Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 29 November 2000, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 November 2000
______

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

The President offered the Prayers.

ELECTRICITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TRANSGRID) BILL

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No 2)

Bills received.

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

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

Bills read a first time.

BILL RETURNED

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Report

The President tabled, in accordance with the Ombudsman Act 1974, the annual report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 2000.

The President announced that, pursuant to the Act, she had authorised that the report be made public.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

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

Council Pounds Animal Protection

Petition praying that the House introduces legislation to ensure that high standards of care are provided for all animals held in council pounds, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

WATER MANAGEMENT BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 28 November.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.11 a.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 95, 96, 113 and 143 in globo, but I seek to have the questions put seriatim:

338 Register of enforcement directions

Amendments Nos 95, 96 and 113 provide that water registers be maintained on the departmental web site, which would make them far more accessible than if they were held at head office. This is simply a recognition that registers must keep up with technology. Registers are usually computer based and should be available on the web. To maintain registers on the web would require a little more effort, but not very much. It is very important for those who are concerned about the effects of access licences to have easy access to them. The amendments are unexceptional. They simply recognise the reality of the availability of information. They should be supported by everyone, particularly the Opposition, which was very keen yesterday to maintain extremely involved registers.

I am sure the Opposition would not want to be inconsistent. It is all very well to have complicated registers available to the banks, but what about having very simple registers available to everybody else? The Opposition might ponder that question. Amendment No. 143 deals with the level of supervision of licences and the directions the Minister gives in that regard. If someone is not doing the right thing, a third party can monitor the situation to ensure that the right thing is done by people using water and by the Minister who is supposed to maintain a watching brief in the interests of the public. I commend the two groups of amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.15 a.m.]: Perhaps the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has missed the point about the register. When a register was first introduced into the debate he may have thought it would be a register of licences granted. But it is quite obvious that the register will provide the security to which I referred last night. Although the Government differs from the Opposition on how to ensure that the register gives security to licences by recording third party interests, that is banks and so forth, the register will be evidence of proprietary ownership.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: A big project for the big end of town and no project for the little end of town.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: We will address that. It would be totally inappropriate for this information to be on a web site. That is utterly laughable! The point that has to be pondered, as the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans said, is where and how should people who have a legitimate interest in licences obtain that sort of information. It is certainly not in the present structure of the register. Where else such information might be available is something we may be able to give thought to at a later date. At this point the Opposition would be vehemently opposed to the details intended by the Government, and which were explicit in our amendments, being included in the register to be made available to the public in the form that has been described.

The words used suggest that such information would be available in a similar way to which information on land title is available at the Registrar General's Office. One would have to show a reason why one wanted the information, and a procedure would be involved in obtaining it. Although that does not invoke secrecy, it would involve propriety of access to the information. Somehow or another the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has entirely lost sight of that important aspect of this and other similar dealings in our society.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.18 a.m.]: The Government opposes all the amendments. The comments I make in relation to amendments Nos 95 and 96 apply to the other amendments moved in globo. It is not appropriate to put details of the public register on the Department of Land and Water Conservation web site. The Minister will create a public register, but the location and administrator of the register will cover all compliance. Enforcement proceedings suggested in these amendments raise a number of privacy, enforcement and administrative issues that must be carefullyconsidered. We make a commitment to the Chamber to consider those issues. It is not practical to require the register to set out all the ongoing details of compliance with conditions or proceedings taken by the department as is suggested in this string of amendments. Consequently the Government will oppose them.

Amendments put seriatim and negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.19 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 4 as circulated:

No. 4 Pages 45 and 46, division 9 of part 2, lines 1-33 on page 45 and lines 1-3 on page 46. Omit all words on those lines.

I attempted to move this amendment earlier with other amendments that were moved in globo. I have spoken to those earlier amendments. I shall not say anything further to this amendment. I commend Greens amendment No. 4 to the Committee.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.20 a.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. These compensation provisions limit the public risk whilst still providing security to water users. It is a critical provision in defining those rights.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.20 a.m.]: The Opposition also opposes this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.20 a.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 14 and 15 in globo,

(5) The amount of any such compensation is to be determined on the advice of the Valuer-General.

Amendments Nos 14 and 15 together clarify the assessment of compensation that may result from mid-plan changes to the bulk access regime. These amendments make it clear that the Valuer-General's role is to advise on the market value of the water forgone.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.21 a.m.]: In my contribution to the second reading debate I referred to what I regarded as the acceptable standard of compensation, that is, the yardstick established by the Hon. Wal Murray in establishing just terms legislation. We were hoping that the Government may have adopted that approach, but it appears it has been adamant about its preferred option of developing compensation with the advice of the Valuer-General. Our intention is to move an amendment later to allow appeals against those valuations. If that amendment is passed, we are content to allow this amendment to proceed. We understand that just terms is not acceptable to the Government and therefore, in the interests of expediting the debate, we will not divide on this or move an amendment now.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.22 a.m.]: The key feature of this clause and this amendment, which makes only minor modifications, is that this bill is about the privatisation of water. I believe that the Government will not be able to set the compensation levels as there will be appeals on valuations that will go beyond State courts to Federal courts. I believe that the attempts in this bill to not pay compensation may well be overturned. Effectively, when that happens the State will have lost all control of its water and saving its ecosystems because it will have to pay so much compensation to those who have existing water entitlements that it will not be able to make those changes. The ecosystem will then be at the mercy of the market, and again this is the triumph of the market over any sort of ecological planning.

I have drawn attention to this concern and it seems that people are not willing to acknowledge it because it is too difficult. This is a bad basis for a national policy when we might have short-term imperatives of individual irrigator rights and bank lending practices, but long-term laws of nature and physics that will determine whether our country becomes a desert. We seem to be giving away the ability to do something about that. I wanted to place my concern about that on the record. Honourable members opposite can scoff all they like because I really do not care about that. They cannot see the obvious. They want to disobey the laws of nature. They think their sneering reflects some sort of wisdom. Their behaviour is ludicrous.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.24 a.m.]: I believe that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans does not fully understand the concept of privatisation. When a change is made to a water use right, a payment of compensation is made. The use right for water, land or anything is applicable across the State in a range of areas; you have the right to use a public resource. This is not ownership of the water; it is a use right of that water. If that use right is taken away, a form of compensation can be paid. It does not mean that it is owned. The total distinction between this and privatisation is quite clear. The water is not owned; the use right, or the ability to have a use right, is owned.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.26 a.m.]: One is greatly enlightened by the semantic explanation, but the fact of the matter is that I am talking about the ability of the State to control things against private interests. Whether something is owned or is an unassailable right is really a matter of semantics. If one has a right that cannot be interfered with except by the payment of more money than the State has, effectively, in practice, the right is unassailable and control of the land on which we live is lost to the public—as the Commons in Britain was lost to individuals hundreds of years ago. I believe this is a point where—after the passage of this legislation, if not before—long-term ecological changes will not be assailed by this Parliament. I will be surprised if this does not become a large problem in the future. I have ignored the comments of honourable members opposite because I believe they will not contribute one iota to a real discussion about the problem.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.28 a.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 9:

(6) A person who is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered to the person under this section, or with any delay in the payment of compensation, may appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

I foreshadowed that the Opposition intended to move this significant amendment. We believe that the concept of just terms compensation should be embodied in the legislation. There are long memories in the bush about what the Valuer-General thought of the value of land when it was being resumed for various purposes, for example, closer settlement. The original proclamations over land relating to the Burrendong Dam project would have gone back into the 1930s, and valuations went back possibly to the 1920s.

It has been suggested to me that it was only in 1942. I understood that the enabling legislation went further back. Nevertheless, my point will be just as apposite: the valuations that were finally paid, to people in all sorts of circumstances, related to values that applied at the time. Great friends of mine in the Mumbil district suffered enormously. They continued to use the land while the dam was being constructed but finally they had to relinquish it, for good purposes. The level of compensation was parsimonious at best. It was a scandalous state of affairs. There had been the immediate post-war inflationary period and the compensation received was just a pittance. Having accepted the Government's formula, we insist that there be the possibility of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court, which we think is the only appropriate avenue in the circumstances. I recommend the amendment as an important addition to the provisions the Government has made.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.31 a.m.]: This is an important amendment moved by the Opposition. Many times I have come before this Chamber with amendments to introduce appeal rights. The amendment should be supported.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.31 a.m.]: The Government supports the amendment. It provides water users with an avenue of appeal if they disagree with the amount of compensation or if they consider that payment has been unacceptably delayed. The Government supports the amendment on the basis that the provision strengthens the appeal rights of access licence holders with respect to the quantum and timing of compensation only. The amendment does not provide for appeal against decisions as to whether compensation is claimable in the first place.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.32 a.m.]: The Greens appreciate the point of view put forward by other members on the amendment but I would like our concerns noted. The amendment would ensure that an already overloaded Land and Environment Court will be tied up with hearing compensation appeals. The amendment needs to be looked at in further detail. For example, there could be provision for a limited appeals process as per the Fisheries Management Act or via the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. While we recognise the importance of the opportunity to appeal in this type of forum we consider that it may be worthwhile to give the issue further consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [11.33 a.m.], by leave: I move Independent amendments Nos 99, 114, 115 and 116 in globo:

(e) the procedures to be followed by the Minister for the purpose of achieving full cost recovery, including costs attributable to environmental externalities.

114 Determination of recoverable costs

116 Application of revenue arising under Act

It is the intention of Parliament that all revenue arising under this Act be applied for the purpose of carrying out and giving effect to this Act.

Amendment No. 99 introduces provision for regulations allowing the Minister, if he desires, to achieve full cost recovery in water access licences. Full cost recovery includes costs attributable to environmental externalities which have not previously been adequately factored into cost determinations. In relation to amendment No. 114, the bill as it stands does not set parameters on charges to be determined by the Minister, although the bill does allow for charges to be payable. This amendment provides the necessary parameters to allow recoverable costs or part thereof to be a proportion of the whole of the charges to be determined by the Minister. Amendment No. 115 expands the guidelines set out in the bill for determining pricing guidelines for water. It gives the Minister the power to include resource rent or royalty.

The amendment provides for an external pricing authority such as the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal to become the annual reference in varying charges set by the Minister's guidelines. The amendment also addresses the issues of inequalities and inefficiencies that occur with the cross-subsidies between different classes of water users. Amendment No. 116 would ensure that all revenue arising under the bill is applied specifically for the purpose of providing for the integrated and sustainable management of the water resources of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations as prescribed in the objects of the bill.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.35 a.m.]: I oppose the amendments. I would hope that, at best, the Hon. A. G. Corbett has moved someone else's amendments. He represents A Better Future for Our Children—obviously not a better future for farmers' children. Once again he is sheeting home to farmers a community problem. I have often told the story that there are sheep dip sites in this State—

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Hundreds of them.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Hundreds of them. Farmers adhered to government policy—

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They were told to do it.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: They had to do it. If they had not done that they would have been fined. Yet a certain group of people believe that the total rehabilitation of the dip sites should be the responsibility of the farmers. This is a community problem, and what the Hon. A. G. Corbett is trying to fix is a community problem. It is not just a farmer's problem. Each of the amendments moved in globo is in a similar vein: they seek to put responsibility back onto just the farmers. Once again, this is untenable.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.36 a.m.]: I thank the Hon. Snapper Gay for his more modest, quieter and less heated contribution to discussions this morning. The Government opposes the four amendments. In relation to amendment No. 99, the existing provision relates to the water return scheme, not general water pricing. General water pricing principles and water determinations are developed via the independent and well supported Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] process. In relation to amendments Nos 114 and 115, as indicated above, they involve a role for IPART, which is given its terms of reference by the Premier. The same outcome can be achieved by the IPART process. Amendment No. 116 is not necessary. All revenue raised is on a cost-recovery basis as determined by IPART. There is no additional revenue raised to put to other purposes.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.38 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 16:

No. 16 Page 48, clause 93, line 28. Omit "water use".

This amendment clarifies the provisions for objections to the granting of approvals under the bill. The existing wording of the heading of the provision implies that objections may be lodged only against the granting of a water use approval. The Government has always intended that the same provision should apply to any approval.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.38 a.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 10:

As with a previous clause that was debated at great length, the Opposition believes that the grounds for refusing an application should be clearly understood. This is not an area in which the Minister may exercise in some capricious way rights which are conferred on him under the clause as it appears at present. We believe that the criterion should be, as we set out, on grounds in which the Minister would be authorised to suspend or cancel the approval under section 109 (1) and after complying with subsection (3). In the interests of time, I will confine my remarks at this stage and perhaps respond later to the comments of other honourable members. This is an important amendment on which the Opposition proposes to divide.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.40 a.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment, which seeks to effectively make approvals perpetual for all but those who have breached the conditions, have been convicted of an offence against the Act, have failed to pay their dues or have failed to comply with a direction. The right is a fixed term not a perpetual right. It is also illogical because activities naturally cease after a certain time, for example, sand and gravel extract from a river. Non-renewal of approvals is a day-to-day resource management necessity. Many activities, such as mining operations, do not continue. This will require water management works approvals, water use approvals and possibly aquifer interference approvals. Clearly, these will not be renewed when the activities cease.

Properties also change hands. A new water use approval and other approvals will be required if the purpose for which the water is used changes significantly. A property may have a water use approval for irrigation and the new owner may want to pursue mineral extraction. Obviously, the existing approval will not be renewed. Again, it is necessary to phase out some activities in certain areas for major environmental reasons—and I have raised this during the course of debate. This may be in response to interstate or international agreements, or to local problems. An example may be to phase out certain activities and therefore use approvals in areas of ground water recharge where those activities are likely to result in contamination of ground water source. This would be required to protect the interests of all other users of the ground water system and its dependent ecosystems.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 17

Mr Colless
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Lynn
Mrs Nile
Revd Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan
Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 22

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

Ms Fazio
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Primrose

Pair

Miss Gardiner

Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [11.48 a.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 103 to 107 in globo:

Each of these amendments replaces the words "minimise harm" with the words "ensure that minimal harm will be done". "Minimise" could be interpreted as reducing harm whereas "minimal harm" is the least amount of harm that can be done and sets a benchmark. "Minimising" is a sliding scale but "minimal" is a defined point at any given time and will be best practice with any current knowledge. This ensures that the Minister has the right to refuse to grant water use approval if arrangements in place for the use of drainage works, flood works and aquifers are not best practice according to current knowledge. I also draw the Opposition's attention to the fact that the words "minimal harm" are already used in clause 63 (2) (b).

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.49 a.m.]: The honourable member has moved a series of amendments to delete the words "minimise harm" and to insert the words "ensure that minimal harm will be done". I put it to the Committee that if these amendments are agreed to they will entrench in the bill that harm will be done. In fact, the original proposal was much better. The honourable member's amendments should be opposed, and he should not be let loose on this bill.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.50 a.m.]: The Government supports the amendments wholeheartedly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should seek legal advice on the actual difference before he snaps at the Hon. A. G. Corbett. The Government will support the amendments.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.51 a.m.]: It seems incredible that in respect of a bill of this enormous significance we should be debating semantics and people's interpretation of words. I am reminded of a theory that I believe was worked out by economists and applied to naval strategy in the Second World War—the choice between maximising the minimum harm inflicted on the enemy, and minimising the maximum harm inflicted upon our own forces. To a degree I think it would probably take the High Court of Australia, sitting in full session, some six to 12 months to try to work out the difference that is actually implied here.

I agree with my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the instruction that is being given here is that if there is a choice between doing no harm at all and doing some harm, one should endeavour to do some harm, equated to the minimal harm—which would be some harm. The words "minimise harm" indicate that it is possible to eliminate harm. I think this is another example of the Government having taken leave of its senses and acting in this way simply because it wants to throw a little bit of grain around to feed the chooks. That is all it is. There is no substance in the intent of this. We all understand that no-one wants to cause harm and, if there is going to be harm, it should be at the lowest possible level. The reason for this is to make the honourable member feel good so that he will continue to support the Government's program. A concession has been made, even though it makes absolutely no bloomin' sense at all.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.53 a.m.]: I disagree with the Hon. D. F. Moppett. To use the war terminology—

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is a veritable David versus Goliath.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: While we are talking about David and Goliath, let us talk about the Palestinian conflict. The Hon. A. G. Corbett's amendment is like comparing the Israeli army killing six or seven unarmed men and women with accidentally killing one unarmed man. That is the difference between the two amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has indicated he wishes to vote against clause 99.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.54 a.m.]: With regard to clause 99, what is "integrated development"? Integrated development allows the proponents to have all the development consensus co-ordinated through the one consent authority. This usually streamlines the process and allows development consent to be granted sooner than may otherwise be the case. Integrated development is interpreted in section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Specified approvals under specific legislation, in addition to requiring the effect of the integrated development provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, ensure that when an application for development consent which requires other approvals is received by either a council or the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning—being the consent authority—the proposals are referred to other approved bodies.

The approved body, in this case the Department of Land and Water Conservation [DLWC], then has the opportunity to indicate to the consent authority that it will not grant the approval—in which case the consent authority must refuse consent—or the general terms in which it would grant approval—in which case the consent authority may grant consent, but the consent must be consistent with these general terms. My main concern in relation to allowing for integrated development within the Water Management Bill is that if the DLWC as the approving body does not respond to the application for development consent within a specified time frame the approved body can grant consent. Subsequently, when the time comes for the proponent to obtain an approval at a later date, the DLWC, as the approving body, is unable to vary the conditions that were set by the consent authority when the original development consent was granted.

Given the magnitude of the tasks which are required of the DLWC with its limited resources, the inclusion of this clause, which allows for integrated development consent, is in my opinion unnecessary. I propose that clause 99, together with schedule 8.8 which makes amendments to other acts, be omitted. In my opinion the clauses within the bill are adequate, without the need for integrated development provisions. The removal of references to integrated development will also allow for a statewide notification and appeal provision to be developed under the regulations of this Act. If integrated development was to be provided for, as set out in the bill, the ad hoc public participation provisions under the individual local environment plans will be adopted instead.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.56 a.m.]: The Government stands by clause 99. The Government believes it to be a procedural necessity and will vote for it.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.56 a.m.]: It is a relief to hear that the Government is to stand by this clause because this, along with other similar developments in legislation elsewhere, is a breakthrough that people in the community have been looking to in an attempt to streamline but not compromise the bureaucratic processes where multiple consents are required. If the Government were to remove this clause from the bill it would take us back 50 years, in my view, in the development of progressive legislation in New South Wales.

Clause 99 agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.57 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 17:

(3) For the purposes of this section, an irrigation corporation, private irrigation board, private drainage board or private water trust is taken to be a landholder of land in respect of which a water use approval or water management work approval held by it is in force.

Clause 106 provides that the holder of a use approval or water management works approval is the land-holder for the time being. "Land-holder" is defined in the Dictionary as "the owner of the land or (if the owner is not in occupation of the land) the lawful occupier of the land". The identity of the land-holder may therefore change if the land is sold or leased. This amendment is necessary to make it clear that an irrigation corporation, private irrigation board, private drainage board or private water trust can hold a use approval or works approval, notwithstanding that it may not own or occupy the relevant land. To this end the amendment provides that these organisations shall be regarded as the land-holder for the purpose of clause 106.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.58 a.m.]: This amendment deems an irrigation corporation, private irrigation board, private drainage board or private water trust to be a land-holder. This consolidates the provisions which grant approvals and the Greens support this amendment.

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

Clause 114 omitted.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.59 a.m.]: I move additional Government amendment No. :

115 Minister may impose fees and charges

Note.

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992

The Government has deleted clause 114 and this change to clause 115 seeks to clarify and confirm the current flexible role of IPART in determining water prices. To avoid confusion, the Government's proposed amendment deletes any unintended reference to pricing policy guidelines and substitutes a general ministerial power to impose fees and charges. I stress that that would be done in accordance with any agreed IPART process. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.01 p.m.]: The amendment verifies that the department will not reduce IPART's role in bulk water price determinations. The use of the words "cannot exceed" does not include the Minister or the department in considering those aspects. The Greens accept the amendment.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.01 p.m.]: The Opposition recognises that the words "The Minister may impose fees and charges for the purposes of the Act" may strike alarm bells in some who read them for the first time. No-one would think it inappropriate that the Minister intends to impose fees and charges. We recognise that the prescription in clause 114 was likely to run into difficulties in the current regime under the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992. Clause 114 smacked of the possibility of the Minister using a discretion in setting charges in some valleys in a cross-border competition, and that would be contrary to the Council of Australian Government [COAG] agreements on the charges that apply to the marketing of water.

The Opposition has accepted the Government's explanation that it intends to abide by the IPART provisions. We will have to await further advice on how that is to be formulated. We have to recognise that for many years the level of fees and charges was one of the hottest potatoes in this industry. For many years, in southern electorates the proposed fees and charges for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area virtually determined the outcome of any election. The penultimate member for Murrumbidgee campaigned for a long while for deregulation so that fees and charges would reflect services rendered and not be a revenue-raising or political exercise. Although the words give little comfort, in the circumstances the Committee should accept the Government's amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.02 p.m.]: I agree with the Hon. D. F. Moppett that the words of the amendment give little comfort. However, they give some solace and that is certainly a step in the right direction. The Electricity Supply Amendment Bill, which is about to come before the Chamber, provides for IPART to set fees and charges. In that bill the Government has limited the increases that IPART can make to no more than the consumer price index [CPI]. I ask this question: Has the Government considered doing that with this bill? If not, could that be considered so that there will be a degree of surety and commonality between the bills and that charges will not be increased more than the CPI?

My asking that question is not an indication that the Opposition wants charges to be increased automatically with the CPI; rather it is an indication of the need for a cap on increases. The electricity bill is sensible in that it acknowledges that fees and charges cannot be increased by more than the CPI and by using IPART, yet this bill, which is also a Government bill, does not have the same provision. The Government should give the same surety to water users as it is prepared to give to electricity users.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.06 p.m.]: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised an interesting point. All this is caught up with the COAG agreement and full cost recovery. If we tie fees and charges to the CPI, we could never achieve full cost recovery. The proposal has been devised that way—different from the electricity proposal, which is on a full cost recovery basis—to provide for full cost recovery over time under the COAG agreement, which the Opposition supported. However, if the issues become too complex, as mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the guidelines to the terms of reference allow the Premier to modify the approach.

Amendment agreed to.

Chapter 3 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.08 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 118, 122, 141 and 168 in globo:

Amendments Nos 118, 122 and 141 make it clear that it will be necessary to obtain approval to undertake the construction of a water management work and take water from a water source. If the necessity for such approval is not made explicit, a proponent will be able to avoid the notification and assessment provisions in chapter 3. Amendment No. 168 is a small yet crucial amendment relating to the definition of "water bore" which will protect our valuable groundwater supplies from being used as disposal basins.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.10 p.m.]: The Government opposes these amendments. In relation to amendment No. 118, the wording in the existing clause is consistent with the wording used elsewhere in the bill, for example, for private irrigation districts or water supply authorities. The Government rejects amendment No. 122 for the same reasons that it rejects amendment No. 118. With regard to amendment No. 141, the wording in the existing clause is consistent with the wording used elsewhere in the bill. In relation to amendment No. 168, the definition of a "water bore" must cover bores that may conceivably be used for the discharge of treated waste or other material into aquifers. Therefore, the word "anything" must remain in the definition. It should be noted that the term "water bore" is used in relation to the licensing requirements for drillers.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.11 a.m.]: The Opposition concurs with the Government in opposing these amendments.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.12 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 120:

(3) The powers of entry conferred by this section are not to be exercised for a purpose referred to in subsection (1) (a), (f) or (g) without prior notice to the occupier of the land.

This amendment will ensure that the power of entry of irrigation corporations is exercised only with the consent of land-holders. While a number of government agencies have conferred upon them such powers of entry, it is a major incursion on the rights of individuals and it is unusual to vest such powers in private corporations. Irrigation corporations should be required to obtain the consent of land-holders prior to entering properties to carry out works or investigations, including the drilling of test bores. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.13 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment and will vote accordingly.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.13 p.m.]: It is great to have an opportunity to salute the eminently sensible amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. All of us at some time or another have heard about the distress that is caused when representatives of public utilities and other organisations enter land without giving advice. That has caused anxiety particularly in remote country areas. On those occasions when only a woman is present in a household she might be alarmed when she sees someone coming onto the land or passing by on an access road. It is not too much to ask people to give prior warning before they enter onto land, even though there are understandable and commendable reasons why they require such entry. The Opposition is happy to support this useful amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.15 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 121, 123 to 126, 138, 142, 149, 150, 157 and 162 in globo:

124 Terms and conditions of operating licence

The operating licence is subject to the terms and conditions determined by the Governor, but must include terms or conditions under which the irrigation corporation is required:

125 Amendment of operating licence

The Governor may amend an irrigation corporation's operating licence.

126 Term of operating licence

127 Contravention of operating licence

128 Cancellation of operating licence

(1) Any person may make submissions or objections with respect to the constitution of a private irrigation district, or with respect to the addition of lands to a private irrigation district, within 28 days after the date on which notice of the relevant petition is published under section 143 or 145.

These amendments seek to bring the operations of the irrigation corporations to a level of environmental regulation equal with those of other land users. The amendments will omit divisions 3 and 4 of chapter 4, and the bill amended with respect to the terms and conditions of operating licences, amendments to operating licences, the terms of operating licences, contraventions of operating licences, and cancellations of operating licences. With respect to division 4, the amendments propose: to remove the clauses of the bill that relate to irrigation corporations making arrangements with subsidiaries; an application to vary the land boundaries of an area of operations; objections to the inclusion of land within the area of operations; the determination of applications; and how the Governor may include land within the area of operations.

Amendment No. 121, a lengthy but important amendment, replaces clauses 124 to 132. The new clauses set out the terms and conditions of an operating licence requesting that it contain a requirement for the compilation of indicators on the ecological health of the area of operations of irrigation corporations. It sets the term of an operating licence at five years rather than the existing open-ended period, which I have said many times in debate in Committee is a worry. These sensible amendments are necessary to improve the environmental performance of irrigation corporations.

Amendment No. 123 will make it easier for a private land-holder to make an application for his or her land to be excised from the area of an irrigation corporation. Amendment No. 124 simplifies and makes easier the provisions for a person to make a submission or object to the constitution of a private irrigation district. It will remove a highly objectionable clause in the bill, clause 148 (3), which states:

A person may not lodge an objection on the ground that the person's interests would, if the petition were granted, be adversely affected for reasons relating to the quantity of water available from the river, estuary or lake from which it is proposed to take water for the purposes of the proposed private irrigation district, and any objection lodged on that ground is not to be entertained.

That proposed clause is yet another example of how the system and this bill are biased in favour of irrigation corporations. Amendments Nos 125 and 126 are very similar, but they relate to the application of a private irrigation corporation to take over water supply works. Amendment No. 138 seeks to replace the word "may" with the word "must" when the supply of water should be cut off within a private irrigation corporation. These provisions relate to such eventualities as a broken meter, a drought, an accident or an unlawful activity. The highest standards must be set, and private irrigation corporations must be held to account. Amendment No. 142 will enable the Governor, by proclamation, to vest in the Crown or a public authority the assets and rights of a water supply authority.

Amendments Nos 149 and 150 seek to limit the powers of the proposed ministerial corporation to acquire water rights or land for the purpose of assisting private irrigation corporations. Amendment No. 157 seeks to delete Delta Electricity as a major utility under schedule 2. As honourable members would be aware, the environmental performance of Delta Electricity to date has been very poor. The goal of ecological sustainability would not be served by allowing it to have this status. Amendment No. 162 requires the Minister to develop a share component for major utility licences.

The amendments that I have moved in globo for the consideration of the Committee address one simple theme: to bring private irrigation corporations into line with resource management standards as they apply to other users, and to introduce provisions to protect the environment. Clearly, that is what they are all about. They give us the opportunity to balance the interests of the environment and human health with the economic use of water. I most strongly urge the Committee to support the amendments.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.21 p.m.]: The Government will vote against all these amendments. Amendment No. 121 seeks to introduce greater accountability into the regulation and operation of irrigation corporations, particularly in relation to water quality and ecosystem management. It specifies the term of an operating licence as five years. The Government rejects this amendment. In many ways the requirements are too onerous for the irrigation corporations, and would be inequitable when compared with other irrigation enterprises, many of which are larger than the irrigation corporations. Reducing the term of an irrigation corporation licence to five years would again place them on an inequitable basis with other irrigation enterprises that will have 15-year licences.

Amendment No. 123, which relates to the private irrigation districts, is not supported by the Government. It is essential in view of the substantial private investment in these districts that the relationship be protected. The Government rejects amendment No. 124. As the bill now stands it allows additional time for a private irrigator's board to object to additions to the lands in private irrigation districts. Amendment No. 125 allows for broad objections to the granting of an application for water management work by a private irrigation board. The Government cannot support this amendment, as it may allow vexatious objections that would only be time consuming and costly. For the same reason, the Government rejects amendment No. 126, which would open up too broadly the grounds for objection. Amendment No. 138, which requires the private water trust to cut off water supply if a land-holder fails to do certain things, is too dogmatic.

The current wording provides more discretionary powers to suit the range of possible circumstances and reasons why the land-holder may not be able to comply. Amendment No. 142 attempts to require the Crown to take on the liabilities of a water supply authority. This proposal, of course, is not supported. The Government also rejects amendment No. 149, which removes the ministerial corporation's power to acquire water rights—which is essential for the Government to properly undertake its water management responsibilities. Amendment No. 151 is rejected, as omission of this clause would make the Government liable to challenges. Amendment No. 157 is also rejected. The Government considers that Delta Electricity should be included in the list of public utilities. The Government believes that amendment No. 162 is unnecessary, as it is a transitional issue only.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.24 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 127:

This amendment ensures that private irrigation boards pay compensation for any damage they cause as a result of negligence.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.24 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment as a strengthening of viability provisions applicable to private irrigation boards.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.25 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 128, 133, 134, 136 and 137 in globo:

204 Register of management programs

230 Register of management programs

This series of amendments relates to private irrigation districts and, specifically, private irrigation boards and private irrigation trusts. The amendments seek to protect the environment and ensure that water management principles are followed at all times. Amendment No. 128 specifies the circumstances in which a private irrigation board is not obliged to supply water. As the bill stands, private irrigation boards have an escape clause from the obligation to supply water in the event of a drought, accident or otherwise. The amendment will stipulate that a private irrigation board may not supply water that is unsuitable for the purposes for which it is used. The amendment is necessary to protect consumers of water, particularly when one considers the powers of private irrigation boards to continue to charge levies for water despite non-delivery.

