pecuniary interest register every year. I think that I have been more liberal in providing information than any other member. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should have a good, hard look at my pecuniary interest register and decide for himself.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Would the Treasurer provide the House with details on what the information technology and telecommunications industry is doing to help develop the ITT skills base?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Last week the Premier announced the establishment of the Government’s computer bank. The computer bank will provide computers to disadvantaged schools, to TAFE institutes with large numbers of information technology and telecommunications students, and to other areas of need. The Government is committed to making sure that disadvantaged schools get access to information technology. Since 1995 we have connected every school to the Internet and have placed more than 90,000 computers in schools. During the next three years another 25,000 computers will be placed in schools. The new computer bank will give the private sector an opportunity to work with the State Government to boost the number of computers in our schools and TAFE facilities.

I am pleased to inform the House that IBM is the first company to deposit 500 computers in the bank. These 500 computers are currently being used for the Olympics, and after the Games they will be distributed across New South Wales through the new computer bank. Mr David Thodey, IBM Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer for Australia and New Zealand, said the company was proud to be part of the new scheme. He said that IBM was pleased to help develop the ITT skills base in New South Wales. The donation of these computers comes on top of the recent announcement by IBM of its new e-business innovation centre. As honourable members would be aware, the new e-business innovation centre is a $23 million initiative that will create more than 340 new high value e-business jobs. I congratulate IBM on its decision to be part of the computer bank. I encourage all ITT companies to join IBM and play a part in ensuring that young people have the right skills to join one of our fastest growing industries.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. How can the Government sign a wood supply contract for the north-east forest for 18 years with Australian Silicon for the Gunnedah smelter when the wood is supposedly used as offcuts and waste and the sawmill contracts are subject to an eight-year review? Is he not simply putting a totally unreasonable impost on the north-east forest resources?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans' question to my colleague the Minister for Forestry for a response.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. In view of the admission of guilt by the Department of Education and Training of a breach of section 15 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of staff at Westport Technology High School, will the Minister give a guarantee that the new application process for children with special needs will not exclude students who have previously attracted funding, particularly students with mild to moderate disabilities and associated behavioural problems? Will the Government review the application process as a matter of urgency.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Department of Education and Training is making a detailed submission in relation to a single summons involving circumstances at the support unit at Westport Technology High School. As I understand it, the matter is still before the Industrial Relations Commission. It would be imprudent to canvass the matter in more detail today. The WorkCover Authority issued 28 summonses against the department in relation to nine incidents involving two students with disabilities and staff of the support unit at Westport Technology High School. The maximum penalty for each summons is $750,000. The incidents were characterised as assaults.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I am more interested in what is flowing from it by way of better policies.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: If that is the honourable member's desire, I am afraid I will have to limit my remarks. As I said, the matter is still before the Industrial Relations Commission, and therefore the honourable member will have to ask the question again on another occasion.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister outline how the FishCare Volunteer program is proceeding and his plans for its future direction?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank my colleague the Hon. A. B. Manson for asking a very important question to regional New South Wales. As members are aware, the Carr Government is working with the community in an innovative statewide volunteer program. The FishCare Volunteer program involves volunteers from our community working with the New South Wales Government. These tremendously enthusiastic volunteers—ordinary people doing what they love best: chatting about fish—are talking to our State's anglers about our fishing rules and conserving fish habitats. Their role is vital in getting our message across to grassroots fishers—mums, dads, kids and retirees who enjoy tossing in a line.

This Carr Government initiative began in 1999 with $190,000 provided by the Recreational Freshwater Licence Expenditure Committee. In less than one year we already have 57 trained volunteers in Bathurst, Grafton, Lake Illawarra and the Snowy Mountains area. Similar programs have been adopted in Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland. To have so many keen volunteers is very encouraging, and the work they carry out is invaluable. The volunteers have already completed more than 400 surveys asking anglers what they are catching, and about their knowledge of the rules and their environmental concerns. They have chatted to more than 1,500 people and logged more than 443 hours to protect our valuable fish resource. All of this is in their own time—because they care about working with the New South Wales Government to protect fish. I congratulate our FishCare volunteers on their outstanding efforts. They have helped make the FishCare Volunteer program an outstanding success.

Today I am pleased to announce that the New South Wales Government will expand this valuable program statewide. We plan to train a further 180 volunteers across New South Wales, starting next month with recruitment in Armidale and Yass. The Recreational Freshwater Licence Expenditure Committee is also very happy with the program, and has recommended continued funding for the program for another three years. Once again, this Government is protecting the conservation of fish and fish habitats with the support of the community.

The Hon. I. COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Forestry. Given that State Forests own consultant's report on wood for the Gunnedah Charcoal Plant, known as the Leech report, says that less than 10 per cent of the volume will be sawmill waste, when will the public be told where the additional 200,000 tonnes per annum will come from? From which State forests will this shortfall be extracted? Will the Minister inform the House exactly what volume of wood will be taken from those forests?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. I. Cohen for his question, which follows on from questions he has asked previously in this House. I will refer his question to the Minister for Forestry, the Hon. Kim Yeadon, and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Did the Treasurer or his fellow shareholding Minister approve the absurd performance bonuses awarded to electricity industry chiefs, such as the $65,612 bonus paid to Energy Australia Chief Executive Officer Paul Broad, the $106,250 performance bonus paid to NorthPower's head Tom Parkinson, and the $16,000 payment to the acting chief executive officer of Pacific Power? Will the Treasurer advise the House on what grounds these performance bonuses were paid, given that Energy Australia's dividend to the Government fell in the last financial year, that NorthPower did not return a dividend to the Government in the last financial year, and that Pacific Power has just cost the taxpayers of New South Wales in excess of $600 million?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The last point in the honourable member's question is just codswallop.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You know it's not.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sorry, but it is codswallop. On the general question of chief executive officer performance pay, I do not approve of performance bonuses; that is a matter for the boards of the various utilities, the state-owned corporations. In my view, and I am sure the view of the Hon. J. H. Jobling and 99.999 per cent of the community, both the salaries and the bonuses paid to the chief executive officers of these utilities are absolutely enormous. The problem that the boards of these organisations have, however, is that the salaries paid to the chief executive counterparts in the private sector are even more enormous. The Hon. J. F. Ryan is nodding in agreement. I do not want to specify—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How much do they pay the Treasurer?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Under the disclosure arrangements I announced yesterday, I do not think the poor old Treasurer would even have to disclose his salary. I might be just over the limit. We have announced that anyone receiving more than $153,000, whether that person is from a government agency or a state-owned corporation—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Did you get a bonus from Bob Carr?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not receive a bonus.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They should get in someone decent to do your job—someone who would be worthy of a bonus.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Given the fact that I am the first Treasurer in the history of New South Wales to reduce the State's debt and liabilities, I suppose if ever there were a case for a bonus I would be deserving of it! But, of course, we do not have performance bonuses. I must admit that the Hon. J. P. Hannaford's decision as a Minister to close entry into the superannuation schemes has played a significant role in reducing the unfunded liabilities. But much more significant than that has been the fact that, from memory, over the past five years from our annual budgets we have funded the pooled scheme to the tune of about $8 billion.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But Mr Greiner started that, too.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Greiner Government started funding, but in extremely small amounts. As I said, over the past five years from our annual budgets we have contributed about $8 billion. That contribution has come at a fortuitous time, because during that period the funds have also had a very high earning rate, so that certainly has been of great benefit. However, even if one takes out the superannuation liabilities, there has been a substantial decline in the Government's overall debt and liabilities during the period that I have been Treasurer, which I am very pleased about. The problem is that whilst those salary levels are very high by the standards that honourable members and most taxpayers would regard as normal—

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The bonuses—not the salary!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will come to that.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You are taking a long time.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I am not. In fact, regardless of whether one deals with the base remuneration level, the bonuses, or the package as a whole, the remuneration represents only a fraction of the salary packages available to the private sector counterparts of these officers. For example, the annual report of the Australian Gas Light Company shows that the chief executive officer of AGL, Len Bleasel—a first-rate fellow who would be well known to all honourable members—receives around $1.3 million a year. I suggest that someone in the private sector would probably gobble him up for even more than that if he were prepared to leave AGL.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Talk about the bonuses.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We have to look at the bonuses in the context of the total possible salary package.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It is outrageous that the bonuses nearly equate to the total salaries.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not particularly like the idea of bonuses, and that is why we have abolished them for the general public sector. However, the state-owned corporations are run by boards that are entrusted with the job. I will not appoint a board to run a commercial organisation as a business and then tie its hands behind its back or tell it, step by step, how it should run the business. That would be very silly. If, at the end of the day, I am not happy with the performance of the board, then I get rid of it and I appoint new people. That is the shareholders' role. But it will be of value to all the boards of these organisations to know not only what is paid in the private sector—when salary packages are set, remuneration consultants generally give advice on the comparable levels in the private sector—but also what is paid in the public sector because, to some extent, there are two separate markets. Certainly the general government sector is different from commercial business enterprises.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask a supplementary question. In view of the answer the Treasurer just gave about bonuses to electricity chief executive officers and shareholders' rights, which he spelled out in detail, will be now undertake to review these boards?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Recently I have made new appointments to a number of the boards. I have no reason to think that those boards need any changes.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will he inform the House of the latest developments in the New South Wales aviation industry?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: And why your mother gave your dog away.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If it were not for the fact that I have a note to say that members have to attend a select committee, I would answer that question. Promise me you will give me the opportunity to answer it next week. In fact, I take on notice the question about my dog. Today marks the arrival of a new competitor into the Australian domestic airline industry. At 9.35 this morning Virgin Blue's first flight took off from Brisbane to Sydney. Virgin Blue now joins Impulse Airlines as an alternative carrier to both Ansett and Qantas. That is great news for Sydney, for young job seekers and for domestic air travellers. If the benefits of competition were ever in doubt, one need only look at the cost of air fares at the moment.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is a British company based in Queensland. It will do nothing for regional New South Wales.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It will mean 300 jobs for New South Wales, and you do not think that matters. With the arrival of Virgin Blue and Impulse Airlines the cost of flying around Australia has never been cheaper. To match the fares being offered by these new players, Qantas is now advertising $55 fares to Melbourne, $165 fares to Perth and $110 fares to Hobart. I am advised that Air New Zealand will spend $250 million on a range of initiatives to increase Ansett's competitiveness, including in-flight amenities and services. All this translates to big savings for the travelling public, increased domestic tourism and, of course, more jobs.

As Virgin Blue expands its operations into Sydney it will create more than 300 new jobs, including cabin crew staff, baggage handlers, and booking and administrative staff. Young people in New South Wales now have the chance to start a career with one of the world's most dynamic aviation companies without travelling overseas or interstate. Virgin's strong brand image and experience in similar markets overseas will be a strong boost to the State's $20 billion tourism industry. I welcome the arrival of Virgin Blue to Sydney. I am sorry that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition do not.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It needs to get its Internet service operating. It crashed!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Are you happy or unhappy?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Its Internet service crashed on day one.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Are you happy or unhappy that it has come to Sydney?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am very unhappy that it has not come with a system that operates properly.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Are you happy or unhappy that it has come to Sydney?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It should operate properly if it is going onto the market. It is a failed company on day one.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You ask lots of questions, but you are never prepared to give an answer.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It failed on day one.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Are you saying you are not happy it is here?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: If it is going to be here it should operate properly.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Give it a go! This is its first ever flight into Sydney.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It crashed on day one!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Good heavens! What were you like on your first day on this earth? Pretty useless, I would imagine, and you have remained that way for over 55 years; 55 years later you are as useless as you were on your first day. But there is no doubt that Virgin, like Impulse, will dramatically improve its service.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It will have to, or it won't get any customers.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: This is the once formidable Liberal Party—the party of private enterprise—which now criticises at every opportunity. What a weird mob they are; what a lot of whingers!

The Hon. D. J. Gay: When it goes regional we will welcome it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: So you do not welcome it now?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is no help.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is very interesting. I thank the honourable member for his question, but I especially thank members opposite for their interjections. Before the Opposition can do itself any more damage, I would suggest that we all go to lunch as soon as the Special Minister of State provides an answer.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You just want big business.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You do not want competition. You are opposed to free enterprise. You are opposed to competition. You were happy in the days when Ansett and TAA had a complete monopoly on interstate aviation in Australia.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are big business through and through.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You are an absolute disgrace! Why don't you just go away.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 29 August the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question about integration funding, to which I now have a response.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Is it accurate?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Yes, I am advised that it is accurate. It states:

Funding to support students with disabilities in regular classes is at record levels under the Carr Government. Integration funding has increased from around $9.5 million per year in 1995 to more than $40 million per year this year—a 320 per cent increase.

This year, schools have had a seven-week period to complete their funding applications—three weeks longer than last year.

Schools should have no difficulty in meeting the advertised closing date of 8 September 2000 because most eligible students have received support previously under this program.

In cases where schools have large numbers of students with disabilities, an extension of time can be sought from their district office.

The Learning Together—Funding Support 2001 application booklet clearly states on Page 7 that applications will be considered after the closing date on behalf of newly enrolled students with disabilities who have essential needs.

This would of course include students in Kindergarten next year, those who transfer from another school, those who arrived from overseas and those who present with essential needs not previously identified.

