Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 6 March 2001, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 6 March 2001
______

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

The President offered the Prayers.

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

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE JAMES WILLIAM KENNEDY,
A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The PRESIDENT: I announce the death on 3 March 2001 of the Hon. James William Kennedy, aged 81 years, a former member of this House. On behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Council in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

TABLING OF PAPERS

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

Hunter Water Corporation, statement of corporate intent 2000/2001
Wentworth Park Sporting Complex Trust, annual report 1999-2000

Ordered to be printed.

COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

The Clerk announced, according to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, the receipt of report No. 4/52 from the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption entitled "General Meeting with the Commissioner of the ICAC", dated 27 November 2000.

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

PETITION

Wyong Shire Policing

Petition praying that additional police be provided in the Wyong Shire, received from the Hon. M. J. Gallacher.

KINGS CROSS MEDICALLY SUPERVISED INJECTING ROOM

Personal Explanation

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI, by leave: On Thursday last week the Premier maliciously and intentionally misquoted me out of context. In Hansard of 1 March the Premier said:

I acknowledge the Premier's commitment to obtaining results in this area. The Premier, quite rightly, said that he is prepared to try anything, as long as it is reasonable, to conduct trials in this area and to achieve evidence-based outcomes. That was a commitment he made at the Drug Summit.

He then continued:

I do not believe that at that stage I was talking about drug injecting rooms. However, that is what the question the Premier was addressing on that day in the lower House related to. Honourable members will not be surprised to learn that Hansard for 12 October 1999 shows that I was speaking on the Drug Court Amendment Bill, nothing to do with injecting rooms. My speech on that occasion makes no mention of injecting rooms, and it was a considered, thoughtful and meaningful contribution. In fact, the speech was welcomed by the Attorney. At the end of the quote which the Premier used in reference to me I said:

Empiricism is the way to go. I am drawn to a statement that was made in a document entitled "The New South Wales Drug Summit—Government Plan of Action".

Honourable members will remember that at that time in 1999 the drug injecting room had not got off the ground.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: And it still hasn't.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am aware of that. I would have been extremely prescient had I been referring to the matter as the Premier said. He said, "By implication it was a worthwhile experiment." I have read my speech very carefully and I do not believe it had anything to do with support for the drug injecting room.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You should write to him and say, "Bob, I think you have got it wrong."

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: He did not have the good grace to ring me and ask whether that was my implication. I do not support the drug injecting room and I have made that clear in every one of my commitments to this House. The Premier has implicated me in a trial that I do not support and have never supported in this Chamber, and is deliberately and inaccurately misquoting me. I am supportive, as are all Opposition members, of the Drug Court Amendment Bill and we are hopeful that it will do good work. However, it is beyond the pale for the Premier to be so advised as to misquote me in that way.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

NEWCASTLE DISEASE CLEAN-UP COSTS

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.49 p.m.]: I move:

A little less than two weeks remain before farmers on the Central Coast involved in the chicken industry reach the point of no return with regard to the bills that are being, and have already been, sent to them following the 1999 outbreak of Newcastle disease on the Central Coast. For the information of honourable members considerable debate was had and concern expressed in both Houses about what was occurring on the Central Coast during that time in early 1999. To recap, honourable members should be aware that we are talking about 33 farms declared in the restricted area and the destruction of more than two million birds, in accordance with the action taken by the Government in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture with regard to extermination of birds in that area.

In the restricted area 33 farms were designated and all birds were destroyed. Outside that area was an area known as the controlled area where the Government took a differing view with respect to the plight of farmers. In many cases there was a real distinction between the way in which the two areas were dealt with. In the controlled area outside the restricted area not all birds were destroyed. It was interesting to talk to farmers up there in recent times to find that at a later stage during the outbreak three farms in the controlled area were found to contain infected poultry and certain decisions were taken by the Government, through the Department of Agriculture, that resulted in people in those areas being dealt with completely differently from those in the restricted area.

The motion before the House is fairly straightforward. It calls on the State Government to waive the clean-up costs now being sent to the farmers on the 33 farms involved in the restricted area, some 18 months after the extermination program took place. I have been told that $30 million to $40 million was spent by both the Federal and State governments in relation to this huge outbreak on the plateau of the Central Coast, the hinterland of the Central Coast. The Government is now, 18 months after the event, trying to recoup a total of $500,000. I will speak about this a little later, but it is important to consider what we are dealing with.

In fairness to honourable members opposite—including the Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast who spoke about this issue last week—I am sure they would also agree that the Opposition's motion is reasonable. It is designed to ensure that those farmers who were decimated by the effects of Newcastle disease upon their industry are not slugged again by an uncaring bureaucracy, and therefore uncaring Government, 18 months after the event. I have spoken to the Chicken Farmers Association on the Central Coast and a lot has happened since the outbreak of that disease in early 1999. I have been informed that the Department of Agriculture has issued guidelines to ensure that if such an outbreak occurs again we will not see the heavy-handed tactics that were demonstrated by this Government in its attempt to control the outbreak. It is important that these farmers do not once again become the victims of a system that 18 months ago simply failed to address their concerns and the difficulties they were experiencing.

I do not seek to underplay the significance of the disease, but it has also become apparent through analysis conducted by the Department of Agriculture that the much-touted exotic disease is in fact a mutated local strain of Newcastle disease, now referred to as V4 strain. The Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast made mention of this exotic disease last week. If he were to check with the Department of Agriculture he would find that it did not constitute an exotic disease but was in the area for some time and was nothing more than a mutated local strain. The Government asserted that it was an exotic strain that occurred elsewhere when the reality is that it was, as I said, a mutated local strain of Newcastle disease.

I refer honourable members to the comments made by the Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast last week in an answer he provided to a question I asked regarding the Government's approach. I must say that I was disappointed at the cold and callous way in which the Minister said, "We are sending out bills and we want the money to come in." That was the essence of what he said. It is important to recognise that the Minister was factually incorrect in a number of points that he made during the debate that occurred at the time. I have spoken to several farmers on the Central Coast and all they ask for is a fair go from this Government; a fair go to allow the industry on the Central Coast—in fact, one of the last remaining agricultural industries on the Central Coast—an opportunity to survive. According to information I have received, the bills that are being sent out to the 33 affected farms quite simply will not be paid.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It will send them broke.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The Hon. J. H. Jobling interjects that it will send them broke. That is about to occur. A number of the farmers have indicated to me that rather than go to the wall they are prepared to go to gaol over the way in which they have been treated. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement. It is worthwhile noting the circumstances surrounding the deed of agreement, which is how the Minister referred to it last week. He suggested that this was a co-operative agreement that all parties who signed the agreement were happy to participate in.

I take honourable members back 18 months when concern was being expressed by the Department of Agriculture and the Government that this disease—at that time thought to be exotic—was on the verge of spreading to native birdlife. The devastating impact that that would have on native birdlife, not only on the Central Coast but potentially right around the nation, weighed very heavily on those farmers who found themselves in the restricted area. Some farmers in the restricted area did not have one example of Newcastle disease in any poultry on their properties.

I have spoken to one farmer who had approximately 10,000 birds on his property and in respect of whom not one instance of Newcastle disease was found. He, too, was forced into having all of the birds destroyed. Those farmers were reluctant to have their birds destroyed, but happy to do so in the best interests of native birdlife right around the country. It was put to them that, if the disease were to spread to native birdlife and they had not taken the drastic steps necessary to avoid such an occurrence, the chicken farmers on the Central Coast would become the subject of Australiawide and, indeed, worldwide condemnation

Honourable members should bear in mind that it was not only the business people who were affected. A lot of people in the restricted area also had to destroy pets. I am sure the Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast would know of one or two individuals who had a very close relationship with a family pet and who reluctantly agreed to have the bird destroyed, which had a devastating effect on the family. People in the restricted area did the right thing. They said, "Yes, we are prepared to accept that if we cannot control the disease—you have told us that it is an exotic disease and highly virulent—we must ensure that all our birds are destroyed."

I take exception to the manner in which the Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast answered my question last week, in particular to his words "they were offered the opportunity to have New South Wales Agriculture arrange to undertake disinfection and disposal on their behalf" as if somehow they were quite happy to go along with this arrangement. Honourable members need to think back to the time 18 months when these farmers were told that if the disease were to spread to native bird life the result could be quite devastating.

The clean-up was on such a huge scale that the farmers had no alternative. One farmer told me that it was like having a gun held to their heads, because they were told that if they undertook the clean-up themselves the Department of Agriculture would not guarantee them a certificate stating that the proper process for the disinfection and culling of birds had taken place. To use a colloquial term, they were between a rock and a hard place. If they undertook the clean-up themselves they ran the risk of the Department of Agriculture's declaring their property black, in which case they would not be able to continue business. Bear in mind that many who were involved in the chicken industry away from the coast did not want to be involved with birds coming from the Central Coast.

Farmers found themselves in an unfortunate situation. They could not undertake the clean-up themselves because the department could not guarantee that it would provide them with a clean bill of health. If the Department of Agriculture conducted the clean-up it would provide a certification that the property was free of infestation. Eighteen months ago, when the farmers were in a difficult position, they were told that they would be billed for the clean-up in six months. Now the Government is happy to say that those bills were not sent out until 18 months later.

The Government says that the farmers should have had sufficient time in which to build up their coffers to pay the bills. The reality is that many chicken farmers on the Central Coast are still struggling to get back on their feet financially. It would be a sign of compassion if every member of this House were to show support for the chicken growers on the Central Coast by voting unanimously for the Government to waive the clean-up fees forthwith. As I said earlier, the farmers did the right thing regarding the bird life of this country. The Opposition is asking the Government to do the right thing by the farmers.

Earlier I referred to a couple who had absolutely no evidence of Newcastle disease on their property during the outbreak. I know that young couple, Mark and Karen Swain, and their children quite well. They were involved in the egg production industry, not meat production. One morning they awoke to see a huge shipping container being dropped outside their front yard. They knew what that meant, and they knew that they had no say in the matter. Their 10,000 birds were to be loaded into the shipping container, taken away, destroyed with millions of other birds and subsequently buried on the coast.

Mark and Karen told me that they received $64,000 in compensation. However, they told me that that is a couple of thousand dollars short of the costs involved in repairs to equipment and the difference between the number of birds destroyed and the number for which they received compensation. Their birds were destroyed even though there was no indication of Newcastle disease on their property. On 24 January the Department of Agriculture sent them a bill for $32,760. How can a young family like the Swains cope with a bill for $32,760 while they rebuild their stock to get their business off the ground? As I said earlier, there are 33 farms in the affected area which are copping bills ranging from $8,000 to $50,000.

The Government is sending farmers bills which total $500,000. When one considers the net effect that the chicken farmers have on the continuing success of Central Coast business, notwithstanding the difficulties encountered with agriculture in the area, that amount pales into insignificance. But the Government is committed to ensuring that every last dollar is extracted from the chicken farmers. This House should voice its dissatisfaction at the way in which the Government has conducted this matter over the past month.

I commend the President of the Chicken Growers Association, Shaun Rodger, for the amount of information he has provided to members of the Coalition. The shadow Minister for Agriculture in another place, the honourable member for Barwon, and I are most appreciative of the work that Mr Rogers has done in ensuring that we get the maximum amount of information possible and are kept up to date. Mr Rogers told me of an incident in western New South Wales in which a group of farmers did not spray for locusts and were billed by the Department of Agriculture for the cost of the clean-up. However, the Government later decided that the farmers did not have to pay for the clean-up. So a precedent has been set. As that is the case, I ask the Minister to explain to members of this House and to the people of the Central Coast chicken industry why the same rules do not apply to them.

Last week the Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast said that he had received information that 20 farmers had conducted the clean-up of their properties on the Central Coast in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture. He should look at the information that he was given. I do not imply that he misled the House, but I suspect he was given incorrect information, or that the information was cagily worded. Not one of the 33 farms in the restricted area conducted their own clean-up. Yet each of those 33 farms are receiving bills and have until 14 March to pay them. If they do not do so, the Government intends to take further action.

The Minister's suggestion that there was a deed of agreement with the members of the chicken industry on the Central Coast and that they were quite happy for the Department of Agriculture to conduct the clean-up in mid-1999 is quite false. The farmers had no alternative. I again remind honourable members that, to use the farmers' expression, it was like having a gun put to their heads. They had no alternative, they were forced to have the Department of Agriculture conduct the clean-up, and now they are being billed for it. I call on the Minister to explain why the Government is proceeding with the bill of $500,000 for the clean-up. I am sure that the Minister would agree that this industry on the Central Coast is extremely important; it provides employment and contributes to the local economy.

I take this opportunity to challenge the honourable member for Peats, Marie Andrews, for her crocodile tears on behalf of the farmers. If she were serious she would have moved a motion calling upon her Government to waive the fees. For her to sit back and say, "Isn't it dreadful, isn't it terrible," and do absolutely nothing is totally unacceptable. She may get away with telling the farmers on a one-to-one basis, "This is shocking. I am working with the Minister. We are working this through," but hoping to reach a resolution whilst the clock is ticking away towards 14 March is not a serious attempt by her. If the honourable member for Peats were serious she would have introduced a notice of motion last week calling upon her Government to explain why it will not waive the fees for the clean-up. The Coalition is serious, it is prepared to debate the matter in this Chamber this afternoon. I hope all fair-minded members in this Chamber will vote with the Opposition to pass this motion.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.09 p.m.]: This is a worthwhile motion. Certainly the livelihood of chicken growers is very important as part of the primary industry threatened by economic rationalism. It is interesting historically to note that this industry was vertically integrated. Poultry companies gave away chicken growing to subcontractors rather than pay employees to do it. Presumably that was done on a cost basis: it was cheaper for the big conglomerates to sell the eggs and buy back the birds later than to keep the birds. Perhaps that was done because wages were high, workers compensation premiums were high, it is a tough job, and people who work for themselves will work harder—and the companies wanted to turn it into cold dollars. Each grower is given a starter chick and paid a regulated amount when the birds are bought back. Some years ago a move was made to deregulate that amount, which I think is about 52� a bird. That is an extraordinarily small amount given the costs of rearing and feeding.