Amendment No. 133 requires a private irrigation board to consider water management principles as they relate to drainage management, as outlined in the water management principles in clause 5. The bill requires private irrigation boards to prepare, reveal and implement a management program for each drainage district. This amendment is important because of the overriding need to tie each part of the bill back to the stated water management principles. Let us remember that this is landmark legislation: it is incorporating previously separate Acts under statewide cohesive water resource management.

The water management principles must be the glue that binds it all together. That is why we have moved amendment No. 133. Surely, my colleagues should be able to see their way clear to support it. The amendment will further the Government's objectives of the bill and strengthen the basic reason for the legislation. Amendments Nos 134 and 137 provide transparency in a management program implemented by private irrigation boards. As drafted, the bill makes no provision for a publicly available record of management programs prepared by private irrigation boards. Given that private irrigation boards affect water quality and management in many areas, public documentation of their plans is necessary to ensure that their actions are consistent with those of other authorities affecting the same resource. The amendments provide that a management plan is given to the Minister, that it is available to the department on its web site, and that a register of management programs is maintained for the perusal of the public.

The amendments do not affect what private irrigation boards are required to put in management plans. Let us be clear about that: The amendments do not affect what goes into the plans, only what is publicly available. Surely that will be supported; otherwise all the rhetoric about commitment to community interest goes by the board. These amendments are in line with the intent of the bill; they will assist overall progress in the cohesive management of the water resource at all levels.

Amendment No. 136 relates to the powers and duties of members of private water trusts. It requires that a private water trust exercising its function to maintain its program do so in accordance with the water management principles relating to water use. This amendment provides for management programs to address broad environmental provisions through the planning process. This amendment is another example of the overriding need to tie each part of the bill to the stated water management principles. As I stated previously, this is landmark legislation incorporating previously separate Acts. Again, the water management principles must be the glue that binds this together and that is what the amendments provide. These amendments are necessary; they provide the opportunity for environmental protection. I strongly urge my colleagues to support them.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.31 p.m.]: Greens amendment No. 128 inserts a clause that provides that a private irrigation board may not supply water that is unsuitable for the purpose for which it is to be used. This cannot be supported by the Government as it would place an impossible requirement upon private irrigation boards. Those boards have no control over the quality of water they supply. Their business is to take raw water from the river and distribute it to customers. The range of pollutants and causes of poor water quality are vast and no-one could expect one single supplier, such as a private irrigation board, to be able to guarantee the quality of the water delivered. Therefore the Government will oppose amendment No. 128. Amendments Nos. 133 and 136 are unnecessary as their intent is covered under clause 9 (1). Amendments Nos 134 and 137 are opposed as it is unnecessary to specify this detail in the Act.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.32 p.m.], by leave: I move A Better Future for Our Children amendments Nos 129 and 130 in globo:

These amendments ensure that a private irrigation board may require the land-holder to provide water delivery systems on his or her holding. The bill refers only to ditches and channels. In the interests of water efficiency, the words "water delivery systems" include not only ditches and channels but also other more efficient ways of delivering water for the purposes intended.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.33 p.m.]: The Government supports these amendments.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.34 p.m.]: Earlier private discussions suggested that the purpose of these amendments was likely, in my view, to be far more sinister than has been explained. We are more comfortable with the idea of a water delivery system. It is worth elaborating my thoughts on this subject because the tendency is for people to think the use of water through the channels we know so well—for instance, those vital to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, to all the joint water supply authorities and many of our rivers—is possibly to a lesser extent, but those channels remain vital and are our most common water delivery systems.

We lost track of important facts by setting out to interrupt that in this bill because people are struck by the efficiencies offered by piping and drip irrigation systems. Channels are extensively used in water irrigation. I should have referred also to flood irrigation versus water spray, being piped, in trickle irrigation or in whatever other form. I believe there is room for all of those systems and certainly we cannot move precipitately from what is overwhelmingly the current system to any so-called more efficient system. We simply must see these things evolve to make sure they are economically feasible; at present they are not.

The word "ditches" almost takes us back into the horse and buggy days. I still have one of those old horsedrawn Britstand ditches. It is amazing how they were used in the construction of check banks and all those sorts of things. They have almost faded out of the lexicon of irrigation. Perhaps the draughtsman overlooked the fact that the term "ditches" is probably a little quaint, but channels are certainly relevant. The point with channels is that there is a huge amount of evaporation and seepage and flood irrigation does not allow the water to get right to the roots of plants.

It must be remembered that the water is not being destroyed as it goes through all sorts of cycles in the ecology and environment of the world. Evaporated water eventually returns in the cycle. We do not want to be alarmed about that. It is possible to have a combination of all water efficiency systems. To that extent, our anxieties have been relieved by the use of this term "water delivery systems" rather than simply removing "ditches" and "channels" and trying to move towards enclosed channels or pipes, which I believe would have been totally inappropriate.

We salute the irrigation industry for its water efficiency. On another occasion I have talked about the way water is recycled after it has gone from the flood irrigation channels. It is channelled back into storage dams, returned to higher ground along channels and used again. Given the enormous amount of water that goes into any sort of agriculture production, the level of efficiency in water usage is highly commendable. I remember being instructed during my university days about the amount of water, which was basically rainfall, that went into a loaf of bread: tonnes of water equals a pound of bread. So much water is involved in biological functions that it would be wrong to nitpick at this stage about people using it in more extensive irrigation layouts. I am relieved that perhaps the most aggressive amendments that were being considered in this area have been moderated. I believe that the industry can live with water delivery systems. No doubt it will be relieved that ditches and channels—channels in particular—will not be eliminated from the scene.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.40 p.m.]: Having just listened to the latest contribution by the Hon. D. F. Moppett, I feel that he is becoming very much like the star of They Shoot Horses Don't They—wearily dancing long into the night.

Amendments agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.41 p.m.]: I move amendment No. 131:

No. 131 Page 92, clause 182, line 34 to page 93, line 3. Omit all words on those lines.

The amendment will clarify the bill and make it work much better.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.42 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment. It is agreed that the provision should be removed as it is clearly a hangover from the existing Private Irrigation Districts Act, which is to be repealed by the bill. It is intended that the supply of water to private irrigation boards shall be managed entirely within the access licence framework, as is the case for other water users except for basic land-holder rights.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.42 p.m.]: I am not convinced by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. Whilst it is the objective to deal with situations in which supplied water perhaps has not being utilised because of rain or something like that, I am not entirely convinced that this could have sat there even if all the objectives he spoke about were realised and the clause was not activated. But I do not intend to pursue it actively.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.43 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 132 and 135 in globo:

No. 132 Page 99, clause 197, line 3. Omit "Part". Insert instead "Act".

No. 135 Page 109, clause 223, line 19. Insert "construct a water management work or" before "take water".

Amendment No. 132 would oblige private irrigation boards to make bylaws consistent with the objects of the bill rather than just the applicable part. This is a very significant difference as the objects of the bill include the principles of ecologically sustainable development; the protection, enhancement and restoration of water sources and their associated ecosystems; ecological processes; biological diversity; and water quality. These are the critical principles upon which the management of water should properly be based.

Amendment No. 135 clarifies the wording of the clause and to make it clear that the construction of a water management work can occur only in accordance with an access licence and water supply work approval. The amendment also clarifies the intent of the clause, which at present refers to water supply work approval but does not give that a subject. It seems that water management work is what was intended. These are moderate and simple amendments that will improve the operation of the bill. I urge the Chamber to support them.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.44 p.m.]: The Government supports these clarifying amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Chapter 4 as amended agreed to.

Chapter 5 agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.45 p.m.]: I move amendment No. 139:

No. 139 Page 137, clause 282, line 11. Omit "that has ceased to exist".

This is a housekeeping amendment to fix the unusual wording in the clause. I would hate to have the job of ascertaining whether or not a corporate body exists, although I would relish the opportunity to decide whether some corporate bodies should have the right to exist. Nevertheless, I commend the amendment to the Chamber.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.46 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment. There may be instances in which the corporate entity has not ceased to exist but no longer has an interest in the major utility business.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.47 p.m.]: I will not move my amendment No. 140.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.47 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 18 and 19 in globo:

water management work

Amendment No. 18 would widen the definition of the term "water management work" insofar as it applies to the operations of a water supply authority under the bill. The expanded definition includes sewerage works and other components of a water supply system which may, for example, include pipes, holding ponds and pumping stations. The amendment is required to ensure that the current operations of water supply authorities can continue smoothly under the bill. By amendment No. 19 the Government seeks to allow for the development of a more strategic approach to the planning and management of water, sewerage and draining systems under the control of water supply authorities. It is a straightforward proposal and I believe it will be supported.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.48 p.m.]: Amendment No. 18 is supported by the Greens. It expands the definition of a "water management work". Amendment No. 19 relates to the making of regulations by public utilities and water supply authorities in respect of planning, sewerage and draining systems. This expands the power of water supply authorities such as the Cobar Water Board and Gosford City Council under schedule 3 to make planning arrangements that may be outside the framework established in chapter 2. The Greens do not support this amendment. It is a shame that the two amendments were not moved separately.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.49 p.m.]: Whilst the Opposition will not oppose the amendments as there is not a lot of concern about them, I put on the record that since this Government came to power it has cut $30 million per year from the country water and sewerage scheme. So the provision will not be used as often as it should be used. I would be happy if it were used a lot more. At the same time that the Government introduced the septic tank regulation, unbelievably it cut funds by $30 million per annum. So while ever the Government remains in office we can tick up a loss of $30 million every year. The Government has been in power for six years, so the bush has lost $180 million.

The Hon. I. Cohen: You support dirty, leaky septic tanks, do you?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The best way of fixing the problem is to have a proper country water and sewerage scheme to replace septic tanks in the villages. Even the Hon. I. Cohen must see that.

Amendments agreed to.

Chapter 6 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.50 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 20:

No. 20 Page 161, clause 324, line 4. Omit "for any reason". Insert instead "in the public interest".

This amendment constrains the powers of the Minister to impose temporary restrictions on the taking of water from a water source. The amendment requires the Minister to do so "in the public interest" rather than "for any reason". The amendment has been prompted by representations from Country Labor, which has been very effective in moulding the great facets of this bill, and the New South Wales Farmers Association, which has worked hand-in-glove with the Government on a number of issues. I believe that the changes will be supported overwhelmingly by the farming community.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.51 p.m.]: Despite that vacuous hyperbole, the Opposition acknowledges that there is some sense in the amendment and will not oppose it.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.51 p.m.]: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain the difference between "moulding facets" and "knocking off rough edges"?

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.51 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 21 and 22 in globo:

Amendments Nos 21 and 22 are minor amendments to include the Minister as a potential owner of works to which this provision applies. They are required to allow the operations of the Fish River Scheme where the assets are specifically vested in the Minister. They are not controversial and they are essential from a management point of view.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.52 p.m.]: I move my amendment 143A :

349 Protection of water quality

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991

The bill currently does not adequately empower the Government to set enforced quality standards in government regulations for water discharges. This amendment makes it an offence for a person to cause contaminated water, as defined by the regulations, to flow into a water source and describes how the discharge water quality standards are to be set with the concurrence of the independent expert panel, which the Committee has yet to deal with, and the Environment Protection Authority [EPA]. It allows penalties to be applied as prescribed in this division. The amendment requires that regulations prescribing water quality standards for this section must be made with the concurrence of the independent expert panel and the EPA. By making the independent expert panel part of this process, the group with scientific expertise is part of the whole water management strategy to advise on achievable water quality standards for water discharge.

Without this amendment the Government cannot penalise those who allow the return to source of water that is contaminated with, for example, heavy metals, traces of fertilisers and pesticides or extremely high salt concentrations that will affect all water users and the environment downstream. The amendment is essential to ensure that the quality of water returning to the river system or other water sources is adequate and that the Government has the power to penalise those who pollute waterways with contaminated water flows.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.54 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. It seeks to prohibit the discharge of polluted water into a water source. Pollution discharge has adequate control by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and is therefore not necessary. Its inclusion would only cause confusion between the two pieces of legislation.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.55 p.m.]: I agree with the Hon. I. M. Macdonald on this occasion. If the Hon. A. G. Corbett had thought, for example, about the situation of the paper mill at Albury, he would have realised that water does go back into the river but, in the case of the Australian paper mill, the conditions of consent result in the removal of more salt than was actually put into that site further downstream. This amendment would have stopped the operation of that mill.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.56 p.m.]: I move National Party amendment No. 174:

I refer to representations that were made to us, I concede late in the day, by Murray Irrigation Ltd, which I believe offers a sensible amendment to this legislation. I will await the Government's response before entering into any lengthy dialogue and trust that the Legislative Council will support the amendment.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.57 p.m.]: This amendment is not as complex as some amendments moved late last night by the Opposition, and the Government is happy to support it.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.58 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 23 :

No. 23 Page 175, clause 356, line 10. Omit "the occupation of land". Insert instead "a specific parcel of land".

This is a technical amendment. Existing clause 356 refers to charges or rates that are set by the Minister, irrigation corporations, private irrigation boards, private drainage boards, private water trusts or water supply authorities. Clause 356 (2) provides that charges or rates in respect to services supplied in connection with the occupation of the land are to be regarded as charges on the land. The Government amendment removes the reference to occupation of the land and simply requires the charge to relate to a specified parcel of land, that is, a property. This amendment means that all that is required for the purpose of this clause is connection to a specified parcel of land and that it is not necessary to show in addition that the charge concerns the occupation of the land.

Amendment agreed to.

Chapter 7 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [1.00 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 147, 148 and 158 in globo:

Subject to this Schedule, a member of the Water Advisory Council or a management committee holds office for 5 years, but is eligible (if otherwise qualified) for re-appointment.

Amendment No. 147 refers to the function of the Water Advisory Council [WAC] and expands upon the role already provided for in the legislation. However, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Water Advisory Council also investigates reports and advises on the operation of the Act and its regulations in a comprehensive manner. Now the Government has assembled a good representative body, it should be used to provide a review on all aspects of the Act that need to be kept updated to achieve the best possible outcomes for the State's water sources. In doing so, the amendment includes a review of government policy affecting the management of water sources—which will be useful for identifying any conflicting policies; a review of regulations to provide checks and balances in the implementation of the Act; and a report on the health of water ecosystems throughout the State. It will provide the Minister access to information on the state of water sources that the department may not have been able to assess, to provide feedback on the operation of the Act.

Regarding amendment No. 148, as with everybody exercising a function under this Act, this amendment reiterates that the WAC also has a duty to exercise its functions in accordance with the objects of this Act. Amendment No. 158 provides for the term of appointment to the Water Advisory Council and management committees to be for five years rather than three years. Given that water management plans are reviewed every five years, it is more important for the term of appointment to reflect this time period. This means that those who are involved in the making of a plan are qualified to be involved in its review. It would be a wasted effort to see the exercise and knowledge lost before the review period. I commend these three amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [1.02 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments. Amendment No. 147 would extend the current role of the Water Advisory Council into areas of government policy, which is not appropriate for a community-based council that meets infrequently. Amendment No. 148 is unnecessary as consistency with the objects of the Act is implicit. The Government opposes amendment No. 158. A three-year appointment is more consistent with other ministerial advisory councils.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [1.03 p.m.]: The Opposition concurs with the Government in those remarks.

Amendments negatived.

[The Chairman left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The Committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.30 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2:

No. 1 Page 188, line 1, to page 190, line 33. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 194, clause 398, lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines.

Honourable members would have noted that this is the commencement of the section dealing with the setting up of water investment trusts. The proponents of this idea were the New South Wales irrigators; the Government did not plan the trusts in the first place, they were included after representations were made to the Government. The establishment of the trusts must have appeared to the proponents to have been a good idea at the time. In the bill's final form this has caused considerable anxiety. The irrigation industry generally was divided about whether trusts were an appropriate proposal to put forward to the Government. Eventually, this was initiated because of a genuine feeling of goodwill and a desire to show the bona fides of the irrigation industry through a willingness to accept levies to facilitate the operations of the new Water Management Bill. I am sure the expectations varied as to the purpose of the trust fund.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: And how big the levy was.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Yes, we will get to that. It is open ended and that is the whole problem. In the first place it was thought that if a fund were developed over the period of the water management plan, maybe that would facilitate the idea of accepting compensation. In the early stages of the bill—and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would be familiar with this—the Government was adamant that there would be no compensation. It was an article of faith of government that the water belonged to the Crown, and the Parliamentary Secretary stated that philosophy, referring to another area of the bill, that all the person had was a licence for the use of the water, but certainly did not own the water. In a way we have moved on and we recognise the property rights contained in a current licence.

Compensation is now part of the bill. Some irrigators thought that Treasury would still be resistant to paying out money. If this could be seen as a sort of restructuring, brought in the best interests of efficiencies and water utilisation, contributing to a fund that could be used might be an appropriate way to encourage people to think that compensation was a good move. Others thought that irrigators would be prepared to contribute money towards works that would improve the distribution and control of regulated flows. When I first heard about it, my reaction was of great anxiety. In fact, I could go so far as to say that I was aghast at the proposal. I thought it incredible that the industry could be singled out in those circumstances and that a fund would be established which would alleviate the responsibilities of the Government to provide the infrastructure for water resource development, and particularly with water.

People could draw parallels between the contributions made by mining companies to major infrastructure developments. In my view that would be like asking for the irrigation industry in addition to paying rates to the council to pay levies towards a fund that might be applied to upgrading access roads to irrigation areas. That would be a cost-shifting exercise, if it were the purpose of the trust funds, that is quite unacceptable. It bridges all standards of government responsibility and what people can expect from government in providing infrastructure. From time to time we hear complaints in the country, often echoed in the city with genuine sympathy, about the Government's failure to commit itself to major infrastructure projects to stimulate development in country areas. This would simply accentuate the fears that the Government was in some way withdrawing from its responsibility to provide suitable infrastructure for development.

Our proposal at this stage is not a blind blocking exercise, but because so much controversy surrounds the investment trust it should be deleted from the bill until there is agreement. I know that other groups who have cited the bill in its present form with the reference to the establishment of an investment fund have rubbed their hands together in glee and thought that this is a great idea and a way of funding purposes that they deem appropriate. Initially they would probably support the creation of a fund of money. But it would be an inequitable fund because it is quite obvious that those who have to contribute to it in the first instance will be the irrigators. The Government has given no clear indication of its commitment to the proposed purposes to which the funds could be put. It is like asking people to hand over a blank cheque and deciding later what to do with it. We had hoped that the matter would be withdrawn and that further negotiation and consultation would be had with the industry before the Committee was asked to consider the structure of the investment trust.

If these amendments are defeated, I foreshadow that we will move further amendments that will at least safeguard the potential contributors from the worst excesses that may be visited upon them if the bill goes through in its present form. I understand that the Government also has amendments, none of which offer comfort to those who may be called upon to contribute. The amendments provide for a clearly defined plan for improvement works in the valley and for an agreed levy to be paid as part of that plan. Over the years there has been a great deal of frustration about the regulatory works along the river. I understand why all sorts of people would be interested in ensuring that they are accelerated, and that they are not totally dependent upon government expenditure and appropriation. But this proposal could not possibly be passed by the Committee at this stage because it places people in a position where they are the providers of the money and someone else altogether is the determinant of the projects.

In the course of this debate we have heard that projects could range from those that would be acceptable, such as carefully defined infrastructure developments, to social objectives that are entirely inappropriate. Once the proposal is set in legislation, and once the funds begin to roll in and people see that sum of money accumulating, all sorts of hair-brained proposals will be put forward. Another concern I have, which does not seem to have been addressed, is that if you are required to contribute but you leave the industry before any expenditure is agreed to or undertaken, what position are you in? None of these things have been thought through. It would be appropriate to agree to the amendments we have put forward, which would have the simple effect of excising the reference to investment trust from the bill. We move the amendments not to confine the investment trust to oblivion, but rather to enable the industry to reconsider its original proposal. If it can reach some agreement with the Government about an acceptable format we would certainly be interested in looking at it. But at least for the time being it would be appropriate to remove all references to the trust.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [2.45 p.m.]: A bill of this magnitude has wide-ranging ramifications. Its success depends largely on a lot of goodwill from the Government towards the people of rural New South Wales and their compliance with the bill once they realise the long-term benefits the bill is designed to afford them. The establishment of a trust could work very well, but too little attention has been given to detail in its current form. It is all very well to have grandiose terms about the nature of the trust, but to get any venture or instrument off the ground there has to be more detail. The wording of the trust is rather open ended. It is non-specific about how much money will be raised and from whom it will be raised.

Could people be asked to contribute $10 a year, or would that they be asked to contribute $100,000 a year? It could be anything. It is not stipulated. The levy could be considered a tax on one group of people, but for whose benefit? Where would it benefit? For what environmental considerations would it be used? It is not spelled out. How much would the Government pay? Would it pay nothing? Would it pay 50 per cent? Would the Government be benevolent towards these funds? The bill does not say. We do not know. For the Government to keep good faith with Country Labor and the people of rural New South Wales it would be a very good idea if the appropriate sections were withdrawn from the bill in an attitude of bonhomie, in an attitude of getting it right so that the whole thing could be thought through and greater detail provided. It could then be brought back to the Parliament and treated in a more appropriate way.

I would like to pick up on the comments of the Hon. D. F. Moppett about creating an instrument with lots of money in it that, sooner or later, some Government needy cause could get its hands on. I remind the Committee of McVie under the Fraser Government getting into the Superannuation Fund and pinching it for no good reason; certainly not for the reasons of superannuation. I seriously put to the Government that it extract these various sections, give them some thought and in the spirit of goodwill come back to the Parliament so that we can consider this matter with a similarly high degree of goodwill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.49 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party has received submissions from various groups concerned about the Water Investment Trust, which is to be established by the bill. The Opposition amendment seeks to remove all references to the trust from the bill. The New South Wales Irrigators Council and New South Wales Farmers Association expressed concern about the operation and function of this trust. The President of the New South Wales Irrigators Council, Col Thomson, wrote:

Mr Thomson outlined the main problems as follows:

The main problems with the current provisions are:

funds contribute from stakeholders, including water users and other groups are not adequately protected from future government raiding;
representation is not reflective of stakeholder contributions;
provisions do not empower rural communities in the development of objectives and the operation of the Trust;
there is a lack of treasury commitment to participation in the Trust and the very real danger that Government will shift costs related to core government responsibilities onto rural communities;

He concluded:

The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association Inc., which forwarded a submission on 16 November, was more outspoken in its criticism of the proposal. It stated:

It then referred to the various problematic and open-ended provisions. The submission concluded:

The association wrote to Minister Amery on 7 November requesting the Minister to reconsider this particular part in the bill. It wrote:

The reasons, which seem to be quite sound, are as follows:

The association repeated the previous criticism:

The letter concluded:

They are serious allegations about the trust. I assumed, as I am sure other honourable members did, that the Water Investment Trust Fund was a voluntary fund in which people could invest. However, it seems that it will become a taxing mechanism to which people will be forced to provide money—which is a completely different meaning from that which the term "water investment trust" conveys. Perhaps it is a misnomer. If such a fund is established, it should not be called an investment trust fund; rather it should be called a water taxing fund, a water collections fund or something similar. The word "investment" gives the impression of voluntariness, but any question of voluntariness seems to have disappeared in the drafting of the bill. We support the amendments moved by the Opposition.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.56 p.m.]: I am concerned that this amendment has been the subject of discussion for more than 12 months without resolution. Perhaps the Government will clarify that the trust is not working with irrigators. I believe this is a last-ditch stand by the Opposition and I will support the Government.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.57 p.m.]: This is probably one of the more important issues we have dealt with in the last few days, although several issues have been the cause of considerable discussion particularly between the Opposition and the Government. The Government will move four amendments that alter the terms of the scheme about which honourable members have read in the bill. The amendments are based upon discussions held with irrigators over a short period of time. I will move those four amendments in globo at a later time. They concern the establishment of the Water Investment Trust. The provisions covering the trust build on proposals of the New South Wales Irrigators Council and the Nature Conservation Council.

The Water Investment Trust is to be used for activities that result in environmental enhancement and investment in water savings for the purpose of achieving sustainable use of water. Specifically, the bill provides for assistance with water efficiency, water recycling, business restructuring, industry retraining, research, rehabilitation of water sources and related matters.

The trust may fund projects by way of a direct grant or a loan. The Water Investment Trust will hold funds from a variety of sources, including levies from access licence holders, bequests from conservation groups and the private sector, and Government contributions. It is intended that any New South Wales Government funds in the trust will be used for investment in economically sound capital works and infrastructure projects. I am sure all members will agree that this is a very important and necessary objective. It is important to keep in mind that in past decades State and Federal governments and the private sector have provided funds for different water infrastructure projects on a fairly ad hoc basis.

The Water Investment Trust provides a legislative framework and a strategic approach to the funding of such infrastructure projects. The bill currently specifies details of membership of the board, and the Government amendment to delete specific membership of the board was proposed following concerns raised by stakeholders. The membership will be determined following further consultation and will be specified in a regulation. The making of regulations is a public process, as we have discussed throughout the debate on this bill, and regulations can be disallowed by Parliament. Obviously, if members were not happy with the regulations in relation to this matter, they could be subsequently overturned.

Further, the Government amendments put in place the skeleton on which a water investment trust can now be developed. The Government sees this as one of the more significant parts of the bill. However, we recognise that debate on the issue is not over. There has to be further discussion between the Government, potential contributing partners and other interest groups. I am hopeful that the discussions will proceed on a constructive basis. One of the most contentious matters relates to the security of the funds provided to the trust by its non-government partners. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile stressed that in his contribution. This is clearly an issue that needs further debate, which I expect to take place over the coming months.

It is also critical for the protection of financial partners that funds are contributed on the basis of an agreed works program and work-sharing arrangements. The Water Investment Trust Fund is to be audited by the Auditor-General according to the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act. There is no scope for the department or the Minister to opt out of this requirement. The Auditor-General will audit the fund automatically and prepare a report as to whether the fund has been managed in accordance with the legislation. As I stressed, it will be a statutory authority and must act according to its objectives. I want to reiterate a couple of points that have been raised. The trust is not a general fund; it is a specified fund. Therefore, its funds are to be used for specified purposes.

The Hon. M. I. Jones: That is not mentioned in the bill.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: It is in effect. It is a statutory trust subject to the Public Finance and Audit Act, with an annual audit by the Auditor-General. The funds cannot be used unless it is consistent with the provisions of the bill—that is, chapter 8, page 43. Therefore, it cannot be raided by Treasury, which was the point raised by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. So the Government opposes the two amendments moved by the Opposition. The Government will propose its amendments to the trust, which will be dealt with afterwards.

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS [3.04 p.m.]: The trust was not mentioned in the white paper; it was not included in the draft bill; it has not been through a community consultative process. The irrigators may well have asked for it originally but they are not satisfied with the current structure and format of the trust. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile mentioned a letter by the Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association. I will repeat one of the paragraphs that he read out:

It has come out of left field. I remind the Hon. I. M. Macdonald what he said about the Opposition amendment to clause 83 regarding the register. He said that it had not been discussed and negotiated. To be consistent, I would expect that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald would have to agree with the Opposition in this regard because this provision has not been discussed and negotiated in a way that the rest of the bill has been. This trust is to protect the rights of irrigators and allow for proper and adaptive environmental management by a joint government and industry investment in system losses. The original intent has been corrupted by the trust as it is included in the bill. The only reasonable thing to do is to vote it out. The Opposition is not philosophically opposed to the concept of a trust—we are agreeable to it—but the trust as structured in the bill has not gone through the community consultation process as the rest of the bill has. It needs a lot more work on it.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.06 p.m.]: To compare the trust with the register is absolute nonsense. I understand that this proposal was put to the Government by the irrigators at a working group meeting in May this year, so the discussion and the formulation of the concept within the bill have been around since then. So it is not a new idea.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: We have acknowledged that.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: But to say that it is similar to a register proposal that comes out of the blue, that was printed up yesterday at lunchtime—

The Hon. R. H. Colless: I was referring to your comments.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My comments about it stand. The idea has been around for six or seven months whereas the register idea that you put forward last night was put before the Parliament at 6 or 7 o'clock yesterday. This matter has been consulted on clearly and fully all the way through. In relation to the funding direction of the trust, as I said, it cannot be raided by Treasury. The objects of the trust set out clearly what the trust is to do.

The Hon. M. I. Jones: It can be raided by Treasury.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My advice is that it cannot be. The objects of the trust make it clear that the funding from both the public and the private sector is for the restoration and rehabilitation of water sources and their dependent ecosystems, the construction of works for more efficient delivery and recycling of water, the conduct of water industry adjustment, business restructuring and training, conduct of research, and development of technology in relation to the matters I have just dealt with. The trust may, for the purpose of promoting its objects, make grants or loans, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, for projects of the kind I outlined, supervise expenditure of money so granted and engage in any such activities relating to its objects as the Minister may approve. The objects of the trust are clearly set out. The funds are for those purposes, to improve investment in our water systems. As I said, the fund will be audited by the Auditor General.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.09 p.m.]: One thing that has maintained our interest throughout this debate has been the imaginative ways in which the Parliamentary Secretary has deftly put the Government into deeper trouble. Every time he speaks, whatever vestige of confidence one has that the Government has thought these matters through suddenly evaporates. He has laboured the point about the audit office supervising the expenditure to make sure that it conforms with the objectives, having terrified us with the scope of the objectives. I referred to this along the way. I would concede that I do not think that the Government will sequestrate those farmers who might be in this eventually, but it will cost shift, and one might draw the parallel with import replacement. The Government may say to itself, "We would normally have to deal with ecologically important projects and the development of infrastructure for the distribution of water. All we will do is say that they are on the 10-year works program," and anyone who is in the game knows that that means they have been cancelled. Therefore, the pressure will be on for the investment trust to be diverted into all these harebrained schemes that come up from time to time, as well as those that legitimately should be pursued and are agitated by the management committees—not by the irrigators—and are seen to be the core responsibilities of government.

I acknowledge that this scheme was a great exercise initially. It was proposed by New South Wales irrigators, but certainly for purposes other than those that have been expounded by the Parliamentary Secretary. It was beyond the scope of their imagination that it would turn out in this form. The door is now wide open and the horse has bolted. The Government has seized on this opportunity because it regards it as a really convenient way to undertake works, by simply saying, "They are not on our agenda, they are on your agenda." The Parliamentary Secretary said there were a range of people that they would talk to later who might contribute to this. Who will contribute to it because the Government has not given an indication that it is fiddling around to find some loose change in its pockets? One cannot forget that because the Government has very deep pockets and very short arms when it comes to these sorts of funds.