This has been standard practice for many years.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.08 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Motion by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that private members' business item No. 72 outside the order of precedence relating to the summoning of witnesses to the bar of the House be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones agreed to:

That private members' business item No. 72 outside the order of precedence be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [2.32 p.m.]: As I mentioned earlier in relation to the cross-city tunnel, why would anyone transport air all the way from Darling Harbour to Kings Cross and bring it all the way back to eject it, unfiltered, into the bottom of an urban valley of tall buildings? Electrostatic precipitators and similar technology will never solve Sydney's air quality problems, but the development of a sensible free-running motorway network just might help, and such a network will require the use of tunnels. If technology, including intelligent designs and electrostatic precipitators, is necessary to make the tunnel safe and acceptable to and for its users, then it is essential to use it.

A joke is going around among the tunnel activists. Question: Why is the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] like the Russian navy? Answer: They are both secretive and too arrogant to ask the Norwegians for help in time. For the sake of the people affected by the M5 East and the cross-city and Lane Cove tunnels, as members of Parliament we must not follow the example of the Russians and delay taking appropriate action until it is too late. In conclusion, I take this opportunity to congratulate the activists and residents of Bardwell Park, Turrella Creek and elsewhere, in particular members of the Residents Against Polluting Stacks, for their brave and continued opposition to the excesses, bad decisions and arrogance of this Government.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [2.34 p.m.]: I speak briefly in support of the motion moved by Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Unfortunately, the problems associated with the M5 East smokestack are a perfect example of this Government's modus operandi. A project valued at hundreds of millions of dollars was proposed and agreed to but, during the course of the contract, the Minister concerned changed the specification of the contract, thereby distressing whole suburbs of people. The Government simply must be forced, first, to have departmental officials answer questions meaningfully, deeply and properly and, second, to take notice of genuine concerns, especially regarding the public health of those who are adversely affected.

As a member of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, which is inquiring into the co-operation relating to changes to the exhaust emissions stack, I am aware of the difficulty in obtaining meaningful answers to questions. The attitude adopted by bureaucrats has effectively been that they know best and they will do what they want to do. Their attitude verges on non-co-operation, as though they were spending their own money. The Minister has used appropriate words regarding co-operation; however, getting the Minister to act is like pulling teeth. I give credit to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, for having tried in every way to solve this problem. Because of the reluctance of the departments concerned, it has been necessary to move this motion to enable members to do the right thing by the people.

The frustration experienced by non-government members of the committee is exhausting and, sadly, not unique. Very similar problems have been experienced in regard to the northside storage tunnel. Calling people to the Bar to answer questions in this House is a last resort for people who are seeking facts and action. The frustration that has been experienced is simply unacceptable. Although the remedy embodied in the motion may be perceived by many to be extreme, it is what is required. I support the motion.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.36 p.m.]: This motion is fundamentally about accountability of government and the bureaucracy to the Parliament and to the people. It has come to a pretty pass when the Parliament has to summon bureaucrats to appear before it as the only way to provide the public with answers about what is going on in New South Wales. I confess that before I became a member of this House I thought that the experts knew best and that public utilities spent the taxpayers' money wisely. I certainly know a lot better now.

Projects begin with the desires of engineers holding positions of power within the bureaucracy. Sadly, others within the bureaucracy who are either political appointments or managers without any conceptual understanding of the merits of the proposals that are put to them are faced with projects that are so large that they tend to be approved according to the law that is common to many meetings, namely, that the amount of time spent is inversely proportional to the importance and budget of the program. Everybody understands how much can be saved by cutting back on cups of tea or not employing tea ladies, but nobody really understands the concept of whether a $750 million project is necessary. The northside storage tunnel is an example of that.

No serious planning has been undertaken for a train network in Sydney. The road system has been increased systematically by the RTA's focus on roads planning, whereby each bottleneck is dealt with as an individual bottleneck; that is to say, after one bottleneck is fixed, the causes of the bottleneck are simply relocated to different parts of Sydney. The roads system is built up in a manner similar to the making of a patchwork quilt—a piece at a time. In this instance the RTA has chosen to construct a tunnel because to build a motorway would result in the demolition of too many houses and a great deal of damage to the environment. The tunnel was designed to include three small stacks on a ridge. It is obvious that if a decision is made to construct a tunnel which includes stacks, it is intelligent to construct it on a ridge. However, for some political considerations that remain somewhat murky—perhaps related to the electorates affected by the tunnel—it has been decided to move the stacks beyond the centre of Sydney to a place which just happens to be at the bottom of a valley.

This must be political interference on top of non-planning by, dare I say, engineers who build things because they like to build them, rather than consider the needs of our city with sensible and careful resource allocation. It was a foolish decision to change from a tunnel with three vents to a tunnel with one vent at the bottom of a valley, and the decision was probably politically motivated. The report of the committee contained the following statement by my old industrial hygiene lecturer, Professor Chris Winder:

Conceptually, the idea of collecting the emissions of 70,000 vehicles into a tunnel ventilation system and discharging it without filtering or cleaning from one emission stack seems intuitively illogical. The idea of locating the stack in a valley where the possibility of increased local concentration of contaminants can arise seems to add absurdity to illogic.

No-one could have put it more concisely. What he says is commonsense in terms of physics or industrial hygiene. It makes sense only in a political framework in which $30 million is barely noticed, or hopefully will not be noticed, or is seen as keeping the people happy no matter whether it is right or wrong. The tunnel workshop estimates the ongoing costs to the taxpayer at about $3 million a year, which represents 12 megawatts or enough to run a country town the size of Parkes.

Local residents who formed the group Residents Against Polluting Stacks [RAPS] should be congratulated on the skill with which they have continued to run a vociferous campaign. Their anger at this absurdity is understandable. Other taxpayers should be worried that their money is being squandered in this way instead of being spent on fixing our hospitals and providing decent rail transport in western Sydney. It would not be hard to find somebody in this House who could put public moneys to good use. Eventually a tunnel workshop was established at a cost of $210,000 and some of the comments from experts who attended the workshop are quite illustrative. Art Bendelius, from the United States of America, commented:

Well, I know the first reaction I had when I first looked at this was why put one stack in a valley ... but the system appears that it will work from a standpoint of ventilating the tunnel ... The real issue is what do you do with the discharge or where do you put it. We've always tried to put them as high as possible, not in a valley.

John Day, a Swiss-based engineer, said:

Now as far as I am concerned, I would never design a system like that.

He observed also:

... within our Government we are not allowed to waste energy, and we have to balance resources.

The New South Wales Government could learn from that man! Frank Zumsteg, from Switzerland, said:

... it is obvious that the position of the stack is not the best.

Bernard Falconnat, from France, observed:

First, Franz said it is impossible to improve the height of this stack, its particular position of the stack, I agree with him ... Improvements concerning the particle air cleaning, it is possible for a Electrostatic Precipitator, it's possible to put that, I think about for example, [to] save energy.

Because of political interference a large amount of money has been wasted, with ongoing costs and considerable anxiety and ill health to residents. That needs to be accounted for. It is not the only gargantuan and silly project that needs to be accounted for. I urge honourable members to support this motion.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [2.44 p.m.]: Opposition members are sympathetic to this motion. We are reaching the stage where it is reasonable for this House to ask what more can be done. A committee took evidence and produced a report about this stack and another. As a result an international forum was convened by the Government and a CSIRO report was produced. It is interesting that the Government has not responded to the concerns raised in any of those reports. In fact, on the day the CSIRO report was published the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning evidently made its decision without taking into consideration a more rigorous, independent and damning report which suggested that the environmental impacts of this tunnel are far worse than the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Environment Protection Authority or the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning had anticipated.

The standard set for this project—which is largely in respect of particulate matter, that is those small elements of dust emitted from traffic that circulate in the air—is 50 cubic milligrams of PM10, which is particulate matter of a particular size. Air of that concentration is considered safe if it is breathed occasionally. No consideration has been given as to what might occur if that concentration of air were breathed cumulatively, which will happen. People will breathe air with that level of concentration of particulates not for one day every now and then but sometimes for weeks on end. This tunnel could be much more dangerous than even those stringent parameters suggest.

The problem is that the Government appears to be totally unmoved by any submission and has responded with arguments that I regard as totally spurious. We are told that the environment will be improved by the freeway, and that is true. In the short term there will be some improvement because fuel consumption will be lower as traffic moves more freely. But we know what happens with freeways. They attract as much traffic as they save and over a period of time the level of use will increase and the level of environmental hazard in this area will increase. It is bad enough now, but it will get significantly worse.

We have been told that as motor vehicle technology improves the level of overall pollution in Sydney will decrease, and that that will more than compensate for the level of pollution from this stack. What arrant nonsense! I remember a version of this argument being used in regard to aircraft noise. We were told that one day air traffic arriving in Sydney would be of such technology that there would be practically no noise on arrival. Nobody believes that statement, and nobody will believe this proposal. In any event, improvements to motor vehicle engines for general use will not even be developed in the next 10 years. As we know, the average age of the vehicle fleet in Sydney is around 10 years. Therefore, we are looking at a level of improvement which is a generation away. In the meantime we will sacrifice the potential health and safety of a generation of people living in the Bardwell valley and those areas close to it.

Some might say that this is a not-in-my-backyard syndrome. The combined emissions of 70,000 vehicles are being aggregated and ventilated at force into a valley adjacent to an airport that is already flooded with a level of particulate matter through the operations of Kingsford Smith airport. There could not be a more stupid, sensitive or environmentally hazardous place in which to expend this material. This is not the only stack that will be an issue. Stacks are popping up all over the city with the construction of freeways and construction of the northside storage tunnel.

The Government does not have a policy, and members of this House are trying to insist that the Government develop a series of guidelines to minimise and deal with these problems appropriately so that they cannot be used as a political trade-off. The Australian Labor Party has no policy for dealing with stacks except that if a stack is located in a politically sensitive area it will try to relocate it to an area that has a pocket of voters who are inclined to support the Coalition—as in the Bardwell valley and on the north shore. The Government's response to the concerns of these voters is that they can choke. The Opposition does not support that approach but supports the Government establishing a set of guidelines and to involve various government departments—which is probably the reason that the motion calls for four representatives from four different departments to visit the Parliament—in order that matters can be co-ordinated and resolved at the outset so that they are not used as a political bargaining point when the project is almost completed.

The Opposition and other members of the House are concerned that with the Olympics almost upon us the Parliament will not convene very often and the project will be nearly completed by the time we have a chance to debate the matter. Members of the Opposition understand why members of the crossbench have moved this radical motion and we understand the level of desperation that calls for public servants to come before the bar of this Chamber to explain themselves. Because of those concerns I will move some amendments to ensure that such an event occurs in an orderly fashion. The Opposition is sympathetic to the intent of the motion. I understand that at this dark and late hour the Government is giving some consideration to what further action it might take—I applaud and encourage that action. At the moment members of the Opposition sympathise with the residents of Turrella. We will not go quietly into the dark and let ourselves be suffocated by nonsense, indecision and political wheeling and dealing from the Government.

The M5 East stack is an environmental and planning aberration for numerous reasons. It is poorly located, being in a valley next to an airport. It wastes resources. The amount of electricity that will be required to pump emissions into the air up a 35 metre stack is sufficient to light up the town of Parkes! And we do not know what will occur with regard to greenhouse gases. The electricity bill to pump the emissions and to maintain that equipment will be of the order of $2 million. Various suggestions have been advanced about filtering the air but the Government has ignored them, stating that they are all a waste of resources. What could be a greater waste of resources than to outlay $2 million a year to generate enough electricity to grab emissions and place them in an environmentally sensitive place? Had the road been designed properly in the first place, electrostatic precipitators would have been installed in the tunnel and the gases would have been expelled from the portals virtually free of particulate matter. There would not have been a need to erect a 35-metre stack in the middle of a residential area.

I have heard spurious arguments from the Government that electrostatic precipitators would generate a waste stream. According to the Carr Government the appropriate place for particulate matter is not in landfill but in the lungs of the citizens of Sydney. The Opposition does not regard that as appropriate. Had the project been designed properly, there would not have been a need for any stacks. We have been given vague guarantees that action might be taken if the stack does not meet the guidelines set by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. I can quote no better response to that guarantee than that made by the Hon. Elaine Nile, with whom I agree. At a rally yesterday that honourable member said that once the stack is up and running it will be there to stay. There is no doubt that that is what will happen, and for that reason members of this House want this matter dealt with urgently.

The Opposition is very sympathetic to the requirements of this motion. It understands that acceptance of this proposal will constitute a step in a new direction for the Parliament. The Opposition wishes to make it clear that the purpose of calling public servants to the bar of the Chamber is not to make them responsible; the purpose is to elicit further information, such as why the Department of Urban affairs and Planning has not taken into consideration a CSRI0 study that is clearly relevant and documents a potentially large environmental hazard. We wish to make it clear to the Government that the Opposition is serious about this matter. As the motion was drafted on the understanding that the House would not sit past this week it names today as the date on which representatives should come before the bar of the Chamber. Consequently the motion needs to be amended, which I will now seek to do. I move:

That the question be amended as follows:

No. 1 Omit "Thursday 31 August 2000 at 11.30 a.m.". Insert instead "Thursday 7 September 2000 at 2.30 p.m. for a period not exceeding 2 hours".

No. 2 Insert at the end:

2. That members may submit written notice of questions to be asked of the witnesses, for answer during their evidence, to the Clerk of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 5 September 2000. The Clerk is to forward copies of the questions to the witnesses as soon as practicable.

