Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 15 November 2000, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 15 November 2000
______

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

The President offered the Prayers.

CRIMES AT SEA AMENDMENT BILL

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT ELIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:

Bills read a first time.

THE HONOURABLE Dr BRIAN PATRICK VICTOR PEZZUTTI
AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCES APPOINTMENT

Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. E. M. Obeid tabled the following annual reports:

Ordered to be printed.

PETITION

Windsor Women's Prison

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.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3

Membership

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 14 November the Leader of the Government nominated the Hon. I. W. West as a member of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 in place of the Hon. A. B. Manson, resigned. I further inform the House that on 14 November the Leader of the Opposition nominated the Hon. G. S. Pearce as a member General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 in place of the Hon. D. T. Harwin.

SYDNEY 2000 GAMES ADMINISTRATION BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.11 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek to leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.12 a.m.]: I want to place on record at the outset that the New South Wales Coalition is opposed to the passage of the bill through this Chamber. Today marks the two-month anniversary of the commencement of the Olympic Games. I believe I am correct in saying that many in the community are still basking in the afterglow of the Olympic Games given all of the positive aspects that played a very important part in our lives during that two-week period and in the period following on from the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games.

Be that as it may, there is no doubt in the minds of members of the Opposition that in light of the $2.5 billion expenditure on the Games, there will be most certainly some significant need for public scrutiny. The existing Act incorporates a sunset clause that comes into effect on 31 March 2002. By introducing this bill, the Government has signalled its intention to wind-up the SOCOG board and the Olympic Roads and Transport Authority [ORTA], and transfer their functions to the Olympic Co-ordination Authority [OCA].

The Coalition believes it is appropriate and in the best interests of the people of New South Wales that this legislation does not pass this House at this stage. In the Coalition's view, it is a question of accountability and public responsibility. The existing Olympic structure is the most appropriate for the Government's dissolution of the Games; it will ensure public confidence in the process of dissolution and an appropriate level of public accountability.

Whilst the majority of the day-to-day functions of the Games organisations will be concluded at the end of the year and the staff will be departing for other positions in the public or private sector, accountability to the taxpayers of New South Wales did not end with the closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games. By introducing this bill the Government has signalled its intention to wipe the slate clean. It is for that reason that, although the Coalition has always adopted the bipartisan approach of supporting the Games, we are not prepared to support or endorse this legislation at this time.

When the original Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games Act was passed by this Chamber shortly after the Coalition won the bid to stage the 2000 Olympics in 1993, a determination was made to maintain the existing structure of SOCOG until after the Olympics, with a sunset clause coming into effect on 31 March 2002. That date was determined to allow for the orderly and timely conclusion of all the activities associated with Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is extremely important that honourable members really focus on what was put down as the parameters in so far as the sunset clause is concerned, and the raison d'�tre for SOCOG and ORTA's formalisation by this Parliament some years ago, to ensure there is consistency with regard to the winding-up progress. Although the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games are now over, there are a number of ongoing activities to be completed.

[Interruption]

The games that members opposite are talking about are the back-room games that we see more and more of. The people of New South Wales are starting to recognise those traits in the Australian Labor Party. The debate today is not about the games that the Labor Party is used to playing; we are in fact talking about the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The ongoing activities include: payment of Olympic financial claims or accounts and finalisation of more than 4,500 contracts for the key Olympic agencies; dealing with any litigation that may arise; providing information for a final report by the Auditor-General on the costs of the Games, and reporting to the IOC on the staging of the Games; disposal of the media village; restoring Olympic venues to post-Games configurations; establishing the Sydney 2000 Games archives; and transferring Olympic facilities to the relevant bodies. A considerable amount of work is still to be done.

One needs only to consider what would happen in the private sector if a major organisation decided to wind-up immediately. There would be a hue and cry with regard to that process. It is common practice that the winding-down of any significant project should be a gradual process. As each layer is stripped away there must be a degree of public scrutiny to ensure that the process had integrity from the outset. The Opposition is committed to providing that public scrutiny for the people of New South Wales.

The Opposition has not embarked on a fishing expedition with regard to the Olympic Games. We did not, immediately after the Games, call for this or that inquiry. It is the Opposition's view that the Olympic Games, to this point, were a success and should be so regarded. However, as time goes by, as each layer of the Games is slowly stripped away and public scrutiny is in place, we will be able to follow through the decisions that this Government and indeed SOCOG and ORTA made, to ensure that they can stand the test once the light is applied to them.

The Opposition does not believe an investigation is warranted at this stage and no evidence to the contrary has been provided to it. The approach of the Coalition in regard to this legislation is consistent with its desire to ensure a level of public accountability and scrutiny of the Games in the post-Games period. The taxpayers of New South Wales have contributed billions of dollars to stage the Olympic and Paralympic Games and deserve to be treated with respect and to know where their money went. As the State Government is the underwriter of SOCOG, any debts will be the responsibility of the people of New South Wales—the responsibility not only of the Minister or of the Government, but of every one of us.

This Government is not concerned about accountability, because it avoids accountability at all costs. When the time comes for analysis and hard questions the Government's response will be, "Sorry, the Minister responsible for the Games has retired. Sorry, that organisation no longer exists. Sorry, the staff employed during the Games are no longer working for us. Sorry, any information or reports we had are now in storage, or hit the shredder, or are simply lost." The Opposition maintains its position of ensuring that there is a structure in place and ensuring that as time goes by and the winding-up process is completed it is open to public accountability and scrutiny by the Parliament. With those comments I again ensure that the Minister is aware of our opposition to this legislation.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.20 a.m.]: I also oppose the bill. This bill is the Michael Knight concrete bill, with which the Government will concrete over any evidence that may or may not be left behind when Michael Knight jumps out into the private sector.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That is a conspiracy theory.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am not into conspiracy theories easily, but Michael Knight engenders thoughts of conspiracy. I find it appalling that Michael Knight, having announced that he will resign from Parliament at the end of the year, continues as a Minister in the Government despite the fact that he has hawked his curriculum vitae around to every private enterprise group in town.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How do you know that?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: He advertised that when he resigned. He said, in effect, "Here I am. Would you take me? Do you want me?" That was his statement on announcing his resignation.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Would you do the same thing?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That is a valid point. No, I would not do the same thing. If I were going to resign from the position held by Michael Knight, I would resign from the ministry at the same time. It is just appalling that he has continued in a ministry that controls millions of dollars of State money. He is hawking himself and his CV around town. If the Premier of this State had any nous, he would demand that Michael Knight resign. The Premier was down a mine on the day he heard about Michael Knight's intention to resign from Parliament. He should have said, "Yes, thank you, we would love you to go, but we want your resignation from Cabinet immediately." That is what a proper Premier would have done to remove any potential conflict of interest, because this fellow is out there looking for a job. They are not my words, but his words. He is susceptible whilst he continues as a Minister.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Oh, Duncan!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Don't "Oh, Duncan!" me, Johnno. You always say that when you know we have caught your people doing the wrong thing, something you would not do.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: That is absolutely outrageous.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is not outrageous. It is absolutely appalling that this bloke continues as a Minister despite the fact that he is hawking himself around town for a job. It is just disgraceful. I know that there are quiet and decent members of the Labor Party who equally find this to be appalling.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: We all supported Richard Bull.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Richard Bull was not a Minister.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: He was the leader of a party.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It was a very different situation with John Hannaford and Richard Bull. They were not Ministers of the Crown and were not in charge of a multimillion-dollar portfolio that affects a lot of money and enterprise in this State. The fact that Michael Knight continues in the position leaves the Government susceptible.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Duncan, I expected better of you.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. J. R. Johnson said that he expects better of me. I would expect no less than that I make a statement along these lines. It is appalling that his Premier and his party have allowed this bloke to stay on as a Minister despite the fact that he said that he is going. First, he should have been out of the ministry because he said he was going; second, he is looking for a job in private enterprise; and, third, he is continuing to control SOCOG. That should not be allowed to happen. The Hon. J. R. Johnson would not be surprised to know, I suspect, that the former State Auditor-General has the same concerns. If the Hon. J. R. Johnson wants to disagree with the Auditor-General, whom his party appointed, that is up to him.

The Opposition opposes this bill because it will concrete over the car park to cover up where Michael Knight has been. As soon as the bill is passed there will be a power surge in certain areas and the shredders will be put to work. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we do not know whether anything wrong happened in the conduct of the Games. But the documents and whatever happened need to be investigated. I need go no further than the second paragraph of Michael Knight's speech to the Parliament on this matter. In the other place he said:

They are not my words, not something I am making up, but the words of the Minister. He continued:

That is an important point and should not be underplayed. He continued:

Reebok is not a small fly-by-night company. That is a major matter. According to the Minister's words, that appears to be not the only major matter, because he said "for example". It is my understanding that other major multinationals, including caterers and food and drink companies, are also in litigation with SOCOG. The Minister continued:

We have to guarantee that that information is intact and in place, and that the Auditor-General can contact people about the cost of the Games. The Minister continued:

That is not a minor matter. The Government has not made a final decision on the handing over of the facilities, but it seems that there is indecent haste to wind up SOCOG. Yet in other legislative areas when the Government has moved bills through this House we have agreed to extensions of time. The Opposition understands the contradiction. If one wanted another reason for the Opposition to oppose the bill it would be contained in the dissenting report by members of a committee of this House that inquired into Olympic budgeting. That dissenting report, by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. Dr P. Wong and me, is relevant to this bill. The report stated:

^rd

I quote from Michael the magnificent:

However, less than a month after the Treasurer made that statement in this House a bill was presented to Parliament seeking the release of an extra $140 million for the Olympic budget. One day the Treasurer says that the Olympics are paid for, every last cent—and we should, of course, believe the Treasurer of this State—yet less than a month later there is a request for another $140 million. There is one situation on 23 May and another a month later. If we pass a similar bill in good faith, how do we know that we will not find out in less than a month that the bill was used as a cover-up? Frankly, I believe it is much too big a risk.

The dissenting report stated that the inquiry represented probably the last chance for Parliament to exercise scrutiny over the budget prior to the Olympic Games. Whilst the Opposition endorsed the conclusions in the main body of the report, we believed that the committee had missed the opportunity to comment on key aspects. These highlights of the dissenting report from the committee are an indication once again that we should proceed with caution when considering anything that this Government does with bills relating to either funding or the machinations of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG].

The Games were a huge success—due in no small part to the Minister for the Olympics, the staff and volunteers and, particularly, Sandy Hollway, whom for some unknown reason the Minister wishes to sideline. Our opposition to this bill does not demean that success, which the Government rightly deserved. We want to find out whether there are problems and, if so, where they are and what caused them, and fix them up. The Opposition will oppose the bill because we do not want matters to be swept under the carpet; we want complete transparency.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.32 a.m.]: Without any doubt, the Sydney Olympics and the Sydney Paralympics were, as has so often been said in this place, the best Games ever. Motions in both this House and in the other place have rightly acknowledged the success of the Games and the contribution of the many people who were involved—such as the board and staff of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG], staff of the Olympic Co-ordination Authority [OCA] and the Olympic Roads and Transport Authority [ORTA], the Government, the people of Sydney and the volunteers. Many organisations and many people played a role in that success. We have rightly acknowledged that in a bipartisan way.

In no sense does our acknowledgment of the success of the Games take away from our responsibility as a Parliament and as an Opposition to ensure that in terms of accountability we have absolute confidence that we are acting in the best interests of the taxpayers of New South Wales. The Opposition is not convinced that this legislative framework is in the best interests of the taxpayers of New South Wales. The Games were the best ever. They were collectively a fabulous party. As with any party that one has at home, afterwards there is the cleaning up and the paying of bills. Sometimes things go wrong, even with the best parties, and there is a potential for legal challenge.

The point I make is that just because the party ended, associated matters may not have ended. We know for a fact that is the situation in relation to the Games. We need look no further than the Minister's second reading speech, in which he acknowledged ongoing activities. I will quote the first three activities he referred to. First, the Minister referred to "the payment of Olympic financial claims or accounts and contract finalisation for the key Olympic agencies—in all, more than 4,500 contracts require finalisation". That is a key point. The Minister's second point was "managing any post-Games litigation that may arise—for example, Reebok is suing SOCOG and SOCOG is countersuing Reebok".

Members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 in its inquiries into the Olympic Games are well aware, from the evidence of the Minister and many other senior officials, that they anticipated numerous legal challenges. The Minister's own words are very telling: "any post-Games litigation that may arise". SOCOG is being sued. The Minister makes the point that there may be more litigation as various suppliers look at their contracts and the outcomes. It has been suggested to me—and it has been floated around in this place in the past couple of days—that potentially one of the key suppliers, such as the soft drink supplier, may be considering litigation.

The third issue raised by the Minister was "providing information for a final report by the Auditor-General on the cost of the Games and providing a formal report to the international Olympic Committee [IOC] on the staging of the Games". The final report to the IOC is less relevant to the taxpayers of New South Wales than a final report by the Auditor-General. That report is of great relevance, perhaps more than anything else. The provision of information for a final report has not yet occurred. The accounts have not been finalised, and the books have not been closed and passed over to the Auditor-General. The Games may have finished but the work of SOCOG and the other agencies is far from over. No-one would imagine anything other than that. That is why, when the original Olympics legislation was passed by this Parliament, the key date for the existence of the entities was March 2002.

Why do we smell a rat with this legislation? Because since the original legislation establishing SOCOG came into existence this Government on more than one occasion in this place has introduced legislation dealing with the Olympics. If the Government found something wrong in the notion of the entities remaining as legal entities until 2002, it could have sought to amend the legislation at any point. It did not. The Government waited until the Olympics were over and then sought to introduce this legislation. I question the timing.

If the Government had always known that there would not be a role for SOCOG, ORTA or the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee [SPOC] as entities, it had ample opportunity to amend the legislation well in advance of the Olympics. The reality is that the Government knew that they would have a role, and the Minister has clearly defined what that role would be: the finalisation of accounts and contracts. As we all know, some people are slow at billing. There is no guarantee that every single organisation that has a claim to submit to SOCOG or SPOC will have provided its accounts before the end of this year.

The Minister says, "Not a worry. We will just hand it all over to OCA, which will be able to deal with it." The Government says, "Trust us; there will not be a problem." But we do not trust the Government on this one. During the two inquiries in which I was involved, those related to ticketing and the $140 million contingency, I received numerous phone calls, anonymous letters and scraps of information from people inside SOGOC who believed that we should be aware of certain information. The group that has probably received the least credit is the staff of SOCOG, which has done an enormous amount of work and achieved wonders. But that has been done at some cost to the morale of the group.

Of great concern has been the way in which SOCOG staff have sometimes had to carry the can in relation to controversy. The way in which Sandy Hollway was dealt with by the Minister—and I see that the bovver boy is in the President's Gallery as I speak—made them exceptionally angry that they were not being given credit for the work they had done. They expressed great concern about the legislation. I made notes at the time of the inquiries, and I want to quote some of the concerns that were put to me by anonymous staff members—staff members who consistently gave me sufficient snippets of information to suggest that they knew what they were talking about. Those people were very much on the inside, people who had an ear to the ground about what was going on inside the organisation. Their morale has suffered because of the way in which the Carr Government has treated them.

I made a couple of notes this morning from the various calls and letters I have received. For example, it was suggested to me that SOCOG planning and budgeting was disastrous, that its managers drew up wish lists which then became plans. Even when costs had to be cut, staff members were not given budgets within which to operate, and savings were made in areas where the cost would be transferred to the Government. I am not one to single out bureaucrats, people who work in such organisations, but the name of one manager kept coming up, particularly in the ticketing inquiry and after I had seen the witness. That manager was Paul Reading, a person who was described as being so arrogant in his belief that they could do whatever they wanted that he lost reason in dealing with many of the matters that had to be dealt with in an appropriate way.

Some fairly damning comments were made about the Minister in his then role as President of SOCOG. Honourable members will remember that it was the Opposition that expressed initial concern at the appointment of the Minister as the President of SOCOG because of possible conflicts. Nothing that happened in the years following the legislation caused us to change our view that it was inappropriate that he would sit both as Minister and President of SOCOG. One of the snippets of information passed on to me merely reinforced those concerns. I was informed that the Minister for the Olympics had been briefed on finance issues, but he did not pass on material to the Government in an appropriate oversight role.

When we were talking about the $140 million contingency, one of the allegations that was made to me by staff was that the only person in the Government who was initially prepared to stand up on this matter was the Treasurer. One little note that was passed to me stated that the Treasurer knew about it but he had no support. There has been an attempt to bury the $140 million contingency, but at the end of the day it was the Treasurer who forced the separate legislation. Can we be confident that all is out in the open and that the legislation is simply a winding-up of a few entities so that OCA can deal with it neatly in one parcel? No, we cannot. It was also suggested to me that the board was not informed of vital information and that the Minister—the President—saw the process as a political rather than a business process.

I was also told that the real cost overruns would not be known for approximately 12 months. If a person on the inside believes that we will not know the real cost overruns for up to 12 months, we cannot afford to take a chance with the legislation. There is a need to maintain the SOCOG board and the SPOC board and to leave order in place. We cannot take the risk that in the folding up of those organisations and the passing over of responsibility to OCA the paper shredders will be working overtime, key pieces of information will be lost, and accountability will be lost. I knew about the legislation at the time of the inquiry because one of the people who sent me information suggested that the Premier was preparing to act to delete all the Olympic organisations and get rid of the Minister for the Olympics: "The goal is to get rid of any targets. No more of the O word, and when all the O organisations are gone the Government will have control of everything."

I was told, "This needs scrutiny. They will have plenty of opportunity to bury the dead." Faced with that sort of information from inside SOCOG how can I do other than urge members of the crossbench and the Government to think again about the legislation. If the aim of the legislation is to bury the dead and shift control to the Government so that accountability by the organisations that signed the contracts involved in all the key business decisions are not folded up and hidden inside the Government, I presume the Government will say, "Don't worry. We've got the Auditor-General; the Auditor-General will have the appropriate oversight role." If only that could be forever thus. I remind the House of some evidence that the Auditor-General provided to the general purpose standing committee inquiry into Olympic budgeting. In his opening statement he said:

The concern of the Auditor-General was that we may have acted in haste because we had not been given sufficient opportunity and we had not been given sufficient information. If we go ahead and pass the legislation we must be mindful of the concerns of the Auditor-General in relation to the $140 million contingency legislation and mindful that he said later that he was concerned that we had not been given enough information. The Government has not supplied us with sufficient reason to confidently support the bill; we have not been given sufficient information. In passing up an opportunity for ongoing scrutiny we would be giving away our rights of protection in the interests of the taxpayers of New South Wales. That is why the Opposition has taken such a strong position on the legislation.

We knew in 1993 that when the Olympics were over it would not mean the end of our obligation to New South Wales taxpayers. That is why the original legislation took the role of SOCOG and SPOC much further than the end of the Games. I was fascinated by the Minister's response last night to the Opposition's position. He feigned concern and some measure of shock and horror that we would take this position. He should have known that arising out of our concerns from the earlier inquiries we would scrutinise this bill. I found his reference to the role of SPOC particularly interesting. After giving various reasons why he thought we were being silly he said:

He does not say the same about the role of SOCOG. He does not refer to the fact that it would meet long after the accounts have been effectively balanced and long after there is anything left to do. In other words, I believe he singled out SPOC because it was always the least controversial; it always worked within a defined budget and was not able to simply write cheques to achieve what it wanted to. It knew it had to work within a limited budget, and it had a different level of support from government.

But it is interesting that the Minister acknowledged that SPOC continued long after accounts had been effectively balanced. I wonder how long the Minister imagines it will take before SOCOG is able to say that its accounts have been effectively balanced, which will be long after it has anything to do. I am not aware of any litigation in relation to SPOC, but I am certainly aware of litigation involving SOCOG. I do not believe it is fair to say that simply winding up the organisations and handing them over to OCA will make it all right. At the very least, as a Parliament we have an obligation to ensure that until the Auditor-General has signed off on and is satisfied with the accounts and the processes of SOCOG, ORTA and SPOC we will not pass this legislation.

The accounts have not been finalised, and they certainly have not been sent to the Auditor-General. At this stage there has been no scrutiny. Scrutiny is vital if we as a Parliament, acting in the interest of the taxpayers, are to act responsibly. Nothing in the Minister's second reading speech or in his summary gives me any confidence that this is not all a trick on the part of the Government, that these are not all words about a cover-up. That is the view of staff inside SOCOG; that is the view of the people who should have been given credit for what they did but who were so successfully bypassed by the Minister. They are so angry that I suspect that as the dust settles and they have the opportunity to put the position in order the Opposition will hear much more from the SOCOG staff who feel miffed.