The point must be made that chicken growers have a pretty tough time and they work very hard. They may have a lot of birds but they do not get much money for each bird. They buy the starter chicks from big conglomerates and sell the chickens back when they are ready for market. They have relatively limited means despite having a lot of birds and a large infrastructure investment. At the time of the Newcastle disease epidemic there was some discussion about whether changes in importing genetic material from overseas made it possible for the importation of Newcastle disease. The story that was released was that this was a spontaneous mutation of an Australian-based strain. The Mangrove Mountains and district community group was concerned that it would not have to vaccinate its flocks in the medium term because that would have resulted in an ongoing cost.

Presumably they would then have to negotiate with the conglomerates that supply the starter chicks and take their birds to market. They were not keen about that. They pointed out in their letter to me of 4 June 1999 that native birds also were susceptible to Newcastle disease and had a very low immunity to the disease; they also pointed out that an epidemic would hurt the tourism industry. I visited the upper Mangrove Mountain area at the time and spoke to the Azzopardi family, who were extremely hospitable. They had initially been employees and had built up their own business which comprised a large number of chickens. They were sitting in their comfortable home, which they worked very hard to get, hoping that the inspectors would not come and take away all of their birds. I think that is what actually happened. Next door to them Margaret Pontifex had a pet bird—a variety of cockatoo as I recall—which she was very attached to. I am not an expert on birds, but obviously it was in danger of being put down.

I then went to the emergency control office, or whatever it was called, where the Department of Agriculture and others were running what amounted to a war room. They were taking the birds in trucks, killing them and putting them in a large grave. They went about it like bushfire control headquarters dealing with a public health menace. The sensitivity of the growers was somewhat neglected. I guess the psychological impacts on people were forgotten in the urgency and enthusiasm to make sure any bird that had any possibility of being anywhere near the virus and could therefore transmit it was killed and disposed of so that the virus would not spread. Some anomalies arose when, early in the epidemic, truck loads of birds went to Melbourne.

As one might well understand, there was a great deal of anxiety and concern by growers about the equity of treatment of individuals and processing yards compared to growers' sheds, and the growers were compensated. Epidemics such as this are effectively national emergencies, as they have national economic implications. At these times when much is at stake the nation should meet some of the costs rather than simply say there has been an outbreak. A large number of people want to eat eggs or chicken products, therefore we want to have a viable industry. We do not want to import everything. We do not want all our native birds to die. We recognise that this process happens through AQIS and that individual farmers are not responsible for disease outbreaks if they comply with reasonable farming practices. Therefore, the cost of eliminating risks should be shared.

Of course, the farmers were compensated when their birds were killed, but if the clean-ups were undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and the farmers went along with it because that gave them certainty that their farm would be approved as clear of the disease, then, at present, that is a private cost. As I have said, it is a matter of State and national importance. I do not believe it is reasonable that the subcontractors who produce or grow birds for the larger conglomerates should be disadvantaged by having to meet the clean-up charges for a situation which they did not cause and were not responsible for. They were doing their best to deal with considerable personal trauma.

This motion basically asks that the Government waive the charges of cleaning up the farms after the birds were taken away. Of course, many birds from farms in the quarantine area were not diagnosed with Newcastle disease. They were killed because of the possibility of an odd virus spreading in the breeze. So, in a sense the birds were killed as a preventive measure. The farmers had followed optimal practices; they were very conscientious in trying to prevent their birds from being infected or infecting other birds. They were willing to keep their birds rather than send them for slaughter, to forgo that income as their birds went past the optimal age to be sent to market. They now have these large imposts. I believe that the State should meet this expense as part of the cost of having this industry in our State. I urge support for this motion on that basis and express the support of the Democrats to the poultry industry of New South Wales.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.20 p.m.]: I strongly support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It is extremely unfair that poultry farmers had to pay for the cost of the clean-up, particularly when many of their farms were not affected by Newcastle disease. The clean-up was organised by the Department of Agriculture for the benefit of the community as a whole, therefore the whole of the community should pay for the cost of the clean-up. The farmers have paid enough already. The Government should pay for the cost of the clean-up and not further burden the farmers, who have had the double whammy of losing their income and their flocks. It has been very traumatic for some farmers. The farmers should not have to pay for the cost of the clean-up, which was ordered by the Department of Agriculture for the benefit of the public.

Notwithstanding my strong support for the motion, I would like to bring to the attention of the House one or two matters concerning the outbreak of Newcastle disease. Poultry farmer Andrew Cassididas received a phone call from Inghams directing him to close the vent on one shed and turn up the heat, which resulted in the death of 15,000 chickens. Mark Pearson from Animal Liberation then wrote to Mr Sheridan, the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture, in the following terms:

I have no doubt that both the farmer and his family were shocked and traumatised by the order from Inghams, particularly when they went into the shed the following morning and found that 80 per cent of the chickens were dead and the other 20 per cent were dying. The Cassididas family were upset: they did not want to follow the order issued by Inghams. Most of their hens were perfectly healthy. Mark Pearson asked the director-general whether the order issued by Inghams was issued under the Animal Research Act. His understanding was that a Mr Geoff File from the Department of Agriculture, who co-ordinated the killing of the chickens, said that the closing of the shed was an experiment. If it were an experiment to see how the chickens died or whether they died quickly it would have to have been conducted under the auspices of the Animal Research Act. The Director-General of Agriculture, Mr Sheridan, wrote to Mark Pearson on 21 June and stated:

In order both to relieve the suffering of affected birds and to fulfil its obligations under the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 to control and eradicate the disease, the Department sought the most humane and expeditious methods for euthanasing the birds.

That is untrue. To allow the birds to die from heat stress overnight was not at all humane; in fact, it is against the law. Mr Sheridan said that following consultation with officers from the RSPCA, a decision was made to allow the destruction of the birds. A report dated 5 June 1999 from Special Constable Mark Pearson to Senior Detective Kemp indicates that there was indeed consultation with the RSPCA, which refused to give permission for the destruction of the birds in such a manner. The report states:

The same report states:

Animal Liberation wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Richard Amery, pointing out the inhumane killing of the 15,000 chickens. At the same time it asked a number of questions, to which I will refer later. Mark Pearson asked the Minister whether all the procedures followed were necessary, justifiable and reasonable. The letter states:

Mark Pearson asked a number of questions, which were not answered in a letter dated 11 November from Mr Sheridan. The questions were:

Mark Pearson received no adequate reply to those questions from Mr Sheridan. A letter to Mark Pearson from the National Office of Animal and Plant Health, and National Office of Food Safety states:

That is the end of the story. Those questions have not been answered. An illegal act was committed, which was apparently approved of by the Director-General of Agriculture and others in New South Wales Agriculture. The Minister was apprised of this fact but nothing was done about it. I ask the Minister to explain why no prosecutions took place and why the director-general pulled the wool over the Minister's eyes. As we have seen from the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom, intensive animal farming causes serious problems. There is no doubt about that. The Waugh brothers in Northumberland were apparently visited by representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who tried to prosecute them over the treatment of their pigs.

However, the RSPCA was overruled by the Ministry of Agriculture: the brothers were not prosecuted and were allowed to continue their farming practices. As a result of the appalling conditions in which those pigs were kept and the food they were fed, it appears that foot and mouth disease has spread throughout the United Kingdom and possibly to Europe—it may even reach Australia. Newcastle disease also tends to spread much more quickly in intense farming conditions. As a society, we should examine the way we treat our animals. Battery farming should certainly be phased out, as is happening in Europe. Our treatment of farm animals in this country is appalling. It is about time that we looked to Europe for some guidance in our treatment of animals.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY [3.30 p.m.]: I wish to express my support for the farmers whose chickens were affected by the recent outbreak of Newcastle disease. Several chicken farmers talked to the Country Labor group last week and explained their situation. In cleaning up after the outbreak of Newcastle disease, farmers were faced with two options: first, employ private contractors; or, secondly, ask New South Wales Agriculture to do that work. The farmers opted to ask the department of agriculture to carry out the work for several reasons. The first and probably most important reason is that farmers were under considerable duress. Farmers had no idea of the extent of this insidious disease that had affected their chickens, how long it would continue or where it would spread. Having New South Wales Agriculture step in and remove the dead birds from farms professionally and consistently was obviously the best option. That is what happened and, from memory, farmers expect to receive an account for that work of perhaps $2,000 to $3,000.

Chicken farmers are not a wealthy group: they earn about 50� a bird for their endeavours, which works out at about 1� per bird per day. Chicken farmers must install an enormous amount of infrastructure and work under extremely difficult conditions. They derive little profit from their operations. Our group asked the department to provide some advice as to how the accounts were calculated, and that information will be forthcoming this week. We will obviously decide then how to proceed and what representations to make. I reiterate my concern about the plight of chicken growers and assure them that we intend to offer any assistance we can.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.33 p.m.]: I support several of the comments made by previous speakers in this debate. I am certainly greatly concerned about the serious hardship being experienced by poultry farmers, by those in the food production industry and by those on the land who have been ordered by New South Wales Agriculture to get rid of their flocks and who must pay for their removal. That is not appropriate. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones alluded to deep concerns about mass disease outbreaks, which I share. I visited a battery chicken farm—Hen Home—with an animal liberation group some months ago and I was appalled to see the conditions in which the chickens were living. I was appalled by the filth and the cruelty suffered by those birds. As a result of the current market structure, chicken farmers are stuck in the intensive farming rut: they are pushed to the limit and are thus pushing their birds to the limit in order to make a profit.

I am very concerned about the outbreak of Newcastle disease. I am sure the Hon. I. M. Macdonald will disagree with my views: he has described how battery chickens have fewer pathogens, and I am certainly willing to look at the relevant results. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones mentioned other disease outbreaks around the world, particularly the foot and mouth outbreak in the United Kingdom and Europe. Battery or intensive farming situations often lend themselves to the rapid spread of disease throughout stock kept in unnatural, unhealthy and inhumane conditions. Animals and birds kept in these conditions have little of the resistance that they would have in a more natural environment. Therefore, they are less able to cope with these types of diseases, which often overrun such establishments in a cataclysmic manner.

I have been told about the closing of vents at a particular chicken farm and the fact that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals refused to allow that to occur. Birds died slowly and inhumanely from heat exposure. That is completely inappropriate and such behaviour should be abhorred by all in our society who have a responsibility to protect vulnerable birds and animals. It is clear that the farmers had their backs against the wall—they had no choice: they were acting on the directions of the department—and they should be adequately compensated. I believe we should also look seriously at food production styles in our society. I have walked along supermarket aisles and seen labels such as "free range", "barn laid", "farm fresh" and "organic" proudly displayed on egg cartons. However, one never sees a label reading "battery cage eggs".

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: There is not one difference in nutrition.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask, first, that people be given the choice that they have in so many other areas; secondly, that the advertising be accurate, appropriate and readable; and, thirdly, that those engaged in the battery poultry industry receive government support to allow them to use more humane and healthy farming practices that may reduce vulnerability to diseases such as Newcastle disease, of which there was a major outbreak in 1999. It is also important to recognise that many farmers sacrificed their flocks and their livelihoods to protect wildlife by preventing the spread of the disease into the natural environment, which could have had a disastrous impact.

It is important that we waive the cost of the clean-up and that the Government supports sufficiently an industry that is under enormous pressure, with its back to the wall. There are similar problems in the dairy industry, with the move towards factory farming of beef. Animals reared in that unnatural situation are far more vulnerable. Despite what may be said subsequently in this debate, I believe those conditions create an environment that is conducive to the spread of a disease that could be combated in the long term by the more humane, natural stock-raising methods practised by past generations that worked far more effectively than the battery farming of today.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.39 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion, which reads:

That this House:

The first part of the motion makes the point that the poultry farmers and egg producers have already suffered a great financial loss from the destruction of the birds. They suffered a dramatic loss of income. We also support the next part of the motion, which reads:

(b) notes the lack of choice available to these farmers in the removal of bird carcasses and the clean-up of their property ...

The clean-up was carried out by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. Farmers were not given a choice. They may have appreciated the assistance of the department. The producers had to rehabilitate and restock their farms before being able to produce revenue. Yet they have received accounts for thousands of dollars for the cleanup. Unless the clean-up was contracted out, the departmental staff involved would have been occupied in other duties and their wages would have been covered by the department's budget. So the farmers should not be charged and the accounts should be cancelled.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.42 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition. I am very familiar with the egg and poultry industry in the lower Hunter and the Central Coast—the areas referred to in the motion—and also in Tamworth and Griffith. The industry is one of the State's major industries. Australia—and New South Wales—has been singularly lucky in avoiding many of the exotic diseases found overseas. In earlier days this was perforce of our distance from other countries and the avoidance of airborne transmission. If an exotic disease got away in this country it could decimate industries which at present are disease free. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service recognises this. Other countries would embargo Australian produce for a period and this could result in markets being lost in perpetuity.

Newcastle disease is a particularly virulent disease. The virus spreads quickly and affects all bird life—chickens, wild birds, ducks and even emus. If an area is not quarantined quickly and the disease is not eradicated animals passing through the affected area can spread the disease statewide. The "if it escapes" argument has never been made clearer than in Great Britain currently. Foot and mouth disease has spread into France and onto mainland Europe. The disease can be spread by foot or vehicle, on the wind and by wild birds. I would hate to see New South Wales suffer in this way. The action by the Department of Agriculture was necessary to deal with the outbreak of Newcastle disease. There was no option but to isolate and eradicate.

The measures taken to deal with the outbreak on the Central Coast in 1999 caused extreme hardship to the producers. Their livelihood was suddenly terminated. It took many months after the clean-up for them to restore a positive cash flow. There was no choice in this case: the farmers had no option. Many birds that had not been afflicted with Newcastle disease were killed but the risk could not be taken that they had not been affected. Rehabilitation of farms after such dramatic measures has serious effects. The issuing of the large accounts to farmers after they have already suffered huge financial losses leaves them staring at bankruptcy. The action taken to counter the outbreak will benefit or other areas of New South Wales. Had the disease escaped into the rest of the State the cost and effect would have been humungous.