I have had the benefit of serving on an expenditure and appropriation committee with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, during which time we spoke with Treasury officials. Accordingly, I have a bit of an understanding about the idea of open-ended commitments such as the Government making a donation or gift to the Macquarie Valley Water Investment Trust Fund. Like hell it will! That is not the way government works. It will go back to those who have a capacity to pay: the irrigators. There may be minor contributions from other groups, but this measure will result in a tax on irrigators. They will foot the bill, but the broad-ranging agenda we have heard about from the Parliamentary Secretary will be open to anybody. The person commissioned to set the agenda within the framework outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary should probably be in line for some literary prize.

The scheme is fraught with danger. The Opposition is not saying it is inconceivable, but the processes that have led even to the structuring of the bill and the Government's amendments are such that there is no confidence in the market that the trust will serve the purposes for which it was intended. It is a very modest request to ask the Committee to defer this matter. One cannot write into a bill the fact that a matter is to be deferred, such as can be done with minutes in normal meetings. The only available course in the parliamentary sense is to take the measure out of the bill. The Opposition looks forward to its redrafting and to the consultation with potential contributors promised by the Parliamentary Secretary. It will be a pretty dry little party because not too many people will assemble when the Government gets down to it and finds out the colour of the available money. I do not think Treasury officials will turn up. If they do, it will be a sad story that they will have to tell. However, the irrigators will be there and by that time they may have reconsidered their position and we may very well never hear of this proposal again. But right now it is the cause of great alarm. I am indebted to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, who gave the Committee chapter and verse about the sea change of opinion and how the entire industry views the matter with trepidation. It asks with one voice that the Opposition amendments be passed and that the matter lay on some table outside the Parliament where it can be taken up and discussed at a later time.

The Hon. I. Cohen spoke in vague terms about environmental matters, but I would have thought that a well-briefed spokesman for the Government—and certainly a spokesman for country New South Wales, one of the Country Labor team—would have been able to nominate the projects that might qualify. Instead, we have heard only vague generalities. I would adopt this measure as confidently as I would buy shares in the Sydney Harbour Bridge. This is a certain loser for the people who are potential contributors. The only stakeholder who will laugh about this is the department when it looks at its works program. It knows about the Cabinet's priority list. Someone mentioned the placement of water and sewerage on the list of priorities over past few years, with the Government being obsessed with the Olympic Games and city development. Country priorities have gone down the drain, and that is what will happen with this proposal. Country priorities for development of irrigation infrastructure, river management infrastructure and ecological matters will be downgraded and the investment trust will carry the can.

When people realise that the Hon. M. R. Egan will be in charge of this matter, they will be convinced that it is time we threw it out. The Committee will be convinced that we should vote in favour of the amendments, which will have the effect of standing the matter aside for more mature and serious consideration. It may be possible at that stage for an acceptable proposal to be put.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.17 p.m.]: It is a hallmark of country representation that the concerns of country people are listened to. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that these country people are wrong and they should take lesson one from the Labor Party. Overwhelmingly, however, country people are concerned about such trusts and they do not want this measure in the bill. Sensible speakers, people with cool heads and with an understanding of the matter, have agreed that parts of the measure are good. In fact, at one stage the farmers probably proposed it. But then it was grabbed by the Government with alacrity, and we know that whenever the Government grabs anything with alacrity old Scissorhands, the Treasurer, is not far behind. The proposal has been changed so that it is no longer recognisable to those who proposed it. The bill is not dependent on this measure; the bill can stand without it. We ask the Government to support our amendments. If my pleas fall on deaf ears, I make a plea to Country Labor members—indeed I challenge them—to make a stand with National Party and Liberal Party members, who are seeking to address the real concerns of farmers. It is one that they should consider accepting. If they were to support the Liberal and National parties and go against their colleagues the Greens in regard to this particular amendment they would actually deliver for country people. As it stands at the moment, they will not.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.20 p.m.]: I appreciate the Opposition's concerns in regard to the fund, but the amendments so far have all related to reinforcing private rights, with the Government paying compensation. All the amendments moved have been along those lines. I also appreciate that an individual farmer needs some security against the morass of the whole common good—and the concerns over the State environmental planning policy, where the common good has been effectively funded by an individual's loss. Obviously that is where the Opposition is coming from. On the other hand, in respect of the Snowy scheme, when money was needed to repair leakages from the piping systems, the irrigators—although they had formed a corporation—were happy to have a large amount of money to fix those infrastructure works.

The irrigators in a certain area effectively owned the works, but in other areas the ownership structure of works is less clear, I understand. There are areas where some government or common funding should go into works that are good for the irrigators and those using the water, and good for the environment. A lot of projects could be funded in this way. If everyone took a very personal attitude to their resources and did not contribute, there would not be any funds for common works. I am not suggesting that only works funded by those who have current water licences should be undertaken. I do not think anyone in the community begrudges contributing money to try to solve salinity problems, for example.

It was a communal decision, if you like, that resulted in harm that has to be undone. On the other hand, to simply say that because the Government has control of the fund it will make a big mess of it and rip everyone off is, I believe, too extreme a position. This fund has to be closely managed so that money is not wasted on silly projects. That is the job of government. It is the job of the auditors, those contributing to the fund and the citizens, to make sure that these things actually work. To simply eliminate it would be to throw the baby out with the bath water. The amendment should be supported, but we must recognise that there are dangers in simply having a slush fund and having it mismanaged. That is always a danger, but I consider that to be too extreme a position. I urge members to reject the amendments.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.23 p.m.]: I do not want to extend the debate unduly, but let me refer briefly to timeliness. This is all about timing, that is, whether we pass this legislation now or defer it. I am unaware of any project that has been identified. If in the course of the lobbying that has taken place someone had said, "We have been waiting for 10 years. We want this. We want that."—whether it be an environmental group, a community group or irrigators—we might have some concept of what this is all about. But we have not. It is some abstraction and I think it needs a lot more thought. It may then prove to be something worthwhile, or it may not.

I want to draw an analogy. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans did not acknowledge my interjection, but I think there is a very close analogy between his own profession and the possible introduction of a health investment fund. There has been an awful lot of agitation throughout New South Wales, particularly in country areas, for improved health services. A great deal of infrastructure is needed. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans knows that it has only been in recent times that statutes have been changed, and that 30, 40 or 50 years ago many hospitals were owned by the community. Now they are the property of the government and responsibility for them has shifted to the government.

This would be like saying, "We are so short of money in health, we are going to have a health investment fund." Well, it would be great, if everyone was going to contribute to it. But, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would amount to a levy on doctors, because they would be seen as the ones who come through the health system, have to get through the bottleneck and use the hospitals and they are the people with the money to pay. Everyone else would say, "We are paying anyway." Why should the irrigators be singled out here? I can tell honourable members they are the ones who will pay and no-one can tell us what they are going to get for it.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.25 p.m.]: I will respond to the comments of the Hon. D. F. Moppett, although I do not want to take up the time of the Committee with the history of doctors and their payments. However, there was a system whereby for the right to use a hospital for their private patients, doctors treated all the public patients free of charge. Those people were called "charity patients" and later "public patients", and it was known as the honorary system. It was abolished when Medicare was established.

Now hospital assets are being sold off to the private sector. I personally believe that the State should retain its assets and keep control of them. That is the argument I have continued to put forward as a consistent philosophical position throughout this debate. I do not consider that the position of irrigators and doctors are comparable. The amount of benefit irrigators get from land as a percentage of the total benefit, and the amount of benefit doctors get from hospitals as a percentage of the total benefit, are not really comparable. It is the objects of hospitals to make patients better, rather than to make doctors rich. That is not the same thing as giving water to the irrigators, is it?

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 17

Mr Colless
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Lynn
Mrs Nile
Revd Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan
Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 22

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

Ms Fazio
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Mr Primrose

Pair

Miss Gardiner

Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.22 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 24, 25, 26 and 27 in globo:

(5) Subject to this section, the constitution and procedure of the Board of Trustees are to be as prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Water investment contributions are to be fixed in relation to specified works programs established by the Trust, and so as to yield receipts no greater in total than the amounts budgeted by the Trust in relation to the works programs so specified.

These amendments are consequential upon discussions that the Government has had with irrigators relating to their concerns with the trusts. Substantially, they allay a lot of fears raised by members during discussion on the amendments moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. Amendment No. 24 simply corrects the reference to the clause dealing with the board of trustees of the Water Investment Trust. Amendment No. 25, and the vote against clause 381, removes the specification of the board of trustees. The Government intends to remove this specification from the bill in response to concerns expressed by the irrigation industry. It is our intention to negotiate this matter with stakeholders and to provide agreed details by regulation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should comprehend the meaning of this amendment. Following discussions with the New South Wales Irrigators Council concerning the Water Investment Trust, the Government has agreed that the collection of funds from the irrigation industry will be on the basis of an agreed works program. Therefore, amendment No. 26 adds to the functions of the water investment trust so that it includes the establishment of a work program and budgets for the programs.

Amendment No. 27 ties water investment contribution levies on access licence holders to the budgets for work programs. Clause 388 provides for the rules for raising water investment contributions to the Water Investment Trust by levies on access licence holders. The amendment requires that the total funds levied from access licence holders for this purpose are not to exceed the total budgets set for the works programs of the Water Investment Trust. Honourable members will find that this substantially tightens up the clauses we have been discussing. The amendments meet the stakeholders' concerns, sharpen the bill, and focus the Water Investment Trust on the purposes for which it is intended.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.35 p.m.], by leave: I move additional Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

(6) Such a regulation is not to be made except on the recommendation of the Minister, which recommendation is not to be given unless there has been consultation with affected water users as to the content of the regulation.

Further, the Opposition will vote against clauses 382, 383, 384 and 385. I make my position clear: the Opposition thought it better to excise this measure, but if the Government is to be obdurate about pursuing this folly it was our intention to try to further limit the restrictions that the Government is imposing upon itself. All that was said to the previous amendment was vindicated by the way in which the Government is desperately trying to secure the flotsam on the deck. I assure honourable members that when it comes to getting out there and trying to bring together the irrigators and others in the equation, the Government will find that it has lost them altogether. I will await the indication from other members as to how they intend to react to the Government's amendments and the Opposition's amendments to them. I will perhaps make further incisive contributions should the need arise.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [3.37 p.m.]: Looking at what the Parliamentary Secretary heralded as a panacea for all our woes and the limitations on the trust, I think the Government is selling itself short by putting so many restrictions on what trust moneys can be used for. The trustees would like far wider terms of references. One of the major points made in this debate over the environmental trust so far has been how much it will cost the various licence holders, the irrigators. The Government's amendments in no way address what levies are likely. They contain no vague reference or indeed any attempt to cap the levies. It is still very open-ended.

I asked the Government only a short while ago whether irrigators would be asked to pay $10 or $100,000? The Government might propose a percentage of the value of the licence or a percentage of the value of the property and then, by stealth, introduce a wealth tax. We do not know. By leaving these questions unanswered the Government is simply fuelling the fears of those who have to pay into this trust. It is simply not fair. Once again I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take this proposition, to give it far more thought, and to come back with a better proposition for honourable members to consider.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.41 p.m.]: Before the Opposition moved its amendments to the Government's amendments I was going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would clarify Government amendment No. 25, which states:

Subject to this section, the constitution and procedure of the Board of Trustees are to be as prescribed by the regulations.

Is there provision in the legislation for the Minister to consult with all stakeholders? That matter is covered in an Opposition amendment that I have not discussed with the Opposition, which states:

Such a regulation is not to be made except on the recommendation of the Minister,—

I would assume that that is normally the case—

which recommendation is not to be given unless there has been consultation with affected water users as to the content of the regulation.

That amendment fits in harmoniously with the Government's amendment. Obviously I support the amendments moved by the Government and I hope that the Government will support the amendments moved by the Opposition to the Government's amendments, as they will include in the legislation that element of consultation. I know that other honourable members had similar ideas about including consultation in the bill. The Government has attempted, through moving these amendments, to answer some of the irrigators' concerns. At this stage I assume that those issues have been discussed with irrigators but we have not had any feedback as to whether their concerns have been satisfied. On the surface these amendments appear to be an attempt to meet some of the concerns of irrigators. The Christian Democratic Party supports the Government's amendments.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.42 p.m.]: I have some concerns about Government amendments Nos 24 to 27. Amendment No. 24, which relates to the constitution and procedure of the board of trustees, provides that the constitution and procedure of the Water Investment Trust be prescribed by regulation rather than outlined in the legislation. There is general consensus in the conservation movement that it is imperative that membership of the trust be specified in the legislation. The Greens believe that the membership of committees, councils and trusts should be specified in the legislation. We believe that that is the most secure way of ensuring appropriate membership on these important bodies. It will provide for a representative committee input into water management and planning. Is the Government prepared to state clearly whether other stakeholders will be on the trust? Will there be consistency?

Amendment No. 25 relates to the functions of the Water Investment Trust and will expand its ability to establish work programs and associated budgets in order to achieve the objects for which the trust is established. This logical amendment will allow the trust not only to nominate projects but also to specify how those projects are achieved. The Greens support that amendment. Amendment No. 26 will allow the Water Investment Trust to fix the amount of money that will be required to be levied from access licence holders in relation to funding particular projects. It will essentially cap the amount that can be levied. That will now be specified by the trust. The Greens accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 27 will allow for the establishment of expert advisory panels to investigate and report on State water management outcomes plans, the terms of reference for water management principles [WMPs], the adequacy and appropriateness of draft WMPs, the effectiveness and furthering of water sharing principles as they relate to bulk access regimes, WMP reviews and the implementation of programs. It is unclear whether the Act allows for regulations to be made to establish these panels and therefore give them a statutory role. The Greens have a similar amendment—amendment No. 152. The major difference between that amendment and the Government's amendment does not allow for the appointment of support staff to the panel. Nevertheless, the Greens support this amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.45 p.m.]: I support the amendments moved by the Hon D. F. Moppett to the Government's amendments. The Hon. I. Cohen referred earlier to other stakeholders in the trust. Who are the other stakeholders? Where is their money coming from? Will farmers be paying a wealth tax because of this Country Labor Government? Will other stakeholders be involved?

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: That line was used in 1980.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is still good today. Government members have not changed their spots over the years. It is interesting to see the variety of amendments that have been moved, the difference in the quality of arguments that have been put, and the variety of topics that have been covered. Observers will note that whenever an Opposition amendment is moved the vote on it is 22 against and 17 for. That vote is exactly the same irrespective of whether we are talking about trusts, the environment or farmers.

That makes me think of two things. First, do all those members who are voting—those so-called Independents—actually listen to the arguments put forward in Committee? If they had been listening to the arguments, one would have thought that they would have been persuaded by some of the arguments and not persuaded by others. Yet the votes are consistently 22 against amendments and 17 for them. Country Labor's mantra is: "Don't worry how we vote. We are actually working behind the scenes to help you on important amendments." If that was the mantra of Country Labor the vote would not be 22 to 17 on every amendment. Country Labor members would be in the back corridors twisting arms right now, but they are not. They are all in the Chamber supporting the amendments that have been moved by the Government. What a farce!

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [3.47 p.m.]: What an over-the-top contribution by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! If the Hon D. F. Moppett wants to divide on these amendments there might be a different vote. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, in true independent manner, has already indicated that he will support the Government's amendments. So, of course, the vote will be different. Once more, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his snappy manner, misread the feeling in this place. I think 22 to 17 is a fairly clear-cut vote. Opposition amendment No. 1 does not make any sense. Of course the Minister has to make regulations. The development of regulations involves consultation as a matter of process.

The Government has indicated throughout debate on the Water Investment Trust that it will consult stakeholders. The amendments that I moved, which I am sure all honourable members will support, clearly indicate that the Government is listening to stakeholders. We made it clear that we will listen to stakeholders in the future. The term "water users" is inappropriate and ill-defined. Who are the water users? Which of those water users will be affected by the constitution and procedures of the board of trustees? Clearly, the Government cannot support the deletion of clauses 382, 383, 384 and 385, as the Hon D. F. Moppett has already moved an amendment to delete the effective clauses in the bill.

The Government will vote against amendment No. 2. Customer service committees mainly cover regulated systems, which would distort the effects and investments of the trust. Customer service committees are about efficient and effective service delivery by State Water. The amendment seeks to constitute customer service committees under the Act. Although the current Act does not preclude this, only the highest level committees—that is, water management committees and WOCs—are explicitly provided for.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.50 p.m.]: The pre-eminent standard of the usage of the English language, the Oxford Dictionary, will, I am sure, consider an entry under the word "consultation". A new meaning is being attached to the word consultation in this sovereign State of New South Wales, and that is consultation equals the meeting organised to convey irrecoverable decisions to the poor suckers who turn up. That is the sort of consultation to which the Hon. I. M. Macdonald was referring previously. There will be consultation with the stakeholders. God, struth! I will not go on at length because we are starting to feel the burden of the yoke upon our shoulders of this voting pattern to which my friend and colleague has referred. I will not prolong this unnecessarily. It is often said that the environment is fragile, but the environment is resilient. It can recover.

But what is fragile is confidence, and confidence in the development of the Water Investment Trust has been shattered. All the king's horses and all the king's men will be required to try to put it back together again if the Government insists on going on with this irrespective of the views expressed by the irrigators. I can assure all those concerned that our amendments are not the recalcitrant reaction of people who do not like to be beaten. They are the considered views of the irrigators, having looked at the pusillanimous amendments of the Government. They have asked us to press these amendments. Bearing in mind the flux of time I indicate that we will not divide on this issue. But I warn the Government that it has a tremendous amount of bridge building to do to get the one group of stakeholders who are likely to have any lively interest in this, and that is the irrigators whom we have tried to the present.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.53 p.m.]: The Opposition criticised the fact that the vote is always the same in this Chamber. The Opposition has complained that it is losing the vote 17 to 22. A meeting between the crossbenchers and the Opposition was scheduled for this morning, but it was cancelled by the Opposition. The Opposition has made no serious attempt to explain its amendments to the crossbenchers—it very rarely does—then the Opposition acts all injured when it does not get support. Some of the amendments have come to us in the Chamber during debate. The Opposition does not give us advance notice, does not tell us what is going on, then acts all injured when we conclude that all its amendments are similar in vein, and we do not vote on them.

The reality is, and everybody knows it, that a lot of decisions are not made by listening to debate in the Chamber because that is a very slow way of learning and understanding things. We need to crosscheck things that we hear. If one wants to get an amendment through the way to do it is to take it to people in their offices, discuss it with them, then suggest that they contact other sources to make their decisions. This has been known for ages. The Opposition really cannot complain that it does not get crossbench support when it manages its affairs so badly. I have no truck for the Government, which spends its life twisting our arms or conning us, but I have taken advice on some philosophical aspects of this matter, and that guides me in policy terms. That is what it is all about.

If things encompassed in the Opposition amendments are not harmful to the ecosystem and public good, it could certainly have made a good deal better effort to get that across to us. One of the things that always fascinates me when one or either party complains that the crossbench votes together in consistent numbers or on consistent issues, is that all members of the two major parties think exactly the same all the time. They all go to the same side of the Chamber as their colleagues, presumably whether or not they want to, or else they all come to the same conclusion at the same time. They all vote with their party. They do not make a decision on the merits of anything. The Opposition criticises the crossbench for not making a decision on the merits of anything, but individually the members of major parties are not allowed to.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.56 p.m.]: Most, if not all, of what the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans said was irrelevant. But there is one small section of what he said that warrants comment, and I refer to the crossbench meeting that was cancelled this morning. The crossbench meeting that is held each Wednesday morning is used to discuss tactics. It is not a meeting that is used to analyse all 300 individual amendments to a bill. It never has been, never should be and never would be. For the honourable member to imply that is wrong.

Amendments of amendments negatived.

Amendments agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.58 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7 in globo:

(e) one is to be an Aboriginal person appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of Aboriginal people, and

I understand that the Government will move an amendment to clause 381.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! My understanding is that some members wish to vote against clauses 381 to 385.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Will the Government vote against clause 381?

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Yes.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: If the Government will vote against it, we support in principle what it is doing. To keep faith with the Aboriginal community, these amendments are related to the secure statutory source of funds for the purchase of access licences by Aboriginal communities. Accordingly, it is proposed that provisions relating to the Water Investment Trust be amended. An Aboriginal representative should be included as a member of the board of trustees. The object of the trust should be expanded to include projects for the use of water by Aboriginal communities to promote their economic development. The water will be made available through the application of trust funds to purchase access licences for those communities.

It may be useful to further expand the category of projects that could receive support from the trust, including those designed to enhance the social and cultural wellbeing of Aboriginal communities. Such projects could further the legislation's general objectives in clauses 3 (1) (c) and 4. This follows earlier amendments that I had moved to give recognition to the important role of Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. We know of the community at Redfern, but the bulk of Aboriginal communities are in country areas and they will be affected by this legislation. Clearly they should be considered as partners in the process, that is all the amendment seeks to do. The amendment is not taking something from somebody to give it to the Aboriginal people, as I indicated in my earlier example of providing an open door.

Aboriginal communities through the Aboriginal Land Council, the State body and local land councils feel that they should be recognised and should have a role in future applications of the Water Management Bill and the trust. If the Government removes the membership of the trust and other aspects, it will affect the purpose of these amendments. I ask for assurance that if we support clause 381, then the Government will give serious consideration to these amendments in future drafting of regulations and other matters. It often happens that Aboriginal people are left out of some plans and projects. There is no point in trying to work out whom to blame, but often they seem to be left out of initial discussions and sometimes it is not possible to include them at the last minute, which is what I am trying to do with these amendments. I seek an assurance from the Government that it sympathises with my objectives and will consider them in future regulations.

Pursuant to sessional orders progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_________

WORKERS COMPENSATION SELF-INSURANCE

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question is to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister would be aware that large retailers are currently being cross-subsidised by as much as 50 per cent of the true cost of the claims for workers compensation by smaller retailers. Why has the WorkCover Authority not encouraged other large retailers to become self-insurers, as Woolworths has done? Would the Minister agree that if large businesses under the current system became self-insurers, then the burden on small businesses, which currently subsidise large retailers, would be lifted from thousands of employers throughout this State?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Leader of the Opposition's has asked a good question. It agitates a number of critical issues in the debate about any reform of the workers compensation system, particularly as it impacts on the current ways in which premiums are calculated and cross-subsidised amongst employment categories. The particular issue to which the honourable member refers is the impact of large employers, particularly in the retail sector, deciding to become self-insurers and going through the WorkCover Authority to obtain licences to become self-insurers. Woolworths is a recent addition to the branch of self-insurers. The Leader of the Opposition will find, if he checks the public record, that this process was much encouraged by WorkCover. Indeed, senior executives of Woolworths represented that matter to me in relatively recent times prior to being given its self-insurance status.

Regarding the effect of self-insurers opting out of the general scheme on the general pool of premiums and the likely impact on premiums, the fundamental premise of the Leader of the Opposition is correct in that larger retailers are the beneficiaries of the cross-subsidy from small and medium size retailers. That is not true of every single sector, but it is true of that particular sector and that is not satisfactory. Indeed, the Government wants to move so that cross-subsidies in the system are eliminated, as far as possible, except when they can be justified on other public interest grounds because they are a disincentive to good practice for employers. If the relationship between premium levels, occupational health and safety and injury management is removed, distortions will result and the incentives in the system do not end up enforcing good practice.

The answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question is that he is correct because that is happening in the retail sector, but he is not correct in his assumption that the Government does not propose to do anything about it. The mechanism he argues—that is, that it is better if employers become self-insurers—must be taken on the merits of each individual case. The underlying assumption that needs to be tested when one considers self-insurance, or any other devices available under the Act, is to make sure people take all of their responsibilities with them when they leave the scheme—that is, that they take their long tail with them out of the scheme. That was part of the conditions that were subject to our new reforms during the last legislative changes.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's answer, have any larger retailers applied to WorkCover to become self-insurers and been rejected? If so, why were those applications rejected?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: That is a matter of detail that I do not have at my disposal. I would be surprised if they were rejected on some construed public interest grounds.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: No, I didn't say that. I just asked why they were rejected.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I will ascertain the reasons for any recent rejections—

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: I didn't say recent either. I just asked: Have any larger retailers been rejected?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The answer is getting trickier.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The question is becoming sillier.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The question is becoming a bit difficult to follow. The bottom line is that I will obtain an answer to the Leader of the Opposition's supplementary question as quickly as possible.

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Can the Minister outline the Government's efforts to improve private sector involvement in the provision of public infrastructure?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No doubt the Hon. J. R. Johnson saw the activity this morning around the precincts of the Parliament.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I was there too. I made a speech.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I know, you made a very important speech. It was probably one of the most important speeches.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I liked yours.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Thank you. This morning the Premier opened a forum in the Parliamentary Theatrette called "Working with Government". It follows the release of a green paper discussing ways that the public and private sectors can work together more effectively. The Opposition does not seem to be all that interested in infrastructure, but in the trivial side of issues. Infrastructure involves some of the greatest projects of our nation: Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, Warragamba Dam, the Lithgow tunnels and the Zig Zag railway.

Honourable members may be unaware that the rum hospital was the first venture of New South Wales into public-private business partnerships. In 1810 Governor Lachlan Macquarie was unable to finance a general hospital for the infant colony so he entered into an arrangement with three private entrepreneurs that included oxen, convicts and 60,000 gallons of rum. It was a method of building a hospital that the colony could not otherwise afford. This Government wants to find a more professional arrangement than the one brokered by Lachlan Macquarie—or more recently his heirs and successors in the form of the Hon. John Fahey. The Government is keen to see a maturing and positive evolution of the relationship that already exists between the public and the private sectors. Projects selected by the Government need to be enhanced by private involvement, and they must accord with the Government's overall priorities. Importantly, the community will endorse this co-operative approach if the benefits are clear and the process is transparent.

We must be able to publicly demonstrate that these partnerships deliver the infrastructure the community demands and provide benefits, such as jobs, during construction and throughout the terms of the agreement. In public asset development projects the Government wants to test whether a commercial element would provide better value for money. The Government is keen to receive feedback from the private sector on how private sector involvement might be widened to new or additional service sectors and areas, and on any actions within the Government's control that can be taken to encourage further private sector participation. The "Working with Government" green paper is the start of a process, a genuine attempt to obtain feedback from the private sector and those involved in the provision of Government infrastructure and some services. For our mutual benefit the Government is keen to expand the opportunities as well as refine and improve the processes involved.

POLMARK MARKETING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development, the Hon. A. B. Kelly. Mr Chairman, are you aware that the consultancy group Polmark uses your photograph in the promotional brochure promising "direct access to the relevant people in Government"? Did you give permission for Polmark to use your photograph? If not, have you requested the company to cease using your photograph? What is your relationship to the company? Is this situation appropriate for the chairman of an important parliamentary committee and the so-called leader of the Country Labor faction?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: The question purports to be to the Hon. A. B. Kelly in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development but it has nothing to do with the operation of the State development committee. The Hon. A. B. Kelly is not responsible to this House, nor is any member of the Ministry, for what appears in the publicity material of a private organisation.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: To the point of order: The Hon. A. B. Kelly is chairman of a committee of this House of Parliament. The inclusion of his photograph as chairman of an important parliamentary committee in a brochure of a consultancy company that guarantees direct access to the relevant people in Government certainly is a matter in the public interest. The question needs to be answered. Chairmen of parliamentary committees may be asked questions. Madam President, you should rule this question in order. The make-up of the consultancy company includes three former Labor candidates and three former ministerial staffers. The photographs of two Government Ministers appear on the brochure. It is a very important question. The Government should not be trying to cover up.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order: Standing Order 29 states:

Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other Members, relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such Members may be concerned …

The question does not relate to any bill, it does not relate to any motion, and it does not relate to any other public matter connected with the business of the House in which the member, the Hon. A. B. Kelly, is concerned. The question is clearly out of order. The Hon. A. B. Kelly is not responsible for what BHP, AGL or any other company puts in its publicity material.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: To the point of order: I thank the Leader of the House for his reference to Standing Order 29. He referred to the business of the House and matters that are before the House. I remind honourable members that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development does deal with business of the House. Secondly, he is also an officer of the Parliament: he holds the titles of Deputy-President and Chairman of Committees. Therefore he regularly deals with business before this House. Indeed, in certain circumstances he would be Acting-President of this House, upholding the dignity of the House and influencing the way in which it is perceived by the public. I contend that the question is indeed in order and should be answered.

The PRESIDENT: Order! To refresh the memories of honourable members I shall reread Standing Order 29. It provides:

Clearly, the criteria relating to questions that may be asked of Ministers are different from those for questions that may be asked of members. As the question does not relate to a bill or a matter in which the Hon. A. B. Kelly may be concerned, I rule it out of order.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The Hon. I. COHEN: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Energy. Did the Federal Government consult with the New South Wales Government about Australia's position at the United Nations Climate Conference in the Hague? Does the New South Wales Government support the position taken by Australia on this issue? To what extent is the New South Wales Government relying upon carbon sinks to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? Will the Government of New South Wales, with the biggest industrial base in the nation, put plans in place to accelerate energy conservation and the conversion to renewable energy sources to reduce greenhouse emissions?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I appreciate the honourable member’s question and recognise that this is a very topical issue, with the events of recent days having been literally global news. These matters have been and are taken into consideration by the Government in regard to its ongoing policy development in a whole range of areas. I am not aware of any consultation with the Federal Government by the New South Wales Minister for the Environment or the Premier in regard to these matters. However, I undertake to clarify the position and provide the honourable member with a full response.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. What is the Government doing to assist small information technology and telecommunications start-up companies to become investment ready?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The New South Wales information technology and telecommunication industry represents an increasingly significant and vital part of our economy. In fact, it generates more than $26 billion a year in turnover and employs more than 100,000 people—a mind-boggling amount. The 100,000 people who are employed in the information technology and telecommunications industry in New South Wales represent almost half of Australia's total information technology work force throughout Australia. Interestingly, of the 13,000 firms in the information technology industry in Australia, 12,000 have fewer than 10 employees each, so the performance of small- to medium-sized enterprises is clearly central to the overall performance of the information technology and telecommunications industry.