The staff of SOCOG held a party recently to congratulate each other. They did not invite the President of SOCOG. That is a fair indication of how they feel towards the Minister and the way he has treated them. I do not believe this legislation should be passed when so many issues relating to litigation and accounts are up in the air. We need to keep the bodies that must be accountable. In view of what the Auditor-General said about the Parliament not having sufficient information and opportunity to make an informed decision about the $140 million contingency, we cannot give the Government the opportunity to quickly wind up those Olympics organisations and get rid of the O word, as one of the staff members said to me.

We owe it to the taxpayers of New South Wales to ensure that every opportunity for accountability is maintained. We cannot afford to pass this legislation today. It is logical to assume that an inquiry will be conducted arising out of whatever information is received from the Auditor-General. I suspect that the Auditor-General has ongoing concerns in relation to this matter. I urge crossbench members in particular to act cautiously and support the Opposition on this legislation.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.56 a.m.]: This bill presents the classic dilemma: one does not trust the Government with its bovver boy tactics and lack of acceptance of the principle of scrutiny, yet the Opposition does not really have an alternative. I suppose crossbench members are frequently in this position. The Government claims that it is going to stop waste. It claims that if these boards remain they will generate costs without having a great deal to do. It would seem plausible that this organisation, which was large enough to organise the Olympic Games, is simply waiting for some bills to come in or for an inquiry into the cost benefits of the Games. That has been advocated by the Greens and to some extent is dealt with by the amendments of my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

I understand that SOCOG is approximately $140 million in the red. That amount will have to be picked up by the Government, although there was a promise that there would not be any budget overruns as a percentage of the total. I am not sure whether that is good or bad; I suppose it depends on how one looks at it. The Government's position is that as a number of boards are redundant in size they should be rolled into a single entity and the documentation preserved and audited; that there will be a paper trail; and that this is not a cover-up. I would love to think that is true. I do not have sufficient details to comment seriously in an analytical way.

There were some mistakes in the organisation of the Games. Marching bands, which would have come from around the world, were abandoned because it seemed that we did not want too many foreigners. I believe that the marketing decisions in regard to ticket prices for elite groups were shown to have two flaws. First, the elitism inherent in selling expensive tickets to the elite was offensive to the Australian sensibility, particularly when many Australians could not get tickets. Of course, the public never got a go at purchasing those tickets. Second, it seemed that the number of overseas visitors was overestimated, but that fact could not be hidden because Australian ticket allocations had proceeded.

It was resolved by the good old Aussie battlers, who said, "Beauty, there are some tickets," and shelled out their money to buy them. In a sense, the stuff-ups of the elite were covered up by the basic decency of the Australian people and their enthusiasm for the Games. In a sense, it was very much the people's Games and a high percentage of tickets were sold. I am not in a position to know whether that percentage overcame the prices that the marketing experts had hoped to get but did not, but presumably those facts and figures would be available to the Auditor-General if the ticketing philosophy were clearly defined.

As my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe has said, there was a lack of documentation of the ticketing philosophies and prices. That had a somewhat unsavoury smell about it. The Opposition has managed to throw some doubt on the situation but has not really made its case that the bill has to be opposed. It is all very well to have all these boards looking after documents and not shredding them in the interests of open government, but even under the Opposition's proposals one could not guarantee that they would not be shredding them anyway. Are we simply using a sledgehammer to crack an egg? The Opposition does not have any plan as to how any sort of audit or more broad inquiry should go ahead. It has said that it is not time yet; it will be time later.

It would seem to me that the Australian people would be interested in a financial result. I do not think it is anti-Olympics or disturbing our post-Olympic glow or the new wave of nationalism and pride surging up in us all if someone asks that a business come up with its costs and an honest look at its failures and successes following an event, or even a time period. Each company, at the end of the financial year, comes up with a financial report. Obviously, it has ongoing liabilities and debts—it may have ongoing litigation—but it still states what it did in that year, its successes and failures. Supposedly, it gives this out honestly to the shareholders and puts information in the annual report. Obviously, some things are glossed over in the interests of management. No-one would pretend otherwise. But the principle that an attempt should be made for an honest evaluation should be supported. I wonder why the Opposition, in opposing the bill, has not come up with something a bit more substantial in terms of some sort of procedure, timeframe or something else.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is in the original Act.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It is all very well to simply complain but the Opposition has not foreshadowed any amendments which would fix the problem. If the Opposition believes it was stated in the original Act, why does it not come up with a plan and put it in the bill? On balance, the Government has accepted the amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, which will attempt to keep the documentation for an analysis when one is done. We hope the Auditor-General will be able to work within this framework and that there will be sufficient information available to assess the economic effects on the economy as a whole. With these considerable reservations, which arise because of the Government's lack of respect for open process and transparency, I support the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.04 p.m.]: I support the Sydney 2000 Games Administration Bill. I wonder what the Opposition is going on about in opposing the bill. I have just this moment spoken with Nick Greiner on the telephone. I would have thought that his opinion would be respected by Opposition members. He said that he was happy for the wind-up to take place on 31 December. He said that it was a sensible date to wind up, with the proviso that the final accounts can be signed off by the board before that date. The accounts will not be final because there are one or two court cases taking place, which may take up to five years, but the accounts will be all but final. So if the members of the board are happy for it all to be wound up by 1 January—I understand that Chris Hartcher, being a member of the board, would be aware of the situation and be supportive of the wind up as well—it would seem that a very strange situation is occurring: the more sensible members of the Opposition support the wind-up and for some reason some other members have decided to oppose the wind up.

It does not make too much sense to me. I believe it is time to wind up, providing the final accounts are ready. I cannot possibly see that the argument presented by the Opposition in this House opposing the bill holds any weight. In Committee I will move an amendment to preserve for archive all the material on the venues and facilities that were built, the tenders and contracts. I hope that all those that were not successful will be included in the archive. That will be dependent on those who submitted tenders and designs allowing it to happen. It will be interesting, particularly in the distant future, for people to look back to see how imaginative the designs were. I hope that all members of the House will support the amendment. This has been a historic occasion and as a result of the amendment some of the history will be conserved for a very long time.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [12.06 p.m.]: The Opposition believes that the people of New South Wales will be interested when all the bills come in on the Olympics and the results of any litigation are known. The Auditor-General will also be particularly interested. I look forward to his report coming before this House. I will not detail the number of activities that are ongoing but I refer to payment of Olympic financial claims on accounts and the contract finalisation for the key agencies, of which about 4,500 still exist. Post-Games litigation may arise. I understand that SOCOG and Reebok are involved in suing and countersuing activity the results of which are yet to be determined. The Auditor-General will need this type of information to provide a final report to the International Olympic Committee on the cost of the Games. The disposal of the media village, clearance of the site and temporary buildings, the disposal of any other equipment that is there and the decommissioning of stadiums are still to take place. There is also the cataloguing, classifying and placing into protective storage of the Games archives. The Opposition thinks that the amendment proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in relation to an Olympic archive is a very good idea.

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

WORKERS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.09 p.m.]: I support parts of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill but point out that there are problems with it . They have been put to us by various individuals and organisations. Yesterday I talked to Garry Brack, the Director of the National Employers Federation and the Executive Director of the Employers Federation of New South Wales. Mr Brack said he was also concerned about the proposal to remove the Workers Compensation Advisory Council. He felt that retention of the council was an important amendment that should be supported. The Law Society of New South Wales, lawyers and others expressed concern that much of the detail will be put into regulations and not in legislation. It seems that lawyers, insurers, employers and employees are experiencing a certain amount of disquiet and they should be given a chance to investigate the ramifications of the legislation.

The bill provides for injury management pilot schemes and the introduction of market incentives for employers to improve occupational health and safety and injury management performance. It also allows for subsequent claims for compensation—after the initial claim is made to the employers—to be made directly to the workers compensation insurer. It provides that commencement of proceedings in the Compensation Court to recover permanent loss compensation constitutes an election to claim that compensation and prevents a claim for common law damages against the employer in respect of the injury concerned. It provides that damages awards for an action founded in breach of contract can be reduced for contributory negligence on the part of the injured worker, as is the case with actions founded in tort.

The Alliance for Victims of Accidents has complained that there has been inadequate time allowed for the consideration of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill, both the draft and, in particular, the final version. The alliance wrote to members of the crossbench—and I assume also to the Government—asking that debate be deferred until sufficient, considered analysis of the bill could be achieved. Evolving in late 1999 from the organisation Injuries Australia, the Alliance for Victims of Accidents is a coalition of professional organisations that represents injured people, the service providers who work with them and others with an interest in injured people's rights. The alliance's request for more time to debate the bill has been supported by the Australian Association of Surgeons, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association [APLA], the Brain Injury Association of New South Wales Inc., Injuries Australia, the Law Society of New South Wales, ParaQuad and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. That request has been denied to date.

In a letter dated 6 September the APLA argued strongly for a reference to the select committee so that the Workers Compensation Scheme could be examined and a report presented to Parliament before any legislation was brought down. APLA argued that amendments to the bill could only amount to tinkerings with fee scales and processes within the current scheme that would not overcome some of the major problem that exist with the present system. APLA cited concerns about employer compliance, problems with assessing rehabilitation outcomes, the role of medical and legal specialists and questions of worker, employer and insurer fraud as being of prime importance and in need of in-depth discussion.

I understand that if this bill were to go ahead, some amendments would be put forward by a member of the crossbench that would convey APLA's concerns. However, even the association has conceded that amendments to the bill are insufficient to rectify problems with the basic system and that is why it has called for an inquiry. Also in September the UnitingCare Employee Relations Service of New South Wales wrote to honourable members urging that an inquiry be supported. The Uniting Church in Australia is a significant employer within New South Wales, employing 30,000 people in various industries, including aged care and child care, schools, hospitals and various community-based activities. It pays approximately $10 million in premiums to WorkCover.

The Law Society has also recommended that the inquiry go ahead rather than the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill, arguing that the bill is, in effect, only a piecemeal attempt at reform. Most important, the Law Society has argued that debate in the public arena is needed. The bill is very problematic in this regard. Much of the detail and all of the devil is contained in the ability to change regulations, thereby fundamentally changing aspects of the scheme without legislative scrutiny. It seems to be a growing government tendency to put considerable power in the regulations where, as all honourable members know, at times it is quite difficult to address any problems that might arise. There is also no opportunity to debate the regulations in public. The public is less sure of what rules apply and, arguably, has less confidence than if the issues had been determined in the public forum. The Law Society also prepared a document that lists the significant regulation-making powers in the bill. There are 35 clauses in which power is vested in the regulations.

For instance, one section seeks to leave to the regulations the power to specify the number of medical reports that may be admitted in evidence in connection with a claim or any aspect of a claim. It is possible that the regulations could be written to allow for only one medical report to be relied upon, perhaps without good reason. I have received a letter from Moroney Rutter and Mantach, plaintiff lawyers, who comment on the bill. They state that the amendments contained in schedule 4 would have the effect of locking injured workers into an election as soon as they start compensation for section 66 and section 67 benefits. The amendment limits the range of options available to the worker. They criticise schedule 7, which deals with amendments relating to medical reports. They state that the proposed amendment to section 130 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act is designed to limit the number of medical reports that a worker can obtain and limits the amount of costs recoverable by the worker in connection with medical report fees.

Moroney Rutter and Mantach have said that solicitors acting for workers have a professional responsibility to fully investigate a worker's rights and there should be no limit to the number of reports that can be obtained. In some cases, the worker may have multiple injuries involving various parts of the body and there would be no option but to obtain expert medical opinions dealing with all of the worker's injuries. They state it is a denial of justice to limit the evidence that a plaintiff may put before the court when insurance companies can get as many reports as they wish. The solicitors criticise schedule 8, suggesting that the proposal to include section 79A—exchange of information before conciliation—imposes a requirement for the worker to provide "a list identifying all other evidence that the applicant has that is relevant to the dispute".

The solicitors submit that it is unfair to require a worker to provide "all other evidence". Some of the evidence obtained in a workers compensation case may not be of assistance to the worker's claim. As the law presently stands, they do not have to disclose such material. This section will disadvantage injured workers. They say that section 79A also imposes another penalty upon the worker, namely, if the evidence is not disclosed in the list of the evidence, it cannot be used in proceedings before the conciliator or in the Compensation Court. New section 79A (6) will create disputes, including as to when medical reports were received. The date of the report is not necessarily the date on which it was received. The provision may cause relevant evidence to be inadmissible in court.

The letter states that section 81A requires parties to conciliation to provide copies of evidence before the hearing. It also states that it may not be possible to comply with the section—if, for example, a report was received less than seven days before the conciliation conference—and that it is unreasonable to restrict the evidence available to a court in such circumstances. The letter criticises schedule 23 and states that the proposed amendment to section 88 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act imposes a limitation in respect of costs in relation to conciliation and that a maximum amount of $500 is imposed. The amendments in schedule 8 makes is necessary for solicitors acting for workers to carry out more work, and there is more responsibility in dealing with the penalty provisions. It is a situation in which the solicitors will be required to do more work for less pay.

The letter further states that new section 88 (4) (b) is also of great concern. The section enables a maximum amount to be set in respect of disbursements that are payable by employers in respect of conciliation matters. This section will be used to target the cost of medical report fees; workers cannot negotiate with doctors about the amount of the report fee and they are forced to pay whatever the doctor wishes to charge. If a worker wishes to claim compensation, he or she has to obtain reports from treating specialists and other medical experts. If the amount allowed in respect of medical report fees is fixed at an amount less than the fee charged by the doctor, it will be the worker who bears the cost of the difference between the two amounts. The section does not affect the insurance company or the employer. Those are matters put to us by solicitors acting on behalf of workers, essentially. I move:

That the question be amended by the addition of the following paragraphs:

I believe that the amendment would be or could be acceptable to the Government, set in light of the fact that the Government controls that committee and no reporting date has been set, thus allowing the committee to determine its own priorities. I believe it is important that the committee now have a look at WorkCover and that it would be very beneficial for all members, particularly the Government, to have this inquiry. It would mean that the next time we have similar legislation before the House it would be based on more information so that everyone can participate, be they workers, employers, or insurers, and the whole matter could be cleared up before legislation comes before the House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.23 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, the object of which is to amend the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1988, and the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942. It will do that in a number of ways. In speaking in support of the bill I shall make some observations about the point we have reached in the review of the workers compensation legislation and of WorkCover in this State.

The principles on which the Christian Democratic Party works are very simple. One aspect that concerns me at the moment is the principle of allowing the Government to govern. It seems that in recent days there has been more and more sidetracking of legislation and blocking of legislation indirectly by referring it to committees, adjourning it or delaying it. We have reached a situation whereby the Government is not able to implement its program and may come under criticism for not acting in certain areas, such as workers compensation and fisheries.

I am sure honourable members would agree that WorkCover is in a serious state and, as with a patient who has cancer or some other life-threatening disease, WorkCover requires radical surgery. This bill, as we have been told before by the Minister, is part of a series of bills that will bring about that radical surgery and, hopefully, the patient will become healthy; WorkCover will be a healthy activity and will operate efficiently and without any deficit.

There is no doubt that there is also a need to streamline the administration of WorkCover. That is why I have opposed inquiries like the one proposed by Hon. R. S. L. Jones, which affect staff, board members and others involved with WorkCover. They become distracted because they have to deal with a parliamentary inquiry. From my experience as the chair of a number of inquiries I can attest to the fact that a significant amount of time and attention is given by all the key players who have to appear before such inquiries. Focus is taken off trying to solve problems and put onto how they might anticipate questions from the inquiry to make sure they have all the options covered and have all the material that might be requested at the inquiry.

The focus is moved away from solving the problem to virtually handling an inquiry successfully. The inquiry might be handled successfully, but in the meantime WorkCover has not progressed one step forward. In Committee I will move an amendment to the Opposition's amendment which will bring WorkCover within the operation of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, but it will not involve a full-scale inquiry as that proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in his amendment. The amendment will be in the following terms:

That amendment will give the overall role of investigation to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. It will give the committee something it does not have: expertise. An independent evaluation by a person or organisation has been provided on other occasions. During past inquiries Legislative Council members of committees have had to engage consultants and others for the purposes of a report because the members realised they did not have the necessary expertise. Obviously, on this occasion the costs associated with this inquiry would be levied against the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and/or the Legislative Council.

My proposal is that the cost be met by the Government, through WorkCover, and not involve the budget of the upper House or of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. I foreshadow that amendment, which can be compared to one moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I want everyone involved with WorkCover, including the Minister, to focus all their attention on solving the problems and on bringing WorkCover under control, with reasonable premiums, and so on. That has been achieved, as far as humanly possible, with the Motor Accidents Authority and motor accident compensation. This House should not block this important restructuring.

On Tuesday the Law Society, when briefing certain members of this House, raised a strange point of view, almost a suspicion, about whether WorkCover is in as bad a position as claimed. I was surprised that the Law Society implied that WorkCover was reasonably healthy and not subject to such a deficit. We have heard about a $2 billion deficit, but that may be down to $1.6 billion. However, no-one doubts that WorkCover is in a financially dangerous position. Obviously, if the Law Society or members of the legal profession can convince us that WorkCover is not in a perilous state, the Government need not take expensive action to review it.

One reason for reduction of legal costs is the possibility, it is claimed, of a blow-out; if there is no blow-out there is no necessity for that action. I would be concerned if the Law Society were trying to promote a point of view which protects the financial interests of its members who might become involved in compensation cases. Lawyers can seek financial benefit through such cases. I ask the Government to put clearly on the record, while the bill is being debated in this House, the current financial position of WorkCover. Obviously, if there is a deficit of $1.6 billion, that is a serious issue.

Reduction of the deficit, and hopefully elimination of it, would involve a number of steps. This bill, as part of that reform process, will achieve that purpose. I support the involvement of the Occupational Health and Safety Council and the proposal to combine it with the Advisory Council. Obviously, a major way of reducing the scheme's cost is by reducing the incidence of accidents, so that workers can go to their workplace, engage in employment, and return home safely. I am sure we were all impressed with the WorkCover television advertisements which focused on that point. The advertisements showed a wife farewelling her husband as he went to work and expecting him to return home safely.

As a member of the law and justice committee I visited a BHP site and a company in Melbourne that was involved in producing airconditioning units for Toyota. That company had established a model factory in which an accident was almost impossible because of the safety measures it had introduced. The company spent a lot of time and money doing that, but that expenditure would have been offset by fewer accidents and, hopefully in the long run, a reduction in premiums. I see no problem in the proposal to combine the Advisory Council and the Occupational Health and Safety Council. I am not as worried as other members of the crossbench and the Opposition about the powers of the Advisory Council. It has been in existence for some years and does not appear to have produced any major solutions.

Although the Advisory Council allows consultation, as each stakeholder is concerned about its area of interest a deadlock is reached. In other words, unions may not want to proceed where its members might be affected, and lawyers may not want to proceed if their income will be reduced. Consultation and agreement are more than acceptable if a solution is achieved. However, if a solution is not achieved, the Advisory Council may cause delays in the reforms that the Government is trying to introduce. I do not see that as a problem. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill with that proviso.

We support the bill's attempts to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, false claims and other forms of fraud. We agree with the provision that medical assessors should be approved or certified, so that lawyers do not retain only those medical practitioners who will give a favourable decision. We need professional people who have no axe to grind and can report accurately on the injury experienced by the worker. The legal profession must be prohibited from advertising or touting for business. We have all heard radio advertisements in which WorkCover has required the inclusion of a statement that large penalties will be incurred for claims that are not genuine. The emphasis in those ads is on touting for business. Lawyers may offer deals at no charge if they can get a large percentage of the compensation payout. That offer could encourage people to become involved in cases in which normally they would not be involved.

The legislation is moving in the direction of mediation rather than confrontation, and that is the way to go. Confrontation involves more legal costs. We should develop methods of achieving reconciliation and mediation and a solution to the compensation problem. The principles involved in investigation of motor accident compensation should be applied to investigation of workers compensation in an attempt to phase out bulk payments and replace them with total care and periodic payments to workers. That would require the co-operation of the unions, which I am sure could be negotiated by the Government.

The bill focuses on the importance of rehabilitation, which the Minister has mentioned on a number of occasions in this House. Rehabilitation must be more effective and efficient so that workers are not out of the workplace for up to three years. Workers need to return to full employment in some form or other. Workers who are in long-term rehabilitation programs, or who are not able to work for some other reason, should be assessed regularly to ensure they have not been forgotten and left on workers compensation year after year. That is certainly not in the interests of the workers or taxpayers of this State.

