Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 27 February 2001, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 27 February 2001
______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I note that we are meeting on Eora land.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL

MARINE PARKS AMENDMENT BILL

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (SAME SEX PARTNERS) BILL

Messages received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1974, the special report of the Ombudsman entitled "Police and Improper Use of E-mail", dated December 2000, received out of session.

The President announced that she had authorised that the report be made public.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the report of the commission entitled "Investigation into aspects connected with an alleged indecent assault at Parliament House on 14/15 September 2000", dated December 2000, received out of session.

The President announced that she had authorised that the report be made public.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. E. M. Obeid tabled the following papers:

Ordered to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Report: Releasing the Past—Adoption Practices

The Clerk announced, according to resolution of the House, the receipt, since the last sitting of the House, of the report entitled "Releasing the Past—Adoption Practices 1950-1998, Final Report", dated December 2000, together with relevant minutes of proceedings, transcripts of evidence, submissions and documents, and an erratum to the report dated February 2000.

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the report be printed.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.36 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

Report: A Matter of Priority—Report on Disability Services, Second Report

The Clerk announced, according to resolution of the House, the receipt, since the last sitting of the House, of the report entitled "A Matter of Priority—Report on Disability Services, Second Report", dated December 2000 together with relevant minutes of proceedings.

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the report be printed.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.37 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 4

Report

The Clerk announced the receipt of the report of the committee entitled "Privatisation of FreightCorp", dated December 2000, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions and documents.

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the report be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 1

Report

The Clerk announced the receipt of the report entitled "Appropriation and Expenditure—Final Report", dated December 2000, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions and documents.

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the report be printed.

COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Reports

The Clerk, in accordance with the Ombudsman Act 1974, announced the receipt of the following reports of the committee:

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the reports be printed.

SYDNEY CATCHMENT AUTHORITY

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following documents of the authority:

The Clerk announced that, pursuant to a resolution of the House, he had authorised that the documents be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Report

The Clerk announced that on 22 December 2000 he received, in accordance with a resolution of the House of May 1999, the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "The Group Homes Proposal—Inquiry into Residential and Support Services for People with Disability, First Report".

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the document be printed.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE INCREASE IN PRISONER POPULATION

Interim Report

The Clerk announced that on 20 February 2001 he received the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population entitled "Interim Report: Issues Relating to Women".

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the document be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Report

The Clerk announced that on 27 February 2001 he received the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Hepatitis C: The Neglected Epidemic. Inquiry into Hepatitis C in New South Wales".

The Clerk announced that he had authorised that the document be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE

Report: Review of the Exercise of the Functions of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council Second Report

The Hon. R. D. Dyer, as Chairman, tabled Report 16, "Review of the exercise of the functions of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council, Second Report", dated February 2001.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [2.40 p.m.]: I move:

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

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

CRIMES AMENDMENT (CHILD PROTECTION—EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [2.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I refer honourable members to my second reading speech on 5 May 2000. Honourable members will be aware that debate on the bill resumed on 26 May 2000 and carried over to 2 June 2000, at which time the House unanimously passed a motion to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice for inquiry and report within five months. At that time the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, Parliamentary Secretary, said that the Government supported the referral and that there would be "ample opportunity for the bill to be clarified prior to it being brought back before the House …". Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile stated, "The Christian Democratic Party does not object to the bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. We have great confidence that the chairman, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, will conduct a fair and balanced inquiry into the legislation." That confidence was also echoed by other speakers.

In July 2000 the New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service produced a briefing paper on the bill wherein certain observations regarding the bill’s drafting were made, and, without commentary or analysis, the main arguments from the initial second reading speech and subsequent debate were canvassed. Honourable members may also be aware that on 24 October the committee tabled its report on the bill. The report is a credit to the committee and clearly indicates the close attention that this bill received. In fact the report states on page 50, "Few pieces of legislation of the brevity of this bill have had the level of scrutiny to which it has been subjected." The committee unanimously recommended on page 51 of its report that the Legislative Council support the passage of the bill, subject to the minor amendments contained in the recommendations. I accept the recommendations and I will flag them later in this speech as proposed amendments.

The committee received 40 submissions and held public hearings during four days and questioned 20 witnesses in relation to the bill. Both the written and oral submissions made to the committee are available for members by visiting the secretariat of the committee on level 11 of Parliament House. The make-up of the committee was three members of the Australian Labor Party—the Hon. R. D. Dyer, Chair, the Hon. J. Hatzistergos and the Hon. Janelle Saffin; one member of the Liberal Party—the Hon. J. F. Ryan, Deputy Chair; and one crossbench member—the Hon. P. J. Breen. For the benefit of honourable members I will highlight ten comments made by the committee. These are all extracts from pages ix and xi and chapter 7, pages 49-51 of the report:

As I said when this bill was introduced last May, the bill has widespread support from peak medical bodies, key community service organisations and children's advocates, legal associations, a range of religious and education groups and ethnic communities. Honourable members will have recently received an updated letter from the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People and from the Paediatrics and Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, once again giving their unqualified support for the bill. The list of supporters has grown during, and subsequent to, the investigations of the committee, and now also includes the New South Wales Federation of School Community Organisations and the Association of Child Care Centres of New South Wales, plus the Tasmanian and the Queensland Children’s Commissioners. A Sun-Herald editorial on 25 June 2000 stated that the bill deserves support as a way of fighting a worrying rise in what should only be described as assault. It concluded:

I will now briefly mention one further reason why this bill deserves the support of the House. In oral submissions to the committee, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Director of the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre, the President of the Humans Rights Commission, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and others argued that the bill is a significant step forward in the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCROC]. In brief, this convention, which was ratified by the Commonwealth and States in 1990, carries an obligation for all levels of government to implement legislation relevant to children with the guiding principle of the "best interests of the child".

I will now address the minor modifications recommended by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. As previously described, new section 61AA (1), to be inserted into the Crimes Act 1900, codifies the current common law defence of lawful correction. A proposed amendment removes the words "management or control" from this section, in order to ensure that the bill does not change the common law defence in regard to the use of physical force or contact other than in the discipline of a child. The same deletion for the same reason occurs in section 61AA (5) (ii). That change was in response to concerns expressed by the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the New South Wales Child Care Association, both of which are now satisfied with the recommended amendments I have already referred to, and in section 61AA (4), to which I will refer.

New section 61AA (2), simply put, articulates three elements of force used in the correction of a child that would be considered unreasonable. Hence the defence of lawful correction would not be available if an accused was being prosecuted for the criminal charge of assault. These three elements as specified in this section act as concrete examples of unreasonable force for the courts’ consideration as well as for their educative value to parents and certain other persons acting for a parent. Section 61AA (2) (c) currently refers to "the force is applied to any part of the body of the child in such a way as to cause, or threaten to cause, harm to the child that lasts for more than a short period." This will be altered on the recommendation of the committee by a proposed amendment to remove the words "or threaten to cause harm", as the phrase serves no useful purpose.

Another proposed amendment recommended by the Law and Justice Committee replaces current section 61AA (4). This helps clarify the intention of the bill that the common law not be altered regarding the use of physical contact or force other than physical discipline for teachers, childcare workers and others. The proposed new words protect those who would need to manage, control or restrain a child by means of physical contact or force—for example, a teacher breaking up a fight in the playground, or controlling an unwilling child as he or she is buckled into an approved childcare safety restraint. This ensures that teachers, childcare workers and others can in certain circumstances use physical force.

Proposed section 61AA (5), which provides definitions, is the site of a proposed amendment that extends the definition of "a person acting for a parent" to those to whom the parent has entrusted the care and management of the child and will omit the current age limit of 18 in order to protect from prosecution siblings who use physical discipline. However, the requirement for express authority to be given by a parent remains. The Law and Justice Committee also recommended a major community education campaign. In fact, the committee stated that such a campaign is essential. However, the committee agreed with the comments of many experts that education without legislation would not be sufficient but would, rather, be only moderately helpful. The conclusion drawn by the committee on page 53 was that:

I welcome this recommendation. It was for this purpose that a 12-month delay between proclamation and the Act coming into effect was written into the bill. This bill gives greater protection to children. Simultaneously, it values the role parents, other relatives and carers play in the life of the child by educating them in the vulnerabilities of children and supporting their ability to discipline children by giving clear indications of what is or what is not reasonable, rather than excessive correction. The bill does not seek to remove from parents their primary responsibility of guiding a child's growth and development in a reasonable way.

I am confident that this bill, the report of the Law and Justice Committee and the recommended modifications provide model legislation and a comprehensive rationale for legislative change for all States and Territories in Australia. Indeed, it is an example for countries across the world, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, which are also currently debating what is reasonable lawful correction in the year 2001. It is a good bill and worthy of bipartisan support. Our children deserve no less. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. P. T. Primrose.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (FIREARMS AND OTHER OFFENSIVE WEAPONS OR INSTRUMENTS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 November 2000.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.02 p.m.]: I speak against the bill. The bill seeks to amend the definition of "offensive weapon or instrument" to include syringes, broken bottles, spearguns, et cetera. This bill also wants to introduce a new offence of carrying an offensive weapon when committing offences such as assault, break and enter and felonies. This sentence will go on top of the sentence imposed for the crime itself, whether the weapon is used or not. A further sentence can be opposed if the weapon is discharged or used at the time of the crime. It might be noted that the Law Society and the Bar Association are strongly against the bill. In fact the Law Society sent me a copy of the letter that it sent to the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Law Society said:

The Law Society said also in the last paragraph of its letter:

So that is what the Law Society thinks about the bill. It also suggests that the bill's definition of offensive weapon or instrument may impact on the existing law in this area by limiting it. The Bar Association suggests that the consecutive nature of the sentences proposed in the bill will mean in fact that those are mandatory sentences. The Bar Association said in another submission:

Our conclusion is that there is no reason for this bill. The weapon causing most of the impetus for this bill is the blood-filled syringe. In 1993 the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Queen v Hodge clearly stated that syringes filled, or apparently filled, with blood and wielded so as to inflict fear on victims are most certainly offensive weapons. The introduction of longer prison sentences for offences will not have, and never has had, an effect on the incidence of crime. It only serves to highlight the problems in our society, which should be addressed at source, not at the end, when it may be too late.

I reflect with sadness on the amount of time that this House spends on bills and changes to procedures and so on that are based on the assumption that longer sentences decrease crime. There is no serious attempt to put forward evidence in support of that shaky proposition. There is no proof that longer sentences decrease crime. No-one who proposes these laws or changes to laws ever asks seriously whether or not the criminal justice system is aimed at keeping society safe by putting people away, or whether it is put in place to reform the criminals, or whether it is designed to punish the criminals. Those are three separate issues, and they need to be discussed intelligently and rationally. Instead, we have before us bills that simply jack up sentences without in any way at all addressing crime in any intelligent way. That approach is to be deplored. I oppose the bill and like bills, which unfortunately are all too common in this House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.07 p.m.]: I have received advice from the Law Society and the New South Wales Bar Association stating that the bill is totally unnecessary. It does not do anything that the law does not already provide for. The first part of the bill seeks to further define what constitutes an "offensive weapon or instrument". Specifically, the bill includes spearguns and syringes in the definition of "offensive weapon" in the Crimes Act. However, the law is actually very strong on what constitutes an offensive weapon, and treats offenders very harshly. Only last year the Crimes Amendment (Offensive Weapons) Act 1999 codified the common law definition of what constitutes an offensive weapon or instrument. This was done to clarify the criminal law when dealing with violent offences.

The community can rest assured that the law offers enough protection to ensure that people are not allowed to have dangerous weapons. For example, if persons have a loaded firearm or a speargun in their possession, they are guilty of an offence under section 93G of the Crimes Act. If persons have a dangerous weapon such as a gun, they are guilty of an offence under the Firearms Act. If persons possess another type of dangerous weapon, such as a speargun, they may be guilty of an offence under the Weapons Prohibition Act. If persons have a weapon or anything made to cause injury to a person, or if they intend to cause injury to any person or to property by way of a weapon, they are guilty of an offence under the Summary Offences Act.

As well as the statutory protections, the common law has also specified that the possession of syringes or spearguns that are used, or intended to be used, as weapons is an offence. As can be seen from this by no means exhaustive account of the current state of the law in New South Wales, the proposed definition of offensive weapon or instrument in the bill does not add anything to the law. The New South Wales Law Society has made the point that the definition in the bill may actually have the effect of limiting the operation of the common law. Therefore it can be seen that the bill does not add to the current state of the criminal law and may actually restrict its effective operation.

The second aim of the bill is to create the additional offence that persons who have been convicted of committing, or attempting to commit, one of a number of specified offences commits another offence if they had an offensive weapon or instrument in their possession at the time. This creates a dangerous incursion into the notion of procedural fairness. We do not need an additional offence of possessing an offensive weapon when committing or attempting to commit an offence. Under the present law it is already worse if someone who commits an offence has a weapon in his or her possession. Having or using a weapon in the commission of an offence is an aggravating circumstance.

The court already views someone far more harshly if a weapon is involved in some way in a crime. One can receive up to 20 years if one carries an offensive weapon, commits a crime, or inflicts actual bodily harm upon another person during the committing of a crime. If one seriously wounds someone or carries a dangerous weapon one can get up to 25 years in gaol. I am not saying that this should not happen. No doubt, these sentences are appropriate in the circumstances of each case. I agree that the community must be protected from dangerous offenders and, just as importantly, the community must feel safe. We have no need for this piece of legislation. If this bill is enacted it will, in effect, mean that someone will be punished twice for the same conduct. This is not permitted under existing law and I see no reason why it should be required now. If one were to go into a court today and try to have someone convicted for what is essentially the same conduct, he or she would be severely reprimanded by the courts for committing an abuse of process. I quote again from the Law Society, which said:

... such a situation ... is an anathema to the criminal justice system as we know it.

I am deeply concerned about the fact that the bill also sends an unrealistic and misleading message to the community. In essence, the honourable member's bill states that criminals will at last receive the punishment that they deserve. It also states:

The law is not tough enough, but my bill will rectify this situation, and make the community safer for everyone.

This issue was commented on by the Law Society, which said:

... the proposed definition gives a dangerous perception that the breadth of the existing law may be inadequate.

The bill sends a clear message that the present law is not enough to protect the community. It is implied that the law, as it now stands, fails to punish those who transgress against society. The bill also implies that the community would be better protected and it encourages the community to believe that, if this legislation is not passed, members of Parliament are not serious about tackling crime. With respect to the honourable member, that is simply unacceptable. The bill also seeks to impose mandatory sentences.

When a young person is convicted of break, enter and steal from a shop and a sentence of three years is regarded as appropriate for such an offence, the sentencing court will be required to impose a further three years imprisonment if the offender had in his or her pocket part of a syringe or an imitation knuckleduster. If the syringe part or the imitation knuckleduster were brought out for the purposes of intimidation, which would presumably fall within the definition of "use", a total sentence of 11 years would have to be mandatorily imposed.

Even if the sentencing court considered that that young person should not be sent to prison at all—perhaps because he or she was a first offender and only a packet of cigarettes was stolen—the bringing out of a syringe part or an imitation knuckleduster would mean that a sentence of five years imprisonment would be mandated. The bill is a revised version of the bill introduced in the New South Wales Parliament in 1996. That bill was poorly drafted, unnecessary and draconian. The present bill is no better. I concur with the sentiments expressed by the New South Wales Bar Association and, for the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support the honourable member's bill.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.12 p.m.]: The Government opposes this bill, the aim of which is to require a sentencing court, having first fixed on an appropriate penalty for an offence which falls within the table in the proposed new section, to then at least double the sentence if, at the time of the commission of any one of those table offences, the defendant possessed an offensive weapon. Furthermore, penalties in the base offences set out in the table are high. Some offences, if committed in aggravated circumstances, carry an extra 25 years imprisonment.

The bill contains detailed provisions with regard to the liability of accomplices. Those provisions contain unusual reverse onus provisions with regard to any exculpation of alleged accomplices. After existing section 93H a new section 93I is proposed for the Crimes Act. This section commences with the definition of "offensive weapon or instrument". The definition lists seven kinds of items which are to be encompassed within that phrase.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: That is a big word!

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: For the benefit of the Hon. J. F. Ryan, that is a big word. The honourable member has another successful Campbelltown campaign under his belt! The definition is inclusive rather than exclusive by way of the use of the word "includes". In other words, there may well be other items that constitute offensive weapons or instruments outside the seven categories contained in subsection (1). The definition is broader than a similar definition already contained in section 4 of the Crimes Act—a provision amended only last year by the Crimes Amendment (Offensive Weapons) Act 1999 to make it clear that offences involving the use of weapons such as syringes are regarded by this Parliament with utmost seriousness.

The definition of "offensive weapon or instrument" is unnecessarily wide. It would include an imitation gun or knife. Proposed subsection (1) proceeds to define "syringe" to include anything designed for use or intended to be used as part of such a syringe. Therefore, even an unremarkable and non-threatening part of a syringe may constitute an offensive weapon or instrument for the purposes of this section. The bill proposes that there be no requirement for the offensive weapon or instrument in question to have even been used or contemplated for use in the commission of the completed or attempted offence contained in subsection (7) of the table. All that is required is immediate personal possession, without nexus to the offence itself.

With regard to the penalty, the effect of subsection (2) is that, upon conviction for the offence contained within that subsection, a sentence of imprisonment must at least double that contemplated for the original table offence. This section would compel the sentencing court, first, to set an appropriate sentence to ensure that the offender was punished for the assault and then, at the very least, to double it to punish him again for an offence under the new section. Alternatively, if the courts sought to modify the effect of the law by reducing the sentence for the table offence, they would be forced to impose inappropriately lenient sentences for the principal offence. I am sure that the Hon. M. I. Jones is following this debate closely.

Either way, inappropriate sentences would be imposed. It is clear that in New South Wales we already have significant maximum penalties for serious offences involving violence. These maximum sentences are extended if offences are committed in the circumstances of aggravation. It is for the courts to fix appropriate penalties depending on the circumstances of the case. Those penalties are subject to the guidelines laid down in the Court of Criminal Appeal—guidelines which have recently been set for both armed robbery and break, enter and steal. I assure the House that the courts have not been silent in the face of incidents such as those set out by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. As early as the 1993 Court of Criminal Appeal case of The Queen v Hodge, Justice Allen made a statement which is crucial. I quote that statement:

There scarcely would be any weapon more calculated to invoke terror in this day and age than being threatened with a hypodermic needle filled, or apparently filled, with blood ... it is time for this Court to say very firmly and very bluntly, that those who use syringes filled with blood, or apparently filled with blood, to inflict dread upon their victims of the fear of being infected with AIDS, can expect appropriate punishment from this Court.

The bill provides for two defences which may be relied upon by persons charged under subsection (2). Those defences are: that the person had a reasonable excuse or lawful purpose for the possession of the offensive weapon or instrument. The onus of proving either of those defences rests upon the accused, presumably on the balance of probabilities. It is unusual to place the onus of proving a defence upon the shoulders of the accused. It is contrary to principle to do so because the result, in truth, is to undermine the onus on the prosecution of proving beyond reasonable doubt each element of the offence.

The bill permits no distinction in penalty between an accomplice and a principal offender. Statute and common law have already developed detailed and refined rules with regard to the criminal liability of accomplices in various situations. These rules are well settled. It can be seen by way of the opening words of subsection (5) that the accomplice bears the burden of proving, presumably on the balance of probabilities, that he or she is not guilty of the offence by way of one of the four listed excuses. Again, that is contrary to principle. Take the example of a break and enter where an accomplice is taking the role of being on the lookout and the principal is armed with a knife.

If lookouts wish to avoid being incarcerated for at least twice the normal time they do not succeed if they merely prove that they did not know about the presence of the knife in the pocket of the principal. Accomplices must go further and show that they could not reasonably be expected to have known about the presence of the knife in the pocket. If not, they will be convicted and possibly sent to gaol for up to 28 years. The same, of course, will apply even if the example is changed to an attempt on the part of the principal by way of the unsuccessful forcing of the window lock without any entry into the premises. The bill goes further in subsection (6) to create an aggravated version of the offence which contains an additional cumulative term of up to five years to be imposed on both principals, by way of the reference to subsection (2), and accomplices, by way of the reference to subsection (4).

The aggravation occurs when an offensive weapon possessed in the course of the offence is discharged at the time of the completed or attempted offence. The effect of this subsection ignores the fact that the Crimes Act already provides for higher maximum penalties if crimes are committed in aggravating circumstances. Take the offence of break and enter, under section 112 of the Crimes Act, as an example. The maximum of 12 years is increased to 20 years if an offensive weapon is used. If the person is in possession of a dangerous weapon such as a gun then the available maximum is 25 years. The offence of break and enter whilst armed with a firearm is very serious indeed, but the 25 years now provided for in the Crimes Act is enough to act as a clear deterrent. Even a 55-year available maximum would achieve no more than the existing range of penalties.

A significant problem with the table in the bill is that, anomalously, very many more serious offences are not included. So, for example, a person who commits attempted murder by stabbing the victim in the chest is not to be subject to the double sentencing. The Government is of the opinion that this bill constitutes an unwarranted interference with the discretion of the judiciary to let the punishment fit all aspects of the crime, including, of course, those features of the prisoner that may aggravate or mitigate his or her criminality. It is manifestly unjust to assert that an arbitrary check list should lead to the doubling or more of a sentence. Sentencing regimes that interfere with judicial discretion where judges are prohibited from properly tailoring sentences to particular circumstances have led to severe individual injustices in other jurisdictions. For the reasons just outlined, the Government cannot support the bill.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.21 p.m.]: As the previous speaker so eloquently expressed, the Greens certainly do not support the Crimes Amendment (Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons or Instruments) Bill. Obviously this is a tough law and order bill and a great deal of breast beating is being undertaken with the passage of the bill. The Greens opposed the honourable member's previous bill and we also oppose this measure. We are concerned that it gives the impression that the existing law is failing in some way. This implied failure seems to misrepresent the fact that the law at the present time, as has been expressed by previous speakers, is capable of dealing with the situation. One of the bill's unfortunate aspects is that it deals with the end result of crime and not with the causes of crime. I may expand on that point later.

The bill makes it an offence to be in possession of a firearm or an offensive weapon or instrument at the time of committing or attempting to commit a specified offence such as an assault, a sexual assault, robbery or break and enter. If the individual is charged under this Act he or she will have two sentences imposed. These will run consecutively, not concurrently. The individual will receive a sentence for being in possession of a firearm or an offensive weapon and another sentence for the actual offence. Certainly, as has been expressed before, individuals who commit serious crimes will end up with very severe penalties. Already, someone convicted of wounding can end up with a penalty of 25 years.