For an increasing number of small- to medium-sized enterprises, access to private capital is often the difference between their small business developing or stagnating. One of the interesting things about information technology firms is that generally at the initial stage they need very little capital but once they get a few rungs up the ladder there is often an explosive need for capital and it needs to be obtained through what is often a very limited window of opportunity. Last year the Government established the Information Industries Business Advisory Board under the chairmanship of Mr Roger Allen, who most honourable members would be aware is also a director of one of Australia's most prominent venture capital firms, Buttridge and Allen. The board, as well as Mr Allen, has a top-notch line-up on it and it subsequently found that the main reason why so many great ideas are never successfully commercialised is because many small businesses are simply not seen to be investment ready.

While investors are always looking for new opportunities, obviously they are going to need to be reassured that there is more to the business than just a great idea before committing their hard-earned money. In particular, venture capitalists want to know about the management of the company. A good idea by itself means little. They want to know who is running the company and what skills and experience they have. They want to know whether the company has a business plan and whether the company will be able to deliver on that business plan. They want to know whether they have the financial and marketing expertise to take the company forward.

The challenge for the start-up company seeking venture capital is to be in a position to provide the right answers. At the initiation of the Information Industries Business Advisory Board last Monday night the Government hosted an information technology management forum that I was pleased to attend. The aim of the forum was to allow venture capitalists, small information technology businesses and educational providers an opportunity to exchange views and to learn how to work together to improve the chances of our information technology start-up companies securing much-needed equity capital. The evening was a success. More than 80 people attended, including representatives from 12 New South Wales educational institutions. The information technology and telecommunications industry already makes a significant contribution to the New South Wales economy. I am confident that through the Information Industries Business Advisory Board there will be a lot more that the Government can do to help local companies ensure that this growth continues.

CHEMICAL-FREE HOSPITAL FACILITIES

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Given the high level of use of chemical formulations within the hospital environment, what facilities are available in New South Wales public hospitals to cater for people who require health care but who react adversely to chemical exposure? If there are no current facilities, what action will the Minister take to ensure that the needs of these people with chemical sensitivity are addressed?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. A. G. Corbett has asked a good question, but I must admit that I do not know the answer to it. Without pre-empting a response from my colleague the Minister for Health, as a layman I am not entirely certain that it would be at all possible for a hospital to operate in the absence of chemical formulations.

The Hon. A. G. Corbett: They did have a facility once.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was not aware of that. I am not quite sure what sort of a facility it would be, but I can appreciate the concern of the honourable member. I will try to obtain a considered response from my colleague the Minister for Health.

POLMARK MARKETING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICE PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Does the Minister recall telling the House yesterday that he would obtain a copy of the brochure from the company Polmark that features his photograph and examine its contents? Has the Minister now done that? If so, does he agree that the brochure conveys the impression that the company is able to guarantee its clients direct access to the Minister and to other Carr Government Ministers? Does he have any concerns that he has been represented in this way for a commercial purpose? Has the Minister received any representations from this company's clients? Does this company's claims about having special access to the Minister have any basis?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: The honourable member's question asked for an opinion and the Hon. J. F. Ryan has been here long enough to know that he cannot ask for opinions.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: To the point of order: I have not asked for an opinion. It is a response to a number of facts. The Minister yesterday informed the House that he would examine this brochure. I am now asking whether he has done that. I then asked whether he knows about its contents and whether he has any concerns. Expressing whether or not he has a concern is not asking for his opinion.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order: Madam President, this can be cleared up very quickly if the Hon. J. F. Ryan provides you with the typed or written copy of his question because it clearly asked for the Minister's opinion. He is not a dishonest man but it was quite disingenuous of him to suggest that he had not.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: To the point of order: Madam President, in your learned ruling earlier this day you indicated that Ministers have a different role in answering the questions of honourable members. In fact, the answering ability of Ministers is much more robust than that of mere humble leaders of political parties and Chairmen of Committees. Given your earlier ruling, you have no choice but to allow the question.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order: It is true that there is a different responsibility on Ministers and members in this place under Standing Order 29 but that goes to the scope of information that Ministers can be asked. That does not change the fact that Ministers cannot be asked for an opinion and that is what the Hon. J. F. Ryan asked for.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Further to the point of order: If I can repeat the elements of my question again. The elements of my question were, first, a question of fact: Has the Minister examined a particular brochure? That is a question which, as I imagine, is a matter of fact. Second, I asked him whether the claims in the brochure have any basis in fact. That is a matter of fact, if ever there was one. Third, I have asked him whether he has been introduced to any of its clients operating pursuant to the claims made in the brochure. That is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. I also asked him whether he has any concerns about being represented in this manner in the brochure, which again is a matter of fact.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order: That is not the question the Hon. J. F. Ryan asked. He has tried to paraphrase his question and that will be quite clear when one compares how Hansard records his initial question with the paraphrasing that he has just provided to the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be timely to remind honourable members of the information sheet that is forwarded to them from time to time entitled "The following rules are mentioned for the guidance of honourable members in asking questions". It advises:

Accordingly, those parts of the question asked originally by the Hon. J. F. Ryan that called for an expression of opinion were clearly out of order. However, the question in its rephrased form is in order.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question and I thank you for clarifying the question for the House and for me. My office has contacted Polmark and been advised that this brochure is not available and has not been distributed for some months. In answer to the question, I have been able to examine a photocopy of the front page, which has the photograph to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: It is offending.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not know that it is an offensive photograph. I think it is just a very straightforward photograph. I have written to the company, Polmark, and asked them to ensure that they do not use my image in any future promotional material.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: When did you do that?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I did that yesterday. I did that last night, after question time. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the inference contained in the Hon. J. F. Ryan's question.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Does this company have direct access to you, or not?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The straightforward answer is no.

FISH CARE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fishing. What progress has been made in the Fish Care Volunteer program?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the convenor of Country Labor for his question. I am always happy to update the House about the successful Fish Care Volunteer program. It is an outstanding community program and I am pleased to note that it is currently seeking new recruits in freshwater areas.

[Interruption]

I am listening to the comments of the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I thought that he, of all people, would be keen to hear what is happening in country New South Wales—especially that we have very dedicated citizens prepared to devote their time to assist and be ambassadors on behalf of the very important natural fisheries resource; and to help people with regard to ethical fishing. I thought the honourable member would be keen to hear that this is all happening in regional New South Wales. I suggest he should listen. This weekend keen anglers in the New England area will be taking part in a two-day training program in Armidale. I am advised that nine members of the Armidale community have already enrolled as trainee Fish Care volunteers. I congratulate those community-minded anglers for their support of this program. Another training program has also been scheduled to take place in Yass later in December. Over the next three months Fish Care volunteers will also be out in the field helping to validate species information collected by the National Angling Survey program.

Thanks to great regional community support, the program is well on track to train up to 180 volunteers. That outstanding program commenced in October 1999. Today 57 Fish Care volunteers are out and about, wearing their distinctive blue uniforms, in the Snowy Mountains, Bathurst, Grafton and Wollongong regions. More than $190,000 has been allocated to the program by the Recreational Freshwater Licence Expenditure Committee. The committee has also approved further funding over the next three years for that program. I look forward to updating the House again next year on this program. I must say from the outset that it is one of the most important programs that we have for the future, bearing in mind the legislation relating to the all-water fishing licence that was passed in the lower House yesterday. This project will see direct community participation in teaching fishers along the coast ethical fishing rules and guidelines to make sure that members of the public are well aware of issues relevant to that important natural resource.

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES FUNDING

The Hon. M. I. JONES: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for the Environment. Has Dr English from Sydney University Veterinary College ever made representations to the Minister or to the New South Wales Government for funding for the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences or any similar project? If so, will the Minister provide the details to this House?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I assume that the honourable member's question was directed to me in my capacity representing the Hon. Bob Debus in another place, rather than to me personally. I can say that I have never been approached by Dr English in that capacity. It is unlikely that he would approach me, I suppose. I shall ascertain from the Minister whether Dr English has made such an approach to him, and I will provide an answer to the honourable member as soon as possible.

POLMARK MARKETING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICE PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State. Does the claim by Polmark that it can offer "direct access to the relevant people in Government" misrepresent a position endorsed by him? If the company is not endorsed by him, on what date did he take action to request the company to cease using his image to promote its business? Has the Minister ever met with individuals or organisations that have been referred to him by Polmark? If so, with whom did he meet?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I find the thrust of the question difficult to follow. I will take the question on notice and provide an answer to the honourable member in a consolidated form as quickly as possible.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Today?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: If I can get it today, I will get it today. It will be tomorrow, if it is tomorrow. It will be as soon as is practicable. I would make the point that one inference in the question is simply wrong. I have no copyright over my image.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You do, you know.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, I do not.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: As a Minister you do.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, I do not.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You do.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: In that case, I have done everything within my power.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The photograph with the principals of the company was taken in your ministerial office. Did you ask for it?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: So, you have never had a photograph taken?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You wanted it taken.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have had a lift in a car from the Leader of the Opposition, but that does not mean I have links to the Liberal Party on the Central Coast.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask a supplementary question. Does the claim represent the Minister's position?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: What claim is the honourable member referring to?

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I thank the Leader of the Government—the claim by the company, which was very simply "direct access to the relevant people in Government", such as a Minister. You asked that question, you answer it.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Every citizen in New South Wales has direct access to the Government. It is called the telephone. You pick it up, you dial the number and you say, "Can I talk to so and so?"

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: A question was asked of the Special Minister of State. All we have heard is an interjection from the Treasurer. I wonder if he would allow the Special Minister of State to answer the supplementary question.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: To the point of order: I am the Minister for State Development. The Opposition's questions are based on a misunderstanding which is based on the conception of its role in government, when no-one could get access to the Liberal-National party government unless one joined what was called the Liberal Party Access Club. One paid $5,000 and one got access to Ministers. One does not need to pay anything to get access to Labor Government Ministers, one simply picks up the phone.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: To the point of order: I am quite amazed that the Leader of the Government has to stand up and protect the Deputy Leader of the Government, who I thought was a big boy.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Now you are getting personal. He is not as big as you!

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: There is hope for him yet, but you will never be. So, little man, stay put and let him answer the question. The supplementary question was simple and can be answered by a simple yes or no. The reason for attempting to hide from a yes or no answer escapes me. I am quite sure that the Minister is capable of answering the question of representation or misrepresentation with a yes or no and then we will know.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I forget the expression in formal philosophy that would prevent me from answering that question truthfully by a yes or no, and the Hon. J. H. Jobling knows that whatever answer I give—

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Why do you say that?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It was quite clear from the way that the question was framed that he was confusing my position with the position of Polmark. I am not here to defend its position and I am not interested in doing so.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Does its position represent your position?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, it does not.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the Minister speaking to the point of order or is he answering the question?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: That was my substantive answer.

The PRESIDENT: In that case, I will not rule on the point of order.

FAR NORTH-WEST MINERALS EXPLORATION

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Does the Government have plans for surveying far north-western New South Wales to encourage resource exploration?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Members on this side of the House are very interested in regional New South Wales, and that is why they come prepared with questions and I am more than happy to answer them. Earlier this year the New South Wales Government announced Exploration New South Wales, a new seven-year, $30 million initiative to stimulate exploration and investment in our State. An important component of Exploration New South Wales is the continuous upgrade of our State's geophysical information, maps and digital data. This information will help ensure that new discoveries and mine developments continue to take place. That is great news for much-needed jobs in the bush. Today I am pleased to announce yet another New South Wales Government survey is under way. This time it is in the Bourke area where a team of experts is looking for new resources. The team is using four-wheel drive vehicles and a helicopter in less accessible sites.

This is the first stage of a major exploration program in the Bourke area. Indeed, $1.7 million of Exploration New South Wales funding will be spent upgrading information about mineral resources around the Bourke and Cobar areas. The Government is spending $100,000 for the current survey, which is using highly sensitive instruments to record the earth's gravity field. This will give us a better understanding of the sedimentary layers where valuable resources may be found. The eight-day survey will cover 12,500 square kilometres in the eastern part of the Eromanga Basin between Bourke and the Queensland border. This area is largely unexplored and is thought to have real potential for new discoveries. This will be good news for regional New South Wales. The economic benefit to New South Wales would be enormous if new discoveries were to result from this survey. I look forward to updating the House as this project progresses.

RECREATIONAL DUCK SHOOTING

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Special Minister for State, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice. When will the Minister make public the report prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the review of legislation banning recreational duck shooting? Will the Minister confirm that there will be no change of legislation to enable this barbaric so-called sport to ever again start in New South Wales? Is it not a fact that the vast majority of the public are against it and would be appalled if it were to be reintroduced?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not have an answer to the honourable member's question. I will obtain an answer from the Minister for the Environment and make it available to the member as soon as I can.

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION AND CHERRY GROWERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that organisers from the Australian Workers Union [AWU] are travelling around cherry orchards in the Young district urging the use of a new enterprise agreement which it has drawn up for use by growers with their employment contracts? Is he further aware that the cherry growers have been told by those representatives that some of the AWU members are also WorkCover inspectors? Is he further aware that the inspectors have said that the orchard operations will be closed down if they do not sign the agreements? What will he do to put a halt to those bullyboy tactics by the AWU and to ensure that the threat of using WorkCover inspectors to push the union agenda is stopped forthwith?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: In answer to the first part of the honourable member's question, I am not surprised that union officials are driving around workplaces seeking to talk to employees—after all, that is their job. As for his colourful language about bullyboy tactics, that remains to be seen. That was a fairly serious allegation to make against a great and grand old institution like the Australian Workers Union. I am advised that representatives from the Australian Workers Union have been undergoing enterprise agreement negotiations with cherry orchard owners to improve wages and employment conditions for cherry workers in the Young region.

A feature of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act is encouragement of enterprise agreements in New South Wales between employers and unions. Conditions surrounding negotiation of the agreement are subject to a number of protections for both employees and employers within the Act. The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales acts as an independent umpire in relation to such matters and is available to any employer who feels aggrieved about matters in relation to enterprise agreement negotiations. I encourage any employer who feels that he has been the subject of unfair treatment to avail himself of his rights under the Act and notify the commission of an industrial dispute.

As with industrial relations powers, occupational health and safety powers held by union officials are also subject to important limitations. Allegations of abuse of power in relation to occupational health and safety powers is a matter of concern to the New South Wales Government. On receipt of any allegations regarding the abuse of occupational health and safety powers an investigation will be undertaken by WorkCover. On the subject of AWU activities in Young, I notify the House of newspaper reports in the Young Witness today. The AWU has called upon banks to provide relief to farmers who have been affected by the severe floods.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Cherries are affected by rain, not floods.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett for his correction. I am sure we all agree with that call from the Australian Workers Union.

OCCUPATIONAL RESPIRATORY HEALTH ASSESSMENT SERVICE

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations, a question without notice. Will the Minister inform the House on recent developments to provide a respiratory screening service to workers exposed to harmful substances such as asbestos?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Dust Diseases Board has established a comprehensive occupational respiratory health assessment service that is available to New South Wales workers. On Monday 4 December I will officially launch the service at the board's expanded premises in Elizabeth Street, Sydney. The service will be a major step forward in the efficient diagnosis and clinical assessment of workers with exposure to asbestos.

As honourable members may be aware, Australia has one of the highest rates in the world of mesotheliomia, with New South Wales having the highest number of cases of the disease of any other State in Australia. Mesotheliomia is a particularly virulent form of cancer. It is caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibres and is a fatal disease that responds poorly to current cancer treatments. It is attributable to the widespread use of asbestos in manufacturing, building, construction and refinery processes. The confounding factor in dealing with asbestos-related diseases is the delay between asbestos exposure and the development of the disease. This can range from 20 to 40 years. Many cases presenting to the Dust Diseases Board arose from exposure that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s before the problems arising from asbestos exposure were widely known. Widespread asbestos exposure continued into the 1980s.

The Dust Diseases Board Occupational Respiratory Health Assessment Service aims to provide a co-ordinated response to occupational lung disease by screening workers for early signs of disease; maintain clinical and other records of screened workers to enable ongoing monitoring; provide information to industry researchers and the community on the extent and incidence of dust diseases; and provide the latest information on scientific and medical research and new treatment options for dust diseases. The Dust Diseases Board has also established a surveillance scheme to record the incidence of occupational lung disease in New South Wales. The specific aims of the project are to establish a notification scheme involving respiratory and occupational physicians to better determine the true incidence of work-related respiratory disease and inhalation injury in New South Wales over a 12-month period; identify industry sectors and occupations where diseases occur; assist in developing analytical studies to identify respiratory hazards; and better target prevention measures for known respiratory hazards.

This project will have important clinical and public health significance. The proposed study has the potential to provide comprehensive data that can be used to make a significant impact on controlling the occurrence of occupational lung disease and inhalation injury in New South Wales workplaces. Data can be used to identify industries and occupations where occupational lung disease was not previously thought to be a problem, as well as identifying those sections of industry where better control of known inhalation hazards is needed. This study will also raise the profile of occupational lung disease among participating respiratory and occupational physicians. This is intended to bring about better diagnosis and management of such cases in the future.

Greater awareness by workers, unions and employers of problem areas identified by the study will also assist in the better targeting of control measures within these workplaces. This should also result in savings in cost to industry through reduced claims, reduced costs of training, and other indirect costs. This Government is committed to the health and safety of workers in New South Wales. As I informed honourable members last week, the Government will commission a feasibility study into the establishment of an Asbestos Diseases Research Institute. The Dust Diseases Board Occupational Respiratory Health Assessment Service and Occupational Lung Disease Surveillance Scheme are further demonstrations of this commitment.

HEROIN ADDICTS ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Attorney General. Is it a fact that the Federal Court's Justice Catherine Branson upheld an appeal from a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal that a heroin addict is covered by the disability provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act? Is it a fact that this bizarre decision means that heroin addicts can now claim discrimination if they are refused accommodation, employment or education? What action is the Government taking to distinguish between self-inflicted heroin addicts and genuinely disabled persons in the anti-discrimination legislation? Is this not offensive to genuinely disabled people, such as those who took part in the Paralympics?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: As honourable members would be aware, in light of the recent Federal Court decision the Premier has announced that he has written to the Prime Minister asking him to consider amending the disability discrimination legislation to stop drug users from exploiting the anti-discrimination laws. The Premier has also asked that New South Wales law be reviewed to prevent it being used in a manner for which it was never intended. This in no way alters the fact that the Carr Government is doing all it can to help those who are caught up in the terrible spiral of drug addiction or dependency. This Government is spending an additional $176 million over four years to address on many fronts the problem of drugs in this State. We have funded an additional 62 rehabilitation beds in non-government organisations. The Government is overseeing an expansion of the methadone program under tough new regulations.

As I informed the House last week, in the six months to September an additional 1,756 people were placed on the methadone program, and for the first time ever our methadone clients are being placed on treatment plans and contracts. In addition, more than 27,000 counselling sessions were undertaken, which reflects a renewed emphasis on helping people to become drug free. I would also like to point out that the Carr Government is taking an active approach to tackling drugs in the workplace. WorkCover has guidelines to provide industry and business with the knowledge to address drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace. The Premier's Department has policy guidelines that outline the responsibilities of employees, managers and organisations on these matters. I also advise the House that an important New South Wales Drug Summit initiative involving New South Wales Health, the Labor Council and the Employers Federation is developing innovative guidelines to help employees develop policies and procedures to deal with drug and alcohol issues in the workplace.

It is anticipated that these guidelines will be trialled within a media organisation with a view to wider implementation. The training program will be developed to assist workplace supervisors, human resource managers and others in key occupational health and safety roles to implement these procedures, and to better deal with the abuse of drugs or alcohol in the workplace. In July the Premier and I attended the opening of the construction industry Drug and Alcohol Foundation Treatment Centre. This is another great example of innovation and co-operation between unions, employer groups and government focusing on the creation of a healthier and safer working environment in the building and construction industry. This program will assist workers and families to deal with drug and alcohol problems. These kinds of activities help to provide real solutions to people with drug-dependency problems. They are based on one of the key principles of personal responsibility.

Ms BELINDA NEAL TESTIMONIAL

The Hon. G. S. PEARCE: My question is to the Special Minister of State. On 2 November the Minister informed the House that his personal secretary had assisted him in organising a fundraiser for Ms Belinda Neal on 30 June. That fundraiser was held in the Royal Botanic Gardens. Did the Minister or his personal secretary also assist Ms Neal or HiTech Personnel to obtain the testimonial from the Manager, IT Services of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, which appeared on the web site of HiTech Personnel in July?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have no knowledge of what the honourable member is talking about. I ask him to place the question on notice and I will give him an answer then.

REGIONAL EXPORTS

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question is to the Minister for State Development. What is the Government doing to promote exports in regional New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am pleased to advise the House—I am sure the House is already aware—that exports from both New South Wales and Australia have risen substantially in recent years. Today's export figures are very promising indeed. For our part the continued development of the New South Wales export industry is a top priority of this Government. Pardon me for sneezing.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: My advice to you is to quit smoking.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Dear old Dr Dumbcluck now tells us smoking causes sneezing! The other day I visited friends of mine who have a small infant of only a few weeks of age and the child was sneezing. To the best of my knowledge that child has never had a cigarette in its life, and I was not even smoking near it! Dr Dumbcluck suggests that smoking causes sneezing—good heavens! This is the same man who believes that fathers breast feed! During the past three years export advisers have been appointed in Wagga Wagga, Nowra, Bathurst, Tamworth, Coffs Harbour and Parramatta. Last month a new export adviser was appointed to the Central Coast. Developing more Central Coast exporters will not only boost the local economy but also will help create new jobs for the region.

The new appointee, Mr Najib Lawand, has joined the Department of State and Regional Development's team of export advisers and client managers and will be providing small- to medium-size businesses with expert advice on how to break into export markets. Of course, the Central Coast region already has many highly regarded export companies including Future School Pty Ltd and Gosfern Pty Ltd. Both firms won the Premier's New South Wales Exporter of the Year Award, in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Mr Lawand comes to the Department of State and Regional Development from the private sector and brings with him a wealth of practical export knowledge and experience. Mr Lawand will use the Government's export programs to ensure Central Coast firms take advantage of export markets.

One important role of the new export adviser is to organise and prepare Central Coast companies to participate in government-sponsored trade missions. In fact, more than 60 international trade missions and market visits are scheduled during the next 12 months. The appointment of a Central Coast export adviser is part of the Government's $3 million New Export Opportunities Program, an initiative that will allow successful Central Coast companies make the important step into international markets. It is a matter of great interest to the Deputy Leader of the Government, and I congratulate him on the success he has had in this matter. This is a big success not only for him but for the Central Coast, whose interest, of course, he champions.

If members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

[Interruption]

If I were the Hon. D. T. Harwin—

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: We were late starting question time. A bill was being considered in Committee until five past four.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is not so. It does not take me four minutes to walk from my office to this Chamber. I left my office at four minutes to four. The point I am making is that the Hon. D. T. Harwin is being continually short-changed by his colleagues. He always gets to ask the very last question. And the reason he gets the dud timeslot is that he is in the wrong faction. He is not in the Gallacher-Lynn faction. The Hon. D. T. Harwin is in the intelligent liberal faction of the party that calls itself the Liberal Party together with the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, the Hon. J. M. Samios and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. We do not know yet about the new member, the Hon. G. S. Pearce, but early indications are that he also is a neanderthal; he looks as though he is part of the Gallagher-Lynn faction. Unfortunately, I cannot allow the Hon. D. T. Harwin to ask a question; I have to attend an important meeting in the Premier's office at 5.00 p.m. Therefore, as I said earlier, if honourable members have further questions I suggest they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Motion by the Hon. A. B. Kelly agreed to:

That Committee Reports Order of the Day No. 1 be postponed to the first Wednesday in the year 2001 on which committee reports debate takes precedence.

WATER MANAGEMENT BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.05 p.m.]: Prior to question time I was referring to my amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7. Their purpose is to provide the opportunity for Aboriginal communities to be involved in water management. I raised this issue with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council representative and others. Assuming the Water Investment Trust becomes viable—there are problems about its establishment—and amendments and regulations foreshadowed by the Government make it workable and acceptable to all stakeholders, these amendments will provide an incentive to Aboriginal land councils to invest in it. The State Aboriginal Land Council has a large amount of capital achieved through land tax, but it can use only the interest that is earned from that capital to benefit the Aboriginal community with housing and so on. I am not suggesting they should not use that interest for that purpose, but if the Government were to consider this aspect when it drafts the regulations the Aboriginal Land Council may be able to invest a respectable amount of its capital to enable it to become a participant in the water management scheme. The Aboriginal Land Council could invest money in the Water Investment Trust and also have the opportunity to purchase access licences.

The purpose of these amendments is to elevate the council from that of fringe dweller, as it often is, to becoming involved in the action. However, the council must play its part. I am not suggesting this is a welfare-type amendment; it will open the door for the council to participate on an equal basis with other participants in the water investment scheme. I always thought that the investment scheme was for various stakeholders. But the debate swung around, and reference was made to levies, which gave the impression of a hidden tax on those who put money into the trust. If it remains an investment trust, which usually means that investments are made voluntarily, I hope that the Aboriginal Land Council, through its business advisers, will consider investing some of its capital—which will be protected—to enable it to share in this water management scheme.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.08 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to take into account the interests of the Aboriginal Land Council, the needs of indigenous communities and the importance of water to those indigenous communities. Much has been said about the opportunity that should be given to Aboriginal communities. I believe these amendments are worthy of support.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.10 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments. They seek to add an Aboriginal person to the board of trustees and to extend the objects of the trust to the promotion of the use of trust funds for social and economic benefits for Aboriginal communities through the purchase of access licences. The Government does not support this proposal; it is up to the financial partners in the trust to decide how the funds will be spent. I might add that there are considerable funds in other holdings on behalf of the Aboriginal Land Council that could be used for the purchase of such licences. Under the leadership of Premier Wran the Government introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. It operated for 15 years, with 7.5 per cent of land tax being devoted to a fund, part of which has accumulated over the years into a very—

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: That is the money I am talking about.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: That is the Aboriginal Land Trust Fund.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 11

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Corbett

Mr M. I. Jones
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mrs Nile
Mr Oldfield

Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Revd Nile
Mr Tingle

Noes, 22

Mr Colless
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr Hatzistergos

Mr Johnson
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Mr Moppett
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti
Mr Ryan
Ms Saffin

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The list of amendments as circulated suggests that a number of members intend to vote against clauses 381 to 385 inclusive. I shall put the questions in relation to each of them seriatim.

Clause 381 omitted.

Clause 382 agreed to.

Clause 383 agreed to.

Clause 384 agreed to.

Clause 385 agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.18 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 28:

389 Expert advisory panels

This prepared clause 389 provides for the Minister to establish expert advisory panels to advise on one or more of the following matters: the State water management outcomes plan, the terms of reference for water management plans, the adequacy of draft management plans prepared or advised by committees, the effectiveness of bulk access regimes in draft management plans, water management plans when they are subject to five-yearly review, and implementation programs associated with the water management plans. It is the Government's intention that these expert advisory panels, when appointed, will work closely with the relevant water management committees in formulating their advice to the Minister on the various issues.

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS [5.19 p.m.]: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to expand a little on the proposed membership of the expert panels. He said they are to consist of persons having qualifications and expertise appropriate to the matters referred to them, which does not tell us much. Does the Parliamentary Secretary have any idea of the membership of the committees—how many, from where they will be drawn, and so on?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.19 p.m.]: The amendment states that an expert advisory panel is to consist of such persons as, in the opinion of the Minister, have the qualifications and expertise appropriate to matters proposed to be referred to it. The actual membership of an expert panel will not be specified in the Act, as the honourable member has picked up. The Minister may want to appoint different teams of experts to advise on different issues. The expertise required to advise on estuarine and coastal management options may be quite different from that required to advise on inland flood plain management or management of the Great Artesian Basin. However, it is likely that such panels will consist of members with the following expertise: natural resource economics, hydrology or hydrogeology, geomorphology, ecology, water management and sociology.

Amendment agreed to.

Chapter 8 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [5.21 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 11 and 12 in globo:

(c) the rights of any local water utility under any agreement between it and the Ministerial Corporation (or any of its predecessors), or

During my contribution to the second reading speech I referred to the history of some of the arrangements that had been made in relation to Chaffey Dam, which is an integral part of the water supply system to Tamworth. I said that we intended to move amendments to acknowledge the serious agreements that were entered into based on financial contributions made at the time, which resolved a dilemma between Tamworth City Council and the government of the day. It is interesting to note that we are dealing with a measure by which the Government asserts once again that all water resources are vested in the Crown, in effect. That blows the concept that somehow or other the community has taken over the water resources of our State. This universal blanket process of reserving water resources under the Crown has some exceptions, but only a few. The Opposition believes that this should be extended to deal with problems that have arisen with local government in dealing with water supplies.

Honourable members would be aware through representations made to them that local government has been anxious about securing adequate water supplies. Provisions have been dealt with that gave some relief to those anxieties and there were simply arguments about how allocations would be dealt with in water plans when there was a rapid rise in population or there were latent commercial developments that needed to be considered. In this case the Opposition is concerned about an attempt by the Government to ride roughshod over agreements entered into in the past for water sharing from a dam or pondage to which they had contributed.

I do not think anyone believes it is the intention of local government to usurp water resources in some dog in the manger way. The operation of Burrendong dam, which supplies Dubbo, will be carried out by Dubbo City Council in a way that is cognisant of the scarcity of water. It is happy to live within the water usages of the citizens of that city but is concerned about being corralled in circumstances where promises and undertakings were given, some written and solemn, others verbal and what might be called gentlemen's agreements—if that quaint old term has any meaning when dealing with this Government. However, those views should be respected, and the Opposition wished to clearly state those views.

Local government areas, particularly Tamworth, do not want to enter into the distribution of water in a way that suggests there may be a generous allocation that may be splashed around in a year similar to this where usage would be considerably lower than in many other years. I do not think it is the intention of Dubbo City Council to suggest to its ratepayers that they are not drinking enough water and should drink more or that they should wash their cars more frequently. This matter will be responded to responsibly by local government, particularly Tamworth.

There is a great feeling of injury and wrong in the way the bill is presently drafted and these amendments address that concern by local government, particularly Tamworth City Council. I know the city made strong representations through its local member, who spoke in another place in the debate and was splattered against the wall, to use the vernacular. His representations on behalf of the fair city of Tamworth were ignored. I believe that the Independents in this Chamber will take a different view to that of the Government and will see that right is on the side of these amendments. They go to the very core of our fundamental beliefs. Tamworth actually has a contract and it certainly should be honoured. Dubbo, Bathurst, the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee, towns that depend on water supplies, also have some form of agreement and they would like those agreements honoured, more in the implementation than in the breach, to rephrase that well-known saying. In the interests of getting on with this bill, I will reserve further comments until I reply to what other honourable members might adduce.

