Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 28 August 2002, Corrected Copy)

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

The President offered the Prayers.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That Ms Saffin be discharged from the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and that Mr Primrose be appointed as a member of the committee.

Motion by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho agreed to:

That this House refers report No. 10 of the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 entitled "Inquiry into aspects of the Department of Corrective Services" dated July 2002 together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents and correspondence received by the committee, to the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption for information and such action as the commissioner sees fit.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor:

The Honourable
The President of the Legislative Council
of New South Wales
Parliament House
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear President

I have the honour to inform you that I have received a letter from the Honourable E. Nile, MLC tendering her resignation as a Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales with effect from 27 August 2002.

I have acknowledged receipt of the letter from Mrs Nile and have informed her that you have been advised of her resignation.

A copy of the resignation is attached.

I have acknowledged Her Excellency's communication. An entry regarding the resignation of the Honourable Elaine Blanche Nile has been made in the Register of Members of the Legislative Council.

The Hon. Michael Costa tabled the following paper:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984-Annual Report of the Audit Office of New South Wales for the year ending 30 June 2002

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Michael Costa tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 27 August 2002.

Petitions praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act applying to religious bodies, received from the Hon. Ron Dyer, the Hon. Duncan Gay and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That on Wednesday 28 August 2002 and Thursday 29 August 2002, General Business take precedence of Government Business until 6.00 p.m.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.12 a.m.]: I move:

That the sessional order relating to the cut-off date for consideration of Government bills be amended by omitting from paragraph 1 ", or is received from the Legislative Assembly" and insert instead "in either House".

I understand the import of this amendment is that the cut-off date will now relate to the date the legislation is introduced into either House rather than just the upper House.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [11.12 a.m.]: It is an interesting motion that the Leader of the House moves today. It sounds very simple, to omit from paragraph 1 "or is received from the Legislative Assembly" and insert instead "in either House". The line it applies to says "Where a bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the Legislative Assembly …" and then paragraph 1 (b) says "after 19 November 2002 spring session, debate on a motion for a second reading is to be adjourned until the conclusion of the speech of the Minister moving a motion and the resumption of the debate is to be made an order of the day for the first sitting day in 2003." I suspect we do not have the ability to instruct the Legislative Assembly in this regard, but if a Minister introduces a bill into the Legislative Council, provided it is introduced before 19 November, it is valid. The bill is in the House, it has had its first reading and can be discussed. Under the existing sessional order a bill must be introduced into the Legislative Assembly, debated, considered, amended, added to or subtracted from, and presented to this House by 19 November.

However, if the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the House is to be made, the Government may introduce a bill in the Legislative Assembly and proceed no further. It may then, sometime later, read it a second time, consider it in Committee, amend it and at any subsequent time while this House is sitting present the bill to this House. It completely negates the proposition that the original mover of the cut-off date for full consideration of government bills, the Hon. Malcolm Jones, introduced to this House on 12 March that we must have the bill by 19 November. This amendment completely changes that and means that the Government can introduce any number of bills in a logjam into the other House, simply have them on the notice paper, and bring them along to this Chamber if and when it suits the Government. The cut-off date to try to avoid the logjam would be completely defeated. The motion is very clever and ingenious, but it should not be supported.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Business of the House notice of motion No. 3 called on, and postponed on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Debate resumed from 13 June.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.16 a.m.]: I am pleased that the Opposition has produced seven pages of positive amendments to this bill that the mover and the Christian Democratic Party support because they will achieve the object of the bill. Therefore I will move to adjourn debate on this bill until the next sitting day so that all honourable members can consider these positive amendments before the vote on the second reading. If the bill is defeated at the second reading we will not have the opportunity to consider the amendments. The amendments should satisfy some members who have indicated concern about the bill, and I understand that the Anti-Discrimination Board agrees with the amendments in principle. I look forward to the House eventually passing the bill as amended.

Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Debate resumed from 13 June.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.18 a.m.]: The Greens congratulate the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans on bringing forward this bill. It is very much needed and will improve the running of the House and government. The purpose of the bill is to make government contracts and associated successful tender documents publicly available as a matter of course. This will facilitate greater government accountability and transparency than is in evidence at present. The bill also provides for the Auditor-General to audit the accounts of a person or body that has received public money by way of a grant. Having worked in many community organisations, I appreciate the intent of the legislation. So many times I have been involved in campaigns and have heard the cry "commercial in confidence" but have hit a stone wall when it came to finding out what has gone down in company operations and also what has occurred in collusion between some corporate bodies and the government of the day. This brings a fresh approach to the running of governments and how corporations undertake their business in New South Wales, which is much needed.

This legislation would have made a real difference to two campaigns relating to aluminium smelter contracts. We have not yet heard the full story about the aluminium smelter contracts that were granted in the 1990s by the Wran Government. Those contracts were very much on the nose at the time. Indeed, for many years rumours abounded that electricity was being sold to aluminium smelters at 2.5¢ per kilowatt hour while the rest of New South Wales paid up to 6.5¢ for the same bulk electricity. That is only one area in which we have heard time and again that sweetheart deals were done, that corruption was afoot, and that undue influence was exercised. We-when I say "we" I mean the community activists who saw a rort being undertaken and who wanted to get to the bottom of it to expose the story-could not get information. We could not get to the bottom of the story because the Government was able to cover its tracks at every turn. This legislation will ensure that that cannot happen in the future.

Also, this legislation will allow us to have an open debate. Too often the Government is able to use the media by simply filter feeding certain information. That means that the public is not informed and there is no scrutiny by the public or, indeed, the media about some incredibly huge projects, although such projects need to be open to much greater scrutiny. For that reason the Greens will wholly support this legislation. The integrity of the major political parties is increasingly coming under question by the electorate. Voting figures show that an increasing number of people are deserting the major parties, because they have learnt that their suspicions are well founded. They know that the major parties are not open, that they try to do deals with the corporate world and that they try to hide those deals. To bring back some integrity in terms of their standing in the community, the Government and the Opposition would be well advised to support this legislation. That would say to the electorate that they have nothing to hide, that they are committed to people scrutinising and passing comment on their activities and the plans they have afoot for this State. The Greens are very pleased to support this bill, and we hope it goes through.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.23 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party also supports the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. In this House we have had many motions seeking the disclosure of documents, especially those relating to controversial contracts, whether it is the M2, the M5 East, the Fox Studios development, Luna Park or the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. And on it goes! Although there is a procedure to seek documents, often objections are raised to producing documents because it is claimed that they are commercial in-confidence or they are Cabinet documents and therefore cannot be made public. In most cases the documents are eventually made available, but it is a long, drawn-out process. And when the boxes of documents arrive they virtually swamp the upper House, because a tremendous amount of time is required to go through the documents to find the specific matters or specific piece of paper that is critical to the whole debate. Often that time is not available. The way we approach these matters needs to be changed, and this bill will bring about that change.

Freedom of information legislation in New Zealand is a reverse of legislation in this State. I understand that in New Zealand claims of commercial in-confidence or Cabinet in-confidence are not enough and that all documents are made public, unless there are good reasons under the Act to withhold documents. In other words, it is a reverse of the procedure in New South Wales. Moving in that direction would seem to be a positive step for this House. Recently, issues relating to Rockdale council were raised, and allegations have been made about Liverpool council and the Oasis development. Members of the public are becoming increasingly suspicious about whether activities conducted by any side of politics, whether it is Federal, State or local government, are above board. Therefore, they demand open government and for all contracts and agreements to see the light of day and be made public.

The process before contracts are signed must always be open. Deals must not be hidden. Companies must not be able to say, "I am prepared to do this and to build that," whether it is a harbour tunnel or some other project. If that happened government would be tempted-and it has been tempted in the past-to come to an agreement with the company without undertaking an open tender process. It is right to reject completely the approach of simply signing a contract without undertaking an open tender process. Such an approach could result in allegations of corruption, that certain people have been encouraged to make an agreement for hidden benefits. There may be no corruption at all but there is a perception of corruption when there is secrecy. So open government will help the Government and reduce allegations of corruption when there is no corruption. If there is secrecy, the community is concerned about the reasons for that secrecy, such as whether people have something to hide.