It is quite clear that existing law covers these offences. For example, a man who walks into a 7-Eleven and carries out an armed hold-up using a knife will be given five years for the armed hold-up and another five years for carrying the knife while undertaking the hold-up. It is a worry that the bill will have the effect of doubling the punishment rather than looking at the causes of the crime and many associated problems. The bill throws out the notion of procedural fairness and is very draconian law. Already our prisons are overcrowded. We need more innovative ways of looking at crimes. Increasing sentences is not the answer, because that has been found not to succeed. We need to look at programs that help reduce crime, such as social support, early childhood intervention, more drug and alcohol treatment programs and other programs that are working in other countries.

The bill sends an unrealistic message to the community that somehow the law at present is inadequate. It seeks to resolve that which will not be resolved in this manner. It seeks to promote the concept that we need to tighten up law and order to resolve the many problems that exist in society. It is interesting that the Hon. A. G. Corbett, just prior to the introduction of this bill, spoke about corporal punishment of young children. The facts are—we had a briefing this morning—that in many circumstances that type of corporal punishment can lead to violent crimes at a later stage. It is important to recognise that these two bills are not so separate. We need to look at the root causes of problems in society and work towards resolving them. We also need to regulate problems associated with the upbringing of children and the use of corporal punishment, and to consider how that can later develop into commission of violent crime.

That is the direction we need to take, rather than pursuing just a law and order agenda, as the honourable member is seeking to do with this bill. That course is dangerous to the quality and fabric of society. I am sure the other Green member of the House will speak as a person who has had a long history of opposing the proliferation of guns in our society. It is important that we recognise that we need to deal with this issue in a proactive manner. This is a reactive bill that will not further relieve the problem of violent crime in our society.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [3.25 p.m.]: Legislation such as the Crimes Amendment (Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons or Instruments) Bill has been the subject of great controversy in this House. The fact that the Hon. J. S. Tingle's bill has been rejected a number of times in the House is a reflection of community concern surrounding this issue. One only had to watch the segment on 60 Minutes the other night on violence in our society to understand the community concern about senseless, ongoing violence. I applaud the honourable member's persistence and courage in pursuing this issue. I also appreciate the hard data that the honourable member has put before us on the increasing number of armed crimes at both State and Federal levels. We can no longer pretend there are no armed crimes; nor can we hide from the danger of becoming victims of such crimes.

I notice the Government has amended recently relevant legislation to accommodate these community concerns. For instance, the Prohibited Weapons Act 1989 is replaced by the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999, which came into effect in early 2000. However, these more balanced amendments fall far short of providing the community with a sufficient level of protection in the case of such armed crimes, in which victims are either fatally hurt or are totally defenceless in front of armed criminals. We have been given plenty of warning about the danger of following the United States of America in that respect. However when our community is in fear and in potential danger, legislation must be put in place to protect them. That is the thrust of what the honourable member is about, and I support the principles of the bill.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [3.27 p.m.]: The object of the Crimes Amendment (Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons or Instruments) Bill is to amend the Crimes Act to make it an offence to be in possession of a firearm or other offensive weapon or instrument at the time of committing or attempting to commit certain specified offences or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of such an offence. The bill also creates an offence that imposes a further penalty if a weapon is discharged or used at the time either of the other new offences is committed. The Opposition does not oppose this bill, introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. It sees a need to be proactive about the law and order issue in the community and it is concerned that existing laws are not working adequately. The reality is perhaps expressed fairly accurately by the honourable member when he referred to statistics in his second reading speech on 5 April:

It continues:

A previous speaker said that there is concern about overcrowding in prisons and that rehabilitation is necessary. I believe that all reasonable people would show concern about overcrowding in prisons and the need for rehabilitation, but we cannot walk away from the fact that the law must be proactive and provide for penalties that relate to the offences. I note that the New South Wales Bar Association has expressed concern about the drafting of this bill. The reality is that some relief in the area of offensive weapons is necessary. Reference has been made to the provision in the bill that provides for a doubling effect in relation to some offences. That doubling effect is caused by the carrying of a weapon whilst one is committing an offence. The provision can certainly have validity if applied equitably. In recent weeks many people have expressed concern about the growing number of armed robberies, particularly Maitland shop owners. I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.32 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes Amendment (Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons or Instruments) Bill. As honourable members know, this bill is designed to discourage the use and carriage of any kind of weapon by persons committing a crime. It specifically takes in the growing use of various kinds of weapons, such as syringes, sharpened screwdrivers, chains and spear guns. The focus of the bill is to protect the community, and that is why our party supports it. The bill places emphasis on the victim or potential victim, rather than on the criminal. Other parties seem to focus more on the criminal than on the victim. The inclusion of syringes in this bill relates to the growing practice of criminals using blood-filled syringes when they carry out robberies in garages, petrol stations or shops. In one case the criminal held a syringe against the neck of a female shop assistant and told her that the blood in the syringe was AIDS contaminated. It may have been a bluff but it was enough to strike terror into the heart of the shop assistant, who was a potential victim at that stage.

The emphasis in the bill on the carrying of weapons relates to the events that have occurred since this bill was first introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. Recently I was shocked to see heavily armed police raiding buildings in George Street, just down the road from Parliament House, to try to apprehend armed gangsters. Sometimes the police are successful and sometimes they are not. To see heavily armed police officers with their guns drawn while facing buildings was very much like watching some of the television shows that come from America. The incident emphasised that criminals, particularly younger males, feel that they can carry firearms freely in our society. That was not part of our culture in the past, but it is the reason, unfortunately, that bills like this one are necessary now. We want to prevent the violent crime and gun culture—when guns are used in the commission of crimes—that exists in America from developing and growing in Australia.

Honourable members will remember that only a few weeks ago a 16-year-old school boy was shot down near the bus stop outside a Bankstown school. Such events did not occur in our society in the past. However, the people who shot the young boy are willing to carry firearms and to use them in carrying out their activities. In our society we are seeing the danger signs of an increasing willingness for criminals both to carry weapons and to use those weapons when they commit an offence. I remember one case that was before the courts for some time—it has now concluded—in which some young students committed a robbery. One of the students located a revolver before they committed the robbery. He said, "You carry that but we won't use it. Just take it with us—we may need it to threaten the owner of the computer shop." As we know, the firearm was used. Sometimes a person may not know whether a firearm is loaded. The purpose of this bill is to create in society a climate in which criminals will say, "If I commit a crime I won't carry a gun, a knife or a syringe."

The bill states that if a person is found to be in possession of a weapon as described in the legislation when he commits a crime—such as a hold up, a mugging, an assault, a rape, et cetera—that person will be subject to a separate charge of possession of the weapon and on conviction of that second charge he will be liable for a second consecutive penalty. The bill states that when a person is convicted of both the offence and possession of the weapon, then the court, after sentencing for the crime itself, must impose an additional penalty for possession which is not less than the penalty for the offence committed, and the second sentence must be served consecutively—that is, after the first sentence. That is a positive aspect of this legislation.

I have always been shocked by the sentences imposed in courts in Australia. It does not seem to happen in America. In Australia a person who commits one murder is sentenced to a certain length of time in prison, and if a person commits three murders he basically receives the same length of sentence. However, in many cases in America those crimes have consecutive penalties so people spend a long period in prison. Indeed, a person who commits several murders will never be released from prison because he will receive a sentence of about 300 years. In Australia the sentence for murder averages between nine and 12 years. The provisions in this bill do not amount to mandatory sentencing because judges will still have discretion. For example, if a judge thinks that holding up a camera shop is worth five years in gaol he can sentence a person to 2� years for the offence and 2� years for possession of the weapon. Judges will decide how they apply these provisions when making a final decision about length of sentence. The point is that the person has two sentence strikes against him and psychologically he will be serving a longer sentence because he was armed. That is a further deterrent to carrying a weapon.

The extra sentence also applies to any accomplice, unless that person can demonstrate that he or she did not know the main offender was armed, that he or she tried to persuade the main offender not to carry the weapon or instrument, or that he or she did not take part in the main crime. The psychology of that is that if an accomplice is about to join a main offender in committing a crime and discovers that the main offender is carrying a weapon the accomplice will know that he too will receive the longer sentence and he may decide to go home or not take part in the crime. That is another deterrent. The ultimate effect of the bill is to threaten criminals with a double jeopardy penalty if they are armed. It is an attempt to cut down armed crime. Several members of this House have run campaigns against firearms and other weapons, and for that reason they should support this legislation. The bill is also an attempt to cut down the use of exotic weapons. As I have said, syringes and other weapons that can be used are just as dangerous as knives. For example, apparently many young criminals carry a sharpened screwdriver, which can be a vicious weapon. For those reasons the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, and trusts that when the bill is voted upon members of the House will also support it so that it may be passed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.41 p.m.]: I strongly support the comments of my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen, who outlined the Greens opposition to the proposed legislation. This bill is a massive con job—which is not surprising, as it was introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. Clearly he has an eye on the next election. He obviously knows that the bill will not be supported, but he can shop it around to his troops—and, indeed, many of them think of themselves as troops. On the one hand the Hon. J. S. Tingle can say, "We have this fantastic legislation, a real law-and-order number: Lock them up for 20 years." On the other hand he can present it to some people who are perhaps more moderate but from whom he hopes to get support so that he can say, "We have a piece of responsible legislation here. We can be shooters, and we can be responsible. We can say that what it is about is to make the offence the offence of the possession of a firearm and the other offence of weapons or instruments, that that needs to be done in a responsible way." He is therefore having two bites of the cherry.

However, when one goes through the proposed legislation one sees that it is a clear law-and-order number. In fact, it could be regarded as a form of mandatory sentencing. The bill could result in the imposition of extraordinarily long sentences for people who have committed a first offence. The provisions set out in the bill effectively impose a mandatory sentence. For example, a young person convicted of breaking, entering and stealing from a shop could be sentenced to three years imprisonment. However, if this legislation were in place a sentencing court would be required to impose a further three years imprisonment if the offender had in his or her pocket part of a syringe or an imitation knuckleduster. If either of those implements happen to be taken out, that would be regarded as intimidation and a total sentence of 11 years could then be imposed. As I have said, effectively this is mandatory sentencing.

Even if the sentencing court considered that the young person should not be sent to prison at all—perhaps because he or she was a first offender and only a packet of cigarettes was stolen—the production of the syringe or imitation knuckleduster would mean that a sentence of five years would have to be enforced. Clearly, this is unsavoury legislation that will not make our society safer but will simply instil more fear in people. The current legislation in this State is already extremely tough thanks to the Labor Government, which has been in power for six years. The Labor Government has brought forward a raft of its own law and order legislation. Many of the measures that the Hon. J. S. Tingle says he is concerned about and believes need to be toughened up are largely in place already in one form or another. I will refer to some of them. It should be noted that a number of the offences already exist under the Crimes Act. Section 33 makes it an offence punishable by up to 25 years to:

Section 33A makes it an offence punishable by 14 years to so act but without any requirement that the discharge be directed at a person. Section 61 makes it an aggravated sexual assault where, when the sexual assault is committed, the alleged offender threatens to inflict actual bodily harm on the alleged victim or any other person who is present or nearby by means of an offensive weapon or instrument. Therefore many measures are in place that clearly show that if the Hon. J. S. Tingle were at all sincere he would not be wasting the House's time. The Hon. J. S. Tingle seems to have trouble with figures. He led honourable members up the garden path, as he does periodically. I wish to bring to the attention of honourable members some of the latest crime statistics which indicate that from January to December 1999 there was no statistically significant upward or downward trend for the offence category of robbery without a weapon. However, there was a statistically downward trend in the rate of robbery with a firearm and robbery with a weapon other than a firearm, which decreased by 25.2 per cent and 20.8 percent respectively between 1998 and 1999. Those figures were provided by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and were presented by Peter Doak in his publication entitled "Key Trend in Crime and Justice New South Wales 1999".

The overall crime rate in Australia has not increased and there has not been enough long-term research conducted to assess whether crime in the workplace has increased. As I have said, we know that overall there has not been an increase in the overall crime rate, and the Greens acknowledge that more work must be done on the situation in the workplace. The June 1999 crime statistics figures developed by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research indicated that there have been no significant upward trends in the New South Wales crime rate. In fact, the report indicated that there has been a significant downward trend in the following offences: sexual assault, down by 17.3 per cent; indecent assault, acts of indecency and other sexual offences, down by 19.7 per cent; robbery with a firearm, down by 28.7 per cent; and motor vehicle theft, down by 13.9 per cent. There were no significant upward trends.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: A good point.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I thank the Hon. I. M. Macdonald for acknowledging that it is a good point. Last year the National Homicide Monitoring Program at the Australian Institute of Criminology recorded the lowest number of homicides since the program began in 1989. Preliminary analysis from the Australian Institute of Criminology for 1997-98 indicates that there were 297 homicide incidents and 311 homicide victims. On page 4 of the second reading speech of the Hon. J. S. Tingle he states:

Let us contemplate those figures. Again, the Hon. J. S. Tingle throws out a few figures and does another con job. Of course, the incidence of robbery in urban areas is higher than the incidence of robbery in country areas. That is simply due to the high population density in the city and a higher rate of drug usage and movement in these areas. However, street level crime maps indicate that the distribution of assault and robbery incidents in Sydney is not random.

Five major hotspot zones featuring clusters of offences were identified. Crime prevention research indicates that it is better to target high-rate crime areas than to develop a more broad approach to the problem, as the Hon. J. S. Tingle outlines. I place that material before honourable members because it is most relevant to the debate. Sometimes the backup arguments that are used to justify certain pieces of legislation—in this case the Crimes Amendment (Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons or Instruments) Bill—are, at the least, dubious and, at best, incorrect. As I said, I endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen. We will be voting against this legislation.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD [3.50 p.m.]: When two animals who are about to become murderers walk into a service station and callously and cowardly shoot to death a defenceless attendant behind the counter, the last concern after the act is how it might have been prevented. In some cases the individuals involved do not have backgrounds that might, in part, explain their actions. In many respects they simply have no care or respect for life. While this example may seem extreme, it is nonetheless a true story and probably typifies a case where there may be no such thing as a penalty that is too harsh.

The bill introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle is an appropriate and, frankly, not dissimilar policy to a policy developed by One Nation for the 1998 Queensland State election. I am pleased to see that the Opposition has decided to support the bill. Someone in this State must be tough on crime and this bill helps to address the need for action in the face of escalating violence, which is attached to the decay in social order that is being felt right across New South Wales. We must recognise the increasing use of weapons and act to curb that use. Criminals must understand that to use a weapon or to threaten to use a weapon so as to assist in the carrying out of a crime will carry heavy penalties that will be treated separately and in addition to the object of the crime itself. The honourable member put it correctly and succinctly when, in his second reading speech in 1998, he said:

I remember my brother telling me a story. He is about 12 or 13 years older than I and he is a fairly tough character. He is a Vietnam veteran and not a small or easily intimidated fellow.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Is he a member of One Nation?

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: Yes, he is. He tells me that when he was younger he would go out in the suburb of Manly, where we lived when we were all children. He pointed out to me 10 years ago how different things were when compared with his time as a teenager in the sixties, when it was not uncommon to perhaps get in a bit of a tussle down at the local pub and you would come away with maybe a black eye or a split lip and feeling a bit sorry for yourself. However, he pointed out at that time in the early 1990s someone could pull a knife or a gun on you or cut your throat with a broken bottle. Those times 10 or so years ago were far more advanced than when my brother was a teenager in Manly and other similar places in the sixties. Today we face a situation that is even worse than my brother could have imagined 10 years ago. Schoolchildren are now stabbing their peers and a 16-year-old was recently gunned down on the street in broad daylight. Much of this gang violence seems to have escaped some members.

I remember vividly something that happened to me during the last couple of years on a trip to the United States of America. We are always saying that we do not want to become like the United States, with all the violence and everything that is available there from a weapons point of view. A friend of mine with whom I was staying happens to have a concealed weapons permit. On my first night in his home town of Seattle, as we were about to leave his home to go to downtown Seattle for a late night on the town, he came to me and produced two hand guns. He said to me, "David, do you want the 9 millimetre or the 38?" I said, "You've got to be kidding!" He said, "You don't seriously think we can go for a night out in Seattle at 11 o'clock at night and not carry a gun, do you?" Let us hope that this country does not become like the United States of America in that regard.

Prevention of crime will always be a better approach than an act of punishment, but once society has failed to prevent a violent crime from occurring punishment is the only option. This bill truly is a matter of punishment fitting the crime. Throughout this debate we have continually heard of the stiff penalties already available. We have heard of the spectre of mandatory sentencing. I suggest that the already available stiff penalties are frankly not being used. That, however, may be another issue. Mandatory sentencing may be another issue. It is all very well to have on the books sentences of 25 years and 30 years and so on—they are a waste of space on those books if those penalties are not utilised. This bill at least attempts to address that breakdown in the system of justice, if we can call it that, when it comes to acts of violent crime. I completely support this bill and all that it stands for.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.55 p.m.], in reply: I wish to thank the honourable members who have spoken on this bill, whether they supported it or, as some of them have done, have opposed it. What worries me most of all, I suppose, is that the members who have opposed it—sometimes quite at length—obviously either do not understand the bill or deliberately have decided that they do not want to try to understand what the bill says. This bill is not about mandatory sentencing. It is not about a sort of reverse vigilante set-up in our community. The bill simply seeks to bring into place the sort of prevention that the Hon. D. E. Oldfield just mentioned which will stop crimes from happening before they happen. There has been a great deal of discussion about whether you can have too much punishment. There has been a great deal of discussion about overcrowded prisons and that we should not make it worse. There has been special reference to young people as though they were entitled to some particular and specific kind of law that gives them, if you like, immunity from the sort of sentences and laws that are imposed on other people. But most of this has in fact missed the point.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans relied very heavily on what the Law Society and the Bar Association have said. I cannot remember the last time when the Law Society actually was in favour of toughening up laws or providing heavier penalties for people who commit crime. The Law Society, because it comes heavily out of the left of centre field, thinks that everyone should be slapped on the wrist, sent home and told not to be a bad boy again. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans also said, of course, that longer sentences have never worked. I do not really believe that we have seen very much evidence of longer sentences being imposed under the justice system that works in this State. On the contrary, courts seem to go out of their way to almost apologise to a convicted person for the fact that that person has been convicted—they apologise for putting them in gaol. The whole system has become back-to-front. The system is now supporting the criminal. The system is working against the victim.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones and some of the other speakers criticised the list of weapons which are included in this bill. I would point out, as I did in the second reading speech of this bill last year, that the Prohibited Weapons Act 1989 has been replaced by the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 came into force at the beginning of last April and, together with the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) 1999, has made changes to the law that now match what is proposed in this bill. Therefore, the sorts of lists of weapons and the penalties proposed in the bill are not extraordinary—they match what is presently in place under the laws of this State. I believe, despite what has been said by a number of speakers, that the community does need protection. Although the Law Society says it is anathema to the criminal justice system of this State to have a bill like this proposed, I would simply reply that the criminal justice system does not seem to be working that well at the present time anyway and that therefore something which is anathema to it, as it works now, might be something which is better for the citizens of this State and produces the sorts of effective results that the justice system should produce.

I would like specially to make some remarks about the comments made on behalf of the Government by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, that stalwart of Country Labor, who really seems to feel that this bill is about everything that it should not be in terms of producing deterrence of criminal activity in our society. I would point out to the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that the Government brought in the knife bill, which is far more draconian than the penalties and provisions proposed under my bill. And I would believe that a bill, an act, a law which allows police to stop people at random, search them to see if they have a knife on them, and impose heavy penalties if they do—even if that knife is not being used for any kind of deleterious or threatening purpose—would be much more severe than anything proposed in my bill.

It seems to me that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald was probably speaking because he has been told to say all this. He did not have the conviction I have heard him use in previous speeches where his well-known passion and oratory have often swayed the day and sometimes convinced members of the crossbench to go with what he wants instead of what the other side might happen to want. I was saddened to hear him speak in words that obviously did not come from the heart. He said the definition of "offensive instruments" was too wide. He said we would have inappropriate sentences. There is no such thing as an inappropriate sentence. If a court decides that that is the correct sentence for a particular event before the court, then that sentence is appropriate because the court has said so.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_________

EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS COMPENSATION SCHEME

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. On 7 December last year the Minister informed the House of his response to the issue of unpaid employee entitlements. He said:

The Minister also said:

Honourable members can be assured that it will be dispatched with every bit of efficiency that I can muster.

As it is now February 2001 and over three months since that assertion, can the Minister explain why he has failed to release this paper?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for again drawing the attention of the House to employee entitlements. As honourable members are aware, lost employee entitlements on the failure of a business is a complex matter. The Government is in the process of consulting with other States, some of which have been distracted of late—in particular, Victoria and Queensland—on the issue of a national scheme. Our three States jointly commissioned a report on this issue. Queensland has a new Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Gordon Nuttall, whom I look forward to meeting at the next Industrial Relations Ministers Council. Now we have to consider and discuss the issue with Western Australia. As other commentators and I have repeatedly said on this issue, no one State can "go it alone" with a genuine employee entitlements scheme. A national scheme is the only solution. Fortunately, the Federal Opposition has also been working on the matter and is keen to provide a solution, where the Howard Government has clearly failed.

I stress the need for a national scheme that will cover 100 per cent of employee entitlements. Not only is the Howard Government unable to provide one, but it is clearly lacking the will to do so. In January this year the new Federal Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Tony Abbott, stated his clear support for Peter Reith's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. The Commonwealth's own estimate is that lost entitlements amount to $110 million per year. In the first 12 months of the scheme only about $3 million was paid to workers. The abject failure of the Federal Government's scheme to properly support workers of failed businesses is easily demonstrated by the Commonwealth's own figures. A Federal Government document released in January this year revealed that workers received on average only $1,200 under the Reith scheme. The workers were owed, on average, more than $11,000 in lost entitlements. It is an insult to workers and their families to pretend that an adequate scheme is in place.

The Federal Government's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme is not adequate: It has a faulty formula. Workers who have earned this money must not be short-changed; they are entitled to it. The New South Wales Government is committed to further examination of the best model for a national scheme to cover 100 per cent of lost employee entitlements, but it cannot act alone. We will act in co-operation with the growing number of Labor States and the current Federal Opposition. I am confident a solution will be found.

HINDU TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION SITE

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of reports that eight Indian nationals have been working at a construction site near Helensburgh for the scandalous sum of only $45 per month?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It was on television.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I don't have time to watch television. Minister, are your officers within the inspectorate investigating these injustices?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I inform the House that WorkCover New South Wales has halted work on a Hindu temple being constructed at Helensburgh. WorkCover inspectors visited the site yesterday and issued a prohibition notice on the owners, Sri Venkat-Eswara Temple Association. This will prevent the association from undertaking any further work due to the unsafe nature of electrical wiring throughout the site. WorkCover has advised that additional notices will be issued and that a $550 fine will be imposed on the owners when inspectors revisit the site today. An improvement notice will be issued relating to unsafe scaffolding. The owners will also be fined for the unsafe storage of 10 gas bottles in a closed toolshed.