I strongly call on the Government to withdraw the accounts issued to farmers unfortunate enough to have birds affected by Newcastle disease in the 1999 outbreak. The costs of the clean-up program should be waived in the interest of the industry in New South Wales. We have avoided international embargos by maintaining the industry's disease-free status.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.47 p.m.]: I support the motion and endorse the comments made by the Hon. I. Cohen. The time of the outbreak was most distressing for the Greens. We had great sympathy for farmers and for the chickens that were slaughtered in huge numbers. Such outbreaks are a wake-up call for all of us in relation to the way we live our lives. The consequences of the present farming practices that we depend on are being played out in Europe at the moment. As other speakers have said, this has been one example of the problems that can be delivered by intense farming practices. I hope that mad cow disease and foot and mouth disease never come to our shores. The present problems highlight the need for a complete reassessment of how agriculture is conducted in the world today.

The Greens welcomed the comments in the past week by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. When confronted by the incredible catastrophe unfolding across Europe he said that it was time to look at how we conduct agriculture. In much of agriculture there is still very much a machine mentality—that is the best way I can sum it up—in large agricultural complexes toward making large profits quickly. In questioning the profit motive of many of the big complexes we are not saying that money cannot be made out of agriculture. The organic farming industry shows clearly that good money can be made by farming in a way that does not compromise our environment or jeopardise human health.

A factor that needs to come into play will be our overall approach to agriculture and to our diet. I have chosen to be a vegan. Although a vegan lifestyle can impact positively on the environment and human health, I am not suggesting it for everybody. However, I encourage people to make the personal choice to eat less meat. Despite the interjections, I urge many of my colleagues who sometimes do not enjoy the best of health to consider what they put into their mouths because they could make a real contribution to the environment and improve their health. Many people dearly enjoy eating meat, yet it is ironic that meat can seriously damage their health and have a detrimental impact on the wider environment.

I also refer to the welfare of the animals. We hear of the millions of dollars that have been spent in dealing with the Newcastle disease outbreak, yet the plight of the birds has been ignored. In most cases they are battery hens that are caged in unacceptable conditions. Animals have rights, yet because of these appalling conditions they have been denied the right to have sun baths and dust baths and to socialise with other members of their species. As human beings we should consider those matters. The Greens are pleased to support this important motion—indeed, we believe that it does not go far enough. But at least it has allowed the House to debate important issues dealing with animal rights and human health as they are affected by agricultural practices today. These practices must change dramatically if we are not to have visiting our shores some of the terrible animal disease outbreaks devastating Europe at the moment.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast) [3.52 p.m.]: I shall respond to a number of matters raised in the debate and record a couple of observations. I make the obvious remark that this problem is of such magnitude that two tiers of government—Commonwealth and State—are involved in the quarantining against foreign agricultural diseases. State government Two governments are involved in the welfare of communities—the Commonwealth and State governments have different and complementary roles. The Commonwealth Government and State governments are responsible, in their various ways, for the regulation of farming activity, not only on the Central Coast but throughout the State of New South Wales, each other State jurisdiction and the Commonwealth of Australia as a whole.

We need to take a fair view of this argument. The Leader of the Opposition has a surprised look on his face. A number of observations need to be made about the responses of the Commonwealth Government and the State Government to the Newcastle disease outbreak some 18 months ago. The first is very important: the Commonwealth was approached—with the support of the State Government, the farming community and the relevant farming peak councils—for exceptional circumstances relief, which conventionally is a Commonwealth responsibility. It is also a kind of insurance against a general critical problem. Scientific analysis shows that the disease did not enter Australia by penetrating our quarantining but that it was a genetic variation of an existing strain.

Nonetheless, it was a quarantine issue because it was important to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible. However, it was a shared responsibility. I reside in a community close to the chicken farmers in the Mangrove Mountain area and behind the ridge along the Central Coast, as does the Leader of the Opposition. I count a large number of people from that farming community as personal friends, a number of them as close personal friends. I suffered through that difficult time at a personal level and could recount some of their concerns and individual traumas, but they have been adequately dealt with during this debate.

The exceptional circumstances relief never came. The Commonwealth Government was asked to underwrite the problems associated with this terrible Newcastle disease outbreak. The State Government provided the State emergency services, infrastructure from the Department of Agriculture and a range of support services. However, I regret to say that when it came to the crunch the Commonwealth Government was not there when it was needed. Worse than that, it took about 12 months to tell the State Government and the farming community—which was under stress and in distress—that it was refusing the request for exceptional circumstances relief. That needs to be borne in mind in this debate. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have a number of friends in that farming community—

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You haven't got a friend up there!

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. J. H. Jobling is trying to distract me from making an important point, and in part he is succeeding. Another important point relating to the clean-up and fairness issue is that the Department of Agriculture cleaned up 27 farms and 20 farmers elected to do their own clean-ups. Those 20 farmers have already expended that money for disinfection and a range of activities associated with the Newcastle disease clean-up. In fairness, we ought to take into consideration the fact that 20 individual farmers have already paid their costs in relation to this matter and ordinarily that would be picked up in exceptional circumstances funding provided by the Federal Government; it would not be picked up by the State Government waiving—

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Are you supporting the motion?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, I am not. I am a member of the Government. The Government's view will be made very clear by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald. I am making a number of other important observations.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You are the Minister for the Central Coast and you are not supporting the chicken growers.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: And that is exactly what I am talking about. The Leader the Opposition will have to understand that the Commonwealth Government did not support them at all. It would be unfair to the 20 farmers who have already paid their costs for the 27 farmers to have their clean-up fees waived by the Department of Agriculture.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Why not just give them a refund?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: How can we give them a refund? They did the work themselves at their own cost. It was for the Commonwealth Government to provide exceptional circumstances funding. I am talking about Department of Agriculture activity and a clean-up, which is quite different. It should be understood that this is a shared responsibility. The New South Wales Government and local government played their roles and other things are happening with regard to strengthening the community and providing support for the farmers.

I am advised that my colleague in another place the honourable member for Peats, Marie Andrews, will be making an announcement shortly to provide additional support for the community. A number of other initiatives have been taken by the State Government to support the farming community through this crisis. I repeat the warning to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to be fair, there are two points of fairness in respect of this issue. What about the people who have already paid their way? We are talking about cost recovery in regard to those farmers who have not paid and we are talking about a situation in which the Commonwealth Government has walked away from its responsibilities.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_________

TIMBARRA MINE CLOSURE

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Is the Minister aware that the controversial Timbarra gold mine is set to close with Delta Gold Limited announcing that the operation does not fit with the company's overall direction? Is the Minister concerned that continual and unfounded environmental protests may have contributed to the closure of what was an important employment and investment opportunity for the lower Clarence region?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have no doubt that the honourable member is one who would consider employment in the Clarence district as very important.

[Interruption]

I am giving the honourable member accolades for being considerate and regarding it as an important project. For the benefit of honourable members I will read the facts into the Hansard record. The Timbarra gold mine, owned by Delta Gold Limited, is situated near Tenterfield. Following suspension of mining in August 1999 all dried cyanide was removed from the site, and the mine put in place an agreed care and maintenance plan. More than 99.5 per cent of cyanide present during mineral processing has now been destroyed. Over the nine days ending 3 February the Timbarra area was subjected to extremely heavy rainfall, 525 millimetres of rain falling on the site.

I am advised the storage capacity in the storm pond on 28 January was 66,000 cubic metres, compared with the mining lease requirement of 59,000 cubic metres. I am also advised that as a result of this extreme weather water overflowed from the storage dams. The Environment Protection Authority has stated that the small amount of water released contained undetectable levels of cyanide and was unlikely to cause any environmental harm.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: This is the question you thought you might have been asked, not the question you were asked.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I said for the record, so that we do not become confused about—

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You have got it confused.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: You have not listened to the question. It was a very important question.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I listened to the question, that is how I know you are not answering the question.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: For those in this House who are interested in the facts, it is important to read them into Hansard.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: This is not an answer to the question.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: It is very important, because at the end of the—

[Interruption]

It was not pressure from anyone that caused the company to go into this closure mode. Important information should be read onto the record for the benefit of those honourable members who are interested in the issue. Officers of the Department of Mineral Resources and of the Environment Protection Authority were on site during the overflow and collected water samples from the mine site and downstream. I am advised analysis of these samples has indicated cyanide was undetectable downstream. Treatment of water and ore on the site will continue until it is effectively free of cyanide. Following heavy and persistent rain last year the company developed a strategy to reduce the volume stored by destroying remaining traces of cyanide and irrigating on the mining lease.

Under strictly controlled conditions, a six-month irrigation trial commenced on 25 August last. I am advised that the levels of ammonia and nitrate in the irrigation water will not adversely affect the environment. An interim evaluation report of the irrigation trial states that it has had no effect on vegetation, soil or water quality of ground or surface waters in or adjacent to the irrigated areas. The Government has been advised that Delta has initiated closure and rehabilitation planning of the Timbarra mine. Last year Delta tried to sell the mine to Perseverance, a Melbourne-based resource company. However, the sale of the mine was not completed. I am advised that no other parties have expressed an interest in purchasing or operating the Timbarra mine.

The Government will work with Delta in the preparation of a closure plan and will ensure that the site is effectively rehabilitated. The company has made a commitment to consult with relevant government agencies and stakeholders throughout the year. The closure and rehabilitation plan will be rigorously assessed by the Government to ensure it applies best practice standards. All necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the views of other government agencies and community stakeholders have been adequately sought and considered. Rehabilitation must meet the commitments given in the documents that form the basis for the approval and grant of leases. These documents include the environmental impact statement, the statement of environmental effects, the threatened species management plans and the mining operation plan.

The plan is expected to be in place by the end of 2001. The mine site is still on care and maintenance status, and remains strictly controlled through the mining operation plan. Stringent environmental lease conditions remain in place. The Government continues to hold a $3.27 million security until site rehabilitation has been completed and environmental outcomes have been met. The Government continues to ensure that multiple safeguards are maintained on the site until it is free of cyanide.

I note that the Hon. I. Cohen called for the site to be included in a national park. I mention that the Hon. I. Cohen has been an ardent objector to the presence of the Timbarra mine, not only through the life of this Government but during the life of the first Carr Government from 1995 to 1999. Consideration of his suggestion will be a matter for my colleague the Minister for the Environment. It is not a matter that comes within my portfolio responsibilities. However, the priority for the Government at the moment is to ensure the successful rehabilitation of the mine site. It is always sad when a mine closes in these circumstances with the loss of jobs but I assure honourable members that it was a decision of the mine owners. The Government placed strict conditions on the approval of the mine and they have been met.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: They cannot have done much damage if it is to go into a national park.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: We all agree. I have read a statement onto the record. The Government has done as much as it could to keep the mine operational. It was a business decision, a commercial decision for the company to make. The Government will ensure that the rehabilitation and all conditions of the mining plan are met. The company has indicated that it will co-operate with all agencies to make sure that those conditions are met.

PENSIONERS COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE PREMIUMS

The Hon. I. W. WEST: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister advise the House of recent changes to the pensioner category for green slips?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Under the motor accidents scheme pensioners, both aged and others, have in the past been eligible for a 10 per cent discount on the base premium for sedans. However, the cost of claims for this group has increased dramatically over the last few years. The Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] advises that the increase has primarily been attributed to the deteriorating claims experienced by the non-aged component of the pensioner group. As a result, insurers began imposing a loading on non-aged pensioners, resulting in these people paying a loading on their premiums of up to 25 per cent. That meant that non-aged pensioners were in fact paying more in their premiums than were drivers of the same age who were not pensioners.

This is not an acceptable situation to the Government. The pensioner class has therefore been replaced with a seniors class for all people aged over 55. It provides a 25 per cent discount for all drivers 55 years and over. Non-aged pensioners will now have their premiums assessed on the same basis as the non-pensioner population. It should also be noted that the principal cause of major variations in green slip premiums is changes to discounts and loading structures imposed by insurers. In applying a discount or loading, insurers can have regard to such risk factors as the age of the driver or owner of the vehicle, age of the vehicle, comprehensive insurance history and at-fault claims history. Clearly, such risk variations are entirely valid.

However, the MAA has advised me that it is concerned that there have been many changes by some insurers in changing from discount to loadings which may not be justified on the basis of changed risk. Therefore, I have directed the MAA to undertake a review of the bonus-malus, or, in simple terms, discount-loading arrangements, by insurers to ensure that those arrangements properly reflect risk rating. In addition, the MAA is to consider any recommendations for changes to the bonus-malus arrangements and their future application.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: They were not aware of it. The honourable member for Gosford was.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have been following what the honourable member for Gosford has been up to. That is very interesting.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: He raised this issue.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: He has been raising his profile.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: He raised this issue.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Yes, very effectively.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: That is how you found out about it.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Yes.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You agree that he raised the issue?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have learned a lot from him. His latest exercise was reported on the front page of the Express Advocate.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Do not believe everything you read. The fact of the matter is he raised this issue.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Were you the highly placed source? There are only two highly placed sources in the Liberal Party on the Central Coast—it must be you. Given the important role played by insurers in advising consumers of the nature and quality of the product they are purchasing, the MAA has also been asked to look at the obligation on insurers to give proper, informed notification of changes to the bonus-malus application to vehicle owners. So that vehicle owners are not confused by the changes in compulsory third party [CTP] rates, insurers may need to advise vehicle owners of the risk factor which has resulted in the change in premium.

The CTP scheme is a privately underwritten insurance scheme with the premium price set by insurers subject to limited review by the MAA. However, green slip prices must clearly reflect the risk and when there are changes those changes must be explained to the consumer. The MAA will examine current premium setting arrangements to ensure that those principles are properly and fully applied. I have asked the MAA to report to me by the end of June and will further advise Parliament when that report is available.

I also remind motorists, and by extension members of the House, that they should not simply accept the renewal quote that they receive from their insurer. By shopping around motorists can get the best premium for their vehicle. For example, one motorist who was sent a renewal by an insurer for $396, excluding GST, was able to get a better premium from a different insurer. After shopping around the motorist was able to get a green slip for $284.50, excluding GST—the same price as the previous year. The Government's reforms to the motor accidents scheme are clearly working.