I commend the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans for organising the Open Government Forum on 10 December 2001. Many of these issues were raised at the forum, and there were a number of expert speakers, including the Chief Ombudsman of New Zealand and a number of other prominent leaders, both international and national. In a sense, the forum helped to prove the necessity for this bill, and I believe the House should support it. We have seen amendments drafted to improve the bill. Those amendments came out of lengthy discussions with various bodies and included input from the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. We look forward to debating those amendments in due course. We support the bill.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [11.28 a.m.]: I strongly support the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill and congratulate the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans on introducing the bill and also on holding the forum. While the Australian Democrats federally are in a somewhat chaotic state right now, it is true that the Democrats over the years have done extremely good work, both federally and in this State. I hope that, for the benefit of the public at large, the Democrats will solve their problems and get on with the job because, when they do, they do an extremely good job. This bill provides that government contracts and associated successful tender documents as well as results of all performance monitoring are kept publicly available by all public authorities. This bill is necessary to ensure that the Government is more open and accountable. Moreover, it will save Treasury a great deal of money, so it should be supported by the Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan.

The Government has been loath to release any documentation affecting many of its activities, in particular documents relating to Delta Electricity, the lease of the quarantine station at North Head, and the construction and filtration of the M5 East stack and tunnel, which in my view will be one of the most important issues at the next election. On occasions I have had to call for papers to be made public. In response the Government has claimed privilege or commercial in-confidence, which subsequently has been determined by a legal arbiter to be invalid or irrelevant when measured against the public interest. Quite clearly, this is a time-consuming and costly process that should not have to be undertaken.

Documents that have been requested should be publicly available as a matter of course. In May last year I called for the release of the conditional lease agreement on the quarantine station at North Head between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Mawland, and for the North Head Quarantine Station conservation management plan or any similar plan endorsed by the Heritage Council in April 2000. The conditional agreement was produced, accompanied by a claim of privilege by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of commercial in-confidence immunity and a claim for public interest immunity. The claim was disputed and referred to an independent legal arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, whose report stated:

… the claim for commercial in confidence immunity requires the balancing of the protection of private rights to have the confidentiality of commercial in confidence material respected and the public interest in disclosure of the contents of the material …

The NPWS's claim of privilege on the first ground is essentially that private entities dealing with the Government on a commercial in confidence basis should be able to rely on that confidentiality being respected and protected by the Government ...

The NPWS's claim of privilege on the second ground is essentially that the processes of Government particularly in the formulation of policy should not ordinarily be exposed to public scrutiny as this can be prejudicial to the integrity of decision-making processes.

After evaluating the countervailing claims of privilege and the public interest in disclosure, Sir Laurence Street reached the conclusion that the public interest in disclosure should prevail. His report states:

The future of the foreshore of Sydney Harbour is the focus of intense and legitimate public interest and debate. This standing alone points strongly in favour of disclosure …There is in my view a substantial and valid public interest in the stewardship of the NPWS in relation to the Quarantine Station being open to public awareness and debate...

... the claim [of privilege] should not be upheld. The Conditional Agreement is not protected by either commercial in confidence privilege or public interest immunity.

The National Parks Association and the Friends of Quarantine Station noted that the conditional agreement signed by Mawland and the Minister for the Environment revealed the dangers of privatisation of national parks management. The quarantine station currently generates a profit of approximately $600,000 each year for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The agreement not only compromises the cultural values of the site but siphons off to the developer future income at the expense of the Government. Certainly the agreement should never have been signed in secret, nor the heritage significance of the station sacrificed. In relation to the papers on Delta Electricity, the Government's claims of privilege were again knocked down by Sir Laurence Street, who stated:

I am of the opinion that there is a legitimate public interest in properly informed debate upon the subject of the condition of the State's river systems in general and upon the usage of waters within those systems in particular... I see a strong interest in making available the specific information in the documents falling within paragraphs (b) and (d). Disclosure will contribute to enabling the political process to function responsibly, and to ensuring that policy making is soundly based on properly informed public debate. It is inimical to the public interest in transparency and accountability in relation to a topic as important as the usage of waters from the State's river systems for this information to be withheld from public scrutiny and evaluation.