WorkCover is continuing its investigations, including workers compensation matters, with a view to bringing a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Inspectors from the Department of Industrial Relations have also visited the site today, have spoken with the Chief Priest and requested access to payment records to ensure that workers' pay and conditions are in accordance with their entitlements under New South Wales industrial relations legislation. The workers were in the company of representatives from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and were believed to be negotiating with the owners of the temple in Sydney. I will keep the House informed of any further developments.

POWER STATIONS ASBESTOS USE

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Give me a go! It has been three months!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The truth is you're just a little bit underdone for the A-team today. We might ask you a question tomorrow. Is the Minister aware of claims this week on Four Corners that the former State Electricity Commission of Victoria knew about the dangers of asbestos in State-owned power stations in the Latrobe Valley for more than 30 years before adequate safety measures and warnings were put in place? Is the Minister further aware that many former power station workers in the Latrobe Valley are ill or have died from asbestos-related diseases? Given the proven dangers of asbestos and the health effects of long-term asbestos exposure, will the Minister now give an undertaking to the House to establish an inquiry into the use and disposal of asbestos materials in New South Wales State-owned power stations and whether proper procedures were followed, and to determine any remaining safety issues?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: This is a very good question. I am in the same position as the Leader finds himself sometimes when the Opposition asks him a question about an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that he has not read. I am disadvantaged as I did not see the program but I will make sure I do and that I study its implications. Honourable members are aware of increasing media reports that former workers have developed cancer and other diseases as a result of past exposure to asbestos. The long delay between exposure and the development of these deadly diseases causes serious difficulties in establishing claims for damages at law. It was in recognition of these difficulties that the New South Wales Government originally established the Dust Diseases Board, which is in my portfolio. The board serves to compensate workers and their dependants who have suffered serious damage to their health as a result of exposure to hazardous dusts, including asbestos.

The New South Wales Workers' Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942 was amended in 1989 to allow for the creation of the Dust Diseases Tribunal to help facilitate common law claims brought by people who contracted illnesses due to exposure to harmful dusts, including asbestos. During the financial year 1998-99 the New South Wales Dust Diseases Board paid out more than $7.5 million to workers whose health had been destroyed by exposure to asbestos. During that period $24 million was also paid to their dependants. I am not aware of the particular allegations or accounts presented about the Victorian power industry, so I am not in a position to comment with authority on the implications of that program or the alleged facts for the New South Wales power industry.

I will review the issue and ensure that honourable members are kept aware of any developments in regard to the question. I might take this opportunity to indicate that on 16 February James Hardie Industries announced that it would establish a foundation intended to compensate sufferers of asbestos-related diseases. I am informed—and I think it has become public knowledge—that the foundation will commence with assets of $293 million. The Dust Diseases Board has undertaken a number of initiatives related to asbestos, from both the clinical treatment point of view and the epidemiological point of view. That board has been discussing those issues at some length with the industry, unions and victims. I expect that a whole range of developments regarding dust diseases and their implications will be announced in the next few months.

DECEASED CHILDREN ORGAN REMOVAL

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: I ask a question of the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. In light of the uproar in the United Kingdom concerning the removal and stockpiling of organs from deceased children, can the Minister give an absolute assurance that in New South Wales no organ has been removed from a deceased child without parental consent? If the Minister can give such an assurance, what investigations have been conducted by New South Wales Health to establish this fact?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. A. G. Corbett for his important question, which I will most certainly refer to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a response as soon as possible. I am somewhat concerned that we are already a quarter of the way through question time and I have yet to be asked a question by the Opposition. This is the first question time after a parliamentary recess of three months and the Opposition does not have a single question for the Leader of the Government in this House or for the Treasurer of this State.

I would have thought that, following the election results in Western Australia and Queensland, the Coalition would know that they have to pull their socks up, do some hard work and be out and about. But since the recent elections the Coalition has gone into hiding. In fact, only this morning I got some information from Rehame Australia about the top 10 most mentioned New South Wales politicians on radio and television for the week 9 February to 15 February. The Premier of New South Wales was mentioned some 387 times and the Attorney General was mentioned some 83 times.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did you miss out again?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. In fact, I was mentioned 68 times. But there was not one mention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. D. J. Gay, not one mention of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. M. J. Gallacher, not one mention of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, and not one mention of the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. But they are in good company because, whilst the Premier of New South Wales was mentioned 387 times, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, Mr Barry O'Farrell, was mentioned only twice. And in that whole week the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mrs Chikarovski, was mentioned only four times. The Coalition partners are not going to do very well unless they do some work, unless they get out and about in this State and find out what the problems and needs of the people are. That is why the National Party is being destroyed all over the place by One Nation—particularly in Queensland, and even in Western Australia it is doing very poorly. Where has the One Nation man gone?

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Is he One Nation?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: He was One Nation, but I have a funny feeling he will be again very quickly. But that is of no comfort to me. I want to see the once great Liberal Party and the once great National Party in this State do some work, pull up their socks and provide some fair dinkum opposition. I think it is pathetic that I have to wait for a question from the crossbenchers to get a chance to be heard in question time. I thank the Hon. A. G. Corbett for his question, and I urge members of the Opposition to do their homework and get some questions for me.

BOURKE AND WAGGA WAGGA MINERALS RESOURCES

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. How will recent exploration in the Bourke and Wagga Wagga areas benefit those regions and New South Wales?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank my colleague the Convener of Country Labor for his very important question and I commend him for his continuing interest in regional New South Wales. I am pleased to advise that regional surveys, worth $510,000, have now been completed in Bourke and Wagga Wagga. They are part of the New South Wales Government's Exploration New South Wales program—a $30 million initiative to encourage investment in our State's mineral resources. New geological information gathered during those surveys is currently being analysed and shortly will be available to industry.

The new maps and digital data add to our growing knowledge of mineral resources in New South Wales. Surveying of the Bourke area began last December, with a second phase in January this year. The surveys investigated the potential for petroleum exploration in this formerly largely unexplored area. The Government has now completed a regional gravity survey and an airborne geophysical survey over this area, covering 12,500 square kilometres. Discoveries of petroleum north of Bourke would be good news for regional New South Wales, as we are the only State without its own petroleum production. It would also be great news for regional jobs and businesses.

Two airborne geophysical surveys have been carried out in the region east of Wagga Wagga, and this information also is being analysed. The results of the first stage of the geophysical survey completed last year have stimulated new applications for exploration licences in the region. Twelve applications for exploration licences have been received in the Wagga Wagga mining district, and these are being processed. I look forward to updating the House about further mineral exploration in those areas and in other regional areas of New South Wales.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND ICAC CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS

The Hon. M. I. JONES: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. Regarding the recent allegations in the media of corruption against the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, does the Attorney General feel it appropriate that ICAC investigates complaints against itself, or will these allegations be referred to the parliamentary Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is a very unusual Sunday for me when I actually watch the Sunday program.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It is getting worse.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is getting worse, although it is some years since I have watched the program. I did, however, happen to watch that program recently. I must say I do not think the story has any legs, but I am quite happy to refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Attorney General and obtain a response.

COMMERCIAL FISHERIES RESOURCE REALLOCATION COMPENSATION

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask a question of the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. With regard to the reallocation of the fisheries resource from commercial fishing to recreational fishing in areas such as Lake Macquarie, is it correct that the Minister has received representations requesting that a compensation package be offered to employees of fishermen's co-operatives and others currently reliant on the commercial fishing industry for their livelihoods? What is the Government's response to this proposal?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have told the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner on many occasions that the money obtained from recreational fishing licences will go into a trust account and be used only to improve recreational fishing areas. The buying back at a fair market value of the fish licences in the region to be closed off can improve those areas. I do not believe that it would help recreational fishers if co-operative employees were paid out. So the answer to the honourable member's question is no. I have not recently received representations from co-operatives seeking compensation from the Government if Lake Macquarie is dedicated as a recreational fishing area.

As a matter of fact, I do not know whether trust money from recreational fishing licences will be used to pay out co-operative employees. That is not what that money is intended for—it has not been approved by this House—and that is not what I have been saying to the public, who will be paying for these licences and who should benefit from better recreational fishing areas. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner either was not listening to debate or she has taken no account of my statements in this House about how this money is to be used.

There are many ways in which to obtain fresh seafood. Fishing in the lake might be restricted. However, after the proper transparent processes and after Lake Macquarie has been dedicated as a recreational fishing area, fishermen will still be able to catch fish in the ocean and bring that catch to the co-operatives. Co-operatives will not suddenly close overnight simply because some lakes or estuaries have no commercial operations. There are plenty of fish in the sea, which is predominantly where most of the fish are caught. I am sure that fishermen in that area will again use those co-operatives.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask a supplementary question. Did the honourable member for Swansea not tell a public meeting last weekend that he had put a proposal for such a compensation package to the Minister? Was his suggestion at that public meeting not received very well? Is the Minister rejecting that suggestion out of hand?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The honourable member for Swansea has not put that proposition to me. I am sure that the honourable member, who is entitled to his view, will come to me with a proposal which I will consider. Opposition members think they have discovered a dint in the policy. My answer is the same. Trust fund money will be used only for better recreational fishing facilities. If the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner or any other member of the Coalition said to me that, by paying out employees of co-operatives with trust fund money—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the Minister.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That trust fund money will be managed by an expenditure committee. If that committee determines that the paying out of employees of co-operatives will result in better recreational fishing, it is up to it to make such a recommendation. That is how that trust fund money will be used. I am more than happy to consider any proposition put to me by my colleague the honourable member for Swansea.

FAIRLIGHT ESP PTY LTD FILM INDUSTRY AWARD

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House of the latest international achievements of the New South Wales film industry?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 3 March—which is not that far away—one of the outstanding companies in the New South Wales film industry will reach the pinnacle of recognition in the international film industry. Fairlight ESP will receive a special scientific and technical award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at a ceremony in Beverly Hills. The academy has recognised Fairlight for its contribution to the new generation of high-tech feature films, such as the Matrix which, as most honourable members will be aware, was shot in Sydney and employed the Oscar-winning technology of New South Wales companies in areas such as high-tech special effects.

[Interruption]

I did not understand it, but I did see it. In the Matrix I could not work out who were the goodies and who were the baddies. I had to wait until the end of the film for it to be explained to me. Fairlight, which has been in the forefront of digital audio developments since 1975, employs more than 100 people, with offices in Los Angeles, New York, London, Berlin and Paris. The company's unique range of products are used worldwide in the audio post-production of major feature films, hundreds of television programs including Friends, ER, NYPD Blue, television commercials, radio programs and documentaries.

[Interruption]

I do not know whether it was involved in Rats in the Ranks or Democracy, which is a great pity. Democracy, one of the great films produced by the Australian film industry, had a good cast. At least some members of that cast were first rate. The company will also play a key role in the broadcasting of future Olympic Games. The Olympic broadcaster, NBC, has commissioned Fairlight to provide equipment and personnel to support the audio requirements for the next three Olympic events, commencing with the 2002 winter Games in Salt Lake City.

The same digital technology that produced the historic crack of the whip to begin the Sydney 2000 Games opening ceremony will now help to bring the sound and spectacle of the winter and summer Olympics to the world. By any measure that is an outstanding achievement. It is a success that can be attributed to Fairlight's key role in the successful delivery of the best Games ever by the people and the companies of this State. Clever New South Wales companies like Fairlight helped to make the Sydney 2000 Games the most sophisticated Games ever and have set the technical benchmark for others to follow.

Worldwide, the Sydney brand is now a symbol of quality and advanced technology. The New South Wales film industry is in the front rank of this new international push by Australian companies to capitalise on the international exposure of the Olympics to crack new markets and build a high quality profile in traditional markets. I am proud to say that many of these are members of the Government's post-Olympic international business marketing program, the Australian Technology Showcase. With more than 250 members, the showcase has been an incredible success in showcasing the best of the State's innovative firms and technologies.

Since the start of the program these companies have generated over $180 million in new sales and exports. They are taking to the world the types of skills and clever products that made the Olympics work so well. In the local film industry Fairlight is one of a string of New South Wales companies that helped lift the value of local film productions to almost $350 million last year, providing jobs and establishing Sydney as the film capital of Australia. I congratulate Fairlight on achieving the ultimate accolade from its industry peers. It is a wonderful recognition for more than 25 years of constant innovation and hard work. Of course, it also means that New South Wales companies will now feature in academy presentations for two years running. This is a great boost for local industry and another great win for the Australian Technology Showcase.

ORGANIC FARMING

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation, is it a fact that Germany has set a target for 20 per cent of all farms in Germany to become organic compared to the current 5 per cent? Is it also a fact that supermarket chains in Europe are now demanding organic produce? What target has the Minister for Agriculture set for New South Wales farms to go organic and what is his department doing to assist farms to go organic? As the biggest growth area in Europe is in organic foods, with 40 per cent growth in the United Kingdom last year, will the Minister give organic conversion his very top priority so that New South Wales will not be left behind by the rest of the world? Will the Minister, to that end, ensure a significant part of this year's agriculture budget will be directed to organic conversion assistance to farmers and not wasted on old dying industries?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The question asked by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones deals with a matter of great importance to him, but I am not briefed well enough on the specifics of organic farming to give an answer that would do justice to his question. I am sure my colleague the Minister for Agriculture will be able to, and I will pass on to him the question and ask him to respond as soon as practicable.

SOUTH COAST RAIL SERVICES

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources and Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Will the Minister personally and publicly guarantee the rail commuters of the Shoalhaven that rail services to Bomaderry will continue once the electrification of the South Coast line to Kiama is complete, given strong concerns amongst CityRail employees that closure is planned? When will the Minister announce a timetable for electrification and duplication of the line to Bomaderry to improve public transport to the Shoalhaven?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, they are only interested in the Central Coast.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: On the contrary, this Government is very interested in transport, in particular rail, in every corner of the State. We have resumed rail services in regions where the Coalition took them out. This is a detailed and very good question and I will seek to get a detailed answer from my colleague in the other House.

WESTERN SYDNEY BUSINESS INITIATIVES

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House of recent initiatives to build business success and create jobs in western Sydney?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Is she asking the Hon. I. M. Macdonald’s questions because he is not here today?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Well, you have not asked me a question. In fact, I hear in the media that you are about to call it a day, to hang up your boots. I do not blame you, a man of your intelligence. I would be ashamed to sit with these dumbos.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I love my colleagues.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Is that why you are leaving?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am not leaving.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Look at the people you have lost just recently: John Hannaford.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: A great man.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Ted Pickering.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: A great man.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Now the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. And you are left with the likes of the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. J. H. Jobling, and the Hon. G. S. Pearce. What a pathetic bunch!

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You do not even want to be here.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will be here until 2016, as I have told you before, but I would like some sort of a contest for at least part of that time. This is clearly the most appallingly incompetent Opposition that I think any Parliament or any House of any Parliament has seen in my lifetime. Here we are at the first question time on the first day back after a recess of three months, when normally governments should be shaking in their boots, and we have not one single question from the Opposition to the Leader of the Government—not one single question. I am sure had the Hon. D. F. Moppett won the post that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now occupies he would not have allowed such a thing to happen. He would have been asking questions of the Leader of the Government.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: Surely the Minister can answer the question the Hon. Jan Burnswoods asked him. It is a matter of relevance in answering the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have ruled many times in the past, it is the tradition of this House for Ministers to answer questions in the way they see fit. The Minister may resume.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was just indicating my disappointment that after the next election we will not have the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti in this House. Question time will not be the same; the House will not be the same. He is the only intelligent member of the Liberal Party left and he is going. The question by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is an important question. Unlike the Liberal Party throughout this nation and particularly unlike the current Commonwealth Government, which seems to have made an art form out of tangling the small business sector in unnecessary and unproductive red tape, this Government is taking very constructive measures to help small businesses expand and create jobs. Almost 1.1 million people are employed by small enterprises in New South Wales. The latest information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that small enterprises have provided about 75 per cent of all new jobs in New South Wales in the past five years. I have to say that western Sydney has been the heartland of this remarkable job creation performance.

To help maintain this momentum the Government has been asking small enterprises how they would like to have access to assistance and support programs the Government offers. These busy and results-oriented people are busy building their own businesses. They recognise the need for sharpening their expertise in business planning, export readiness and strategic marketing, but often they do not have the time to leave their businesses to seek out that kind of advice. To overcome this problem the Government is taking the initiative not only to move small business advisers to western Sydney but also to free those business advisers from government offices so they can focus on meeting their small business clients face to face.

Five mobile business advisers from the Department of State and Regional Development will now provide increased services to businesses right across Sydney, including all 14 local government areas of western Sydney. These experienced business and industry advisers will provide support to operators on their own premises in areas such as e-commerce and new business technologies, growing their businesses and making the important transition into export markets. On-site assistance will also include access to market information, expert guidance on technical issues and business marketing. Mobile advisers will be able to plug small enterprises directly into the range of support and assistance programs available through the Department of State and Regional Development.

The mobile advisers will work out of the Department of State and Regional Development’s newly established business centre in Parramatta. Parramatta is the geographical heart of a region that has the highest population growth in Australia and the nation's third-largest economy, behind the Sydney central business district and Melbourne. Indeed, the greater west of Sydney, with an annual gross domestic product of about $52 billion, has annual output greater than most of the world's nation states. If it were a nation state it would rank between the 45th and 50th largest. So, it is a very significant economic powerhouse.

For the past three years the western Sydney region has enjoyed economic growth of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent a year. The new business centre underscores the importance of this region to the State's continuing growth and reinforces the commitment of the Government to providing businesses in western Sydney with the advice and support they need to develop and flourish. For the people of New South Wales, and especially in western Sydney, this means more jobs closer to where they live, which of course is a win-win situation for small employers, employees and their families.

ASBESTOS-RELATED DISEASE COMPENSATION

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, further to the earlier reference to asbestos-related diseases, is it a fact that James Hardie Industries has announced the establishment of a foundation, with assets of $293 million, to compensate sufferers of asbestos-related diseases with claims against two former James Hardie subsidiaries? Is a fact that the James Hardie foundation can expect up to 40,000 asbestos-related claims over the next 20 years, which will exceed the foundation's $293 million? When the foundation's funds run out prior to the settlement of all claims by victims of asbestos-related disease, what assurance do claimants have that they will be properly compensated? What action will the Government take to ensure all claimants receive justice?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I will answer the Hon. Elaine Nile's question as it has an impact on my portfolio area of the Dust Diseases Board. As the honourable member said, on 16 February James Hardie Industries Ltd announced that it had established a foundation intended to compensate sufferers of asbestos-related diseases. I am informed that the foundation will commence with assets of $293 million. I have taken the step of inviting James Hardie Industries to sit down with the chair of the Dust Diseases Board, unions and victims groups to discuss the proposal.

Because of the varying estimates of the number of future cases of mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer, it is difficult to forecast with any certainty whether the foundation's funding will be sufficient. It is important that the financial and corporate structures of the foundation are sound and meet the needs of victims and their families. The Government's statutory no-fault compensation scheme, administered by the Dust Diseases Board, is funded by a levy imposed on workers compensation policies. Outstanding claims liability will be funded by investments and future levies. The board is fully funded for known claims as required by the Dust Diseases Act. The establishment of the James Hardie foundation does not impact on the Government's statutory scheme.

Essentially, the answer is that the rights of victims in that context will be kept in place, regardless of the actuarial outcomes of the James Hardie scheme. The essential points in relation to the foundation's capacity to continue to fund claims will be tested vigorously by this Government. I should add in favour of James Hardie that establishment of the foundation shows the company's willingness to review the clinical and epidemiological expertise that already exists in a number of Australian universities, as well as the equivalent workers compensation bodies to the Dust Diseases Board in the various jurisdictions. I hope that out of the formation of the foundation we will be able to develop world's best practice clinical services and research in the area of dust diseases because, sadly, they affect a large number of workers.

As many people have previously observed, the difficulty is that the lead time for the disease to start taking effect is so long that actuarial estimates about its impact, as well as appropriate plans for clinical treatment, are quite complex and need to be well funded. So that aspect of the announcement by James Hardie is much appreciated. The Government is keen to work with James Hardie on developing the foundation into something that will ensure that Australia leads the way in looking after workers affected by dust diseases.

INTEGRAL ENERGY SERVICE CHARGE

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Is the Treasurer aware that Integral Energy has introduced a 16.4� per day service charge? Is he further aware that the introduction of this charge has not been widely advertised and that customers are only finding out about it when they receive a pamphlet with their bills? Considering the fact that Integral Energy has a high rate of scheduled outages, can customers expect to be reimbursed for the days when they do not have any power?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn for his question. He is the only Opposition member to direct a question to me today, which goes to show that he is leadership material after all.

The Hon. R. H. Colless: He is more intelligent than you thought he was.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I did not go quite that far. As honourable members know, the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn is the strategy adviser to the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski. Indeed, I understand that that is his official post within the parliamentary Liberal Party. Now he has been stripped of that as well. He was a shadow Minister for a while; he was the shadow Minister for Western Sydney and the shadow Minister for Public Works and Services, but they stripped him of that.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: He didn't want it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: He didn't want it. Is that what the Hon. Patricia Forsythe said?

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: No, that is not the case. Stop verballing me!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What did you not want? Your colleague said you did not want something. What was it that you did not want? Did you not want a role on the Opposition front bench or did you not want to have anything to do with Kerry Chikarovski? What did the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn not want to do?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: He did not want this diatribe. He wanted an answer.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. J. H. Jobling should not jump to the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn's defence, because he does not support the honourable member. He would slit your throat as quickly as he could if no-one was watching.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: As the Minister said, the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn asked a highly intelligent question. However, the Minister then went for the honourable member's throat. I ask you to direct the Minister to answer the intelligent question. If he cannot answer the question he should simply say, "I can't answer the question" and sit down, or he should simply answer it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I did not go for the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn's throat. What I said was that given half a chance the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn would slit the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti's throat if no-one was looking. It is a good question. Most electricity distributors and retailers have a service charge.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat while I rule on the point of order. As I have continually told the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, it is traditional in this House for Ministers to answer questions in the way they see fit. It would appear that the honourable member misheard what the Minister said. I ask the Minister to resume his answer to the question.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have concluded the answer.

FIRST HOME BUYERS SCHEME

The Hon. I. W. WEST: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer update the House on the success of the First Home Buyers scheme?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The New South Wales Government is doing more to assist first home buyers than any other State Government. Since July last year more than 24,000 first home buyers across the State have taken advantage of the scheme. In fact, the scheme is costing a lot more money than we anticipated it would when it was introduced in last year's budget. In the next couple of weeks of the parliamentary session we will be introducing special appropriation legislation to appropriate additional moneys to cater for the very large number of young home buyers who are applying for the assistance. The figure of 24,000 includes more than 12,000 first home buyers in regional New South Wales. The Government's First Home Plus stamp duty exemption scheme—

The Hon. D. J. Gay: There wouldn't be many in Sydney, given the criteria.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That shows that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is out of touch. Not everyone lives in Double Bay, Vaucluse or Woollahra—I know that that is the part of Sydney with which the honourable member is most familiar.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Where do you live?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I live in Surry Hills. The truth of the matter is that some 75 per cent of first home buyers in New South Wales are eligible for First Home Plus, and all first home buyers in New South Wales are eligible for the $7,000 first home grant. So all first home buyers are eligible for the $7,000 grant and some 75 per cent are eligible for First Home Plus, because 75 per cent of first home buyers buy a home within the $300,000 limit that applies in the Sydney metropolitan area. Eligible first home buyers in New South Wales pay no stamp duty on properties worth up to $200,000 in metropolitan areas and up to $175,000 in other parts of the State.