PETROL TAX

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that prior to 1997 the Government charged a duty on petrol? Does the Treasurer agree that after the High Court ruling in 1997 that duty was constitutionally invalid, the Commonwealth subsequently agreed to collect an equivalent amount on behalf of the Treasurer and then remit it to New South Wales? Does the Treasurer also agree that his recent claim in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald that "only the Commonwealth taxes petrol" fails to admit that his Government was, and still is, under the new tax system the beneficiary of money collected by the Federal Government from petrol on his behalf?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I notice that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn is not present, which means there is something about the Liberal leadership going on. The answer to the first part of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is yes. Prior to 1997 the States taxed not only petrol but also alcohol and tobacco. In 1997, as a result of the High Court case, we lost that power. In answer to the second part of the question, I advise that as a result of that High Court case the Commonwealth undertook to levy those taxes on behalf of the States. In other words, the Commonwealth raised the tax and passed those taxes to the States. Honourable members would remember that there was an election around the GST.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Coalition Government did not get a majority of the two-party preferred vote it did get a majority of the seats. It introduced legislation for what it called new tax arrangements. As part of the new tax arrangements the States agreed to forgo certain revenue and to abolish a number of taxes in return for a share of the GST and, in the initial years, a top-up payment to ensure that no State was worse off than it would be under the new arrangements. As part of that arrangement the collection of petrol tax by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States came to an end. I have a copy of the "Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations" in my hand and it states:

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: What happens at that date?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It will cease on 1 July 2000, and guess whose signature is on the agreement? John Howard's. The signature of the honourable John Howard is on the document not just one time, but a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth time. Every other leader of the Government signed it only once, but John Howard signed it six times. In other words the temporary arrangements whereby the Commonwealth collected tax on behalf of the States and paid it to the States ceased on 1 July 2000.

SCHOOL STUDENTS IDENTITY CARDS

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware that students at Batemans Bay High School have been issued with student identity cards? Is the Minister aware that those swipe-type cards are used for purposes including the tracking of students' arrival and departure from classes? Is the Minister aware that those cards were introduced without notification to students or parents and whilst the carrying of a card is said to be voluntary it is only on inquiry that this aspect is disclosed? Students appear to have been deliberately misled into believing the cards to be compulsory. Does the Minister consider it appropriate that those cards were issued without prior notification and with the only mention being a small notice in the school newsletter, well after the identity cards were issued? Is this an experiment being tried out in other schools? If so, which other schools?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: One Nation wants to put at bar code on our foreheads.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I think members of One Nation are against a bar code on one's forehead. I am not aware of the matter raised by the honourable member. I will seek an answer from the Minister for Education and Training and provide it to the honourable member and the House as quickly as possible. I am aware that a number of schools in the private and public system have a type of credit card system for access to the school library and other resources. It may be that the honourable member is confused in relation to that system. I will obtain an answer and provide it to the honour member as soon as I can.

RECREATIONAL FRESHWATER FISHING LICENCES

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Has the Minister taken any steps in satisfying his statutory requirements to review the existing recreational freshwater fishing licences?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank my colleague the Hon. A. B. Kelly, the convener of Country Labor, for an important question about regional New South Wales. Our freshwater fishing is some of the finest in Australia, whether trout fishing in high mountain streams or catching yabbies in the State's far west, it is important for tourism and it creates jobs.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about the Richmond River?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: What is wrong with the Richmond River?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Parts of it are dead. You have banned fishing in it.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Carr Labor Government is the only Government that immediately responded to the disaster in Richmond. The honourable member's Commonwealth colleagues have not even bothered answering two successive letters I sent on behalf of Richmond River fishers. They just needed simple assistance with their weekly income, which the Commonwealth has provided on numerous occasions in the past. But this time it is silent. Yet the Premier was in the area on the second day offering disaster relief from New South Wales to the whole community. They really appreciated it. The honourable member should go and talk with the fishers. He should also talk with his Commonwealth colleagues, who have not answered those letters for four weeks. These fishers have no income and the honourable member's colleagues have not even bothered to answer the letters.

As I was saying, this Government is committed to providing better recreational fishing and conserving our fish for future generations. That is why freshwater fishing laws, including bag and size limits, are regularly reviewed every five years. Last year, saltwater recreational fishing regulations were reviewed, updated and streamlined. The Government will now review existing freshwater recreational native fish and trout regulations. To review these laws effectively it is important that everyone involved in freshwater fishing has the opportunity to have a say about this community-owned resource.

The review will involve thorough consultation with stakeholders and the community about issues that concern all anglers. I am pleased to announce that a freshwater fishing review committee will be formed to review all existing regulations relating to freshwater fishing in New South Wales. This will include bag and size limits, fishing closures in certain areas at certain times of the year, and restrictions currently imposed on recreational fishing gear. Committee members will be chosen for their expertise in freshwater fishing. The committee will operate as a subcommittee to the advisory council on recreational fishing. I look forward to hearing the community's views during the submission process of this freshwater review.

SCHOOL TEXTBOOK FUNDING ALLOCATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer, as guardian of the public purse, satisfied that the $7.5 million of public funds allocated annually to textbook subsidies for private schools is being spent in the best interests of the entire community?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That question would have been more appropriately referred to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, and that is my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Government in this House. I do not know whether he wishes to say anything, but he will refer the question to his colleague the Minister for Education and Training.

PETROL TAX

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall how easily he found an additional $140 million for the Olympics when it was needed? Why will he not now commit a similar amount of money for a 1.5� rebate to ease the burden on New South Wales motorists and match the Prime Minister's actions?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The simple answer is that the New South Wales Government no longer taxes petrol. Not only does the Opposition want us to pay people's Commonwealth petrol tax; the next thing it will be wanting us to do is pay people's Commonwealth income tax!

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You're being flippant.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You're just being mean.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, because the proposition Opposition members are putting forward is as absurd as asking us to pay people's income tax.

OLYMPIC GAMES VENUES

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I direct a question without notice to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Would the Minister provide the House with details regarding the continued use of Olympic venues?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Where is Charlie Lynn?

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: He's off. He's changed sides. He's joined Barry O'Farrell.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is what I fear. I am concerned with what is happening in the leadership stakes in the parliamentary Liberal Party in Sydney but also at increasing reports in the national press that those leadership problems of the State Liberals are being experienced now in the Federal Liberal Party. It is deplorable what members opposite are doing to their parliamentary leader Mrs Chikarovski. I bring to the attention of the House an article in the Central Coast Express Advocate in which a senior Liberal source, and I can only assume it is Mr Hartcher, or the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously it is a Central Coast source. The article predicts that very shortly the tag team of Mr Hartcher and Mr O'Farrell will take over the Liberal leadership in this State. I should like to quote the Central Coast Express Advocate:

[Interruption]

I would like to put it on the record because I want to find out who is the rat in the ranks. I notice the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely silent.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You're a joke.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Is the Leader of the Opposition supporting Mr Hartcher or Mrs Chikarovski? Who is he supporting? I put the question to him, who is he supporting, Mrs Chikarovski or Mr Hartcher, and he will not answer.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Point of order: I refer the Minister to Standing Order 77. Reading extracts from newspapers is prohibited.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: To the point of order: It is obvious also that whilst the honourable member has been here a fair while he has learnt nothing. Newspapers can be read and used in parliamentary debate.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Have a look at Standing Order 77.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: To the point of order: I remind you, Madam President, that it is a long-standing convention of this House that when a document is publicly available, a newspaper, it is pointless to waste the time and expense of reading it into Hansard.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has not read Standing Order 77 correctly or in full. It states quite clearly:

It shall be competent for Members to read extracts from books, newspapers or other publications or documents ...

There is no point of order.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I wonder how he got that wrong. It was worth a try. Is a leadership challenge worth a try? Is the Leader of the Opposition supporting Mr Hartcher or is he supporting his leader, Mrs Chikarovski? Who has his support—Mr Hartcher or Mrs Chikarovski? It is quite clear I have caught him out. He is obviously lying to both of them because that is the only way he could ever have ended up as Leader of the Opposition in this House. Both sides thought he was supporting them! That is the only way because when I asked people how did he end up leader, they said, "We needed his vote." But both sides say they needed his vote. They both supported him. That is how he got the numbers against the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, because he told both sides he would support them. Now when he is asked point blank to say whether he is supporting Mr Hartcher or Mr Chikarovski, he sits silent! I quote the Central Coast Express Advocate:

Mr Hartcher—

And the paper has quoted him.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: The Leader of the Government seems to have forgotten the question, because that is not an answer to the question that was asked. I ask you to bring him back to the question.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That will not get the honourable member on the front bench.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is this further to the point of order?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They obviously think that Hartcher looks like a Churchill.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is this further to the point of order?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is no point of order. As I have said many times before, it is a tradition in this House that Ministers may answer questions as they see fit.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Just listen to this Churchillian quote: "We will fight the people in the education area; we will fight for the hospitals; we will fight for the railways; we will fight on behalf of the people—"

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about the motorists?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is far more eloquent than Mr Chris Hartcher could manage. The article goes on to say:

The Leader of the Opposition will not say where he stands, but I want to tell the House that I fully support Mrs Chikarovski's continuing leadership of the Liberal Party. What is more, I am prepared to give her any assistance she needs, any time, day or night, weekday or week night. Any assistance she needs she only has to ring and I will provide that advice. What is more, I am even prepared to make a financial contribution to the keep Chikarovski as leader fund. I have the contribution here. I have a cheque for the keep Chikarovski as leader fund. It is signed by me; it is my cheque, but I do not know whom to hand it to.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: How much?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is a very generous contribution.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You can't write a cheque that small.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes you can. I do it often.

ANTI-STALKING LEGISLATION

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. I refer to the ease with which stalkers can utilise technology, such as email, Internet and chat rooms, to contact, intimidate and harass their victims. What measures are being taken in this State to introduce anti-stalking legislation that will apply to such forms of technology?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Attorney General for his considered response.

PETROL TAX

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. The Auditor-General's report to Parliament last week indicated that the New South Wales budget surplus has increased to $5.5 billion. Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister has stated that the Federal Government's 1.5� per litre petrol rebate will be funded from the Federal Budget surplus? Why cannot the Minister find an equivalent petrol rebate from his own extremely large budget surplus?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have dealt with petrol subsidies today in answer to previous questions.

[Interruption]

I wish the Opposition could make up its mind about the budget surplus.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You told us it was $1 billion.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Last year it was more than $1 billion, but the $5.5 billion to which the Hon. J. M. Samios is referring was an operating surplus after abnormals. That is quite different from what we understand to be the budget surplus.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You still have a surplus.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, we have got a surplus.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Well, why aren't you—

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Because we are bringing down your $57 billion worth of debt.

SOUTHERN COALFIELDS

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. How will recent new coal contracts affect the southern coalfields community?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No doubt we are all aware that in the past three years the price of coal has been very low. Undoubtedly, this has affected our coal industry, which is one of our main mineral export industries. It is good news this year. The New South Wales Government, as always, is committed to supporting this valuable industry which, in recent years, has been hard hit by low world prices. This year things are looking very different. Strong growth in global steel production, especially in Japan where production increased by 13 per cent, has dramatically reduced our State's stockpiles of hard coking coal.

Prior to the start of each Japanese fiscal year the coal industry begins a process of negotiating coal prices with our major overseas buyers. Negotiations with Japanese companies are crucial in setting up coal prices with other markets, such as Korea, Taiwan, India and Europe. For the past three years New South Wales coal workers and their families have had little to celebrate. That is why I welcome the latest news that some hard coking coal price negotiations have now been completed. It is very positive news for our community. I am pleased to advise the House that BHP has confirmed that it has reached agreement with some of its customers for deliveries of hard coking coal in the next Japanese fiscal year.

BHP has also confirmed reports that price increases are around 7.5 per cent. I am advised that is $US3 per tonne to the price of approximately $US42.75 a tonne. This increase follows significant gains in the past year in spot prices for thermal coal, from $US20 per tonne to approximately $US32 per tonne. The increased price for coal is good news for mineworkers and their families in the southern coalfields, which are the State's principal hard coking coal producer and exporter. Last financial year nearly 2.5 million tonnes of its coal, worth $120 million, was exported.

The New South Wales Government is continuing to support the coal industry and mineworkers in the southern coalfields. We have continued to support the coal industry by reducing rail freight and electricity charges. We have continued to support the operations of the Port Kembla Coal Terminal by reducing lease charges on three separate cases. Last year it was good enough to negotiate with the Treasurer a reduction from $1.30 per tonne to 50� a tonne, that is an 80� reduction in port charges. That will assist the southern coalfields. It is great news for New South Wales. It is great news for our southern coalfields that produce hard coking coal. It is tremendous to see old coal attracting higher prices. I hope that with a greater demand for coking coal we will see improved figures next year.

FIREARMS REGISTRATION

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. Does the Minister have any comment on a report from the Law and Order Select Committee of the New Zealand Parliament, which, late last month, rejected firearms registration in New Zealand? Is it a fact that the committee found unanimously that universal registration of firearms was unlikely to promote responsible attitudes, stop unlicensed people from gaining access to guns, or have other positive effects? Is it also a fact that a proposed firearms control bill in New Zealand did not adequately address illegal ownership of firearms, and that the committee called for legislation to target those not complying with current laws rather than those who are?

Is it a fact that, despite the so-called uniform national firearms laws imposed on this country, we have experienced an unprecedented increase in the use of firearms in crime and violence, and a proliferation of illegal firearms? Is it also a fact that the annual international crimes survey released by Leiden University in Holland last week found that Australia led the world with the worst record for increases in burglary, violent crime and overall crime victimisation between 1991 and 1999? In light of all these facts does the Minister still claim that the current firearms laws are appropriate, and that they have had any effect other than to deprive law-abiding citizens of their legally owned firearms?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. J. S. Tingle for his speech, upon which I will not comment. However, I will refer the matter to my colleague the Minister for Police for his consideration.