Employer groups have briefed members of this House. They appeared to be agreeable in principle to the legislation and there has been no dramatic lobbying for delay or amendment of the bill. However, premiums are a problem for industry. I hope that the Government will follow through the initiative of basing premiums on a company's safety record. Companies that have a good safety record and have dramatically reduced workplace injuries should benefit from discounted or lower premiums.

Companies with a high level of accidents should pay higher premiums. So employers who do the right thing will benefit from their actions, and there is incentive for employers to make their workplace safe. Further, premiums should be fair and reasonable. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. Often, those in Opposition do not want the Government to succeed because it will get the credit. That is part of politics. In this case, we should develop a bipartisan approach, as we have in the Aboriginal issue, and be more co-operative so that we deliver the best possible workers compensation package for the workers of this State.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (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) [12.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. As previously outlined, the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill is the first in a series of legislative packages to be presented over the next 12 months by the Government to reform the WorkCover scheme. Substantive matters will be dealt with in the second and third legislative packages as the Government reviews progress.

The main provisions of the bill have already been outlined in detail. Some specific points that were raised during consultation on the bill should also be noted. Item [5] of schedule 21 provides that the employer is entitled to recover interest where a premium has been incorrectly calculated and the employer has paid too much premium. The provisions will allow interest to be recovered from the date that the incorrect premium was originally paid. Insurers will be advised through normal administrative process by WorkCover to make the payment of interest from that date.

The Advisory Council was established following the Grellman inquiry into the New South Wales workers compensation scheme. Mr Grellman found at that time that stakeholders felt that fundamental changes to the system were often made without their consultation, despite the impact of change. The Advisory Council in its early months endorsed the Grellman inquiry recommendations, which resulted in the 1998 Act. Since April 1998, the council has sought to play a role in identifying initiatives to improve the scheme. The 1998 reforms which followed from the Grellman report, and which were endorsed by the Advisory Council, have resulted in savings and a slowing in growth in the deficit.

However, these reform initiatives have, in effect, stalled and further reform is necessary. Accordingly, the Advisory Council recommended in 1999 that the commencement of private underwriting be deferred while further scheme reforms were developed. The Advisory Council identified a number of possible areas for reform at that time, although further detailed work was required to identify actual changes. The Advisory Council provided further advice in August 2000 about reform options. This was broadly similar to those proposals provided in 1999.

Despite all this, there has been a failure to reach agreement on fundamental scheme reform in areas such as dispute resolution. The only recommendation from the Grellman inquiry that was fully implemented was the proposal to establish the stakeholder body, that is the Advisory Council. The Grellman report recommended a need for further reform in key areas such as dispute resolution, improved medical management, simplified legislation and the introduction of private underwriting. Almost three years after the Grellman report and two years after the establishment of the Advisory Council, the council has been unable to agree as to how to best progress reforms in these areas. The only area where significant progress has been made is in relation to improved injury management.

It is now apparent that consensus will never be reached on further reform. There is a need for firm decisions on further scheme reform. I have already announced a detailed statement of strategic directions, which has identified priority areas for reform. It is my intention to deliver reforms that meet all these objectives. The Government has identified the need for a broader range of initiatives. These include the need for improved dispute resolution arrangements, improved injury management performance, strategies to improve compliance and strategies for managing the deficit. Since the statement was made in June 2000 substantial progress has been made on implementing the strategic directions for the scheme.

The WorkCover Authority is at an advanced stage in the tendering process for both the injury management pilot and the general practitioner training pilot. The changes to the corporate governance arrangements for the scheme will ensure that the reform program is able to continue in an effective and timely fashion. This bill reconfirms the Government's commitment to consult with all key interest groups, including employers, employees and service providers in the further development of scheme reform. However, the bill puts in place arrangements consistent with the principle of ministerial responsibility to ensure that the Government is able to show the leadership sought by stakeholders on bringing about sustained reform to the scheme.

Prevention of workplace injuries should be the priority area in reducing the financial and social cost of workplace injury. Rather than focusing on the entitlements of an injured worker, it is preferable to respond to the causes in the workplace that result in injuries in the first place. The priority that the Government is giving to prevention is highlighted by the recently released Occupational Health and Safety (Consolidated) Regulation. Concerns have been raised that the consideration of occupational health and safety issues will be undermined through the merger of the Advisory Council and the Occupational Health and Safety Council. The important role that both bodies have played, particularly the Occupational Health and Safety Council in relation to workplace safety, cannot be underestimated. The intention of the proposed merger of the two bodies is to give greater priority to occupational health and safety issues.

By establishing a single body responsible for providing advice on all aspects of the WorkCover schemes, the Government will obtain co-ordinated advice, which looks at all aspects of a proposal or problem. This is an increase in status for occupational health and safety matters. Further, a specific position has been reserved for an occupational health and safety expert. Nominating organisations, particularly employer and employee groups who nominate representatives to the council, have a responsibility to ensure that there is also additional occupational health and safety expertise available to the council. WorkCover will be able to establish consultative bodies for specialist expertise on specific issues, including occupational health and safety issues. There will be no decrease in status for occupational health and safety issues. This is consistent with the Government's broader objective of injury prevention.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to believe that not continuing the Rating Bureau in its current form is a sinister plot. It is nothing so interesting. The Rating Bureau was established under the 1998 Act for the purpose of determining premiums under the privately underwritten scheme. With the deferral of private underwriting it is unnecessary for the bureau to continue to carry out the functions of monitoring scheme performance and preparing costings on legislative proposals. This will reduce unnecessary expenditure. These functions are already carried out by the WorkCover Authority through its actuaries. The Auditor-General provides an independent review of scheme valuations. The appropriate role of the Rating Bureau can be reviewed after a decision is made in relation to private underwriting.

The Leader of the Opposition has also suggested that the bill does not deal with the previously announced premium discount scheme. Schedule 2 of the bill contains the enabling provisions for the scheme. The regulations will set out the detail of the proposed scheme, including the conditions on which discounts will be awarded. Regulations are subject to disallowance by Parliament. Consultation is set to commence shortly on the details of the premium discount scheme. The proposed scheme allows an employer to receive a premium discount up-front in the premium year. This is deliberate, as the Government wants this scheme to reward employers for their current and future behaviour in occupational health and safety and injury management, not punish them for their past claims.

However, employers do not get the discount for nothing. It is only when they have met certain occupational health and safety and injury management benchmarks that they get to keep the discount. Employers participating in the scheme will receive a discount on their premium on commencement. This will free up funds to make it easier for them to put occupational health and safety and injury management systems in place. However, if during the year they fail to meet the performance benchmarks, the discount can be recovered through a premium adjustment at the end of the year.

The reforms in the 1998 Act relating to injury management have generated improvements in the underlying cost of the scheme. However, these reforms have stalled and there is a need for further initiatives to generate improved injury management outcomes. The pilots will assist in identifying best practice. It is central to the Government's strategy that it focus on better return to work outcomes to generate savings, rather than cut benefits. The Leader of the Opposition has also raised the issue of previous injury management pilots. WorkCover conducted an industry rehabilitation co-ordinator pilot with two industry organisations—the Australian Industry Group and Australian Business Limited. These projects only dealt with a sample of 17 workers. That sample is not large enough from which to draw any significant conclusions or findings.

The injury management pilots are to be the subject of comprehensive and rigorous evaluation. Each pilot will be overseen by a steering committee, which will involve relevant stakeholders. The evaluation will be conducted in a variety of ways by WorkCover's actuaries, by WorkCover's statistical branch and by external expert parties, for example, Campbell's National Return to Work Monitor. The evaluation process will be collated, analysed and validated by an independent body selected through a competitive selection process. The evaluation will cover cost-benefit analyses of the pilots and their application to the scheme as a whole; differences in service utilisation and costs and differences in the return to work outcomes for injured workers; user satisfaction with the pilots provided; and comparison of return to work rates and durability of employment for the pilot population against New South Wales and national results.

The legislation currently asks injured workers to choose between statutory lump sum compensation and common law damages. The proposed amendment does not change this requirement. It merely requires that the worker make a choice before starting proceedings in the Compensation Court. Obviously, two sets of proceedings for a single injury are more expensive than one. Even if the amendment means that counsel's opinion is sought at an earlier stage, it will be less expensive than running two cases. This reform will not disadvantage seriously injured workers who wish to pursue common law damages. Lawyers will continue to provide advice to their clients to enable them to make informed decisions about whether to pursue common law damages.

The intent of the proposal relating to medical reports is to reduce the number of unnecessary reports obtained in disputed claims. While there are already some provisions in the current legislation that deal with a recovery of costs for medical reports, these are limited in their operation. Similar restrictions are in place in the District and Supreme courts. Although the final regulation is still subject to consultation it is proposed that the motor accidents approach be used when the parties are generally entitled to one report per specialty to support their claim. In some cases a further report may be obtained. It is proposed to give effect to this amendment by regulation to allow close consultation with scheme participants.

The proposal is not intended to limit the treatment provided to an injured worker, and this will be given close attention when the regulation is being drafted. The legal profession has raised significant objections to the proposals to require information to be exchanged prior to conciliation. These reforms are about getting injured workers their compensation in an appropriate time frame. The intent of the provisions is to ensure that all available information is made known and is available, subject to normal rules relating to privilege. This will ensure that parties can make informed decisions to settle matters. By identifying all the evidence the conciliator will be able to order that the evidence be produced, subject to any exemptions.

Although the objections relating to identification of all evidence in the possession of the parties have been noted, it must be recognised that when the matter proceeds to court the material can be identified through the discovery process. Disclosure is not sought at an early stage but when resolution can be achieved through conciliation. To consider this to be an early stage is to promote the proposition that matters must be resolved at the Compensation Court after a very lengthy delay rather than through more immediate conciliation. The only people who benefit from matters proceeding to a full hearing before a court are those who participate in the dispute resolution process. The proposed amendments will increase WorkCover's capacity to recover premium debt from employers by allowing unpaid premiums to be recovered from corporations.

The amendment is aimed at directors of corporations who seek to gain financial advantage by knowingly avoiding their workers compensation obligations. This liability extends only to culpable directors within the meaning of the bill. It is not appropriate to extend liability to all directors as this will conflict with the principal purpose of the Corporations Law. Directors who generally attempt to do the right thing should not lose the protection of limited liability. The proposed amendments vary section 145A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which was introduced to enable WorkCover to recover debt arising from claims lodged under the uninsured liability and indemnity scheme from the directors of uninsured corporations.

Certificates of currency provide a mechanism for employers and unions to check the insurance coverage of other employers. It is particularly useful in industries where there is a high degree of labour mobility and extensive use is made of subcontracting arrangements. The provisions of the bill require insurers to issue a certificate on request. The certificates are valid for four months only, at which time the new certificate may be issued. Employer groups have noted that the certificates of currency provided for under schedule 13 to the bill are required to include wage and employee details. This information is, of course, used by the authorised officer to determine whether the correct premiums have been paid.

It has been noted that this information may be commercially sensitive. I am advised that section 243 provides that a person who acquires information while administering or executing the Act must not disclose that information, except in limited circumstances. This would apply to a union official or contractor who exercises a right to view a certificate, although that person would be able to advise the WorkCover Authority of any discrepancy. The authority will give detailed consideration to requiring insurers to include a statement on the certificate outlining the obligations under section 243.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Thank goodness we brought that to your attention.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: That is very kind of the honourable member. The legislation imposes a range of obligations on parties, and provides a sanction if those obligations are not fulfilled. Similarly, most licensing systems create offences and have a broad range of sanctions for breaches of licence conditions. These provisions are based on similar provisions in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, although there are some procedural modifications. Insurers have obligations in the workers compensation scheme. This provision merely allows for a streamlined process to provide a sanction when an insurer does not fulfil his or her obligations.

Before imposing a sanction the board is required to provide the insurer with an opportunity to make submissions. Prerogative relief is available in those cases where principles of natural justice are not observed. The proposal to reopen the specialised class of licence has been the subject of much consultation. The proposed amendments provide stringent criteria for obtaining such a licence. For example, the proposed specialised insurer will have to demonstrate that it will not have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the scheme. It will be limited to a particular industry, class of business or employer, and must be supported by the relevant industry bodies. The applicant must also meet Federal licensing requirements.

The bill contains provisions that enable exiting specialised and self-insurers to contribute to the deficit under the 1987 Act. There are already similar provisions in the 1998 Act. It is not part of the Government's proposal to levy all employers, as has been suggested. The Government is reinforcing the principle that employers who seek to exit the scheme should now contribute to their unfunded liabilities. The amendments, including the provision to make agreements with WorkCover that will allow exiting employers to take their so-called tail, will allow this to happen. The Opposition has noted that nothing in the bill deals with advertising or fees. Maximum fees can be set under the existing provisions of the legislation without the need for further amendments.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones moved an amendment to the second reading of the bill. The Government is strongly opposed to that amendment. Workers compensation arrangements have been reviewed at least 16 times in the past six years. The time for another review has passed. The Government has outlined its strategic directions for the scheme and has in place a comprehensive reform strategy. The bill is the first in a series of legislative packages to be presented by the Government. The second and third package to be presented next year will deal with more substantive reform issues. The bill was tabled before the House in draft form more than four weeks ago, on 10 October. The second reading speech on the bill took place two weeks ago, on 1 November. Honourable members have had extensive periods in which to consider the provisions of the bill, consult with stakeholders and suggest changes.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: When are you going to do your homework?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I assume the honourable member did his homework. Given the time that has been made available for consideration of the bill, it is difficult to see whether another review would add significant value. Referral of this matter to the law and justice committee will delay the Government's reform program. The injury management pilot may not be able to commence on 1 January 2001. It will also delay progress on the premium discount scheme, on which detailed consultation is soon to progress. The Parliament has demanded that the Government take action to repair the scheme, yet the motion before this House will frustrate that reform. Such a review will also delay the subsequent reform packages to be presented next year. Employers will benefit from higher premiums for a longer time. In these circumstances it is unreasonable for the honourable member to place the matter before the House.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 15

Mr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Colless
Mr Corbett
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan

Tellers
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 21

Mr Breen
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Cohen
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan
Ms Fazio
Mr Hatzistergos

Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile
Reverend Nile
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin
Mrs Sham-Ho

Mr Tingle
Mr Tsang
Mr West

Tellers
Mr Johnson
Mr Primrose

Pairs

Mr Lynn	Mr Obeid
Mr Samios	Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

[The President left the chair at 1.10 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.33 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

Industrial Relations Act 1996

I take umbrage at the suggestion by the Minister for Industrial Relations that the Opposition is being anti-union with this amendment. It is designed to provide balance in the make-up of the amalgamated council. The Minister's proposal is that the council have five persons appointed by the Minister as employee representatives from a panel of at least six persons nominated by the Labor Council of New South Wales, one being appointed to represent injured workers. I made the point last night that only 25 per cent of New South Wales employees are covered by unions and the Labor Council of New South Wales. We believe that the other 75 cent should be represented in this equation, but there is no provision in schedule 1 for their representation.

The amendment is not designed to take away responsibility or power from the Minister. Under the amendment the Labor Council would still have a significant role—much larger than the 25 per cent of employees that it represents would justify. The Minister will be able to decide on the suitability of people appointed to the new council, and the Opposition does not believe that at this stage that power should be removed. We simply want to mirror what is occurring in the workplaces of this State and give people who have made a choice not to be members of a union—75 per cent of the workers of this State—the assurance that their voices will be heard on the council. The final point I make is that the provision that one person on the council be appointed by the Minister to represent injured workers is consistent with the original proposition for membership of the council. Again, the Minister would have sole responsibility to select the person to be appointed. The person would not be chosen by the Labor Council.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (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) [2.37 p.m.]: The proposed amendment seeks to reduce the reasonable role given by the bill to the Labor Council in providing a panel of nominees for appointment to the proposed new council. The amendment is inappropriate as the Labor Council is the peak worker representative and peak union body in New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition may take umbrage at the suggestion but his party's concern about this matter is driven more by ideology than by a determination to reform the scheme.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 14

Mr Colless
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay

Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Lynn
Mr Oldfield
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan
Mr Samios
Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 25

Mr Breen
Dr Burgmann
Ms Burnswoods
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Corbett
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan

Ms Fazio
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tingle
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Ms Saffin

Pair

Mr Pearce

Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the schedule be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 20

Dr Burgmann
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan
Ms Fazio
Mr Hatzistergos

Mr Johnson
Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Mrs Sham-Ho

Mr Tingle
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Ms Saffin

Noes, 19

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Colless
Mr Corbett
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher

Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Lynn
Mr Oldfield
Dr Pezzutti

Ms Rhiannon
Mr Ryan
Mr Samios

Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Pair

Ms Tebbutt

Mr Pearce

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.51 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 19, schedule 2 [2], lines 21-25. Omit all words on those lines.

This is consistent with Opposition amendment No. 3, which the Committee will shortly debate. It is extremely important that this amendment is dealt with before the next amendment.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (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) [2.52 p.m.]: The amendment seeks to replace the regulation-making power in the bill regarding the review of premium discount systems with a specific provision of the Act, which is inappropriate. The proposal is very broad and workable and will allow insurers and employers to dispute any proposed premium discount scheme, not only in a situation where the particular employer or insurer is directly affected. It would, for example, allow insurers to dispute discounts agreed with employers, or employers to dispute administrative procedures established for the smooth operation of the discount scheme.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT] examining a one-off case would not be in a position to consider the broader implications for the whole of the WorkCover scheme. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, the two amendments—the one he has moved and the one I assume he intends to move shortly—are very closely linked. My remarks apply to both.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.53 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 3:

(8) An insurer or employer who is aggrieved by any decision of the Authority under this section may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of the decision.

This amendment relates to what I consider to be yet another oversight by the Government with respect to an aggrieved insurer or employer who has difficulty following the decision made by the authority. The amendment puts in place an appeals process that enables the aggrieved insurer or employer to take a matter to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of the decision. As it currently stands no such process is available and the application of this amendment to the bill will add to the integrity of the legislation.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (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) [2.54 p.m.]: The remarks I made during consideration of the previous amendment are applicable to consideration of this amendment. As the Committee has already expressed a view on the earlier amendment I seek its support to reject this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.54 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 4:

1 2 year pilot scheme

The injury management pilot project proposed by the Government in this legislation will put in place a two-year pilot scheme. In his reply to the second reading debate the Minister spoke about the need for scrutiny and some examination of the process, and in fact made reference to an investigation to be conducted by independent persons or organisations at the conclusion of the two-year period. This is really breaking new ground and the Opposition is seeking a full and open examination of this proposal before the Parliament at some stage. The Opposition recognises that some time will elapse before the commencement of the two-year period, thereby ensuring that the conclusion of the two year period—the end of the sunset clause—will in fact occur after the next State election. That will eliminate any opportunity for this issue to be politicised, or at least the allegation that the issue has been politicised, by either side in the debate.

With regard to the two-year pilot scheme sunset clause, the Opposition is seeking to add to the provisions of the bill to ensure that, at the end of the two-year period—in conjunction with what the Minister has said in regard to the scrutiny of the scheme that will be undertaken by the independent persons or organisations—the effectiveness of the scheme will be reviewed by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which will report back to Parliament on the success or otherwise of the scheme.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.56 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party agrees with what the Opposition is seeking to achieve, but I believe the amendment that I propose to move now will be better than what the Opposition has proposed in its amendment No. 4. I move:

The Government has agreed that there will be evaluation. That was stated by the Minister in his reply to the second reading debate on the bill, and the evaluation that the Government has referred to would be conducted in a variety of ways by WorkCover actuaries, by the WorkCover statistical branch, by external expert parties, such as Campbell's National Return to Work Monitor. This evaluation process would be collated, analysed and validated by an independent expert body selected through a competitive tender process.

That is the point I am emphasising in my amendment. It must be an independent evaluation so that there can be no accusation that the Government has manipulated the evaluation. It will be independent of the Government, but the evaluation will cover the cost benefit analysis of the pilots and their application to the scheme as a whole; the differences in the service utilisation and costs; differences in return to work outcomes for injured workers; user satisfaction for the pilot providers; and comparison of return to work rates and durability of employment for the pilot population against New South Wales and national results.

The amendment moved by the Opposition simply states that the effectiveness of this schedule be investigated by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice. I want to ensure that that committee has the benefit of expert advice. The committee comprises members of this House and is chaired by the Hon. R. D. Dyer. The committee members are very effective and efficient, but are not experts on all the details of the WorkCover scheme.