After balancing Delta Electricity's legitimate claim for public interest immunity against the public interest* in disclosure of these documents, I have reached the conclusion that the public interest *in disclosure preponderates.

In relation to the filtration of the M5 East stack, Residents Against Polluting Stacks Inc. [RAPS], I, and many other honourable members of this place-in fact, most honourable members of this place, apart from Government members-have engaged in great disputation with the Government to obtain necessary documentation relating to the construction of the stack, its environmental impact, and evidence relating to the design of the ventilation stack and alternative possibilities for the management of air-polluting substances. The pollution coming from the M5 East unfiltered tunnel and inside the tunnel is well above the set safety standards of the World Health Organisation. Unquestionably, it poses a real threat to the local community and to people who are actually using the tunnel.

I noted among released documents some interesting comments made by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. In a document addressed to Graham Read, Jay Stricker and Phil Gallagher and written by Steve Faulkner, the M5 East Motorway development manager of the RTA's motorway services branch, some extraordinary statements are made. The document states:

In regard to the Clayton Utz advice re 19/4/02, I think that we should also consider the practical view that using formal advice to the EPA on how RTA wants to report the data may provide EPA with an opportunity to dictate to us additional and more onerous requirements. The system adopted has been in operation since December 2001, without complaint so far.

What Steve Faulkner was really saying was that the RTA should not release data to the EPA because the EPA will make sure that the RTA does the right thing. The whole question of the M5 East tunnel and filtration has been an absolute disaster from beginning to end. I and the groups to which I have referred warned the Government and the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, Mr Scully, long before the tunnel was ever built that it would cause terrible problems if it was unfiltered.

Our warnings have been shown to be correct. People who live in areas around the stack are suffering from very severe problems. On ABC radio this morning people again phoned to say that they have been suffering problems from the unfiltered stack. Honourable members heard yesterday that the Hon. Malcolm Jones suffered when going through the tunnel on a motorbike, and we know that the Hon. Elaine Nile, who has had to resign, has also suffered. It is clearly an absolute disaster. I think that Paul Forward has been extraordinarily obdurate in his lack of action on filtration of the tunnel. He has dug in his heels, and it is costing lives.

The Hon. John Jobling: What is new?

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: What is new with Paul Forward! His obduracy is costing the lives of the people of Sydney. Approximately 1,000 people per year die from air pollution, yet if Paul Forward had done his job properly by ensuring that the M5 East, Sydney Harbour and Eastern Distributor tunnels were properly filtered, lives would be saved. But he is more interested in saving money. Pollution of tunnels will be a major issue at the next election. A number of people in Sydney will be switching their votes, but the Government does not seem to realise that. It is about time this Government woke up to the reality of what the people want and got in touch with the community instead of just listening to Paul Forward of the RTA.

If the Government begins to listen, it might be able to claw back some of its lost votes. A heck of a lot of government votes will be lost in seven months time, but the Government seems to be blissfully unaware and proceeds with arrogance and closed minds, not realising that the community is up in arms over this issue. It should be noted that many business people support legislation of this type. The chief executive officer of the Council for Infrastructure Development notes that his organisation has informed governments, particularly the New South Wales Government, and the New South Wales Opposition, that it fully supports the public disclosure of contracts, once the contract has been signed.

This is sound business practice because the unsuccessful tenderers will have enough information to prove that the best person won the contract, and the public will be satisfied that the Government has acted properly on its behalf. The bill counters the problem of honourable members of this place continually having to call for papers to view documents that they are perfectly entitled to examine, and then having to dispute claims of privilege through a process of the claim being determined by a judge, a retired judge, or some other appropriate person. The type of system proposed by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans works successfully in New Zealand. The New Zealand system was overhauled in 1982; as a result, the onus falls on government agencies to prove why documents should remain secret. The New Zealand Chief Ombudsman states:

When you are acting in a public office and expending public money, the information you hold belongs to the public.