3. Nothing in paragraph 2 prevents any member from asking questions of the witnesses during their evidence.

The purpose of the amendments is to schedule the events on a day on which the House will be sitting, to limit the period to two hours because the Oppositions believes that there should be a limit to the amount of time that the debate will encroach on private member's business and, finally, to ensure that the procedure is conducted in an orderly fashion to counter some of the objections the Government is likely to have to the motion. The Opposition is sympathetic to the objectives of the motion and wants the Government to take seriously the demands of those affected, because the erection of this stack will not end the matter; many ventilation stacks will be erected throughout the city, and if we lose out on this stack, we will lose out on the others.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.57 p.m.]: My contribution will be brief because the issue has been adequately covered by other honourable members. The Greens have taken an active role communicating with the local communities of Bardwell Park, Turrella and Arncliffe about this abomination by this Government. The project has changed from the provision of multiple vents to the erection of one stack. I recall being at a protest rally a few months ago in a park in the relevant area and seeing a large crane on the site where it is proposed to erect this single 35 metre stack. It reminded me of a Monty Python skit. There was this wonderful swathe of green and natural environment, a small remnant bushland area close to the city in which people reside, and extending out of this area of green was a huge ugly edifice—a blight on the surroundings. And this is just the beginning! There has been a change of position. Originally there was to be a number of portals constructed, but now we have this wonderful engineering solution of picking up gases emitted from the ever increasing traffic running through this tunnel and depositing it in one area 800 metres away. The gases will be emitted without the use of electrostatic precipitators or filtration systems.

The gases will be compressed and released again under pressure. As has been said already, the amount of electricity needed to pump out the gases would light up a town the size of Parkes. That makes a mockery of the stated intention to meet gas emission targets in New South Wales, and it certainly makes a mockery of the claim that the Carr Government is a forward looking and green government. This issue shows an ugly side of government and bureaucracy. There have been investigations and forums at which members of this House and members of the community have made requests of bureaucrats, government officials and representatives of the Minister. It seems that the requests have fallen on deaf ears: there has been no reply. It does not matter what one says. When one speaks to the Minister he smiles and says that it is all very good but there is no advance from the preordained position set up by the arch politicians of the Labor Party, who have one eye to the Rockdale election and a very sensitive electorate. They are moving pieces around on a chessboard to suit political ends oblivious to the deep effects on people's lives. Ill health and potentially fatal diseases can develop from motor vehicle pollution.

The CSIRO has investigated the matter, which has also been dealt with at a major international forum. It was shown at that forum that there are ways of resolving the situation. It is unsatisfactory that a stack is still being proposed—this singular abomination of landscape. Hans Anderl of Clean Air Tunnel International AS, Norway/Austria stated:

The EP System for 856 cubic metres per second, with pre-mechanic filter afterwards, with powerpack cabinets, with automatic running cabinet, also the wall treatment system, with all the facility around that, has a price in Norwegian krone of approximately $45-47 million. That should be approximately $7.5-$8 million Australian.

So $8 million at this stage could go a long way to resolving some of the health problems that potentially confront the people of the area. It is unbelievable that the Government will not act. The Minister and his bureaucrats stand condemned for not going back to multiple portals, dealing with the emissions in a far more intelligent way. As other members have said, we seem to be in the grip of engineers and bureaucrats. Are they leading the Ministers or are the Ministers dictating? After having some reservations, I can now see the appropriateness of bringing the bureaucrats before the bar of this House. After years of debate about sewage outfalls we are still getting end-of-pipe solutions. There is nothing creative. The engineers take over. With this stack and the projected east-west tunnel under the city the same sort of process will be trotted forward by the bureaucrats. This unimaginative engineering solution to problems confronting the city would lock us into a one-way street of motorways, stacks and chimneys for generations to come.

The experience overseas shows that this would be a mistake. We need a radical solution. The Minister and bureaucrats should be brave. I have discussed my concerns with other members of the House. I understand that there could be a kickback on the reputation of the House. Members might be the butt of further ridicule in the daily newspapers, which is not unusual, but it is worth adopting the proposed procedure because we are not getting satisfaction in the House or through the committee system. We seem to be running into a brick wall of intransigence by vested interests, engineers and the Ministers concerned. I am pleased that the local community has been working consistently and intelligently to stop this ugliness and unhealthy development. The lobbying and demonstrations have been consistent. The demonstration at the back of Parliament House was creative, theatrical and effective. I commend the community for its long and ongoing efforts to draw this issue to the attention of the Parliament and public.

I am concerned about suggestions that particulate levels will not increase because modern motor vehicles are being improved. It is expected that 70,000 vehicles will go through the tunnel daily. The number will aggregate as time goes by and there will be an increasing problem. Freeways and motorways relieve the problem for a short period and then act as a funnel to draw people into using the facilities. The result is an even greater problem. This has been proved overseas. But still the bureaucrats and the Government will not listen. As a very poor last, backstop position there should be a minimum of an adequate and appropriate filtration system for the tunnel. In view of the expertise, money and information available the matter should have been resolved much earlier. The local community is to be commended for taking a very justified and appropriate fight up to the Government. The Government should rethink its overall plan and perhaps talk to people other than the bureaucrats of the RTA on these matters.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.07 p.m.]: I thoroughly support the substance of the motion that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has moved in relation to the M5 East tunnel ventilation system. Although I voted against the proposed procedure, I am thoroughly in support of the substance of the motion. It is of considerable concern that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning [DUAP] just last week approved a single unfiltered stack with a minimum height of 35 metres. The department's decision has been made in spite of the massive public outcry, the recommendations of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 and the views of experts. Because the health and wellbeing of the community are at risk this is an essential issue that requires attention.

New South Wales has a Westminster system of government under which Ministers must be held accountable to the Parliament for the actions of the Executive and departments within their portfolio areas. This is one of the fundamental principles of our system of government. We should not take lightly any attack on our system of government. There is no doubt that the Minister should be held accountable. I think that the Minister has to come clean. I am concerned about senior bureaucrats being compelled to appear before this Chamber. As I said, the relevant Ministers should be called to account. If the bureaucrats are brought before the bar of the House, it would set a dangerous precedent with the potential to jeopardise the integrity of our time-honoured Westminster system of government. From my 12 years as a member of this Chamber I know that this procedure has been adopted a couple of times previously. However, we should think very seriously whether this action is called for. In this case it is not called for. There are other methods to bring bureaucrats to account. We are able to establish a parliamentary inquiry—

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: We have done that.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I understand that. We are able to establish a parliamentary inquiry to examine the reasons for bureaucrats' decisions. This is why I said that the Minister has to come clean. He has to be accountable. However, I still believe in the committee system.

The Hon. I. Cohen: It failed because they didn't listen.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I did. We must still respect our committee system, which is open to the public and the media to scrutinise. This gives an opportunity to delve into the reasons behind decisions. That is the method that should be used to inquire into matters such as that before the House. Honourable members know that I am the Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, which examined the employment contract of the Commissioner of Police. I think the Hon. J. H. Jobling was a member of that committee at the time. That inquiry, though very difficult, was able to uncover some of the problems that arose in relation to the negotiation of the contract and remuneration package as well as problems with the relevant legislation. The Hon. J. H. Jobling indicates his agreement with that statement by nodding. Members of the Parliament discharge their duties in this Chamber without fear or favour, and they should do so also when serving on the committees.

In the current circumstances, I suggest that an inquiry is a better and more appropriate method of determining the rationale of the decisions that have been taken in relation to the M5 East stack. I have just been made aware that the Minister will meet with some honourable members of this Chamber to discuss the decision. I think it is good to mediate and perhaps reach a compromise. I acknowledge openly that I am not an expert on the details of environmental issues. However, I am convinced that the decisions pertaining to the M5 stack are serious and warrant immediate action. I personally urge honourable members to consider the alternative of discussing and mediating the matter with the Minister beyond the bar of this Chamber. To require bureaucrats to appear before this Chamber is to put the parliamentary system and process at peril. I urge honourable members to think seriously about doing that. In this case, as with every other case in this Chamber, I will vote according to my conscience and I will vote against the proposal.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [3.11 p.m.]: I speak in support of the motion because I have great concerns about the health impacts of untreated emissions on the children and adults who will breathe the untreated fumes that will come from the stack. It is scandalous that at a time when we are investing millions of dollars in education and campaigns to prevent children from smoking the Government does not think it is worth its while investing a few million dollars, perhaps $8 million or $10 million, to prevent the discharge of an additional and permanent load of toxic pollutants onto the people of the Turrella Valley. Yet the adverse impacts of the pollutants are well established.

It is farcical for the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to claim that it is meeting stringent air quality controls when it knows that adding a significant additional load of carcinogens will have adverse impacts—even if those additions remain below the magic threshold numbers established by the Department of Health and the EPA. I would like to quote from the statements of a number of people who attended the International Tunnel Ventilation Workshop. The first person I will quote is Associate Professor Chris Winder, the head of School Safety Sciences at the University of New South Wales:

The pollutants that concern us are PM10, nitrogen dioxide and the hydrocarbons such as benzene. The effect of PM2.5 has become a recent concern as organisations such as the American Lung Association lobby for recognition of this particle size. The concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 is not being monitored for this project, nor is its concentration to be controlled. This is a scandal when you realise that very fine particles, such as PM2.5, are like environmental tobacco smoke. Environmental tobacco smoke is a group A carcinogen. Chemical deaths from living or working with a smoker, if you are a non-smoker, are up by a factor of 2 for lung cancer and up by a factor of 10 for heart disease. This information comes from a Chadstone Medical Centre newsletter in 1997. Bob Carr, our Premier, has basically approved the creation of a 25-metre cancer-causing pipe in a green valley in the name of progress.

I quote from Dr Steve Corbett of the Department of Health:

Is there a safe level or threshold for health effects rule in general? The answer for most of these pollutants is no. There are continuous affects above zero. And that is the case for almost all pollutants with which we deal.

Dr Corbett said further:

People are discovering all sorts of effects on the immune system in the lungs as a result of exposure to fine particles, and I think there has been a much greater concern about the role of these very small particles and diseases such as asthma, and that is certainly a very active area of research at the present time. So we are keeping a very close watching brief on those developments.

More than 400 people a year are dying from air pollution in Sydney. One in three children have asthma. If we are collecting the fumes from 21 million vehicles a year, why are we not taking the opportunity to treat them and remove the carcinogens and asthma triggers? We do not quibble over the cost of fire or emergency equipment, even though it may never be used. It is imperative that we do all we can to avoid the imposition of this preventable load of pollution on the local area. There comes a time when drastic action needs to be taken by this House to protect the health of individuals. The community groups involved have tried and tried to get the Government to take seriously their well-researched and well-documented concerns about the M5 ventilation stack. Yet all they appear to have achieved is to be placed on a bureaucratic treadmill and to be left in limbo. There are solutions to this problem which will ensure that the M5 East can go ahead and the concerns of the residents can be met. The motion is the last resort. This is a serious and unusual motion, and the gravity of the situation demands that this motion succeed.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.16 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party strongly supports the concerns of the residents in the Turrella Valley about the development of the tunnel. When I was making some notes regarding the debate I wrote down "smoke stack". I noted that the Government referred to it as the "tunnel ventilation stack". I thought of it as a smoke stack, perhaps a pollution stack, 35 metres high, right in the middle of that community. Some honourable members have mentioned the massive proportion of people in Australia who have asthma. Australia's population has one of the highest proportions of this disease of any country in the world. I am one of the asthmatics.

We lived at Ryde for 17 years and during that time I would often experience breathing problems, as did our daughter, who also developed asthma. The cause was finally established to be a paint factory in the Concord area. When the wind blew in a certain direction you could almost smell the paint. But, even before you could smell it, you could have breathing problems caused by it. That factory was a long way from where we lived, and it was producing a particular product. Here, the Government is allowing a smoke stack to be built right in the middle of a residential area, with full knowledge of all the pollution that will come with the construction of that smoke stack.

To the Christian Democratic Party, the International Tunnel Ventilation Workshop—which I understand cost $210,000—appeared to be a great victory. We supported that workshop in the belief that all available scientific information would be given to the Government, and that the Government and people who were a bit thick-headed on this issue would hear the evidence of overseas speakers and so on and respond with positive measures. But analysis of what happened after the workshop, sad to say, showed it to be a hollow victory—it was virtually a public relations exercise, perhaps designed to allay the concerns of residents in the area. That the report on the workshop was written by an RTA-appointed barrister who apparently was on record as declaring the M5 East to represent world's best practice makes it difficult to accept the report as truly independent. Perhaps the people involved were prejudiced by what they had been told initially: that this was a wonderful tunnel, and these are great stacks—everyone should have one!

Even though there were many criticisms, this somewhat biased report acknowledged the experts' unanimous criticism of the location of the stack, its complicated design and the appalling community consultation process. In fact, the report recommended further research and cost benefit analysis. Even though all these community protests have been occurring and workshops have been held, engineers keep building the M5 stack. They appear to be saying, "We will keep everybody busy until we finish building the M5 tunnel. Then we will say, 'Sorry, here it is.'" No doubt the Premier will then attend an opening ceremony, cut the ribbon, and 70,000 vehicles will travel through the tunnel daily. Residents will ask, "What about the issues that we have raised? When will they be resolved?"