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice needs an expert report that it can consider to enable it to report to the House. Through the committee the House will have a monitoring process. It will review the results of the evaluation and report to Parliament. My amendment will achieve, in a better and more effective way, what the Opposition is attempting to achieve. It will equip the Standing Committee on Law and Justice with expert knowledge, which is the information it needs. If my amendment is not agreed to, the committee will have to hire consultants or other persons, who will be a charge against the committee and/or this House. Under my amendment the Government will bear all the costs of the evaluation process by an independent evaluator. The Hon. R. D. Dyer is nodding his head in agreement.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: I don't want to pay for it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is what I am saying. From a financial point of view this is a more efficient and effective way for the House to operate.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.01 p.m.]: I seek a point of clarification from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. What is meant by the words "chosen by the authority by private tender"? How is it intended to place advertising to get the private tender under way? Who will fully examine the value of the system?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.02 p.m.]: WorkCover would have to seek tenders.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Why is it a private tender? Surely it is a government tender.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: The emphasis is on private tender. The people who apply will be from private industry. Private tender means private industry. It will be advertised publicly; it will not be a division of WorkCover that will conduct the evaluation. It will be independent. That is where the emphasis will be—independent. Private in this sense does not mean secret; it means that private industry will have the opportunity to tender to carry out the evaluation.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: So it will not be a private tender; it will be an open tender.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Yes, an open tender, not a private tender.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (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) [3.03 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment proposed by the Christian Democratic Party. The injury management pilot will provide new information that will assist in identifying possible improvements to the injury management provisions of the current legislation. The Government welcomes the opportunity for the law and justice committee to review the evaluation of the pilot project and make suggestions for improvements to the scheme. The amendment is supported. The Government does not support the earlier amendment in its original form moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Amendment of amendment agreed to.

Amendment as amended agreed to.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

SYDNEY 2000 GAMES ADMINISTRATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. G. S. PEARCE [3.05 p.m.] (Inaugural speech): I speak against the Sydney 2000 Games Administration Bill, which exemplifies all that is wrong with the Carr Government: the arrogance, the lack of ideas and initiatives, the absence of accountability, and the terror of scrutiny. Who would have guessed that when the great John Fahey-led Coalition Government and the city of Sydney won the right to host the 2000 Games we would have the best Games ever and the best ever Paralympic Games. Thanks to the fantastic organising work of all the SOCOG people we have had the best Games ever. The transport, organised by Olympic Roads and Transport Authority [ORTA] was fantastic. ORTA made the trains run on time. The volunteers and the people of New South Wales and Australia made the Games a great success.

This bill is an attempt to rewrite history, to eliminate the witnesses, to bury the records, to bury the carcass before the body is cold, to seal the mine before the workers get out, to sweep the road before the dust settles. This is a crass attempt to claim all the credit, all the glory, for Minister Knight and the Carr Government. The success of the Olympic and Paralympic Games is an inspiration—the proof of the greatness of our political system and our Australian people. That we could aspire, win and deliver are a great inspiration for me to be here. It is a great honour to be selected by the Liberal Party to represent the people in this Chamber, and it is a great honour to replace a fine man, a distinguished parliamentarian and a leading Liberal, the Hon. John Hannaford.

I wish to add my tribute to John Hannaford. He had a successful career as a solicitor before entering this place. He served with great distinction as Attorney General, as a senior Minister and as Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council. Above all, John is a loyal and dedicated Liberal. His motivation is service to the community, his profession, the party and the Parliament. He has made, and will continue to make, a great contribution. I grew up, went to school and to university in times of great political, social and economic change through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Mentors at crucial times in my live have been women. My mother, Margaret, was born into and grew up as part of a working-class family in Rozelle. She was a bright girl, she had a good education at the local Catholics cool, but she did not have the opportunities garnered for women in the decades since.

My mother has endured more than her share of hardship and illness yet she never resiled from her determination to give my sisters, Debbie and Sue, and me the best start possible in life. She instilled in us faith, optimism and caring for others. She taught us that through determination and hard work you can have achievement. But whatever your successes or failures, paramount are charity, generosity and caring for your family. I thank my mum for her contribution to my life and my opportunities. Mum was here yesterday for my swearing in, and she was very proud to be here. Unfortunately, having been afforded the opportunity to make my inaugural speech at short notice, Sandy, my wife, and many of my friends and family who were here yesterday are not able to be here today. I am grateful for their commitment and support. I am sure that they will enjoy the next 2� years of Parliament. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today.

I had the good fortune after attending public primary schools at Bundanoon and Wentworth Falls to be educated in the Catholic school system at Bankstown. A commitment to duty, service and community is an integral element of such an education. I also learnt about the great Irish tradition of struggle and rebellion, and I know a bit about the Irish Labor tradition. I was privileged to attend Sydney University, a great learning institution, to be introduced to political history and philosophies and the social, economic and political upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, and to join in the debate and student politics. Fortunately, I found my way politically to the Liberal Party.

Following my university career—and I might remark, Madam President, you were a prominent radical during those days—I joined Freehill, Hollingdale and Page, then a Sydney firm of solicitors with an eminent past and a dynamic future. Largely through the vision and energy of the senior partner Brian Page and the dedication of the partners and staff since, Freehills has become a leading international law firm and a significant institution in the Australian business community based in Sydney. My own experience at Freehills was exciting. I participated in many major projects in the development of Sydney and New South Wales and the growth of our dynamic economy. I was fortunate to become a partner when I was 28 and had 17 years as a partner before coming here. During almost all of those years I was supported and encouraged by my assistant, Ann Louise Kitto. I thank her for her dedication.

Importantly, in those years at Freehills I was also able to develop and contribute to my greatest interests: the environment, my profession and politics. During my time at Freehills I was part of a team which established the first international environmental law practice in Australia. That led me to participate in the development of international environmental law and policy as a delegate at the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992 and at meetings of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] and the United Nations. However, my passion for the environment is not limited to the law but has extended to a very active role in the community in promoting sustainable and responsible environmental practices, most particularly through my advisory and directorship roles in Clean Up Australia and Clean up the World.

As I became active in the Liberal Party I quickly became aware of an icon, Rosemary Foot, AO. Rosemary had been the member for Vaucluse and the first woman to serve in a leadership position in the New South Wales Liberal Party. She was Nick Greiner's deputy. Rosemary has an unflinching commitment to the Liberal Party and the community and has been a great mentor and supporter. I thank her. The Liberal Party in New South Wales has made great progress in reforming itself and preparing for the march back to government in this State. Under the strong leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Kerry Chikarovski, and another great Australian the honourable Tony Staley, the party has undertaken typical reform, restored the financial strength of the party and is now setting about attracting the candidates and developing the policies to lead a new government in New South Wales.

I am delighted to be in this place because it is the place of genuine debate and review. Indeed, in the last decade it has been the venue of an interesting political experiment. The crossbenchers have come to play a most significant role. However, with due respect to the honourable members, I believe that the politics of a protest vote has a limited future and that the crossbencher experiment will shortly end. The lesson of the United States presidential election is that constituents can no longer waste a vote. I mentioned the subject of loyalty in my earlier comments. It is a great and important issue to me. Accordingly, I make an exception in the case of the Liberal member Helen Sham-Ho, who now feels free to consider herself a former Liberal member. Her case is clearly distinguishable from the other crossbenchers.

The principles which guide us and upon which we act are fundamental. Principles of tolerance, freedom of the individual and merit are key to Liberal philosophy. Indeed, in researching this speech I found some surprising statements of philosophy. I would like to quote a couple. The first statement, just a short one, is:

The individual overall makes up the quality of our nation.

The other statement is:

Surprisingly, the statements I have just quoted were made by the honourable "Professor" Obeid in his inaugural speech on 13 November 1991. Having seen the Minister in action yesterday, I now understand his confusion as to principle and philosophy. I am grateful to Kate McClymont and the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 August 2000 for the important disclosure of the Minister's status as professor, courtesy of a report in the Arabic newspaper El Telegraph. I encourage honourable members to give due recognition to that status. I am also grateful for the very detailed, if somewhat disturbing, description of the honourable member's past and present business and other dealings. His confused philosophical approach is nothing compared to his murky affairs. I look forward to understanding the honourable professor's explanations of his disclosures under section 14A of the Constitution. I am also fascinated by the Sun-Herald report on 29 October 2000 of the pecuniary interests of the Special Minister of State. I ponder whether Chinchilla on the Bay will become the Minister's waterloo.

I want to say something about some other concerns of great importance to me. The first is one with which we have all been grappling but, in my view, to which we have not yet sufficiently strongly committed: halting the decline in country and rural Australia and the reinvigoration of those areas. The Olympics served to showcase and emphasise the Australian cultural and heritage attachment to our rural and country base and past. We need to recommit as a society to the future of our country and rural heritage. Part of that commitment is to embrace another great social, cultural and economic change we are now experiencing—the arrival and dominance of new technology and communications. We have been experiencing the opportunities and the changes brought by new technology and communications, but we have really only dipped our toe in the water. We ought to aggressively lead in wiring up New South Wales to the most modern technological opportunities. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for her statement and comments on this topic in the last couple of weeks.

These changes embrace our children, their education, their work, their leisure and other opportunities. They embrace people in country areas, business in New South Wales, and another great social, cultural and economically significant change, the ageing of our population. We have only skirted around the problems, but also the opportunities presented by our ageing population and our longer life spans. The impacts on the health system are significant. The need to provide for superannuation and a proper living standard for our elderly relatives and friends is partly being addressed at the national level, but we have not embraced the policies to ensure appropriate living conditions and facilities, recreation and, most importantly, opportunities for people to continue to make a positive contribution to the community by working—whether in employment, or with community and voluntary organisations—well past their retirement.

Last night I listened with fascination to the adjournment debate. I heard one honourable member applauding the efforts of Australian workers in relation to the Olympic Games and the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow. I thought I was listening to an Australian Labor Party member, but it was a member of the Greens. Of course, there are no real good old-fashioned Australian Labor Party members here, just members of the Carr Government, a government that has shown its true colours in the wind-up of the Olympic Games. Who will ever forget the mean-spirited, mean-minded treatment of Sandy Hollway? Now we are asked to agree to this bill to permit the rewriting of history. The bill is an insult to every person and company that contributed to the success of the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games.

Make no mistake, the bill will allow the sweeping under the carpet of everything outstanding. The Opposition does not have to have an alternative plan, because the process for winding up the Games was agreed in the original host city contract in 1983, and is reflected in the legislation. The processes were agreed, based on the IOC's experiences of other Games and the understanding of the complexity of winding up such a major event. Indeed, the host city contract of 23 September 1993 includes a number of provisions prohibiting the organising committee, the host city and the National Olympic Committee from changing arrangements without the prior approval of the IOC executive board. I ponder then: Does the Government have approval, and what arrangements has the Government made with the City of Sydney concerning the ongoing financial liabilities arising from the Games?

Or does the Minister intend, later this month when he takes his retinue of newly responsible organisers to Switzerland, to simply dump the news on the IOC? In response to the claim that there will be cost savings as a result of the bill, let me say now that there will be significant unforeseen costs for many of the 4,500 or so people and organisations already identified with contracts to be concluded, and the many as yet unidentified potential claims and contracts for finalisation. The Government has not made the case for the bill, for the haste, or for the very significant change to the arrangements for the conduct and wind-up of the Games. No-one can ever guess the likely inconvenience and cost of these changes. I thank honourable members for indulging me and listening to me this afternoon. The bill should be rejected.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.25 p.m.]: I support the Sydney 2000 Games Administration Bill. I listened very intensely and with interest to the first speech in this Parliament of the Hon. G. S. Pearce. I congratulate him on becoming a member of this House and I want to welcome him. I hope from now on that we will work together co-operatively as colleagues. I feel very honoured that I was named in his first speech. All honourable members who were named in his speech graciously thank him for his comments. I graciously listened to his comments, and I thank him for them.

The bill will wind up agencies involved in the Olympic and Paralympic Games. As result of the bill all activities associated with the Games will fall under the responsibility of the Olympic Co-ordination Authority. We have all been inspired by the success of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It was really said quite fully in the two motions moved by the Leader of the Government. Not only did these international events show the prowess of our elite athletes, but also the capabilities of this State in hosting the world's biggest peacetime event. The Olympics and Paralympics provided a wonderful opportunity to showcase Australia's multicultural and tolerant society to the world.

This country was presented as a culturally diverse, yet harmonious nation of people drawn from more than 160 different countries. Everyone should be proud of the fact that Sydney's Games were the best ever. The success of the Olympics and the Paralympics can be attributed largely to the effective preparations of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, better known by its acronym, SOCOG; the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee, SPOC; the Olympic Co-ordination Authority, OCA; and the Olympic Roads and Transport Authority, ORTA. I congratulate these organisations on their pivotal role in making Sydney 2000 an unforgettable experience for Australians and the rest of the world.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to the Minister, the Hon. Michael Knight, on the wonderful job he has done. I understand that he will retire from Parliament. I wish him all the very best. We all acknowledge that these Games were the best ever. His skill, hard work, effort and know-how should be recognised worldwide. I am sure he will be utilised in the future. The co-operation, planning and vision of these organisations was truly marvellous, even though, we must acknowledge, there were the occasional hiccups.

As we are all aware, the Games are now over and our city has returned to normal. It is only commonsense, now that the Games are over, that there be just one organisation responsible for the final Olympic- and Paralympic-related matters. It seems a nonsense to suggest that SOCOG, SPOC and ORTA should continue to exist separately simply to complete some leftover tasks. This seems to be an unreasonable waste of resources and manpower. The umbrella organisation that will take on the rights and responsibilities is under the direct control of the Government. The Hon. G. S. Pearce did not realise that the liabilities will be the Government's responsibility. I acknowledge that there are some ongoing matters relating to the Olympic Games; for example, I am aware that SOCOG is involved in litigation, but pending litigation should not be the reason for SOCOG to continue. That is not a sufficient reason to stop its dissolution. As I have already said and will reiterate, the organisations should not remain in operation just because of a few loose ends that need tying up.

The staff and management of the organisations should not be paid merely for completing a few outstanding issues. Litigation can take several years before a resolution is reached. There are sufficient reasons for the Olympic Co-ordination Authority [OCA] to take over the role of the centralised Olympic authority. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, ultimately the New South Wales Government has underwritten all the debts, liabilities and the like of the Olympic authorities. Unlike the Opposition, I am not quite so cynical as to suggest that the dissolution of the authorities will lead to a lack of transparency. What was agreed in 1993 was agreed a long time ago. Things have changed and we should change with the needs. There is nothing earth shattering about placing the last Games-related responsibilities in the hands of the OCA, which is under the steering of the Government. Indeed, the Opposition might be making a Mount Olympus out of a molehill in relation to this bill. For these reasons I support the bill.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [3.31 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. G. S. Pearce on his inaugural speech. I agree fully with many comments made about the Hon. John Hannaford. He was highly regarded by the crossbenchers for his contribution and intellectual skills. Likewise, the Hon. John Hannaford regarded highly the many opinions of the crossbenchers. I support the Sydney 2000 Games Administration Bill. The Sydney 2000 Olympics and Paralympics were an outstanding success—the best ever Games, according to the President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch. In my opinion, the Games united Australians from all backgrounds. I was particularly proud to see Australia's cultural diversity acknowledged during the opening of the Olympic Games. However, like all good parties, it had to come to an end.

To stage the best Games ever, four organisations were created: SOCOG, SPOC, OCA and ORTA. Each one has its board or directors, operational staff and administrative overheads. Now that the Games are effectively over, it would be irresponsible for us to still incur costs associated with all four agencies. I understand the original Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games Act 1993 allowed for a sunset clause of March 2002, but obviously that was the best guesstimate at the time. If the functions of those organisations are finished, we should do the right thing by New South Wales taxpayers. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the Opposition regarding open accountability for the running of the Olympics. However, in the absence of any definitive issues raised by the Opposition I cannot justify to the people of New South Wales why we need to continue to pay board members of these organisations up to $50,000 a year. However, should the need arise, I believe the relevant documentation and key staff can still be called before an inquiry committee. Therefore, I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.34 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Sydney 2000 Games Administration Bill. The object of the bill is to wind up certain Olympic agencies as a consequence of the completion of the Sydney Olympic Games and Paralympics Games. The bill provides that on 1 January 2001 the members of the board of directors of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, SOCOG, and the Chief Executive Officer of SOCOG cease to hold their offices and the functions of SOCOG will then be exercised by the Director-General of the Olympic Co-ordination Authority. The bill provides also for the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee, SPOC, to be dissolved on 1 January 2001 and for its assets, rights and liabilities to be transferred to the Olympic Co-ordination Authority. Finally, the bill provides for the Olympic Roads and Transport Authority to be dissolved on a date to be appointed by the Governor by proclamation.

We believe this is an efficient bill. The ongoing operations of the Olympic Co-ordination Authority do not cause any concern to us. Previous speakers have said that the situation was different in previous Olympic cities. Olympic cities like Atlanta did not have government involvement; there was no such thing as an Olympic co-ordination authority. In Atlanta there was just the Atlanta Olympic Committee. Obviously, if that were a sole body there may have been a delay in dissolving it because there was no other authority to take charge of any assets or outstanding matters. Sydney has the Olympic Co-ordination Authority. Therefore, I view this situation as totally different to what happened in other Olympic cities. I am sure the International Olympic Committee will accept what the Government is doing because it is allowing an ongoing body to continue to take responsibility for Olympic matters.

We understand the SOCOG board supports the legislation; it is hard to understand why the Opposition in this House opposes it. Chris Hartcher, Opposition member of the SOCOG board, supports the decision by the SOCOG board to support this legislation. There are rumours behind the scenes and maybe the Hon. G. S. Pearce, because of his strong opposition to the bill, highlights perhaps through some leadership tension within the Opposition that this bill is not really the issue at the centre of this debate; that there is another debate between the leadership contenders in the Opposition who wish to replace the current leader. I believe Opposition comments in this debate are about Mr Hartcher versus Mr O'Farrell, which really has nothing to do with this House.

If SOCOG continues to exist, even though it does not want to, each member will receive $50,000 per year for doing nothing. If anyone wanted to give a front-page story to the Daily Telegraph, that would be it: the Opposition in this House helping to defeat a bill so that members of SOCOG could get a handout from the taxpayers of New South Wales. Certainly the media and public would condemn that as an outrageous rort of taxpayer funds. That is another reason why I believe this House should support this bill. We all know that SOCOG stumbled in its organisational role. Honourable members learnt of serious problems during the inquiry I chaired into the ticketing fiasco. Reference was made to Mr Reading and others who were employed through SOCOG. There came a need for the Olympic Co-ordination Authority to move in on SOCOG and take over a great deal of the running of the Olympic Games. I am not suggesting SOCOG did not contribute to the success of Games. It is hard to know unless you are inside the organisation, but I believe the final outstanding efficiency and success was due in many ways to the involvement of the Olympic Co-ordination Authority, a very professional body with experienced officers such as Mr David Richmond and others.

I am not taking away from SOCOG but a large part of the success would have been as a result of the Olympic Co-ordination Authority taking over responsibility for the Games. All of us have shared in the debate on the success of the Games. I do not wish to repeat the remarks I made in that debate; they are recorded in Hansard. All the persons involved with the Olympics, from the President of the International Olympic Committee down—I include the head of the International Paralympics Committee—have said that they were the most successful Games in history. And both torch relays were very successful.

There is no doubt that the Auditor-General will still be able to examine any special areas of concern drawn to his attention. In the last weeks before the Games there was a tremendous response by the Australian public and the ticket sales target was met. But at the time the $140 million was allocated the Government, SOCOG and the Olympic Co-ordination Authority did not know that the tickets would be sold. Had they not been sold there would have been a deficit. So in many ways it was an insurance policy to have the money in hand should the tickets not sell as well as hoped. I am sure that all members are very pleased that there was almost a ticket sell-out and the SOCOG budget was finally met.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You never found out where the bodies were buried, did you?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Some of the $140 million will come back to the Government and therefore to the taxpayers. In response to the interjection of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, the committee found out everything. The Olympic ticketing committee had an agreement that we would not make public the names of people on lists. That was by decision of this House. A committee should uphold the rules laid down by the House. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti may break the rules and go beyond the authority of a committee but I would not do that. The accounts must be finalised by December 2000. There is an expectation that that will be achieved except for the legal matters. The Opposition has argued that SOCOG should stay in existence because there will be outstanding legal matters. Those legal matters could go for five years. Is the Opposition suggesting that board members of SOCOG should keep getting $50,000 each for five years?