Since the start of the scheme in July of last year first home buyers across New South Wales have saved on average almost $3,000 in stamp duty costs. That is $3,000 they would have been paying if they still had a Liberal-National government in this State. Back in the days of John Fahey and Nick Greiner they would have been paying that $3,000. These concessions, added to the $7,000 from the First Home Buyers grants scheme, mean that first home buyers are now saving up to $12,000 on the cost of buying a home. As a result, thousands of home buyers have been able to buy their first home months earlier than they expected and have a smaller mortgage into the bargain. The scheme is clearly a great win for people looking to buy their first home. The scheme has been outstandingly successful, and I want every eligible first home buyer in New South Wales to take advantage of it. It is therefore very disappointing—

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Under you lot, I have paid 17.5 per cent interest on the mortgage on my house, and I have never forgotten it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The porcupine is at it again. He has had his spikes cut off since we saw him last.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: They are still there.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Some of them are still there, but the ones in the middle have disappeared. I do not know why the Hon. J. F. Ryan has to take the bottle to his hair and do all sorts of other silly things. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti tried it, and look what happened to him. It is very disappointing to hear that some real estate agents—only some, I must admit, and just a couple I am sure—may be trying to rush first home buyers into a decision with claims that the scheme is about to end. Suggestions by some real estate agents that the scheme is about to end are totally wrong and without foundation. I have been in contact with the President of the Real Estate Institute, Mr John Hill, who assures me that he is equally disappointed if some agents are acting in a mischievous manner in spreading rumours about the First Home Buyers scheme. Mr Hill has undertaken to bring this matter to the attention of his members.

The First Home Owners Scheme is, in fact, part of an intergovernmental agreement between the Prime Minister and all the State Premiers. Any change to the scheme would require the agreement of all the States and the Commonwealth Government. There certainly is no such proposal, and there is no chance of the First Home Buyers Scheme being abolished, nor is there any chance of First Home Plus, which gives the stamp duty exemption, being abolished. First home buyers can be assured that both schemes are here to stay. There is therefore no need to be rushed into buying a house for fear of missing out on the benefits of either scheme. Taking the first step into home ownership is a very important and exciting time for home buyers. The scheme is making that first step into home ownership much more affordable. I encourage all first home buyers to take their time and enjoy the experience and not be persuaded into a hasty decision based on uninformed and completely incorrect speculation about the future of the schemes.

CUSTOMER BILL OF RIGHTS

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development a question without notice. Is the Treasurer aware that the city of Boston in the United States of America last week introduced a Customer Bill of Rights which offers an on-time service guarantee whereby if a commuter train, bus or ferry is delayed more than 30 minutes customers will get a free round-trip voucher? Is it a fact that statistics released by CityRail reveal that peak hour commuter services in Sydney are running to schedule only 57 per cent of the time? Will the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport therefore look into the establishment of a similar Bill of Rights whereby customers are assured of on-time service or their money back? Will the Treasurer delay the introduction of any further fare increases until CityRail attains an acceptable on-time performance standard?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As honourable members would be aware, train fares are not a matter for me; in the first instance, they are a matter for the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. I suggest that if Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile wishes to make a submission to the tribunal, I am sure he would be quite welcome to do so. The figures that the honourable member referred to are news to me. I am not aware of the City of Boston's Customer Bill of Rights. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Transport, Carl Scully. Certainly from my perspective I do not think it is a very sensible proposal.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Carl Scully said he would do it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The requirement was to do what one can do sensibly and reasonably, with the available money, to improve services.

SCHOOL CLASSROOM AIRCONDITIONING

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Did the Premier tell the Country Labor Conference in Coffs Harbour that all classrooms from Taree to Coffs Harbour would be airconditioned for the start of the school year? If so, as the mean summer temperature for each of the centres is below the temperature in the Government's policy for airconditioning classrooms, is the Premier guilty of pork-barrelling, or just deceiving the people in that region, especially as the airconditioning program has not been completed? Has the Premier told schools in country New South Wales still awaiting airconditioning that he is prepared to ignore the policy for the sake of a few seats that he is trying to win?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What a terrible thing—

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: What's a terrible thing?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: To be accused of pork-barrelling. What a dreadful thing! I can assure the House that it is not something that a Labor government would ever do. However, I would like to point out that what the Carr Government will do is aircondition schools in New South Wales. That is something the previous Coalition Government hardly did at all. In fact, I note that it did not even commence the program. It is the sort of thing that a Labor government does. I must admit that when I was at school there was no airconditioning in classrooms.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: There weren't even schools.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, there were.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: They had the windows open in winter in your classroom.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They did, too. They closed them in yours, did they?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: No. Everywhere else they would have.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In my school the windows were open. If they were not open, they were often broken. An orange, a cricket ball or a football would go through a window, and we would get fresh air all day. We were hardy. It does not get that cold in Sydney. We did not need closed windows, airconditioning or heating. Not only did we not have airconditioning or heating, we did not have a school library, nor did we have a school gymnasium.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I bet you had a chapel.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We didn't, in fact. We used to make our own little chapel in the corner of every classroom in the month of May.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Are you referring to the public education system?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was never educated by the public education system.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I can tell that.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You probably can. It is A-B-C-D-E-F-G-"Haitch"—you can tell by the way I pronounce it—I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P. That is the way you can tell.

FISHERIES RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT COUNCIL

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What role will the Fisheries Resource Conservation and Assessment Council have in improving the management of fisheries in New South Wales?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: New legislation establishes the Fisheries Resource Conservation and Assessment Council, which has a very important role to play. I will inform the House of its exact role. Last year the Carr Government successfully passed new laws which changed the way in which our State's fish resources are managed. The new legislation provides a statutory basis for this Government's commitment to manage our fisheries in a sustainable way. The recent amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 mean management strategies need to be developed for each fishery. Management plans are being prepared for commercial and recreational fisheries, charter boats, fish stocking and shark meshing. Each fishery will also have a comprehensive environmental impact statement. An independent body will help the New South Wales Government to prepare and revise management strategies. It will also review environmental impact statements that are prepared for the strategies.

Today I am pleased to announce the new Fisheries Resource Conservation and Assessment Council, which has already been established. Its members include recreational fishers, commercial fishers, aquaculture industry representatives, scientific expertise, conservation and environmental representatives, indigenous representatives and government representatives from various agencies. The council will work with the New South Wales Government on the revision of each draft strategy. It will also work with the New South Wales Government during another significant change—the creation of recreational fishing areas. These areas will be established as part of the Carr Government's commitment to share our fish resources with the whole community. The recreational fishing fee will be introduced on 23 March and all funds raised will be used for better recreational fishing. The council has a vital role in helping the New South Wales Government manage this State's fisheries in a sustainable way. I look forward to working with this important new group.

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

DEFERRED ANSWERS

The following answers to questions without notice were received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:

ABORIGINAL ART FORGERY

On 16 November 2000 the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice concerning Aboriginal art forgery. The Attorney General provided the following response:

WILDERNESS TOURS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE

On 6 December 2000 the Hon. M. I. Jones asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice concerning wilderness tours for disabled people. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

The booklet "Access for All" provides information on 54 national parks and nature reserves with facilities that are accessible to wheelchair visitors. The booklet indicates the degree of difficulty for the average person in a wheelchair of walking tracks and boardwalks, and of access to visitor centres, camping sites and lookouts. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is not aware of any specific reference to wilderness tours for disabled persons in the booklet.

APPREHENDED VIOLENCE ORDERS

NEW SOUTH WALES GRAINS BOARD LEVY

Under the new arrangements whereby Grainco will act as the sole agent for the board for a period of five years, the $1.50 Authorised Buyer Fee will continue to be collected on behalf of the board, and the fee can only be changed by way of a Government direction. I can assure the honourable member that this matter has been examined by Treasury and I have given an assurance that there will be no change to the $1.50 over the five-year term.

On the matter of where the remainder of the money will come from to cover the board's debts, I can assure the honourable member that no new levies or other arrangements will be imposed on growers to fund the board's debts. There are three sources of funding to meet the board's debts:

FLOOD DAMAGE INSURANCE CLAIMS

CHILDREN MOBILE PHONE USE

On 6 December 2000 the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the health risks to children associated with the use of mobile phones. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

The finding of the Independent Experts Group on mobile phones in relation to children is consistent with the New South Wales Department of Health's position that a precautionary approach should be applied to the use of mobile phones and that landlines should be used in preference to mobile phones when possible.

The question of how this recommendation should be applied to the school setting should be directed to the Minister for Education and Training.

ETHNIC AFFAIRS COMMISSION NAME CHANGE

On 24 November 2000 the Hon. J. M. Samios asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship, a question without notice relating to the Ethnic Affairs Commission name change. The Premier provided the following response:

The Ethnic Affairs Commission has planned a timetable to proclaim the name Community Relations Commission on 12 January 2001. The cost associated with the name is relatively minimal and will be absorbed by the commission.

LEGAL AID FUNDING

On 21 November 2000 the Hon. P. J. Breen asked the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice concerning legal aid funding. The Attorney General provided the following response:

In March this year, the council conducted a survey into the impact of Federal cuts to legal aid funding. At the time, there were limited funds available to conduct matters in Federal jurisdictions. Legal aid was required to apply the eligibility criteria provided for in the Commonwealth-State legal aid agreement which expired in June 2000. The State and Commonwealth governments have entered into a new four-year agreement effective from July 2000 which has enhanced legal aid funding. The agreement guarantees that a prescribed number of grants of assistance for Federal matters will be made in New South Wales. The Legal Aid Commission is substantially expanding its primary dispute resolution facilities in line with Commonwealth guidelines under the Agreement.

On a more general note, it is relevant to note that the Government has introduced or provided funding for many initiatives designed to provide the people of New South Wales with a fair, affordable and accessible legal system. New South Wales is the only State in Australia to provide a Chamber Magistrate service. The service is provided free of charge at 158 Local Courts. Chamber Magistrates provide practical information and assistance to any person contemplating taking action in a Local Court. The Government funds community legal centres and specialist legal centres that provide assistance and representation for people who cannot access other legal services.

Civil actions for amounts under $10,000 can now be commenced in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court. In the Small Claims Division costs are minimal, procedures are simple and quick, technical rules do not apply and the system is designed to make it easy for parties to represent themselves. Filing costs in the Local Court are low—they range between $56 and $140. The successful litigant usually recovers any fees paid from the other party, including filing fees, witness expenses and legal fees. Tribunals such as the Fair Trading Tribunal, Residential Tenancies Tribunal and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal provide simple, quick and cheap methods of resolving disputes for people, including those with limited legal resources and knowledge. A strategic quality team from the Attorney-General’s Department is currently reviewing civil procedure in order to simplify and streamline the civil litigation. The proposed scheme is designed to make the legislation easy to understand and the procedures easy to follow.

BOWEL CANCER IN WOMEN

On 6 December 2000 the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice relating to bowel cancer in women. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

I wish to advise the honourable member that the South Australian Cancer Registry reports that in 1999 deaths in South Australian females from colorectal cancer outnumbered deaths from breast cancer. Data for the year 1999 are not yet available from other Australian cancer registries. In 1998, the latest year for which data are available in New South Wales, cancers of the colon and rectum ranked second as a cause of death in women to cancer of the breast. On average, incidence rates of bowel cancer in Australia have risen by 0.9 per cent per annum in men and fallen by 0.3 per cent per annum in women in recent years.

The New South Wales Health Department is working with the New South Wales Cancer Council and a range of stakeholders to develop a pilot program for screening individuals at average and above average risk of bowel cancer in New South Wales. In its budget 2000 the Federal Government has provided funding of $7.3 million over four years for a pilot program to test the feasibility and acceptability of screening for bowel cancer in the Australian community.

INDIGENOUS FISHERS

On 15 November 2000 the Hon. I. Cohen asked the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice relating to indigenous fishers. The Attorney General provided the following response:

Whilst acknowledging the problems experienced by indigenous fishers in New South Wales, I am advised that New South Wales Fisheries is currently developing an indigenous fishing strategy in an effort to address the unique cultural needs of Aboriginal people in both traditional and commercial fishing. Representatives from the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council, an independent advisory body within my portfolio, will be closely involved in the development of this strategy.

BULAHDELAH OLD-GROWTH FOREST PROTECTION

On 1 December 2000 the Hon. I. Cohen asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, a question without notice relating to Bulahdelah area logging. The Premier provided the following response:

The Government has established in excess of one million hectares of new forest reserves in the north-east since 1995 and has also provided for timber supplementation from private property as part of a package of arrangements for a secure and value adding timber industry. The Minister for Forestry has advised that the Farrell's property has been purchased as part of this Private Property Timber Supplementation Program.

Mr Yeadon has also advised that State Forests is committed to the protection of high conservation value old growth [HCVOG] on private lands purchased and dedicated as State forest. Further, State Forests, in consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, has developed a process to identify HCVOG and ensures its protection during harvesting. In addition, State Forests is applying the terms of the Integrated Forestry Operations Approval [IFOA] to forestry operations on properties purchased under the Private Property Timber Supplementation Program.

Mr Yeadon has advised that as a result of this process and the application of the IFOA conditions, 1,377 hectares, or 25 per cent of the Farrell's property, will be excluded from harvesting. I understand that this 1,377-hectare area includes 225 hectares of candidate old-growth forest and this could increase as additional areas are assessed during harvest planning, survey and field validation processes.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE LAND SALE

On 7 December 2000 the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, a question without notice relating to the Department of Defence land sale. The Premier provided the following response:

In relation to the Department of Defence lands around Sydney Harbour, the Prime Minister last wrote to me on 5 November 1999 acknowledging receipt of my comments on the draft Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill. There has been no subsequent correspondence from the Prime Minister to me on this matter.

Yes, the management of harbour foreshore lands deemed surplus by the Department of Defence is a matter of utmost concern to the New South Wales Government. I have raised this matter with the Prime Minister and have indicated publicly that relevant harbour foreshore land should remain in public ownership. I have called on the Howard Government on numerous occasions to honour the spirit of a commitment made between the Fraser and Wran Governments to hand over tracts of land at Middle Head and Georges Heights at little or no cost to New South Wales. My Government has and will continue to try to ensure that harbour foreshore lands are afforded the highest level of protection.

CHARTER BOAT INDUSTRY

On 14 November 2000 the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Fisheries, a question without notice relating to the charter boat industry. The Minister for Fisheries provided the following response:

The recently released issues paper for the National Competition Policy review of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 clearly explains that a key part of assessing regulatory mechanisms restricting competition is to examine whether they have an overall benefit to the community as a whole. Our State's fisheries resources are common property, owned by the community. Fisheries regulation aims to prevent the resource from being overexploited, which would impact on the long-term viability of many industries that depend on a sustainable fisheries resource, including the charter boat industry.

This Government is committed to ensuring that fish stocks and habitats are sustainably managed. This is outlined in the objects of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. The recent charter boat licensing arrangements have been put in place to identify operators in the industry and to establish arrangements to protect fishery resources. Ensuring that the resource is properly managed for future generations to enjoy will boost tourism and will ensure the industry can have a long and prosperous future.

It is worth noting that the 1997 Standing Committee on State Development report on fisheries management and resource allocation recommended that the activities of charter boat operators be clearly defined by a system of registration and licensing. The Government’s current policies are consistent with the recommendation. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner was a member of that committee and did not dissent from that recommendation.

PRISONER EDUCATION

On 14 November 2000 the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Corrective Services, a question without notice relating to education within the prison system. The Minister for Corrective Services provided the following response:

The department arranged for a review of its Education and Vocational Service provision in 1999. This review was conducted by an independent expert, Professor Andrew Gonczi. Education is an integral part of offender rehabilitation. Over $9 million was spent by the Department of Corrective Services in 1999-2000, which represents almost a 50 per cent increase in spending in this area since 1993-94. The Department of Corrective Services provides literacy and numeracy courses for inmates, through either TAFE or its own education officers. The courses are linked, wherever possible, with vocational training and inmate development programs. Educational programs and services are increased in proportion to any increase in inmate population.

DRIVER FATIGUE TESTING

On 16 November 2000 the Hon. J. S. Tingle asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police, a question concerning driver fatigue testing. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

The Police Service, together with the Roads and Traffic Authority, regularly run public education schemes and advertisements highlighting the effect of fatigue on driving capability. Stop, revive, survive and driver reviver points are particularly highlighted during peak holiday driving periods. Chief Superintendent R. A. Sorrenson, Commander, Traffic Services Branch, has indicated that developments in this technology are continually monitored by the Police Service Traffic Services Branch. The Police Service does not intend to introduce the technology referred to at this time. Before any form of technology is introduced to measure driver fatigue levels, the service would need objective confirmation that such testing is accurate, fair and practical to implement.

ATTACKS ON PLACES OF WORSHIP

On 24 November 2000 Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police, a question concerning attacks on places of worship. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

The New South Wales Police Service takes any attack on a place of worship extremely seriously. The police view acts of violence against a person on the basis of their religion or cultural heritage as completely unacceptable. Advice received from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner indicates that an Intelligence Collection Plan commenced on 10 October 2000 to identify attacks on Jewish owned premises. Additionally, an ongoing initiative entitled Operation Spencerville was formed in early November 2000 to investigate a series of arson attacks in the eastern suburbs. Please be assured that the operation is being given a high priority. I trust you will understand that in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation no further information can be given at this stage.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Mr GRAEME MORGAN

On 7 December 2000 the Hon. P. J. Breen asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police, a question concerning the appointment of Assistant Commissioner Graeme Morgan. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

I am advised that, as with all appointments to commissioned rank within the New South Wales Police Service, a full and comprehensive search is made of all holdings to ensure that the integrity of the applicant is upheld.

REGIONAL FLOODING ASSISTANCE

On 23 November 2000 the Hon. J. S. Tingle asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, a question concerning regional flooding assistance. The Premier provided the following response:

The Government recognised very early that the magnitude of the devastation and the compounding effect of the previous year's difficulties called for measures beyond those immediately available under the Natural Disasters Relief Agreement. This recognition led to early discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and others with a view to quickly commencing work on an assistance package to aid the economic recovery of the affected areas.

The honourable member will be aware of the recent announcements by the New South Wales and the Commonwealth Governments of the range of assistance measures to aid the flood recovery process. The State Government will spend some $200 million to provide relief and support for the many farmers, businesses and families who have been hard hit and the Commonwealth Government has announced that it will spend a similar amount. It is expected that the State will spend $160 million on road repairs and $20 million on repairing damaged railway lines. Strict assistance guidelines for flood-affected families and small businesses will be relaxed.

The State Government will increase concessional loans from $80,000 to $130,000 for flood-affected farms and small businesses and offer an interest-free holiday of two years to new and existing loan recipients if considered appropriate by the Rural Assistance Authority. Natural disaster relief arrangements will be extended to small business indirectly affected by the floods, including harvest contractors.

An amount of $5 million will be spent on grants to local councils to repair damaged public assets and for clean up work in addition to the $5 million already spent on relief work carried out by the Department of Community Services and the State Emergency Service. Both of these agencies traditionally are the points of contact for emergency financial and other forms of assistance in floods and other natural disasters and they have fulfilled this charter admirably on this occasion.

These floods have created special problems as they occurred during the grain harvest time. I welcome the Commonwealth Government's announcement that it will make grants available to help farmers plant another crop. This is a special measure as has been the appointment by the State Government, through the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, of two specialist flood support workers to help farmers, small businesses and communities get better access to the full range of available assistance.

I am confident that the help available from the State and Commonwealth governments will be instrumental in restoring economic confidence in the rural areas that have suffered the severe consequences of these floods and will materially assist those in the work force whose livelihood is linked to the rural economy.

DHARAWAL STATE RECREATION AREA

On 16 November 2000 the Hon. P. J. Breen asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, a question concerning the Dharawal State Recreation Area. The Premier provided the following response:

The Dharawal State Recreation Area [SRA] is already part of the State's comprehensive reserve system. The Minister for the Environment has advised that the Dharawal SRA may become a national park subject to the cessation of mining interests within the SRA. The New South Wales Government is committed to creating a green rim around Sydney. I am advised by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning that the proposed rifle range development is not within the Dharawal SRA.

PERPETRATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

On 23 November 2000 the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice relating to the availability of services to perpetrators of domestic violence. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

It is the policy of the New South Wales Department of Health that health workers have a duty of care to the client, irrespective of whether that person is a perpetrator of domestic violence. Health services will offer necessary and appropriate services to perpetrators of domestic violence in the same way that these services are offered to any member of the community. These services do not, however, include treatment for the perpetration of violence towards partners.

The question concerning the programs for perpetrators of domestic violence should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Corrective Services.

WHOOPING COUGH IMMUNISATION

On 7 December 2000 the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning whooping cough. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

New South Wales is currently experiencing an epidemic year of pertussis infection. Epidemics of pertussis occur every three to four years due to waning immunity—both vaccine-induced and naturally acquired—in the community. The number of cases of pertussis this year parallels the experience of the last epidemic in 1997. The cases this year are occurring predominantly in school-age children from 10 to 14 years and in adults. Currently childhood vaccination rates are high, but the infection is being seen in older children and adults who are no longer protected from infection either by the vaccination that they had as children or previous infection.

The Department of Health convened a pertussis strategy expert committee in September and has since taken a number of steps to increase community awareness of this issue. Doctors and emergency departments in New South Wales have been notified of the current epidemic and advised as to appropriate diagnostic and treatment methods. School principals have also been advised of the current epidemic and fact sheets have been distributed to doctors, schools and maternity units. In addition, parents of new babies are being informed of the current epidemic by means of a sticker attached to the personal health record of every new baby. Public health units routinely follow up notifications of pertussis to ensure that cases and their household contacts receive treatment to stop the transmission of the disease where appropriate.

MULTICULTURAL MARKETING AWARDS

On 21 November 2000 the Hon. Dr P. Wong asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship, a question without notice relating to the Multicultural Marketing Awards and New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission. The Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship provided the following response:

The part-time commissioners of the Ethnic Affairs Commission are not involved in the selection of the judges for the awards and have no involvement in the judging of entrants. The Hon. Dr P. Wong, as a former commissioner, would be aware of the hands-off process which has guaranteed the total integrity of the awards over 10 years. The judging panel for the 1999 awards comprised an eminent academic and three professional experts, namely Mr Alvin Chan, Lecturer, International Business & Asian Studies, School of Marketing, University of Western Sydney, Nepean; Mr Nick Kariotoglou, National Treasurer, Australian Marketing Institute; Mr Edward Charles, Editor AdNews Marketing Magazine; and Mr Glen Haslam, Head of Sponsorship, Community and Ethnic Marketing, ANZ Bank.