The Government is snowing, smoking out or polluting residents in the vicinity of the M5 stack. I have an interesting document entitled "M5 East—Tunnel Ventilation Stack at Turrella. Conditions of Approval—23 August 2000", which contains wonderful terminology. All the conditions of approval, which are supposed to protect residents in this area, basically refer to the establishment of a monitoring committee to measure pollution in the M5 stack. Not only will the Government give us the best smokestack in the world; we will also be given the best monitoring of all the pollution from that stack. We will even be given a community committee which will inform the community about how much pollution is coming from the stack. Residents will also be involved in a consultative organisation which will be established to measure pollution rather than determine which processes can be implemented to prevent it.

The most logical approach would be to design the project and to install the ventilation and other necessary equipment. However, the document to which I referred earlier keeps mentioning that ventilation and other equipment will be retrofitted. We are told that if anything needs to be done it will be done after the M5 stack is built. But will that happen? After the work is finished no doubt we will hear views such as: "It is a pity that we did not install ventilation while the smokestack was being built because now it will be so difficult and expensive." Later remedial work will require expenditure of additional money. We will have to listen to another series of arguments about having lost the opportunity to install ventilation when the M5 stack was being built. Who will be blamed for that? I am sure that the Government will come up with another excuse.

The conditions of approval document refers time and again to what will be done to the tunnel prior to its opening. For example, plans will be prepared and certain things will be done. But will the tunnel be open to traffic and will it be operating? Paragraph 5 of the conditions of approval document states:

The RTA shall establish a mechanism regarding the potential for complaints about air quality impact resulting from the stack.

So a body will be established to which residents can direct their complaints. All that means is that residents will have access to hotlines and so on and they will be able to lodge their complaints. Will that be of any benefit to the health of people and children in that area—children who, because of pollution and food additives, commence their lives with allergy problems? This major smokestack project might have the potential of shortening the lives of children and aged citizens. Paragraph 5 of this document refers to a mechanism to deal with complaints. Paragraph 6 refers to the establishment of a community-based monitoring station. Paragraph 7 states:

The Roads and Traffic Authority shall also continuously monitor ... concentrations in the stack.

Paragraph 8 states:

The RTA shall further investigate—

that is a reference to what will be done after the stack is built—

options of partial ventilation.

These conditions of approval, which are all supposed to help to protect the health of people in this area, will apply only after the establishment of the tunnel. Paragraph 10 states:

The RTA shall assess and report on the impacts of the stack emissions at monitoring locations ...

The best statement in this document is contained in paragraph 11 under the subheading "Conditions 70 and 71", which states:

The in-tunnel monitoring and reporting systems shall be approved by the EPA when construction of the tunnel is completed.

That is ridiculous! The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has taken fairly draconian action in moving this motion. I have reservations, as have other honourable members, because this sort of action has been taken only in relation to the Auditor-General. After checking with the Clerks of this Parliament I established that it has happened only once in the history of this Parliament. Because the matters relating to the Auditor-General fell into a different category, he was not summoned to attend before the bar of this House, but he did appear in this Chamber. Since the 1900s there has been only one such occurrence under the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901. However, there have been two such occurrences in the Federal Parliament—one relating to the Browne and Fitzpatrick case and one in the Senate on the Khemlani loans affair, which led to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. Those are the kinds of criteria that apply in matters of this nature.

We seem to have come up against a brick wall. The smokestack is still being built. I hope that sanity will prevail in contributions to this debate by Government members. The Government might make a statement that it will put a hold on the project and that ventilation equipment will be installed as a priority. Other countries such as Norway, Korea and Japan have this technology. I am proud of Australia. We should lead other countries and not always follow their lead. We are an inventive and creative country. Surely we can work out ways in which to improve air quality and thus the health of our community.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [3.27 p.m.]: Yesterday morning I had the privilege of speaking to people who will be affected by emissions from the M5 East stack. I remember in 1997 in this Chamber asking a question that those families asked me to ask. On that occasion I asked why the Government would not put in place environmental sustainability programs to ensure that people in that area had clean air. The Government said that it could not be done and that it had been proved that the installation of ventilation equipment was not necessary. We have proved that the installation of that equipment is necessary. Recently on television the Minister's spokesman said that if residents could prove after the completion of the M5 tunnel that it had an adverse effect on their health the Government would fix the problems. World experts have faced these same problems in other countries and they have done the right thing. We should learn from their experiences.

Yesterday the Hon. R. S. L. Jones referred to a statement I made in relation to the Government. In that statement I said that this Government was hypocritical as it had enacted legislation to protect people's health by preventing smoking in public places, yet it was prepared to allow the construction of a smokestack which will belch out everything under the sun and that will affect the health of families and children. I have an asthmatic in my family. In the past one of my children suffered from croup, a breathing problem. He stopped breathing a couple of times and I had to rush him to Camperdown Children's Hospital. It is a terrible sight to see children who suffer from asthma and other problems battling for breath. My child could not be put into a steam tent; he had to be put in an oxygen tent.

I have also visited the oncology ward with some of the doctors and I have seen children suffering from cancer, and children dying. It may be that the members who represent the three electorates that the tunnel will travel through should be forced—as a kindness—to experience what the people in close proximity to the tunnel are going through and will go through. I think it would be a good thing if they were to be asked to live in that area. We are here to represent families and children. Some members of Parliament may live in wealthy suburbs, I do not know, but I have no doubt that if any members of this Chamber were affected by the M5 East ventilation stack they would be fuming and asking for effective controls to be imposed on it. It would be pointless to seek damage control after the damage has been done when we knew all along what the effect would be.

I support the motion and I follow my leader because he has experienced what I have experienced with our family. He has also been taken through the oncology ward. To see children suffering is not a privilege; it is a heartache. These people, who are taxpayers and members of the community, have every right to live in a clean, free society and to know for certain that they are bringing up their children in a safe environment. We are not living in Russia. We have always believed our governments would look after us. We have always believed they were there to support us and to look after our children—to provide for their education, health needs and so on. Governments have failed us dismally in this regard. I pray to God that He will somehow move the hard hearts of the Minister and his staff, and of the Premier, so that they will see what is happening; so that they will observe and take notice.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.32 p.m.]: The Government opposes the motion. I wish to concentrate on the section of the motion that I believe is the hub of the matter in relation to how the Government perceives this motion. The motion is in the following terms:

That, under section 4 of the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901:

Mr Paul Forward, Chief Executive, Roads and Traffic Authority,
Ms Sue Holliday, Director-General, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning,
Mr Mick Reed, Director-General, Department of Health, and
Ms Lisa Corbyn, Acting Director-General, Environment Protection Authority,

be summoned to attend and give evidence at the Bar of the House on Thursday 31 August 2000—

of course, that date has been amended—

at 11.30 am, and afterwards as required, in relation to the M5 East Ventilation Stack and related matters, and in particular—

and it goes on to list a series of matters. The motion is an attempt to take the determination of a very political issue and place it in the hands of this House in a way that is utterly unprecedented..

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Don't accuse us of being political.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I did not accuse the honourable member of anything. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said in his contribution that this process had been invoked approximately three times in both the Federal and State parliaments during the past 100 years or so, and that in each one of those instances a degree of seriousness, in one case leading to imprisonment, was the course adopted. An examination of the procedures of this House demonstrates clearly that this is an unprecedented step that will take this House into a new realm of engagement in relation to the Executive and the public sector.

The fact is that the Minister is the person politically responsible, not the public servants who will be called before this House. In the end this issue, as with any other issue that comes before this House, should be determined by use of the procedures available to the Government and to Parliament—and, in the end, at the ballot box at relevant elections. In relation to the proposed approach, we are endeavouring to use Parliament as an instrument to drag four public servants before this Chamber, bypassing the Minister in effect. What is proposed by this motion involves a very grave step.

I have my own views on this issue and appreciate the frustration felt by a number of honourable members in respect of this issue. I can also appreciate the frustration of the residents who live in and near the area in question, but the one thing that is crucial in this is how we conduct ourselves as a Parliament. For the life of me I cannot see any long-term good in setting this precedent and endeavouring to put pressure on the Government in relation to this issue. I see this as a step that will be repeated in the future. It will lead to a series of consequences with respect to the relationship between the public sector—public servants, in particular—and the Parliament of New South Wales.

We have a very strong and vibrant committee system. Whether or not one agrees with the conclusions contained in the report of the committee that inquired into this matter, it is a very good report. It is, by and large, reasonably detailed and demonstrates a level of understanding of the issue that honourable members who were not members of that committee would not share. The Government made several responses in relation to the report and it seems to me that if questions remain to be asked, particularly in relation to points (a), (b) and (c) specifically set out in the motion, surely that could be done by reconvening that committee. I see no reason why that committee could not sit; or why it would not get the attendant publicity.

The suggestion that bringing public servants before the House will change the nature of the situation in any shape or form is pyrrhic, and not only inappropriate but dangerous. The Government believes such a process runs contrary to the way this House should conduct itself. If honourable members bothered to look at the procedures of this House and at the way issues are conducted in this Chamber, they would find overwhelming evidence against what this motion proposes. Odgers Australian Senate Practice at page 419 makes it clear that inquiries are normally conducted through the medium of Senate committees which are appointed by the Senate and given the task of inquiring into particular matters and reporting to the Senate. Odgers makes it clear that bringing people before the Bar of the House is indeed unusual.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How long will it take you to act?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I do not believe that this will achieve the desired outcome. Erskine May also makes it clear that the action being proposed is very unusual. When Erskine May talks about bringing people before the Bar of the House, it is a reference to people in custody—in other words, matters as serious as treason, not matters of public policy. The step proposed is extraordinary in the extreme. On that basis alone this motion should be defeated. However, as honourable members seem to infer, certain developments are taking place. I understand the Hon. P. J. Breen will move the adjournment of the debate in a moment so that matters can be discussed over the next week. Nevertheless, the Government takes a very strong position in relation to the methodology that is being employed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the dangerous precedent he is endeavouring to set, which could affect the operation of this House and possibly other Houses.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.40 p.m.]: I warmly congratulate the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on moving this important motion because no other course of action is available to Parliament. I also congratulate the community that stands to suffer so considerably if this stack goes ahead. The campaign those people have mounted has been inspiring. I congratulate them not just on their hard work to try to save their own community but because their work is vital to all of Sydney. Day in and day out, as we look over this beautiful city, we see the brown smudge, which will only become worse if the stack is built. That brown smudge represents considerable damage to our environment and to the health of people living in the city. Residents Against Polluting Stacks [RAPS] have put forward a pretty simple demand and I would like to quote the following passage from the RAPS web site:

R.A.P.S. is made up of people in affected areas such as Earlwood, Turrella, Bardwell Park, Arncliffe, and Marrickville, and we are about saving our health, and that of our families. We want to enjoy our environment with our friends and families without fear of sickness. We want to look out our windows and enjoy the valley for its beauty without a constant smoke halo and noisy hum hanging over it.

In this, the twenty-first century, clean air is a basic right that the Government has a responsibility to deliver and people are fighting for these basic rights. They will not go away. They will win. They have been incredibly consistent and have used a variety of tactics. We have a responsibility to work with them. They are fighting for their lives, for their homes, for their community and for their future. Again, I thank them for their fight. The Government also needs to realise that not only will the battle over the M5 East stack not go away; the battle about the other stacks will not go away. The Government must find a solution. Communities in areas around the Eastern Distributor, on the North Shore, in Lane Cove, Pyrmont and Ultimo are starting to hear that they will have a new neighbour—the stacks, which are often painted in heritage colours to try to hide them.

Communities are becoming aware that these are real health hazards that are being plonked in their areas and they are combining their efforts. They are coming together at meetings and supporting each other. We have had the opportunity to attend many of the meetings, at which tactics are being planned and support is given because they realise that the old truism "solidarity is strength" needs to be revived. It is important to remember why we have reached this stage with the M5. One of the most outrageous things in this State concerns environmental impact statements [EISs]. It is quite extraordinary that no EIS has been done on this stack, given that it will have such an enormous impact on the community. The EIS was done on the original proposal, which was for three stacks. When the decision was made to change from three stacks to one stack, to move the location and to change the route of the M5, no new EIS was done. That is totally inappropriate. I emphasise that the decision was a political decision rather than an engineering one.

Therefore, if the stack is built we do not know the impact it will have on the health of people in the immediate suburbs I mentioned earlier. The Greens have urged people to have health checks carried out now so that if the worst case scenario comes about, they will be able to compare their health with what it was prior to construction of the stack. However, we believe the stack will never be built, because this campaign is absolutely right. A number of members have quoted what various people have said about the damaging impact the stack will have on air quality. In the Australian Financial Review of 3 September 1999 environment industry consultant Dr Peter Fisher painted quite a devastating picture of emerging knowledge about the effects of particulate pollution produced by diesel engines and its effect on our health. He pointed out that in the city this form of pollution was the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

This stack will be built in a valley, a valley that is known for having very slow air movement. The air hangs there at the moment. Many of us who have visited there have heard how little air circulation there is. Pollution from the stack will hang there just below the cliff, right at the level of people's homes. Young people, old people, healthy people—any person living there—will be exposed to this pollution, and that is totally wrong. Members have spoken about the terrible problem of asthma in this day and age. I went to school in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time I did not know anyone who had asthma. I emphasise that because it was a rare disease in those days. Now it is not. Honourable members heard the figures that one in three primary school children suffer from asthma. That is really disturbing, and we are going to make that situation worse. I say "we" because we in this Parliament have a responsibility.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is more prevalent in the country, where there are no stacks, so you should be careful with your analogy.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: There are PM10s in the country.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, there are considerable problems in the country, obviously, but we are talking about a situation in the city, where one in three primary school children suffer from asthma, and if this stack is built, in south-west Sydney the situation will be worse. This is a serious problem but it would not cost an enormous amount to solve it. Various figures have been thrown around but there seems to be considerable support for the idea that for $10 million we can clean up this stack. Let us remember that not too long ago we heard the Treasurer in this Chamber, within a month of bringing down the budget, saying that $140 million was needed as an Olympic back-up. Just like that the money was there. Governments can find money when they have to. I have heard, although I have not had it confirmed, that the preparation for and the lighting of the Olympic cauldron will cost $10 million.