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You do not just wind it up and bury it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Nothing is being buried; it is being transferred to the Olympic Co-ordination Authority. Copies of the records will be transferred to the State Library and the other records will go into the archives. So members of the Opposition will be able to read the records, because of the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. We will support that amendment. I note the criticism of the Games. Some Opposition members have had to withdraw their criticism because of the tremendous success of the Games. I see the attempt to stop this bill as part of the carping criticism of the Olympic Games. There is still a feeling that politically it would have been better had the Games been a failure. Then the Opposition could have nailed the Government to the wall. But the success of the Games has pulled the mat from underneath Opposition members. We support the bill. We are pleased that the Hon. Chris Hartcher and others believe that the bill is the way to go, even though the party room overruled his correct judgment. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.45 p.m.]: I did not intend to take part in this debate but I will for two reasons. First, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile spoke, which often stirs my imagination. Second, I have a firm belief, as my colleague the Hon. G. S. Pearce, who made a fine beginning in this Chamber—

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: He broke the protocol of the House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: If speaking your mind on an important bill, if bringing forward your maiden speech because you feel passionate about the public efforts of the people of New South Wales—

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Personal attacks.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: What a hypocrite! I will talk about the hypocrisy of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in a moment. This is something my friend the Hon. G. S. Pearce could not do. He was more concerned about the issues at stake with the bill. I am pleased to announce to the House that there are considerable tensions within the Christian Democratic Party. While the Hon. Elaine Nile is still praying to try to work out what she is going to do—

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: She knows what she is going to do.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Hon. Elaine Nile wanted to retire. She was unwell.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Point of order: Surely the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is straying way outside the standing orders relating to relevance. This bill is about the wind-up of SOCOG and other aspects of the—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. J. R. Johnson): Order! I have heard enough. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will restrain himself and not proceed along the lines that were set by the recently delivered inaugural speech.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I hope that will go down as a President's ruling. I am not reflecting on it in any way. I was about to speak to the point of order but for the Hon. I. M. Macdonald to accuse me of not sticking to the point is like the pot calling the whole fire black. I will come to the point. As the Hon. G. S. Pearce said, in very simple terms, this is burning the books. It is a bit Hitler-like. You get rid of all the evidence. There is nobody left standing. Had Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile done a decent job in the committee that he chaired, if he had been forensic enough instead of pussyfooting around—

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We did.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I disagree with you. Is that all right? No amount of your saying, "I did, I did," will make any difference. I thought it was a wimpish attempt to try to find out for the people of New South Wales and you buried a third-level person.

[Interruption]

Ignoring the interruption, I recognise in the Chamber the presence of the person who effectively put SOCOG back on the tracks, Michael Eyers, a person for whose administrative ability I have had considerable admiration for some time. Had SOCOG gone on the way it was, with Michael Knight fighting with Sandy Hollway, without some good management in there it could have come off the rails big time. The people of New South Wales owe a debt to Michael Eyers for coming on board and helping to put the whole thing back on track and running. Without the people running the Olympic Co-ordination Authority, Rob Leece and Richmond, this whole show would have gone off the rails big time.

The tension that existed within the operation of SOCOG, without the support of Michael Knight and Sandy Hollway, was becoming very obvious. I persist by returning to what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said about whether the Hon. Chris Hartcher supports the bill. He does not support the bill and voted publicly against it in the Legislative Assembly. As to whether the Hon. Elaine Nile resigned, a person was nominated to replace her but suddenly Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile did not like that, there was a shuffle and the Hon. Elaine Nile is well again. I congratulate her on her recovery to good health and welcome her back into the Chamber. It is wonderful that she is very well and I am pleased she has stayed. The issue that she resigned is real and she resigned publicly so that she could be replaced. A person was chosen by the Christian Democratic Party, in its usual despotic way; a person was nominated and came forward but suddenly the Hon. Elaine Nile got better.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Point of order: This has nothing to do with the bill and I ask that the honourable member return to the leave of the bill.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti knows the standing orders.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: In returning to the bill, I draw the attention of honourable members to one more matter. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said I am a gentleman and a scholar—

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Do not tell porkies about me then.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Hon. Elaine Nile interrupts to say that I am telling porkies. I would not dream of doing that. I am simply relating the public record in the Daily Telegraph, which I know the Treasurer does not read.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Does your leader agree with these comments?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It has nothing to do with the leader. I am speaking today because Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that the Liberal Party was trying to perpetuate an outrageous rort by keeping SOCOG people in position. I have been meaning to say this for a while about outrageous rorts. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile comes into this Chamber and parades morality every day. For him to double-dip in the way that he is reported as double-dipping is an outrageous moral rort on the people of New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Point of order: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is making personal reflections on a member of this House. I ask him to withdraw that remark.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is well conversant with the standing orders. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has asked for a withdrawal and an apology.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Can I ask what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile wants withdrawn?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The words that it was an outrageous rort and double-dipping by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. If the honourable member does not know what he is saying, he should not speak in the House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: To the point of order: Outrageous rorts were the words of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile against the Liberal Party in trying to maintain what it believes is its rightful role as an Opposition, that is, to keep the Government to account. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile called that an outrageous rort. In terms of public interest the outrageous rort of double-dipping, which has been widely reported in the Daily Telegraph, was simply repeated by me. These are words used in the public media about the actions of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Further to the point of order: I ask the honourable member to respond. Under Standing Order 80, he cannot debate the matter.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has sought a withdrawal and apology for the remarks made by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. I ask the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to conform with the standing orders.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am more than happy to withdraw. Since Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile did not ask for an apology, I am not prepared to apologise. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile might not understand the Westminster system when he criticises the Opposition. It is incumbent upon Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to expose any problems, in its breadth and depth, about any legislation or, more important, to expose any problems with the operations of any government or government agencies. He is now criticising the Opposition for doing its job. It is a shame he does not do the same. However, the crossbench does not have that responsibility; in fact, it has little responsibility. In the public interest, the Opposition is responsible for bringing to the attention of the people of New South Wales any shortfall in the operations and spending of taxpayers' money. The Opposition will continue to do that despite the fact that it will be criticised. Will Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile pledge to do the same thing? The Opposition gave support to the Games but there are certain problems that need to be sorted out. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile does not believe that is the Opposition's job, he does not understand the system, no matter how long he has been a member of Parliament.

It is important to try to maintain SOCOG and at least maintain all the records. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that all the records will go to the State Library. I have news for him. The minute that SOCOG is wound up, there will be the biggest shredding and fire sale. It will be impossible to find out who did what and who said what to whom; there will be no record. SOCOG should remain at least until all the bills are paid and until we know what is going on. I agree with the comments of the Hon. G. S. Pearce and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I oppose the bill.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their varied contributions to this debate, some more colourful than others. It was somewhat strange to endure that last contribution from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who obviously is flushed with the success of having been appointed to a new position in the Army, for which this House graciously congratulated him this morning. Throughout this bill the Opposition, particularly the last two speakers, attempted to suggest that the bill is an endeavour to sweep the financial affairs of SOCOG under the carpet or, even worse, to enable the shredding of information or further hiding of information held by that body in relation to the Olympic Games. This legislation is far from that. If honourable members choose to carefully read the bill they will realise it has nothing to do with an endeavour to hide anything in relation to the Olympic Games. There will be legislative scrutiny of the government authority that will take charge of the affairs of the other bodies as they are, in effect, wound up. In fact, legislative scrutiny in relation to the Olympic Co-ordination Authority [OCA] is stronger than the legislative scrutiny of SOCOG.

The Auditor-General will still prepare a comprehensive review of SOCOG finances, as he has done each year that SOCOG and OCA have existed. Furthermore, the comments made by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. G. S. Pearce are totally inappropriate when one takes into account the fact that ICAC has a watching brief over all these matters and has total access to any of the records. It seems to have escaped the attention of honourable members that ICAC will remain the body that in the end can scrutinise, and if necessary, review the efforts of the various authorities that are being wound up in this bill. Indeed, with all documents and responsibility resting with just one statutory body, OCA, scrutiny is improved and those responsible for the wind-up and public reporting are held accountable. The points made by the last speakers for the Opposition are totally inappropriate and inaccurate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill committed, progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______

SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE SUPERANNUATION FUND

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. The Minister gave an undertaking on 31 October in the following terms: "I will take steps to withdraw my superannuation funds from Chinchilla on the Bay, thereby enabling me to resign as a director and sever any connection to the holdings of Chinchilla on the Bay." What steps has the Minister taken to withdraw his superannuation funds from Chinchilla on the Bay Pty Ltd? Has he as yet resigned as a director of that company? If so, on what date did his resignation become effective? When was it advised to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The line of questioning being persisted with by the Leader of the Opposition is consistent with an Opposition that does not have anything more important to talk about. My remarks, as made the other day and quoted by him, remain an accurate summary of the circumstances. At my request, my accountant has started the process to secure the undertakings I gave to the House. I have given them in public and repeated them. I do not intend to repeat them again.

CASUAL WORKERS PARENTAL LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS

The Hon. I. W. WEST: My question without notice is for the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House of the provisions for pregnant casual workers in New South Wales, in line with the recent announcement by McDonald's to extend parental leave to casual workers?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The New South Wales Government is leading among State governments in approving parental leave entitlements for casual workers. The Government recognises that increasingly employees are being engaged on a casual rather than on a permanent basis and cannot be left outside the protection of these basic entitlements. Honourable members may recall that it was the previous Labor Government, the Wran Government, that introduced long service leave for casual employees. From 9 October this year every casual worker who has worked on a regular and systematic basis for two years is entitled to take up to 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave with a guaranteed right to return to work at the end of that leave. It is very promising to see that a major company such as McDonald's has demonstrated good corporate citizenship by extending parental leave to its casual work force.

I agree with the comments of the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Susan Halliday, and her criticism of the Federal Government for complete lack of leadership on this issue. The criticism stems from the failure of the Federal Government to agree to amend the Federal Workplace Relations Act to extend the right to unpaid maternity leave to casual employees in accordance with the recommendation recently made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in its report, "Pregnant and Productive. The Report of the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry." The response from the Federal Government leaves many working families in Australia exposed to job insecurity and financial uncertainty in the wake of the birth of a child. This is unnecessary, unfair and, I might say, anti-family. How ironic that today at a luncheon—held in the Hilton Hotel in the city—to present awards to employers for their family friendly work practices, the person presenting the awards was none other than the Federal Minister for Workplace Relations, the very family friendly Peter Reith. During the past five years the New South Wales Government has demonstrated its commitment to working families and their rights to job security.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He would be welcome in Crookwell.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: He might do well in Crookwell. That would probably be one of the few places he would do well. I would urge the acolytes of Peter Reith opposite to become apostates.

NEW SOUTH WALES GRAINS BOARD LOAN

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that Government Gazette No. 146 contains a change to the Public Authorities Financial Arrangements Act allowing for loans to the Minister for Agriculture for the New South Wales Grains Board of an amount not exceeding $13 million? Will the Treasurer explain to the taxpayers of this State what that money will actually be used for? Is the Treasurer further aware that the total debt of the Grains Board is well in excess of $90 million? Given that this is a $13 million loan and that the $25.2 million paid by Grainco for the Grains Board does not go anywhere near covering that debt, will he explain where the rest of the money will come from? Will he guarantee that the farmers of New South Wales will in no way be liable for the remainder of the debt?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am aware of Government Gazette No. 146, but I will obtain a detailed explanation.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It's in your name.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, it is in my name. I will obtain a detailed explanation for the honourable member.

INDIGENOUS FISHERS

The Hon. I. COHEN: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, and relates to problems being experienced by indigenous fishers in southern New South Wales. Does the Government accept that there are problems with the issuing of notices and fines in writing to indigenous fishers, given claims that a number of these fishers cannot read official documents? Is the Government aware of the implications of the Northern Territory case of Stephen Drover, who went to prison for failing to pay fines and was later released because of his established inability to read the fine notices presented to him? Given the fact that third generation indigenous fishers have missed out on fishing licences because all details about the licensing process—such as meetings, applications and appeals—are made in writing, what are the legal ramifications of this for indigenous fishers in New South Wales? Will the Attorney General undertake initiatives to redress such bureaucratic discrimination?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Attorney General for a considered response.

PARLIAMENTARY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROTOCOLS

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. Can the Minister advise if the Attorney General, as the Minister administering the Anti-Discrimination Act, has made any recommendations to the Presiding Officers to ensure that there are clear procedures and protocols to protect the rights of victims of alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault within the Parliament?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her question, which I shall refer to the Attorney General.

BROKEN HILL MINERALS EXPLORATION

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. How does the Government plan to encourage further mineral exploration in the Broken Hill region?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. A. B. Kelly, the convener of Country Labor, for his continued interest in regional New South Wales. Broken Hill has been one of the greatest mining regions in the world. Since 1883, it has supplied more than $70 billion worth of silver, lead and zinc. It has one of the best local members it has ever had in Peter Black. With existing reserves dwindling, new deposits are needed to ensure this proud mining history continues. The Carr Government has contributed $5 million during the past six years to the Broken Hill Exploration Initiative, a joint initiative funded by the Commonwealth, South Australian and New South Wales governments.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What sort of speech did Blackie make on FreightCorp? A very good one, in favour of privatising FreightCorp!

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is the shadow Minister for Mining, is not listening to what I have to say about regional New South Wales, which is in the interests of the Broken Hill community. Where is his interest? Why does he not listen?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: How can you say that I was not listening?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: You were not listening, you were talking. The program of geological and geophysical surveys and research is encouraging exploration in the Broken Hill region. The Government has allocated a further $3.5 million from its new $30 million Exploration New South Wales initiative to fund the continuation of the Broken Hill exploration initiative. That $3.5 million will partly address reduced Commonwealth funding, a void we are determined not to leave unfilled. In 1995-96 the Commonwealth provided $2.3 million towards the Broken Hill exploration initiative. This declined to $400,000 in 1999-2000 and it is anticipated that the Commonwealth will spend only $350,000 this financial year.

The Commonwealth plans to focus more attention on South Australia rather than New South Wales. However, the New South Wales Government will continue to fund exploration in the region. An additional senior geologist will be recruited to strengthen the Department of Mineral Resources team in Broken Hill. That focus of the Government's work will not solely be on the discovery of minerals; oil and gas exploration and development is also being targeted. The New South Wales Government plans to spend an extra $4 million on surveys to encourage petroleum exploration in the sedimentary basins of western New South Wales. That includes the Eromanga Basin in the far north-west of New South Wales and the Darling Basin in the far south west.

Major companies already exploring the region include BHP, Western Mining Corporation, Newcrest, Delta Gold, Phelps Dodge—a company which recently returned to New South Wales after a number of years away—Billiton and Homestake. Junior explorers include Platsearch, Triako and Tri-origin. The giant Canadian company, Inco, recently committed $1 million to exploring the region in partnership with Platsearch. I am confident that the Government's efforts will lead to the identification and development of significant new mines for the benefit of western New South Wales communities.

TRAMPOLINE SAFETY

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Fair Trading. The publications "Injury Bulletin No. 58", published by the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit, and "Hazard" edition No. 42, published by the Victorian Injury Surveillance and Applied Research Centre, reported on trampoline-related injuries. Both publications noted that currently there is no Australian standard in place to facilitate the design, behavioural and environmental changes required to reduce trampoline injuries.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: Question time is for asking questions, not for making statements. The member has spoken for about four sentences and they were all statements and contained not one question.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: To the point of order: In order to set the scene, I am giving the Minister some background information so that my question is both valid and understood.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: To the point of order: As my colleague said, question time is for the seeking of information, not for the giving of information. You will recall that there have been many Presidents' rulings dealing with questions without notice stating that they should be brief, succinct and to the point. . It has been stated that if the question being asked is lengthy and required the giving of a lot of information it should be placed on notice . Perhaps this question should be placed on notice.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: To the point of order: I am extremely interested in the question and I, for one, as a backbench member am interested in hearing the question, but not the filibustering. I would also like to hear the answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have been concerned for some time about the length of questions asked during question time. Some parliaments throughout the world place a limit of 30 to 35 seconds on the length of questions. If such a limit were imposed in this House, members of the Opposition would be as guilty as members on the crossbenches of asking lengthy questions. Standing orders provide that a question may contain sufficient information to render the question understandable; however, in asking a question a member should not seek to debate any point. I rule that the Hon. A. G. Corbett in asking his question was not debating a point but was merely giving information. The honourable member may proceed but he should try to keep his question precise.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: Minister, given that the vast majority of trampoline accidents occur at home, the many contributing risk factors associated with trampoline use, the absence of a national standard, and the importance of education for purchasers and users of trampolines, will you, in co-operation with your colleagues in other States and Territories, investigate trampoline-related accidents in order to minimise future injuries to children?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have no doubt about the sincerity and genuine concern of the Hon. A. G. Corbett about all users of trampolines.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: We won a medal at the Games for trampolining.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes. Many families and children use trampolines. As a matter of fact my grandchildren have a trampoline. I am more than happy to obtain a sensible and quick answer for the Hon. A. G. Corbett from my colleague the Hon. John Watkins.

FAIRFIELD POLICE STATION

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Premier and the Minister for Police. Following the Premier's statement made today that the Government would not be closing the Cabramatta police station, will the Minister now give an iron-clad guarantee that the Fairfield police station will also not be closed or downgraded?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member’s question to the Minister for Police.

WORKERS COMPENSATION RESOLUTION SERVICE

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Assistant Treasurer a question without notice. Will the Minister advise the House of any arrangements by the Workers Compensation Resolution Service for conciliation conferences to be conducted in regional New South Wales?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question as it provides me with the opportunity to advise the House of further action being taken by the Carr Government to provide equitable services to all residents of New South Wales. The Workers Compensation Resolution Service, which forms part of New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations, is responsible for the conciliation of disputed workers compensation claims as a mandatory prerequisite to applicants being able to lodge their dispute with the Compensation Court. The conciliation process relies on face-to-face conferences involving the parties to the dispute.

Of the applications received for conciliation by the Workers Compensation Resolution Service, approximately 40 per cent involve workers who reside outside the greater Sydney metropolitan area. To ensure that these applicants have the same opportunity to resolve their disputes without the need to go to court, conciliators regularly travel to regional areas throughout the State to conduct conciliation conferences. The timing of these visits is dependent upon demand and the time constraints contained in the statute. As honourable members would no doubt appreciate, the number of applications received in the Illawarra and the Hunter is such that conciliators have a weekly presence in those regions.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: To make sure that all honourable members are aware, I believe the Minister is making a ministerial statement. He should reserve that for the time allotted to ministerial statements, which is after question time.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I repeat for the information of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti that it is a tradition in this House that Ministers may answer questions in the way they see fit. The Minister may proceed.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thought it was a very direct answer to the question. Honourable members may also recall that my predecessor as Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Jeff Shaw, QC, advised the House in October 1999 of his opening of the Workers Compensation Resolution Service premises within the Department of Industrial Relations contact centre at Coffs Harbour. I am pleased to be able to advise honourable members that the Workers Compensation Resolution Service also uses Department of Industrial Relations premises at Newcastle, Wollongong and Wagga Wagga. In addition to the obvious financial and administrative benefits of such arrangements, the use of these premises also provides access to information and the many services provided by the Department of Industrial Relations to both employers and employees. I am also advised that the convening of conciliation conferences throughout the State is welcomed by participants who reside outside the Sydney metropolitan area.

SPEED CAMERA INSTALLATIONS

The Hon. M. I. JONES: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister confirm whether new permanent speed cameras have been mounted on power poles and the like at sites such as Woy Woy Road at Kariong, and the New England Highway at Armidale? The list of sites covers two pages. For the sake of brevity, I will put the question on notice. Further, will the Minister ensure that, as requested by the police, repeater notices are placed on telegraph posts to notify motorists of the speed limits, as there are currently many different speed limits ranging from 35 to 110 kilometres per hour?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. M. I. Jones for his very serious question. I am more than happy to obtain a very serious answer from my colleague in the other House.

EAST COAST TRAWL FISHERY RESTRUCTURE

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is a long time since you asked me a question.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I asked you a question yesterday.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You asked the question of the wrong Minister.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I asked it of the Minister who should have known something about the question, but you did not. In view of the Queensland Government's restructuring of the east coast trawl fishery, can the Minister advise of the implications of this restructuring for fishers in the Tweed region who hold joint licences to fish in Queensland and New South Wales waters? For example, are their entitlements on a Queensland vessel split from their New South Wales entitlements? What consultation and specific advice has been provided to Tweed fishers by the New South Wales Government to deal with this issue?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am more than happy to share information with the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. I am advised that the Commonwealth, with its responsibilities to protect the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, has a substantial interest in this area. The Federal Government has announced that it may commit $10 million towards a structural adjustment scheme for Queensland's east coast trawl fishery. I understand that the State Government has offered to match the figure, but only if the conditions outlined by the Commonwealth are met. Consultation will take place to investigate options to collect the necessary industry funding. It is expected to take at least until the end of November before any final announcement is made.