I commend these amendments. It may be that the Government is prepared to accept them or that we may be able to secure a majority. I hope we do, and if we do I hope the Government will be chastened by the clear demonstration that the voice of local government has been heard. There is always considerable friction with local government and it is no wonder that it wants its recognition to be enshrined in the legislation. The Chairman of Committees has served in local government for a long time and he knows how frustrated local government becomes when the New South Wales Government claims that local government is a creature of its statutes and, therefore, it can dictate terms to local government. These people are community leaders. There is no doubt that in Tamworth this matter has been the cause of considerable agitation. I believe they require satisfaction and are entitled to satisfaction.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.30 p.m.]: By stipulating that the State's water rights are not to be exercised in contravention of any local water utility where it has an agreement with government, Opposition amendment No. 11 would, in effect, give the State's right to control the use and flow of water to local government. I note that the nature of the so-called agreement is not specified. It is totally inappropriate to exclude local water utilities from the State's right to control the use and flow of water. It must be recognised that there are many competing claims on the State's limited water resources, and that water for towns and industries is simply one of these, albeit an important one.

This competition for water does not disappear simply because the Government and the local water utility have entered into an agreement. It is the State Government's responsibility to ensure that, firstly, the fundamental environmental health of our water sources is protected for current and future generations. Secondly, the State Government must ensure that the activities of one user do not unfairly impact on other users. Even though priority for town water supplies is provided in the bill, this has to be balanced with the needs of others. For example, if local water utilities were insulated from the State's rights, who would ensure the protection of the basic land-holder's rights in council's area of operation? Who would ensure that the local water utility would adequately provide for the environment?

It is too much to expect that 128 local water utilities will always take a balanced approach to water sharing, particularly in dry times when they have a vested interest. The Government has, over the past four years, moved to explicitly ensure that Hunter Water, Sydney Water and the Sydney Catchment Authority are not excluded from the exercise of the State's water rights, and to instead issue these organisations with a water access licence. In this context it would appear illogical to now move to insulate 128 local councils from these functions. While on the matter of the Sydney Catchment Authority, I seek to correct a statement made by my colleague the Special Minister of State during the second reading speech on this bill. He said that the Sydney Catchment Authority has a licence under the Water Act of 1912. In fact, a draft licence has been developed but not yet issued. The Government will oppose Opposition amendment No. 11.

The Government will also oppose Opposition amendment No. 12. The amendment alienates the community water resource and puts it under the control of individual water utilities. It is totally inconsistent with the objects of the Act and the concept of integrated water management. Honourable members should also be aware that much of this local water utility infrastructure was heavily subsidised with public funds.

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS [5.32 p.m.]: Opposition amendment No. 11 is extremely important for the survival of local communities. For example, Inverell shire has an agreement—not written, but an agreement—with the department that it has available to it 3,200 megalitres a year. That figure was granted to Inverell shire by Neville Wran on the day of the opening of Copeton dam. Although I was not present, I have read a transcript and I believe that Neville Wran said that Inverell would never again have to worry about water supply for the town. That undertaking given by a Labor Premier of this State guaranteed Inverell shire 3,200 megalitres of water.

Water must be available to local communities. This amendment does not seek to exclude local government water from the State's rights. All it does is seek to guarantee them a starting point to the allocations that they have available to them now. I have received a number of representations on this matter from Tenterfield Shire Council, Central Tablelands Water County Council and many others, and it applies to many other local government areas throughout the State. Many of these local government areas do not have written agreements or written licences. Very many of them are verbal agreements and those verbal agreements are important to the local communities and should be preserved.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.35 p.m.]: I support the amendments. As I indicated in my contribution to the second reading debate, there is a great deal of concern within New South Wales. Here we have a situation that is probably as bad as, if not worse than, any other situation we have faced in regard to this bill—and there have been some pretty ordinary things in the bill. I note that some honourable members in the Chamber are laughing. Frankly, it is not a matter that is at all funny. There are communities who, for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years have got together to provide their own water. They collected money from citizens and businesses within those communities. That originated with local government—a good mayor and a good council. I do not know whether it was a Labor council—probably not. That is the way they operate in country areas.

Communities get together and decide that they want to do something, that they want to get some money together and provide their water. The Tamworth community made a contribution towards the dam that formed part of their water supply. Communities in rural and regional New South Wales were asked to help themselves, to get off their butts and do something. Because of the actions of Country Labor and this Labor Government, communities in regional New South Wales will not get off their butts to help themselves in future. This socialist government is removing the ability of people to look after themselves.

These are sensible amendments. The first one refers to the rights of any local water utility under any agreement. That means an existing agreement, an agreement that a community signed, in good faith, with the ministerial corporation or any of its predecessors. Amendment No. 12 states that water rights are not to be exercised in relation to water stored by a water supply works that is owned or has been constructed by a local water utility. That is all about local communities helping themselves. Once again, this Government is about to stop them; it is about to remove the incentive for country communities to contribute to their security.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.38 p.m.]: It is obvious why the once great National Party is in such deleterious decline. Throughout the debate on this bill Snappy Gay has come in and made his contribution—usually a bit of a bucket job. He had a bit of a hard go and exaggerated beyond belief, but it is obvious that he has not read what is before him and what is to come. Government amendment No. 32, which the Committee will deal with shortly, provides for existing agreements and entitlements to become the licensed access rights under this bill.

Furthermore, the Opposition amendment moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett goes a lot further than merely recognising existing agreements: it proposes the exclusion of councils from the application of the State's water rights where such agreements exist. In effect, the other users would receive no protection in times of shortages. The amendment should be voted against, and vigorously so. As a corollary to that, amendment No. 32, which provides these guarantees, should be supported.

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS [5.40 p.m.]: I point out to the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that Government amendment No. 32 provides that the Minister must grant an access licence to any local water utility that, immediately before the appointed day, held an entitlement. Does that include unwritten agreements? Many agreements are not written, formal entitlements. Is the Government going to take water from the councils?

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: No.

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS: The amendment does not protect the councils.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.42 p.m.]: Government amendment No. 32 contains one option. Proposed clause 10 states:

There is a whole series of ways of working out the quantity of water.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [5.42 p.m.]: Notwithstanding that, the effect of this is to set aside the agreements, particularly the contract that Tamworth City Council has. The proposed method of calculating water does not give any comfort to other local government areas; and it turns Tamworth down dead flat.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.41 p.m.]: Many members have received submissions from the Mayor of Cabonne, John Farr. Part of his concern was that within Cabonne's water area is the town of Blayney. Until recently Blayney, which is not far from me, had an abattoir. If Blayney wanted to reopen that abattoir it would need a lot more water. The Government's proposed amendment No. 32 states:

Even if the township of Blayney were able to attract an operator to its abattoir, which is idle at the moment, the abattoir would not be able to reopen, for lack of water. This is one of the unforeseen circumstances that keep cropping up in this is ill thought out, cobbled together bill.

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS [5.43 p.m.]: The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that volume is dependent upon current usage, and that is exactly the problem that we have. A lot of councils have put in place demand management strategies that have reduced water usage over the years. In fact, they now have some savings which will be taken from them. Government amendment No. 32 states:

(5) In the case of an access licence whose specified volume is greater than the quantity of water currently taken and used under the entitlement referred to in subclause (1), the Minister may at any time impose a condition on the access licence to the effect that water in excess of that quantity is not to be taken or used …

That is taking the water away from the local government area, and that is the water that the Opposition's amendment seeks to protect. The local government areas that have a history of allocation, an agreement, should be protected. If they need water over and above that amount, they are subject to the provisions of the bill; but that should be the starting point.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.45 p.m.]: There is an additional means of calculating water. Government amendment No 32 provides that if the infrastructure is there, it is catered for. If Blayney has the infrastructure, presumably from the past abattoir, water will be calculated on that basis. If Blayney previously supplied water to the abattoir, it has the infrastructure that is capable of supplying the water and it will keep the amount that is calculated according to that infrastructure.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.46 p.m.]: We are getting down to semantics. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Opposition, because its amendment specifically deals with agreements. Often agreements are precedential and do not have a written basis; they can be simply understood because that is the way it has always been done. But in country towns in which I have lived that agreement is holy writ, it is set in concrete. It is the way that the town has always allocated water. I understand what the Hon. I. M. Macdonald is getting at; he is talking about access licences, which are different from agreements, and he is talking about an entitlement. Most country towns regard their agreement as an entitlement, but I do not think that Government amendment No. 32 makes the link between an agreement and an entitlement.

I seriously suggest that the Government address that, because whether it is its intention or not, it will be seen as removing what has always been the historic control that local government authorities in country areas have had over the volume, reticulation and usage of their water supply. This really needs to be looked at.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.47 p.m.]: The advice I have received is that some towns affected in this way have not been able to locate an actual agreement. The way that the water use is calculated is fairly clear within the meaning of proposed amendment No 32, which covers all the contingencies in calculating the amount of water they receive. The Opposition's amendment, in seeking to protect towns, sacrifices the rights of other users, their constituencies in the system. There is no extra water. What we give to one group we must take from another. The Opposition should think carefully about this and the direction in which it is moving.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.48 p.m.]: I hear what the Hon. I. M. Macdonald has said and what he is trying to say, but this bill cannot possibly be framed on individual towns and their individual requirements. Surely the legislation must be capable of being applied to any area that uses water. If the legislation is predicated on Tamworth or Blayney, that will set up conditions that other towns may not be able to meet. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald was quite right when he said that maybe some towns will not be able to find their written agreement, but that was the precise point I made: many agreements are purely precedential and historic and nothing has been put on paper. But the agreement has always been understood. There must be room in the legislation for that.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 16

Mr Colless
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Lynn
Mrs Nile
Revd Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan
Mr Tingle

Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 21

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

Ms Fazio
Mr Johnson
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin
Mrs Sham-Ho

Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Primrose

Pairs

Miss Gardiner	Mr Egan
Mr Samios	Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD [5.56 p.m.]: I move my amendment:

Subordinate Legislation Act 1989

Note:

Subordinate Legislation Act 1989

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the public consultation requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 to any amendment to regulations of the bill. In effect, that will cause any changes to the regulations of the bill to be automatically subject to public scrutiny and submission through consultation rather than implementation without public knowledge. There are considerable consequences to this bill and the ramifications for changes to the regulations at some later date make it imperative that such changes be well advertised and understood. They should not be slipped past the public by the usual means, only then to be complained about after the fact when the prospect of real opposition has passed. The issue of water is simply too important for the legislation, once passed, to be left to its own devices regarding regulations.

Specifically, this amendment will in effect require the Minister not only to publish any changes in the Government Gazette but also, quoting from the subordinate legislation, "in a daily newspaper circulating throughout New South Wales and, where appropriate, in any relevant trade, professional, business or public interest journal or publication". The notice will state the objects of the proposed changes, advise where the regulatory impact statement may be obtained or inspected, as well as advising any details regarding the ability to obtain or inspect the proposed statutory rule. Further to that public notification there will be a minimum of 21 days in which public comments and submissions may be made. Again, quoting from the subordinate legislation, "consultation is to take place with appropriate representatives of consumers, the public, relevant interest groups and any sector of industry or commerce likely to be affected by the proposed statutory rule".

Once again, considering the significance of this Water Management Bill and hence the potential significance of any changes to the regulations, it should be particularly noted that the nature and extent of the publicity for the proposal and of the consultation regarding the proposal is to be commensurate with the impact likely to arise from the making of the statutory rule for those aforementioned interested and/or affected parties. Regardless of which side of the debate we support, this amendment will allow all honourable members to have a crack at any future changes. It gives the public fair warning and allows adequate time for response. It is in everyone's interest to support this amendment.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.59 p.m.]: But it is not in the Government's interests, or the interests of probably anybody else in this Chamber, to support the amendment. The proposed amendment, if accepted, will impose a large financial burden on the public purse and will require the unnecessary diversion of resources. The proposed amendment will require the Department of Land and Water Conservation to undertake a regulatory impact statement in regard to every proposed amendment to a regulation. At the moment minor or machinery amendments to regulations only have to be assessed under schedule 1 to the Subordinate Legislation Act. As a consequence, the Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.59 p.m.]: We support the amendment because it allows for extra accountability. I was concerned that it might cause a logjam or endless expense, which is always the cry of the Government as it quietly sweeps things into its back closets. But the default position in this case is that the amount of advertising of regulations has to be in proportion to the significance of the changes so that minor machinery ones do not have to be advertised as extensively as significant or major changes. As such, this amendment will not cause that amount of difficulty. I am concerned at the increasing trend by this Government to introduce legislation that says the regulations will fix it later. This amendment puts it back to the people, which is where the power belongs. As such, we will support it.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 11

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Corbett
Mr M. I. Jones

Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mrs Nile
Revd Nile
Ms Rhiannon

Mr Tingle
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Mr Oldfield

Noes, 26

Ms Burnswoods
Mr Colless
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay

Mr Harwin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Mr Moppett
Mr Obeid
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan
Ms Saffin
Mr Samios
Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Chapter 9 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.08 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 29:

This amendment will simply add the corporate name Eraring Energy, formerly known as Pacific Power, to the list of major utilities recognised for the purpose of this legislation. By being added to the list, Eraring Energy will be eligible to be issued with a major utility access licence to cover its water supply needs.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.09 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Government's amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 3 to 5 agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.09 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 159:

No. 159 Page 218, schedule 6, lines 18 and 19. Omit "inspection of any person on payment of such fee as may be determined by it from time to time". Insert instead "inspection, free of charge, of any person".

This amendment removes the fee for inspection of Water Advisory Council or Management Committee particulars. Fees should not be charged for access to public documents by the public. This is a basic, open, transparent and equity issue. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.10 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment. People should not have to pay to view this register.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.10 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 13 and 14 in globo:

(a) any decision as to the content of a draft management plan, and

Depending on the flow of debate, we may seek to vote on these amendments seriatim. I thought amendment No. 13 was uncontroversial as it sought only to clear up what was already set out as supply of the draft management plan, which is a matter referred to for voting procedures. I thought the Government would accept the amendment, but the parliamentary secretary indicates that it will oppose it. That is an act of blind stupidity. The amendment seeks to make clear that as management plans are evolved within management committees they must be agreed upon and not simply be the subject of a vote. The intention of the section is that in general management committees will strive to seek consensus. If that is not possible, they will then proceed to a vote.

However, that is what will destroy management committees and the confidence in them, particularly if the issue is at the heart of the agreed plan the committee is trying to collaborate to produce. If you have a group of people who are most vulnerable and sustain the most damage from alterations to the draft management plan—who could potentially be outnumbered 18 to two—you must include draft management plans in the consensus concept, which would be highly desirable in light of experience in the development of existing management plans. Amendment No. 15 is equally important in making management committees work. I recall my experience on the advisory committee when the advice of departmental officers was greatly valued, but they assiduously avoided voting in those days.

However, we have made provision for them to vote in committee decisions if that is what is decided. These are important amendments to make management committees work and to retain the confidence of all stakeholders who are represented; not just simply see that political considerations will dominate what are basically businesslike decisions that should be made with the total concurrence of all the different interests. A lot of time will be spent arguing and debating. Again I believe the experience demonstrates that it is possible to reach consensus. It would be sad if representatives of other groups who do not have as much at stake—certainly financially they do not—could exercise authority. Perhaps they were lobbied to do so. They could insist on radical proposals in a draft management plan and the voices of those who were most vulnerable would be ignored—that would be a great shame.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.15 p.m.]: As discussed in relation to amendment No. 6, the effect of amendment No. 13 is that any one member of a water management committee could potentially hold up for years the making of a water management plan over one item of one plan. Practically, this could work in favour of conservationists and other parties. Nevertheless, aside from the fact that there may be a gain for one side or the other, the Greens do not support the amendment and believe there are opportunities to promote the overall issue without supporting the amendment. Amendment No. 14 further limits the voting rights of the members of the water management committee. This amendment gives voting rights only to stakeholders on committees, effectively neutering government representative on the committees. Whilst I understood the strong arguments of the Opposition regarding valley by valley and local people having the overwhelming right to decide, the Greens believe there is a significant role for members on those committees with a broad spectrum on the issue, which includes conservation and government representatives. We do not support the amendments.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.16 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments. Amendment No. 13 requires the unanimous decision that the plan is acceptable and ready to be submitted. Presumably committee members will not agree to submit a draft plan to the Minister if its content is not agreed. Obviously, agreement to submit a draft plan signifies unanimous agreement of its content. This amendment is simply unnecessary. In relation to amendment No. 14, the bill is premised on a government-community partnership approach. These provisions are inconsistent with those moved by the National Party. They unbalance the committee structure and, therefore, its decision-making process. It also aids the eventual acceptance of the plans by the Minister if Government members are fully active in the process.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.17 p.m.]: I was surprised when I heard that the Government would oppose amendment No. 13 because it believes that the amendment is unnecessary. I thought I initially pointed out that we were trying to make it abundantly clear to anyone who read the section. It is a shame the Government is determined to vote it down. I believe amendment No. 14 is a fair and reasonable request. It seems to have drawn the ire of the Hon. I. Cohen, but if people have worked on these issues they would realise the position of government nominees is going to be a sensitive one. I am not too sure that they would appreciate having this prior decision that the other members representing community and other stakeholders want them to vote before they are drawn into what may be more difficult decisions. They are eminently sensible amendments and should be voted for.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 17

Mr Colless
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Lynn
Mrs Nile
Revd Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan
Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 22

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
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon

Ms Saffin
Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West

Pair

Miss Gardiner

Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.27 p.m.]: I move amendment No. 160:

No. 160 Page 225, schedule 8, lines 6 to 9. Omit all matter on those lines.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.28 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On what grounds?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I will explain in due course. The amendment requires the reference to approvals under the Water Management Act to be omitted from the integrated development components of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It seems to fly in the face of all the work that the Government is doing to ensure integrated development.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.28 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 30, 31 and 32 in globo:

(3) Subclause (1) (a) does not apply to an entitlement that, immediately before the appointed day, was held by a local water utility.

10 Local water utility licences

The three amendments deal with the way in which the water supplies of towns are to be converted to access licences when the bill is first put into effect. These amendments are put forward after extensive discussion between the Government, Country Labor and local water supply authorities. Towns have always had priority for water supplies and through the early 1900s did not need to have water licences. Today some water supplies remain unlicensed or, at best, are licensed only for their pumps and diversion works. Many have no defined volumetric entitlement. Amendment No. 30 removes towns from the transitional provisions of other licences under the Water Act. The amendment recognises that towns are in a unique situation, requiring a clearly defined process to convert to the new access arrangements.

Amendments Nos 31 and 32 provide the options on which towns would be converted. Under the first option towns already have a water licence, and they can be converted on the basis of that licence. For those towns that do not currently have a volumetric entitlement a calculation will be made having regard to their population, geographical location and current water use based on good water management practice. Towns that have existing demand management strategies are not to be disadvantaged by this process. There will simply be an assessment of what the town would require based on towns of similar size with similar levels of development in similar locations.

If towns have invested in infrastructure as the basis for planned growth, the access licence will be based on the assessed yield of that infrastructure, and that refers to Blayney. It is only sensible that towns in this position should not be penalised for the investment that they have already made. One should bear in mind that the Government has also heavily subsidised much of this infrastructure development. A further provision relates to situations in which a town might end up with a water access share that is well above its current use of water. In some river systems there is a concern that if the expansion of the town and associated industries occurred at too fast a pace, this could have a significant impact on other users who are depending on that river or ground water system, or an impact on the basic health of the water source itself. In these situations there is provision for the Minister to require a town to seek approval to progressively fully use its access share.

Towns such as Tamworth and Dubbo, whose current water use is well below the entitlement, will be allowed to retain that entitlement and the use can increase up to a level, subject to the Minister's approval. This is a reasonable compromise for such towns. Country Labor considers that special transitional arrangements are required to cater for the unique access requirements that apply to town water supplies. The amendments are a pragmatic way of ensuring that towns can readily move to the new access arrangements without compromising their ability to service their consumers with safe and reliable water. These provisions are well and truly worthwhile and should be supported.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.32 p.m.]: As the bill has been amended, the Opposition supports and welcomes these amendments. We particularly acknowledge the amended wording, which came in at the last minute, and allows for the selection of not one of the alternatives but a combination to reach an accommodation with a particular town. The Opposition supports the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.33 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 15:

Local Government Act 1993

This is another amendment to cover the requirements of local government, and I trust that the Government will accept it.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.34 p.m.]: The amendment seeks to ensure that local water utilities with existing licences will have their licences converted unchanged to the new access arrangements under the bill. The essence of this amendment has been incorporated in Government amendment No. 32. Clause 10 (3) (a) provides that local utilities with volumetric entitlement under the Water Act can have their entitlement carried forward. Given that the Government amendment that has already been carried achieves the same outcomes as are sought by this amendment, I ask the Opposition to consider withdrawing its amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.35 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 33:

No. 33 Page 253, schedule 9, lines 16 to 20. Omit all words on those lines.

Clause 46 is to be omitted because the bill does not require private drainage boards to make valuations in order to determine rates for funding board activities. The general powers to determine rates expressed in clause 207 are not dependent upon making valuations.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.36 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 34:

This amendment will give the Minister greater flexibility in the transfer of assets, rights or liabilities—and not staff of Benerembah Trust—should this provision ever need to be activated as a transitional measure. The current wording of the bill only allows such assets to be transferred to a public authority. However, the Government considers that future options for the management trust may include a role for irrigation corporations or private irrigation districts.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.37 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 16:

town water supply

Local Government Act 1993

This is a small amendment to clarify the definition of the term "town water supply".

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.38 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. The term is already defined in the dictionary definition of "local water utility".

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.38 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 167:

No. 167 Page 263, dictionary, lines 30 to 32. Omit all words on those lines.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.39 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Dictionary agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.39 p.m.]: I seek leave to incorporate a statement on behalf of the Minister which responds to the matters raised by honourable members during this debate.

Leave granted.
__________

STATEMENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

________

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will now deal with Greens amendment No. 23, the consideration of which was postponed at an earlier stage of Committee proceedings.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.40 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 23:

This amendment expands the provisions that relate to environmental considerations for flood plain management, controlled activities and aquifer interference activities. As the bill is currently drafted, specific environmental considerations are outlined in respect of water sharing, water use and drainage management in this division. Our robust environmental protection mechanisms should apply to flood plain management, controlled activities and aquifer interference activities. The amendment outlines environmental provisions that are directly related to the activity that they affect, thus giving greater direction to what water management principles should be applied to these activities.

The amendment provides that flood plain management activities should avoid or minimise water and land degradation, including soil erosion, compaction, geomorphic instability, contamination, acidity, water logging, decline of native vegetation and, where appropriate, salinity. Where possible land should be rehabilitated, and the impacts of flood works and other water usage should be avoided or minimised. Flood plain management in the past has provided protection of human life and property. Given the ecological importance of flood plains, this amendment requires that more detailed environmental considerations be applied in relation to flood plain management. Controlled activities have the potential to greatly impact on various habitats and sensitive ecological communities. Controlled activities are activities such as the construction of buildings, council works around rivers and streams, landscaping and the like.

The amendment allows for the consideration of impacts caused by controlled activities to consider broader environmental protection concerns. In areas with acid sulfate soils, particularly on the North Coast of New South Wales where I come from, this amendment would be of great benefit, not only when considering environmental concerns, but also when having regard to the fishing industry and a reasonable balance in the environment. It would help to turn around some past practices which are considered to be not appropriate to present day activities. I very strongly commend Greens amendment No. 23.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.42 p.m.]: I have been on tenterhooks for a number of days, since this amendment was postponed, because I certainly want to express the view that the Government has taken leave of its senses in accepting this amendment. When one turns to the original amendments Nos 6 and 7 that are amended by this amendment, one is struck by the fact that they are written in clear, precise language. They are simple, eloquent and entirely comprehensible. I must concede, firstly, that the words used would be found in any modest vocabulary. They come in the normal conventional groupings of words, and observe the conventions of grammar, but, beyond that, there is no central intelligence in them. They just start at the top and come down like an avalanche of words until at the bottom you finish up with a snowball of chatter.

Everything that is animate or inanimate in the world is to be controlled by this expanded amendment. The only saving grace that might be pointed out is that it removes the words, "to cause or exacerbate" contained in the original amendments and inserts the words, "avoid or minimise". To that extent they are worth consideration. I think it is deplorable that what could have been a simple amendment to those two concise clauses, Nos 6 and 7, is now going to be replaced with this incredible policy statement from the Greens, incorporating every conceivable idea in some jumble of words that one would have to sit down with a cup of tea and a Bex before reading.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.44 p.m.]: One could not help but be moved by the comments of the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I also find it favourable that the words used address the quite proper concerns of the New South Wales Minerals Council. The Government indicated to the Opposition that it would not support the Opposition's simple amendment, which was to remove the words "not be permitted to cause or exacerbate" and insert instead "avoid or minimise". There is delicious irony in the fact that, somewhere along the line, through Government negotiation, deals and counter deals, the Hon. I. Cohen has been the vehicle that the Government has chosen to protect the Mining Industry in New South Wales. However the Government has done it, the Opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.45 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment. The flood plain management plan is directed at controlling the construction and operation of flood works on declared flood plains. The water bill, as proposed to be amended, does not purport to control land use, or the activities carried out on the land, such as grazing. The use of land is controlled by the relevant local environmental plan [LEP]. The bill does not and cannot cut down the operation of LEPs in this regard.

As this is the last amendment, I place on record the Government's sincere appreciation for the time and enormous commitment given by the following representatives of the peak industry groups: Col Thompson and Brett Tucker from the New South Wales Irrigators Council; Elizabeth McNiven and David Allen from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council; Kathy Ridge, Jean Guise and Imogen Skoots from the Nature Conservation Council; Simon Carson from the New South Wales Farmers Association; and David Hale from the Local Government and Shires Associations.

Those people have together made a significant and valuable contribution to the shape of the bill. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has also asked me to acknowledge the invaluable support work provided by the Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation, Dr Bob Smith, and his core water legislation team, which includes: Des Cleary, Jenny Birchmore, Gary Harmer, Vanessa O'Keefe, David Dunstan, Jan Gill, Ray Gerums and Sally Fraser. This team has worked on the development of the new water legislation over a long period of time, drawing upon other expertise as required. The Government is pleased with the high level of co-operation and the outcomes achieved. All those I mentioned should be congratulated upon their efforts.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.47 p.m.]: While I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary's expressions of thanks, I am a little disappointed he did not also thank Don Page and Emma Watts, who have been instrumental in working on the valuable changes that have made this a much better bill than the exposure draft that was distributed throughout the State. I am disappointed he did not recognise their efforts. The Minister's office has been terrific and has worked very well with them, from the departmental head down. It was a team effort and they were very much a part of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Chapter 2 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Adoption of Report

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.52 p.m.]: I move:

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.53 p.m.]: I move:

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 16

Mr Colless
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Lynn
Mrs Nile
Revd Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Samios
Mr Tingle

Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 21

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

Ms Fazio
Mr Johnson
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West

Pairs

Miss Gardiner	Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Ryan	Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted and bill passed through remaining stages.

[The President left the chair at 7.00 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

MINING AND PETROLEUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.00 p.m.]: The Opposition welcomes the bill and does not oppose the content of it. It is an omnibus bill that will amend both the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. Both Acts are the principal means of managing the exploration and mining of coal, minerals and petroleum in New South Wales. The bill contains five broad areas, and I intend to deal with each of them in order. First, the bill makes important amendments that increase penalties for offences. The Coalition supports these amendments. Penalties have not been reviewed since 1992, and the general feeling across the industry and from the peak industry body—the New South Wales Minerals Council—is that increased penalties will be a strong deterrent to breaches of the legislation, particularly for environmental offences. Under the proposed amendments most maximum fines will be increased, and in some cases a gaol term will be added.

For example, breaches of environmental management and rehabilitation conditions under both Acts will attract a maximum fine of $110,000 rather than the maximum of $11,000 currently prescribed by the legislation. Similarly, maximum fines for illegal mining will be increased to the same amount, while gaol terms will be inserted in the Petroleum (Onshore) Act to deal with those who participate in illegal activities. The Opposition supports these amendments, as well as the amendments relating to penalties. We congratulate the industry in general on recommending them and the Minister on incorporating them. It is certainly a huge step forward for the industry and its representatives to recommend such amendments.

The Government has quite rightly recognised the need to differentiate between individuals and corporations when imposing penalties under both Acts. The amendment to fine a corporation double the amount of a fine for an individual is welcome. Cognate changes will be made to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to accommodate these amendments. I hope that increased penalties will be an appropriate deterrent. I hope also that they ensure that mining operators, whether they be individuals or companies, are better environmental and corporate citizens.

The second broad area of amendments will give the Minister the power to suspend mining or prospecting operations in whole or in part for breaches of environmental management and rehabilitation conditions. The amendments will enable the Minister of the day to suspend an operation for failure to pay royalties, or failure to lodge a security with the appropriate authority. I was a little concerned at the arbitrary nature of the provisions, but after consultation with the New South Wales Minerals Council and the acknowledgement of a staged process of intervention, the Opposition supports the provisions. I am pleased to note the sections of the bill relating to opal mining and prospecting. The bill will make prospecting licences subject to ministerial directions to comply with environmental management and rehabilitation conditions.

It would be a good move if the Minister and I were to get together, go to Canberra and have a bit of a chat about the problems facing White Cliffs. At some stage we need to talk about that to ensure that we look after the prospectors out there. As many honourable members would be aware, parts of the State, including Lightning Ridge and White Cliffs, have been extensively explored, prospected and mined for opals for many years. The end result has been extensive environmental degradation. More than 1,000 opal prospecting licences have been granted in Lightning Ridge in the past five years. I am hopeful that these important amendments will lead to more responsible mining activities.

An important part of the bill deals with native title provisions of both the Mining Act and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act. The Opposition supports the amendments because they confirm the current rights of native title holders to compensation for loss of possession or use of the surface of land as a result of mining, and they will be included in the definition of compensatable loss in both the Acts. Another amendment will ensure that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is closely consulted on the make-up of an arbitration panel to deal with disputes between land-holders and exploration companies.

Amendments are also proposed to the diligent inquiry provisions of both Acts. They are consistent with the equivalent provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act. I am pleased to see that the Government is moving to introduce these amendments as they relate to native title. In August the New South Wales Minerals Council conference was told that 99 native title claims were before the National Native Title Tribunal. Many of the claims covered significant areas of the State, including areas in which large deposits of mineral sands had been identified for possible exploration. I hope these amendments will go some way to providing a speedy resolution of many of those outstanding matters.