PETROL TAX

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Notwithstanding the assertions that he made a moment ago while melodramatically flourishing a document, table 6 in Federal Budget Paper No. 3 of 2000-01 indicates that the New South Wales Government currently receives $2.1 billion from the Commonwealth in lieu of previous State excises on alcohol, tobacco and fuel. What is the Treasurer spending this revenue on? Why will he not match the Federal Government and find a 1.5� per litre rebate for New South Wales motorists when the Queensland Government sees fit to rebate 8.35� per litre on the basis that it is a fuel tax component and the Victorian Government likewise rebates 2.4� per litre on fuel?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I refer the Hon. D. F. Moppett to page 3-13 of New South Wales Budget Paper No. 2, which shows that revenues to the New South Wales Government from alcohol, petroleum and tobacco ceased under the new arrangements.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Your nose is growing again.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I cannot be held responsible for something that Peter Costello has said or claimed. In case the Hon. D. F. Moppett doubts my words, I refer him to the comments made early yesterday by the New South Wales Auditor-General, who confirmed that the temporary arrangements that I mentioned earlier ceased on 1 July. On radio 2BL on 5 March 2001, Mr Sendt, the New South Wales Auditor-General, said:

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about the top-up payments?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Clause 10 of the agreement that we signed with the Commonwealth states that, in each of the transitional years following the introduction of the GST, the Commonwealth guarantees that the budgetary position of each individual State and Territory will be no worse off than it would have been had the reforms set out in this agreement not been implemented. That is what we call the top-up payments. They form the guarantee that the States will be no worse off under the new arrangements than they would have been under the old arrangements.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer clarify whether those top-up payments include, as indicated by the Federal budget papers, an amount calculated on the basis of petrol sales in New South Wales? I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

____

Table 6: Guaranteed Minimum Amount Components, GST Revenue Provision and
Budget Balancing Assistance 2000-01 (estimated)

	NSW $m	VIC $m	QLD $m	WA $m	SA $m	TAS $m	ACT $m	NT $m	Total $m
Guaranteed minimum amount:
State revenues forgone
Financial assistance grants	5214.3	3638.7	3421.6	1607.3	1789.4	817.9	373.7	1129.1	17992.1
Revenue replacement payments	2179.6	1459.1	1323.9	915.1	568.9	193.7	96.8	123.6	6860.7
Accommodation taxes	72.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7.0	79.4
*Plus* Reduced revenues
Gambling taxes	470.0	358.2	168.1	53.3	67.0	17.7	16.4	10.4	1163.1
*Plus* Interest costs
Interest costs	3.3	7.5	11.7	2.3	4.0	2.2	1.2	3.0	35.2
*Plus* Additional expenditures
First Home Owners Scheme	218.5	194.0	137.1	119.5	54.1	14.8	16.5	7.7	762.2
GST administration costs	273.7	201.3	151.0	80.1	63.1	19.7	13.2	8.3	810.5
*Plus* Other items
WST payments	38.0	5.0	18.0	19.0	12.7	13.0	4.0	3.0	112.7
*Minus* Reduced expenditures
Off-road diesel subsidies	118.1	45.4	160.5	155.3	31.7	2.4	0.0	3.3	516.7
Savings from Tax Reform	147.3	100.4	83.6	50.1	36.4	12.2	8.5	12.5	451.0
*Minus* Growth dividend
Remaining State taxes	42.2	27.2	14.3	8.5	6.8	1.7	1.3	0.9	103.0
Total guaranteed minimum amount(1)	8162.4	5690.8	4973.1	2584.7	2484.3	1062.7	511.9	1275.3	26745.1
GST revenue provision (2)	7180.3	5027.3	4604.1	2337.8	2247.7	971.9	470.6	1212.7	24052.6
Budget Balancing Assistance (1)-(2)	982.1	663.5	369.0	246.9	236.5	90.8	41.3	62.6	2692.6
-Loan	674.3	412.6	114.1	159.6	161.8	65.1	22.4	45.7	1655.6
-Grant	307.8	250.9	254.9	87.3	74.7	25.6	18.9	16.8	1036.9

____

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They are top-up payments to ensure that New South Wales and the other States are in no worse position—not a better position.

YOUNG WORKERS SAFETY PROGRAMS

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House what the Government is doing to address the safety of young people in the workplace and what work safety awareness programs the Government is running to reach the youth of this State?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That will take you away from your comic.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The comic is part of the answer to the Hon. Amanda Fazio's question. Honourable members will no doubt have seen WorkCover's current advertising campaign, which has a major focus on work safety for young workers. The $1.6 million young workers statewide television and radio advertising campaign started in mid-January 2001 and will run until mid-March. It focuses on the responsibility of employers to take account of their young workers' inexperience and to ensure that adequate supervision and training is provided. To support this campaign, WorkCover has developed a number of specific initiatives. An information kit for employers, young workers and concerned parents has been developed and is available free of charge from WorkCover. An interactive online work safety tutorial for high school students entitled "Safety Zone" is also available on the WorkCover Internet web site.

Through WorkCover funding, the Labor Council of New South Wales, assisted by six New South Wales high schools and colleges, has produced a package of teachers' resources for high school students entitled "YouthSafe". This education package is being used by teachers in public and private schools to assist with injury prevention procedures students working in part-time or casual jobs or those undertaking work experience. In February 2001 WorkCover distributed to all New South Wales schools YouthSafe teachers' resource kits, safety comics and interactive CD-ROMs containing work safety tutorials. Part of the software package, "Safety Zone", has been listed as a resource in the senior secondary science syllabus by the Department of Education and Training.

The next phase of the YouthSafe program will be providing industry-specific material for registered training organisations, including New South Wales TAFE colleges. A special section of the kit will also be designed to address rural safety issues. WorkCover's Consumer Services Industry Reference Group has produced a pamphlet entitled "Health and Safety for Young Workers in the Hospitality Industry". It provides occupational health and safety information for new staff, many of whom are young workers. The industry reference group has also adapted the Queensland publication Safety at Work—A Guide for Young Workers in Hospitality, which provides more specific occupational health and safety information to young workers.

I recently had the pleasure of launching the new Hospitality Safety Alliance, an initiative to which this Government is firmly committed. The Hospitality Safety Alliance, in which WorkCover is a major partner, will build on the significant achievement of the original memorandum of understanding of the hospitality industry to ensure that all personnel receive occupational health and safety induction training to reduce risk to employees—many thousands of whom are young people. The alliance will bring together at least 20 major enterprises in hospitality and will continue to develop and implement industry-wide benchmarks for work safety.

WorkCover has worked closely with the Department of Education and Training to ensure that students undertaking work experience in the construction industry are trained appropriately before entering the workplace. A WorkCover grant has enabled the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to develop a training package for young building workers called "Safe Start". The package includes a video that encourages young workers to use workplace consultative mechanisms to report occupational health and safety issues of concern. WorkCover has also funded a joint project with the National Children's and Youth Law Centre to address bullying in the workplace, especially as it relates to young people. Workshops were held, employer kits produced and promotional materials distributed to Centrelink offices, TAFE colleges, training centres and unions. Our young people deserve no less than to work in a culture of safety, and the New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring they can do that.

DISABILITY ADVOCACY GROUPS FUNDING

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Disability Services. Is the Minister's decision to put funding for disability advocacy groups out to public tender an attempt to silence disability advocacy groups that have criticised the Government's record on disability services? Will the Minister continue to fund organisations that advocate on behalf of people with a disability, including organisations that have been critical of the Government? Will the Minister meet with disability advocacy groups in the near future to discuss this funding issue?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: That is a leading question, but I am sure that the Minister in the other place will be—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: A factual question.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It is a very fractional question in the original sense of the word. I am sure that the Minister in the other place will provide me with an adequate and detailed response, and I will provided the answer to the Hon. Dr P. Wong very shortly.

PARRAMATTA TO CHATSWOOD RAIL LINK

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Is the Treasurer able to enlighten the House as to why the environmental impact statement [EIS] for the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link has been delayed? Is the $2 billion reported in the media an accurate assessment of the revised cost of the project? In light of today's media reports, can he guarantee that the Treasury has the funds available for the project to proceed?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I must admit that I was not aware that the EIS for the Parramatta to Chatswood rail line had been delayed. However, I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Transport and obtain a response.

INDUSTRIAL AWARDS INFORMATION SERVICE

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister outline how the Government is improving the quality of and access to information about industrial relations?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I note the honourable member's abiding interest in industrial relations questions, having been a distinguished union official as well as being a distinguished member of this House. In December last year I launched a new industrial awards information service provided by the Department of Industrial Relations. New South Wales Awards Online provides workers and employers in the State with essential information about pay rates, conditions of employment and industrial legislation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I am now very pleased to report that New South Wales Awards Online has quickly become a vital web service for a growing number of New South Wales workers and their employers. Traffic to the web site is now averaging 1.5 million hits per month.

The service has been recognised nationally, with several industrial relations departments from other States seeking advice from my department on the development of similar services. The New South Wales Awards Online service covers nearly 1,000 New South Wales industrial awards and represents one of the most comprehensive industrial relations web sites in Australia. Awards Online has been designed so that people who are not experienced Internet users or necessarily familiar with industrial awards can find the information they are looking for quickly and easily. New South Wales Awards Online is also integrated with my department's award inquiry phone service so that employers and employees can obtain important help via email.

The Awards Online email service has been extremely popular with young people and small business owners. Use of the awards online email service has doubled in the last three months, with more than 2,000 e-mails responded to by award inquiry staff. The benefits flowing from this aspect of my department's ebusiness strategy range across the whole of industrial landscape. Employers have access at the stroke of a keyboard to comprehensive award and industrial information 365 days a year. This in turn encourages compliance with the law across New South Wales workplaces and a level playing field for employers.

Employees benefit because they are also able to quickly access information about their awards, leave entitlements and pay rates and conditions. Employees can locate this information confidentially without the potential problems inherent in phoning the awards inquiry service from their workplace. The success of the Awards Online project is also a fine example of the success and foresight of the Carr Government's connect.nsw program. There are now over 500 government services available online to the New South Wales public.

VICTIMS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Kate McClymont about a victims compensation award of $135,000 to Edwin Stals, who is an alleged sexual assault victim of solicitor John Marsden? Is the Attorney also aware that the information against Mr Marsden provided by Edwin Stals is extremely unsafe and that Mr Stals has been discredited as a witness for similar allegations in at least one other case? Can the Attorney assure the House that steps will be taken to amend the Victims Compensation Act to prevent manipulation of the legislation with untested allegations of the kind made by Mr Stals?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think that there are a number of problems with the working of the victims compensation legislation. I am not aware of the particular issue that the Hon. P. J. Breen has raised, but I will certainly refer it to the Attorney General and obtain a response.

SYRINGE DRUG TESTING

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of a report in the Newcastle Herald last week detailing that police were forced to withdraw a drug charge in Cessnock Local Court because of a dispute involving the Division of Analytical Laboratories, which refused to analyse the contents of a syringe taken from a suspect? Is the Minister also aware that New South Wales police commissioner Peter Ryan has issued a notice directing police not to charge drug suspects if the suspected drugs are contained in a syringe? Does the Minister agree that there must be a safe way of removing the contents of a syringe and that having to drop charges on such a technicality is sending the wrong message to both offenders and the rest of the community? When will the Government take action to address this matter?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the issue. I have just been handed a note that I am not sure I understand, so I will refer—

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It is a serious matter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is a very serious matter. I am not denying that. What I am saying is that I am not sure that I can comprehend the note that has just been put in front of me. So I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Police.

OLYMPIC GAMES VENUES

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question is to the Treasurer. Has the Bob Carr Government any plans for the use of Olympic venues for international competition after the best ever Sydney 2000 Games?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am pleased to inform the House that Penrith has been chosen to host one of the world's largest watersport events in the year 2007, which incidentally is the first year New South Wales will benefit from the GST. Until then we will rely on top-up payments. We are told by the Commonwealth that on its calculations we will then be in front.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: Any windfall in the interim will go to the Commonwealth.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes. Mr Howard and Mr Costello pocket it in their own Consolidated Fund. I notice that one of the strongest supporters of the GST was the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. And now he is trying to throw out his Federal leader because she also supported it. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has the kind of loyalty to his leader that we can expect from the Leader of the Opposition. They are both disloyal. They both rat on their leader at the first opportunity. I have been asked a very important question by the Hon. H. S. Tsang and I am not going to be distracted from answering it. I am pleased to inform the House that an important water sports event will be held in Penrith in 2007: the world junior flatwater canoe championships, which will be held at the Sydney International Regatta Centre.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Are you going?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will be there in my capacity as Treasurer. You are invited too if you would like to come. I think you will still be here in 2007. In fact, I hope you are then in a position that you deserve, not on the backbench when people who are clearly inferior to you have leadership positions. One of the silly things about this Opposition is that the few people it has with talent sit on the back bench. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is so frustrated that he is going to give it away. The Hon. D. F. Moppett should have been a frontbencher from the time he got here. I remember another fellow by the name of Bruce Duncan, a member for Lismore, who gave it away years ago. When I was elected to Parliament he was clearly the most talented person on the Opposition benches, in either House. He was wasted on the back benches whilst that idiot, Leon Punch, was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not know why the Opposition cannot recognise talent; talent should be promoted and encouraged. The Hon. J. F. Ryan is another one with some brains, but instead the Hon. M. J. Gallacher is the Leader of the House. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, who has not turned up today, is the Opposition leader's strategy adviser.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: He is advising her now.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am trying to work out whether he has ratted on her—

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Swapped sides.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Does Mrs Chikarovski have any support left? The Hon. M. J. Gallacher will not support her; her leader in this House will not speak up in her support. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn is not here. We know he is plotting all the time, but we do not know for which side. The Sydney International Regatta Centre is Australia's only Olympic-grade course. The championships are forecast to be the largest in the event's history, with up to 50 countries taking part. They will attract an estimated 10,000 competitors, officials and spectators, and generate around $12 million for the economy. This will be the first time that the world junior flatwater championships have ever been held in Australia. Of course, it cements Penrith's reputation for water sports, with the region already winning the rights to hold the 2005 world canoe slalom championships. Winning such important water sports events will provide invaluable media coverage for the western Sydney region. Media coverage for the Olympic slalom and flatwater events at Penrith proved among the most popular of the whole Games.

[Interruption]

What are they saying about Jeff Kennett? They should look to themselves and pull up their own socks. The problem this Parliament has is that it is lopsided, with an incompetent Opposition that cannot take the fight to the Government. That is not good for this Parliament, for good government or for the people of New South Wales. Opposition members should pull up their socks instead of sitting there complaining about Jeff Kennett and Alan Stockdale.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Why don't you change sides? You would fit in well there.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You have got to be kidding! And put up with rednecks like the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn and the Hon. G. S. Pearce? The Hon. G. S. Pearce disgraced himself with his maiden speech and he has not done any better since—and we were all assured that he was going to be one of the intelligent Liberals. Well, he has not shown any signs of it yet. He has obviously worked out that the rednecks, the idiots, have the numbers in the Opposition and he knows which side his bread is buttered on, but it will not do him any good in the long term. The Hon. D. T. Harwin is another intelligent man who is destined to waste his time as a Liberal Party backbencher. He will never get a go. He should turn to the man next to him, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, a wasted talent so frustrated that he has announced that he is not running again. The Hon. J. F. Ryan is also a very intelligent man but he will never get a go because the rednecks, the uglies, the Charlie Lynn faction, have the numbers.