The New South Wales Deputy Ombudsman agrees. He said that public officials are expected to be frank and candid and to act in the public interest. That being the case, there is no reason for the Government to hide anything. However, exactly the opposite is happening. Last year the New South Wales Ombudsman found that, for example, requests for documents under freedom of information laws had been increasingly refused since the election of the Government six years ago. It is a Government of secrecy. Journalists complain bitterly that using FOI to extract the information from the Government is frustrating because it has finessed corruption of the whole process, as one journalist from the Australian noted.

The Privacy Commissioner, Chris Puplick, notes that privacy is a right that attaches to individuals; it does not attach to organisations, agencies, corporations or departments. He believes that the Government has a poor record when it comes to willingness to share information with the electorate. The bill will ensure that copies of government contracts and tender documents and the results of performance monitoring are kept publicly available. The bill should be supported by all members of the House. It is long overdue. I hope that the Government has given it proper consideration and will support it, because it will save taxpayers money and make sure that these matters are made public when they should be public in the first place.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.41 a.m.]: I do not object to the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. The objects of the bill are to ensure that copies of all government contracts and associated tendering documents and the results of all performance monitoring are kept publicly available by all public authorities and to ensure that the accounts of persons and bodies that receive public money from a public authority by way of grants are subject to inspection, examination and audit by the Auditor-General under the Public Finance and Audit Act. I can see nothing wrong with that proposal and therefore I support it. For years we have been talking about public accountability and transparency. I am pleased that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. Why would it oppose a principle that should apply to all governments? The Government has not put forward an official view on the bill yet, but the remarks of Government members suggest that the Government will not support it. I do not understand why.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio suggested that the bill could result in unintended consequences for private organisations that receive government grants. However, the delivery of government grants should be transparent. Transparency in any management is a good thing. With the recent collapses of corporations in America and Australia it has been shown that the auditing has not been transparent to the companies and the shareholders. Secrecy and a lack of monitoring have precluded adequate accountability. I understand that commercially sensitive information sometimes has to be protected in the tendering process, and mechanisms are available to do that. No-one with any commonsense would want to damage the position of companies involved in tendering for government contracts. However, on balance, if public money is involved the information should be available to the public.

Members of this House have been criticised for requiring disclosure and tabling of documents, but for this House to work it needs to have information about the true position. The spirit of the bill accords with good government management and I cannot understand why people would oppose it. The bill is not intended to damage the position of companies involved in the tendering process; it merely wants the government to act accountably and transparently so that information can be publicly available. In the 14 years I have been a member of Parliament freedom of information laws have been put in place and watchdog bodies such as the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission Against Corruption have been established so that previously secret activities can be investigated. I support the bill and note that some amendments have been foreshadowed to improve it.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.47 a.m.]: I move:

That this House take note of Report No. 8 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 entitled "Report on Inquiry into Cabramatta Policing", dated July 2001.

This significant inquiry of a general purpose standing committee of this House has received a great deal of attention in the public arena, not only because of the important issues which arose during the inquiry but also because the inquiry revealed endemic failures of the Government to attend to significant community concerns. The inquiry was not about drug policy; it was related to policing and the resources made available to deal with specific problems that occurred in Cabramatta, problems that are occurring all over the State. The report disclosed Government inaction and media spin in relation to crime, particularly drug-related crime, across New South Wales and absolutely failed policing policies and strategies that had been implemented under the former Minister for Police and the former Commissioner of Police.

I will not quote at length from the report because it is available for all to read. Suffice it to say that the conditions the committee found in Cabramatta were horrifying and distressing and of great concern to members of the committee. They raised a significant issue regarding the accountability of the Government, particularly the Minister for Police, for the inaction that had led to many of the community concerns and problems in Cabramatta.