How ironic that $10 million can be found for the cauldron, but cannot be found for something as simple as cleaning up the stack and saving people's lives. Let us remember that the money is there and it is essential that we clean up the stack, and we need the political will to do that. The Government should clean up its act because this problem will not go away, nor will the other battles around the other stacks that the Government is planning across Sydney.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN [3.49 p.m.]: My position on this matter is well known. Along with other members of this House I am anxious that this environmental health disaster be averted. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to meet with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, members of the Turrella Valley community and me next Monday at 1 p.m. to discuss the various issues surrounding the M5 East tunnel, including its electrostatic precipitators.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. P. J. Breen.

Motion by the Hon. P. J. Breen agreed to:

That pursuant to Standing Order 58 the order of the day for such business take precedence of all other business on the notice paper for that day.

Debate resumed from 5 April.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [3.51 p.m.]: The Outdoor Recreation Party is pleased to support the bill introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. Over the past 10 years crime has increased dramatically. It is evident that a crime wave is prevalent in our society irrespective of police claims that recently crime has reduced; perhaps it has reduced from an unbelievable level simply to an inexcusable level. The expansion of drug use has inflicted on us a burden of crime which is intolerable. We are fed up with criminals being seen as the victims of their own crimes. It is all very well to treat criminals' problems with sympathy but the prisons have, whether they like it or not, a threefold function: namely, to rehabilitate, to protect society and to punish.

The Outdoor Recreation Party welcomes the debate on prisons within society, especially creative ideas regarding rehabilitation, as that has never been adequately addressed in any penal situation. Society must be protected against violence, especially violence perpetrated by an offensive weapon or instrument. The Hon. J. S. Tingle presented some interesting facts and figures published by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in February 1999, which stated:

… while there was a 33% increase in robberies with a firearm in 1997, the report for 1998 shows that that category of offence is now stable. The categories of robbery without a weapon, robbery with a firearm and even murder showed no statistically significant trend upwards or downwards in 1998. The category that did show a frightening increase—29.7% in one year—was robbery with a weapon other than a firearm. That increase was combined with an increase of 67% in the previous year.

I laboriously repeat and emphasise those important statistics which were given by the Hon. J. S. Tingle because of the inadequate number of members present in the House on the day that they were first presented—and there is an inadequate number present today as well. When a person is found in possession of a knife, there needs to be a legal reason for that possession. Skinheads carry Stanley knives; tradesmen may carry a Leatherman, an all-in-one tool including a knife blade which is housed on a belt.

I have a Leatherman that I use when I go camping. It is a high-quality, multipurpose set of tools that I attach to a belt, thereby saving me the necessity to carry around a tool box. It includes two Phillips head screwdrivers, two conventional screwdrivers, a sawblade, a pair of pliers, a hole punch, a three-inch penknife blade, a three-inch serrated penknife blade, a file and a tool for digging boy scouts out of horses' hooves. A suitable protocol should be developed for the police to evaluate and assess what is a legal or illegal purpose for implements of that nature. Laws must be in place to punish those who commit severe armed and violent crimes against old people, home invasions and the like. It appears there is increasing crime especially against the elderly. We must protect the vulnerable in our society, irrespective of whatever victim status the social workers can label the criminals with.

We must address the lack of importance conferred upon the security of our most vulnerable. It is debatable whether the increased gaol sentence will act as a deterrent to a drug-crazed criminal at the point of executing a crime. However, we can, as a society, prevent such crimes being perpetrated, especially when executed with an offensive weapon or instrument, by locking such criminals up for longer periods. Prison life has many critics and it is inappropriate to confuse the bill with such issues; this will only confuse the essence of the bill. The act of accomplice by one criminal to another making the accomplice as guilty as the perpetrator is covered in the bill.

Consider the recent death of Mark Evans, in Campbelltown, and the sentence handed down by Justice John Dowd! One of the group responsible for the death of Mark Evans, a 17-year-old youth, was let off with a three-year good behaviour bond. Of the other three, Sean Sutcliffe was sentenced to five years and three months, Sean McGoldrick received four years and five months, and Liam McGoldrick received two years and six months periodic detention. I do not wish to dwell upon those ridiculously inadequate sentences. However, were this bill in force they would all be guilty of the primary crime.

A clear message must be sent to criminals, especially those who are young and inexperienced, and potential criminals that if they go out to commit crime, even as an accomplice, a driver, a lookout, or a fence, they must be prepared to take responsibility for the action of their co-criminals. I am sure that much will be made in this debate of the problems in our prisons and the fate of the criminal. I herald loud and clear to this Parliament that criminal activity is not compulsory and the consequence of the bill only applies to those in society who break the law. The benefits of the bill would be to protect society and those most vulnerable—the elderly, who deserve the very best we can offer in enhancing and ensuring their personal security. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. M. I. Jones.

Debate resumed from 5 April.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.58 p.m.]: Honourable members would realise that environmental planning and assessment has developed enormously, but it may come as a surprise to some members that the first Minister for Planning was a member of the National Party. That shows how the expectations of the community have developed, because prior to that time it was not regarded as an area of concern that ranked a ministerial portfolio.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: And they've never given it to you since.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: More's the pity. I suppose we spend so much time debating poorly made planning decisions, because planning is no longer under the control of a National Party Minister. I shall move on from that historical account. The next stage was that the public wanted to take its place in the planning process and not simply leave it to bureaucrats and ministerial fiat. We have reached a felicitous circumstance in which we will not only debate the public participation phase of this development but also will hear from the Hon. D. T. Harwin, who probably knows more about the subject than I know.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [4.00 p.m.]: The stated objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Public Participation and Environmental Protection) Bill are to increase public participation rights in the development assessment process, increase environmental protection measures in the development assessment process, and ensure that the principles of ecologically sustainable development are applied during the process. From the Hon. I. Cohen's remarks in his second reading speech it seems that he is concerned that the amendments in 1997 to part 4 of the Act reduced the scope of public participation in the planning process and did not give ecologically sustainable development principles sufficient weight.

Further, there are concerns about the system of private certifiers. The Opposition's position on the amendments to part 4 was made clear in 1997. We were not happy with the intransigence of Minister Knowles and his take-it-or-leave-it approach. However, at that time we took the view that after an exhaustive process encompassing a green paper, a white paper and an exposure draft there were sufficient gains from the reforms proposed by Minister Knowles to support the Government's bill. That was preferable to having no change to a system of approvals that was widely conceded to be grossly ineffective and a real drag on New South Wales' manifest comparative advantage in so many other respects. That was the responsible thing to do.

Leading for the Opposition at that time, my friend the Hon. Ron Phillips outlined those benefits, which included a single legislative framework for subdivision, building, demolition and development aspects of a project, and the creation of four categories of development: exempt, complying, local and State significant, freeing councils from extensive wastage of time on minor developments. He also outlined our concerns. In particular, he gave qualified support to the system of private certification, pointing to the concerns of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In this House the Hon. Patricia Forsythe criticised it for being process driven, not outcome driven. We said we would monitor the legislation as it was implemented.

When the Hon. I. Cohen introduced this bill some time ago he focused his remarks particularly on the way the 1997 debate was conducted and the timing of that debate, as it was at the end of a parliamentary session. Most honourable members would probably agree with his remarks about the bill having been dealt with at a late-night sitting. Indeed, in his address he remarked about watching the sun come up during the final stages of the debate. That is all very well. However, one problem with the Hon. I. Cohen's second reading speech was that we did not hear a detailed case for the changes he is making in this bill.

For example, there is little or no evidence to support the claims of the Greens with regard to the accountability of the new system. Moreover, some of the changes suggested go to the heart of the reforms to part 4 in 1997, which the Opposition supported in 1997 and still supports now. The Opposition is concerned about quality of life in our cities and towns, and opposes inappropriate development and overdevelopment. That is not inconsistent with a concern to ensure that the development process is nevertheless expeditious, efficient and cost-effective. By placing tougher regulation on private certifiers and increasing the obligations on consent authorities generally, the development process may be slowed down and made more costly. For those reasons the Opposition opposes the bill.

The Hon. I. Cohen's remarks about the process by which the 1997 legislation was dealt with caused me to reflect upon the bill and its context. Honourable members need to think about that, as well as how private members' legislation is dealt with. When the honourable member speaks in reply I would be interested to hear about his discussions with the Government concerning revisiting the amendments that he and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones pursued in 1997. I should like him to tell me about the correspondence, the meeting and obviously what I can only presume were unsuccessful negotiations.

I can advise the House that no attempt was made to consult the Opposition before this bill was tabled. No attempt was made to secure our support—an approach which, given the composition of the House, suggests that the Greens are not interested in getting this bill passed. The fact is that it suits the Greens for this bill to come into the House and be defeated by the major parties, after a perfunctory debate with no real analysis of the problems with the planning approvals process in this State. They get their warm inner glow, and they can use it to reinforce to their constituency why they need to be in this House.

Other crossbench members take the same approach. I do not criticise them for that because it is part and parcel of the political process. However, it would be helpful for the House to debate the process a little more than it does. Before I came into this House I wrote an article about the capacity for strategic bipartisanship in the upper House committee system. I suppose it is appropriate to revisit some of those ideas. I wrote the article for a book that was edited by Marlene Goldsmith. As this bill was introduced at about the time of Marlene's death, thinking about the article while I was preparing these remarks caused me to think about that again. In the article I talked about the way we allow parliamentary committees to be sidelined into peripheral issues, rather than tackling major policy change. Since I came into the House my view about their potential has been confirmed.

Major change to important statutory frameworks like the planning approvals process and public participation in that process cannot be seriously pursued in the first instance in this forum on private members' day, as is the case with this bill. There are better ways of going about it, and we have to find them if we are serious about having input as legislators to major policy change. I encourage the Greens to look beyond the warm inner glow approach and to seriously address the planning approvals process. When they do, they will have the Opposition's support.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.08 p.m.]: In 1997 when the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was amended substantially in this House the Hon. I. Cohen opposed the reforms to part 4. Soon thereafter he prepared a private member's bill which effectively sought to reverse the effect of many of the reforms to part 4 that had bipartisan support of the Parliament in 1997, as the Hon. D. T. Harwin said in his contribution to this debate. The Government opposes the bill introduced by the Hon. I. Cohen on several grounds. Small-scale development will become too difficult and the benefits of the reforms to part 4 of the Act will be lost. The bill proposes amendments that will make the assessment procedures for straightforward development, particularly small-scale development, too onerous.

The bill includes many provisions that are already contained in the regulations or are proposed for inclusion in planning instruments. The proposals for complying development, particularly the merits assessment of threatened species, will make such development unworkable. Reinstatement of a checklist for development assessment is a regressive step and focuses the assessment of development on a tick-a-box method instead of a thorough and considered review of the development proposal. The proposed changes to the accreditation and certification schemes represent a denial of natural justice for accredited certifiers. The changes may lead to corrupt practices in the enforcement of notices issued by accredited certifiers. For those reasons the Government opposes the private member's bill introduced by the Hon. I. Cohen.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.10 p.m.]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Public Participation and Environmental Protection) Bill contains virtually all of the amendments that the Hon. I. Cohen and I proposed to the Government's Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 1997. The amendments were drafted in consultation with the Total Environment Centre, the Nature Conservation Council, the Local Government and Shires Associations, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and other community and environmental groups. Prior to the passing of the Government's 1997 bill, this State had the most advanced legislative framework for environmental planning and assessment in the country. Even the Premier has acknowledged that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which was introduced by the first Minister for Planning and Environment in the Neville Wran Government, Paul Landa, who was a member of this Chamber for some time, was the most advanced in Australia.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act broadened the scope of planning to encompass ecological and social factors. In addition, the Act afforded citizens the right for the first time to object to developments. Unfortunately, only a year after becoming Minister for Planning and Environment Mr Carr began dismembering Paul Landa's reforms by reducing the environmental requirements and the provisions for public objection and appeal contained in the legislation introduced by Paul Landa. While the Government's amendments to the Act in 1997 could be said to be merely more of the same, they are the last nail in the coffin for genuine public participation in planning in this State. As Justice Stein so eloquently put it, the Government's 1997 bill has seen the last vestiges of traditional planning and genuine public participation in this State largely abandoned.