Mr Jon Bissett, the General Manager of Australian Canoeing Inc., said that the decision by the International Federation of Canoeing to hold the 2007 championships at Penrith was a natural choice. He said, "The huge success of the Olympic canoeing competition and Sydney's strong reputation for holding major events really clinched this for us." I congratulate Australian Canoeing and the Penrith region on their efforts in building on that success.

The Hon. R. H. Colless: You have made Charlie's day by suggesting that there is a Charlie Lynn faction.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not a member of the Charlie Lynn faction. I assume that the only thing he and I agree on is that Kerry Chikarovski should remain the Leader of the Liberal Party.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: You are wrong.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca thinks I am wrong and I suspect he might be right. I suspect that the strategy adviser of the Leader of the Opposition has changed sides.

If honourable members have any further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 82 outside the order of precedence be called on forthwith.

NEWCASTLE DISEASE CLEAN-UP COSTS

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.07 p.m.]: The New South Wales Government has been instrumental in ensuring that Australia has a rational and economically feasible plan for controlling and, eventually, eliminating the virulent Newcastle disease virus of Australian origin. The government partners in the cost-sharing arrangement for the stamping out of Newcastle disease suspended the killing of birds on affected farms in January 2000. Although opposed by sections of the poultry industry, this suspension was necessary to allow an Australia-wide survey for Newcastle disease virus and to gather industry-wide commitment to a control program. It also allowed the wider use of vaccination in the areas likely to contain virulent strains of the virus. This contributed to successfully preventing further outbreaks and to significantly reducing populations of potentially virulent viruses.

Virulent Newcastle disease virus has not been detected in New South Wales since February 2000. During 2000 a national Newcastle disease management group, comprised of senior poultry industry and government chief executive officers—and I know a lot about this program—developed a strategy that would allow Australia to eventually declare itself free of the virulent Newcastle disease virus. The virus-causing disease was a variant of local strains that caused no disease. It had not come from overseas through our quarantine barriers. The management group defined a number of principles for an internationally credible control program. It took nearly 10 months, however, for the egg industry in particular to identify a source of its financial contribution to the program.

In addition, the results of the survey were unavailable to the management group until December 2000. When the survey results, released in December 2000, showed no evidence of virulent Newcastle disease virus in New South Wales or the rest of Australia, the national management group agreed to resume a stamping-out program. This applied to five quarantined infected layer farms, although the hens on the farms had remained healthy since February 2000. At the same time the egg industry committed $250,000 for basic compensation and other costs to assist the five affected farmers during the period they would be out of production.

Governments matched dollar for dollar the compensation costs and clean-up costs, but not the marketing support costs for individual farmers. Poultry on each of the farms was removed and farms cleaned out between 8 January and mid-March. Only well-recognised and approved methods were used to kill the chickens on those properties. The methods that were used included: commercial slaughter if the birds were suitable for processing; gassing with carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide; and dislocation of the neck. One property at Moonbi had all birds killed by carbon monoxide gassing. Another at Rossmore had the chickens killed by commercial processors at a poultry abattoir.

New South Wales Agriculture placed Newcastle disease control areas around the Sydney and Tamworth areas to give legal support to controls on movements of poultry and products into known Newcastle disease-free areas. Applicants must apply for a permit before being permitted to move poultry or poultry products. Permits are issued only after investigation of the health status of the flock of origin. No evidence of Newcastle disease has been detected during this process and trade has continued without significant disruption. Poultry farmers within the control areas are required to set up a QA program that will provide further assurance that the areas do not contain virulent Newcastle disease virus. Once this occurs, and if surveillance does not detect virus, the control areas can be revoked.

In the absence of any further disease, the national Newcastle disease management group intends to declare Australia Newcastle disease free in October this year. The appearance of endemic Newcastle disease has caused loss of some specialty export markets developed by quail processors, pigeon fanciers, ostrich meat producers and live poultry suppliers. It is the prerogative of the importing country to prohibit imports from Australia and there are variation between countries as to how the prohibitions are applied. The strategy developed by the national management group is most likely to allow re-opening of markets in the shortest time. The New South Wales Government will continue to provide assistance to eliminate virulent Newcastle disease of Australian origin, but only if there is a united and resourceful poultry and egg industry driving the program. Without this industry commitment, we cannot hope to achieve success.

That is the background to what the Government is doing in relation to the national Newcastle disease program at the moment. I am sure that honourable members are aware that the Newcastle disease outbreak referred to in the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition erupted in the Mangrove Mountain area during 1999 and was the biggest exotic disease outbreak that has occurred in Australia, with two million commercial poultry slaughtered. The eradication program included decontamination of the infected properties. Restocking of poultry areas adjacent to Mangrove Mountain was not allowed until disinfection and disposal of the infected birds was completed by owners. Approximately 20 property owners undertook the disinfection and disposal at their own cost.

Those owners who could not undertake the work, for whatever reason, were offered the opportunity to have New South Wales Agriculture arrange and undertake disinfection and disposal on their behalf, and to be charged for the work. A deed of agreement was negotiated and signed by the owners. A condition of the deed was repayment of the cost of the clean-up. That was part of the condition of the agreement between the owners and the Department of Agriculture. The work was undertaken by New South Wales Agriculture in respect of 26 property owners. The costs for clean-up of properties ranged from $8,500 to $38,000 per property. The clean-up was conducted on 119 sheds at an average cost of $4,240 per shed.

Under the deed of agreement, the Minister for Agriculture granted a concession to allow property owners a period of six months from the date of restocking of their farms to pay the costs of carrying out the disinfection and disposal work. This concession period was extended for a further 12 months whilst a number of issues, such as exceptional circumstances support, were determined by the Commonwealth Government. Having taken into consideration the hardships faced by the owners due to this exotic disease outbreak, it is now necessary for the State and Commonwealth governments to recoup their costs for the work undertaken on behalf of the owners. Invoices totalling approximately $0.5 million have been despatched to 26 property owners. The Minister for Agriculture has made considerable concessions to allow property owners time to recommence and restock their businesses. As 20 property owners have met all costs associated with the clean-up of their properties, the Minister has now requested payment from the 26 property owners for the work undertaken on their behalf.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who participated in the debate, especially those crossbench members, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. I. Cohen and the Ms Lee Rhiannon, who in essence strayed considerably from the context of the motion. However, I think all honourable members were prepared to allow a degree of leniency to ensure that their views could be put on the record. I also thank the Hon. J. H. Jobling, a longstanding resident of the Hunter Valley who recognises the significance of the poultry industry as a major employer in the Hunter Valley, and the industry's significance in a major economic sense for the entire community. I thank him for his contribution to the debate.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly, who is a representative of the rural faction of the Australian Labor Party—he referred to it as the "Country Labor group"—made an interesting contribution. Country Labor has now renamed itself! It is quite obvious that Country Labor members have resigned themselves to the fact that they are little more than a faction within the Australian Labor Party. As is traditional within the ALP, the numbers will determine which way its members vote. I thank him for his contribution which was interesting in the sense that he expressed his sympathy for the motion but did not indicate whether or not he would support the motion. Instead he elected to say, "We recognise that they have a problem" but he was not prepared to put his money where his mouth is and say, "We support the motion before the House."

From the contributions made by other Government members, including the Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast, it would appear the Government does not support the motion. I will wait to see where the Hon. A. B. Kelly and his Country Labor faction friend the Hon. I. M. Macdonald will go when push comes to shove very shortly. I will conclude by referring to the contribution of the Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast. It is unfortunate that the Government has elected to try to muddy the waters for these confused and very concerned farmers by trying to duck-shove the issue on to the Commonwealth Government. Those farmers may not be high income earners, but those hard-working battlers on the Central Coast are not mugs. There was no agreement option because there really was no agreement. Those people were forced into signing the documents by virtue of the fact that they had no other option.

The "agreement" option that I have before me is between the owner of the property and the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. There is no mention whatsoever of the Commonwealth Government in relation to it. The decision about the clean-up was a decision purely of New South Wales Agriculture. I take umbrage at the comment made by the previous speaker that the Government is requesting payment. There is no request in relation to the letter that was sent out by New South Wales Agriculture. It states that New South Wales Agriculture is now concluding outstanding issues relating to the Newcastle disease outbreak at Mangrove Mountain.

The letter I have before me indicates that the cost is $32,760 and the letter is straightforward. It suggests if the property owner has any inquiries he should give a nominated person a call, but there is no option to get around it. The fact is that the Government is now demanding the money. It is a little cheeky of Government members to try to make out that it was an agreement between farmers. I think honourable members are all aware of what is going on here. These people were forced into making the decision because they had no option but to do so. For the Government to try now, at the last moment, to muddy the waters by saying that the Commonwealth Government is involved in this is a little rich. I thank honourable members for their contributions and for allowing us to bring this motion on this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

CROWN LANDS AMENDMENT (COMPENSATION) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.20 p.m.]: I move:

The Crown Lands Amendment (Compensation) Bill will carry into effect changes that will clarify the law relating to the determination of the compensation payable to certain reserve trusts, in respect of the compulsory acquisition of lands reserved under the Crown Lands Act 1989 and managed by reserve trusts. The bill will make it certain that the Crown, as owner of the land, and not the reserve trust, is entitled to compensation for the market value of the land acquired. As members would be aware, the statewide system of reserves and trusts over Crown lands has its origins in the early days of European settlement.

An early example of such a dedication was the Government Domain at Parramatta by Governor Macquarie, the site of the second settlement, the first successful government farm and dairy—modern day Parramatta Park. Lands are dedicated for specific purposes, including environmental protection, recreation and essential infrastructure, local or regional parks and sportsgrounds, the conservation of flora and fauna, heritage areas, caravan and camping areas, showgrounds, travelling stock reserves, coastal and foreshore reserves, public school sites, police stations and water supply. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R. H. COLLESS [5.22 p.m.]: The Crown Lands Amendment (Compensation) Bill has been introduced to determine compensation payable to reserve trusts under the Crown Lands Act 1989 when the whole or part of the reserve is compulsorily acquired. Currently, that compensation is determined by the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. This dates back to 1997 in the case of Prince Alfred Park Reserve Trust v the State Rail Authority in which the Land and Environment Court held that a Crown reserve trust manager such as Sydney City Council was entitled to market value compensation for compulsory acquisition of a leasehold estate under its control. The land in question in this case was required for the construction of the new rail link to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.

The court assessed compensation according to market value principles and the decision led to considerable legal uncertainty with respect to the reserve trust's entitlement to compensation and the correct valuation methodology to determine the respective interests of the trust and the Crown when it is necessary for land such as this to be acquired for community benefit. The Prince Alfred Park case can be taken to mean that the State Government has no entitlement to compensation for compulsory acquisition of Crown reserves where a trust is appointed. Prior to this case, it was widely accepted that the Crown, as owner of the land, and not a reserve trust appointed under the Crown Lands Act, was entitled to the land value compensation.

In particular, two issues have arisen from the Prince Alfred Park case which require attention. First, the decision effectively enables a council to negotiate with itself where it is both the acquiring authority and reserve trust manager, thereby paying the Crown no compensation. This can be paraphrased as essentially allowing local councils to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. Second, where State agencies are seeking to undertake works on Crown reserves, trusts are using the Prince Alfred Park case to argue that they are entitled to substantial compensation payments from the State, as recently occurred at a reserve at Tempe acquired by the State Rail Authority for use in conjunction with the southern railway proposal. This has the potential to occur throughout the State, as there are some 32,000 separate Crown reserves in New South Wales, many of which are managed by trusts controlled by local government councils.

Many reserves are subject to development pressures by State government departments, local councils and private developers throughout regional and provincial New South Wales as well as in the major metropolitan areas. Many of the reserve trusts have spent large sums of community funds developing the land in question for community benefit. In a recent case a claim for compensation was heard in the Land and Environment Court between the Roads and Traffic Authority and Ashfield council, with the land required for the city-west link road. At the time of acquisition, the land in question was parkland recreation and included a cycleway, a walking track and a car park, all of which had been funded by the local community.

The court wrestled with apportioning compensation between the two parties, recognising that Ashfield council had a substantial investment in the land, but the Crown was the owner of the land. The court eventually decided to allocate the compensation in the ratio of two-thirds to the Crown and one-third to Ashfield council. A great deal of uncertainty was experienced by the judges hearing these matters, and this uncertainty needs to be addressed. The bill also provides for the trust to be entitled to receive compensation to the value of any improvements and structures carried out or erected by the trust on the land at the date of acquisition. Further, if the value of these improvements is reduced by severance of the land or any loss attributable to disturbance, the trust will also be entitled to compensation for such losses.

In that regard, severance refers to a parcel of land being cut into two or more disconnected parcels by the proposed road or development which will ultimately create management problems for the trust. This land, now in more than one parcel, will be more difficult to maintain and administer and for the community to use for the purpose for which the trust was originally created. The disturbance provision refers to the situation in which improvements put into effect by the trust may need to be moved to allow the development to proceed. Such improvements could relate to park facilities, playgrounds, cycleways, walking tracks and car parks, constructed at the council's and, therefore, the community's expense.

In summary, the Crown Lands Amendment (Compensation) Bill provides for an amendment to the Crown Lands Act 1880 so that where compulsory acquisition of a Crown reserve occurs, the appointed trust manager has no entitlement to compensation for the market value of the land acquired. The bill will provide for the Crown, as owner of the land in fee simple, to be entitled to compensation. Further, while the bill provides for compensation to the Crown, a trust may also be entitled to compensation to the value of any improvement which the trust erected or caused to be erected, the devaluation of the asset caused by severance or any loss attributable to disturbance. The bill will not apply to land for which the purpose was dedicated and a Crown grant issued prior to 1980. Trusts which fall into that category have a certificate of title with the trust members nominated on the title. Any acquisitions of Crown reserve land under the Roads Act 1993 or the Pipelines Act 1967 are to be acquired in accordance with those Acts but compensation paid in accordance with the Crown Lands Amendment (Compensation) Bill.