Apart from the chair of the commission, all other commissioners are part time and have an involvement in community or multicultural affairs. In 1997 a part-time commissioner worked for a company which had the winning entry and when the presentations were being made she went on the stage to receive the award publicly on behalf of the company she was working for.

In 1999 the overall winner of the award was Pharmacia and Upjohn [P&U] for their Regaine 2% project. The first prize, which included a return air fare to Europe, was presented to Pharmacia and Upjohn. The decision as to who uses that ticket is a matter for the winner and not for the commission. The commission is now aware that Pharmacia & Upjohn decided to present the ticket to the person who worked for the marketing company assisting Pharmacia & Upjohn with their marketing. The person in this case is a part-time commissioner. Therefore, the Ethnic Affairs Commission was not involved in the decision to give a return airfare to Europe to any of its commissioners.

The Government has no knowledge of an investigation into this matter by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. However, following the Hon. Dr P. Wong's question in Parliament, in which he implied knowledge of an ICAC investigation, the chair of the commission wrote to the commissioner of the ICAC offering his co-operation if an investigation is under way.

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR FAIRFIELD SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATION

On 17 November 2000 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship, a question without notice relating to the honourable member for Fairfield sexual assault allegation. The Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship provided the following response:

As the independent and impartial representative of the Legislative Assembly under the Constitution Act 1902 and as a Presiding Officer of the Parliament under the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1997 any inquiry by the Speaker is a matter for the Speaker.

FAIRFIELD POLICE STATION

On 15 November 2000 the Hon. J. M. Samios asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice relating to Fairfield Police Station. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

I am informed by the Commander, Greater Hume Region, that Fairfield Police Station will not be closed or downgraded.

BUILDING INDUSTRY TASK FORCE

On 15 November 2000 the Hon. G. S. Pearce asked the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice concerning the building industry task force. The Attorney General provided the following response:

Sydney Morning Herald

PARLIAMENTARY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROTOCOLS

On 15 November 2000 the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice relating to Presiding Officers protocols. The Attorney General provided the following response:

I do not have a statutory role under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 in relation to the preparation of such protocols.

GUY FAWKES RIVER NATIONAL PARK ANIMAL SLAUGHTER

On 1 December 2000 the Hon. M. I. Jones asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice relating to the Guy Fawkes River National Park feral horse cull. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

POLICE OFFICERS STRESS LEAVE

On 17 November 2000 the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice relating to police officers stress leave. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

To ensure the wellbeing of police, the Police Service has developed a new and comprehensive support program for police which has the support of all relevant stakeholders. As part of the new range of initiatives the service's centrally based rehabilitation section is being devolved to the regions to enable adequate support at local levels to assist officers to return to work after an injury or illness. In addition, recruitment action is under way to employ seven rehabilitation officers.

The Police Service has also introduced a number of initiatives in recent years to assist police in maintaining their fitness levels. For instance, since 1997 the Healthy Lifestyles Branch has increased employee awareness and encouraged improvements in fitness levels. They also provide individual counselling. Since its inception the branch has conducted more than 8,000 workplace health assessments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

On 24 November 2000 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice relating to local government cash deficits and high debt ratios. The Minister for Local Government provided the following response:

WARRINGAH COUNCIL FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT ALLEGATIONS

I am aware that the council was dismissed in 1985 and it is correct that as at the 30 June 2000 the council had an operating deficit of $11 million. In addition to this overexpenditure, the council’s auditor found that the council’s cash reserves are not enough to cover the possible retirement of staff. I have put the council on notice that it must take remedial measures to restore the council’s finances. Already I understand that nearly $7 million of savings have been identified to reduce the council’s accumulated deficit of $12.6 million to $5.744 million. Council has retained the services of PricewaterhouseCoopers in addition to council’s auditors to assist with improved budget formulation and review processes. For the present the Department of Local Government will continue to monitor council’s actions to improve its financial position and address the issues specifically raised by its auditor.

ORGAN DONATION

On 28 November 2000 the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question concerning organ donor licence nomination. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

The New South Wales Government has funded on an annual basis, $500,000 to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service [ARCBS] New South Wales to create and maintain a statewide infrastructure for organ donation. Objectives of the statewide service include improving the co-ordination of organ donation services; educating the public and health professionals about organ donation; and enhancing bereavement support for families or of organ donors. The Government’s support has enabled ARCBS-NSW to create a centrally based co-ordinating structure, previously known as Co-ordination Centre for Organ and Tissue Donation, and a supporting Area Health Service network. This statewide infrastructure is known as Lifelink—Organ Donations Network NSW/ACT. Lifelink has already started to demonstrate significant achievements resulting in an increase of organ donors and public awareness. Achievements include the establishment of a Co-ordinator of Bereavement Services to provide specialised bereavement services for families involved in the organ donation program and a specific bereavement resource booklet for the bereaved population which has been nationally adopted.

Lifelink also provides education programs for health professionals and support and follow up for families involved in the organ donation program. Lifelink’s active media and public education is significantly increasing public awareness of organ donation. Other promotional work by Lifelink include a primary school curricula resource kit, which is being developed and it proposes to develop a high school kit. The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has been a very committed partner to LifeLink’s efforts to maximise and promote organ and tissue donation. RTA during the years has recorded more than 2.9 million, 72 per cent, of New South Wales drivers intentions to donate organs and tissues.

BLOOD DONORS

On 17 November 2000 the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question relating to blood donors. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

Australian Health Ministers agreed to defer, from 21 December 2000, blood donations from donors who lived in the United Kingdom for a cumulative period of six or more months between 1980 and 1996. The Ministers agreed to take this action as a precautionary measure against the possibility of the human equivalent of mad cow disease being transmitted by blood transfusion, no matter how small the risk. A comprehensive strategy has been implemented nationally not only to keep the blood supply as safe as possible but also to ensure supplies are maintained at a sufficient level to meet the needs of health systems. As part of this process and to minimise the impact of deferring donors, new donors were recruited and the average donation rate of individual donors was increased.

AREA HEALTH SERVICES PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS

The current performance agreement for area health boards covers the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001. The preamble to the performance agreement stated that the area health plan was a foundation of the agreement and gave rise to the local targets and accountability items in the agreement. Targets for each area health service were negotiated to reflect local priorities consistent with the area health plans. All performance agreements include a performance measure: Progress strategies and implement milestones consistent with the Area Health Plan. The groups established to implement the New South Wales Health Council report are addressing the updating of area health plans. Following this task, the performance agreements for chief executive officers and area health boards for 2001/02-2002/03 will be negotiated to reflect the priorities of the updated area health plans.

ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGN FOR THE MENTALLY ILL

On 24 November 2000 the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question relating to an anti-smoking campaign for the mentally ill. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

It is well known that smoking rates are high among people with a mental illness. High prevalence rates have been reported for people with depression and anxiety disorders and on average smoking is three times more prevalent among people with schizophrenia, than among the general population. People with a mental illness have been identified as a priority group under the draft New South Wales Tobacco Action Plan 2000-2004 and appropriate strategies will be developed to raise awareness of the harms of smoking and increase the opportunities for cessation support available to this population.

NORTHERN RIVERS AREA HEALTH SERVICE BUDGET

On 21 November 2000 the Hon. I. Cohen asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question relating to the Northern Rivers Area Health Service budget. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

FORMER KU-RING-GAI MAYOR TONY HALL

On 24 November 2000 the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice concerning Ku-ring-gai Council former mayor Tony Hall. The Minister for Local Government provided the following response:

JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTRE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

On 6 December 2000 the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Emergency Services, a question without notice relating to Juvenile Justice Centre volunteer firefighters. The Minister for Emergency Services provided the following response:

BALGOWLAH BOYS HIGH SCHOOL RELOCATION

On 28 November 2000 the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice regarding the Balgowlah Boys High School relocation. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following answer:

Yes. Balgowlah Boys High School's representatives have been advised that in keeping with community wishes the school will remain on its current location.

BLUE MOUNTAINS WORLD HERITAGE LISTING

CIVIL REHABILITATION COMMITTEE JUSTICE SUPPORT ACCOMMODATION SERVICE

On 5 December 2000 the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Corrective Services, a question without notice relating to Civil Rehabilitation Committee Justice Support Accommodation Service. The Minister for Corrective Services provided the following response:

CONSERVATORIUM OF MUSIC REDEVELOPMENT

CORPORAL DISCIPLINE IN SCHOOLS

On 21 November 2000 the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice in regard to corporal discipline in schools. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

The Education Act requires that schools have "official school policies relating to student discipline that do not permit corporal punishment of students attending the school". This requirement has been part of the Education Act since 1996. Should a school submit a discipline policy as part of the registration process that does not preclude the use of corporal punishment as part of the school's discipline policy, that school is not meeting the requirements of the Education Act and the board's registration committee has no choice but to recommend that the school not be registered. If a school is unwilling to meet the requirements of the Education Act, that it has official school policies relating to student discipline that do not permit corporal punishment of students attending the school, the school registration will not be renewed.

DAIRY INDUSTRY DEREGULATION

On 5 December 2000 the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Agriculture, a question without notice relating to dairy industry deregulation. The Minister for Agriculture provided the following response:

Chairman:	Dr Richard Sheldrake (NSW Agriculture)
Members:
The Hon. Richard Bull	Former Parliamentarian
The Hon. Milton Morris AO	Former Parliamentarian
Mr Bob Whan	Chief of Staff, Minister's Office
Mr Winston Watts	NSW Dairy Farmers Association
Mr Terry Outtrim	SafeFood Production NSW, Dairy Division
Mr Jim Booth	Representative from Cabinet Office

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES FUNDING

Dr English has not directly approached me or the New South Wales Government for funding for the School of Environment and Biological Sciences or any similar program. A fundraising company engaged by the Post Graduate Foundation for Veterinary Science at Sydney University has approached National Parks and Wildlife Service to seek financial assistance. The National Parks and Wildlife Service met with the consultant on 18 October 2000 and declined financial support.

GAMBLING TAVERNS

On 6 December 2000 the Hon. J. M. Samios asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, a question without notice relating to gambling taverns. The Minister for Gaming and Racing provided the following response:

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICIES

On 22 November 2000 the Hon. G. S. Pearce asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to government departments and agencies sexual harassment policies. The Minister provided the following response:

The public sector document "Harassment Free Workplace: Policy and Guidelines" issued in July 1996 required public sector agencies to develop and implement policies to achieve harassment free workplaces and to implement strategies for preventing and dealing with harassment.

GRAINCO AUSTRALIA OPERATIONS

On 21 November 2000 the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Agriculture, a question without notice relating to Grainco Australia operations. The Minister for Agriculture provided the following response:

Note: The Grains Board owns approximately 14 sites in New South Wales with the remainder leased under various storage agreements. The board’s administrator is unable to confirm at this point whether owned and leased sites add to a total of 128—they believe it may be slightly less. Once the board’s inventories are sold the sites the board owns will be sold to the highest bidder as part of the process of realising the board’s assets.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

On 29 November 2000 the Hon. I. Cohen asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Energy, a question without notice relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The Minister for Energy provided the following response:

GREY-HEADED FLYING FOXES

On 22 November 2000 the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice relating to the protection of grey-headed flying foxes. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

HOMEFUND CLASS ACTION TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

On 6 December 2000 the Hon. P. J. Breen asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Housing, a question without notice regarding HomeFund class action terms of settlement. The Minister for Housing provided the following response:

NATIONAL PARKS FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE ACCESS

On 23 November 2000 the Hon. I. Cohen asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice in relation to national parks four-wheel drive access. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS REVIEW

On 28 November 2000 Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice relating to the non-government State schools review. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP LEGISLATION

In 1986 the Wran Government enacted the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibition) Act. This legislation prohibits the construction or operation of nuclear waste storage or disposal facilities in this State. The South Australian Government’s recently introduced legislation is similar to that of New South Wales in that it prohibits a nuclear waste storage facility in that State. However, both the South Australian bill and the New South Wales legislation include important exemptions for the disposal of waste material resulting from medical and research purposes. Without these exemptions, essential life-saving medical research could not be carried out by hospitals and research institutions. As the member would be aware, the final decision on the siting of a nuclear waste storage facility is ultimately one for the Commonwealth Government.

POKER MACHINE ADMINISTRATION

POKER MACHINE GAMBLING

On 22 November 2000 Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, a question without notice in relation to poker machine gambling. The Minister for Gaming and Racing provided the following response:

)

RECREATIONAL DUCK SHOOTING

On 29 November 2000 the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding recreational duck shooting. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

www.npws.nsw.gov.au

SKIN-ONLY KANGAROO SHOOTING

SPECIAL SCHOOLS STAFFING RATIOS

A review of the current staffing formulae for schools for specific purposes and special classes in regular schools has been finalised by Mr George Comino. It is currently being discussed with union, principals' associations and parent groups. The initial response has been very positive.

WOODLAWN MINEWORKERS ENTITLEMENTS

WESTERN DIVISION REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY ETHNIC NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING

Chinese Herald

ROAD TUNNEL AIR FILTRATION

On 14 November 2000 the Hon. P. J. Breen asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Minister for Roads, a question without notice regarding road tunnel air filtration. The Minister for Roads provided the following response:

Any cost estimates that have been provided for filtration associated with emissions from road tunnels has been based on the report by the Flagstaff Consulting Group, a copy of which has been provided to the honourable member.

TRAMPOLINE SAFETY

On 15 November 2000 the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Sport and Recreation, a question without notice relating to trampoline safety. The Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Sport and Recreation provided the following response:

SPEED CAMERA INSTALLATIONS

On 15 November 2000 the Hon. M. I. Jones asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Roads a question without notice relating to speed camera installation. The Minister for Roads provided the following response:

INGLEBURN RAILWAY STATION ACCESS

On 16 November 2000 the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport a question without notice regarding Ingleburn railway station access. The Minister for Transport provided the following response:

I am not aware of the difficulties referred to and I am advised by State Rail that there is no proposal to install lifts at Ingleburn railway station.

RUSHCUTTERS BAY OLYMPIC SAILING MARINA

On 22 November 2000 the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, a question without notice regarding the Rushcutters Bay Olympic sailing marina. The Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads provided the following response:

This matter falls within the portfolio responsibilities of my colleague the Minister for the Olympics, the Hon. Michael Knight, and as such this question should be directed to him.

FAIR TRADING TRIBUNAL LEGAL COSTS DISPUTE RESOLUTION

On 23 November 2000 the Hon. P. J. Breen asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Fair Trading without notice relating to Fair Trading Tribunal legal costs dispute resolution. The Minister for Fair Trading provided the following response:

REGIONAL AIR SERVICES

On 28 November 2000 the Hon. J. S. Tingle asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice regarding regional air services. The Minister for Local Government provided the following response:

I am concerned about the issues raised by the honourable member in his question. It is not satisfactory for regional areas to have to suffer a downgrading of service levels. Most of the matters raised by the honourable member relate to commercial matters relating to aircraft breakdowns and delays. I would say this that country people must be guaranteed access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and must not be treated as second-class citizens. It is an issue of equity. Country people should not have to seek alternative travel arrangements.

FEDERAL ROADS FUNDING

On 30 November 2000 the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Roads a question without notice in relation to national road funding. The Minister for Roads provided the following response:

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS TRAVEL CONCESSIONS

On 30 November 2000 the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport a question without notice relating to international students travel concessions. The Minister for Transport provided the following response:

WARRINGAH COUNCIL GENERAL MANAGER SALARY PACKAGE

On 30 November 2000 Ms Lee Rhiannon asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice relating to the Warringah Council general manager's salary package. The Minister for Local Government provided the following response:

OYSTER INDUSTRY WATERWAYS SURVEYS

On 1 December 2000 the Hon. D. T. Harwin asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries a question without notice relating to oyster industry waterways surveys. The Minister provided the following response:

No, the Government is not withdrawing funding for the officer.

TAXI E TAGS

On 5 December 2000 the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport a question without notice relating to taxi tags. The Minister for Transport provided the following response:

HOMEBUSH BAY WASTE DISPOSAL

BELLINGER AND KALANG RIVERS PLEASURE CRAFT RESTRICTIONS

On 7 December 2000 the Hon. I. Cohen asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, a question without notice relating to Bellinger and Kalang rivers pleasure craft restrictions. The Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads provided the following response:

ANZAC PARADE LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR

CANADA BAY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION

On 7 December 2000 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice relating to the Canada Bay local government election. The Minister for Local Government provided the following response:

Questions without notice concluded.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (FIREARMS AND OTHER OFFENSIVE WEAPONS OR INSTRUMENTS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.01 p.m.]: Before the debate was interrupted for question time I was replying to various statements made in this debate by speakers for and against the bill, and I was, in particular, commenting on the claims made by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald of Country Labor. I feel he was desperately looking for things to criticise, and, in doing that, was getting pretty wildly astray. He fell for the nonsense put about by some other speakers—namely, that this bill would introduce mandatory sentencing. It would not. What the bill requires is that when a person has committed a crime, while in possession of a weapon or instrument, and has been charged with both the crime and the possession, then the court must impose two separate sentences, to be served consecutively. But the bill does not, in any place, set out what the length of either of those sentences should be. On the contrary, it leaves it entirely up to the judge to decide. His discretion is untouched and entire. If he felt that the overall sentence, considering the gravity of the crime, should be say 10 years then it would be entirely within his authority to sentence the convicted person to two sentences of five years each—and in case that is beyond the mathematical capacity of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, that would mean the person would serve a total of 10 years—QED.

Moving on, I doubt that anybody in this Chamber was surprised that the two Greens were opposed to this bill. However, the Hon. I. Cohen at least sought to justify some of his criticisms. He worried about prisons being overcrowded and he said that one fault of the bill was that it did not seek to deal with "causes" of crime. No, it does not. It seeks to go beyond cause, to set up a deterrent which will stop much crime from happening, and therefore make "cause" irrelevant. The Hon. I. Cohen attempted to justify "cause" in some people by claiming that people who were abused in childhood might be more likely to commit violent crime, and that is a popularly held theory, which I do not attempt to dispute. But that is not what this bill is about. It is about setting up a barrier—an impediment—between the intending criminal and his crime. It is about preventing crime and, to put it in the context suggested by the Hon. I. Cohen, possibly stopping young people who were abused as children from committing crime.

The Hon. Lee Rhiannon is another case altogether. As usual, she attacked the messenger, turning her criticism of this bill into a personal sneer at me, which, of course, in the minds of reasonable people, simply lessened the impact of her whole contribution—if "contribution" it can be called. She suggested that I am doing this because I have an eye on the next election. She obviously does not know or does not care that this bill has been in the pipeline since the previous Parliament—but that is typical of the shrill level of her debate in this place. Several times she mentioned "young people" and the effect this bill could have on them if it becomes law. This is a mantra for this member. She speaks of young people involved in crime with sympathy and indulgence, as though we should have in place special laws to be applied to "young" people when they commit crimes. Might I suggest that perhaps, when she tries to derogate this bill largely on the basis of its possible effect on young people, she might have her eye on the next election, since her version of the Greens movement relies very heavily on idealistic young people really believing that they are out to save the world for later generations.

The Hon. Lee Rhiannon also suggests that present laws are tough enough to deal with the problem this bill addresses. Both examples she quoted deal with an entirely different type and level of crime and refer specifically to the "discharge of a weapon", where this bill seeks to avoid that happening by discouraging people from having weapons with them at all while committing crime. She attempted to refute the statistics I had quoted by quoting some of her own and suggesting that numbers of crime are what we should worry about. I disagree entirely with that argument. When we have a schoolboy shot at a railway station because of a youthful feud, when we have a woman shot in a quiet street on her way home from town so her handbag can be stolen, when we have a factory owner shot so cigarettes can be stolen, when we have a service station attendant shot and killed so his meagre takings can be stolen we are talking about a new and vicious willingness to use weapons violently in crime. We are then talking about the severity of crime, not its numerical incidence. However, we can dismiss the ramblings of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon as largely missing the point of this bill and of this debate.

I am grateful for the support for the bill expressed by the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, who recognised the need for protective legislation when the community is in danger. I am grateful for the support of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, who recognised that the driving purpose of this bill is to create a climate where people will think twice about carrying a weapon when they set out to commit a crime. I am grateful for the support of the Hon. J. M. Samios, who, with his legal background, recognised the need for legislation to be proactive about law and order, and who effectively dismissed the curious response to this bill from the New South Wales Bar Council. I am grateful for the support of the Hon. D. E. Oldfield, who made a number of very important points, including the basic fact that a great many criminals have absolutely no respect for the life or the safety of their victims and that deterrence is better than punishment, and, in particular, refuted the argument of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. Lee Rhiannon that existing laws are adequate. He pointed out what all those people must surely know: the theoretical laws might be enough, but they are not being used.

I am grateful for the contribution and support of the Hon. M. I. Jones, who stressed the need for preventive legislation and asserted that when a criminal, especially the younger criminals, go out to commit a crime, even as an accomplice, they must be prepared to accept the consequences not just of their own crime but that of their partners in crime. That in itself should set aside the curious claim that this bill, in law, would result in huge sentences, as suggested by speakers opposing it. I accept that this bill might well be defeated. I honestly believe it reflects community anxieties and community wishes in regard to more effective and more preventive law and order. However the Government has chosen to oppose it—the same Government that introduced one of the most draconian, misguided and misdirected law and order bills this State has ever seen—the knife bill—which can punish a farmer, for instance, for forgetting he has his pouch knife on his belt when he goes to town.

That bill allows, as I said earlier, random searches of non-offending people at any time. It is much wider, more drastic and more punitive than this bill would be. If this bill is defeated—and I expect it might be—let this Government explain to a worried community why it brings in a law to try to deter one type of crime and rejects a law which extends similar principles to a much more serious and widespread type of crime. Let the community then judge how serious this Government really is about law and order. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 17

Mr Colless
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Lynn
Mrs Nile
Rev. Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan
Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Tellers
Mr Jobling
Mr Moppett

Noes, 22

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

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

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Mr Wong

Tellers
Ms Fazio
Mr Primrose

Pair

Mrs Forsythe

Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELSTRA POLICIES

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.15 p.m.]: I move:

This is a wonderfully apposite time to deal with this motion. This country has just delivered a wake-up call to the Federal Government, the biggest warning in its history. In essence, the policies of the Federal Government have led to the downfall of the entrenched conservative government, led by Premier Court, in Western Australia and to the absolute stunning return of Peter Beattie as Premier of Queensland. Throughout the dynamics of both recent State elections, the key issue was undoubtedly the performance of the Federal Government. The Australian Labor Party could have no greater electoral prospects and machine than the Federal Liberal Party and its poor little cohort group, the National Party. The National Party held the unedifying little Corowa think tank not long after the election result in Queensland. That poor little think tank in Corowa was a think that had no tank. They tried to work out what was the trouble with the party.