The role of a committee in scrutinising the actions or inactions of government is fundamental to our system of government. I certainly found it a beneficial experience to take part in a committee that worked in the way this committee did. Whilst we had some disputes along the way, I compliment the various members and the chair of the committee on the way the committee moved forward and made sure we gave the community and all interested parties a proper opportunity to put their views, and ultimately to allow us to uncover the truth as to what was happening in Cabramatta.

I also wish to pay tribute to some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. Councillor Thang Ngo was instrumental in bringing to the attention of the committee the conditions he observed in Cabramatta as the only Vietnamese-speaking councillor on Fairfield City Council. I particularly refer to paragraphs 3.56 and 3.57 in relation to some of his comments, which the committee found very useful. There had been a crime explosion in Cabramatta. Chapter 3 of the report outlines in some detail the circumstances of that explosion in crime: the drug houses, the gang wars and the crisis that Cabramatta found itself in. Over a number of years the media undertook its own investigations into what was happening in Cabramatta, because it was apparent to anyone who cared to have a look at the situation that there was a problem and that it was being either ignored or hidden. One of the surprising things the committee found during the inquiry was that there was an attitude in Cabramatta, which I believe emanated from Commissioner Ryan-

The Hon. Rick Colless: Former Commissioner Ryan.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: -former Commissioner Ryan.

The Hon. John Jobling: Deposed Commissioner Ryan.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: -driven-out former Commissioner Ryan, that street drug crime was essentially ignored in Cabramatta.

The Hon. John Jobling: There was nothing in the five indicators to record the drug crime.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will come to that in a moment. That led to an outbreak of house break-ins and minor crime in Cabramatta, which was also ignored. I was astonished to hear the evidence that people believed there was effectively a containment policy in Cabramatta, an unspoken policy that drug supply and usage should be contained in the central business district of Cabramatta and that if it was left there other areas of the State may not be subjected to the same levels of crime and drug usage. I draw members' attention to paragraphs 3.8, 5.19, 5.20 and 10.11 of the report, which outline those concerns about the perception that there was a containment policy and about the supply of drugs.

There were some seminal moments during the conduct of the inquiry. One of my colleagues has already made reference to the famous comment of deposed Commissioner Ryan that, according to his crime index, Roseville was safer than Cabramatta. I will return to that in a moment. One of the major events during the inquiry was the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Tim Priest on his second appearance before the committee. I will not take up a great deal of the time of the House on that matter because the circumstances of it are well known. However, the co-ordinated attack that then took place to discredit Tim Priest was astonishing.

It became apparent, as is evident in the committee's report, that in essence what Tim Priest alleged about the Cook report and the failure to act on it, the gang warfare and the crime that took place, but, more importantly, about the failure of the police service, particularly Crime Agencies, to proactively deal with the gangs and the significant crime, was essentially correct. Tim Priest deserves to be commended for having the courage to bring to the attention of the public those major concerns. Another four police bravely came forward and essentially supported the revelations in relation to the lack of capacity at senior police levels to deal with the gangs, the drug supply and the other major crime that was apparent.

I wish to focus on one of the perpetrators of the attack on Tim Priest's integrity and the attack on the other police. As the House knows, the attack on Tim Priest was both premeditated and quite vicious. One element of it was the appearance before the committee a couple of days after Tim Priest of Assistant Commissioner Clive Small. His evidence, which has been of concern to a number of committee members, was that the Cook report was acted upon, that 11 strike forces were supposedly proactively dealing with drug crime or gangs and major crime in Cabramatta, and that the response to the Cook report, which Tim Priest referred to, was a strike force called Portville which was established in February 2001. The importance of that was that if what Clive Small told us was true, Tim Priest's claims were not accurate and that there had been a proper and adequate response.

The committee was able to review the terms of reference of the Cook report and also of the 11 strike forces referred to by Clive Small. It also had the opportunity to review the terms of reference for Strike Force Portville. Suffice it to say that on reviewing those documents and reviewing Mr Small's evidence, it is apparent that Mr Small's response was not accurate. I draw the attention of the House to a number of paragraphs of the report that deal with each of those essential matters raised by Assistant Commissioner Small. In paragraph 4.48 of the report the committee concluded that other than the telephone phone-ins-two of the strike forces that were supposed to be working were telephone phone-ins-only one of the strike forces nominated by Mr Small was directed to act in a proactive way in relation to drug-related crime. Strike Force Pitten was established in October 1999. At paragraph 4.58 the committee concluded:

The Committee finds that the content of the Cook report was such as should have received urgent priority and critical attention. The Committee further finds that the failure to take any action until at least 1 February 2000, ten weeks after production of the assessment, was an inadequate response.