The bill also deals with the royalty paid on coal seam methane. Currently, royalty is paid on methane if it is sold or put to other productive uses, such as in a power plant located in or near a mine site. Such a regime discourages productive use. Instead, many operators vent methane gas into the atmosphere to avoid paying royalties to the Government. As honourable members would be aware, methane is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The Government has recognised this and in removing the royalty provisions it hopes to encourage productive use of the gas, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a sensible amendment, and I wholeheartedly support it, especially in light of the added safety benefits that will flow from the removal of this gas from mines. I understand that operations that focus on the independent development of coal seam methane, that is the extraction of the gas without the associated mining such as the Sydney Gas Company operation at Camden, are not exempted under this provision.

I shall now raise a number of concerns about parts of this bill. Schedule 2 makes amendments relating to mining and petroleum titles. New section 72 sets out the restrictions on the rights of holders of titles over other land. I have been in contact with concerned residents from the Camden area as well as with my colleagues the honourable member for Southern Highlands and the honourable member for Camden, who have raised with me the problem about the distance between exploration activity and homes. In fact, the contact was the reverse: the honourable member for Southern Highlands and the honourable member for Camden have been camped on my door, and I suspect also the Minister's door, trying to protect the rights of their constituents, as has the Hon. A. G. Corbett, the Hon. I. Cohen and many other honourable members in this House. The councils responsible for the area have acted professionally also.

The residents would like a mandatory exclusion zone of 200 metres from the boundary of any neighbouring property to the site of any well in addition to the provision in the bill for the 200 metre zone between a well site and any place of residence. I understand there would be significant problems with including this provision in the Petroleum (Onshore) Act, given that the provisions would flow on to the Mining Act. I understand and agree with the concerns raised by this resident group but, unfortunately, the bill is much less than the perfect vehicle for some of their suggested changes. The sad fact is that they wanted a vehicle to look after their problems and this happened to be the first one to come by. To modify this bill to address all of their concerns would have unforseen and, importantly, unacceptable ramifications.

Nevertheless, the Opposition will move an amendment to change the definitions contained in new section 72. The amendment means that protection will be offered in cases where two or more houses are on one property. I am pleased to note that the Minerals Council has delivered a commitment to work towards a protocol in relation to the notification of affected landowners. The Opposition will move an amendment also to legislate to require the notification of adjoining landowners. These residents are concerned also with activities undertaken by Sydney Gas under the auspices of an assessment lease. The residents believe that the company operating an assessment lease should be able to sell any petroleum product it extracts in the course of that assessment.

I have consulted extensively not only with staff in the Minister's office, who have been courteous and helpful at all times, but also with Minerals Council staff, who are an absolutely outstanding group for the industry they represent. I deal with many such bodies in my eclectic group of portfolios and this group is one of the best. I spoke also to Sydney Gas. In many instances Sydney Gas has been painted as the villain, but I do not believe that it would pretend that some of its earlier practices, by any stretch of the imagination, could be described as perfect. In my discussions with all interested bodies I was able to arrive at a central plan that, yes, people needed to be informed in writing. Unbeknown to me, the Hon. A. G. Corbett had been working towards a similar amendment. Sydney Gas accepted in the long negotiations that, if possible, we must look after other residences on a block by having a 200 metre exclusion zone.

It might be noted that our amendments started at (a) and ended at (f). Whenever we tried to come up with an amendment that had minimal ramifications, there was much thinking, sometimes some stress, sometimes firm words but always goodwill from all parties to try to produce something that worked. Those amendments will demonstrate that we have been innovative and produced something that will work. I shall leave further comments for the appropriate time. Another concern is that new section 72 states, "A consent under this section is irrevocable." It has been put to me that problems arise when land is sold and consent lapses, meaning that the company involved in exploration or assessment must renegotiate consent. I ask the Minister to clarify whether consent runs with land. Whilst the Opposition supports some of the residents' concerns, I am mindful that any change to this bill will impact on mining operations across the State.

Therefore, I ask the Minister for an assurance that his department will work with both Sydney Gas and the Camden and Cawdor residents to ensure that exploration and assessment in those areas are conducted in strict accordance with the provisions of the Petroleum (Onshore) Act. I acknowledge also that during the second reading speech the Minister said that the Government was intent on tidying up the interpretation of buffer zones referred to in new section 72. I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure the appropriate balance between the needs of the community and the interests of the companies involved. I indicated earlier that I met with Sydney Gas to discuss this issue. I place on record once again the efforts of the two local members, the honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Southern Highlands, who have put in a great deal of personal effort representing their constituents in trying to resolve the outstanding matters relating to the exploration and assessment conducted in the Camden and Cawdor areas. Similarly, both Camden and Wollondilly councils have been working to attempt to resolve access issues and buffer zone problems around residents. Earlier this week Wollondilly council passed a unanimous motion calling on the Department of Mineral Resources to act in this regard. Wollondilly council has submitted an excellent application to the Department of Mineral Resources in respect of a review of environmental factors for the assessment lease application by Sydney Gas. The council should be applauded for its work in this area. I acknowledge also the advice received in negotiations with the Minerals Council and the Minister's staff in regard to this bill.

Another amendment to this bill is the introduction of a provision allowing holders of petroleum titles to specifically explore for natural petroleum reservoirs in addition to petroleum products. I am pleased this provision has been introduced because current legislation does not provide for that type of exploration. It has puzzled me why it was not allowed. This amendment will encourage more diligent exploration of an area under a title. I note also that minor amendments are designed to streamline the administration of titles. They are welcome and sensible amendments. In summary, the Opposition welcomes the majority of the bill. As indicated earlier, we will continue to talk to the relevant groups on matters relating to petroleum exploration in the Camden area. I am hopeful that we can reach a position acceptable to all parties involved. I did not mention one of the principals of the Camden group, Mr Stuart Smith, who has contacted my office on numerous occasions, and I am sure has contacted other members' offices and the Minister's office. He is always polite, friendly, understanding and sensible, and that has not been my past experience with lobby groups.

Whilst I do not normally applaud lobby groups, this group has been very good. I suspect that had it not been for goodwill from people such as Stuart Smith and other people that have contacted me—surprisingly, in this instance this has applied to all the parties—we would not have formulated amendments that I understand from the Minister are acceptable to the Government. I look forward to hearing his response to the real concerns that I have raised. I congratulate the Government on the bill.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [8.20 p.m.]: I support the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill. I believe that this bill will put in place more effective environmental protections than are currently provided by the Mining Act and the Petroleum Act. I was surprised to find that the current maximum fine for breaking mining environmental management conditions is only $11,000. The proposed new maximum penalty of $110,000 is more appropriate. I believe also that the same maximum fine should be available for illegal mining, and that the potential for gaol sentences under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act is most appropriate. It is also appropriate that the maximum fines for corporations will generally be double the maximum fines for individuals. Similarly, it is appropriate that the Minister be able to suspend mining operations for breaches of environmental conditions. I welcome the inclusion of native title provisions, although I note that the changes in these provisions do not appear to be very major.

I have viewed proposals by the Gas Action Group in relation to the impact of mining and exploration on land-holders and other land users. Their concerns are based on the impact of gas exploration in the Camden area, but they have wider ramifications. I have seen correspondence from Camden Council outlining its concerns about gas exploration in the area. I recognise its concerns and I support its position. I am pleased that the Government will move amendments to the Act to address some of the concerns of the residents affected, and I will support the amendments. For example, it is sensible that the Act will now recognise more than one principal dwelling on each property. I understand that further amendments may be moved in relation to environmental safeguards for residents affected by mining exploration, and I will be considering those amendments.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.22 p.m.]: The Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Mining Act and Petroleum (Onshore) Act. In general the Greens support the bill but there are several issues which the Government has failed to address. This may be due to deficiencies in the review which led to the bill. There was a submission by combined environment groups to the review of the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, which was completed by 14 July 2000. The review included extensive consultation by the Department of Mineral Resources with various interest groups in the months prior to the completion of the review. These groups included various miners' associations, the Attorney General's Department, the New South Wales Minerals Council, the Treasury office, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, the New South Wales Farmers Association and, on two proposals, the Environment Protection Authority.

The Nature Conservation Council was asked for comments 14 days before the end of the review. Graciously, the Minister allowed an extension of this time to the end of the month to complete a submission. At this time the Nature Conservation Council was encouraged by the department to submit only brief comments on the proposals as there were no proposals concerning environmental impacts. In fact, employees of the department repeatedly insisted that an overall environmental review of these Acts was to occur in the future so there would be a more appropriate time for environmental concerns to be raised. In the combined environment group's submission to the review confirmation of a further environmental review of the legislation was requested. No such confirmation has been received.

Within the department there is a resistance to consultation with environmental groups in relation to mining. The department has within it an environmental unit, but the scope of this unit is confined to programs of rehabilitation and site decommissioning. The department does not agree that environmental concerns need cradle-to-grave implementation to protect the New South Wales environment as well as provide for a continuing, sustainable mining industry. This cradle-to-grave approach to the implementation of the principles of environmentally sustainable development throughout all the processes of mining is most lacking at the exploration phase of mining. There are minimal environmental protection mechanisms at the exploration phase of mining.

Exploration permits are given without even the need to include environmental protection conditions or rehabilitation assurances. Exploration for minerals can involve the clearing of vegetation, a sizeable disturbance of lands for tests and the creation of roads and tracks to facilitate exploration. For instance, adjacent to the Willandra World Heritage Area and Mungo National Park mining exploration has had noticeable impacts on an area of high biodiversity value. This area contains old growth and undeveloped mallee vegetation. To assist in mining exploration species have been cleared. There is construction of basic roads through the area with associated tracks and sidetracks.

We look forward to a comprehensive review of mining-related legislation in New South Wales to increase environmental protection. Notwithstanding the vast improvements in operating procedures of the department and the industry such as occasions of voluntary environmental regulation and increased support of environmental accountability in company operations, New South Wales deserves statutory level environmental protection built into mining-related legislation. In many cases the Parliament will be instituting what already occurs at an operating level. In other cases, such as the banning the use of cyanide in gold production, the Parliament will have to lead the way. I have been referring to part of a report sent to me regarding the bill by environmental liaison officer representative Anne Harrison.

The bill increases penalties for environmental offences. The Greens support these provisions. It is important as we move into the twenty-first century that there is recognition that mining companies must be made responsible for environmental damage. There have been too many cases. Timbarra goldmine in the north of New South Wales, about which I have lobbied the Minister—and the Government before the present Minister was in the portfolio—is a real tragedy in terms of loss of our heritage values. In the wonderful forests of strawberry gums one could smell strawberries while walking through. There are huge rock formations and one is able to look out all away from the Tenterfield area to the coast. Nevertheless, the mining companies have been allowed to go ahead, using cyanide in the mining process. Whilst the Government may be watchdog in the situation, it is a grave disappointment and a great danger in terms of water resources.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: We have had the Hon. R. S. L. Jones' apology to Timbarra in the House.

The Hon. I. COHEN: That has little to do with the issues I am raising about the goldmine, its siting and the decision to allow it to go ahead. A major aspect of the bill is the provisions which prevent exploration within 200 metres of a house on the land which is the subject of the exploration unless approval is obtained. The Greens do not believe that these provisions offer sufficient protection to the community. Exploration has significant impacts on the community. This has particularly been an issue in relation to coal bed methane [CBM] exploration at Cawdor near Camden. I keep hearing all sorts of stories about the impact on the community.

Often people with limited income escape the city and move to the outer areas to live in a pleasant mix of a suburban and rural community. Their lives are significantly disrupted. We have been shown pictures and given information by Stuart Smith and others demonstrating that exploration has had a significant impact on people's lifestyle. It is a terrible pity that mining has such sway in terms of rights over what is under the ground in impacting on people who choose to live in a particular area. This is just part of the ongoing debate regarding the value to the State and the value of individual and community quality of life issues. I quote from a document titled "Community Proposed Amendments—Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill 2000". It states:

The key issues

The PO Act was developed for exploration work in the western divisions of the State and did not envisage these types of works in close proximity to semi rural and residential areas.

The Project while in its present stage affects the small community of Cawdor. Its operations are merely the start of a wider development program affecting much of Sydney and its Regional centres. The Minister has just approved an assessment lease covering approximately 48 km in the Cawdor and Camden areas. Assessment lease application by Sydney Gas included selling gas to AGL, construction of a full gas processing facility, pipelines and other major infrastructure.

I also received a letter to my office from the Mayor of Camden, Councillor Eva Campbell, who stated:

The major concern of the community in relation to the exploration for methane gas at Cawdor is that there is absolutely no community consultation, or even notification, prior to the commencement of drilling. This contravenes the guidelines for exploration of the New South Wales Minerals Council, which provides for a consultation prior to exploration. The Greens urge the Government to take this opportunity to include consultation processes in legislation to allow for at least some involvement of the community. The Government's argument that consultation is unnecessary because these activities are temporary ignores the substantial environmental impact of drilling near people's homes. A large number of wells are being drilled in the Cawdor area and it is clear that they are having a significant environmental impact. The impact goes beyond the land that is immediately affected by the drilling. It also affects neighbouring land and the surrounding community as a whole. A document from Graham Quint of the National Trust of Australia stated:

It is quite clear that the Greens have a significant number of concerns about this mining issue. I have seen first-hand and felt the impact of mining. I was involved with an early mining campaign on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. Sandminers came in with no warning and, despite protests, they eventually bulldozed a beach, including significant beachfront land owned by a private landowner who wished to retire there. That spoiled his retirement plans. It also showed the power and arrogance of the mining industry in that it was able to ignore the request of landowners. The Mining Act gives the mining industry power to access the minerals and soil on anyone's private land. I hope the Minister considers the fact that we need to work with the community not against the community. The community has significant rights to have reasonable amenity and a reasonable lifestyle that may be of equal, if not greater, importance to the wealth that can be extracted for a company in a mining operation such as this.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [8.35 p.m.]: This bill allows us the opportunity to amend a piece of legislation that has been proven to contain some serious flaws in its application in regions of New South Wales once never envisaged as likely to be subject to mining or petroleum exploration and production. The Act was written with the notion of exploration or production occurring in the broad hectares of isolated and sparsely populated areas of country New South Wales. However, as our population has expanded in size and in residential locations, and as there has been a proliferation of what might be called semi-rural centres or shires, with a multitude of properties under 100 hectares—indeed, properties that are often only two hectares to five hectares in area—the potential for unintended and never contemplated problems in the administration of this Act has risen concomitantly.

As our resources have been exploited over the years the value of the remaining resources, as yet untapped, rises. Mining activities are occurring in areas that were once regarded as too expensive for various reasons, including low yields, various geographical constraints and social constraints. As the value of the commodity has risen and technology has improved, many of the previous constraints have disappeared. As a result we now have, for example, exploration for gas from coal bed deposits occurring in the historically significant and previously picturesque Cawdor and Camden region. So far at least 25 wells are producing gas on an exploratory licence in that region. That coal bed is part of the same coal seam that runs under all of the Sydney Basin, extending out past Lithgow, south to Bowral and north to Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. The methane gas which is exuded from this coal when it is cracked or porous is also present over this whole region.

As a bonus for gas and coal producers, once the coal is degassed by tapping into the gas produced by natural coal porosity or by artificially shattering a less porous portion of the coal seam to force it to release its gas load, the coal bed is subsequently safer for mining. But what of the problems? What are they? Current exploration licences for gas allow drilling rigs or wells to be placed anywhere on a property except within a 200-metre buffer zone of the principal residence of the owner or occupier of the property being explored. The explorer must obtain the consent of the property owner of this land for any such exploration activity. However, there is no requirement on the licence holder to inform neighbours, nor to obtain consent from or compensate such neighbours for the effect that the well has upon the value of the property or upon their lifestyle. These wells and the associated trenches and equipment are not visually appealing. Many are overbearing in size and they emit both mechanical noises and a high-pressure gas-steam emission squealing noise all day and night.

In addition, it is necessary to flare the gas frequently to maintain open lines. Flaring involves burning off a jet of gas, similar to the display each evening at Southbank in Melbourne—it is noisy, hot and produces some free gas. If the noise is over a certain decibel limit, safety regulations force stoppage and noise abatement processes come into play. However, the so-called acceptable noise range is a dramatic change from the semi-rural idyll of most of the drill sites prior to drill installation. Residents in the Camden-Cawdor region adjacent to wells have complained also of a marked increase in respiratory problems and asthma attacks since the installation of the wells. In the current Act there is no buffer zone for the neighbour's residence, nor for any other residences on either the property being explored or any adjoining properties.

There is also no compensation enforceable for the effect on any secondary residences or neighbours residences. There is no compensation to the local council for the extra wear and tear on roads usually designed for the minimal semi-rural traffic of the region. In addition, the licence holder for the exploration has a specific exclusion on the requirement for an environmental impact statement. Yet there is some evidence from the United States of America that the water extracted from the wells during the process can be toxic, causing long-term damage to humans, animals and the environment. If the Minister wishes to access the relevant web site, I can refer him to it.

As no environmental impact statement [EIS] is required, there are liable to be few restraints on disposal of this contaminated, or possibly contaminated, watery discharge. As well, the exploration licence holder for the exploration has a specific exclusion on the requirement for development consent of local councils; rather, the consent authority is the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning under significant project or State-significant development arrangements. Thus the company can erect any exploration structures deemed necessary without the normal constraints imposed by local authorities with a focus on local requirements for the development of amenities for local residents. The structures erected by the company are generally the drill rigs and some basic temporary testing facilities, but recent examples have included a proposed treatment plant for Sydney Gas, which includes high-pressure pipelines to connect to the main AGL gas lines, compressors, and odourising and dehydration equipment that will emit approximately 250 kilograms of water vapour and 240 kilograms of methane gas daily, seven days per week.

The new structure should reduce the amount of gas released or flared at the drill sites, but it may simply move the flare problem to another site. This particular structure is sited only 264 metres from the nearest home. The nearest comparable plant of similar construction is the AGL plant eight kilometres from the township of Young. All in all, the placement of wells and facilities for exploration, with the sole exception of the buffer zone to the principal residence on the property being explored, is decided wholly by the licence holder. If the licence holder displays restraint and uses a consultative approach with the local community, displaying empathy to residents, few complaints or serious problems might occur. But there is currently no legislative requirement for such a process, and honourable members cannot assume that commercial companies will in fact display any empathy to interests other than their own profit margin or other business outcomes. I hope that that is changing.

I am sure honourable members can conjure up a picture of the rolling hills and valleys of the Cawdor and Camden region, now filled with dozens—and predicted to climb to 100 or more—clanking and screeching drilling rigs and wells, capped off delightfully by a factory-style complex topped by multiple towers, belching steam and gas clouds into the surrounding air! Will the lifestyle change for the better? Will property values climb or fall? I do not think one needs to be Einstein to answer those questions. Such lack of consultation and lack of residential buffer zones must never be allowed to occur again. The Government is to be congratulated on addressing many of the above issues in the bill. I commend the Government for placing 200-metre buffer zones on all principal places of residence, removing the previous problem of buffers only extending within the block explored—likewise, the 50-metre buffer zones for gardens, vineyards and orchards.

I am pleased that the holder of the licence must now obtain consent to carry on works from all occupants, including lessees and owners of residences on the affected land as well as any adjoining land on to which a buffer zone protrudes. This resolves the source of many problems that arose in the Cawdor and Camden region. It does not, of course, preclude mining or petroleum leases being lodged on private property—a problem Australiawide for the owners, but an advantage for the mining industries and our economy. Further improvements to the current bill can occur. I note that the Opposition will move an amendment to put into legislation the requirement for the licence holder to contact all land-holders, as recorded by the local government registry of titles, in writing, as well as advertising in both local and statewide newspapers. I believe that the Government could insist that the licensees follow recommended Government or Minerals Council guidelines on community consultation and liaison during the exploration phase. This is the sensitive time for local residents as their lifestyle is disrupted, but full compensation is not payable as the lease is temporary in nature.

It is not until the lease becomes a full production lease that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning will enforce the EIS process and the full compensation package for occupants and other affected people. Quality liaison methodology and practice can smooth over many potential problems during this phase. This bill is a vast improvement in many other areas on the current Act: native title, the size of penalties for environmental and other breaches and in the encouragement for companies to reduce greenhouse emissions by removing royalties payable on methane gas production during coalmining, allowing the company to sell the gas rather than vent it into the atmosphere. Each of these areas has the potential to dramatically change the outcomes for the environment and society in which we will live in the future. Therefore, subject to some amendments, I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.43 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. Amendments to this legislation are required to strengthen fines and penalties under the legislation, improve other means of environmental and general compliance with the legislation, meet the Government's commitments in relation to native title and make miscellaneous amendments relating to the administration of titles. As honourable members know, most fines and other penalties under the legislation are quite low and have not been increased since 1992. There is not a great deal of deterrence for companies. Under this legislation fines for breach of environmental management and rehabilitation conditions will be increased to a maximum of $110,000.

The Christian Democratic Party is pleased that other amendments will confirm the current rights of native title holders to compensation for losses caused by prospecting or mining. I would like to refer to some points that I hope the Minister will be able to clarify in his reply. I notice that the powers of royalty officers have been increased. Whereas currently they are able to enter premises occupied by the holders of authorities or mineral claims to inspect financial and other documents relating to mining activities, this legislation will permit entry by officers to premises occupied by other persons, such as an accountant, if there is reason to believe that such documents may be kept there. I wonder how the Government would be able to ascertain who those other persons are if they are not the holders of authorities or mineral claims.

Another point we are pleased about is the emphasis on public consultation concerning mining leases. Other speakers have referred to the statements made by the Mayor of Camden regarding the situation in that area in respect of natural gas operation; and how she first found out about it when a media release was sent from Sydney by a local reporter because there was no notification to the council. I ask the Minister to indicate whether consultation will include advising councils that their responsibility covers the area of the proposed exploration, especially if production is involved. Obviously, that failure to keep the council fully in the picture meant that the council was offside. Of course, the residents have also been upset over the issue of prospecting or mining operations.

Item [12] of schedule 2.2 to the bill repeals and replaces section 72 of the Petroleum Onshore Act 1981 to require the consent of the owner of an improvement, whether or not that person is a land-holder or the sole land-holder of the land, and in the case of a dwelling house to require the consent of the occupier. Other speakers have referred to the briefing we received from the Gas Action Group in the Camden area, when that group voiced its serious concerns about the issue of buffer zones. Obviously the 200-metre buffer zones were working within the actual home owner's property. The wells are being drilled right on the boundary line and may not be 200 metres from the residence of the adjoining owner. That needs to be taken care of. I do not think it is covered adequately in the bill. An amendment may be required at the Committee stage to make that clear.

The Minister may perhaps reply to another point raised by the Gas Action Group. The group believes the exploration licence is being abused and that the company is drilling wells in that area in an effective productive grid, prior to gaining consent for the development, with a view to running a fully operational processing plant. That would be an abuse of the exploration licence. The company is actually moving to the next stage, pretending to drill to establish the size of the potential area that it will turn into production. It is almost into a production stage, without having obtained approval for that.

Honourable members raised the question of how to value property. In the past, similar legislation has related to mining in regional and country areas outside the Sydney Basin. Land valuation in the Sydney Basin is not based on its agricultural potential—a fact that the Government needs to take into account when residential land is affected by mining operations—and cannot be compared to land in the Western Division or some other area. People who are attempting to get the correct valuation for their property are, obviously, aggravated by current legislation.

The Christian Democratic Party will view the amendments with sympathy on behalf of the Gas Action Group in the Camden area. I thank honourable members for their courtesy and seek leave to table the submission from the Gas Action Group for the benefit of honourable members who may not have seen it.

Leave granted.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.51 p.m.]: I support the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill. I take on board the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this bill contains interesting provisions for fixing the problem of coal bed methane mining in the Camden area. The bill is an attempt at dealing with environmental concerns and increases the penalty for environmental damage to 1,000 penalty points, or $110,000, which is a tenfold increase. However, it might be noted that the company that explored this area before, Amoco, spent $25 million, and then decided it was not viable and walked away. A company that was happy to walk away from $25 million would not be greatly concerned about a penalty of $110,000. Perhaps the environmental penalties are not of a magnitude commensurate with company resources.

Penalties in environmental areas should be commensurate with the profit made or the damage done—that is a way of looking at penalties as opposed to having them at a statutory level. That general statement about penalties is not related to the project at Camden; I do not suggest it has caused damage to that degree. The bill also removes government royalties on methane, which will reduce the costs from extracting coal bed methane. That will encourage the tapping of gas rather than wasting it. Formerly, wasting gas was a way of avoiding the amount of the royalty that had to be paid. Although it was a cheaper option to waste the gas, it was not good for the greenhouse effect.

Mining does not require an environmental impact statement [EIS] during the exploration phase. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to criticism of the company, Sydney Gas, which appears to have gone into production during the exploration phase. Councils will require an EIS if the company goes into production after the one-year exploration phase. Councils will have an input into that process, if it is State significant, but will not have control. The Minister has made it quite clear that he feels that it is of State significance in that New South Wales depends on gas imported through pipelines. To some extent gas is interchangeable with imported petroleum, which is becoming much more expensive both in its own right and because of the fall in the Australian dollar.

There are advantages in finding local gas, clearly of State significance. This bill will impact on the Camden area where gas is mined. The Tower colliery, which is on the same seam, suffered a gas explosion some years ago. I have been down mines in that area and I am aware that people are very conscious of the amount of methane in mines. Against that we have to recognise that if we are mining on the southern outskirts of the city amongst developments, heritage areas should be preserved. The increasing urban density will have to be weighed against the viability of mining for gas.

If a large company has spent a lot of money exploring the area and walked away, the gas may be of only marginal value. In other words, its production costs against its extraction costs are not viable. A decision would have to be made on whether the externalities of damage to the local environment and land values, when taken into account, would mean that the overall operation is in the State's best interests. The Minister is responding to that problem by introducing this bill. He said he has told Sydney Gas that it has to do the right thing by the residents, who are obviously very concerned that this development was sprung on them without warning.

The law, which was more appropriate for rural land or low-density settlements, is not appropriate for this area. The parallel that the residents are concerned about is in Wyoming, America, where coal bed methane has encountered a number of problems with the local environmental and domestic concerns. Some 30,000 wells are in use and another 50,000 are planned, and there has been disruption to the underground aquifer, salinity, methane gas seepage into homes, and gas well explosions. The details of that experience can be accessed on the Internet at www.powderriverbasin.org. The people of Camden are concerned about similar problems; and who would not be in that situation!

I have spoken with members of the Gas Action Group—Stuart Smith, Tony Biffin, and Simon Hennings—with Councillor Helen Kuiper from Wollondilly Council and with the Mayor of Camden, Eva Campbell. They have voiced their concerns that this matter should be resolved. The Minister has made a good start by introducing the bill but, obviously, its provisions need to be carried through. I note that the proposed amendments of the Hon. A. G. Corbett are similar to those proposed by the Opposition, and that the Opposition will move its amendments rather than the Hon. A. G. Corbett move his. I am happy to support the amendments. I will also support some of the Greens amendments, which will tighten up the Act by ensuring that the distance from houses and land in the assessment procedures is adequate. The bill is important for the protection of residents affected by this project. If the project is not viable or of only marginal viability, or if it is doing harm to this growing and historic region of Sydney, a decision to that effect should be made, and clearly the gas should stop.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [9.00 p.m.]: I wish to speak briefly to support the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill and to congratulate my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on setting out the views of the Opposition. I had a close association and am familiar with the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. I note the repeal provision relating to the Geological and Mining Museum—a museum with which I have had a long association.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What was the name of the mining collection at that museum?

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: The Chapman collection. I understand that the Government has arranged for that collection to be kept at the Australian Museum. It is one of the finest mineral collections that I have had the privilege of seeing. The widow Chapman donated the collection and the Geological and Mining Museum paid for it—much to the distress of other museums that wanted the collection.

I concur with the aims of the bill, which are to amend the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 and to strengthen fines and penalties for certain offences. It is some time since those penalties were varied. I am happy to support those measures. The Minerals Council and the various mining companies to which I have spoken understand why the penalties are being varied and they do not object to the variations.

The compliance provisions in the bill are particularly important. As I said earlier, the fines have not been varied since 1992. Times have changed, mining practices have changed and many of the penalties should change. In some cases the restoration by mining companies of the areas that have been mined is superb. Mines will simply not be issued with another licence if they do not restore the areas that have been mined.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: There is also the question of a deposit.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: The Minister refers to the fact that the fairly large deposits that are lodged by the mines at those sites can be used for restoration purposes.Mining companies should comply with the provisions and restore the areas. In the Hunter region, where many of these areas have been restored, the condition of the restored land is far superior to the condition of the land before it was mined. In the past the Minister was unable to direct a suspension of operations under a mining or petroleum title when conditions had been breached. That aspect of the legislation has been tidied up.

Another important provision in the bill clarifies certain procedural provisions concerning native title land-holders. They must be compensated for prospecting losses. Without doubt this provision brings New South Wales into line with the provisions for native title in other jurisdictions. I commend the Government for making those changes. I also commend the Government for including an amendment to remove the royalties to be paid for methane gas obtained in conjunction with coalmining operations. New South Wales is singularly short of energy sources. The main energy source in New South Wales is coal. We now have the potential to extract methane from coal, which is an alternative energy source.

Most of our energy is exported from other States or from overseas at great expense to New South Wales. I hope that as a result of this legislation and other action we will eventually find a source of methane and a source of oil that will be of tremendous benefit to New South Wales. I, like other honourable members, have had many concerns expressed to me by people in the Cawdor area concerning the exploration activities of Sydney Gas. I understand their concerns. One of the things about which they are concerned is the effect of the provisions of the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 and the fact that a lease might be granted without requiring an environmental impact study to be carried out and without a determination by a regulatory body as to the limitations that might be placed on drilling or other activities.

People in the Cawdor area are concerned about the proximity of this activity to residences. The Minister said that exploration for minerals and resources "can and will be carried out in the Sydney Basin wheresoever occurring and whatever their impact". I have some doubt about that because people in that area are strongly opposed to exploration of that nature. I accept that people at Cawdor are experiencing problems. The amendments to be moved by my colleague in Committee—which I understand the Government will accept—will go a long way towards allaying their fears. A Department of Mineral Resources spokesman admitted that, despite 10 months of inquiry, the department was no closer to being able to advise the Minister on an appropriate buffer zone—a matter that the Minister may care to address in order to bring us up to speed on what is happening.