The 1997 bill introduced private certification into the New South Wales planning system for the first time and significantly reduced public participation rights and environmental protection measures in the planning system. The bill also resulted in the formation of an unprecedented alliance of environmental groups, local government, unions and professional, social welfare and consumer organisations, which rose up in opposition against it. For example, the Nature Conservation Council argued:

The package [contained in the bill] represents a serious attack on community participation and a complete failure to integrate ecological sustainability into NSW planning and approval systems.

The Local Government Association expressed the following view:

The Bill was seriously flawed by its overbias towards development interests at the expense of community and environmental interests, the reduction of public participation rights and the reduction in the transparency of the decision making process.

The Environmental Health and Building Surveyors Association stated:

This proposal takes community participation in planning back 20 years to a time when the community had little to say about how our cities or towns developed.

The Australian Consumers Association said:

While consumers are entitled to fast, efficient, cost-effective building approval services, this must not lead to inappropriate development.

The National Council of Social Service said:

Good planning must always balance social, environmental and economic concerns.

The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors said:

The reforms will not achieve the streamlined development outcomes predicted … [rather] they will create considerable chaos, increased costs and effectively remove the regulatory framework from the public sector to the private sector.

How true those words have turned out to be! While the 1997 bill was designed to free developers from the uncertainty of having to secure multiple approvals over an extended period, the reality is that development applications now take longer to be approved and the cost to developers is increasing. All is not lost. By supporting the bill introduced by the Hon. I. Cohen, the Government may reconsider the changes it made in the 1997 bill and reinstate some of the public participation rights and environmental protection measures that were lost for no apparent gain. The pendulum has swung too far in locking the community out of the decision-making process. Despite all the political rhetoric, ecological sustainability is seldom applied in practice and the norm is now ad hoc decision making, which is often at the behest of individual entrepreneurs who court State or local government politicians.

While public participation and environmental planning may have gone from the Government's agenda, they have not been forgotten by the rest of the community. The community wants and deserves to have its rights in the environmental planning process restored. This bill gives us the chance to do exactly that. The bill also gives the Government what could prove to be its last chance to turn around its legacy to the people of New South Wales. The Government has failed to take that chance by not supporting the bill. The Government does not have to go down in history as being the government that destroyed the New South Wales environmental planning and assessment system. I urge all Government members to cross the floor and join their crossbench colleagues in support of this bill to ensure that does not happen.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.15 p.m.]: I support my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen and the bill he has introduced, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Public Participation and Environmental Protection) Bill. For the Greens the development process is a major issue. We receive more phone calls and visits on this issue than on any other from concerned citizens across New South Wales who despair at the whole development process. The bill will re-establish points of entry for people on this most important issue, which affects all aspects of their lives. The bill provides a means for real public participation in environmental protection. Although I was not present at the time, I have heard stories about the 1997 legislation, which was rushed through in the wee hours of the morning. Amendments were accepted by the Government from a range of community organisations—

The Hon. I. Cohen: No, there was none.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I have been corrected: no amendments were accepted from the community. That is another reason why this bill is needed. Many of the amendments moved by the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in 1997 had been proposed by unions, the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, Aboriginal land councils and environment and community groups who knew the problems and real solutions. Their proposals about how this legislation should be constructed were rejected. The provisions of this bill will help tighten the legislation and take us away from the Craig Knowles era. Although he is no longer the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the problems with the legislation, which have resulted in the development process being divorced from communities, are still linked with his name. That is why we urgently need this bill, which I commend to the House.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.18 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. I. Cohen on his bill, which puts together in a systematic way the objections to what was known as the integrated development assessment legislation. I regarded the legislation as a gift to the developers before the last election. It was passed through Parliament in a rush after a great deal of pressure, with the two old parties voting against those on the crossbench. Labor said, "Here is a gift to the developers", and the Liberals said, "That is okay, we will not give you any less." In the local council elections people who were distressed that developments were wrecking their suburbs voted in droves for Independents. That trend away from the two old parties is continuing and increasing, and legislation such as the 1997 Act is the reason why. The principal purpose of Premier Carr's land tax bill was to force, on economic grounds, all areas to be redeveloped. Irrespective of any historical or aesthetic values, the dollar will win. The undermining of zonings through the Land and Environment Court means that development will continue in a higgledy-piggledy manner. It is the antithesis of good urban planning: "let her rip". The Hon. I. Cohen's bill seeks to address some of those issues. I note the Hon. D. T. Harwin's comment that the Liberals have not been consulted. Given that the bill has been on the notice paper since about May—

The Hon. D. T. Harwin: I said, "before it was put on the notice paper". Listen to what I said; don't make it up as you go along.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Fair enough. One would have thought that the Hon. D. T. Harwin would have a position on something that had already been debated in the House. I do not think that the Hon. I. Cohen would fall over dead in surprise upon hearing the Hon. D. T. Harwin's position, given that Liberal and Labor voted against the crossbenchers—I believe in the interests of developers rather than the real community—when the bill that necessitated the Greens putting together this bill was passed. This very day, quite by chance, I opened my mail to find a letter from Frank Sartor, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, which enclosed a submission entitled "A Proposal for Amending the System of Appeals to the Land and Environment Court".

Needless to say, Frank Sartor is not very happy with the decision of the Land and Environment Court and its overruling of any sort of sensible planning for the city of Sydney, such as he is trying to put together. Yes, he is an Independent. Perhaps that is why he is trying to ensure that the people of Sydney have a decent urban environment. I must say that the urban environment is a good deal better thanks to Frank. If a few more people had a little more vision for Sydney in a planning context the city would be all the better. Certainly the integrated development Act does not do much towards achieving that end. I should like to place on record the recommendations set out in Frank Sartor's submission. They are as follows:

1. Limit the Court's power to hear appeals de novo unless there is a deemed refusal. Appeals should be limited to asking whether the consent authority has complied with the law, and with the relevant planning policies and instruments in force, or whether the consent authority has reached a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable consent authority would have reached the same decision.

2. Eliminate the Court's power to make determinations which contravene planning policies and instruments adopted by the relevant consent authority.

3. Prohibit the Court from making any determination which sets an undesirable precedent, however inconsequential the finding may appear, contrary to the planning policies and instruments in force.

4. Establish a new panel comprising of:

a) a member of the Court;

b) a nominee of the City (or other relevant local government area) with expertise in planning policy or design in the relevant area; and

c) a nominee of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning,

to hear cases where the development is designated development, development of state significance, or where the value of the proposed development is over $10 million.
5. The City recommends that as part of reform process, the legislation be amended to provide that an application will be deemed to be refused:

a) in the case of development other than advertised development, designated development and State significant development, if not determined within 40 days of lodgement of the application;

b) in the case of advertise development, designated development and State significant development, if not determined within 60 days of lodgement of the application; and

c) in the case of integrated development, if not determined within 80 days of lodgement of the application.

In his submission Frank Sartor gives a number of examples of poor planning decisions as a result of the court process. If we are to have a decent city, we must have a plan that is discussed with the public and accepted, so that development can occur in an ecologically and historically sensitive fashion. The plan must maximise the use of public transport, first by building the transport infrastructure and then clustering the development around that infrastructure so that vehicle dependency and the other problems we have spent the whole day arguing about do not occur. The Hon. I. Cohen's bill seeks to undo this "let her rip" planning and to put together a counterview to the integrated development Act and the environmental planning and assessment bill. As such it is a co-ordinated and positive response to this juggernaut of non-planning and adhocery that both the Government and the Opposition seem to regard as satisfactory.

One of the great disappointments about Mr Carr is that he seems at one level to talk with great vision but at another level he acts with great venality. It is as if there are two governments: one that talks and one that acts. It is no good for the crossbenchers—who I believe are becoming the real Opposition in this State—to simply complain when a proposition is put up. It is a question of getting together sensitive alternative proposals and bringing them to this House. That is what the Hon. I. Cohen has done, and I believe that he should be supported in this. The fact that he is treated with derision by the Opposition is disappointing, but possibly not surprising. However, I do not think such derision should be treated with any great seriousness. I urge all members to support this bill so that we may start to turn around what has been happening with planning in the city of Sydney.

The Hon. I. COHEN [4.27 p.m.], in reply: I appreciate the input of members on this bill. It is something that, almost historically now, has been of great interest to the Greens and many other crossbench members. The original bill that went through this House—under the auspices of the Hon. Craig Knowles, the then Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning—was monumental. As the Hon. D. T. Harwin said, it was a memorable all-night sitting. I am not quite sure of the point that the Hon. D. T. Harwin was making on this matter. Perhaps in our naivety and keenness, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and I set out to present some 70-odd amendments to the original bill, but they did not simply come from a vacuum. This bill also does not come from a vacuum, but from a deep desire on the part of the community to be part of a public participation and community consultation process, and certainly this bill reflects that.

The Hon. D. T. Harwin stated that it would be helpful to debate this bill a little more. It is obvious that this bill has involved a great deal of discussion, as did the original bill that the House debated in 1997. I did not expect that we would receive support from the Opposition on this bill, and I extend my apologies to the Hon. D. T. Harwin for not communicating with the Opposition a little more fully. However, both his utterances in the House and his attitude towards the bill made me feel that further communication would have been of little use. I have little faith in the Opposition stepping forward; it is really allowing the Government to be the bullyboys on this direction of reform, as has been clearly indicated historically with the watering down of the powers of the Land and Environment Court. The history is well documented in an article entitled "Driving a Carr Through the Environment" by Tim Bonyhady, who expressed clearly—as has been expressed by other members of this House—that there has been a watering down of the public participation opportunities in the planning processes for more than 20 years.

During the last session of Parliament I hosted a forum, and it was interesting to note the broad spectrum of people who took part in it. It included environmentalists such as John O'Connor, the Executive Officer of the Nature Conservation Council; Jeff Angel, the Director of the Total Environment Centre; and Katherine Wells, the senior solicitor for the Environmental Defenders Officer; and other people such as Peter Woods, the President of the Local Government and Shires Associations; Ian Robertson, the Secretary of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyors Association of New South Wales; Mark Lennon from the New South Wales Labor Council; Sean Docker from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council; Tim Robertson, barrister; Clifford Ireland from the New South Wales Young Lawyers Environment Committee; and Ian Glendenning from the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors.

A significantly broad spectrum of skilled people within the community were, as one, very concerned about the direction of the 1997 bill. We have an ongoing history of reduction of public participation and community consultation rights. The last vestiges of planning within the State are going down the drain, as mentioned by Justice Stein, formerly of the Land and Environment Court. It is quite clear that we had real concerns about ecological sustainability and the need for further consultation before planning processes were undertaken. It is a pity that neither the Government nor the Opposition was interested. As the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has mentioned, the previous bill was a gift to developers. Contrary to the comments made by the Hon. D. T. Harwin, the Greens do not get a warm inner glow from campaigning on these matters. We will continue to campaign on this issue. It is something that will not disappear.

The New South Wales Government stands condemned in history as one that moved away from adequate transparency of process in planning laws. This is but one step in a campaign that will result in interested members of the community defending their rights to have a say. In my community private certifiers and developers are putting pressure on the community and destroying that which we all hold dear. It certainly does not give me a warm inner glow. It might be the attitude adopted by many politicians in this House who feel they can score a point and move on, but this is something about which the community feels very strongly. It is something I feel very strongly about. It is a great disappointment that the Carr Government has refused to acknowledge community concerns. This private member's bill is one small step in a long campaign of tipping the balance towards empowerment of the community and away from the what is an increasingly free run for developers in this State, aided and abetted by both the major parties in this Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Corbett Mr R. S. L. Jones

Ms Rhiannon Mrs Sham-Ho Dr Wong

Tellers Mr Breen Mr Oldfield

Ms Burnswoods Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Hannaford Mr Harwin Mr Hatzistergos

Mr Johnson Mr M. I. Jones Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Manson Mr Moppett Mrs Nile Revd Nile Mr Obeid Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan Ms Saffin Mr Samios Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Private Members' Business item No. 3 in the order of precedence called on, and postponed on motion by the Hon. P. T. Primrose.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [4.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this House orders the publication without restricted access of all documents relating to Sydney’s water supply lodged with the Clerk on Tuesday 29 June 1999 in accordance with the resolution of the House of Wednesday 23 June 1999, that is:

(a) documents assessed as falling within legal professional privilege,

(b) documents assessed as falling within public interest immunity.

The House will recall that this matter was debated some considerable time ago. Debate concluded and the House adjourned. The matter was restored to the business paper by resolution dated 8 September 1999, and this is the first opportunity to resume debate on this matter. I moved the motion simply because the original motion, which related to publication of documents, did not contain a reference to specific matters such as documents which had been assessed as coming within legal professional privilege and having public interest immunity. The purpose of the motion is to correct a technical error that occurred in formulating the previous motion.