Nowhere in the policy forums of the National Party has it finally come out and put an end to the policy of the sell-off of the Telstra assets. It knows the evidence presented to it by a number of committees and experts that the sell-off of Telstra will be detrimental to regional communities. The National Party does not condemn it or oppose it strenuously. For instance, last year the Leader of the National Party in the other place, Mr George Souris, commented on a similar motion designed to stall the issue so he did not have to say to the people of New South Wales that there should be no sell-off of Telstra. This is a vital issue for the people of regional and rural New South Wales. Their communications systems are becoming the absolute life blood for modern farming techniques across this country. The communications system is as vital as many other crucial aspects of farming and cannot be trifled with. It is not an entity that can be changed dramatically and the Federal Government should think carefully about the privatisation of that entity.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about FreightCorp?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. D. F. Moppett has just yelled out, "What about FreightCorp?" Even the Hon. I. Cohen is a stringent critic of the sale of FreightCorp. He knows very well that the Federal Government is running the agenda in relation to privatisation. The decision to privatise national rail would then threaten the very existence of FreightCorp, particularly as 72 per cent of its contracts come from the coal industry in the Hunter Valley and thereabouts. So let us not raise the issue of FreightCorp. It is the Federal Government that proposes the sale of national rail. It started the process and is pushing the process through.

I am hopeful that in the course of this debate National Party members finally will throw off their nappies, throw away their chains and come out and say that they oppose the sale of Telstra. I can see on their faces that they are interested, and I can see that they have large and, they hope, effective speeches. I am sure they will get up and say that George Souris, the Leader of the National Party in the other Chamber, was wrong. I am sure they will say, "George was wrong. We should have opposed it last year. In fact, we are going to oppose it today and join with the Labor Party and send a message to the Federal Government that privatisation is not on, that it is detrimental to regional communities and should not be pursued."

We saw the crude attempt last year by the Howard Government to clear the decks for privatisation with the Besley inquiry. National Party members are scurrying from the Chamber—all three of them, led by the Hon. Duncan Gay. I am quite sure the Hon. Duncan Gay is scurrying his colleagues into a corner to get them to effectively challenge George Souris's position and convince them that privatisation is not a good thing. I am sure they are out there banging their heads together, pooling their grey matter so that at least they have a combined intelligence of about 150, and that they will then make the decision to come out in this debate and oppose the privatisation of Telstra. I look forward to that. I hope their meeting out there is a successful one and that the Hon. Duncan Gay finally will impart a little bit of credibility to the National Party, this little modern offshoot of the Liberal Party—because that is all it is; it is dominated by the North Shore and Vaucluse. I hope that the National Party finally, in this debate, will tell the people of New South Wales that they are opposed to the privatisation of Telstra. [Quorum formed.]

I note that not one National Party member has re-entered the Chamber. They must be on strike with regard to this particular debate. I think that is a shame. The Hon. Duncan Gay is back! Maybe they have got a decision! Honourable members will recall that the Federal Government put Mr Tim Besley in charge of the inquiry into regional telecommunication services. This was a put-up job to start with: Mr Besley was a well-known supporter of privatisation. He even described the banks as providing a good model for delivery of regional services. But even he did not give the Government the go-ahead on privatisation. He found that service levels to country areas were not adequate. Following that report were reports in the Australian Financial Review and other media on 14 February 2001 that make it clear that there was among the Liberal Party at a national level significant support for the privatisation of Telstra. In fact, Senator Alston made that clear in the report in the Australian Financial Review:

He went on to say:

So as late as 14 February Minister Alston is making it clear that his objective is the full privatisation of Telstra. He made that clear in his response to the report of Mr Besley. Furthermore, around the time of the Besley inquiry we saw the latest Telstra memo, which should send shudders down the spine of the National Party. The memo was from Telstra Director of Regulatory Affairs. It said, in part:

That appalling statement was made by one of the senior figures within Telstra. It should make everyone in the National Party very concerned about the proposed privatisation of 50.1 per cent of Telstra for around $45 billion. If this is the attitude of Telstra management when the carrier is in half public ownership, it is obvious it will have no commitment to services in regional areas under full private ownership. The leaked memo also puts the Besley report into proper perspective. At one point the memo states:

The Besley inquiry has been pretty well acknowledged by everyone concerned with communications and politics at a Federal level as a farce. It was set up to clear the decks for privatisation. But the case against privatisation was so strong that even the Besley inquiry could not go that far. As I said earlier, Senator Alston's response to the report was to set up an action plan that would fix service deficiencies identified in the report. Six months down the track the action plan has not worked. I refer now to Telstra's poor service, particularly in the bush. The Australian Communication Authority's [ACA] performance monitoring bulletin, which was published last December, shows that Telstra's woeful performance in service standards continues. It states:

One in seven customers, that is, 16 per cent, in major rural areas without infrastructures are also not having new services connected in time. The problem is worse in New South Wales and the ACT, at 20 per cent, Victoria 17 per cent, Western Australia 23 per cent and the Northern Territory 17 per cent. Further, one in seven customers, that is 14 per cent, in remote areas are not having faults repaired in time. The problems are worse in Western Australia where it is up to 23 per cent.

The latest election revealed the way in which rural people have treated members of the Liberal Party in particular. They are very angry. Furthermore, the report states:

The Government should not take any comfort from these figures to justify its continued obsession with the full privatisation of Telstra.

These figures, in effect, reinforce the finding of the Government's own Besley inquiry that Telstra service levels are not adequate, particularly in rural and remote Australia. So the evidence that is presented before the ACA and also the Besley inquiry show that there is much dissatisfaction with Telstra's rural service network. I refer again to the reports with which I was dealing earlier. On 13 October 2000 the conclusion which was quoted in a report in the Sydney Morning Herald was as follows:

Affordable Internet access, mobile phone coverage and fault repair and installation times emerged as the three trouble spots in Telstra's service to the bush.

That is quite clear-cut. No-one in this Chamber—not even members of the National Party, who must be somewhat concerned about this issue—would dispute the overall findings in this report. I could go on at length to show that these reports reveal grave inadequacies in Telstra's performance in rural and regional New South Wales and nationally. One of the National Party Senate leaders, Ron Boswell, said that the report "puts the sale of Telstra off for some time".

[Interruption]

He said that it "puts the sale of Telstra off for some time", but he did not say that it puts the sale of Telstra off the agenda for good. That fits in with Senator Alston's strategy to have these reports in place and the privatisation issue fired up and ready to go. A couple of months back Senator Boswell would have been more comfortable with the prospect of winning the next election. Fortunately, the people of Queensland and Western Australia have shown that that prospect is not very likely. Senator Boswell also stated:

This has determined that services are not adequate out there, therefore it also determines that the Government can't go ahead with the sale of Telstra until those services are up to the mark.

Everything has to be perfect before it is sold.

The Leader of the National Party in the Senate made that statement.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What are you going to do with the electricity assets in New South Wales?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Government put paid to that issue some time ago. The Hon D. F. Moppett quite clearly knows that certain honourable members courageously put that off. However, the Leader of the National Party in the Senate made it clear that the Government has to get right all these things in rural and regional New South Wales before it sells Telstra. The upshot of that is that the Government still wants to sell Telstra. In fact, people in rural and regional New South Wales are opposed to the sale of Telstra. Even the Hon. D. E. Oldfield, a member of One Nation, agrees with that. He is stirring up opposition against members of the National Party over these issues, but they have not yet seen the light and they are losing seat after seat at every election. A few years ago, when I visited Queensland, the National Party held at least 30 or 40 seats and the Liberals held two or three. The National Party is now down to about eight seats.

The Hon. G. S. Pearce: Where?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: In Queensland.

The Hon. G. S. Pearce: Rubbish!

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: What is it?

The Hon. G. S. Pearce: It is 10 or 11.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: In a Parliament comprising 89 members, the once so-called great National Party has only 10 or 11 members.

[Interruption]

Let's face it, if it has only 10 members it does not even have a cricket team. I think it is appalling that the Leader of the National Party in the Senate left the door open in relation to Telstra. It demonstrates once again why the National Party is losing seats right across this nation. Members of the National Party do not have the guts to stand up to economic rationalists such as the Leader of the Opposition and his kind from the upper north shore. Members of the Liberal Party are pushing members of the National Party into the sale of this necessary major asset that is of great benefit to regional New South Wales. I refer now to Telstra's network design and construction, job cuts and privatisation. As I said earlier, job cuts have continued with the Government's recent plans to sell off a large slice of Telstra.

In November last year the wholly owned subsidiary of Telstra, that is, Network Design and Construction Ltd [NDC] cut 400 jobs. Three hundred and fifteen of those jobs were in regional areas. In addition, despite Senator Harradine's efforts a few years ago to get the sale of Telstra through the Senate, 30 jobs were cut last month in Tasmania. One-tenth of the NDC work force will have lost their jobs in the last few months. In addition, Telstra has cut NDC's contracts by 40 per cent. This has all been caused by the NDC being prepared for privatisation. This is privatisation by stealth—privatisation that is largely hidden away from the public. It is certainly hidden to some degree. I refer now to Telstra's profitability.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: What is the Labor Party going to do with Telstra?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Kim Beazley, the Federal Leader of the Opposition and Australia's next Prime Minister, has made it clear that there will not be a sell-off of the remaining 50.1 per cent of Telstra. I refer now to Telstra's profitability. The other travesty of the privatisation so far has been the loss of dividend revenue to the Federal Government. Telstra posted a record $4 billion profit last year. That is one-eighth of the $30 billion that the Federal Government received from privatisation. If we stack that against the $2.3 billion set aside from the proceeds of the sale to the environment and regional services, the privatisation makes even less sense. The profit from one year's operation could have funded these programs.

The interest saved from the retirement of government debt will not match the dividends foregone. I will discuss the complete sham of the National Heritage Trust later—the body to which a lot of this money allegedly went. One thing about the National Heritage Trust that must not be overlooked is that the profit from one year could have paid for the Government's pork-barrelling. At the same time as the record profit was unveiled there was the disgusting spectacle of management announcing a cut in job numbers by 10,000. That sums up where the Federal Government has taken Telstra. On the same day as it announced record profits it cuts thousands of jobs. Members of the National Party are running for cover again.

[Interruption]

I do not need an army in this Chamber to listen to say what I have to say. I know that the Federal Labor Party will waltz into office at the end of the year with a big majority. One of the arguments advanced by the supporters of privatisation is that public ownership will stymie Telstra's ability to capture new markets overseas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Telstra already has extensive investments in the Asia-Pacific region. This week we have already seen the move by Telstra into the highly competitive United States market. [Quorum formed. ]

A report in the Australian Financial Review states that Telstra expected to generate $200 million in revenue in the United States next year. The report also talks about Telstra's successful Asian joint ventures being used as evidence of the carrier's regional status. Any talk of Telstra being stymied in the public ownership is not borne out by the company's current successes in regional markets, and it has had some great markets in Asia, where it has achieved very good profits.

One of the most shameful episodes in the Telstra privatisation debacle has been the blatant political interference and use of the National Heritage Trust. The trust was funded from the proceeds of privatisation. The first five years the fund had an average outlay of $140 million. To reach the total figure of $1.5 billion, $400 million must be spent in the two years to June 2001 and June 2002. This means that the bulk of funds will be available for spending in an election year. The greatest scandal, though, has been the blatant use of taxpayer funds for political advertising. In July 1998, a month before the Federal election, the Government rang up $4.5 million worth of National Heritage Trust advertising. The spending included market research by the notorious liberal pollster, Mark Textor. We have all seen the taxpayer-funded advertisements for the fund.

As I have said, throughout the whole Telstra privatisation debate we have seen a complete lack of clout by the National Party. The agrarian socialists, as they call themselves occasionally, have thrown their lot in with the New Right, and their constituents hate them for it. The National's Queensland debacle was caused by a range of factors, but one key was the privatisation of Telstra. The National's constituents know that privatisation has led to service cuts in the bush, and they are waiting to punish the Nationals for voting for privatisation, and we cannot wait. This stupidity is not confined to the Nationals in Federal Parliament either. When this issue was debated, I said of George Souris:

That is the National Party's position. It is good that three of the National Party members have come back to the Chamber because I am sure all of us here would like to hear the words of the National Party’s contribution to this debate. I would like to hear what they are going to do about Telstra. Are they going to finally say to their Federal leader, Senator Boswell, that it is not good enough to fix a few things up, that they are not going to wear a sale or privatisation? Will they go to the Federal election this year advocating a policy of not selling Telstra? As I have said, the privatisation of Telstra is an issue that should be put right off the agenda by all sane and sensible political parties. For once the National Party should listen to its constituency; it should listen to what people are saying in the bush. They do not want the sale of Telstra, just as they do not want higher petrol prices. [Time expired.]

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.45 p.m.]: It has been three months since we have heard from the Government on legislation or, indeed, heard a motion in this House. This is the first presentation from any Government member in any government-initiated debate in this Chamber since December last year. The interesting point the Hon. I. M. Macdonald made in this debate was when he said, "Let's not talk about FreightCorp." He was saying let us not talk about what is occurring in New South Wales. One would have expected that with the spiralling debt and the decline in workers compensation the Minister would have been talking about his proposals and plans for reform of workers compensation. What have we heard? Absolutely nothing. They trot this fellow out for a gabfest, to speak for as long as he possibly can, and members of his party were so bored with his presentation that they left the Chamber. They are simply not interested in what is happening in New South Wales.

Last week we held a public meeting in the regional centre of Woy Woy. The Hon. Jim Lloyd, the honourable member for Robertson, and I attended a public meeting about absolutely any issue in the marginal seat of Robertson. Within about 150 metres of the office of the honourable member for Peats, 130 people turned up, and we had about 2� hours of non-stop questioning from that audience. From memory, not one question was asked about what is occurring in Telstra. Up to 90 per cent of the meeting was taken up with law and order.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: And health.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: And health. That took up some of the questions that were asked. What do we hear today from this Government in its own bailiwick? Absolutely nothing. A public meeting was convened in the marginal seat of Robertson, a seat that is very near and dear to the hearts of some members of this Chamber. The future representation of that area is well served by Jim Lloyd, who is prepared to go into his electorate and actually confront the issues. He says, "Bring them to me in a public forum, not in an office where I can skulk around." He is prepared to stand up in front of the people of Robertson and answer their questions.

He wanted to talk about things like the GST, what is happening with pensions and Telstra, but the people wanted to talk about the neglect of the State by this State Government on issues like health and law and order. The honourable member did not mention anything about Stockton, that lovely little suburb outside the main hub of Newcastle, where last week I doorknocked the businesses in that area. I wanted to talk to the small business operators about any issue, but all they wanted to talk about was the closure of their police station and relocation of their police, originally to Mayfield, but now they have been moved all the way to Wallsend. It is so bad in Stockton that police are issued with a street directory and a cut lunch if they are fortunate enough to get to Stockton in the course of their day.

When I visited businesses in the main street of Stockton at 8 o'clock in the morning people did not want to talk about Telstra. They wanted to talk about what was happening in New South Wales. The Government has continued to ignore its responsibility to provide services. This afternoon we listened to the bleating of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, who wants to forget the Federal Labor Government's neglect of Telstra and the people of Australia. Government members want to wash over that myth.

Government members are prepared to talk about how they see the state of the world while it is in the hands of someone else, but they do not want to talk about their responsibilities, either at the State level or, indeed, when Labor was in charge of the Federal coffers. They want everyone to forget about their responsibilities. The New South Wales Opposition must ensure that it keeps sheeting back to the Government that—surprise, surprise—we are not standing in Canberra but are debating issues relating to the people of New South Wales, for whom this Government is responsible and whom it is trying to avoid by neglecting issues such as law and order.

A few minutes ago the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked about Telstra. If he had been listening he would have heard me say that we had a meeting in the Federal seat of Robinson to talk about Telstra and other Federal issues. Although the meeting was organised by the Federal member, the only thing the 130 to 150 people present wanted to talk about was this Government's neglect of services, especially in the law and order area. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald referred to the Government's concern about regional issues. However, he did not mention what is occurring in Newcastle. The Treasurer, like his colleagues, was more than happy to get his melon to Newcastle about a week ago to get his picture taken as being a big supporter of the reopening of BHP steelworks.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: If it ever happens.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Government members are happy to talk about that, if it ever happens. Honourable members wanted to hear some interesting points today. We thought we would hear something interesting from the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, but he did not say one word about regional issues, for which the Government is responsible. Government members want to muddy the waters and create the view that things are occurring.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is so important that no Government members were here.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Government members were not here because they are not interested. Thank goodness the Telstra lines were working in the past 24 hours when the police officer was shot at through the window of the Raymond Terrace police station; he was able to pick up the telephone and call for help. Fortunately the phones were working. However, Government members do not want to talk about the fact that a police officer was shot at through the front window of the Raymond Terrace police station.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is a State issue.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: That is exactly the point. The last time I looked the decline in law and order in our community was a State issue, but Government members continue to ignore that. The list goes on. We heard what the Government will do with FreightCorp. Government members are happy to talk about selling FreightCorp, but they will not talk about the Government's continual neglect of those who live on the Maitland-Dungog line by providing an unsafe rail service. Just before Christmas a young fellow fell from a carriage and was killed because the train doors did not automatically close. The Government continues to ignore the people of Maitland and Dungog. Government members do not want us to scrutinise their responsibilities for State issues because they are simply not interested in regional and country New South Wales.

Government members are not interested in the facts relating to Telstra. Telstra provided investment of $5.7 billion over four years to 30 June 2000 in non-metropolitan communication plant, that is, 49.7 per cent of total plant equipment investment in this country was provided through Telstra. However, Government members do not want to talk about that. They do not want to talk about a leaked document received in the Senate in 1994 which showed the Federal Labor Government's extensive neglect particularly of the people of southern and western New South Wales. In 1994 a leaked Telstra document showed that the service levels of western and southern New South Wales indicated significant negative impacts for the people in those areas. However, members opposite do not want to talk about the Federal Labor Government's neglect of its responsibilities.

Members opposite do not want to talk about the Government's neglect and its lack of programs and reform for the people of this State. We have been told that private members' business will be dealt with this week and next week. The Government has absolutely no legislative reforms and no idea how to correct the problems that confront the people of New South Wales. The figures speak for themselves. Under the Federal Coalition Government $25 million has been provided over three years for continuous mobile phone upgrades along designated major highways and $45 million to support local government authorities to improve access to local government services online for their communities. More than $120 million has been provided in a five-year television fund to extend SBS programs and enable improved television reception in regional areas.

The Federal Government is committed to ensuring that the people of regional and country New South Wales do not suffer as a result of the ongoing reform of Telstra. In fact, the people of regional and country New South Wales have been the net beneficiaries of many reforms that have already taken place. In 1999-2000, $727 million was spent on upgrading the customer access network, and about 1,250 rural exchanges have been upgraded. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald continues to ignore the substantial investment in capital for regional and country New South Wales, which shows the Federal Government's commitment to ensuring the people in regional and country New South Wales have a state-of-the-art telecommunications system.

A large amount of money has been poured into the Telstra Big Pond satellite service to provide faster Internet connection and better computer access for people in the bush. The list goes on. However, the State Government is committed to nothing more than diversionary tactics to draw people's attention away from its neglect, in the same way that Paul Keating used diversionary tactics each time something started to heat up because of his neglect.

Honourable members might be interested to see a list of all the crimes that have occurred in the Kincumber area recently. I remind honourable members that after the 1995 State election the Government promised to open a police station at Kincumber and to put in place a fully operational police service for the people of that great area of the Central Coast. However, what they got was a police officer permanently on light duties who was incapable of leaving the police station. He was not even provided with a car, a gun or handcuffs. Thank goodness he had a telephone on the desk and a line provided by Telstra that enabled him to make calls when people complained about events or were the victims of crime. Of course, the promise of a police station at Kincumber has gone by the wayside, and that police officer has left.

One need look only at the extent of crime that is occurring in Kincumber: break and enter, malicious damage and stealing. The number of people who reported these crimes is surprising. In fact, they would have used the Telstra service in the area, which has been upgraded to meet the demand brought about by the Government's neglect of crime and law and order that has necessitated many people having to use phones and the customer service line. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, after a three-month holiday, to waste the time of the House when it is obvious that the Government has absolutely no plans for legislative reform for the first part of this year. It was evident from the honourable member's speech—he was the first Government member to lead in this debate—that the Government has absolutely no program to put forward.

The neglectful way the Government is treating the people of this State is also evident. One has only to consider the fact that in the last hour, as I am told by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Coalition, we have had two quorum calls, which is unprecedented. That should simply not occur. This is the lacklustre, apathetic approach of the Government. It is evident that since the Government has been on holidays for the last three months it is simply not interested. The Government has no program, it is not interested, and it will fall upon members of the Coalition, with the support of crossbench members, to hold the Government accountable over the next two years in the lead-up to the next State election.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.00 p.m.]: I wish to ridicule this motion. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government, and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald in particular, wastes the time of this House with condemnatory motions with regard to the Federal Government, which are in no way the bailiwick of this House. This House has no power to influence such matters. We are simply blowing off hot air—and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald knows it. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald has a right to put his motion before this House, as all honourable members do. But that does not mean that he should ask this House to debate matters that are beyond the bailiwick of this House. The issues that this House tries to deal with—the new ideas that come from the crossbenches because the major parties are not game to discuss them—will generally be negative and be a few years behind the game, but at least ideas get a bit of a run in this House and private members are able to discuss matters that are of interest to New South Wales and fall within the scope of action of this Parliament.

This motion is simply a bit of political point scoring by political hacks. In fact, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald's party was so bored by this nonsense that its members did not even come into the House and it was necessary to call a quorum. Every member in this House was as disinterested in it as the members of his party. In a sense, if one wants to have a conspiracy theory, it is perhaps the Labor Party wanting to waste the House's time, not wanting to hear any new ideas, and not wanting the upper House to be relevant, so that the Labor Party can be abolished. The Labor Party's agenda is to waste the House's time and to keep the power in this State out of this House, out of the Parliament, and in the Government committees. Those committees do not produce their reports until they have gone to the media, as happened with the report on the environment. The Government did not get the report to its opponents; it gave it to selective media outlets. And we could not get a copy of the report for three or four days, so it was rendered irrelevant. It is all about the power of the Government subverting the political process.

The Government is now talking about defunding welfare advocacy groups because they have been effective advocates for the Government's constituents. This motion is all about taking power from the people and putting it in the Government. It is about emasculating the Parliament and wasting time. The Government would sell FreightCorp if it could, and yet it criticises the Federal Government for selling Telstra. It is a hypocrisy. The motion is absolutely ridiculous. I will support the amendment of the Opposition, which provides that we should at least deal with matters of State importance in this House. That is absolutely commonsense.