The funding is dependent on the commercial fishing industry, which must also put in $10 million; and amendments being made to the trawl management plan to reduce fishing effort by 15 per cent, close non-trawled areas and to introduce by-catch reduction devices and turtle-excluder devices on a mandatory basis; and any necessary adjustments that are made must be fair and equitable to small family operators who might be disadvantaged by the scheme; and guarantees must be given that there will be an up-front reduction in effort below 1996 levels, with the reductions targeted to the world heritage listed area; and agreement must be reached on a comprehensive review of the fishery, which is to take place in 2003. If that review does not demonstrate that the fishery is ecologically sustainable, a further reduction in effort of 5 per cent each year must be implemented in 2004 and 2005. A commitment must be given that the Queensland Government will report formally to the Commonwealth's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the management of the fishery.

It is interesting to note that ProFish New South Wales—and I am sure the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner's question came from ProFish—claims that this Queensland proposal mirrors one put to me by stakeholders earlier this year. Yet I do not recall ProFish offering $10 million to assist in a restructure. The only industry-funded restructuring proposal I recall was one from ProFish to tax the transfer of fishing businesses to raise $1 million from commercial fishers. I have asked ProFish to supply more detail on its proposal. When this information is forthcoming I will refer the suggestion to the advisory council on commercial fishing for their advice.

As Commonwealth decisions affect New South Wales managed fisheries, I would welcome a Commonwealth contribution to help restructure commercial fishing. I expressed this view at the recent Ministerial Council on Fisheries and Aquaculture on 28 July this year. Perhaps ProFish and the Opposition should consider focusing their efforts on being constructive rather than continuing to distribute incorrect, misleading and inflammatory information. I emphasise that I am more than willing to consider any serious proposal to assist in an industry restructure. I would be happy to advise the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner further as to the impact of dual licensing for New South Wales and Queensland commercial fishers.

SALINITY PILOT PROJECTS

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister provide to the House details of what the Government is doing to address the problems of salinity in regional New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for her question on what is for the whole nation a very important issue. I note with some concern that the Opposition seems to think that salinity is a joking matter.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What the Government is going to do about it is the most important thing.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Let me assure the House that the New South Wales Government regards this as a very serious national problem.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The Government has done nothing about it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not know what has happened to Opposition members today. They have had a bad day.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Someone forgot to give them their little red ones.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think that is the problem with the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. I have to admit that he is one of my favourite people. However, from time to time I have concerns about the state of his health.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: His mind.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to his mind. I have a theory. The state of his mind is determined by physical problems. In other words, I think we can put everything down to a physiological cause. I am not expert in these matters, but I have enough street knowledge to know when someone is unwell. I suggest that we refer him in the first instance to a general practitioner.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On several occasions you have said that Ministers may not give legal opinions, but the Treasurer is giving a medical opinion.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am being careful not to give an expert medical opinion, but I am suggesting that there is enough information and evidence to lead us to recommend to the honourable gentleman that he should get some medical attention.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Send him to me.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is a very good suggestion from the Hon. Elaine Nile. On a more serious note, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the performance of Opposition members. Today has not been one of their better days, and they have had very few good days since they became the Opposition almost six years ago. It is not good for the health of this Parliament, the health of this State, or the health of this nation for the once formidable Liberal and National parties to be in the pathetic shape we have seen today. It seems that matters go from bad to worse.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You always do this when you can't answer the question.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is a dorothy dixer, you silly man! I have the answer here. It is all written out for me.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is one of your own questions and you cannot answer it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is an opportunity for me to give some advice to this Opposition, which is wallowing on less than 40 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You cannot even answer your own question. Why are you asked these questions if you can't answer them?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: A closer contest is in the interests of us all. Opposition members must pull up their socks. They must improve their performance; otherwise we will all be the losers. I tried to give that advice as sincerely as I could, but it has been rejected. They will not listen to good advice. I am always here to help. I am prepared to sit down with them. I am prepared to help them pull up their socks and improve their performance.

Last weekend the Premier announced four new pilot projects for New South Wales that form part of this Government's plan to fight one of Australia's biggest environmental problems: salinity. The core aim of the four projects is to restore salinity-affected farmland to sustainable use. We will set up a salinity credit trading scheme on the Liverpool Plains in the Namoi Valley, which will enable land managers to offset land clearing in one part of the catchment by planting trees in another. We will also set up an Environmental Services Investment Fund to pool money from the Government and private sector, with those funds going to approved projects to rehabilitate salinity-affected properties. We will also set up a new system for crediting environmentally sound farm management practices. Also labels will be developed to identify environmentally friendly produce for consumers.

New arrangements allowing farmers' sustainable land management practices to be taken into account when they are applying for loans and insurance will also be put in place. They are four very specific, very practical programs. These four programs were identified in a recent report to the Premier by the Experts Group on Market Based Solutions to salinity problems. The experts group was established following the State Government's Salinity Summit, comprising leading individuals from the public and private sector. I am pleased to say that the experts group, ably chaired by Treasury's Dr Gul Izmir, has put forward a comprehensive range of market-based instruments for public and private sector consideration in the fight against salinity.

As a nation we must seriously address the problems of salinity. Our legacy cannot be a barren continent for future generations. All these new programs are based on landowners being able to address the problems of salinity in an economically viable way. Our plans will address widespread environmental problems like land, water and air degradation and at the same time ensure that farmers can make a good living working their land. For these and other market-based solutions to the salinity problem to work, a trading vehicle, similar to a stock exchange, is needed to trade environmental credits. This is something the private sector must take the lead in developing.

The four new pilot projects complement a number of other initiatives announced previously in the New South Wales salinity strategy. One of those initiatives, the Environmental Services Investment Fund, has been set up to finance new ways to manage salinity and other environmental issues. New South Wales will work closely with the Commonwealth and the other States to finalise agreement on salinity plans recently approved by the Council of Australian Governments. I welcome the Commonwealth's commitment, which picks up on the New South Wales salinity strategy released in August. It is anticipated that the former pilot projects will get under way early in the new year. I congratulate the members of Country Labor, who have worked particularly hard on arriving at this important program.

RED KANGAROO SLAUGHTER

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for the Environment, whether the Minister is aware that the continued killing of the largest breeding male and female red kangaroos by the rapacious kangaroo industry will lead, within a few generations, to big reds becoming small reds. Does the Minister acknowledge that this is already happening and that there are many fewer big reds outside Sturt National Park? Is the Minister aware that road-kill evidence alone points to the decline in the size of red kangaroos, as the only ones run over outside conservation areas are small animals? Is the Minister also aware that rangers in the South Australiaan national parks service are concerned about the shooting of alpha males and females for the same reason? Will the Minister continue to allow the unabated slaughter of alpha male and female red kangaroos, or call a halt to it before the damage to the species is irreversible?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am more familiar—and I suspect the Hon. J. H. Jobling is—with what is known as full-bodied reds rather than big reds and small reds.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You have got a few of them behind you.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I honestly do not know the answer—

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You have got some full-bodied reds sitting behind you.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, full-bodied reds are drinks, good Australian full-bodied red wine.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: There is an anarchist red, too.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: There are a lot of rubbishy reds that the anarchists, the trots, the Stalinists and others bottle and sell at exploitative prices.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: What about the wine in Griffith, the merlot?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Merlot is a very good wine.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: The Miranda merlot.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Full marks to the Miranda merlot. I do not know the answer to the question of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, but I will find out.

BUILDING INDUSTRY TASK FORCE

The Hon. G. S. PEARCE: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. In light of a serious allegation made on the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald will the Government give serious consideration to re-establishing the building industry task force to get to the bottom of these serious and systemic allegations of corruption in that industry?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I must admit that I have not read this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, so I can only glean from the honourable member's question what it is about. I will read the article, and I will refer it to my colleague the Attorney General in the other place. However, I am very suspicious of leading or front-page articles in the Sydney Morning Herald. One article yesterday predicted that Australia was headed for an economic recession. It was the most prominent article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That's nonsense!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says, it is nonsense. It is true that most economic data usually has a potential upside and a potential downside. But, unfortunately, the Hanrahans will always focus on the potential downside. "We'll all be ruined," said Hanrahan. For the Hanrahans of this world when the sun is shining that means we are heading for a drought; when it is raining we are heading for flood; and when the grass is growing we are heading for a bushfire. The Sydney Morning Herald news columns always sell Australia short. They have always predicted doom and gloom. In fact, the Sydney Morning Herald has always been at the forefront of the Hanrahans. It has always scoured the globe to find some survey, chief economist, XYZ securities or whatever to back up its theme. However, as the last decade shows, the Sydney Morning Herald's negativity is usually misplaced.

Between 1991-92 and 1998-99—I use that period because they are the only figures available in the interstate comparisons put out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics every month—Australia has had economic growth of some 35 per cent. In other words, that is almost double the rate of the seven major OECD countries. For example, over that period Japan had growth of 7 per cent, Germany and Italy 9 per cent, France 10 per cent, United Kingdom 21 per cent, Canada 23 per cent, the United States of America 28 per cent, Australia 35 per cent, and the seven major OECD countries 18 per cent.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Ireland?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Ireland is not one of the major seven OECD countries. Notwithstanding Australia's great and sustained performance during the whole of the 1990s, I cannot remember a time when readers of the Sydney Morning Herald would ever have been able to form an optimistic outlook from what they read in its news columns. I emphasise "news columns", because writers like Ross Gittins are intelligent, thoughtful and balanced writers. Ross Gittins normally does not write the news columns. Whilst no-one can predict economic cycles or international economic influences with certainty, one thing is clear: largely because of economic and structural reforms over almost two decades, Australia has been transformed into a very competitive, open, efficient and adaptable economy. Those reforms have been the work of Federal and State governments of both sides of the political fence. I must say also that they have been accompanied by the development of a much more dynamic upward-looking and forward-looking Australian business culture. I have no doubt that Australia will continue to outperform the rest of the world over the coming decade, just as we have over the last decade.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Not if building costs blow out because of corruption in the industry.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Certainly if there is corruption in the building industry that would be a matter not only of economic concern but of much more general concern. If honourable members have specific instances, those matters should be referred to the appropriate authorities: the police, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or whomever.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He's answering the question!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The question was about the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. I had not read this morning's front page, but I had read yesterday's. I thought I would tell honourable members a bit about yesterday's as well as today's front page. I would be very happy to refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Attorney General.

RURAL AND REGIONAL FIRST HOME BUYERS

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. How is the Government helping families and young people in regional New South Wales escape the rent cycle and achieve the dream of home ownership?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has always displayed a strong interest in the difficulties young people face in becoming home owners. I am pleased to inform her and the House that families in rural and regional New South Wales are outpacing their city counterparts in taking up the New South Wales Government's First Home Buyers Scheme. People from regional and rural New South Wales account for almost two out of every three applications under this new scheme. Since the First Home Plus scheme was introduced in July, more than 6,500 first home buyers in regional New South Wales have moved into their new homes. As of 26 October more than 830 first-time home buyers on the mid-North and North Coast had taken advantage of the scheme. Elsewhere the program has had an overwhelming response, including 433 on the South Coast, 1,257 in the Hunter and Upper Hunter, 907 in the Central West, 565 in Wollongong and 411 in New England.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You would have this scheme without the GST.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We would certainly have part of the scheme because, as the Hon. J. F. Ryan points out, there are two aspects of the scheme. There is the joint Commonwealth-State first home buyers grant of $7,000, and the First Home Plus component is the full or partial exemption from stamp duty, depending on the price of the property, which in many cases can be worth up to $6,000.

[Interruption]

They compete with one another with their interjections. They block one another out. When two young men, Pezzutti and Ryan, first came in here, we thought, "They have promise. They will be promoted quickly." But they are still on the backbenches. Now there are new members—I would not say bright-eyed and bushy tailed—who are competing to overtake them in the promotion stakes. Young families in regional and rural New South Wales are taking full advantage of the new stamp duty concessions for first home buyers announced in this year's State budget. With our concession, plus the $7,000 first home owners grant, almost every first home buyer in country New South Wales is now eligible for up to $12,000 in stamp duty exemptions and grants. So far, home buyers in regional New South Wales are better off by more than $49.5 million since the introduction of the two new schemes.

Young people are now finding it easier to fulfil their dreams of home ownership. As the House is aware, under the First Home Plus scheme, first time home buyers in regional New South Wales pay no stamp duty on homes worth up to $175,000 and reduced stamp duty on homes valued at up to $250,000. With about three-quarters of all homes in regional New South Wales selling under the $175,000 mark, nearly all first home buyers are seeing the full benefit of the scheme. That is an interesting statistic: three-quarters of all homes sold in regional New South Wales sell under the $175,000 mark. One recent first home buyer is Ms Michelle Paine, a single mother of two who saved about $10,000 on a home she bought recently in Surf Street, Kingscliff. Ms Paine calls the schemes a godsend. She said:

I had the pleasure of meeting Ms Paine.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: When?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Two months ago.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Have you been up visiting napping Neville?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I not only visited Mr Neville Newell, a first-class member, but I also attended a Cabinet meeting. Whilst I was there I visited Ms Paine. The Government is pleased to have played a role in helping New South Wales families achieve their dream of their first home.

DRUG REHABILITATION

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that visiting Chief of Research at the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Dr Jane Maxwell, claimed this week that heroin in Australia has increased from 16 per cent purity six years ago to over 60 per cent purity today? Would the Minister agree that this is the primary cause of the increase in heroin deaths? Rather than assist heroin users to continue their addiction through medically supervised heroin shooting galleries, will the Government provide expanded rehabilitation facilities to help heroin addicts become drug free? What action has the Minister taken to achieve the goal of a drug-free Australia through rehabilitation of addicts, and prevention and education programs?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I take the opportunity to point out a number of things to the House in response to the question. The first is that the Carr Labor Government, as I think the Hon. Elaine Nile probably knows, and as I am sure other members of the House know, does not support and has never supported normalisation of the use of any of the drugs currently listed as illegal. The use of heroin in particular is seen by this Government as presenting great health and crime challenges to the community. As I think the Hon. Elaine Nile would be aware, but I take the opportunity to remind her, a more than $40 million expansion in treatment and detoxification services, much of which is directed at heroin users, has been put in place as a result of the Government's Drug Summit response. The emphasis of the programs is to get people off heroin. There is no ambiguity about that. There is nothing in the Government's policy stance contrary to this in relation to medicine, crime or law enforcement.

In relation to the second part of the question about the medically supervised injecting room, the Government took the view that a diversity of treatment options, a diversity of stands by Government, might be needed in order to establish the right way to assist people to overcome heroin addiction. I am referring to people who are already using heroin as distinct from those who may be placing themselves at risk by experimenting with heroin. We are talking about various forms of detoxification and treatment programs aimed at people who are already using heroin. I respectfully correct the Hon. Elaine Nile again: the terminology used, for specific reasons, is a medically supervised injecting centre. The trial that will be commenced in the immediate future will involve as a built-in measure a program of ensuring that people who use the service are offered treatment options. They will be offered counselling and at least have some contact with health and medical authorities. We may reasonably anticipate that this will play a role in helping them to make the decision to become drug free.

In general response to the question, in relation to those who are already at the depths of the addiction cycle, the attitude of the Government has been that a compassionate view is at least to keep people alive. So the Government will shortly announce the details of a heroin overdose strategy to deal with people who are so badly in the throes of addiction that they place their very lives at risk. The only way to ensure that people eventually give up is to ensure that they live to grow out of it and get off the substance. Society cannot achieve this without keeping them alive. That is another plank in the platform on which the Hon. Elaine Nile has not always seen eye-to-eye with the Government but I am sure that in her heart of hearts she is sympathetic to the intention of the approach if not to all the ways in which the Government is proceeding.

Last but not least, part of her question referred to the treatment services and programs that have been put in place. Rather than speak at further length to the House I will provide the honourable member with a full list of the treatment services and detoxification programs that have been put in place since the Drug Summit and that will be put in place over the next year or two.

LITHGOW ALUMINIUM SMELTER ELECTRICITY CHARGES

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I ask the Treasurer, what stage has been reached in the negotiations between the State-owned electricity generators and the proponents of the Lithgow aluminium smelter? Has the Treasurer demanded an explanation from the generators, as claimed by the honourable member for Bathurst, as to why negotiations over a bulk electricity supply rate have stalled? When will he, as the shareholding Minister and the Treasurer of this State, intervene to ensure that this important venture for Lithgow goes ahead instead of moving to Queensland, where the Beattie Labor Government has expressed an interest in the project?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have written to the generators in relation to this issue. The Government is, of course, keen for this project to be located in the town of Lithgow, to be located in New South Wales. The project has considerable potential. The Government's position all along has been that any electricity price that is struck between the aluminium smelter proponents and the generators should be a commercial price. That is a principle that the proponents of the Lithgow aluminium smelter also make clear that they fully accept and agree with. They understand that commercially, from their own point of view, a subsidised price would not be looked upon favourably by potential financiers. It has to be a commercial price and the generators and the smelter proponents have to negotiate a commercial price for both sides. I hope that can be done.

GREEN SAWFISH CONSERVATION

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fisheries. What measures are being taken to protect our native fish, the green sawfish?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: What an important question. I commend the Hon. I. M. Macdonald for his keen interest in conserving the State's native fish. Recently I advised the House of my decision to list as vulnerable two native freshwater species—the silver perch and southern pygmy perch. The green sawfish is another threatened native fish. It is a shallow water species found in tropical marine and estuarine waters from Broome to Sydney. It grows to more than five metres in length and has a striking feature, a long saw or tooth on its snout. The Government is committed to protecting the sustainability of all our native fish, including the green sawfish, which has not been identified in New South Wales waters for a number of years. The fish is now so rare in New South Wales waters that the independent fisheries scientific committee has recommended to me that the green sawfish be added to the list of endangered species. The committee has advised me that the green sawfish has dramatically declined in numbers and may be facing extinction in New South Wales—similar to the Liberals.

It is believed that the decline is associated with habitat degradation and problems with being caught as a by-catch in commercial fishing operations. The fins, flesh and saws of the species are highly prized, especially in overseas markets for the traditional medicine trade. I am advised that green sawfish numbers will not increase without a clear plan for recovery of the species. I have carefully reviewed the recommendation of the fisheries scientific committee and agreed to the listing of the green sawfish under schedule 4 of the Fisheries Management Act as an endangered species. This is an important first stage in ensuring that this unique species is protected for future generations. Work will begin on developing a comprehensive recovery plan for the species in consultation with a recovery team, which will include representatives from the community, conservation and commercial interest groups. Once drafted, the recovery plan will be released for a period of public consultation before being finalised.

SYDNEY 2002 GAY GAMES

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I wish to ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is it a fact that the homosexual organisers of the so-called Gay Games in 2002 have applied to the New South Wales State Government for a $500,000 grant from taxpayers' funds? Is it a fact that the 2002 Gay Games will be divisive and discriminatory and are designed as a vehicle for homosexual propaganda? Will the Government reject any such requests for funding for the 2002 Gay Games as the pink dollar represents one of the most affluent sections of the community?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think my memory serves me correctly when I say that I am aware only from newspapers that the organisers of this event have applied for government assistance, although quite some time ago they may have made contact with my office. From the outset the Premier and the Government have said that the Government will not be making a grant to the Gay Games. It was made clear that there would be no financial assistance provided to the event when support was given to their application many years ago.

MARINE PEST INFESTATION PREVENTION

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: My question is to the Minister for Fisheries. Is the Minister aware of comments made yesterday by Gary Lightfoot, Chairman of the Lake Conjola Lake Care Committee, that netting for fish is continuing unchecked in Lake Conjola, risking the spread of the noxious and highly invasive marine algae caulerpa taxifolia? Further to the answer the Minister gave the House on 9 May, when the Minister promised action on this issue, what progress has his administration made towards containing the algae problem in Lake Conjola and to prevent its spread to our waterways on the South Coast and in New South Wales?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am not aware of the comments made by Mr Lightfoot but I am aware of the algae problem. I answered that question on 5 September. I advise the House that New South Wales Fisheries recently identified a green marine algae known as caulerpa in Port Hacking and Lake Conjola. Although native population of this species exists along the Great Barrier Reef and around Lord Howe Island, this newly found strain has different characteristics from those of the native strain. The new strain is similar to the one found in the Mediterranean. It is invasive and is known to grow quickly and smother seagrass beds, which are necessary areas for juvenile fish. It produces a substance that possibly makes it unpalatable to our native species.