However, most important was the episode in relation to Strike Force Portville. When Mr Small appeared before the committee he produced a document that he claimed was the terms of reference for Strike Force Portville, which was designed to support his submission and argument before the committee. The document turned out to be a combination of two separate terms of reference for Portville.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What has been his involvement to date in any negotiations or meetings concerning the Oasis development or any other development related to the Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd? Does he have any knowledge of pressure or threats placed on the Mayor of Canterbury, Kaye Griffin, to support the development above the Bulldogs Rugby League Club at Belmore?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: It is obvious from this silly question that Opposition members do not have their minds on the job. If they have any evidence of allegations they should put them to the appropriate authorities and should not use question time, which is about politics. If they want to handle any issues outside my portfolio-

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Yes or no?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I will not give you the benefit of that. Whatever information the Opposition members have, they should put it to the appropriate authorities and agencies. They are fishing for an issue that is not there.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister outline to the House the latest developments in the rejuvenation of the Snowy River?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Today the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier of Victoria have released the first waters back into the Snowy River. It is the first step in a $300 million, 10-year plan to rescue this historical waterway. It is a great day for one of our nation's mightiest rivers. It is also one of the best examples of how governments can work together to bring about important results. The Snowy scheme was a great international engineering achievement but by current standards it came at a significant environmental cost. We are now repairing some of that environmental damage while still ensuring the future of the Snowy scheme and its important role in supplying electricity and water for irrigation.

The Snowy River is one of the country's most famous icons, rich in history and heritage. It is also immortalised in folklore and poetry. Today's release represents the increasing awareness by all Australians of the need to manage our environment in a sustainable way. Construction of the $1 billion Snowy Mountains scheme began in 1949 and finished in 1974. As part of the official ceremony today the Premiers opened the Mowamba aqueduct between Jindabyne and Dalgety, releasing 38 gigalitres of water a year into the Snowy-doubling the previous flow into the river from 3 per cent to 6 per cent of the original flow.

Under the plan there will be no adverse impact on the water entitlements of irrigators. Increasing the flow of the Snowy River will improve the natural plant and animal habitats, particularly important for threatened species. Fifty years ago only a few people recognised the potential for environmental damage to the Snowy River created by the Snowy scheme. Today we understand that we need to balance our economic, social and environmental goals to ensure that we do not reduce the choices for future generations. The Mowamba aqueduct previously diverted water from the Mowamba River to the Jindabyne Dam. The ultimate objective of the rescue plan is to boost the Snowy River's flow to 28 per cent of its original level.

The interim targets for the Snowy River are to achieve 15 per cent of original flow levels within seven years and 21 per cent in 10 years. Under the plan the New South Wales and Victorian governments will contribute $150 million each to increase water flows down the Snowy River. The Commonwealth will contribute a further $75 million for dedicated environmental flows into the Murray River. Water flowing down the Snowy River would be returned to the equivalent of 21 per cent of the river's original flows. An additional 70 gigalitres will flow into the Murray River and about 120 gigalitres of water will flow into alpine rivers within the Kosciuszko National Park.