If the House agrees to this motion, it will ensure that anybody who wishes to examine the documents may do so. After the documents have been examined they may then be removed from the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and returned to the original owners. This motion is not intended to affect in any shape or form Cabinet confidentiality—because that is understood and accepted by the Coalition—but the terms of the application of legal professional privilege were not dealt with in the original motion, and that was a mistake. If the House agrees to my motion the previous oversight will be corrected and its implications dealt with succinctly.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.44 p.m.]: I assume, as a result of the remarks made by the Hon. J. H. Jobling, that if this House agreeing to the motion access to the documents would be subject to the normal restrictions attaching to a resolution of the House.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The present motion tidies up an error that I regret I made in formulating the original motion.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On the basis of the assurance given by the Hon. J. H. Jobling, the Government would not want to make a big fuss. However, I have been informed that the effect of this motion will be to make privileged documents available to all and sundry. They will become public documents and access will not be restricted to members of Parliament only.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Yes, public interest documents would be subject to access in the public interest, and the legal documents are standard-release documents which are subject to Cabinet confidentiality. It is not intended to diminish Cabinet confidentiality.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. This motion does not mean that the resolution of the House would carry the usual safeguards that pertain to privileged documents, that is, to be sighted only by members of Parliament.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: That has to be argued and taken to a mediator if there is a dispute.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The motion with which the House is now dealing does not do that. The documents will become public documents and will be accessible to all and sundry.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Yes, I want to make documents which affect the public interest available to all and sundry. They are not, and never were, covered.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: This House has a precedent relating to motions for tabling of documents, which protects documents that have some sort of privilege from being available to all and sundry. In other words, only honourable members are entitled to view them and inspect them.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I contend that there is nothing to this. The documents are very old. They have been retained for a long time and, frankly, we need to move them on.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would consider supporting a motion that invokes the usual protections, but this motion does not do that. I believe that it would be wise to adjourn the matter so that discussions can be held between the Government and the Opposition Whip. The Government will facilitate the matter being brought on for debate next week.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.49 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members are well aware of the background to this important bill: it arose from the inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 into the proposed closure of Seaforth TAFE. The committee, in its report No. 7, which was printed on 7 December 1999, recommended that a bill be introduced to prevent confusion and controversy such as that which occurred over the closure of Seaforth TAFE. A draft copy of the bill appears at the end of the report. The committee, which comprised representatives of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Christian Democratic Party and the Unity Party, unanimously agreed that a bill should be introduced to set the same requirements for the closure of TAFE establishments as those that apply to the closure of schools. In other words, a consultation process must be undertaken for the proposed closure of a TAFE establishment.

The bill is simple and democratic, and it fills a loophole that most people did not know existed. Legislative provisions restricted consultation only to the closure of infants, primary and high schools. Until the Seaforth TAFE controversy, legislation did not cover closure of TAFE establishments. I make clear an important principle: This bill has nothing to do with reorganising courses or classes within TAFE establishments. Consultation can be undertaken with students and teachers on that subject, but this bill does not deal with that process. This bill deals specifically with the closure of TAFE establishments such as those at Bankstown, Hornsby, Nowra and Seaforth.

The bill refers to a building on its own grounds, not to a classroom or course. Until the closure of Seaforth TAFE, the closure of entire educational establishments did not occur often. The object of the bill is to amend the Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990 to require consultation and review before any TAFE establishment is closed. Therefore, the bill does not prevent a TAFE from being closed. Following consultation the government of the day, whether a Labor or Coalition government, may believe that it has no option but to close a particular establishment—perhaps because of a lack of students, or because the buildings are in a state of disrepair. This bill does not state that an establishment will never be closed.

Before an establishment is considered for closure a consultation and review process must be undertaken. The decision cannot be made in TAFE headquarters, so to speak, by bureaucrats who are rearranging the education system and who decide that an establishment should be closed. Seaforth TAFE students, teachers and parents, who were planning for the next year, received an instruction late in the year that the TAFE was to be closed almost immediately. Parents and students were angry, particularly those who believed that Seaforth TAFE met their needs better than any other TAFE establishment in the area, such as at Brookvale. People with disabilities, some whom are confined to wheelchairs, were also angry.

Brookvale TAFE is built on the side of a hill, and although it has cement pathways the inquiry received a report that a paraplegic student in a wheelchair would be in danger, even if the student were in the company of a carer. The pathways are so steep that they would present a danger to anyone who used them. Disabled students were angry and hurt. They felt that they were being treated as second-class citizens because sufficient attention was not being given to their needs. If an open consultation and review process had been undertaken, a number of these matters may have been detected. The Government would still have closed Seaforth TAFE, but that closure may have been delayed until better methods were found to deal with the needs of particular students.

The proposed closure upset teachers, who had planned their lives based on Seaforth TAFE being open the following year. For a number of months there were picket lines outside the building—perhaps some may still even be there—because it was feared that the building may have been bulldozed or sold while the inquiry was being conducted or community debate proceeded. The report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 was unanimous. That result is not always achievable when a report directly or indirectly criticises the Government for lack of consultation, particularly when one considers the way in which Seaforth TAFE was closed. It is unusual to achieve a unanimous report but we hear all the evidence and make recommendations based on that information. I am pleased with and proud of the way the committee operates.

The New South Wales Teachers Federation became deeply involved in the matter because of concerns expressed by teachers, and encouraged me to introduce this legislation. This bill may not be able to do much for Seaforth TAFE, although I am an optimist and hope that in their wisdom the Government and the Minister for Education and Training may look further into that matter. It is important to have this bill on the list of legislative requirements, even if the Seaforth TAFE closure is put to one side and we look to the future. I am not trying to ambush the Government by saying that if this bill is passed Seaforth TAFE cannot be closed. I accept that this deal operates post-Seaforth TAFE closure, but the principle is important. On 24 May John Hennessy, the General Secretary of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, wrote to me in the following terms:

Dear Rev. Nile,

Thank you for your communication concerning your attempt to have instituted into legislation a consultation period and review before any TAFE establishment may be closed.

Your support for due process in this matter is appreciated by all teachers. The Federation will use whatever influence it has with Members of Parliament to maximise support for the spirit of your proposition.

I note your comment about it being too late to save Seaforth TAFE. You should be aware that a group of very concerned and involved local citizens still believe that there is a role for Seaforth College as a TAFE establishment. If that scenario proves impossible, then they demand that the building should be available for public use for other public organisations and not be sold off for some inappropriate private use.

Honourable members know that I do not always receive complimentary letters from the Teachers Federation.

The Hon. Janelle Saffin: Why not?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: We tend to disagree on matters such as textbooks and the like. But on this matter there is a united front. I have also sent messages to the Minister's office. I do not want to be on a collision course with the Minister. I have attempted to get consultation and I hope that the Government will signal its support for the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Motion by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 5 September 2000 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.01 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [5.01 p.m.]: I appeal to the State Government for some sanity in relation to Main Road 92, which connects Nowra and Braidwood. I will highlight the dangerous condition of the road crossing Cambewarra Mountain. Road crossings of the Great Dividing Range have been controversial for governments of the colony and State of New South Wales since Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth found a path through the Blue Mountains in 1813. Our geography makes each of the roads across the Great Dividing Range difficult to construct, and many drivers are apprehensive about driving over them. Between Sydney and the Victoria border the Great Dividing Range is crossed at the Illawarra Highway at Macquarie Pass, Jamberoo Mountain Road, Moss Vale Road over Cambewarra Mountain, the Kangaroo Valley and Barrengarry Mountain, Main Road 92 from Nowra to Braidwood, the Kings Highway, the Braidwood-Moruya road through Araluen, the Snowy Mountains Highway down Brown Mountain and the Bombala-Eden road. Other than the Araluen Road, as a South Coast resident I regularly travel the other roads referred to. Without any doubt, the road with the gentlest gradient and the potential for the easiest driving is Main Road 92.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is the best crossing of the escarpment on the east coast.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. From Nowra to just east of Nerriga, coming down to the Endrick River the road is an easy climb from the Shoalhaven coastal plain to the Monaro plain atop the Great Dividing Range. Just before the crossing of the Endrick River there is a two to three kilometre stretch of road where there are some bends that could be ameliorated in a fairly straightforward fashion. Even though the road is a dirt road, it provides a more stress-free crossing from the coast to the west than do any of the bitumen highway crossings or the heavily trafficked road through Kangaroo Valley. Local residents cannot understand why upgrading the road has not been made a priority by successive governments over the past few decades. If we were talking about building a road for its own sake, that would be another matter. But Main Road 92 is not just another road, and there is a demonstrable need for its upgrade.

The city of Shoalhaven has a population of 85,000. The local economy is diverse, but contributions from tourism, manufacturing and defence are of principal importance. Unemployment at 12.4 per cent in the Shoalhaven has fallen substantially from what it was four years ago, but it is still well above the State average. Main Road 92 would benefit the Shoalhaven by upgrading road links to Canberra, the Hume Highway, the southwest of the State and the Gippsland region of Victoria. More tourists will visit the Shoalhaven as a result. Local industry also supports the construction of the road. Both the Manildra Group and Australian Paper, which have large plants in the Shoalhaven, recognise that construction of Main Road 92 would cut their costs, reducing travelling times and fuel costs for their freight contractors. The defence forces would certainly welcome the upgrade of the road given the substantial Navy presence in the Shoalhaven, which is growing as a result of the upgrade of HMAS Albatross approved by the Howard Government.

At present all of these organisations are heavy users of the road through Kangaroo Valley. More than 75 trucks per day leave manufacturers and other users of heavy road transport in the Shoalhaven area and have to travel this road, which goes up Cambewarra Mountain to 600 metres above sea level, descends to the valley 400 metres below and then, at the other end of the valley, ascends to 800 metres above sea level on Barrengarry Mountain before travelling across the highlands to the Hume Highway. The route through Kangaroo Valley is not only an inefficient crossing of the escarpment; it is also a dangerous, winding road that is impossible to upgrade significantly. It runs through environmentally sensitive areas and there is a conflict between the tourism uses that are promoted for the valley and the constant industrial traffic using the road.

Moreover, weather conditions and minor natural disasters cause this vital road to be closed. The state of the road on the valley floor is so bad that I am very concerned about the lack of safety railing in eight places, for as much as 20 metres in each section, on the eastern approaches to Cambewarra Mountain. The heavy truck use of the road means that this is a tragedy waiting to happen. Someone will be seriously injured. I appeal to the Roads and Traffic Authority to replace the safety railing as a matter of extreme urgency. Upgrading Main Road 92 would also address this very real problem.

Joanna Gash, the Federal member for Gilmore, is the first elected representative of the Shoalhaven with the vision and the determination to make an upgrade of Main Road 92 a reality and I pay tribute to her this afternoon. Working with Shoalhaven council, she has secured the funds from the Federal budget to get the project started. The record of the Carr Government on the issue, by contrast, is a disgrace and has demonstrated what an ineffectual member Wayne Smith is. Before his election he promised to support the road then reneged within a month of being elected. I ask the Government to think again about Main Road 92. [Time expired.]

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.06 p.m.]: I raise the issue of the emission of radiation from steelworks. A few days ago BHP issued a press release which admits that radiation is being emitted from the sinter plant of Port Kembla steelworks. BHP claims in its media release that the amount of radiation which it has detected coming from the plant is very low. The press release dated 29 August 2000 states:

BHP is currently upgrading its Port Kembla Sinter Plant to reduce emissions to limits agreed with the Environment Protection Authority ... During discussions with other steel makers about our upgrade plans we became aware of a recent European study conducted at sinter plants which revealed very low level releases of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) in stack emissions.

The research from Europe indicates there is no significant health risk. However we understand some people in our community may be concerned about possible health impacts of emissions from the stack of our Sinter Plant. We have conducted tests at our Sinter Plant and these have confirmed low-level radioactive material in the stack emissions at similar levels to the European experience.

We estimate this material would deliver a maximum dose of 20 microsieverts ... per year in the community. For comparison the Australian and international public health limit is 1000 [units per year].

These numbers indicate there is no significant health risk to our employees and the rest of the community.

Whilst I appreciate that the emissions are at a low level, I have great concerns. Studies have been done, most notably by Dr Rosalie Bertell some 20 years ago, that show clearly that there is no safe level of radioactivity. Any amount of radiation can have a long-lasting impact on human beings. The claim by BHP that there is no significant risk may or may not be true. Without independent testing the community is unlikely to accept the assurances of BHP in relation to this issue.

It is quite clear that the Port Kembla issue is compounding. High levels of air pollutants and disturbing levels of radiation from other plants and everything down to mobile phones are creating a cumulative effect. Cancer clusters in the Port Kembla area are truly worrying. This plant is emitting radioactivity, a problem that hopefully can be resolved. Even if the assurances given by the company are valid, radiation and other emissions from the plant pose a problem. A report last year by Greenpeace identified the sinter plant as the biggest source of dioxin pollution in Australia. Since then the community has been trying to find out more, but BHP has failed to provide details of how planned modifications to the sinter plant will reduce the level of dioxin emissions.

Just up the road, the copper smelter is producing a cocktail of pollutants, including the heavy metal selenium. It is not good enough for BHP to claim that the emission levels are acceptable because they are at a low level. The Port Kembla community is being bombarded by a cocktail of pollution from various sources. Cancer clusters in neighbouring suburbs are not a coincidence. The link between the cumulative exposure to harmful substances and health problems must be recognised. I call upon the Environment Protection Authority and public health authorities to conduct proper, independent investigations of these matters that involve the community.