The Opposition will not oppose this bill, as it will merely reinstate the legal position which was widely accepted prior to the Prince Alfred Park case. The owner of the land is the Crown, and the owner of the land is the body which should receive the compensation, not the trustee appointed by the owner. It will enhance the Government's ability to undertake State-significant projects and to obtain market value compensation when land is compulsorily acquired. Trusts which have invested money in public facilities on such land will also be protected through an entitlement to the value of their investment and to the devaluation of the land through severance and disturbance.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.28 p.m.]: This bill amends the Crown Lands Act 1989 to ensure that the Crown, and not Crown reserve trusts, is entitled to compensation for the market value of any land compulsorily acquired; Crown reserve trusts will only be entitled to the value of any improvement which the trust erected or caused to be erected on a reserve, the reduction in value caused by severance of the land and the loss attributable to disturbance; and lessees or licensees of land within a reserve will not be entitled to any compensation. As we are all aware, this bill has been introduced in response to the Land and Environment Court decision in the Prince Alfred Park case. In that case the Prince Alfred Park Reserve Trust was awarded compensation for the loss of part of the park that was resumed for the construction of the new rail link to Mascot airport. That compensation was assessed on market value principles.

The restrictions that this bill places on the amount of compensation received by a reserve trust for any loss of reserve lands effectively means that the community's precious parkland and reserves will be lost to them forever. Reserve trusts will not receive enough compensation to enable them to acquire replacement lands or to improve the value and amenity of any remaining disturbed public reserve. Any compensation payable for the value of the land will be absorbed into State consolidated revenue. While the Government can and should be able to, on behalf of the taxpayers, decide to widen a road or a railway track, or fix an intersection where accidents have occurred, and if need be use a section of Crown land to do so, it must not be forgotten that these lands have been dedicated to and held in trust for the people of New South Wales for the benefit of the public generally, not the Government.

Some Crown lands, for example, have been set aside for environmental protection, others for recreation, local and regional parks and sports grounds, conservation of flora and fauna, heritage values, caravan and camping areas, showgrounds, and coastal and foreshore reserves. Today there are over 32,000 separate Crown reserves covering more than 3 per cent of New South Wales land. These lands also are becoming more precious to the people of this State as they become increasingly under threat of alienation. As the honourable member for Bankstown admitted during his contribution to the second reading debate in the lower House, "many Crown lands are subject to development pressures by State government departments, local councils and private developers." As a result, exhausted community efforts to protect what is left of Crown lands set aside as parks and bushland reserves have become a part of everyday experience. Across New South Wales people have been embroiled in heated battles about the future of parks and buildings.

For example, the people of Ryde fought valiantly against the alienation and redevelopment of the Ryde Swimming Pool Complex and Olympic Park into the 2000 Olympics water polo venue and development of a 56-unit two to three storey housing development. At a public meeting over 200 local residents and pool users unanimously voted against the move. Similarly, the people of Newcastle strongly opposed their highly valued recreational and open space being eroded by council moves to rezone the land and sell it off as part of an asset-conversion program. It is crucial to ensure that our remaining community land, including critical remnant bushland, open space and community facilities, is protected and remains accessible to the public. Sydney already suffers from a severely dwindling stock of community land, and property prices in the metropolitan area mean that areas lost now are unlikely to be replaced. Much-needed urban consolidation will place greater demand also on our public spaces.

The recreational purposes to which residents put community land fulfil a critical component of city life, yet existing opportunities for informal recreation in the metropolitan area are limited and are declining relative to the total population. The people of New South Wales, and in particular of Sydney, regard their community land as a priceless asset. Every time an attempt is made to nibble away at a piece of it there is a tremendous outcry. This outcry is not just from environmentalists; it is from everyday mums and dads who want their children to have somewhere safe and accessible to play and to have a first-hand experience with nature. It is time we recognise the true value of urban bushland and parks.

While there is a safeguard in the removal of dedicated Crown land, the Minister must give notice of any proposed removal or dedication of Crown lands. That removal or dedication can be disallowed by either House of Parliament, but that is not enough. We must ensure that when Crown reserves are compulsorily acquired consideration is given to any losses incurred as a result of a reduction in public benefit and any costs incurred through the need to acquire replacement land when determining compensation payable to reserve trusts. My colleague the Hon. I. Cohen will move amendments in Committee that will achieve exactly that result. I urge all honourable members to support them.

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

GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Appointment

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.34 p.m.]: I move:

May it please Your Excellency

Both personally and as Leader of the Government in this House, it gives me great pleasure to move this motion congratulating our new Governor, Her Excellency Professor Marie Roslyn Bashir, AO, the thirty-seventh Governor of New South Wales. Professor Bashir was born in Narrandera, New South Wales, and attended the local primary school before moving to Sydney to complete her secondary education at Sydney Girls High School. A Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Sydney from 1993 until last month, Professor Bashir has a long and distinguished career in the medical discipline, specialising in adolescent mental health issues and suicide prevention. Graduating from the University of Sydney in 1956 with a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree, Her Excellency became a Member of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists in 1971. From 1972 to 1987 Professor Bashir was the Foundation Director of Rivendell Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Child Adolescent and Family Service. From 1987 to 1993 Professor Bashir was the Area Director, Community Health Services for the Central Sydney Area Health Service.

In 1993 Professor Bashir held the position of Consultant Psychiatrist to the New South Wales Juvenile Justice facilities. In 1994 Her Excellency was appointed the Area Director, Mental Health Services for the Central Sydney Area Health Service, and in 1996 Professor Bashir took on the role of senior consultant to both Redfern and Kempsey Aboriginal medical services. In addition to those positions, Her Excellency Professor Bashir carried out numerous other professional appointments including Chairman, Council of the Women's College at the University of Sydney from 1983 to 1992; Chairman, New South Wales Juvenile Justice Advisory Council from 1991 to 1999; co-Chair, New South Wales strategy for Aboriginal Mental Health from 1994 to 1999; Chairman, New South Wales Task Force on Children and Young People's Mental Health in 1996; Chairman, Non-English Speaking Background Suicide Prevention Project in 1999; and last year Professor Bashir was appointed Chairman of the Mental Health Implementation Group with the Health Council of the New South Wales Department of Health.

With such a distinguished background, it was only appropriate that in 1988, our bicentennial year, Her Excellency was awarded the Order of Australia for services to child and adolescent health, especially mental health. Of course, Her Excellency is no stranger to many people in New South Wales or to public life. Upon the appointment of her husband, Sir Nicolas Shehadie, AC, OBE, to the position of Lord Mayor of Sydney in 1971, Professor Bashir became the Lady Mayoress of Sydney for the following two years. With three children and six grandchildren, New South Wales' first Lady—first citizen as she is now—was further honoured in 1971 with the award of Mother of the Year. Devoting her life to issues such as improving indigenous health, assisting the disadvantaged, suicide prevention and refugee causes, Her Excellency has indicated that during her term of governorship she will continue to further Aboriginal reconciliation, help bridge the growing divide between the advantaged and the disadvantaged and, in her own words, "bring people of all cultures together". Speaking at her swearing-in ceremony last Thursday, Her Excellency said:

Together with my husband, I look forward with joyful anticipation to serving all the people of New South Wales in the Constitutional, ceremonial and public duties which lie before us. By upholding the pledge of office, and by encouraging the further development of our sense of community, I wish to see the State of New South Wales continue to prosper in harmony and strength, as we all contribute and share in the richness and diversity of this fortunate and bountiful land.

I know that all honourable members will join me in welcoming the thirty-seventh Governor of New South Wales, Her Excellency Professor Marie Roslyn Bashir, and her husband, Sir Nicholas Shehadie. I welcome them and thank them for accepting the very important duties that they will execute for the benefit of the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.40 p.m.]: I take much pleasure in joining the Leader of the Government today and second the motion. I also convey the congratulations of the Opposition to Dr Marie Bashir, AO, on her appointment as the thirty-seventh, and first female, Governor of New South Wales. Part of the importance of the role of Governor has been demonstrated by the accessibility of previous Governors to the people of this State. In more recent times they have included governors such as Peter Sinclair, the late Sir David Martin and, of course, Gordon Samuels, whom the House farewelled this week—all of whom are fondly remembered for the dignified and exemplary manner in which they carried out their duties. They were all well known and respected for their work in the community both during and well before their respective appointments to the role of Governor. Dr Marie Bashir is no exception.

Dr Bashir was the Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Sydney. She has served the community in many different capacities in the health field since she graduated in medicine 45 years ago. She was Mother of the Year in 1971, and Lady Mayoress of Sydney from 1971 to 1973. Her dedication to the health of children and adolescents, particularly in the field of mental health, resulted in her being made an Officer of the Order of Australia during our Bicentennial Year in 1988. This is, coincidentally, quite appropriate when one considers her current appointment as Governor of this State. Dr Bashir lists prevention and early intervention in child and adolescent health in her curriculum vitae as one of her major interests. This was typified by her role as Foundation Director of the Rivendell Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Child Adolescent and Family Service, a position she held for 15 years from 1972 to 1987.

Dr Bashir was also Chair of the New South Wales Juvenile Justice Advisory Council from 1991 to 1999. Since 1993 she has been a consultant psychiatrist to the New South Wales Juvenile Justice facilities. She is well known as a devoted campaigner for the prevention of youth suicide. This is of particular importance to me, when one considers that the Central Coast has, unfortunately, one of the highest rates of youth suicide in our country. It is a tragedy that can touch any family. The sincere compassion that professionals who work in this field bring to those affected by this terrible problem, whether they be victims who have attempted suicide or their families and friends, touches our community in a unique way. Compassion is essential for any medical practitioner. I am sure that the medical students whom Dr Bashir has taught for three decades will confirm that they have benefited greatly from her first-hand experience.

I commend Dr Bashir for her work in a very difficult field. Her compassion will be extremely beneficial to the people of the State whom she will serve in her term as Governor. Another quality that Dr Bashir will bring to her role is an understanding of the issues that face residents of rural and regional areas. As someone who grew up and attended school at Narrandera, I am sure she will be well regarded by the rural communities of this State, particularly the residents of her home town. Again, her first-hand experience of rural issues and her concern for social justice will be of benefit to all residents of New South Wales. Her rural background has also given her first-hand experience of indigenous health, which is something that confronts this State and, indeed, Australia. Dr Bashir is highly regarded by the indigenous community: she has been Senior Consultant for the Aboriginal Medical Service in both Kempsey and Redfern since 1996.

Much has been made of Dr Bashir being our first female Governor. Although this is significant, I prefer to think in the broader sense of Dr Bashir being a representative of a modern Australian society, as someone who has demonstrated what hard work can achieve not just in terms of personal advancement but for the improvement of the whole community. It is this characteristic that makes Dr Bashir singularly well qualified to be the Governor of the State of New South Wales. The Opposition extends its best wishes to Governor Bashir and her husband, Sir Nicholas Shehadie, AC, OBE, on what I am sure will be a highly productive and successful term as the Governor of this great State.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. J. R. Johnson): Order! I have ascertained that it is the pleasure of the Governor to receive at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday 7 March at Government House the Address-in-Reply to Her Excellency's message communicating her assumption of administration.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.46 p.m.]: I move:

TREASURY FUNDING

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.46 p.m.]: For some time I have been considering releasing a monthly bulletin to the taxpayers of this State to keep them informed of the latest round of mathematical fumbling from the Treasurer. Events during the past month, especially the recent debate about petrol pricing, have confirmed the need for a monthly edition of Michael's mathematical muddles. The Treasurer has done his level best to debunk calls from the Prime Minister to match the 1.5� per litre cut in fuel excise announced by the Federal Governed late last week. The State Opposition called on the Treasurer to match that cut, a call that sent him into a tailspin. A quick check of Hansard from last Thursday confirmed my long-held suspicion that the Treasurer is innumerate. Commenting on the call to subsidise petrol at a State level by 1.5� the Treasurer said:

In that much he is correct, but the State Government receives $707 million in fuel tax payments from the Federal Government, $660 million of which goes into the Carr Government's coffers. The Opposition did not call for a cut in petrol taxes; we called for the Labor Government to match the Federal commitment. The Treasurer went on to state:

If the Treasurer did his sums he would find that to match the Federal Government commitment the State Government would offer a 1.5� per litre subsidy, which would total $150 million. There is a fair difference between that figure and the $200 million he plucked from the air. Yesterday the Federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, said that the Carr Government could return 7.2� per litre to motorists, a total of $660 million. I wonder if the Treasure wants to dispute that figure as well? In answer to the same question on petrol pricing, the Treasurer said:

The real figures are worth looking at. The real figure quoted by the Opposition in relation to proposed fuel subsidies was $150 million, a figure that I pointed out to the Treasurer in the House that day. Just yesterday the Premier confirmed that an 8� per litre subsidy would cost the Government $8 hundred million. Working on the Premier's maths, a 1.5� per litre subsidy would equal $150 million. The Treasurer should do his sums as well as the Premier does his sums. The Treasurer claimed that the Opposition's promises totalled $1.35 billion, or $1 million per minute. If he wants to get technical, he should divide that $150 million and see what happens. It makes $104,000 per minute. The Treasurer has misplaced his decimal point—in fact, he has misplaced several decimal points.

Earlier this year I released a mock electricity bill that detailed losses in the industry under the Carr Labor Government to the tune of $1.108 billion. That figure resulted from a range of bungles in the industry, including a massive loss imposed on Pacific Power from long-term electricity contracts and a Supreme Court decision—which I will deal with in a moment. The Treasurer issued a media release stating that the figure was invented and said that the State's electricity businesses had returned dividends and tax equivalents of $650 million in 1999-2000. He went on to say that that was "close" to the $664 million result for 1998-99. He said that my figures were wrong and that my claim of a loss in dividends was incorrect, but then confirmed the downturn in his own press release. My figure for the difference in dividends was $14 million, which is exactly the figure that the Treasury used. Only this Treasurer could equate a downturn of $14 million with being "close". I have mentioned Pacific Power. The Supreme Court ordered that 11 disputed sale contracts with the Victorian distributor PowerCorp should be upheld. This means that Pacific Power will pay an estimated $650 million over the life of those contracts.