Now that the motion has been moved we can have a swipe at it because the level of debate on Telstra has been appalling. The Federal Government wants to treat it as a pork barrel, flog it off, and then deal with the money. But the question must be asked: How do you provide services in the bush? If one is to be realistic and honest about this, one must face the fact that these services in the bush will not be profitable. If one company in a competitive market is to be forced to do all the services that are uneconomic, this will effectively advantage its competitors. It is disappointing that nowhere in the rant delivered by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald was there any sort of grip of this problem. If the Hon. I. M. Macdonald is criticising the Federal Government for lack of leadership, where are his ideas? They are nowhere to be found.

We can read about the fact that people are not very happy with the services in the bush. My researchers do their work assiduously, however silly the motion that is put up. I could quote an article in the Australian Financial Review of 13 October entitled "Dial A for anger as bush yearns for decent service", or I could quote an article in the Australian Financial Review of 14 February entitled "All or nothing—Alston puts the 'for sale' sign on Telstra", which again indicates that the Minister is talking about selling Telstra. The report of the Australian Communications Authority on Telstra's performance, which was published in December, basically said that Telstra was improving in relation to its benchmarks but was still not up to scratch. It might be noted that the Federal Government put up $150 million to improve services in the bush and Telstra won that as an open contract. Effectively, that means that there has been some acknowledgment that services in the bush need to be subsidised because they will be a drain on the purse of the carrier in that area and there is no reason why a carrier should be disadvantaged compared to other carriers in a competitive market. That is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The telecommunications policy has been very stupid. It is particularly stupid to have three different companies building mobile phone towers and networks. What should have happened is that a common carrier should have put the resources into building a phone network and other people would have had to have access to that network on a particular basis. The argument about on what basis and who would pay for the development of that network was difficult, but it was not even attempted. The very silly policy of having three networks in some areas and no networks in other areas—which is the market solution to this sort of problem, rather than a planned and sensible national solution—was a matter of considerable significance as a lost opportunity.

However, just as that was very silly in the roll-out of the mobile phone in Australia, the sale of Telstra versus the provision of services in the bush has not been attacked at a sensible level. It is disappointing that the hot air exercise with which the Hon. I. M. Macdonald wasted the time of the House time today did not contribute one jot to that debate of national importance. Not only is the Hon. I. M. Macdonald wasting the time of this House with matters that are beyond the scope of this Parliament; he is contributing not one jot to the debate that should occur sensibly in Australia. I therefore oppose the motion simply because it is so ridiculous, and I support the Opposition's amendment because it ensures that this House at least debates matters that it has the ability to influence.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.08 p.m.]: The Hon. I. M. Macdonald moved a motion that this House condemns the Federal Government's Telstra policies especially for their negative impact upon rural and regional communities in New South Wales. I move the following Opposition amendment:

When I left home to come to Parliament I had two choices. I could turn right at the Goulburn turn-off and go to Canberra or I could turn left and travel for another two hours before arriving in Sydney. I have a feeling of deja vu when I stand in this place after a three-month break and the Government's first matter before this House—the Government has control of the business of this House—is a matter to do with the Federal Government. In fact, this Government has treated this matter with such disdain that twice a quorum was called when the Hon. I. M. Macdonald was debating the motion. The fact is that the Government has the role in this House of gathering the numbers and it wishes to attack issues that have nothing to do with this State. The Government cannot expect the Opposition to bolster the numbers for such a blatant waste of the time of this House.

Frankly, I am disappointed. When the Hon. I. M. Macdonald had the chance this morning of withdrawing the motion he did not do so. The Government could have put in place a motion on FreightCorp. Today a report on FreightCorp was tabled—something that affects the people of New South Wales and regional areas of New South Wales—yet no-one from the Government side of the House decided to debate that matter. I would have thought that this Government, being hell-bent on the privatisation of the electricity industry, would have done so.

This morning the Carr Labor Cabinet actually discussed joining more of the electricity distributors. On the previous occasion when the Treasurer, the Hon. M. R. Egan, did that, 2,500 jobs were lost in regional New South Wales. That was on the agenda for the Carr Cabinet today, yet the Hon. I. M. Macdonald did not think about bringing that matter before the House. He would not want to talk about the loss of jobs in regional New South Wales. He would not want to talk about the deterioration of roads. When a motion was moved at the second reading stage by the parliamentary representative of the Shooters Party, the Hon. J. S. Tingle, in relation to the Crimes Amendment (Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons or Instruments) Bill, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald voted against it. He claims to be from regional New South Wales: What is one of the greatest concerns for people who live in regional New South Wales? It is most certainly law and order.

That is the track record of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald who brought forward this motion. He is so out of touch that the other day he went to Frogmore hall representing the Government. Frogmore is slightly off Main Road 248 and approximately three-quarters of the distance westward between Crookwell and Boorowa. Unfortunately, Frogmore hall was destroyed by fire and the State Government, in its bid to try to win the electorate of Burrinjuck during the last State election—which did not work because Katrina Hodgkinson won it—pledged a sum of money which was matched by Lee Kernaghan as part of his great effort to assist the bush with his pass-the-hat concerts. Consequently, Frogmore got its hall. Because State Government money was involved, the Government was represented by its lame country mouthpiece the Hon. I. M. Macdonald.

At the dedication ceremony, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald decided to deliver a sermon. There he was—a pseudo-leftist—encased by a whole lot of bushies. And what did he want to talk about—national competition policies! There he was, an old-time lefty delivering a sermon on national competition policy. I can tell honourable members that the people assembled did not get it, big time. The only person who spoke at the gathering but who did not get a mention in the local paper was the Hon. I. M. Macdonald—that is how out of touch he is. He mentioned the Labor Party's great white hope, "Bomber" Beazley, "Black Hole" Beazley, and now "Brush-cutter" Beazley. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald must remember the period when "Brush-cutter" Beazley had his hands on what was formerly known as Telecom, harking back to Keating and Beazley, Keating and Beazley, Keating and Beazley. Every time the Hon. I. M. Macdonald mentions Federal issues in this House, the Coalition will remind him and the bush about Keating and Beazley, Keating and Beazley.

How many jobs did Beazley take out of Telecom? It was 17,600 jobs—17, 600 jobs that Beazley took out of Telstra which was formerly known as Telecom. He is now known as "Brush-cutter" Beazley and that is the Labor Party's great white hope. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald said there would be no privatisation—and I will deal with that later—and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I do not think he actually knows what has been going on, so the Coalition will have to fill him in on what has been happening. As I said earlier, it was Labor that originally put the knife through Qantas, the national carrier. The Labor Party at both the Federal and State level has clear form on privatisation. The examples include Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank at the Federal level—and that was Beazley and Keating, Beazley and Keating—and the continous attempts of the State Treasurer, the Leader of the Government in this House, to flog off the electricity industry at a State level.

Everyone knows that in the past Kim Beazley was a keen advocate of flogging off Telstra. In fact, it was Kim Beazley and the Labor Party that held meetings with the Macquarie Bank and prepared papers for the full sell off of the national carrier. Beazley, Keating, the Labor Party and the Macquarie Bank. If ever there was an own goal scored in this House, it was when the Hon. I. M. Macdonald tried to have a go at someone with the credibility of Senator Ron Boswell. This pseudo-leftist comes into this Chamber with this own goal motion on Telstra in a State House and did not know that Keating and Beazley had meetings with the Macquarie Bank to sell off the lot of it. What a lot of humbug! The Hon. I. M. Macdonald is either thick or he is trying to convince this House that he is stupid. Whichever way it is, he is gone. Why would he move such a motion?

The Federal Coalition on the other hand has been making inroads into the task of ensuring that Telstra provides the best possible services for country areas. A plan of action to improve Telstra services as a result of the Besley inquiry is continuing. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald must admit that the results from the Besley inquiry, put in place especially by members of the National Party, has been integral in improving telecommunications services for people in country areas. The Federal Government has made very clear that it will not introduce legislation for further privatisation until the results of the Besley inquiry have been examined. If the Besley inquiry requirements are addressed, the results would be pretty good. I would like to be able to sit in Crookwell and phone areas in the rest of this State on a non-subscriber trunk dialing [STD] price regime, just as do the people in Sydney. That is the type of improvement that the Federal Coalition is heading toward.

The current Federal Coalition has moved to address problems relating to Telstra. The most recent sign of those moves was the announcement on 14 February that Telstra had been awarded the tender to provide untimed local calls to rural and regional areas. That is something that Beazley did not do when he was a Minister and we had to wait until a Coalition government was elected for it to happen. All that Beazley wanted to do was flog off Telstra to the Macquarie Bank. Is the Hon. I. M. Macdonald not pleased that he persevered with this motion? The target funding that has been provided by the Federal Coalition is $150 million but that was opposed by the Federal Australian Labor Party—the mates of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald. The $150 million that was allocated to untimed calls was opposed by the ALP. Is the Hon. I. M. Macdonald pleased that his colleagues talked him into moving this motion?

The funding contributed by the Federal Coalition will provide untimed local calls for 40,000 services or 80 per cent of Australia's land mass. The benefits will include calls within an extended called zone or to adjacent zones being charged at 22� per call; calls from extended zones to designated community service towns being charged at 27.5� for 12 minutes; and the provision of untimed 22� maximum, local call rate dial-up Internet access. This is what the Federal Coalition introduced and that is what Beazley and his mates opposed. The new arrangements will take place from 31 July this year. I am sure that, in contrast to the tokenism of the attack on the policy made by the Labor Party in this House, honourable members on the Coalition side of this House recognise the importance of the Federal Government's announcement. The Federal Government's bid to improve services in country areas will have an effect in Federal electorates such as Gwydir, Parkes, Riverina and Farrer. All those areas will benefit from the introduction of extended call zones.

As honourable members are aware, they are some of the largest electorates in the State. They include towns such as Dubbo, Broken Hill, Parkes, Forbes, Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Young, Tamworth and Gunnedah that will benefit from this program, yet the so-called members of Country Labor are still lining up to beat their chests and complain about Telstra. I wonder what the honourable member for Murray-Darling, Peter Black, will complain about now that the Federal Government has fixed the phone system in his area of the State. In fact, all his Federal colleagues voted against it, as it appears did this lot opposite. Is the Hon. I. M. Macdonald pleased that he brought up this matter? He would be better off talking about State matters about which he knows something instead of kicking his own goal. The Federal Coalition Government has been responsible in its management of Telstra and the funds generated by the first and second tranche sales of Telstra. For example, proceeds from the second tranche sale—$1 billion—have been allocated to the Social Bonus Initiative program, and Labor still complains.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Pork-barrelling National Party seats won't work!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. I. M. Macdonald talks about pork-barrelling but he should have listened to the Treasurer, who said earlier that the Government would be pleased to be accused of pork barrelling and that pork-barrelling is nothing to be ashamed about if we are putting the money back into those regional areas. Members of the Government talk about roads of national importance but they have rechristened those as roads of National Party importance and think they are scoring a goal against them. Members of the National Party encourage them to do that because they are roads of National Party importance. That is another one of the Government's own goals. An amount of $374 million has been allocated to specifically target rural and regional parts of the country, with another $70 million allocated to establish Rural Transaction Centres.

I am pleased that the Government has allowed us to bring up this matter because its hero, Martin Ferguson, today confirmed that Labor would abolish Rural Transaction Centres. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald has his back turned on me and does not want to hear that one of his lefties, Martin Ferguson, wants to get rid of Rural Transaction Centres. I heard the Treasurer say how important the centres are, and we all know that. I am not sure whether it was Martin or Laurie that they call "deckchair Ferguson". Simon Crean thought it was a windfall petrol tax that led the charge off, about which Beazley has been bleating every day.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Slippery Simon!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: What did slippery Simon say? He said that he would not give any money back. What does the Hon. I. M. Macdonald complain about, as Labor will not give anything back and his mate, Martin Ferguson, wants to get rid of Rural Transaction Centres? This morning the Hon. I. M. Macdonald would have been better off withdrawing this motion and talking about State issues because he has scored the biggest own goal that has ever been scored in this place. I know honourable members will remember how bad telephone services used to be. The mantra that things are not as good as they used to be is dead wrong because telephone services in regional Australia are a quantum leap on what they were five, 10 or 15 years ago. One of the best things about Telstra in the competitive marketplace is that the Government has removed its commo mates from the backrooms of Telstra.

I remember when I ran National Party campaigns in this State 15 or 20 years ago that I did not take out accounts in the name of the National Party or its candidates because I, and all National Party or Liberal Party members who ran compaigns, knew that the account would be put to an end and not processed, or the phone would be cut off at any time. The Australian Labor Party used to organise its mates in the Telecom back room, but that does not happen any more and everyone gets a good service. The service has improved so much that particularly during campaigns one can get a phone hooked up quickly. The Coalition's amendment is sensible, and I will not take up any more time on this motion. Frankly, the Government should not have moved this motion, given the lack of support of Government members. We have had two quorums on the Government speaker because he was boring, no-one had any interest in the subject, and the Government is down to a token three members in the Chamber already. It is only the Coalition and the crossbenchers who are interested in progressing things in this State and who provide commonsense to this debate.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.25 p.m.]: I observed during the last session that one can tell when the Hon. I. M. Macdonald embarks on a vacuous and empty rhetorical speech: his peripatetic habits start to develop, he starts to rant and rave and shake his fist—

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: I didn't shake my fist once!

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Not in a threatening way to anybody, but those flourishes of oratorical rhetoric mark the empty and vacuous speeches we have just heard. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans first introduced the idea into the debate that we should not divert from what are our essential duties to indulge in the exercise of criticising the Federal Government. That brought honourable members to their senses. I was delighted that my colleague moved a sensible amendment to condemn the Government on this very first day of the Parliament resuming, after a long recess, when the Government has nothing to present to the Legislative Council but private members' business and the motion of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald concerning Telstra policy and the Federal Government.

We should have resisted participating in this dignified, almost obscene argument but that would be misinterpreted. It was beholden particularly on country members to introduce some perspective to this debate. I was particularly interested to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refer to the enormous strides that have been made in telecommunication services in recent times. The idea that somehow or other Telecom was the paragon of all virtues and that people had no complaints about it would be a remark that only a person who never lived in the bush would make. In my case it is difficult to pinpoint the exact time but it would not be much more than 15 years ago when our manual exchange was replaced by automatic telephones. When that took place the conditions of getting connected to this wonderful, benign publicly-owned utility favoured the people who lived close to town. They probably got a party line that would be built five kilometres out of town. If one lived further out of town one was on one's own. It was not like the good old days when one could ride along with a coil of soft wire in the back of a sulky and string it along old pine posts. One had to build a line to standards, which would cost tens of thousands of dollars, to connect to the telephone service.

If one got connected, that was not to say that somehow or other this publicly owned utility would guarantee an uninterrupted service. If the lines were struck by lightning one was just as likely to have difficulties. The waiting times and delays—and people complain of them today—were in my view longer. If technicians had to get out to check the telephone—in most cases people had to maintain their own line—they could not get out until the road had dried out. The idea that somehow or other a little while ago when Telecom was running the telecommunications services everything was hunky-dory is an absolute myth.

I could not help thinking about that the other day because one of the treasures in our local historical museum is a copy of a newspaper, now called the Coonamble Times but it went under a different banner then. I think it was in 1908 that it reported on an extraordinary meeting called by the Chamber of Commerce in Coonamble to organise a protest against the extension of the telephone service outside the town area. They thought this was not in the interests of the town because it would enable people to do their business from their homesteads and that that would virtually ruin the trade at the hotels, which theretofore had put up the people from the bush who came into town to do their business. That is an extreme example of people's reaction to changing technology, but it is a part of the reactions we have seen to what has happened in telecommunications in the past decade or so.

We need to recognise the explosion of technology in telecommunications. Those who were relating experiences similar to mine, such as the upgrading of the old party telephone lines on soft wire, to copper wire, to IDX boxes, to the modern radiowave technology, would also recognise that we are on the cusp of yet greater changes. We do not know whether satellites will deliver our telecommunication signals, or whether a great chunk of the delivery by private enterprise will be run by the television services. Who knows? But we must recognise that change is happening at an extraordinary rate, and it is no good putting one's head in the sand. We must recognise also that telecommunications services are not essentially the domain of governments throughout the world.

A comparable land mass with a civilisation that we recognise as at least the equal of ours is the United States of America. People in America have not depended on a government-owned telecommunications service. If it were proposed to them that government should take over Bell, Western Union and all the other private companies providing telephone services to some of the most remote areas in the world they would laugh and say, "Why on earth should government do that?" We might say, "Well, we have grown up with this. The State has put in the railways and our electricity services." But then somebody else might say, "But they did not put in the gas services." So there is no magic in these sorts of services being provided by government. There certainly was not for the consumers who put up with the horse and buggy type of services that were replaced only 15 years ago. I think we were not the last, but one of the last areas to be changed over. Certainly, after we changed, some areas still had manual exchanges and long party lines. That was the product of government services. So people who feel that somehow there is security in government retaining ownership in some of these areas just have not been watching what has been happening elsewhere in the world and do not acknowledge the pace of change in Australia.

We are now in an interesting position. I congratulate the Federal National Party on calling a halt until the recommendations of the Besley report—which I regard as a very useful document—have been implemented. We need to acknowledge that the Besley report did not talk about certain minimum standards that have to be addressed. It spoke about the type of service that we would hope would be installed and made available to people wherever they are in Australia. In other words, this would be the way in which we would overcome the tyranny of distance. Besley was there to set the highest standard, not the lowest common denominator. The Federal National Party said: We will proceed no further until we are absolutely confident that these recommendations can and will be implemented.

I think it would be extraordinary to say that one is ideologically committed to no further sale of Telstra. At the moment we do not ring up the government and say, "Come out and fix my telephone." Telstra is still a corporation in which there are private shareholders and government shareholders. So nothing much will change its response to the market. What we want to do is make sure that the government exercises, in the most strenuous way, its right to regulate the way in which the market operates and to ensure compliance with community service obligations, or the delivery of an acceptable standard of service delivery to everyone in Australia. People—whether they are on Lord Howe Island, in Tibooburra, in the Northern Territory, in Western Australia or on King Island—should be able to expect the same standard of service. That will not be provided by sticking to some antiquated government-owned corporation. It will be achieved by legislation that sets a standard with which private enterprise has to conform. In fact, we have seen in the tendering process that Telstra probably is best placed in the market to complete those service obligations. I am perfectly happy with that.

I think we as Australians generally should welcome the fact that a level of competition has been introduced. If we were to have proceeded along the old monopolistic government-owned line the main complaint we would be getting would be about the extraordinary cost. I have spoken about the capital costs, but now I will move on to talk about the escalating cost of telephone bills in country areas prior to the opening up of the market to other telecommunications operators. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the latest moves which have extended local service operations enormously. We heard of a grazier in the lower reaches of the Darling River below Tilpa who said on radio that he thought this was the biggest breakthrough in the operation of his property that he had heard of for a long time, because he had incurred astronomical phone bills by making trunk calls just to keep up with business matters and keep up socially and so on.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Beazley opposed this?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: The Labor Party would not like to see anything that might be of benefit to anyone engaged in the pastoral industry in remote areas. That simply would not conform to its policies. We must ensure that we secure the benefits that are available through this new service delivery. Various private companies are engaged in the provision of those services, and they are competing strongly. That is what we want to see, because in the end that will provide the sorts of service to which people in country areas have been aspiring for a long time but simply did not receive under a monopolistic, government-owned corporation such as we had before.

I think the motion is ill-conceived in condemning the Federal Government. The presentation made by the mover of the motion lacked any understanding of the real issues. This motion has taken up the time of this House, which instead could have been debating so many more important country issues. We have completed debate on the Water Management Bill, but we are only just now seeing the roll out of the implementation of those policies and their impact on country areas. Those are the sorts of things we should have been debating, and not being distracted by these red herrings to debating matters that are properly within the province of the Federal Government.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [6.38 p.m.]: The motion moved by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald seeks that this House condemn the Federal Government's Telstra policies, especially for their negative impact upon rural and regional communities in New South Wales. As the Hon. D. F. Moppett has just said, this is an ill-conceived motion. It is also most irrelevant. The Leader of the Opposition said in his response to the motion that the New South Wales Government has had three months to address the issues pertaining to this State. Daily there have been stories about this State's law and order problems, the blowout in hospital waiting lists, roads, schools and so forth.

The best that this Government can do is talk about a Federal issue, not a State issue such as FreightCorp. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government chose not to address the delivery of better service to this State but a completely and irrelevant issue. That displays a high level of arrogance on the part of this Government. It is disgraceful that it will not address issues that concern people in metropolitan Sydney, western Sydney and regional and rural New South Wales. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who spoke earlier in debate on this issue, said that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, who was let loose by the Government, kicked an enormous goal. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald was so embarrassing that, on two occasions, members of the Labor Party tried to sneak out of the Chamber and scurry away.

However, on two occasions they were called back to the Chamber to listen to him. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was contributing to debate on this issue members of the Left were in absolute panic. They discussed amongst themselves whether the Hon. I. M. Macdonald should be withdrawn from the debate. However, it was too late. The Coalition believes that the most effective way to benefit the general community, including rural and regional communities, is to encourage price reductions, improve services, innovate products and unleash the force of competition in the telecommunications sector. Honourable members might recall that before 1996 telecommunications in Australia were dominated by the existence of a government-owned, overstaffed, non-customer focused telecommunications giant with enormous market power. The left-wing Luddites in Labor probably want us to return to those days.

With the recognition of the community need for better service and reasonable prices, the Coalition Government fulfilled its election commitment by deciding to transfer 33 per cent of Telstra from government-owned ownership to private ownership in 1997 and a further 16.6 per cent in 1999. The general community has benefited from the Coalition's competitive telecommunications policies. Customers now have greater choice in service providers and significant price reductions have occurred. During the Coalition's time in government untimed local calls have come down as low as 16�; STD charges have dropped by as much as 45 per cent; and international charges have dropped by as much as 80 per cent. That makes telecommunication services more affordable and more accessible to people.

When I was in the army my family and I could not afford a telephone. We could not afford the constant cost of having it connected, disconnected and reconnected. Most Australians can now afford a telephone. People living and working in the bush have shared the benefits of the telecommunications revolution through the Networking the Nation program. That provided $250 million to improve telecommunications infrastructure in regional areas through community based grants. The proceeds of the 16.6 per cent sale of Telstra are being used to retire Commonwealth debt and to provide a $1 billion Telstra social bonus. The sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra provides up to $150 million over three years to provide untimed local calls in extended zones in remote Australia, which will mean that all telephone calls within an extended zone will be untimed local calls.

To ensure that an effective regulatory framework is in place to protect consumer interests while promoting competition the Federal Coalition Government introduced a new telecommunications Act in 1997, establishing a deregulated and competitive telecommunications regime. That resulted in significant new service providers, reduced prices and better services. With the passage of legislation to make the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission more responsive in enforcing effective competition in telecommunications, the Coalition Government has shown a commitment to continuous improvement of the new telecommunications competitive regime. Separate legislation has also created a new telecommunication and radio communications regulator—the Australian Communications Authority—which has the power to fine Telstra up to $10 million for systemic breaches of performance standards regarding connection and repair times. In addition, the Coalition has introduced a comprehensive framework of consumer safeguards for telecommunication users, including a strengthened customer service guarantee, which will address connection and repair times.