In the event that the assessment leads to an application for a production licence, a full environmental impact study would be required. I am pleased to be able to support this bill. As I said, I have had a close association with the two Acts I mentioned earlier. I ask all honourable members to support the highly desirable amendments that will be moved later in Committee. I commend my colleague for foreshadowing those amendments and I thank the Government for indicating its support for those amendments.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.06 p.m.]: I support the comments made by my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen. He said earlier that there is a need to tighten up environmental protection. This bill goes some way towards achieving that aim, but it does not go far enough. Mining does not have to be equated with environmental degradation or a disruption of communities. When there are shortcomings in legislation those issues are all the more important. We are witnessing more and more workplace groups caring for the environment. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union [AMWU] has some coverage of mining workers. That union, in its current industry claim, has provision for workplace environment committees in all its union agreements, which is a real step forward.

I have been informed through talks with members of the AMWU that there is increasing interest in these committees, and that is a heartening development. This suggestion arose from a campaign referred to as Campaign 2001, which is designed to provide job security and a better way of life. A number of issues have been dealt with during this campaign—one of which is interesting and relevant to Australian mining companies and their operations. When companies do deals with other companies they are expected to respect core conditions when operating overseas—an issue which I thought was important.

I appreciate that we are dealing with a New South Wales-based bill, but as our Ministers and our Premier are keen on going overseas—which is important for developing business co-operation and the flow-on of jobs—I hope that during those talks they also ensure that businesses abide by the highest standards when undertaking their operations. I emphasise that point because of work that I have undertaken in previous jobs. I have heard horror stories about what Australian mining companies have done overseas.

One example that comes to mind is an open cut coalmine in Peshara in India that is run by an Australian mining company that has its headquarters in north Sydney. The coalmine to which I am referring is located literally one or two metres away from a number of villages. The villages were located literally at the edge of a huge crater. Carol Sherman, my colleague and co-director of a group called Aid Watch, broke this story in Australia. It received extensive coverage as it was regarded as a serious misuse of Australian aid money to create that mine at Peshara.

One then starts thinking about places like Ok Tedi and what BHP did there, and what CSR did at Bougainville. There has been, and continues to be, a real problem with Australian companies overseas. They might do the right thing up to a point in New South Wales. The bill goes only so far. Often what we say is distorted, but obviously we legislate only for New South Wales. But with more and more of our Ministers and Prime Ministers interacting with countries in our region, pressure should be exerted to ensure that we have world's best practice not just in mining operations but also in environmental protection, worker protection and human rights. The Greens will support the bill. We look forward to the day when the Minister can have more vision and bring forward stronger protection for all concerned.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.10 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate. They have made a tremendous contribution, and I have taken note of many of the issues raised by them. The bill will streamline and facilitate the administration of mining and petroleum titles in New South Wales. In the last financial year the mining industry was worth more than $6.5 billion in exports to the economy of New South Wales. If mining investment is to continue in New South Wales, it must be facilitated and encouraged with clear and precise legislation. Through this body of amendments the Government is seeking to strengthen the means of compliance with the Mining Act and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act. The bill significantly reinforces both Acts and will improve environmental compliance of mining throughout the State.

The amendments fulfil election commitments to increase penalties for environmental mismanagement and non-compliance with lease conditions. The bill will deliver better outcomes between explorers, miners and land-holders. Amendments in the legislation correct drafting errors made by the Coalition when the Petroleum (Onshore) Act was enacted in 1991. Section 72, as it currently applies, does not require the consent of all occupiers when exploration activities take place within 200 metres of a principal residence. The Government recognised that such a situation was untenable, and moved to provide the same level of protection for land-holders under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act as they have under the Mining Act. To extend land-holder rights beyond the amendment proposed in the bill would result in unworkable arrangements for the mining industry across New South Wales.

It is incorrect to suggest that the rewrite of the petroleum legislation in 1991 did not envisage exploration in and around the Sydney Basin. At the time of the rewrite exploration title issues existed in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. The legislative framework in place for exploration mining balances the protection of land-holders while maintaining investment interest in projects in the State. It is unreasonable to radically amend the framework as a result of the activities of one operator. Legislation must be comprehensive and fully consider the implications of any amendments. Legislation should not be the result of a knee-jerk reaction. The bill also provides sensible amendments that encourage the productive use of methane produced as result of underground coalmining.

The amendments exempt this methane from royalty, and act as an incentive for industry to be more efficient in how it uses this byproduct of coalmining. The bill discourages the venting of methane, which is a significant greenhouse gas contributor. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked whether the irrevocable consent under section 72 runs with the land. The title holder, in negotiating an access arrangement with the land-holder, should ensure there is a condition in the agreement that makes it binding on successive owners. If the owner ever decided to sell, the owner would be obliged to disclose this arrangement to the purchaser in the contract of sale. Then, if a title holder has negotiated certain access, it would be expected that it would pass on as a matter of agreement from one land-holder to the other. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to royalty officers attending offices. It is important to note that not all paperwork is kept on the mine site.

The bill requires royalty officers to reasonably believe that the books of account are kept on the premises they will enter. This provision simplifies the administrative arrangements for royalty officers if it is more convenient to visit an accountant rather than the mine site. Ms Lee Rhiannon, a very important member of the Greens—as is the Hon. I. Cohen—referred to environmental standards. I assure honourable members that this State through this Government has worked with the mining industry to adhere to the highest standards of environmental rehabilitation. I am very honoured to say that only a few days ago the Premier gave out his environmental excellence award. The standard of rehabilitation practised by the mining industry in this State is of the highest standard. I concur with the Hon. J. H. Jobling, who said that in many instances the quality of the land returned to grazing is better than the quality of the land the graziers started off with. I commend the mining industry for acting as a responsible citizen of this State.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: They have huge open cuts up there.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes. Gunnedah is one of the sites that one should see. I agree that Australian companies overseas should behave in accordance with the standards they would adopt in their home country. We can only ask them to abide by the laws we legislate. They are doing that. It does not help Australian mining when overseas mining companies adopt lower standards of safety, rehabilitation and production practices because it makes us less competitive. No doubt as a nation and as a State we would love to see every mining company adhere to the environmental and safety standards and practices that apply in this State. Unfortunately, we have governance only over New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.19 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 in globo:

[2] Section 31 (1) (a)

[4] Section 49 (1) (a)

Insert ", or which is within the prescribed distance of the boundary of any adjoining land" after "it".

[5] Section 62 (1) (a)

[9] Section 125 (4)-(6)

[18] Section 188 (1) (a)

[20] Section 203 (5)-(7)

Insert at the end of section 203:

[3] Section 22 (3B)-(3D)

Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5 provide protection for residents in the vicinity of exploration. The bill prevents exploration within 200 metres of the principal place of residence on land the subject of exploration unless approval is obtained. The Greens do not believe that the bill offers sufficient protection to the community. Honourable members are aware that exploration for coal bed methane is having a significant impact on the Cawdor community, near Camden. Sydney Gas is currently drilling wells within 200 metres of adjoining houses without permission under the terms of its exploration licence. The Department of Mineral Resources and Sydney Gas have ignored homeowner requests during community advisory panel meetings that further wells not be drilled within 200 metres without permission. These amendments were proposed by the Gas Action Group and will prevent exploration within 200 metres of the boundary of adjoining land unless the consent of the owner or occupier is obtained.

Amendments 4, 6 and 10 relate to licence suspensions. The bill allows for the suspension of a licence as a penalty for breach of licence conditions. The Greens support this as a reasonable midway negotiating tool for reparation of breaches rather than outright cancellation. Environment groups hope the inclusion of this option will promote more active involvement by the Department of Mineral Resources in enforcing environmental licence conditions. However, there are concerns that a suspension may be issued for a serious environmental breach when cancellation is more appropriate.

The inclusion of a power to suspend a licence should not be permitted to evolve into a policy of lighter enforcement of licence conditions. To avoid this, even if it is the unintended consequence of the bill, the Greens propose amendments that provide that suspension would be available only when the Minister has considered the seriousness of the level of impact of the environmental breach, whether the licence holder is able to resume operation without reoffending, and the licence holder is able to implement an effective environmental management strategy to rectify the breach. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.24 p.m.]: The Government does not support amendments 1, 2, 3 and 5. These amendments would give land owners the right to veto mining for minerals, coal and petroleum throughout New South Wales. As a consequence, vast mineral resources in New South Wales would be sterilised. The mining industry is worth over $6.5 billion each year to the New South Wales economy and it is the largest export earner for the State. These amendments would discourage investment in New South Wales whereas the Government has committed $30 million over the next seven years to attracting exploration companies. Potential earnings for exploration and mining would be seriously confined and rendered uneconomic.

These amendments would act as a disincentive for mining companies to invest in New South Wales. The Government is trying to encourage investment so as to increase employment opportunities and bring benefits to the people of New South Wales. These amendments will work against this goal. The current requirement for land-holder consent for exploration within a prescribed distance is to protect the family home from disturbance as a result of exploration activity. The buffer zone is not a safety measure; it provides a mechanism for consulting residents who may be disturbed by temporary activities.

The Government does not support amendments 4, 6 and 10. In deciding to suspend operations rather than cancel an authority, the Government will introduce an immediate response to prevent the continuation of activity that may result in environmental damage. The proposed amendments remove the flexibility and discretion to act quickly when there has been a contravention of conditions of title. In suspending title operations, the Government has introduced an intermediary step in order to ensure compliance with the legislation and title conditions. Suspension of operations does not rule out using the ultimate sanction of cancellation if circumstances warrant it.

The Mining Act 1992 contains legislative provisions that require consideration for the environment. In addition, mining companies are required to submit to the Department of Mineral Resources a mining operation plan together with an annual report on environmental effects during the life of the title. Furthermore, the mining legislation contains provisions that the past track record of mining companies is taken into consideration when deciding to grant future titles. Obviously, this will include past suspensions of operations that may have been imposed.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.27 p.m.]: The Opposition also opposes the amendments moved in globo by the Hon. I. Cohen. We do not do so as lightly as we sometimes do with the honourable member's amendments. We understand the frustration of the people in Camden and Cawdor that prompted the drafting of these amendments, but as indicated in part in the Minister's reply to the second reading debate, and in part in my comments to the second reading debate, this frustration has found its way into the first vehicle to come along the road, which is this bill. Unfortunately, in some respects this is not the appropriate vehicle. The ramifications of these amendments will go well beyond the County of Cumberland; they will be felt across the State.

The Hon. I. Cohen indicated that in part the amendments would protect adjoining houses. I indicate that foreshadowed Opposition amendments will achieve that result. On the issue of suspension of a licence, the honourable member mentioned a midway penalty. I hardly consider that the suspension of a licence would fall midway on a scale of one to 10. I would have thought the suspension of a licence hovered somewhere around 9.99. The amendments are not appropriate on the scale of encouragement or deterrence.

One of the things that I probably should have mentioned during the second reading debate—it is relevant to these amendments—is that proposed section 72 (3) states:

If need be the Minister is to determine whether any improvement referred to in subsection (1) (c) is substantial or valuable and may define an area adjoining any such improvement on the surface of which no prospecting or mining operations are to be carried out or works erected without the consent of the owner of the improvement.

I understand that this is an important addition—the advisers are nodding—that enables the Minister to exercise authority in accordance with the sections that we are trying to improve. There will be a responsibility on the people who may be affected to make sure that the Minister is diligent, and there will be a responsibility on the Minister to be diligent. I compliment the Government on that provision because it will add a little bit extra—and every little bit extra in this delicate balance is important.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.32 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 8 and 12 in globo:

I will not move amendments Nos 7 and 13. Amendments Nos 8 and 12 relate to the payment of royalties. The bill provides for no royalties to be paid for the extraction of methane obtained in conjunction with a coalmining operation. The Greens do not agree that this form of extraction should be permanently free from royalty payments. Currently there is a complete royalty holiday for five years and a half-rate royalty which increases in steady increments over a further five years until the standard rate is reached. The Minerals Council proposed the exemption and the department agreed to it.

The department claims that the exemption is justified on the grounds of mine safety and greenhouse benefits. It is argued that coal bed methane is currently vented directly to the air for reasons of mine safety. The permanent royalty exemption will provide an incentive for companies to cap the gas vents so they can collect the gas and sell it. Greenhouse benefits occur when the companies use the gas for on-site electricity generation or sale. These claims have not been substantiated in any of the public documentation on this proposal. Coal bed methane is not accepted as a renewable energy source. Hence it is not included in the schedule to the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Electricity Bill 2000.

The Greens therefore conclude that the proposed exemption is not justified on the basis of mine safety or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The department should require vents to be capped as a licence condition. If incentives need to be improved, the existing 10-year royalty holiday is sufficient incentive for companies to cap their vents. The Greens amendments would remove these exemptions. There is no valid reason to exempt royalty payments, which is a reasonable condition for companies that are in the business of making profits from exploiting a publicly owned resource. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.34 a.m.]: The Government does not support the amendments. The bill amends both Acts to remove the royalty that applies when companies make use of methane, which is a byproduct of coalmining. This provision is designed to encourage the capture and sensible use of methane generated from coalmining operations by exempting this methane from royalty liability. I am surprised that the Greens oppose this sensible marketing-based environmental measure.

The amendments attempt to block a Government initiative to make the use of methane more economic and reduce the emission of this greenhouse gas. Encouraging the venting of methane into the atmosphere would be environmentally irresponsible as it would only add to greenhouse emissions. Furthermore, the Government is adopting best environmental practice in encouraging the capture and use of methane rather than having it vented to the atmosphere. The drainage of this methane prior to coalmining also provides significant safety benefits as the threat of the ignition of methane is a constant safety issue for underground coalmining.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.36 p.m.]: I will not move Greens amendment No. 9.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.36 p.m.]: I move National Party amendment No. 1:

[12] Section 36 Notice to be given of application for assessment lease

[13] Section 36 (2)-(4)

It was indicated at the second reading stage that there is a great deal of similarity between National Party amendment No. 1 and the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett on sheet C-089B. It is interesting that while we were both having negotiations with the Government neither of us knew that our amendments were so similar until the very last moment. They came from Parliamentary Counsel within about 15 minutes of each other. The amendment I have moved is simple in its intent. It inserts into the Petroleum (Onshore) Act a comprehensive provision relating to the notification of landowners who would be affected by an application for an assessment lease under the Act.

The amendment would require the local council to furnish the applicant for an assessment lease with a list of affected landowners so that the applicant could notify those landowners about the duration and purpose of the lease. It would also require the applicant to furnish the contact details of the applicant plus any other details required by regulations. This is a sensible amendment. It makes a change to the Petroleum (Onshore) Act that will ensure that landowners receive the appropriate notification before an applicant can begin to work on an assessment lease.

Companies will still be required to advertise in newspapers as they currently do. Mr Chairman, I know that, as an owner of agricultural land, you are sometimes shocked at the quiet and discreet places in which some of the advertisements are placed. I know that it would not be deliberately done but it is almost as if they are placed in such a way that we will not notice them. If I have failed to renew my annual subscription to that great publication, the Crookwell Gazette—

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: I was on the front page.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Minister indicates that he was in Crookwell. No-one has been able to verify this. He was in Goulburn for a meeting of the rural limb of the Labor Party.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Country Labor.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, it was not Country Labor; it was prior to Country Labor. It was the last of Labor's country meetings before it put the farcical section in. The indication was that the Minister was in Crookwell. I know the Minister was in Goulburn because Bryant's Pies and the store on the corner were burnt down but there were no fires in Crookwell, so we cannot verify that he was ever there. If he had been to Crookwell he would be singing the praises of one of the most beautiful towns in this State. The Minister almost succeeded in sidetracking me. I was about to say that if people have not read the Crookwell Gazette, that fine, twice-weekly periodical, and have not looked at the Digs web site that I have consulted—I am sure the Minister can provide me with the address later—they may not know that something is about to happen on their property.

The effect of this amendment is that there will now have to be notification of the property owners and their neighbours. That is pretty important and I thank the Government for accepting that. The Hon. A. G. Corbett said the Minister was pretty insistent that he move an amendment to my amendment. My amendment adds a new subsection 2 (b), which states:

Although I acknowledge that the Opposition will accept the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett, I ask the Minister to rethink this measure because, worthy though it is, it will replace the word "must" with the word "may". Even though the Opposition has indicated that it will accept the amendment, it is a dramatic weakening of the bill. Unlike some of the other foreshadowed amendments, it will have no effect on the mining industry but will have an effect on local government. As honourable members know, on many occasions I wear my other hat as shadow Minister for Local Government. The last thing we need is for extra responsibilities to be given to local government, particularly when councils will receive no money. In this case, however, local government would not feel it is an undue process.

The only reason I have indicated I would reluctantly acquiesce to this dramatic weakening of the amendment is because councils in the area where mining is currently taking place have been so supportive that they will supply the information in this instance. However, the Minister is aware, as I am, that this bill does not just apply to Sydney Gas Exploration and to the County of Cumberland. Some councils in the State may not be quite as diligent in providing that information if the wording is "may". I strongly request the Minister to reconsider his insistence on the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett. The Opposition and the Hon. A. G. Corbett have come to an agreement with the Minister and we will stick to that agreement. However, I will put some spin on it and ask, as I should and must, that the Minister reconsider the amendment.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [9.44 p.m.]: I move:

The imposition of a petroleum assessment lease in an area can become a major frustration and burden to local councils that have no input into the initial decision process or later siting of works, implementation of infrastructure or other controls as at present. Yet the same councils will often receive a great deal of community backlash on the topic. Councils frequently bear the effect of legislation—new requirements and responsibilities imposed by both the State and Federal parliaments. However, frequently, as in this case, they receive no extra funding to cover the financial burdens that those new responsibilities incur. Let there be no mistake: the search time involved for an assessment lease may be minimal, but in some cases it will require many hours or even days of dedicated staff time to compile the necessary details required by this amendment.

Generally, local councils are acutely aware of the desire for local residents to be informed of the potential for new exploration sites in the vicinity, and councils are usually quick to embrace the consultation process to short-circuit the development of potentially divisive issues. For this reason most councils will be very happy to take on the task of searching titles on deposited plans for blocks in a defined area in order to force the assessment lease applicant to make personal contact with local residents and land-holders. Such notifications will offer the local community the opportunity for liaison with the company for a time prior to the granting of the lease, and it may enable a better community consultative approach from a company.

However, such a request can come at a time when there are many other constraints for the local council. For instance, constraints may arise due to financial impediments, holiday periods, staff shortages or clashes with other vital local concerns at that point in time. Therefore, local councils should have their choice of whether or not to proceed with fulfilling the request. The change in word from "must" to "may" prevents undue imposition upon local councils while still providing local council with the opportunity for local input by allowing local residents and land-holders to make comments to the Minister before the release is granted.

The notification process in itself also brings the application to the notice of the council, which may then make its own submission to the Minister for the Minister's consideration, or even organise community consultation meetings on the subject. The council is not constrained to do so, but this amendment allows a wide range of local government and resident input on the granting of assessment leases, which has not been readily available before.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.48 p.m.]: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. A. G. Corbett, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Dr P. Wong and the Hon. I. Cohen, who have all considered the issue of a 200-metres buffer from the principal place of residence. Although I concede that this was in the bill, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like to see it clarified—and I accept his intent, which is honourable. The Opposition supports the bill. I will stick to what I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that the Government would prefer the word "may" suggested by the Hon. A. G. Corbett, because it will not be mandatory for councils to conform to a certain prescriptive method. Councils should be left to decide how best to notify land-holders within their region. I wish to provide that window of opportunity because they may have different methods of notification.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Or not.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: They may; it is up to them. They have 21 days.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Can't the mining company notify them as well?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.50 p.m.]: The intention is that the mining companies should not have the onus of determining who the land-holders are and notifying them. In the event that they missed one, they could be brought back to court and delayed for many months, possibly years. At the same time, it is not the intention of the bill to oblige a council that is probably not as well equipped, or cannot do that in the required time of 21 days or in a certain manner. They might think of other means of complying with this section of the bill. The word "may" will give them the discretion to use the particular method they want to employ to inform their ratepayers. "Must" would put them to much greater expense.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is not quite right.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Well, it is a matter of how you and I view it. I agree with the Hon. A. G. Corbett that the word "must" is too mandatory and a bit unreasonable. We are not talking about Camden; we are talking about some shires in New South Wales that could least afford it. The Government will support the amendment moved by the Hon. A. G. Corbett.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.50 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the Minister to the amendment. I hope he has a copy in front of him. The Minister explained to the Committee that what is involved is the difference between the words "must" and "may" in respect of how the council informs the land-holders. The amendment before the Committee is not about that. The word "must" does not refer to that. It refers to whether the council must furnish the holder of the lease with names and addresses of the land-holders whose lands lie wholly or partly within that area. It relates to the supplying of the information. It is important that the Minister understands that he is now proposing "may" supply that information, so that it does not necessarily have to supply that information.

Even if a mining company, with the best will in the world, wanted to notify those people, the council is not bound to provide that information. It is not, as the Minister told the House, that they "may" do it this way or that way; it is the ability to be able to provide the information to allow the mining company to do the right thing. That is why I ask the Minister to look very carefully at this amendment. "May" provide the information is not going to provide the help that I know the Hon. A.G. Corbett wants provided. When we first negotiated my amendment, the council was to provide that information to the mining companies so that they could actually do the right thing. If councils do not provide that information, mining companies will not be able to do the right things. I ask the Minister—for the final time—if he will reconsider.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.53 p.m.]: I have listened to the arguments put forward by the honourable member. We have opted to move away from the measure in the present legislation that simply requires an advertisement to be placed in a major newspaper. We are going one step further by saying to the council that it should be able to supply a list. If we make it mandatory, we are going beyond what is required. The council should have an option to advise land-holders by whatever means it considers most appropriate and most reasonable.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: But that is not the amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is the amendment. That is the exact wording used. Rather than agreeing to disagree, the Government will support the Hon. A. G. Corbett's amendment.

Amendment of amendment agreed to.

Amendment as amended agreed to.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.54 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 2:

(a) on which, or within 200 metres of which, is situated a dwelling-house that is a principal place of residence of the person occupying it, or

This amendment is simple in its concept, but complex in respect of what we had to go through to achieve it. The Clerks approached me tonight and indicated that I may have moved an amendment that replaced lines in the bill. I understand that, because there is a miniscule change in this amendment. If honourable members turn to page 23 of the bill they will note that new section 72 (1) (a) reads, "on which, or within 200 metres of which, is situated a dwelling house that is the principal place of residence of the person occupying it". It has been changed from "principal dwelling" to "principal place of residence". The important aspect in that change is not to indicate that it can be restricted to a single principal place on a property. It means other principal places. One of the great concerns during negotiations was the definition of "principal residence", which I am told with great authority by everyone is a very important and quite discrete definition within the mining industry. We had to maintain that. We could not just change it, for instance, to "any permanently occupied residence on the property". We had to finally, through anger, tears, negotiation, posturing and—

The Hon. M. I. Jones: That does not sound like you.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It does not sound like me—talking to the Minerals Council, Sydney Gas, departmental officers and the Minister's advisers, all of whom have been terribly helpful. They pointed out to me the instances where, well-intentioned though I was, I was wrong and was likely to create mayhem. Eventually we came up with this proposal which would provide a buffer of 200 metres from any occupied residence. Frankly, it is a great improvement and affords considerable security. I know that the people who have worked so hard were looking for a buffer of 200 metres from a boundary. Unfortunately, that was not achievable under this bill. It is a pity that the hopes of such decent people were raised to that level, because that was not achievable under this bill. I have probably spoken too much on what is a simple amendment. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [9.58 p.m.]: Very briefly, I expect that you may have a situation where more than one family would live on a property. This amendment covers that eventuality.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.59 p.m.]: As I said, in view of the honest brokering of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his real efforts to help with this bill, I deferred to accepting "a" instead of "the" but the Government was of the view that it always consisted of protecting any principal place of residence, whether there were one, two or three on the property, or on the next-door property or any neighbouring property within 200 metres. We accept the intent of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I am pleased that the Government will support the amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.00 p.m.]: I appreciate that assurance, which had been given to me along the way. My concern was that the word "the" could have been misinterpreted. During his speech, which has legal force, the Minister indicated that the intent was for more than one occupied residence. I thank the Minister for that assurance.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.01 p.m.]: People in the Camden area have expressed their concerns to me. If a well is to be drilled on the boundary of a property which is given approval, and the 200-metre buffer zone overlaps into neighbouring property, will the owner be consulted?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.01 p.m.]: Yes. The intent is that the well will not be drilled within 200 metres of any principal place of residence on the existing block where the exploration is taking place or the neighbouring blocks. Keep the word "boundary " out of this, it is the principal place of residence.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.02]: That is not the only problem because the residence on the neighbouring property could be a long way from the boundary and the 200 metre zone would not protect the neighbour. The buffer zone would be in the neighbouring property so the owner of the property that is being drilled is clever to agree. Most of the buffer zone would be in the neighbouring property. In my opinion the buffer zone should be within the property that gives the approval.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID [10.02 p.m.]: Basically, yes.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.03 p.m.]: By way of clarification, the comments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would have been more appropriately applied to the proposed amendment of the Hon. I. Cohen, because it deals with the 200 metres from the boundary. This amendment does not give protection 200 metres inside a boundary, but if a well is drilled on the boundary, this provision protects a house that is within 200 metres of that boundary. Previously that may not have happened unless it was the principal place of residence. The concerns of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile about houses on someone else's property have been addressed. Minister, have I misled the Committee?
The Hon. E. M. Obeid: No.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.03 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 11:

Insert ", or which is within 200 metres of the boundary of any adjoining land" after "it".

I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee. I have stated my opinion regarding the 200 metres from the boundary of an adjoining land. I understand that some adjustment has been made in recognition of the problem and that is appreciated. I commend the amendment.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.05 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2:

These amendments were proposed by the New South Wales Aboriginal Lands Council. The provision in the bill is opposed by the council and the Government has not provided any reason for it to be included in the bill. It is always a concern to amend legislation unnecessarily. The council would prefer the legislation to remain in its current form. The effect of the amendment is to delete changes to the definition of "compensable loss". I seek support for the amendments.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.06 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments. The inclusion of the provisions was to satisfy a commitment to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. The commitment was given during discussion with the council over the Government's application to the Commonwealth for approval of its low-impact exploration licence regime under the Commonwealth Native Title Act. As it appears that the Aboriginal Land Council no longer wishes for those provisions to remain in the bill, I have no objection to supporting the amendment. However, I assure honourable members that in accepting this amendment native titleholders will still be entitled to compensation for the loss of possession or loss of use of the surface of land as a result of mining activity. This entitlement is set out in section 262 of the Mining Act 1992 and section 109 of the Petroleum (Onshore) Act.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.07 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

TABLING OF PAPERS

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

Ordered to be printed.

ELECTRICITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TRANSGRID) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.11 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

When TransGrid was established, it was authorised under its establishment legislation to utilise and develop its transmission facilities for the provision of telecommunication services. This reflected the fact it is efficient to utilise existing infrastructure to roll out new communications and information infrastructure. Technology and TransGrid's operational arrangements are now at the point where TransGrid needs to progress telecommunications infrastructure as part of its network. In carrying out its obligations as a transmission network service provider, TransGrid requires a very reliable telecommunications system for monitoring and protecting the high voltage electricity network. This is essential to ensure the reliability and safety of the network.

Internal communications are also an integral part of TransGrid's current functions as a network provider in the national electricity market. TransGrid therefore has its own private telecommunications network, in the form of a microwave network. However, as a result of a decision of the Australian Communications Authority, which is responsible for managing access to the radio frequency spectrum, TransGrid must abandon its microwave telecommunications network beginning in December 2000. TransGrid has therefore looked to new, more efficient and reliable technologies to meet its communications needs.

TransGrid's transmission lines include overhead ground wires required for electrical protection and safety. New technologies mean that ground wires are now being manufactured with an optical fibre cable embedded in their core. These new wires are known as optical fibre ground wires [OPGW]. They are no greater in diameter than the existing overhead ground wires without the optical fibre cables. The OPGWs provide an opportunity for TransGrid to establish an alternative communications system to replace the microwave-based system. TransGrid has therefore developed a program to progressively replace the earth wires in its network with OPGWs.

The existence and effective operation of any network such as TransGrid's, relies on arrangements with landowners whose properties the network traverses. TransGrid has in place easements with landowners which facilitate the installation, maintenance and upgrading of the transmission network. Landowners have been provided with compensation for these easements which reflects the market value of their land. The Government fully appreciates that the existence of easements over a property may from time to time be a matter of inconvenience. Compensation reflects this.

Although landowners may face some inconvenience or some visual impacts from the overhead wires this is offset not only by compensation but also by the benefits of being connected to an electricity network to obtain supply. The move from the old-fashioned earth wires to the OPGW will not result in any additional impact on landowners as the diameter of the wire is unchanged. Installation of the OPGW is no different or onerous than replacement of worn out earth wires that has occurred in the past. The OPGW provides a more reliable communication network for TransGrid which will aid timely repair and maintenance of the network, contributing to reliability of the electricity network for customers.

The OPGW is an industry-standard one. This provides greater optical fibre capacity than currently needed by TransGrid for its internal communications. There is potential for TransGrid to explore commercialisation of this additional capacity in line with its authorisation to utilise and develop its transmission facilities for the provision of telecommunications. There are two benefits of this. Firstly, if TransGrid is able to enter into new commercial ventures it is able to improve its return on the Government's investment in TransGrid. This would be reflected in improved dividends to Government, supporting the Government's essential commitments to the people of New South Wales.

Secondly, the additional optical fibre capacity represents an infrastructure investment in New South Wales, which should be able to help deliver improved communication for people across the State. New South Wales is not the only State to recognise the potential for using electricity networks to support telecommunications. Victoria, Queensland and South Australia have all made legislative amendments to facilitate a transmission operator's involvement in telecommunications. This has included specific provisions to enable easements acquired for the electricity network to also cover the telecommunication functions.

The Electricity Legislation Amendment (TransGrid) Bill follows the lead of the other States and makes clear arrangements for TransGrid to actively pursue the telecommunications functions which were authorised in its establishment legislation. In particular, the bill provides a clear basis for TransGrid to use its existing electricity transmission easements, whether acquired by agreement or compulsory process, for telecommunications purposes. This will cover the installation, operation, maintenance and removal of any telecommunications works. It will also make it clear under the existing powers in the Electricity Supply Act that TransGrid is able to enter land for these purposes subject to usual notice requirements and compensation for any damage caused to land as a result of this.