The Port Kembla community has been bombarded by pollution problems for many years. Active people in the community are irate about pollution and have been campaigning against the Port Kembla copper smelter. Every time I go to Port Kembla I cannot help but be mindful of the multiplicity of sources of pollutants that are being emitted into the air and water of the Port Kembla area. It really is quite frightening that people are forced to live their lives and raise their children in such an environment. It is time that the EPA took a more proactive approach, particularly about this type of pollution, because we are constantly getting information about the dangers of low-level radiation and chemical pollution and their connection to cancer clusters. This is an issue that must be properly attended to. The Minister responsible should put pressure on the EPA to take a close look at all potential hazards in the Port Kembla area.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.11 p.m.]: I am concerned about the implications of a judgment handed down in the Court of Criminal Appeal two weeks ago. The decision in question follows an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to a stay of proceedings order in the District Court. The case hinges on charges relating to alleged homosexual intercourse occurring before the legalisation of homosexuality in this State under the Wran Government in 1984. The details of the case, which has been going on for some considerable time, relate in part to the age of the victim at the time of the alleged offence, with conflicting evidence as to whether something may or may not have occurred when the alleged victim was 17 or 18 years of age. It is strongly argued by the accused person that the alleged victim was more than 18 years of age.

The more worrying aspect of the case is the developing pattern of the Director of Public Prosecutions choosing more frequently, regardless of the question of age, to follow up cases that occurred prior to 1984. Prior to that date of course all homosexual acts, regardless of whether those acts occurred between adults or not, were illegal. For many years there seemed to be an understanding that the Parliament having acted and the State and the people having accepted legalised homosexuality in 1984, it was not really a good principle to continue to pursue charges relating to homosexual acts that had occurred before that date.

In this case the energy displayed in pursuing the matter seems to me to be even more out of proportion because the alleged victim now lives, and has lived for many years, in Florida in the United States of America. This person has now been brought to New South Wales, at taxpayers' expense, on two occasions to give evidence, first in the District Court and then later in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I gather that, on at least one occasion, certain members of the police force travelled to Florida, again at taxpayers' expense, to take statements from the alleged victim. This Court of Criminal Appeal judgment, which effectively by a two to one verdict sends the matter back to trial, further concerns me.

The Court of Criminal Appeal has again found that these matters can be dealt with. In one sense the law is the law; in another sense we are talking about something that occurred 16 or 17 years ago. We all know what that involves and what it implies in relation to the availability of evidence and in relation to missing records. A crucial aspect of this case is that all the establishments that were referred to and all their records have vanished. Everyone agrees that that is the case. At the very least it seems to lack logic and common sense that the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police and the courts should be continuing to deal with these cases, given those practical reasons.

Once we have decided to legalise something, we must give serious thought to whether we should continue to pursue cases that occurred prior to that legalisation. There is a case for the Attorney General to consider—and I am asking him to do so—whether there should be, in effect, a stay of proceedings or even retrospective legalisation to remove the potential of people being hounded. As I said earlier, in this case every allegation is denied. It is denied that the people concerned were under the age of 18 at the relevant time. But, in the strict legal understanding of this case, that is being treated as irrelevant. Last year the pursuit of Justice Michael Kirby when he referred to his long-standing partner also raised this sort of element of a witch-hunt. I gather that there have been a number of other cases besides the one to which I have referred. This issue must be addressed. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [5.16 p.m.]: Earlier this month I had the honour of opening the Bingara orange festival, which is a highlight of the calendar in that district. Many events are organised to coincide with the orange festival, which is undertaken by the local arts council under the able chairmanship of Nancy McInnes. As well as opening the festival, which has some traditions of its own, I had the privilege of unveiling the "Women of the War" plaque in the main street of Bingara. This plaque is the town's unique way of placing on the public record for all time the contributions of the women of the district who literally kept the home fires burning during World War II. Whilst many communities have long recognised, and very properly, the role of their menfolk in wartime, it is only more recently that the many faceted efforts made by women—including those who kept businesses and rural properties running during the war—have been recognised. The plaque, which is located in a small garden in the main street, reads:

These Gardens are dedicated to the women of Bingara who served on the home front in World War II. 1939-1945.

The plaque then lists the women as follows: Ivy Adams, Katie Baldock, Adelaide Ball, Allie Bilsborough, Daisy Bilsborough, Minnie Brien, Emily Jane Brown, Catherine C. Bull, Mary Capel, Roselene Choice, Edna Doherty, Elsie Dufty, Ivy Forster, Edith Jane Groth, Florence Groth, Esther Heuston, Eliza Johnson, Lillian Kennedy, Lucie King, Vera King, Lizzie Legg, Minnie Lockhart, Ellen Mack, Phyllis Makepeace, Edna McTaggart, Clara Newell, Maud Parkin, Esther Reading, Gladys Reading, Florence Reece, Sarah Jane Rush, Eva Simington, Mary (Dot) Smith, Eva Sorby, Jane Steel and Chelsea Ward. The plaque then reads: "Australia Remembers". These were the women who did not enlist in the services during the war but stayed at home to run the family farm or the business and keep the nation functioning on the home front.

Quite a number of family members of those ladies still live in Bingara and district, and a number of others returned for the unveiling of the plaque. The plaque is situated on a small granite rock in a small hexagonal-shaped garden at the southern end of a row of gardens on the corner of Maitland and Cunningham streets, the main streets of Bingara. Those gardens form part of Bingara's main street beautification program, which I must say is progressing well—Bingara being a town that is attracting new tourism, particularly backpacker interest, in recent times. I would like to thank the Mayor of Bingara, Peter Pankhurst, and the Bingara community for their hospitality during my visit and for inviting me to unveil the plaque. I look forward to my next visit to this particularly enterprising town. I will read onto the record part of a poem, penned by Dame Mary Gilmore, which I read at the official opening:

I thought that this was particularly appropriate in the circumstances of the unveiling of that memorial to those women at Bingara.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.21 p.m.]: I want to speak today about tobacco smuggling. Tobacco has been in the news lately and I wish to refer to some information that I brought back from the World Conference on Smoking and Health, held in Chicago in early August. The Canadians discovered that raising taxes resulted in reduced tobacco consumption, particularly in children. That was because children, even if they did experiment with cigarettes, did not take up the habit because they were more price sensitive and if cigarettes were more expensive they did not buy them. Not only was adult smoking reduced by 4 per cent for every 10 per cent increase in price; children's smoking was reduced by about 25 per cent—half of that comprised children smoking less and half comprised children who did not start to smoke.

As the Canadians raised their taxes, the Americans did not. The Canadian tobacco authorities exported their cigarettes and smuggled them back through the Indian reservations. The Indians, of course, having been badly treated—like the Aborigines—were a politically sensitive area for policing. What happened was described in the Gazette, a Canadian newspaper, on Saturday 18 December 1999, in an article by William Marsden under the heading, "Tobacco. Insider talks. 'Major firms were deeply involved in cross-border smuggling', former executive says".

Les Thompson was arrested by United States of America customs agents in the Ontario city of Windsor on 24 February 1999. He was an RJR-Macdonald sales executive who suddenly became the slick, hard-driving, unscrupulous face of tobacco. American prosecutors claimed that they had nabbed the man behind a billion-dollar tobacco smuggling network that, in the early 1990s, pumped billions of black market cigarettes through the Akwesasne Indian reserve at Cornwall and back into Canada. Thompson said that he recalled the words of a company lawyer spoken when he was being investigated by police, "Stand tall through this, Les. We will stand behind you. We don't need wobbly legs here. The government is sabre-rattling. This thing is going to go away."

However, after his arrest Thompson could not get a lawyer to show up for eight days. When, finally, a lawyer did show up he said, "I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is I'm here. The bad news is the company will not support a trial." Thompson was effectively persuaded to sign a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to laundering $US72 million by smuggling tobacco into Canada, and agreed to a seven-year sentence. He is now living in an American prison where he is being treated extremely badly. He is living in fear of his life, because of the knowledge he has that executives within the tobacco industry in Canada knew a great deal about it. RJR-Macdonald was the slowest of the three Canadian companies—which includes Rothmans, Benson and Hedges and Imperial Tobacco—to get into the smuggling business.

Les Thompson was really only a frontline soldier in the massive corporate effort by RJR-Macdonald to use the smuggling network to make vast profits and increase its market share. He was a very good salesman and made a lot of money. Company officials bought him a headdress with Indian feathers on it and spoke about the huge profits they were making from feathers. They also told him to keep his mouth shut because loose lips sink ships. The Canadian Government is trying to put together a case against the tobacco company. Interestingly, in the plea bargaining system over there, RJR-Macdonald, which is now owned by Japan Tobacco Inc., has offered to settle for $100 million. The Government must be fairly confident, because it has rejected the offer.

This goes to show the lengths to which the tobacco industry will go. People in Chicago told me that cigarettes are being smuggled all around the world. With global positioning satellites they can market each container and know exactly where their containers are, if they want to. With multiple destinations, containers are being smuggled around the world. The only hope is that if through Les Thompson some of these corporate criminals are caught and some of the big boys go to gaol, it may set some interesting precedents and start the road to justice for the tobacco industry, which would be great for all of us.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [5.26 p.m.]: Earlier this month the Federal Government agreed to boost legal aid funding to New South Wales by around $26 million over the next four years. This extra funding will primarily be directed to providing more legal aid for family law matters. However, this belated step represents only a partial redress of the Federal Government's wide-ranging assault on legal aid. Since the drastic Federal cuts in 1997, thousands of people have been denied legal aid for family law disputes. The recent agreement is merely a partial improvement on a situation made bad by the Federal Government in the first place.

Through its savage cuts to legal aid, the Federal Government has shown its contempt for access to justice. Yet, in May this year, the Federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, had the temerity to call upon the legal profession to undertake more pro bono work. He wants private individuals to demonstrate their commitment to social responsibility while the Federal Government seeks to abandon such a commitment. The Federal Government seems determined to shirk its responsibilities of ensuring access to justice. In response to the Federal Attorney-General, I point out that the amount of pro bono work undertaken by members of the New South Wales legal profession is already outstanding and is on the increase. However, this is no substitute for a properly funded public legal aid scheme. Federal cuts to legal aid could imperil access to justice in this State.

Pro bono legal assistance is provided by such organisations as the New South Wales Bar Association Legal Assistance Scheme, the New South Wales Law Society Pro Bono Scheme, and the Public Interest Law Clearing House. Organisations such as these are to be commended for their enormous efforts in providing free and reduced-fee legal services to those in need. These organisations will continue to support the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission. Other pro bono assistance is provided through some of the larger legal firms that allocate a portion of their budget for the provision of legal aid. Similarly, many smaller law firms undertake pro bono work as part of their practice even though they may not be registered with the Law Society's scheme.

The wide range of pro bono activities undertaken by legal practitioners makes it difficult to quantify accurately the full extent to which New South Wales lawyers undertake such work. At present there are no research reports or statistics to show exactly how much legal assistance is being given by the profession to those who cannot afford or who do not ordinarily have access to lawyers. What information there is indicates that the level of private assistance is considerable and is on the increase. In the period from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999, 240 matters were referred to the New South Wales Bar Association Legal Assistance Scheme. Barristers contributed approximately 2,600 hours of work to the scheme. Compared with the previous year's figures, this represent a 53 per cent increase in the number of hours worked. As of May this year, the New South Wales Bar Association estimated that barristers have contributed around 13,500 hours of work to the legal assistance scheme since its inception.

Barristers taking part in this scheme have achieved numerous successes for ordinary people who might otherwise have encountered great difficulties in accessing the legal system. The New South Wales Law Society Pro Bono Scheme was established in 1992. Approximately 10 per cent of all matters referred to the scheme come directly from the courts. Like the Bar Association's Legal Assistance Scheme, the Law Society undertakes a lot of legal assistance and its workload is on the increase.

In the 12 months prior to May the scheme received more than 520 applications for assistance. That was a 14 per cent increase in the number of applications received over the preceding 12-month period. However, the scheme is subject to such resource restraints that applicants are required to take an active role in their legal proceedings. Accordingly, it is the general practice of the Law Society scheme to require applicants to attend court for mentions and directions hearings. Moreover, the scheme generally does not assist in the preparation of initiating documents. Clearly there are limits on the quantity and quality of legal assistance which professional organisations can provide outside the formal legal aid system.

It must be emphasised that pro bono schemes are designed to supplement, not replace, the services provided by the Legal Aid Commission. Lawyers are limited in their capacity to do legal work for free or at reduced rates. It would be folly to push our expectations of the legal profession too far when it already does so much for the community. The capacity of the legal aid system to effectively deliver services to those in need has depended on the goodwill, dedication and co-operation of all the players involved. Legal aid presently ranks amongst the lowest Federal Government funding priorities. In practical terms, the Federal Government is carrying out a forced privatisation of the justice system. The inevitable effect of bleeding the system of public moneys is to leave more people exposed to injustices, because they are unable to afford legal assistance.

There is a danger that those who cannot afford legal services will be forced to rely on law firms acting as corporate philanthropists. Increased efforts by the legal profession to enhance access to justice do not fill the vacuum left by Federal funding cuts. The legal profession contributes substantially to alleviating a situation that is near crisis point, but it cannot cover the huge shortfall between funding and demand for legal aid services. Legal professionals already work extremely hard to provide free and subsidised legal assistance. In a climate of severe Federal cuts to legal aid, the State Government values highly the generosity and hard work of lawyers. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.31 p.m.]: Last week was Early Intervention Week. Early intervention is a skilled arrangement designed to pick up and deliver services to children who are developmentally delayed. It involves assessments and specialised services such as physiotherapy, speech therapy, learning to eat, learning to play and how to provide family support, as well as support for people who work with children. Parent groups are provided with practical advice to meet their needs. Early intervention is a most important adjunct to any community in which there are children with delayed development.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.