I remind honourable members that the Coalition has made huge efforts to solve the problem presented by Labor's phase-out of analogue mobile phone services [AMPS] by successfully reaching agreement with Telstra, Optus and Vodafone for a staged phase-out in regional Australia by 31 December 2000. In fact, Telstra is introducing a new network using code division multiple access technology, thus ensuring that all mobile phone users, particularly in regional Australia, continue to have reasonable equipment coverage and quality of service. In addition to the successful sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra, 1.6 million Australians have taken a direct stake in one of our greatest national companies. That includes 400,000 Australians who invested in shares for the first time. Their decision surely supports the choice of 1.8 million Australians who bought shares in the first Telstra sale. Labor's opposition to this sale is massively hypocritical after it privatised Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and other government enterprises, even though it promised the Australian people that it would not.

Labor has ignored the telecommunication needs of regional Australia. It has ignored the fact that the proportion of telephone exchanges in regional Australia, which have been upgraded to digital, was much lower than the proportion in metropolitan Australia. Labor ignored the fact that people in regional Australia suffered from low bandwidth telephone access, making it impossible to access the Internet satisfactorily. Labor has failed to develop a new and competitive telecommunications regime, although it flirted with the selling of up to 49.9 per cent of Telstra in the run-up to the 1998 election and then dropped the idea when the unions objected.

Labor has an appallingly poor record in relation to telecommunications. It was forced to close the AMPS network but it had no plans to ensure that regional and rural Australians would continue to receive mobile phone coverage. Labor allowed Telstra and Optus to string cable across the suburbs of Australia without requiring planning permission. Labor forced the abolition of the AMPS system by 2000 and took no steps to secure a replacement for this vital telecommunication service in the bush. Labor bitterly opposed the Coalition's plans to spend $250 million on improving telecommunications in regional Australia and promised at the 1998 election to take this money away from regional Australia if elected.

When will Labor stop being so hypocritical and work out policies that will really advocate the interests of people in regional and rural Australia? What are those interests? We need an effective law and order system. We need more police to look after our communities and guarantee their safety. The Government must reduce hospital waiting lists. Did Labor not promise in 1995 that it would effectively halve hospital waiting lists? Those lists have more than doubled and the Government does not care. People have been waiting for elective surgery for two to three years. Jobs must be created in the bush and country roads and bridges must be built. The economies of rural towns have been affected. All those issues, which affect rural New South Wales, are issues that this Government should be talking about after a three-month break. Those are the issues that this Government is failing to address. The Government's failure to address those issues reflects its increasingly arrogant attitude towards the people of this State. Those are the issues that will bring the Labor Party undone.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

NORTH COAST DISABILITY SERVICES

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [6.50 p.m.]: Two local issues of great significance to the Lismore community are the opening of the new offices of the Disability and Aged Information Service Inc, On-Focus Inc and Short-term Time Out Project [STOP], and Permo-Drive Technologies Ltd. The first three services have decided to operate jointly out of shared offices in the old AMP building in Molesworth Street, Lismore. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the opening, because I did not receive my invitation until I arrived at Parliament House. However, I rang the Manager of Disability and Aged Information Service Inc, Ms Maria Melrose, and apologised and discussed with her the services. In brief, the aim of the Disability and Aged Information Service Inc, is to provide information that is relevant and accessible to people with disabilities, aged people and their families, carers and advocates.

The aim of On-Focus Inc is to provide support and empowerment for people with disabilities through accommodation support, training, community participation and integration, post-school options and adult training learning and support programs. STOP is a project developed to support people with disabilities and their carers. The aim of the program is to provide quality respite on a short-term basis. The service response might be assistance to allow service users the freedom to enjoy an annual holiday, a weekend away or an overnight stay. The service response may also be a package of support options that best suit the needs of people who need that service. All three provide much-needed practical yet compassionate service to our local community, and I express my appreciation for their good work.

The second issue concerns Permo-Drive Technologies Ltd, a public company based in Lismore, that started just over one year ago. The company grew out of the idea of conserving and then reusing the braking energy used by large vehicles such as trucks, buses and construction equipment. Some of my information comes from the Southern Cross News. The brains behind the idea are Lismore local hydraulic engineer Alan Rush and Coffs Harbour mechanical whiz Mick Perry. They describe it as a "regenerative energy management system" and the Southern Cross News goes on to say:

To summarise, the system saves fuel—tests show up to 20 per cent on long hauls—by converting the forward momentum of the vehicle into energy that is then stored in accumulators, and it is called into action when extra power is needed, such as when overtaking or going up hills. It also requires fewer gear changes, which makes parts last longer and reduces exhaust emissions by up to 40 per cent. The time and distance to accelerate and decelerate from nought to 100 kilometres per hour is reduced by up to 17 per cent. Therefore, buses and garbage trucks will save more fuel—saving up to 50 per cent, it is said. The State Government and Federal Government are both getting behind it and supporting it, and the system is about to be fully road tested by Australia Post on a haulage truck and by Lismore City Council on one of its new garbage trucks.

In Lismore last Thursday Permo-Drive Director Greg Beaver met the Premier when the Premier and I came out of the Lismore City Council chambers. The Premier had been there at a mayoral roundtable meeting with mayors from Byron, Tom Wilson; Ballina, David Wright; Lismore, Bob Gates; Richmond Valley, Col Sullivan; and Kyogle, Ross Brown. When we came out he was there and wanted to show off the new system, and he had the Australia Post truck and the garbage truck there. It is very impressive. I am impressed, and many people in our local community are impressed, by something that has grown very quickly out of an idea.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did Bob take it for a drive?

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: We did not test drive it, we just looked and thought what a great system it is. It is a good system. It is quite exciting. The honourable member for Lismore has been supporting it, as has the Minister for Regional Development and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti—everybody. It is just a really good system that saves money in fuel and saves environmental degradation. I wish them every success.

SOUTH COAST PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [6.54 p.m.]: Tonight I highlight the depressing state of public transport in the Shoalhaven, a problem that Shoalhaven City Council is trying to address but with a totally inadequate response from the State Government. Two reports have been prepared for council—the Shoalhaven integrated transport strategy, released last August, which focuses on local problems and solutions, and the South Coast transport strategy, released just before Christmas, which seeks to put local problems in a broader regional context. The council is to be commended for its work. Ten per cent of households in the Shoalhaven local government area do not have cars and rely on public transport to meet their everyday needs.

I acknowledge the State Government for funding a part-time transport development officer, who will commence work on public transport strategy shortly. But that officer will be based in Wollongong and working on Wollongong needs for the balance of his time. Shoalhaven residents know that their needs are often overlooked in favour of Wollongong and they are entitled to be sceptical. I am disappointed to say, however, that this appointment has been the State Government's only response to the issues raised by the two commendable studies.

Availability of bus services is the first issue on which we need a response from the Government. Bus services are not adequate to provide for people travelling to work. In some communities—such as Greenwell Point, Currarong, Callala Bay and Callala Beach—there are no services at all after 5 p.m. for people returning from work. Culburra, Sussex Inlet and the bay and basin area have only one service after working hours, making reliance on public transport a risky proposition. There are no services on weekends for communities in the northern and central Shoalhaven, and there are no bus services all week to the Manyana-Bendalong area. Private service provision is just not adequate, and the State Government needs to think of innovative solutions.

The second issue of emphasis is the lack of timetable integration. Bus services do not link up and there is no integration with CityRail services. This should be one of the first priorities for the transport development officer to address. Third, fare structures are a problem. Integrated bus-rail fares are not available, as is the case in metropolitan areas. Bus fares are expensive and no pensioner excursion tickets are available. At the last State election the Coalition supported the extension of the pensioner excursion ticket to private bus services and the rail journey from Bomaderry to Sydney for only $2. It was a worthwhile policy initiative which this Government should look at. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal estimated there would be only a modest cost. It would really help people in the Shoalhaven.

Fourth, reliability, safety, comfort and convenience are major issues with rail services. There have been too many depressing horror stories involving local people that have caused a crisis of confidence in services from Bomaderry. Too often patrons are left stranded at Kiama when scheduled services to Bomaderry are terminated without warning. One typical example was the Stansfield family's experiences when they travelled by train to the Easter show last year, as was reported by the South Coast Register. The State Opposition has called for a passengers' charter and urged the Government to look at major steps forward taken in Victoria. Despite promises in mid-1999 we have had no action from the Minister for Transport on this matter.

Journey times are a fifth issue. If one were to drive from Nowra to central Sydney it would take just over two hours. The same trip by rail takes an average of two hours and 50 minutes. A reduction in journey times can be addressed only if the rail infrastructure is upgraded. There are persistent concerns locally that rail services to Bomaderry will be discontinued entirely when electrification is completed as far as Kiama in 2003. It is the view of many CityRail staff and the rail unions, who have not been reassured by a statement from a senior city rail manager. The refusal of the Minister to issue a public statement ruling out closure is curious and ominous. I am surprised that local state Labor members have settled for something less than an unambiguous public commitment by the Minister to the future of rail services to Bomaderry which he can be held to in the years to come. In any case, the Shoalhaven requires more than a commitment to the status quo. No timetable for electrification and duplication of the rail line to Bomaderry has been announced. This is a key priority emphasised in both reports.

The South Coast transport study shows that traffic on Mount Ousley Road, the F6 and the Kiama bypass will exceed capacity by 2017. All this reinforces the need for a long-term vision for public transport on the South Coast. We need to start seriously looking at options for a rail tunnel that facilitates faster services between Bomaderry, Kiama, Wollongong and metropolitan Sydney, bypassing the low-speed Helensburgh to Thirroul tracks, which significantly increase travelling times. Shortly I will attend the Young Liberal council, and I notice it has a motion on its agenda paper tonight about the same issue. Transport disadvantage is a problem in most regions outside metropolitan centres. My community of the Shoalhaven is no exception. Unlike Queensland, however, this State has not made any progress towards developing a transport disadvantage policy framework. The failure to act in this area is symptomatic of why we have the problems identified in the council's two excellent reports. [Time expired.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL INQUIRY INTO CABRAMATTA POLICE RESOURCES

The Hon. P. J. BREEN [6.59 p.m.]: Today I raise the subject of upper House committee inquiries, particularly the current inquiry into police resources in Cabramatta. Today the committee heard from Commander Clive Small, who comprehensively answered allegations made last Friday before the same committee by Detective Sergeant Tim Priest. What concerns me is the police Minister, the Police Service and the Premier weighing into the debate and perverting the committee process. If the committee were a court, they would all be in contempt. Mr Whelan's attack on the workings of the inquiry is, in reality, a none too subtle attack on the independence of the upper House itself. As a non-Government member, I take exception to such an attack, and so too should the people of New South Wales.

The Premier's comments are based on a desperate desire to believe that following the Wood royal commission there is no corruption or incompetence in the police force. In order to sustain this belief, the Government cannot allow any allegations to the contrary to be aired without immediate censure. Rather than the allegations receiving thorough examination and analysis, in this climate both the Premier and the police Minister shoot the messenger without even bothering to read the message. Once again the Government is grandstanding and waging a media war, rather than taking advantage of the system's built-in checks and balances that provide ample remedy for any perceived wrong done to someone in the course of a parliamentary inquiry. Commander Small is quite capable of defending himself, as he showed today.

Obviously Mr Whelan has forgotten what the parliamentary system is all about. The Parliament's role is not to rubber-stamp decisions made by the Executive, not to protect the bureaucracy at all costs, especially when we may not know the full story, and especially not by waging a war of words in the media. It should be remembered that this Parliament is the bureaucracy's political master, not its lap dog. Yesterday we had the appalling situation of the police Minister bouncing the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and the media reporting that her committee had buckled under the Minister's pressure. The truth is that the committee had already agreed to convene and hear evidence from Commander Small. The Minister had no need to bounce the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, except to show us what a tough Minister he is.

Similarly with the Police Service attending the committee's hearing last Friday when it discovered that Detective Sergeant Priest had tipped a bucket on Commander Small. Three more tough guys, this time from the Police Service, bounced and then verballed committee staff. Who are these cowboys and whose agenda do they represent? Certainly not the people of New South Wales! The proper forum for disproving any adverse allegations made in the course of an inquiry is in the inquiry itself, not in the papers or in a radio war. It is simply not true, as the Minister's actions suggest, that upper House committees protect witnesses before them under the guise of parliamentary privilege, and that an aggrieved person has no recourse against spurious allegations. Everyone has a right of reply to any allegations made against them, and the committee is then required to consider all allegations before making any decision about the veracity of the evidence.

The police Minister's telephone call to the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, committee chair of the inquiry, demanding that senior police officer Mr Clive Small appear before it the very next day flaunted established inquiry safeguards and protocols. Even more disturbing is the Minister's press release dated 26 February, to which he attached copies of his own letter and a letter from the Police Service to the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. The press release states:

For the benefit of the Minister, the inquiry was simply carrying out its proper statutory function. This afternoon on the channel nine news program the Minister said:

Such statements are in contempt of the inquiry system of this Parliament, and I hope that the committee does something about them. They constitute unacceptable political interference in the deliberations of a committee that the Government does not control. Where is the committee's independence, and how can the public be assured that upper House committees operate impartially and free of undue influence when a Minister resorts to such blatant bullyboy tactics?

WOMEN'S SERVICES DIAMOND JUBILEE

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [7.03 p.m.]: I have received a letter from Amy Taylor, AM, State Councillor of the Women's Services, New South Wales branch, who has enclosed details of the forthcoming diamond jubilee celebrations of the Women's Services. Her report to me on this issue states:

This occasion will be a most befitting time to remember the historic role that women played in wartime and since then in the defence of this country.

WOMEN IN BUSINESS MENTOR PROGRAM

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [7.07 p.m.]: I draw attention to a very successful program run by the Government, particularly through the efforts of the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism, Sandra Nori. On 13 February I represented Sandra at the graduation ceremony at Coffs Harbour of the women in business mentor program, which is a very successful program that began last year. I was particularly pleased to take part in presenting certificates to the 32 participants in Coffs Harbour, because some months ago I launched that program. A similar program has operated in other parts of New South Wales. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to present certificates at the graduation ceremony in Port Macquarie in December.

The program, from relatively small beginnings and with limited government funding, has taken off in many different parts of New South Wales. Its particular strength is the way that it involves not only the Department of State Development and Sandra in her particular capacity but also the business enterprise centres in various cities and sponsorship from various businesses. Without those people, the program would not be possible. What is striking about the program is not only the progress made and the growth in business of the people being mentored, in terms of turnover, profit, the number of customers and so on, but the fact that time and time again the participants who act as mentors have said they have gained much from the program.

This program has contributed a great deal in a climate in which small business is increasingly important in our economy and about one-third of small businesses are owned and run by women. As I have said, women own something like one-third of small businesses, which are estimated to contribute 25 per cent of net job creation. The funding which the New South Wales Government has been able to contribute to this and other programs adds up to around $1.4 million over four years. It is not an enormous amount of money, but it has been a very practical application of that money and has been very strongly supported by the communities involved.

I am delighted that this year a further two mentor programs will commence on the mid North Coast, in Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. One of the very early pilot programs took place in Lismore, so the mid North Coast region has been a particularly important one. The other day I noticed in the local newspaper circulating in the Ryde area advertisements for people interested in this program to contact the department to gain further information about the program. This indicates that the program is running not merely on the mid North Coast and North Coast but it is also running in Sydney, on the South Coast, and in various parts of New South Wales.

I believe that Sandra Nori and departmental officers and the sponsors involved in the program deserve a great deal of credit for the program and a number of other imaginative programs. It is one of those programs which is a win-win for everyone involved. I have very much enjoyed taking part in the program and meeting the very interesting and unusual people with their different occupations. For example, at the Coffs Harbour graduation a couple of weeks ago I met a woman who runs a general sort of business which I think she calls Mrs Fix It. Apparently she is one of only two women who work as qualified electricians in New South Wales. It is also good to see that these programs are helping stereotype-breaking women to grow their businesses. [Time expired.]

ONE NATION RE-EMERGENCE

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [7.12 p.m.]: I would like to speak about the re-emergence of One Nation. A great deal has been said in the media and elsewhere about the recent showing of Pauline Hanson's One Nation in the Western Australian and Queensland elections. The majority of Australians are concerned at One Nation's support, and the major political parties are of course preoccupied on how to deal with One Nation and the people who voted for it. It is most important that the major parties understand the reasons behind the success of One Nation, and then take the right steps to counter this movement. If the major parties take the wrong steps, they will divide Australia on class and race lines. People are voting for One Nation largely as a protest vote. Pauline Hanson articulates the concerns of many people, but does not offer any real solutions. Indeed, she has few policies.

These people are registering a protest vote because they are being hurt by a number of things, some of which are caused by Federal Government policy; most significantly, reduced government spending and services, and the impact of competition policy. People in the bush know that the Federal Government is largely to blame for this, and they are demanding a change in government economic policies and spending on services. They know full well that a fully privatised Telstra would reduce services and charge more in the regions, despite the assurances of economic dries from the city. One Nation's supporters have got this bit right, and governments would do well to change their policies accordingly, or face even more voter anger.

But what Pauline Hanson and her supporters have gotten wrong is the second and disturbing part of their message. I refer to their argument that the pain being suffered in regional Australia is caused in some way by migration, or by government spending on Aboriginal communities. Throughout the centuries, in times of hardship minority groups have been blamed as being the cause of general hardship. Sometimes governments or elites have encouraged this scapegoating. It is dangerous to promote the idea that migrants or Aboriginal people are to blame for the hardship being felt by other Australians. It is dangerous because poorly informed people can easily believe such nonsense, generating racial tension in our communities.

It is absolutely crucial that the Federal Government and Opposition take the right steps to deal with the messages of One Nation. To deal with the real hardship, they must soften Canberra's economic line, abandon the "privatise at all costs" mentality, and recommit Government to providing adequate services for all Australians. To deal with the rhetoric of scapegoating ethnic and Aboriginal communities, the Government and Opposition must take a strong line to reject these arguments, and defend these communities. Strong leadership must be shown in this regard.

In order to publicly reject and discourage the racist arguments of One Nation, it is vital that the major parties refuse to do any election preference deals with One Nation. Such deals legitimise and encourage One Nation. All Australians will be watching the Government and Opposition and how they deal with One Nation and the real causes of One Nation's support. The great majority of Australians will be very concerned that the Prime Minister and Government members of Parliament are considering preference swaps with One Nation. At the same time, the Prime Minister and the Government are maintaining a "soft Hanson" line on migration, multiculturalism and Aboriginal affairs.

Just recently the Prime Minister again attempted to attack the term "stolen generation", and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs made a disgraceful statement, implying that refugees are getting other people's housing in Queensland. The Federal Government's approach appears to be to appease One Nation, in the hope of getting its preferences. Blaming migrants and Aborigines may also suit the Government, by diverting attention from its own policy shortcomings. If this is the strategy of the Federal Government, it is a very dangerous and irresponsible one. The great majority of Australians, who support multiculturalism and reconciliation, will disapprove of a Federal Government that aligns itself in any way with Pauline Hanson and her divisive politics. The level of that disapproval will be made clear at the next Federal election.

WESTERN YURAMMIE SPECIAL PRESCRIPTION ZONE

The Hon. I. COHEN [7.16 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House serious issues regarding the Western Yurammie Special Prescription Zone, compartments 963-967, Eden regional forest assessment [RFA]. I have received representations from a number of conservationists in Southern NSW concerning this issue, in particular from members of the Yurangalo community group. Members of this group are committed conservationists who came together as a result of the interim assessment process in 1996 with the purpose of developing a set of voluntary conservation agreements [VCA] to cover numerous properties adjoining the southern Tantawangalo and Western Yurammie Forest, west of Merimbula on the far South Coast. A voluntary conservation agreement protects and conserves land on private property.

The group saw voluntary conservation agreements as a way of saving the forest, protecting water catchments and providing a contiguous wildlife corridor from the mountains to the sea. The resulting multiple VCA was the first of its kind and the largest group VCA in Australia. I commend this group for its commitment and efforts to conserve an area of considerable ecological significance to New South Wales. During the RFA negotiations the Yurangalo group advocated the gazettal of both Southern Tantawangalo and Western Yurammie into National Park. Western Yurammie had been included in the conservation option and the addition of Southern Tantawangalo was requested. In the RFA the Southern Tantawangalo Forest was put into the reserve system. Western Yurammie, compartments 963-967, was made into special prescription zone and remained in the hands of State Forests New South Wales. There are now plans to log this area.

State Forests is planning to log in the Western Yurammie special prescription zone. This area is a high conservation value area. Logging in this area will impact upon the water supply of the local community, upon local industries which rely on clean water, and upon the health of the fauna and adjoining forests in the region. The rainforest gullies of Western Yurammie are part of the catchment of the Myrtle Creek, which supplies Wyndham with water. In the RFA process, Wyndham residents signed a petition to protect their water supply. The issues of siltation, sedimentation and volume loss are real ones if this special prescription zone is logged.

The local million dollar oyster industry has expressed alarm at the rate of sedimentation in the lakes that provide their farming areas. Further logging of these catchments will increase sedimentation problems. The koalas of Western Yurammie were protected via a koala moratorium until the RFA decision. This population has been nominated as endangered and is currently under consideration by the scientific committee. Evidence of other threatened species such as the giant burrowing frog and the long-footed potoroo also exists. This fauna needs protection.

The integrity of the wildlife corridors reserved in the RFA across Myrtle Mountain will be severely compromised if logging is permitted alongside it. Despite this, State Forests New South Wales proposes integrated harvesting in coupe 967, whose catchment runs into the lower reaches of the Goodenia rainforest, which is now part of the national parks system. Estimates based on data received in 1998 indicate that the economic return to the State of New South Wales would be less than $1million. This is clearly not worth the cost of damaging part of the water catchment of Wyndham and the natural values of the area. The Carr Government has instigated protection for significant areas of our forests in New South Wales but areas of high conservation value are still unprotected and are under threat from logging.

Many of these places, if logged, will present far-reaching impacts for the local area in terms of water catchment, sedimentation, species loss and habitat destruction. This area is one of these places. There are strong calls for a moratorium over the Western Yurammie Special Prescription Zone until it is permanently protected. Local residents and conservationists have expressed grave concerns at the failure of State Forests to undertake full, genuine and transparent consultation with regard to its plans for the logging of this area. Another concern is the unbalanced nature of the stakeholders identified by State Forests. I am advised that State Forests nominated that "stakeholders" in this section of forest include Daishowa, Blue Ridge Timbers, a local chainsaw training school, and a Wyndham residents group represented by Ms Wendy Kelly, a logging contractor.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 7.20 p.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:18:32 : Update this page