The bill does not provide a transmission operator with power to compulsorily acquire land exclusively for telecommunications purposes. This reflects the position in other States. However, where a transmission operator compulsorily acquires land, or an interest in land, for electricity transmission purposes, the bill authorises the use of any acquired land for telecommunications facilities. The extension of the use of any future easements only applies where the easement is acquired by compulsory acquisition.

Where any future easement is acquired by agreement with the owner of the land, the transmission operator must if the land is required for telecommunications facilities, separately negotiate access for these purposes as part of the agreement to acquire the land. Owners of land currently affected by easements have already been compensated based on the market value of the land at the time of the compulsory acquisition. Also, it should also be recognised that the OPGW has no additional impact beyond that of the previous earth wires.

Where TransGrid relies on its statutory powers to enter land to maintain, install or remove telecommunications facilities it will be required to compensate landowners for any damage arising from it accessing the land. The amendment bill strikes the appropriate balance between the rights of landowners and the benefits to the community of enhanced telecommunications capacity and greater security of electricity supply. At this stage there is no shareholder approval for TransGrid to enter into a specific commercial arrangement concerning the spare capacity on the OPGW. Any proposals will be carefully considered by the shareholding Ministers. It will be up to TransGrid to ensure that any proposal is satisfactory in terms of competition policy principles.

The bill is all about facilitating improvements to TransGrid's essential internal communications infrastructure, improving its commerciality, and allowing it to explore opportunities for improved telecommunications infrastructure benefiting the people of New South Wales. The rights of landowners over whose properties the network is located are adequately protected through the proposed easement arrangements. The bill is important to ensure the ongoing operation and viability of TransGrid. It is important to improve infrastructure in New South Wales, which is a particular focus of the Carr Labor Government in the post-Olympics period. Nevertheless the bill does not change or undermine responsibility for the high voltage electricity transmission. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.11 p.m.]: The bill will allow TransGrid, as the State's high voltage network operator, to install and utilise new technologies on its existing easements to improve its telecommunications network. The legislation that established TransGrid held provisions for the company to utilise and develop transmission facilities for the provision of telecommunications services, reflecting the fact that it is more efficient to use the existing infrastructure than to build new structures to support telecommunications. The bill supports the communications provisions of the original legislation, and the need for an upgrade of TransGrid's communications functions has been brought about by a decision of the Australian Communications Authority [ACA]. TransGrid currently operates a microwave network to support its internal communications, which are used to transmit data vital to the operation of the national electricity market [NEM]. The network also allows the company to monitor and report faults across its network.

The decision by the ACA means that TransGrid will have to abandon its existing network and move to new technologies beginning in December. Once again the Government has done its usual trick and left this bill to the last moment, when one considers that we are only days away from December. The new technology being installed by TransGrid is known as optical fibre ground wires. These are an advancement on the existing ground wires that are part of the overhead network's electrical and safety features. The new wires will allow TransGrid to do two things: maintain a ground wire network and, at the same time, provide a new telecommunications infrastructure. I understand that the new wire will be the same diameter as those already in place, and will have no visual impact. TransGrid has in place access agreements with land-holders over whose properties the high voltage network already travels.
These agreements include easements to allow for the installation, maintenance and upgrading of the transmission network. I note that the bill contains no provision for additional compensation for land-holders for work that will be carried out by TransGrid in relation to the installation of this new network service. The argument from the Government—and it is a plausible and reasonable one—is that the addition of these new ground wires will not result in any additional impact on land-holders. I certainly hope that is the situation, but if it is not it will need to be revisited. But I am concerned that the Minister has signalled that TransGrid may be able to explore further commercialisation of the optical fibre ground wire network.

In his second reading speech the Minister stated that commercialisation of the network could lead to increased dividends to the Government, as well as delivering better telecommunications to the people of the State. When one hears that statement it means only one thing: Kimberley Maxwell will be the next AAPT, Optus or whoever for the State. There is nothing wrong with that. If you have facilities to carry stuff to an easement without using new easements, there is a degree of commonsense about that. But in this instance the negotiations over the easement with the landowners concerned did not envisage that Kimberley Maxwell, acting on behalf of the Treasurer who sits across from me at the moment, was about to become the new landline provider in this country. It is something that needs to be examined. We are not saying that the Government should not do it.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is very good for the bush.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is. It has huge potential.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is all we are interested in, the wellbeing of the State.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Treasurer indicates, with that steely glint he adopts when he can see money flowing into his coffers, that he is only thinking of the State and it is good for the bush. The Opposition is concerned about legislative changes that could allow a telecommunications provider to access State-owned infrastructure for the purposes of furthering their own networks. This raises some important questions for the Government. If a telecommunications company or an Internet service provider wanted to use the additional optical fibre capacity would landowners been compensated? Would they be able to share in the windfall profits of the State Government? I wonder. Could the use of the additional capacity by a private company then limit TransGrid's future use of the optical fibre, meaning that another upgrade would need to be put in place? The electricity market changes on almost an annual basis, especially when we are facing full contestability for electricity in our State.

Original negotiations for access and easements never included any forecast use of the network for commercial telecommunications functions. There is a cost associated with negotiations of this nature, and it has been a cost borne by the Government. I seek an assurance from the Government on those matters. Although no-one can disagree with the need for better telecommunications in rural and regional areas, I am concerned about the indication from the Minister that TransGrid's network could be used to provide a boost at minimal cost to the private sector. The bill also makes it clear that TransGrid will not be allowed to develop facilities for the sole purpose of telecommunications. That means that TransGrid would not be able to compulsorily acquire further land to carry out telecommunications functions. Use of easements agreements will be extended to cover all works on the telecommunications network.

I am pleased to see that the bill includes provisions allowing the appropriate compensation, should any damage or loss to landowners be caused by the carrying out of these works. We certainly appreciate that. The bill also recognises that any further compulsory acquisitions of easements by TransGrid for its electricity network extends the use of that easement for telecommunications purposes. Compulsory acquisition will remain tied to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act, a great Act that is the legacy of a former Deputy Premier Wal Murray. For the information of the Treasurer, when he tried to introduce that bill the boffins told him that he could not do it. It was impossible and it would not work. It is now one of the most important bills in this State so far as treating with a degree of fairness the people whose land may be dotted with easements like the ones we are discussing.

The Opposition recognises the importance of this bill in providing for TransGrid to make use of new technologies to upgrade its internal communications. Certainly, the Opposition supports the bill, however, it has concerns, as indicated, for the future commercial use of the network. I look forward to the Government's response to our concerns.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [10.20 p.m.]: TransGrid is a public utility responsible for a high voltage electricity transmission network across New South Wales. This amendment will enable TransGrid to operate in the world of new technologies and to install an optical fibre ground wire. The Electricity Legislation Amendment (TransGrid) Bill is similar to legislation now operating in other States. I am satisfied that this bill will offer protection to landowners affected one way or the other by the development of the optical fibre ground wire. Therefore, I support this bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.21 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I can say I agree with the Treasurer on one of his bills. The Greens support the Electricity Legislation Amendment (TransGrid) Bill and note the modernised electricity provisions. We note also that there will be minimal or probably no change to visual aspects. One important matter about which I have not heard anything to date—but perhaps the Minister will refer to it in his reply—is that it is most likely that workers in the industry will be able to conduct their work in a safer environment because they no longer will be exposed to so much radiation. That is a positive measure. The Greens are pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.22 p.m.]: I support the bill but I must say that it raises more questions than it answers. TransGrid's income is primarily from regulated transmission charges determined by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] to provide a known rate of return. The ACCC bases determination on asset valuation of TransGrid's system. As the Minister will be aware, there has been ongoing dispute about the appropriate valuation process, particularly with regard to easements held by electricity utilities in urban areas, which obviously have a significant potential financial value with the possible exception of a transmission line that is located in airspace. On the surface, the installation of telecommunications services into these easements is an appropriate use of existing assets. However, in many cases there is no particular requirement for TransGrid to make these investments. Easements have a history of being used by multiple services; indeed, third party access to easements can be gained via the declared facilities mechanism of the Trade Practices Act. Obviously, in a case where the telecommunications facility is intended to be an optical cable inside a TransGrid cable, TransGrid must own the asset. However, there is no particular reason why TransGrid must operate the telecommunications system or enter the business of telecommunications provision.

The Democrats have no objection to a public utility taking advantage of the natural business to innovate and update additional business opportunities, provided the core business remains well managed. Obviously, this is quite critical as we do not want distractions in the area. It does not escape our memories that Mercury Energy in Auckland was pursuing a number of business synergies before the Auckland central business district blackout. It was noted at the time that to some extent the failure of the Auckland electricity group was due to senior management not having sufficient interest in the mundane business of running a network when so-called sexier business opportunities existed in other deregulated markets. In short, they took their eye off the ball as they saw potential in other areas. They did not maintain their own cables, and a bad blackout resulted. The move by TransGrid from running an internal communications system, which merely maintained its own wires regardless of what happens to the conventional phone system, to running a system with potential on-sale value constitutes a significant movement in corporate strategy.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The communications system is to help protect the wires.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, of course. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quite correct: The internal communications system was to maintain the electrical system. That is what I said.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Present tense, not past tense.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Was set up for this purpose and is still maintaining the system.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: And this measure will improve it.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It will add on other telecommunications systems.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: As well as improvements.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: As well as maintaining the system. The question is: Does TransGrid have sufficient skills to expand its business into other communication areas? Is it the intention of TransGrid to go into partnership with private sector telecommunications companies in the delivery of these services? Hopefully it is, but none of the strategies are indicated in the bill. The other question to ask is: How is the capital for this investment going to be raised? The capital to invest will go well beyond TransGrid's needs and would not be funded from the regulated cash flow determined by the ACCC, at least not without running down other regulated services for which the regulated cash flow is intended to pay. The cash flow determined by the ACCC to TransGrid relates to the valuation of its asset, a reasonable rate of return and the cost of the reasonable maintenance of that asset. It does not include speculative capital, shall we say, to take on other businesses that are not its core business. Is it going to borrow? If it borrows, what financial risk management processes will TransGrid apply? The Minister said nothing about this in the second reading speech.

TransGrid's past planning has led to a number of poor electricity decisions and potentially white elephant investments. Obviously we do not want it to get delusions of grandeur and start making other decisions in areas in which it does not have expertise. On other occasions in this House I have criticised, although perhaps not in the detail I could have, the decision of TransGrid to put a large amount of money—of the order of $170 million—into the central business district augmentation. It received from this Government permission to proceed with that augmentation although alternatives for cogeneration and energy and demand management strategies were not adequately considered in the decision by TransGrid, which was almost an internal decision with a tame consultant. It was able to tap into $170 million of taxpayers' money for a strategy that it said was necessary and which was not really subjected to a good public audit process.

There is concern that TransGrid may not make optimum use of capital. Clearly, if it then has a financial opportunity and a relatively unquestioned backing from the taxpayer, there is a question as to what extent it will go ahead in areas where it might perhaps not have expertise. Obviously, it would be preferable if it were to undertake some sort of joint venture and if the taxpayer had some guarantee in terms of management. But none of this is found in the Minister's second reading speech. Given that we have this opportunity, it would be good for the philosophy and the audit process on what TransGrid might want to do if it were stated at the time of the discussion of this enabling bill.

There are, of course, some potential visual impact and planning problems as not all telecommunications infrastructure to be installed will be as invisible as the optic fibre ground wires mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech. We need to look at how that issue will be handled. I note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked whether easements will pay dividends to land-holders. The Minister seems to play that down in his second reading speech, saying that when the easements were created the compensation was paid to the landowners. The suggestion in his speech seems pretty strong that that is the end of the matter.

I ask the Treasurer, who might be straining at the bit to make his speech in reply, to answer some of these questions. As I said, we do not have any problems with new technologies being grafted onto old, and indeed taxpayers getting a better deal for their money. We would like to know whether, if there is a large profit to TransGrid, it will be allotted less money by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and we will all have electricity networks bringing power to our door at a lower cost, or whether there will simply be more money in Treasury's pocket, in which case, of course, the value of TransGrid will go up immensely. It will simply be treated as a cash cow, like an old-fashioned electricity utility was. If that is the case, how does that fit into the overall strategy of a competitive market delivering cheaper services? I put these questions to the Treasurer and I hope that he will be able to answer them in his speech in reply.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.33 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions on the bill. I gathered from one or two contributions that there is an assumption around the place that money received by Treasury by way of taxes, charges, fines or dividends from State-owned corporations somehow seem to end up in the personal pocket of the Treasurer. Of course, it does not.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: "It's all my money", you said.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I treat it as I would treat my own. That is my obligation to the taxpayers of New South Wales. I am a very vigilant custodian of the public purse. The attitude that I was referring to reminded me of an occasion a few years ago when I was on holidays in Queensland. I was enjoying a beautiful breakfast one morning. I was reading the morning newspaper. When I was on my third or fourth cup of tea a woman walked up to me and said, "I hope you are enjoying spending my taxes." She obviously thought that that is what I was doing there. She thought that the taxes she contributed belonged to me personally. Anyway, I waved her on. It seems that some other people, particularly members of this House, think along a similar track. Let me assure the House that any revenue that Treasury or consolidated revenue receives, whether it be from taxes, dividends or whatever, belongs to the people of this State. That money is spent on services and facilities for the people of this State.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Only some of the people.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Who is excluded?

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Your friends are the ones who benefit.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: My personal friends? Who are they?

Ms Lee Rhiannon: I do not know; you tell me.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That really is an inane contribution from Ms Lee Rhiannon. She obviously thinks that in this country things work as they worked in Soviet Russia, where there were special shops for party officials and the secretary of the local people's committee could always be assured of a holiday at a State-owned dacha somewhere. That does not happen here. The money raised by consolidated revenue is spent on all of the people of New South Wales. I must say that I would love to answer the questions that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has put to me, but the person who can unravel the mumbo jumbo of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is a much more clever person than I would ever claim to be. So I will make no attempt to answer the matters that he raised.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He made some valid points. Someone else must have written that speech.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: That is a cop-out.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was the greatest lot of confused codswallop I have ever heard from the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Some of it was, but not all of it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Okay. Which part of it was not?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The last part.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What was that? I can see that there is not a member in the House who can raise a single intelligent point that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans made.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

POLICE SERVICE AMENDMENT (SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT) BILL

NATIONAL PARK ESTATE (SOUTHERN REGION RESERVATIONS) BILL

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY AMENDMENT BILL

AUSTRALIAN INLAND ENERGY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BILL

Bills received.

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

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

That these bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and the second reading of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time.

BILL RETURNED

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.39 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

YOUTH INSEARCH AND Mr ANTHONY HUMPHREYS

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [10.39 p.m.]: I pay tribute to a young man who was saved by the organisation Youth Insearch and, as result, has become a role model for young people with a disadvantaged background. Anthony Humphreys was made a State ward at 10 years of age through tragic social circumstances. His mother had committed suicide and his father died of a drug overdose. During his time as a State ward Anthony was a foster child to 13 different families. Unfortunately, one of his trusted carers in this arrangement was a predator and Anthony was to suffer a cycle of continued sexual abuse over a number of years. It was no surprise that Anthony rebelled.

The system was not geared to recognise that Anthony was, in fact, a highly intelligent young man and, given the circumstances of his life, to this stage was well equipped to survive. He became a petty thief. He stole from those who took him in and tried to give him the love he had never had. He lit grass fires, he broke into houses; he pushed the social envelope. Eventually, he was arrested for the offence of break and enter. Fortunately for Anthony—and for us—he was referred to Youth Insearch by a caring magistrate, who detected a glimmer of potential in the rebellious young bloke who stood before him. Anthony attended his first Youth Insearch camp in 1995 at Lismore. His comments on this camp are revealing. He stated:

I remember when I first saw Anthony. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes, which was producing a story on Youth Insearch. Having heard Anthony's story and recognising that they were interviewing a young bloke with a huge chip on his shoulder, the 60 Minutes commentators asked him what he thought of life. Anthony sneered, "It sucks." But Ron Barr, the founder of Youth Insearch, and his wife, Judith, saw a spark in Anthony, just as they have in thousands of other wayward young people over the years. They encouraged Anthony to stay with Youth Insearch, and to his great credit he stayed. He has since attended more than a dozen camps and, finally, he applied for the Youth Insearch leaders program.

I first met Anthony during his preparation for leadership accreditation. After some discussion with Ron, Judith and Anthony, I agreed to sponsor him on a Kokoda leadership program, which I operated at the time for the mining company CRA. Anthony's natural leadership ability quickly came to the fore during this program. His ability to cope with adversity encouraged other participants to look to him for guidance. He displayed all the qualities of a natural leader in this environment. He assisted those who could not carry their gear by taking on extra weight himself. He was first out of bed in the morning, last into bed each night, and never ate a meal without first checking that everybody else was okay. By the end of the program he had earned the respect of each and every other participant. I might add that some of participants were highly qualified young corporate high-flyers. Anthony returned from Kokoda with a greater appreciation of his own self-worth. He went on to graduate as an accredited leader with Youth Insearch. I felt a great sense of shared pride as I stood with Ron and Judith Barr at Government House and watched Anthony receive his certificate—and a hug—from Governor Gordon Samuels. I seek leave to table a letter that Anthony wrote to me after receiving his certificate.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

Anthony's story eventually came to the attention of a compassionate benefactor, who offered to cover the cost of Anthony's attendance at Riverview to complete his Higher School Certificate. Since then Anthony has become an acclaimed public speaker and he now works as a computer programmer. Anthony is one of the many thousands of success stories from the Youth Insearch program. He continues to attend their camps and to be a role model for other disadvantaged young people who are having trouble seeing the light at the end of the tunnel because of their own experiences. Once again, I congratulate Anthony on his achievements and I congratulate Ron and Judith Barr on the special qualities they bring to Youth Insearch.

NEW SOUTH WALES-GUANGDONG JOINT ECONOMIC MEETING

The Hon. H. S. TSANG [10.43 p.m.]: I would like to inform the House of the forthcoming eighteenth New South Wales-Guangdong joint economic meeting to be held in Guangzhou on 4 December. Honourable members will remember that it was that great Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, who first committed New South Wales to a sister-city relationship with Guangdong some 20 years ago.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I was there when the first delegation came from Guangdong.

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: Indeed. The Hon. Neville Wran also led the first delegation for a joint economic meeting. The Chinese Gardens in Darling Harbour are one result of that meeting. I was an honorary consultant to the New South Wales Government for the building of those gardens. On this occasion the New South Wales-Guangdong joint economic meeting will be led by the Hon. Sandra Nori, the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism. I will be assisting the Minister and will be travelling with her and the representatives of 19 New South Wales companies to Guangdong. Companies in Guangdong are eager to ensure that business is generated from this economic meeting.

I am delighted to inform the House that Vice Governor You Ning Feng will host this great economic meeting. She visited New South Wales last year and I spent a whole week with her and the respresentatives of more than 20 companies. Recently the Premier returned from a very successful business trip to Guangdong, China. The Minister will also host a major lunch with the tourism industry in Guangzhou. Some 30 travel companies will be briefed on the great tourist opportunities for Chinese tourists who come to New South Wales. Travelling with the Minister will be the head of the international marketing company AusHealth International. Senior staff of Westmead Hospital and the Prince of Wales Hospital will provide a six-month management training program for hospital staff in China. That will be a great program. I am pleased that the Minister is taking people from AusHealth to Guangzhou.

I inform the House further that I will assist the Minister for Education and Training, John Aquilina, to take a TAFE contingent to Guangzhou. People will be able to sign up for English and other TAFE courses in Guangzhou. The Governor of Guangdong, Mr Lu Rui Hua, will hold a major banquet to welcome the two Ministers and will support the establishment of TAFE New South Wales courses in Guangzhou. It is great news that our Ministers are going to sell New South Wales to China, especially following the success of the Olympic Games. After visiting China the two Ministers will go to Japan and Korea.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Are you going to Japan?

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: No. I will travel to China at my own cost. Minister Nori will go on to Japan, while Minister Aquilina will go to Korea to sell New South Wales. Unfortunately, I will not travel to Japan or Korea. I will be returning to Sydney, as a representative of the New South Wales Government, on the inaugural flight of Air China Southern. I invite all honourable members to be at Sydney airport on 8 December to welcome the journalists and tourists on that flight who will be visiting New South Wales from China. May I take this opportunity, as I may not get another opportunity, to wish all my colleagues a very merry Christmas.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS SCHEME

The Hon. G. S. PEARCE [10.48 p.m.]: I note that the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] has now issued a report summarising the first year of the Motor Accidents Scheme. The shortcomings in the scheme introduced by the Government in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 are matters of grave concern and disappointment. The fact that, one year on, the Government has failed to address the harsh and unfair aspects of the scheme it introduced, and has failed to adequately respond to the profit windfall handed to third party insurers as a result of the Government's action, is a matter of grave concern to all citizens who own or drive motor vehicles and, indeed, to all citizens of New South Wales who are passengers in motor vehicles or users of the roads and footpaths.

As honourable members well know, the greatest area of unfairness and arbitrariness in this scheme arises from the adoption of overly harsh impairment guidelines and the unprincipled, discriminatory elimination of any entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering, that is non-economic loss, for the vast majority of motor accident victims. The Act overturns centuries of common law and legislative acceptance of the principle that innocent victims of accidents ought to be entitled to compensation and that one of the most fundamental entitlements ought to be some form of recovery for the grief and emotional suffering that arises from accidents. Hundreds of judges and governments over the centuries have considered this to be fair and equitable.

This scheme aims to screen out more than 90 per cent of claimants for pain and suffering by restricting payments to those who can demonstrate more than 10 per cent whole bodily impairment, according to a modified version of the American Medical Association guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. In the Motor Accidents Authority report, under the heading "Impairment Guidelines", there is a statement that a working party was formed to advise the MAA on the development of the guidelines. It included representatives of the Law Society, the AMA, the College of General Practitioners, the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association and the Bar Association. The implication is that those organisations are satisfied with the guidelines and their implementation.

I suggest that the MAA should heed the submissions of those organisations and urgently inform the Government of the changes that ought to be implemented to restore a fair and equitable scheme, and to give proper access to damages and compensation to motor accident victims rather than discriminate against them. On 24 November the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations answered a question in this House in which he praised the Government's performance in this area and appeared to quote from the MAA report, although he did not refer to it. The Minister said that one of the Government's highest priorities is to ensure that injured people receive treatment as soon as possible, and he quoted certain figures.

This should not pass without comment, as the result has largely been achieved by denying accident victims the opportunity to obtain compensation to which they would previously have been entitled, and in particular by introducing the accident notification form and limited acceptance of liability up to $500 in medical costs, which effectively is the total compensation paid. The Minister also referred to various cost and premium reductions, which he seemed to imply meet the Government's initial promise—which was that motorists would pay $100 less per green slip as a result of the Act.

The quoting of averages and selective examples does not substantiate the claim that this promise has been met. Indeed, many people in country areas, including Camden, Emu Plains and the Blue Mountains, have had their premiums increased following reclassification.

In conclusion, I want to express my concern about the level of profits delivered to the insurance companies by this scheme. In its report earlier this year the Standing Committee on Law and Justice identified the fact that in the six-month period commencing 1 October 1999 green slip insurers reported a total of more than $649 million of gross written premiums, that for that six-month period the total expenditure on finalised claims in the new scheme was only $228,000, and that the reserve on open claims was just over $117 million. If the level of profit implicit in those figures is accurate, it is scandalous.

The MAA's report does not address this issue but gives us the vague information that "in the current filings, insurers' target rates of return before tax on shareholders capital was in the range 16 per cent to 22 per cent. Insurers aimed to adopt a profit margin which will provide their target rate of return". It is disturbing if the compulsory scheme is predicated on the Government effectively guaranteeing that insurers make their expected target rate of return. I look forward to the next report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, and the real figures on this profit windfall.

SUMMERTIME CHICKEN EFFLUENT IRRIGATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.53 p.m.]: On 8 August this year I spoke in this House about a company called Summertime Chicken, which is located at Galston in northern Sydney. Summertime Chicken is an enormous chicken abattoir located in a primarily residential area. Since the last occasion on which I raised this matter, I have visited the affected residents and spoken to them at some length. The reports I received are deeply worrying. As far back as 1993, threats of defamation were used to intimidate affected residents who dared to complain to Hornsby council about Summertime Chicken. More recently, and since I last addressed the House on this issue, legal action has been threatened against family members of those involved in the original defamation case.

Because of the constant threat of legal action, most residents are hesitant to speak to the local newspapers, and some were even cautious about being seen speaking to me. I have also heard of many instances of intimidation that did not involve legal action. Residents who continue to speak up claim they are being harassed by repeated inspections of their properties by Hornsby council. I have heard reports of cars being tampered with, wheel nuts loosened or removed and tyres slashed. In the most serious incident to come to light, I was told of a young child being injured by plate glass in a backyard swimming pool. Although it is impossible to establish who might have committed these criminal acts, it is clear that there is a dangerous atmosphere surrounding Summertime Chicken.

Some affected residents are experiencing enormous stress and worry, added to the difficulties that the chicken abattoir causes them directly. It is instructive to look at how the complaints committee set up by Summertime Chicken to deal with residents' complaints is operating. I have spoken to residents on that committee, and they have told me how they have been harassed both in and outside of meetings, to the point of requiring legal assistance. Some months back I wrote to Summertime Chicken to propose a meeting involving the company, affected residents and myself. I believed, and still do, that surely some common ground can be found. Given the history of legal action, I requested that a guarantee be provided that no-one would be sued for comments made at the meeting. The proposal was rejected out of hand by Summertime Chicken, which was a great pity.

Meanwhile, residents continue to suffer from the effects of revolting smells—which I experienced—sleep disturbance and the severe pollution downslope of the abattoir. I have spoken with various residents who are still displaying common severe symptoms of depressed immune systems and antibiotic resistance, and they believe that the aerial spraying of abattoir effluent is responsible. No-one deserves to be sued for expressing an opinion about a local development issue. No-one deserves to be sued for complaining to a local council about smells, noise or health concerns. This is a David and Goliath issue, but in this case Goliath appears to have some powerful allies. The Greens will continue to stand up for the rights of residents to express their views.

TRANSNATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION CENTRE

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [10.57 p.m.]: I am honoured to represent this Chamber as a member of the Council of the University of Wollongong.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is a great university!

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: It is a great university.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It was the Australian University of the Year for two years in a row.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: It was indeed. One of the things we have been able to achieve at the University of Wollongong is the establishment of what I consider to be a ground-breaking centre for transnational crime prevention. The aim is to focus on increasing new global security threats, and on crimes such as people smuggling and terrorism. The centre's co-ordinator is Mr Doug MacKinnon, a former Australian Federal police officer, who has said:

The dark side of globalisation has produced negative outcomes including the emergence of new security threats and transnational crimes of alarming proportions.

Mr MacKinnon has strong connections with the University of Wollongong through his doctoral research studies on maritime crime and the policing of offshore zones. He also said:

Drug trafficking, cyberspace crime, such as theft over the Internet, money laundering, people smuggling, paedophile activities, fraud, environmental crime and terrorism are some of the problems in a shrinking world where traditional borders are increasingly irrelevant.

Various government agencies have been established worldwide to tackle global crime. The University of Wollongong has set up a crime centre that will interact with established agencies. The new centre, which will be located within that university's faculty of law, is strongly supported by Federal and State authorities in Australia and by the corporate sector.

International support is strong and is leading to the establishment of an international advisory committee with representatives from 10 countries. A national advisory committee is being established to ensure that the centre's activities are relevant to national interests. Mr MacKinnon has said that from 2001 visiting fellows and experts from a variety of disciplines, including computer security, forensic accounting and international criminal law, will create a dynamic environment for the study of transnational crime prevention and investigation.

In 2001 the centre will also offer a master's degree in transnational crime prevention and a graduate certificate in transnational crime prevention. National and international students will be drawn from law enforcement agencies including police, customs, immigration and anticorruption as well as from banking, finance and accounting, taxation, stock exchanges and private security organisations. Located within the faculty of law, the centre's other stakeholders are the School of Information Technology and Computer Science, the Department of Accounting and Finance, and the History and Politics Program, which Mr MacKinnon has said clearly demonstrates the disciplinary approach of the University of Wollongong to the multidisciplinary nature of crime.

Mr MacKinnon said also that the rapid developments in, and the sophistication of, multijurisdictional crime present challenges that require sophisticated responses employing new skills, knowledge, mandates and lines of communication; hence the centre's establishment by the University of Wollongong and the University of Wollongong Foundation.

DEATH OF Mr ROBERT GRUJICIC

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [11.02 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to a young man, Mr Robert Grujicic, who died suddenly on Tuesday 21 November. Robert had worked for the Macarthur Advertiser, and it is not common for a photographer with a local newspaper to attract so much attention. But Robert had become very much a legend by force of his personality, and the enthusiasm and artistic flair that he brought to his job on a local newspaper. His funeral, which was held yesterday, was attended by prominent politicians of the area. There was barely a member of the two local councils of the Macarthur area that he served who was not present. I attended, as did the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, and I am sure that many others attended that I did not notice.

Robert Grujicic's death was sadly noted, not only by politicians but by many prominent sports people in the Macarthur area. He was a strong supporter of sport and frequently went out on weekends to photograph sport and give it the profile it richly deserves. Leaders of the entertainment industry attended, including Mr Nathan Foley, whom anybody with a child under the age of 10 would recognise as one of the members of the High Five group. Robert's funeral was well attended and it was obvious by the expressions of sadness by the staff that Robert was much loved by his colleagues at the Macarthur Advertiser, of which he was fiercely loyal. On the few occasions I met Robert I enjoyed the unusual positions in which he placed me in order to get an artistic shot for the forward pages of the newspaper.

Robert Grujicic was the fine father of two children, Sam and Ally, and was much loved by his partner, Kate. He will be sadly missed and in saying that I am sure that my colleagues in this place and another place, including the Hon. P. T. Primrose, Dr Liz Kernohan, the honourable member for Camden, and Peta Seaton, the honourable member for Southern Highlands, who all knew Robert, would want to join me in this expression of sympathy to his workmates and his family. It is unusual for someone in his position to attract such attention. But I guess that is because he was a young man who died early when he honestly deserved to live to old bones, and because of the special enthusiasm he brought to his job. Certainly all who knew him will miss him.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 11.04 p.m.
______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:18:28 : Update this page