The strain is also tolerant to cold water and will grow comfortably in temperatures as low as 10 degrees Celsius. The Government is concerned about the potential impact of the strain on the biodiversity of key aquatic habitats. Other States are concerned about its possible spread. For these reasons the Government is taking an active role in the management of this newly found pest. Samples of the algae were recently sent to a laboratory in Switzerland to confirm that the strain present in Port Hacking and Lake Conjola is the invasive strain. A survey has also been carried out to see whether this species can spread. Fortunately, at this stage the algae seems to be confined to the two locations, which means that the chance of limiting any further spread is much greater. My department will consult stakeholders with a range of management options that could be considered at the two locations. I am advised this will include a general public information program. Once my department has consulted on these options with all relevant stakeholders, including local councils, an appropriate response will be formulated. I wish to reiterate that this issue concerns me greatly and has been given appropriate priority by my department. As we receive further evidence on the exact situation, I will advise the House.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, they should put them on notice.

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. F. Ryan said he was just about to star. He should have started trying to star earlier in the day. He has been asleep for the whole of question time and at five past five he wants to ask his question. He will have to wait until tomorrow.

NEW SOUTH WALES GRAINS BOARD LOAN

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Earlier today in question time the the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question. I can now inform him that the $13 million to which he referred is for barley growers to be fully paid their 1999-2000 full entitlement via loans to the New South Wales Grains Board from the Crown.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is not a grant?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, it is a loan and the loan is up to $13 million. It is a loan to the board. The loan will be repaid from a $1.50 per tonne levy on buyers of grain. As honourable members will be aware, that levy is already in existence and will continue through until September 2005, if necessary.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF FOSTER CHILDREN

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 10 October the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment a question without notice regarding corporal punishment of foster children. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women has provided the following response:

BABY TRADING

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 10 October the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment a question without notice regarding baby trading. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women has provided the following response:

FIREFIGHTERS INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 11 October the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment a question without notice regarding firefighter services. The Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts has provided the following response:

DAIRY INDUSTRY DEREGULATION

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 12 October the Hon. J. H. Jobling asked me a question without notice regarding dairy deregulation. The Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Land and Water Conservation has provided the following response:

because the decision to deregulate the Victorian industry, made New South Wales price regulation ineffective and commercially untenable; and
to ensure that New South Wales dairy farmers would have access to financial assistance measures under the national dairy industry restructure package.

Dairy Assist—which provides guidance on how to access the structural adjustment fund;
Dairy Family—which aims to provide social support to dairy families as they come to grips with changes to the dairying environment; and
Dairy Check—which helps dairy farmers re-assess their businesses and explore ways to review and improve their management practices in preparation for deregulation.

NAMBUCCA VALLEY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL AND SUTHERLAND SHIRE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 11 October Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked me a question without notice regarding the Nambucca Valley Christian Community School and the Sutherland Shire Christian School. The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following response:

The requirement for school discipline policies that do not permit corporal punishment is not new. The Act was amended in 1995 to provide for the introduction of the requirement from the beginning of the 1997 school year.

While there are concerns about whether the two schools are complying with this requirement, board officers have worked with and are continuing to work with them in an endeavour to enable the schools to meet the requirements of the Act.

These schools have known of this requirement for a significant period of time and given that the schools profess to not actually using corporal discipline they could readily comply with registration requirements.

HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL USE IN SCHOOLS

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 12 October the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked me a question without notice regarding hazardous chemical use in schools. The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following response:

Questions without notice concluded.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT

Report: Inquiry into Road Maintenance and Competitive Road Maintenance Tendering

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. A. G. Kelly.

SYDNEY 2000 GAMES ADMINISTRATION BILL

In Committee

Parts 1 to 4 agreed to.

Part 5

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.08 p.m.]: I move the amendment standing in my name:

Part 5 Olympic Environmental Legacy Archive

22 Creation of archive

23 Custody of archive

The Library Council of New South Wales is to maintain the documents deposited under section 22 as an archive in the State Library of New South Wales, under the name of "The Olympic Environmental Legacy Archive."

This amendment is designed to ensure that various documents in relation to the design and construction of various venues, such as the Olympic Stadium, the Olympic Village and the Olympic SuperDome, are maintained for all time in the State Library, including those of unsuccessful tenderers, who in some cases were very imaginative in their design. As long as they agree to this, those designs will also be deposited in the library and will be available for researchers to view some time in the future.

I believe it is important to conserve this part of our history, particularly as the 2000 Olympics were the green Games. The documents will prove in time to be very important documents. It is important now to make sure that the documents and designs are maintained—and not perhaps destroyed or thrown in the bin—so that architects, design students, historians and others will be able to look at them in the future and marvel at some of the designs proposed in the early part of the twenty-first century.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.10 p.m.]: The Opposition considers the protection of these documents to be important. The staging of the 2000 Olympic Games was a historic event, as was the staging of the Paralympic Games. Once the documents are in the hands of archivist the Archives Act will protect the documents and ensure they are properly maintained. The Opposition would have been happier if the documents had been referred directly to the Auditor-General, who, having examined the documents, would have passed them on and ensured they became part of the archives. Nevertheless, this affords some security that the documents will be protected and maintained for future generations so that in decades to come, when we might perhaps again apply to stage the Olympics, we can look back and see what we did well and benefit from these documents.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.11 p.m.]: I support the comments made by the Hon. J. H. Jobling in respect of this amendment. However, I reaffirm the Coalition's commitment to oppose the bill at its third reading.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.11 p.m.]: The Government welcomes and supports the amendment proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. The Government is pleased that the crossbench, unlike the Opposition, is prepared to be constructive in its approach to this issue, rather than make highly inordinate, inflammatory and inaccurate comments.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Who is being inflammatory now?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I was being very quiet and nice about it. The amendment proposes the establishment of an archive legacy from the Games under the care and control of the Library Council of New South Wales. Copies of all tender documentation associated with winning bids for Olympic projects will be placed in this archive. The material will become part of the official Olympic record.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Why don't you put the losing bids in as well?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Further, with the consent of the tenderer, material from bids not accepted will also be included. I thank the Hon. J. H. Jobling for interjecting at that moment; I could answer him on the spot. This will allow the designs associated with unsuccessful bids to also become part of the legacy. While the tenderers may wish to withhold sensitive financial information, it is anticipated that many of the environmental and design features of the non-successful bids will be included in this archive. This is exactly the sort of positive attitude to the bill that we might have hoped would come from the Opposition in its momentary burst of post-Olympic bipartisan spirit—which has well and truly gone today, as evidenced by a couple of recent contributions to debate. The Coalition is now back to opposition for opposition's sake, a place where I know it feels very comfortable. The Government commends the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for this fine amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and report adopted.

Third Reading

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.14 p.m.]: I move:

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.15 p.m.]: I reaffirm the Coalition's opposition to this bill. It is fundamentally opposed to its passage, a fact I wish to have recorded before a vote on the third reading is taken.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

WORKERS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Schedule 2

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.16 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 6:

No. 6 Page 21, schedule 2 [3], line 2. Omit "The Authority may". Insert instead "With the approval of the Council the Authority may".

This amendment follows on from the view that the Opposition has taken with regard to the ongoing role of the Advisory Council. The Opposition acknowledges the outcome of the vote that was taken earlier with regard to the amalgamated form of the council, however, it believes that there is room for the amendment as put, which goes beyond the assertion contained in the legislation that "the Authority may", as spelt out on page 21. The Opposition believes that the approval of the new council should be sought before the authority is in a position to act. Quite simply, this relates to the appointment of injury managers for a group of employers with respect to the pilot projects that will be undertaken following the passage of this legislation.

The Opposition is of the view that, if this pilot project is to be a success, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that it has a degree of balanced support from both employers and employees. Now that the current Advisory Council has been earmarked for removal with the finalisation of this legislation, the next best form of authority to determine the suitability of those appointments would be the council that will come into existence following the passage of this legislation. The Opposition believes it is a fair and reasonable proposition to seek the approval of the amalgamated council to ensure that the appointment of injury managers, as set out in the pilot project, receives due support from both employers and employees in the process.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.19 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. The proposed amendment seeks to exclude past and present union members from becoming injury managers for the purposes of the pilot. This is another anti-union measure which the Government clearly opposes. It is not appropriate to include in legislation a provision that requires, in effect, that union members must be discriminated against. The amendment is opposed.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.21 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 7:

Industrial Relations Act 1996

This amendment relates to the appointment of injury managers, as spelt out under the pilot projects scheme in the legislation. The Opposition has put forward this proposition with regard to persons deemed to be not eligible to be appointed as injury managers purely to add certainty and clarity with regard to the potential for success in relation to pilot projects. The Minister was quite mischievous in his reporting of our intentions in the past 24 hours as being somewhat anti-union. Quite to the contrary, this has nothing to do per se with unions; it has more to do with ensuring that there is no conflict of interest in regard to the appointment of individuals as injury managers.

Quite simply, pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act industrial officers have certain powers afforded to them in conjunction with their role. Subsequently, that person is appointed as an injury manager under the legislation currently being debated. There is potential for a conflict of interest with regard to that person's role and authority when entering a workplace to inspect certain records. The objective of the Opposition is to ensure that where possible pilot projects such as this one receive minimal conflict with regard to the roles of individuals participating in the scheme to ensure that there is a degree of certainty, whether they be employees or employers.

The Opposition recognises that this is a groundbreaking experience for many employers involved in such a scheme. It will be difficult for them to determine where the industrial officer's role finishes pursuant to their activities within the union and where they move on to the role as injury managers under the workers compensation legislation if no distinction is made. Clearly, this is what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to ensure that the integrity of the pilot process is maintained. The proposition put forward by the Minister that it is somehow designed to keep unionists out of the process is false. The unions will be very much involved in those roles under the Industrial Relations Act 1996. It is extremely important that there be no conflict between the two roles so as to ensure a level of certainty that the legislation, in regard to this aspect, does not permit.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 12

Mr Colless
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin

Mr Lynn
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti
Mr Ryan

Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 25

Mr Breen
Dr Burgmann
Ms Burnswoods
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Corbett
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Egan
Ms Fazio

Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson
Mr M. I. Jones
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile
Reverend Nile
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tingle
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Dyer
Mr Primrose

Pairs

Mrs Forsythe	Mr Obeid
Mr Samios	Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Cowra, Bruce Miller.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.33 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 8 C047C:

(5) An employer may apply to the Authority for the making of an order under subclause (4) directing that an order under subclause (1) is not to apply to the employer. The employer may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of any decision of the Authority to refuse such an application.

This amendment is designed to ensure a level of surety for employers who have been appointed an injury manager under the pilot project. Once again, there is no provision under the legislation to allow employers an opportunity to appeal an order under this scheme. This amendment will allow employers to apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of any decision the authority makes on such applications.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.34 p.m.]: The proposed amendment would specify that employers may apply to WorkCover and to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT] for exclusion from the injury management pilot scheme. It is unreasonable to expect the ADT to adjudicate on matters of this nature. Accordingly, the Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.35 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 9:

5 Appeals to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Following on from the previous amendment, this amendment works towards giving employers a degree of surety in appeals against a decision of the authority on the appointment of an injury manager or following the appointment of the injury manager.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.35 p.m.]: The proposed amendment allows employers to apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to challenge the appointment of an injury manager. I remind the House that the objective of these pilots is to trial administrative best practice injury management. This is a further attempt by the Opposition to seek to add to the bureaucratic and litigious processes of what is intended to be a simple administrative system for trialling better injury management. The amendment would allow a particular employer to apply for the removal of an injury manager and, if the application was successful, the injury manager would be removed for all employers, even those who were supportive of the injury manager's involvement. Clearly, this is not a sensible provision. Accordingly, the amendment is opposed.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.36 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 10:

5 Disclosure of information

I would be incredibly surprised if the Government did not support this amendment. I would be even more surprised if the crossbench did not support it. This amendment relates to the disclosure of information. The Minister in his address in reply rightly identified, upon being shown the amendments by the Opposition, that it had left a big hole in the disclosure of information provisions which was open to potential manipulation. The amendment spells out a mechanism that prevents manipulation to ensure that people who are subject to a disclosure under the pilot scheme are protected from having their personal or business identities revealed.

The Minister referred to this matter in his address in reply, after it had been raised by the Opposition. We want to ensure that the protection of those affected by this pilot scheme goes beyond the Minister's assurance. This amendment will embody that assurance in the main thrust of the legislation. The disclosure of information provision in the legislation provides that certain information, which relates to the viability of the scheme, is to be disclosed by the authority. The amendment ensures that the identity of participants in the pilot scheme is not disclosed by the authority where the participants see fit. That relates to both individuals and organisations. The Opposition considers it is a fair and equitable means to protect participants in the scheme.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.39 p.m.]: The proposed amendment seeks to apply section 243, which restricts the release of information obtained under the Act to the information contained under the injury management pilot. This amendment is unnecessary. Section 243 already applies to information obtained through the injury management pilot. The provisions of the bill were designed to allow the release of that information to facilitate further research. The Opposition amendment does little to change the situation. Although it seeks to specifically prevent identifying information, such information would generally not be released to external parties. The protection of this information could be considered during the making of regulations. Such regulations would, of course, be subject to disallowance. Accordingly we oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.40 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No 12:

[1] Section 151 Common law and other liability preserved

This amendment relates to common law and the preservation of other liabilities. It is the result not only of the legislation but also of a number of questions asked recently of the Minister about his commitment to ensuring a degree of openness and commitment from the Government so that before changes are made to common law a fair degree of public debate will take place. The legislation fails to provide for that surety. Before the Government or the authority acts to potentially limit or manifestly change the provisions at common law, amendment No. 12 will insert a proviso that a certificate approving the provision be issued by the Advisory Council, or the amalgamated Advisory Council following the passage of this legislation, prior to the introduction of the bill into Parliament. This will ensure that all participants, employers and employees, spelled out in the opening sections of the legislation in regard to the membership of the council have an opportunity to examine the Government's proposal to ensure that no-one will fall between the cracks.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [5.42 p.m.]: I do not wish to reiterate at any length the points I made during the second reading debate. However, I will oppose—and encourage the Opposition to oppose—the amendment. The Leader of the Opposition is a Liberal espousing the rights of the individual, with which I heartily agree. The rights of the individual should be upheld in all cases. However, the Opposition is seeking to uphold the rights of the individual to have unlimited common law rights in a scheme that somebody else has to pay for. That somebody else is the employer. The attitude that prevailed and got us into this mess with the $1.6 billion tail prevented enough attention being given to the unlimited benefits of a premium paid by others. Therefore it is inappropriate to impose this burden on the legislation. The view of the Outdoor Recreation Party on how to manage the tail and future premiums is to move away from an open-ended scheme to a defined benefit scheme, which, sadly and unfortunately, has to be at the expense of unlimited common law rights.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Is that something you decided at your annual conference?

The Hon. M. I. JONES: In our party room. Yes, we did. The party has collective expertise in workers compensation, and I am prepared to stack that against the entire expertise of the National Party.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Was it unanimous?

The Hon. M. I. JONES: No, there was a subdivision, but we did arrive at a consensus.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (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) [5.44 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. M. I. Jones for his coherent contribution. He made the case very cogently for not supporting Opposition amendment No. 12, which I have only just had the chance to familiarise myself with. I want to raise another matter. Someone once made the fairly famous comment that an event such as the sacking of the Whitlam Government, the anniversary of which we observed the other day, had not occurred since King George IV sacked Lord North. I do not think there had been such a constitutional reversal since the time of the Stuarts, when a king could be beheaded for disobeying Parliament. This is the other way around, in that the intention is to behead those responsible to Parliament for disobeying interest groups. The powers that the Leader of the Opposition is semi-happy to delegate from this Parliament to a group, the membership of which he has been heavily critical, seems to be a rather extraordinary reversal of his previous position.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Flexibility.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: He says he is flexible. He is, indeed, very flexible. He should compete in the Olympics in trampolining because he is a remarkably flexible man. I join with the Hon. M. I. Jones in his criticism of the problem: it will make a whole lot of scheme reforms inflexible and almost impossible. That is the practical reason. He picks on the concern about common law. The more general principle that I would urge the crossbenchers and, of course, the Labor Party to consider is that we are really trying to delegate a power properly vested in the Parliament to review legislation to an outside group.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [4.56 p.m.]: The amendment is not designed necessarily to state that there is to be an open-ended approach to common law forever. It is about ensuring some integrity in the process so that when the matter is put before the Parliament those who are involved in the process, to wit the amalgamated council that the Government has now put in place, have had an opportunity to look at the legislation. We have seen the approach the Minister has taken with the current Advisory Council, a council that he has not met as a body since he became Minister earlier this year—and those are his words. That is an example of his contempt for the current council. Is there any suggestion that it is going to be different?

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: I talked to all of them, several times.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: He says he talked to all of them. If that is the case it must be through a medium because, as he has told the Parliament, he has not seen one of the group face to face since he became a Minister. Now he is going to put a new council in place, but one that has no powers, a classic paper tiger. The Government is trying to get total control to ensure that no-one is able to argue the toss about any position on common law he may elect to take. It is pretty clear that this Minister has common law in his sights. He was to get rid of common law, and he does not want anything to get in the way.

The earlier contribution from the Hon. M. I. Jones really leaves one to consider what sort of confused position he is taking. On the one hand he talks about this open-ended approach to common law, and the fact that something needs to be done to wind it did back. For whom does he purport to speak with that approach? He is coming to this debate from the perspective of the employers, the very same employers whom he did away with a little time ago. The approach of the Hon. M. I. Jones is sheer confusion.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.49 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

These amendments are a new idea, so I hope they will do well in this Chamber. Immediately the no vote has increased! The object of amendment No. 2 is to limit the number of doctors who provide medical reports. In practice, if doctors are limited in trial proceedings, those that suffer are the plaintiffs because often they have to pay for the medical reports. In theory the solicitor pays for the medical reports; in theory doctors produce the medical reports and get paid later. However, as a medical practitioner in this area, I know that the debts are so bad that the policy of most doctors is to first get the money and then write the report. If the injured person is unemployed—and, given the length of time the legal system takes to reach cases, which is up to five years—solicitors are not willing to put up the money five years ahead, doctors are not willing to wait five years to get paid, and clients do not have the money to pay for their medical reports.

If a respondent wants a report that states something in particular, it can get an almost unlimited number of reports. Liesel Scholem, who sued the Health Department, of all things, for being exposed to passive smoking, provided about 12 medical reports, of which only one was used. Of the two medical experts that were called, only one had examined her; the other was an expert from the university who had never seen her but had produced a literature review. In this case the strength of the respondent was to get 12 medical reports. If the plaintiff is not employed because the matter is in dispute, the solicitor does not want to carry it, and the doctors are not willing to carry the bad debts or delayed payment frequently associated with providing medical reports. There is immense difficulty for the plaintiff.

It needs to be made clear that limiting the number of medical reports in effect limits the plaintiff's or injured person's medical access; it does not interfere with that of the respondent or the insurer. Therefore, there is an inequity in the Act in this area, which is disappointing as it has come from a Labor Government. The fact is that medical evidence in workers compensation claims is a slightly messy business. Doctors become known as plaintiffs or defendants experts. The classic plaintiffs expert finds something wrong with everybody and the classic defendants expert finds nothing wrong with anybody. When I worked at the Water Board I was advised, "If you have a bloke with a dicky back and you want an opinion that there's nothing wrong with him, send him to this doctor in Newtown [who was famous for this] and he'll write a report saying there's absolutely nothing wrong with him." These things are known. The third type of doctor is the one who plays it straight down the middle

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: A good bloke.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The one who gives an honest opinion. It may be said that they are hard to find, but of course in the system, adversarial as it is, they are not found because nobody actually looks for them—although I suspect sometimes defendants use a middle-of-the-road doctor in order to find out the facts and then use a doctor who has a more convenient opinion in court. They find out the facts so they can figure out how to plot their course and then get the evidence of doctors who are more favourable. This expensive and troublesome practice is because of the adversarial system and the use of medical evidence.

The complexity of getting many different medical reports, lining them up and wondering which ones can be slotted in the witness box and letting them slog it out is certainly a big part of the trouble and cost of workers compensation. That is quite apart from the strain to the victim, who has to attend many medical appointments. Some of them tell me in all seriousness, "They have to subsidise my buses, trains or taxis to go around to the appointments." My solution to this is simple. I acknowledge the interjection from the Special Minister of State about the straight-down-the-middle doctors, as it were, who actually give their opinion and call it as it is. This neglected species of doctor is what we want.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Which one were you?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I am a straight-down-the-middle doctor, which is why I did not get rich on workers compensation cases. I also treated people—which you can actually make a living from, believe it or not. The idea is that the lawyers for the plaintiff and the respondent seek out the doctors who will give a straight-down-the-middle opinion and then nominate them as acceptable doctors. That means the medical dispute is held before the medical examination. The solicitors agree that this practitioner, or these practitioners, will produce medical reports, on the basis of which the parties negotiate settlement.