BANALASTA EUCALYPTUS OIL PLANTATION

NEW ENGLAND PHARMACEUTICALS

The Hon. A. B. KELLY [5.51 p.m.]: I would like to inform honourable members of two developments that I visited recently during a trip to the New England region. The Banalasta eucalyptus oil plantation is situated on approximately 5,000 hectares on the New England Tablelands almost halfway between Tamworth and Armidale. Whilst the plantation was established more than 20 years ago, the company has recently turned its attention to the harvesting and distillation of premium grade eucalyptus oil. This oil is being marketed for a number of uses, from antiseptic and anti-viral purposes to use as a liniment and as a relief for coughs, colds and congestion. With more than one million eucalypts on the plantation, tea tree oil production is expected to reach 50 tonnes over the next five years. This represents an important economic development for the region, with the company hoping to expand its production and work force beyond the current 20 full-time workers as well as offering additional employment opportunities to contractors.

I visited the plantation to announce State Government assistance for this fledgling company under the Carr Government's Regional Business Development scheme. It was most pleasing to make an announcement that shows our Government's ongoing commitment to helping rural and regional businesses to expand and capitalise on the many opportunities and advantages that country New South Wales has to offer. The Carr Government's scheme assists about 100 regional companies every year—which is about two a week—and is a good example of the productive working partnerships that our Government is forming with rural and regional businesses. The financial assistance for the Banalasta oil plantation will help the company to market its high-quality product and to explore new export opportunities through the development of a strategic marketing plan. The scheme is not artificially propping up country businesses; it is strategic, targeted assistance that provides funds to enable businesses to build on their strengths, develop their potentials and expand. It was pleasing to visit the plantation, inspect its current facilities and hear of its future plans.

The following morning I visited another business in the region that has also benefited from this excellent program. The New England Pharmaceuticals company recently relocated its operations from West Ryde in Sydney to Armidale, merging its manufacturing activities with its New England research farm, which was established in 1991. The company develops pharmaceuticals, which are sold both domestically and overseas, to be used in the breeding of food-producing animals. I think about 60 per cent of its products are exported. With the help of the State Government, the company's relocation to Armidale will create up to seven new jobs in the first six months, with twice this number expected to be employed within three years.

The company is recognised as a leader in the industry, with skilled staff as well as experienced and innovative management. The relocation of professional and skilled jobs to rural and regional New South Wales is a priority for our Government, and it is pleasing that our programs of targeted assistance are continuing to deliver results. New England Pharmaceuticals has received financial assistance from the Regional Business Development scheme to help meet the cost of relocation and as a contribution to the costs involved with the new infrastructure and the commissioning of plant equipment associated with the production of these pharmaceuticals. It was most pleasing to visit these two exciting developments in the New England region and to announce State Government assistance for the businesses that will generate jobs and growth in the area. I wish both companies the best and note the active role that the Carr Government has played in bringing economic growth and jobs to the New England region.

In closing, I must pass on some comments that were made to me by officials at New England Pharmaceuticals. The company is heavily involved with Customs and with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service as its business involves importing products. In recent years it has noticed that AQIS's scrutiny of imports into this country has become lax—although increased attention was paid to the possible importation of hormones into Australia during the Olympics. His call on the Federal Government to step up scrutiny of imports into this country is extremely pertinent in light of the recent mad cow disease and foot and mouth disease outbreaks in the United Kingdom and Europe. I congratulate the Irish Government on posting 1,000 army personnel and police at the border with Northern Ireland to ensure that the disease does not enter the country.

GAY AND LESBIAN MARDI GRAS

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.56 p.m.]: I wish to comment about the 2001 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. The public has expressed widespread concern at the participation of large numbers of children in the parade under the banner "Children of the Rainbow". The Sunday Telegraph claimed that hundreds of children took part in the parade. A large number of children were pushed in strollers by adults, others were carried on the shoulders of adults while older children walked with adults. Many of the children showed signs of fear and confusion at the loud noises, bright lights, fireworks and the large crowd shouting. Because of its obscene and offensive behaviour, the mardi gras is not suitable for children. When Channel 10 broadcast the parade on Sunday night, it rated the program 'M' for mature adults over the age of 15 years.

Some questions need to be answered. Did the children participate until the end of the parade? Did they remain after it concluded? How did they get home? When did they get home—assuming that many adults stayed to participate in other activities? Did the New South Wales Department of Community Services and/or the New South Wales Police Service give permission for the children—especially infants—to take part in the mardi gras parade? What consultation, if any, took place? Some honourable members may regard the mardi gras as being simply a fun night when homosexual males dress as females. However, there were several offensive floats in the parade on which participants clearly and deliberately portrayed obscene acts.

Males sat on one float that was shaped as a large penis, while two males portrayed obscene acts. Another float was a send-up of the Australian soldiers in Bougainville who made a mockery of the previous mardi gras parade and who were widely criticised by the homosexual movement. This float was clearly offensive and the actions of the float's passengers embarrassed both the commentators and the public watching the parade. The males on this float proceeded to act out the act of sodomy or buggery and then brazenly acted out oral sex. Is this the type of parade to which caring parents would take their children?

Is this the type of parade in which children should be involved late at night on the streets of Sydney instead of being at home safe, warm and dry in their beds? I also record my rejection of the inflammatory statements made by David Marr of the Sydney Morning Herald during his opening address to the 2001 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras at the Sydney Opera House. He attacked the churches of New South Wales, particularly the bishops of the Catholic and Anglican churches, and is quoted on page 13 of the 13 February edition of the new magazine G as saying:

The Churches are the only organisations spreading hatred of us—-

poofs and dykes, his own words—

in Australia. I'm not talking about every believer and every faith, but the bishops of the Sydney Anglicans and the nation's Catholics are the only people left lobbying politicians to make life for us unfair, uncomfortable and perhaps illegal. It's hard to imagine Christ died for this, but that's how it's worked out.

David Marr is falsely vilifying the Anglican and Catholic bishops and is inciting hatred against the church. He regularly launches similar attacks against the church, especially faithful, believing Christians, in his larger feature articles in the Sydney Morning Herald. David Marr, however, failed his own theology test. Christ did die for all these things. Christ died on a cross as the Lamb of God so that His blood would wash away the sins of the world—for both homosexuals and lesbians and heterosexuals. Jesus came to seek and to save those who were lost in their sin.

DEATH OF Mr BRIAN SLAPP

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [6.01 p.m.]: A friend of mine, a Lismore identity, Brian Slapp, recently died. The best way to give a sense of what this man was like is by reading the obituary prepared for him, I think by Dr Lyn Carsons and Dr Stuart White, the editor of the Northern Rivers Echo. It reads:

He was well known, well liked and well loved. He had many dimensions. He was a businessman, an environmentalist and a social justice activist. He was many things and he was always giving. I used to see him mainly in Caddies coffee shop in Lismore. He had basically a table there and did a lot of work there. I used to run into him all the time. We used to talk about all the world's problems. Of course, we had all the solutions. He was very supportive of our local community. He was supportive of the business community but particularly of women. He did a lot of work for us for things such as International Women's Day, Stop Domestic Violence Day and the local domestic violence committee. He would help us with designs, promotions, media, et cetera. He was a good man and I will miss him.

COUNTRY TEACHERS INCENTIVES

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [6.05 p.m.]: Tonight I raise the issue of teaching in country New South Wales. There is no doubt that the recent announcement by the Minister for Education and Training that he will be providing scholarships for students willing to teach in country New South Wales was a step in the right direction. I have been an advocate of scholarships. But it is time that the education department undertook a review of all the incentives available for attracting teachers in view of the shortage of teachers in country New South Wales and of teachers with certain subject backgrounds, particular maths and science. In mid-January this year there were 17 vacancies for maths teachers in country high schools—at schools such as Balranald Central School, Bourke High School, Broken Hill High School, Cobar High School, Coonamble High School, and Goodooga Central School. I hope that by the end of January the vacancies were filled. It is difficult to recruit teachers for the areas. Only last weekend positions were advertised for teacher-principals in some rural and isolated communities.

Against that background I highlight decisions taken by the Teacher Housing Authority. The object of the authority is to provide suitable and adequate housing accommodation for government school and TAFE teachers—in particular in areas where there is inadequate private rental accommodation, such as in remote rural communities—to ensure that schools and TAFE colleges are adequately staffed. I recall that when the Coalition was in government many new houses were constructed. The overwhelming majority of teachers appointed to the rural and isolated, and difficult to staff, schools are beginning teachers—newly appointed recent graduates. A significant number of casual teachers also take short-term positions. The decision was taken without consultation by the Teacher Housing Authority in about August of last year to end the policy of providing furnished accommodation. About 40 per cent of teachers use furnished accommodation. In Lightning Ridge it costs the equivalent of a second-hand fridge to freight a fridge from Dubbo, 360 kilometres away.

The first concern is the lack of consultation and the second is the shortsightedness of the policy. In 2000 in the Moree district 170 beginning teachers had been appointed. Teachers in the Walgett area undertook a survey of the impact of the policy. The response was 42 per cent, 52 of 124 members. To the question: Was this appointment your first appointment ...? the response was 38 yes, 14 no. To the question: Did you work casually for the department in rural and isolated areas? the response was 18 yes, 33 no. To the question: Was the provision of furnished units important in encouraging you to work in rural and isolated schools as a casual teacher? the response was 34 yes. To the question: Was the provision of furnished accommodation an important factor in accepting your permanent appointment? 36 answered yes. To the question: Would you have accepted your appointment if there was no furnished accommodation? 27 answered yes and 20 answered no.

Remember, the object is to staff isolated schools. One person who responded to the survey said, "I had two days notice to move, and I lived at home. There is no way I could have organised removalists or purchase of furniture." Another one said, "I worked for two years casually out there, often living out of the back of my car. Without furnished units there is no way I would have worked casually in this area." Another response was, "Not accepting the job is not an option, you don't get a second chance." Another response was, "I will not be moving my own furniture out to this area. Unless I can obtain a furnished unit I will continue to camp in an unfurnished house with a swag and TV. I have had to purchase a bar fridge and small washing machine." Another response to the survey was, "Many teachers are given placement in the last week of the Xmas holidays or in week 1 of school. Many do not have ... money, many do not even have a car." Many are in their first year out of university. They cannot get a loan, they do not have an income and they do not get paid for a month.

It is against that background that this extremely short-sighted decision was taken, and that is not the only decision taken by the Teacher Housing Authority. I am aware of a teacher who had 18 years experience turning down a position in country New South Wales because of a policy preventing her from keeping animals in the house. Interstate she could have her animals with her. Other issues are also relevant. Today I spoke to the husband of a teacher who wanted to move from interstate. He said that the superannuation and life insurance benefits in Queensland provide little incentive to teachers to come to New South Wales; they are better off staying in Queensland. The teacher had originally moved from the Northern Territory to Queensland and on that occasion the Queensland Government paid the moving costs. That does not happen in New South Wales, except within the border. It is time to carry out a review of incentives that attract teachers to country New South Wales. We must be able to staff our rural and isolated schools.

DEATH OF Mrs BARBARA MACKAY

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [6.10 p.m.]: This evening I pay tribute to Mrs Barbara Mackay, a courageous and Christian woman, who died in Canberra Hospital on Saturday 24 February after a long battle with the auto-immune disease, lupus. Barbara was 65. A private family funeral was held, followed by a Service of Thanksgiving on Friday 2 March, which my husband and I were privileged to attend. The service was conducted by Barbara's brother-in-law, Reverend John Davies, of Sydney in the Griffith Uniting Church. James, Paul and Mary, three of her four children, took part in the service. Before her death Barbara asked that Don's life also be included in the Service of Thanksgiving.

Barbara, the widow of murdered anti-drug campaigner, died only weeks after the hit man hired to kill her husband was released from gaol. James Frederick Bazley, 75, was freed last month from Lodden Prison, near Castlemaine in central Victoria, despite originally being gaoled for life for killing drug couriers Isabel and Douglas Wilson and for conspiracy to murder Don Mackay. Italian organised crime bosses allegedly paid Bazley $10,000 to execute Don Mackay as he walked out of a hotel in Griffith, New South Wales, on 15 July 1977. He was gunned down because his outspoken comments were denting the flow of drug money into their grass castles. His body was never found. Barbara died without having her book, Before I Forget, published. The book covers aspects of her remarkable life, including events surrounding Don's murder. It was due to be released in 1997, on the twentieth anniversary of the murder, but was withdrawn on legal advice. At the time Barbara said:

Organised crime threatened Barbara and her family with death if the book Before I Forget were published. Barbara is survived by her children, Paul, Ruth, Mary, James and their families. The family said:

Barbara spoke of the men who were involved. These men are now very wealthy, successful and arrogant, living on the much-laundered money they acquired. They are apparently unrepentant and now respectable, running their farms, businesses, motels, wineries, investments and other pursuits, unworried by any fear of detection and prosecution. She said that Don worried about corruption of people in high places, people with power and positions of influence: politicians, judges, lawyers, police, accountants and all those advisers and protectors needed to smooth their way. I would like to quote from one of the verses that Barbara chose to be sung at her funeral:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Through each choice God speaking to us
Offers each the bloom or blight,
Then the man or nation chooses
For that darkness or that light.

Both Don and Barbara chose the light and for that choice they suffered. Our love and prayers are with the children and grandchildren of Don and Barbara. Don and Barbara now know the answers to the questions and they know the names of the people who gave the orders to execute and those who executed. As the Bible says, they are both absent from the body and present with the Lord. "Well done", the Lord Jesus says, "Thou good and faithful servants."

AUSTRALIA-CHINESE SERVICES SOCIETY TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY

The Hon. H. S. TSANG [6.15 p.m.]: I congratulate the Australia-Chinese Services Society on its twentieth anniversary. Mr Henry Pang, the chairman, and his committee have served continuously for 20 years, providing childcare, migrant settlement and services for the aged in Campsie, Hurstville, Rockdale and the city. Mr Pang and his committee deserve the bipartisan and crossbench support they receive, as evidenced by the presence of the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the 10 other members of Parliament. Congratulations on a good service.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
________________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:18:33 : Update this page