That means far fewer doctors will be required, and less court time will be involved; there will be no cross-examination or adverse attacks on medical practitioners because their expertise will be accepted. It may need to be clarified, but it will be accepted. The key to the issue is to limit the number of doctors by agreeing on which doctors' evidence will be accepted and effectively relying on their reputation as good practitioners to come up with a middle-of-the-road opinion. There will then be a search for competent treating doctors to come up with honest opinions rather than give information to one side or the other. My new subsection (2C) of section 127 states:

A medical report must not be admitted in evidence unless it has been prepared by a medical practitioner nominated by the parties in accordance with subsection (2B).

I would have been willing to delete that amendment, but it may then mean that the use of the joint practitioner may not become commonplace. The subsection may have merely been ignored. In a sense this amendment says this is the way it must be done, and that will mean lawyers have to do it differently, but it will cut the medical and dispute costs immensely. As such I commend this amendment to the Committee as a new initiative.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [5.57 p.m.]: Proposed subsection (2C) states:

A medical report must not be admitted in evidence unless it has been prepared by a medical practitioner nominated by the parties in accordance with subsection (2B).

I ask the Committee to consider the following: A man is at work and he feels ill. He goes to his doctor, who examines him, and then the man dies. A claim is made for his death under workers compensation provisions. Under this proposed amendment the doctor's report is not admissible because it does not conform with proposed subsection (2B). Therefore, there is no contentious claim if the illness or accident, whichever caused the man to go to the doctor, has been caused by an industrial accident or illness. The poor soul has no claim.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: He's very dead.

The Hon. M. I. JONES: But if he is very dead his estate and defendants have a claim under workers compensation law. New subsection (2B) is not a problem, but new subsection (2C) must be struck out. I point out that I am speaking on behalf of the individual. Earlier I was accused of speaking on behalf of employers. Somebody has to speak on behalf of employers because the Liberal Party seems incapable of doing so.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [6.00 p.m.]: I cannot support the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. As a general practitioner for nearly 30 years I hardly ever found a doctor who could be agreed upon by both parties. It is rare. Maybe the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is the only person in the whole of Australia who is impartial. The amendments would not work in reality.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.01 p.m.]: The amendments moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans appear to be an attempt to stop doctor shopping by parties and to build consensus between parties in relation to the tendering of medical evidence. In principle, the Government has no objection to the general directions proposed in the amendments. However, the proposed amendments would have the effect of limiting parties to relying on reports from medical practitioners who have been jointly agreed to by the parties. This would stop the reports of accredited medical specialists, which are provided for under the legislation, from being admitted into evidence. Either party could successfully stall proceedings by refusing to agree to nominate doctors. Injured workers could experience significant delays in obtaining compensation. Although the matter could still be referred to a medical panel and medical referee—certainly this would create some benefits—it is unclear whether the reports could be admitted into evidence. The Government opposes both amendments moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [6.02 p.m.]: The position of the Opposition was put clearly during the second reading debate. We are opposed to the schedule per se. We therefore will vote against all aspects of schedule 7.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.02 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Dr P. Wong for his compliment that I am the only doctor who manages to run down the middle of the road, but there are many doctors who are respected for their competence and objectivity. Although they have a hell of a battle in their struggle with the legal system, they do exist. If they were sought out for their expertise rather than being sought out for the degree to which they would bend the truth the legal and medical systems would be a lot better off. In response to the Hon. M. I. Jones, it would be foolish not to admit the evidence of a doctor who was the only person to see the worker. If the worker died and the cause was unclear I would have thought that the post-mortem report would be an indicator, if a large amount of money was involved.

The Hon. M. I. Jones: It would not be allowed, Arthur.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes it would. The medical report could be admitted in evidence.

Amendments negatived.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS AMENDMENT (TRADEABLE EMISSION SCHEMES) BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.06 p.m.]: I raise this evening the matter of organ and tissue donation in New South Wales. Members may recall that last month the health Minister announced in another place that an audit would be conducted by New South Wales Health to determine past and current practices relating to the retention of human organs and tissues, and to ascertain whether these practices comply with contemporary community standards. According to the Minister, one matter that the audit will examine will be the need for better informed consent. This is an important audit, and a matter that needs to be addressed by the Federal and State governments with the appropriate urgency and seriousness. When the Minister announced the audit he spoke of the situation in the United Kingdom, where it was revealed that the Bristol Royal Infirmary had retained a heart without the appropriate consent. A subsequent inquiry found that the hearts of 11,000 children were being held in hospitals across the United Kingdom, with another 850 organs discovered in a storeroom at the Alder Hey Hospital. I believe that an inquiry into that matter is continuing.

Informed consent is a contentious issue, an issue that is emotionally charged for all involved. I will detail to the House this evening the case of a family I know that lost their son in tragic circumstances almost 10 years ago. Following the accident that ultimately claimed their son's life, when the parents arrived at the hospital they were asked to donate his organs. Both parents were in a state of shock and the father require hospitalisation as a result of that shock. In this state they were asked to sign a consent form for the organ donation to proceed. In 1995—five years after the death of their son—the parents discovered that his brain had been removed without the appropriate consent, stored and then incinerated along with other human tissue at a facility in Queensland. They were never informed of this chain of events and had to rely on freedom of information applications to find out what had happened.

The matter was brought to the attention of State and Federal departments, but to no avail. The family is still awaiting a response. The ramifications of this experience led Ross and Peggy Stone to establish the national organisation known as Silent Hearts. The group lobbies governments and agencies as an advocate for donor families. One of the primary concerns of Silent Hearts is that the community as a whole does not have a fuller understanding of informed consent and what people are agreeing to do when they sign a consent form. They may find out too late what they have signed for. As President of Silent Hearts Ross Stone has been participating in a subcommittee set up by the Federal health department to examine the establishment of a national organ donor registry. He has been pushing for greater informed consent and specific identification of organs to be donated. As part of the committee's work a new series of consent forms will be tested—one listing specific organs to be offered for donation and another that has been described to me as a blanket consent form.

Another problem arises because of the lack of distinction between the organ donation process and the coronial process. All organ donors require an autopsy, which creates a somewhat blurred link between the consented organ donation and the need to remove tissue during the autopsy process. In effect, a parent or a relative may give consent for the removal of a specific organ or organs and then the autopsy process will result in other organs being removed without consent. Ross and Peggy Stone have welcomed the announcement of the audit by Minister Knowles but they are still waiting for a response from him on their personal experiences in this area. They will continue to advocate fully informed consent for the relatives of organ donors.

I urge the Minister and his department to take this matter into careful consideration when the audit is conducted. I also urge Minister Knowles to answer the concerns of the Stone family. No-one can deny that this is an emotional and sensitive issue. For that reason the families of organ donors, past, present and future, need to be assured that the system is working properly in New South Wales and, indeed, right across Australia.

HOMELESS PEOPLE PROTECTION

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.11 p.m.]: I wish to speak about Tony Costello, aged 41, who had been living on the streets in Tom Uren Place outside the Woolloomooloo police station for several years. On Friday night it is alleged that local young people walked around the square poking people with sticks. Tony is said to have grabbed the stick and given them a poke back. Apparently, after waiting until he was asleep, several of them attacked him. He was stabbed four times with a large knife, collapsed into the arms of several mates from the square and died quickly of massive bleeding. Some homelessness activists spent part of last night and this morning in solidarity with the homeless people left traumatised and fearful by the death of their friend.

Mr Rod Plant from Shelter New South Wales informed me this morning of the situation. They call on the New South Wales police to develop ways to provide protection to homeless people, such as non-intrusive patrolling of areas like Tom Uren Place. Non-intrusive patrolling would mean that police would not hassle homeless people in search of minor offences but would merely pass through and check whether they are all right. In another incident on Saturday night a group of youths threw petrol over a homeless man sleeping in the Domain. He was lucky to escape with no worse than burns to his hands, after being set alight. A clear message is needed from the Minister for Police and the Commissioner of Police that attacks on defenceless, homeless people will not be tolerated and that police will seek new ways to work to defend homeless people from becoming victims of crimes of hatred.

Only a week ago the Hon. Janelle Saffin, Kevin Rozzoli, MP, and I hosted a conference on homelessness. Homeless people addressed politicians and experts in the community. The conference was very successful and problems were acknowledged involving the homeless in our society. It is a sad indictment that only a few days later such a tragedy should befall a person in those circumstances. There was much talk at the conference and in various circles that in looking back on the Olympics period there is little doubt that many potentially negative social aspects were mediated by positive policy initiatives.

We need to capture the preparedness of those in government and the community who went all out to make the Games work and apply this to some of our most pressing social concerns. Many of the initiatives developed and funded during the Olympics should be extended and expanded to address the housing and homelessness crisis in New South Wales. It is estimated that there has been an 8 per cent loss in the boarding-house stock per annum in the inner city and Sydney's inner west, with estimates of more than 700 people sleeping rough on any night in Sydney. Government resources that were used to give us the best Games ever should now be diverted to address what could possibly be our worst social problem—homelessness and lack of affordable housing in New South Wales.

It is too late for Tony Costello who, days ago, met a brutal death. However, we need to keep revisiting the issue and working on the code of conduct that operated during the Olympic Games. This code of conduct required police to recognise that people have rights to be in public places and should be treated with respect. Considerable progress was made in improving relations between police and homeless people during the Olympics. This progress should now be built on by police negotiating a permanent code of conduct. This and other concerns have been raised by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] in a letter to the Minister for Housing. As yet NCOSS has received no reply. The relevant Ministers need to make a clear statement that homelessness is a social, not a criminal, issue.

In response to concerns raised by the local member of Parliament, Clover Moore, a special task force was set up to assist homeless people in Tom Uren Place. We need to know the results of that work and what plans there are to continue and strengthen that work. The shocking reality is that if something had been done earlier, Tony Costello might be alive today. These are vulnerable people in the community who need our protection. They are literally on the verges of Parliament House. They sleep in the streets and we see them lining up for food as we leave Parliament. If we wander through the parks we see them, just a few steps from where we work in this cloistered and protected environment. These people need help. Before other similar deaths occur, I ask honourable members to consider communicating with those who have the power to change these people's lives. It would involve only a tiny expense to society to give these people safety and a roof over their heads.

JOY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.15 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the great victory of the workers at Joy Manufacturing in their dispute at the Moss Vale factory. I condemn the actions of the company, scabs and lawyers involved in their attempt to undermine the fundamental right of workers to act collectively and to organise themselves for the betterment of their working conditions and lives. The history of this appalling attempt to strip the workers of their livelihoods has been spoken about on several occasions in this House by my colleague the Hon. P. T. Primrose.

Tonight I would also like to focus the attention of the House on the hard work of all those involved in this great success against the company's exploitative actions. The 63 Joy Manufacturing workers have stood firm against a variety of threats and pressures ever since they were locked out by the company and despite the tactics employed by the company in attempting to break this dispute, with the support of such committed unions as the Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU], the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union [AMWU] and the South Coast Labour Council. The workers and their families were outstanding. So, too, were the unions and others in their commitment to the Joy workers, both physically at the site and financially.

Sixty-three unionists and their families refused to be intimidated during this dispute, despite the presence of security guards, private investigators and security cameras. They kept up their peaceful process seven days a week, 24 hours a day from March until October. At the end of this dispute, when the matter came before Justice Munroe in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the workers received a fair and just settlement. Justice Munroe's decision provided for one union agreement to cover the entire site. The company has now conceded that it failed completely in its attempts to deunionise the site.

Justice Munroe's decision also provides for a substantial wage increase of 12 per cent over the three-year life of the agreement, with no productivity trade-offs, consultation with the unions on the use of contractors and casuals, the retention of award entitlements, access to a fully accredited training and classification structure, travel time and a 15 per cent allowance for off-site work, preference for company employees rather than contractors for off-site work, and the monitoring of contractor and labour hire employees by a consultative committee. Following that decision the workers at Joy still maintained their proud protest against the actions of the company and refused to return to work as long as there were still scabs on the site. I was delighted when they proudly marched back to work on 23 October. I am pleased to have the opportunity to pay tribute not only to the workers, their families and the local community but also to those unionists and others who supported them through the months that this dispute, which was initiated by the company, continued.

PETALS NETWORK FLORAL RELAY SERVICE

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS [6.20 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to Petals Network, Armidale's floral relay service company, which was named regional exporter of the year at the Australian Institute of Exports 2000 Premier's New South Wales Exporter of the Year Awards in Sydney last week. Petals Network provides a clearing house for long-distance flower orders worldwide, and has considerably expanded its export operations over the last five years. Since 1995 its export sales have increased from 7.5 per cent of total sales revenue to 16 per cent in 1999-2000.

The export success of Petals Network relies mainly on e-commerce and trades directly with 25 countries. The network's founder is Scott Williams and he is looking to further expansion of their network trade. Scott Williams is a firm believer in what he calls distance marketing, and the name Scott Williams is also synonymous with the development of Internet marketing, e-commerce and Internet service providers in northern New South Wales. Due to the company's unprecedented growth, the Australian market options are now quite limited and the company is looking for further international expansion next year.

Petals Network uses the Internet to develop international markets through the maintenance of web sites to collect orders for floral deliveries to South Africa, New Zealand, England and the United States of America, as well as Australia. It is an affordable communication system which has allowed Petals Network to become a relay service for other Internet services. As an example of how this operates in practice, if someone in New Zealand wants to order flowers for someone in the United States of America, the order will come through Petals Network at Armidale.

Petals Network provides inspiration for regional areas. If a local business of such recognised international standing can operate so successfully from Armidale, other rural areas can do the same. To this end it is absolutely important that all levels of government work together to provide Internet access and speed sufficient to allow this new and emerging business to reach its full potential. E-commerce has the potential to open up the world for rural Australia and we must congratulate companies such as Petals Network for showing the way for all businesses, and particularly in rural and regional New South Wales, to this new, exciting and profitable type of money-making venture.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.22 p.m.]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a serious matter concerning freedom of religion. The Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney has sent me a letter outlining its concerns relating to the Law Reform Commission's proposals for reform of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The commission's report No. 92 contains proposals for the reform of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney is concerned that the proposals, if adopted, will result in a substantial erosion of the principle of freedom of religion in New South Wales.

The Standing Committee of the Synod of the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney lodged a submission with the then Attorney General in March this year, expressing the diocese's main concern. I know that some honourable members are unsure about the terminology "diocese" and "synod". The Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney stretches from the Blue Mountains almost to the Central Coast and Gosford, and down to the Illawarra. It is a large regional area and the most heavily populated area of New South Wales, if not Australia. The synod meets with delegates from all the parishes. They represent about one million Anglicans in that diocese—not throughout Australia, but in that diocese. It is the most active diocese in Australia, perhaps in the world.

The diocese held its synod meeting with delegates from all the various parishes on 11 October. During that meeting various resolutions were passed and one resolution, numbered 21/00, was passed unanimously by the 538 members of the synod. None voted against it. I understand it is almost without precedent for a motion to have no dissenting votes.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Anglicans do not very often agree.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is right. There are usually various points of view. In this case they voted unanimously in favour of that motion as follows:

The diocese has written to all members of Parliament and I trust that by now honourable members have received that correspondence, attached to which was a 13-page detailed submission concerning the New South Wales Law Reform Commission proposals for the reform of the antidiscrimination law in New South Wales. I urge honourable members to carefully study that submission. The submission was based on the advice of lawyers and other very highly qualified legal people, including a number of judges who are Anglicans and members of the synod, who assisted by giving legal advice on these matters.

Some honourable members may consider this an exaggeration, but I believe there is genuine concern that potentially every religious group and religious school will be detrimentally affected by the proposals. Religious groups will lose the ability to discriminate in relation to the provision of religious services. For example, a Christian church will no longer be able to refuse to give Holy Communion to a non-member; churches are likely to stop community groups from using their property; and freedom of association will be detrimentally affected if the proposals are implemented by the Government. We hope the Government will not implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission; that it will regard them as being too radical or containing implications that would affect freedom of religion; and that it will reject them. That is the desire of the Anglican Synod and of many other churches in this State. It is certainly the desire of the Christian Democratic Party.

STEEL TANK AND PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY WORKERS ENTITLEMENTS

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [6.27 p.m.]: More than 200 workers Australiawide stand to lose their jobs and entitlements after their employer deliberately set up a company without assets to employ them. The workers are employed by Steel Tank and Pipe Pty Ltd, which fabricates heavy metal construction equipment in a range of companies in Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. As well as their jobs, the workers will lose more than $3 million in accrued entitlements, such as long service leave and superannuation.

Receivers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, has been appointed to act on behalf of the National Australia Bank, which is the company's major secured creditor. The latest receivership, involving the Carrington plant in Newcastle, occurred on 3 November. The first time employees of the company found out that they were in a position of great jeopardy was when they received a letter from PricewaterhouseCoopers as the receivers. The letter from PricewaterhouseCoopers stated:

At a subsequent meeting with the receiver on 9 November the employees discovered that they had been transferred, without their knowledge, by the directors, Brad and Stephen Weeks, into shelf companies that held no assets whatsoever. Paul Bastian, State Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union [AMWU], which represents the workers, has said that the waterfront dispute with Patricks had set an example that was being followed by such unscrupulous employers. Mr Bastian argued correctly that what Patricks did was to show that if a company wanted to avoid its responsibilities for workers compensation, wages and entitlements, all it had to do was transfer its employment to a shelf company with no assets.

Australia's Corporations Law offers absolutely no protection to employees caught up in that sort of scam. The AMWU is calling for changes to the Corporations Law to protect employees in those circumstances. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect workers who become the victims in any transmission of businesses to a company with no assets. The Federal Government should introduce heavy penalties against company directors who deliberately arrange for their employees to lose their entitlements. The National Australia Bank is the major secured creditor for this company. It has just recorded its highest ever profit at $3.2 billion. The bank should drop its preferred status so that the workers can be paid. Under the Statutory Protection Scheme promoted by Federal Workplace Relations Minister, Peter Reith, the workers at STP would lose most of their entitlements.

The AMWU has established an Industry Trust Fund called Manusafe, which would ensure that workers' entitlements were paid on a weekly basis into a secure trust fund. This would ensure that regardless of the arrangements made by their employer, workers' entitlements could not be misused, as they have in this case. It is just not good enough to have laws that protect only wealthy company directors and allow workers to be ripped off.

MALABAR HEADLAND

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.31 p.m.]: Malabar Headland, in the Premier's electorate, is one of the most important natural and cultural landscapes in eastern Sydney. What ought to be one of the icons for the people of New South Wales is, however, being abused and degraded while under the management of the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration—not a department known for its environmental knowledge or sympathies. The bushland areas on the site are listed on the Register of the National Estate, they contain areas of eastern suburbs banksia scrub—recognised as endangered under both the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The bush is species rich and has many species of local and regional conservation significance.

The site contains many relics of its military history. The natural and historic areas of the site should be preserved as part of our national heritage. Open space on what is now the rifle range should become a community resource for a range of recreational activities. However, the Commonwealth is reluctant to take the public into its confidence over the future of the site. Randwick City Council has proposed an amendment to the local environmental plan for the area so as to remove the residential zoning on the bushland at the western end of the headland. The Commonwealth has registered an objection to this change.

The Greens and the community have called upon the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to override the objection and make the zoning change. The values of the western bush are such that any proper assessment would find that under both State and Commonwealth laws development could not be permitted. For several years, concerned members of the community have sought information about possible contaminated leachate leaking from the rifle range onto Maroubra Beach, but have been unable to obtain any details. Recently, the Department of Finance and Administration commenced work on leachate remediation—but it still refuses to advise the public as to what the contaminants are, or what the remediation plan entails.

I recently visited the area with Friends of Malabar Headland. We were deeply disturbed at the environmental damage that we saw. This is completely unacceptable and the Greens join with the community in urging Mr Carr to take an active interest in this area, which is in his electorate. We ask that he demand that the Commonwealth make the information available to the public. While remediation, if required, should be carried out, we need to know that the problem and a proper solution have been correctly identified. All works should be carried out responsibly. The recent actions of the Department of Finance and Administration involved destroying a wetland and the nesting sites for regionally uncommon bird species at the start of the breeding season.

At the site I was told by a keen birdwatcher that some species fly there from the northern hemisphere. It is indeed tragic that they arrive there only to find that their breeding ground has been destroyed. We may lose even more species. The department, by its actions, has demonstrated that it is unfit to be custodian of such valuable assets and we strongly urge the Premier to ensure that State agencies immediately become involved in the preparation and implementation of a responsible environmental management plan for the headland. Yes, it is Commonwealth land, but being in New South Wales and in the Premier's electorate, he could definitely be proactive so this wonderful area is saved.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:18:24 : Update this page