The capacity of the Snowy scheme to protect against drought will remain the same and the Snowy hydro system will continue to meet critical demand for electricity supply. Also, there will be no adverse impact on water security or quality for South Australia. Under the Snowy rehabilitation plan 60 kilometres of blackberry and willow trees are being removed from the banks of the Snowy River and will be replaced by 40,000 native trees. Without the commitment of the Victorian and New South Wales governments the restoration of environmental flows to the Snowy River would never have happened.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of allegations that not all student police officers set to be sworn in this coming Friday completed their operational safety and tactics course JST 137 or its equivalent? Did he know that this course includes simulation training involving the use of firearms in simulated exercises, together with related training where students have to decide whether to use their gun, baton or capsicum spray? Will the Minister give an immediate undertaking to the House that no student police officer who is yet to complete this training will be sworn in this coming Friday?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: If I had wanted to know the Opposition's question for me today I would have asked Steve Gibbs from the press gallery because he asked my office that very same question yesterday. I do not intend to give an answer today because the Opposition is fishing for the record numbers, which will be available on Friday. They also tried this during the estimates hearings, but they are not going to get the number. If they want to find out the number they should buy the paper on Saturday morning. I am sure the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph will cover the story. They will find out the record number on Friday.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd $1 billion-plus Oasis project at Liverpool includes plans for it to be eventually financed by the income from 1,000 poker machines, as alleged in the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 August? Is it a fact that the massive Oasis future development is based on the long-term plan for it to be eventually Sydney's second legal casino? What is the Government's current policy concerning the number of poker machines in the Oasis complex, both now and in the future-1,000, 600, 450? What is the figure? Will the Government support the Oasis complex eventually being Sydney's second legal casino?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not familiar with the business plan of Canterbury Bulldogs for the Oasis complex. However, I have read in the media that at one stage the club was hoping that it would have 1,000 poker machines located at the Oasis development. That, of course, was prior to the Government's reform of poker machine levels and licences, which, I think, was announced either earlier this year or some time last year. Honourable members will recall that under those reforms there is a cap on the total number of poker machine licences in New South Wales. That cap is 104,000. As well, there is a limit on the number of poker machines that any one venue can hold.

Except for the clubs that had in excess of the 450 limit and had their entitlements grandfathered, no new venue can have more than 450 poker machines. This is a serious question and honourable members should listen to the answer. However, there is provision for an allocation of a small number of licences-5, 10 or 15, I am not sure-for new clubs. Beyond that small entitlement a new club or a new venue would have to purchase additional licenses on the market within that cap of 450, or have additional licences transferred to it from an existing club. Those provisions would apply to any licensed club development at Liverpool. In other words, if the Canterbury club were to sponsor a club it would have to transfer some of its existing licences from the club located at Canterbury, or it would have to buy on the open market poker machine licences up to the cap of 450. I have no idea how that will affect the initial business plans of the Bulldogs, but that is the law. The law will apply to them as it does to anybody else.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The second part of the question was about the casino.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not an expert and I will seek some advice, but my understanding is that Star City has an exclusive licence that expires at some stage.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Next year?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I do not think it is next year. You are a silly man. It is not next year.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Are you sure?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is not next year. It is some time off. As I understand it, it is so far off that I will probably be one of the few existing members in this House. I think it is before 2016. The Government will not make a policy decision about what might happen in 10 years time- [Time expired.]

The Hon. RON DYER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Disability Services. What progress has been made in negotiations with the Commonwealth Government on the Commonwealth-State and Territory Disability Agreement?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I know that opposition members will not like this, because they do not like to accept that they have completely failed to meet their responsibilities to provide services for people with a disability. They know that and they are very uncomfortable. The third Commonwealth-State and Territory Disability Agreement for the period 2002 to 2007 is presently being negotiated between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The States and Territories have had little satisfaction from the Commonwealth. As a result, on 21 August I joined with all my State and Territory colleagues in issuing a letter to our Federal counterpart, the honourable Amanda Vanstone, to seek a meeting with a view to increasing the Commonwealth's offer of funding. To date we have had no response from the Minister.

The Commonwealth offered the States an increase of just $125 million over the five years of the agreement. This level of increase falls far short of the level of funding required to meet the unmet need outlined in the recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] report on unmet need. Not only that, it goes nowhere to meeting the increases from the Social and Community Services Employees [SACS] Award that was handed down last year. The AIHW estimated that national unmet need stands at 12,500 accommodation and respite places, and 8,200 community access places. The Opposition does not like this because it knows that it has failed to meet its commitment and responsibility to people with a disability. I assure honourable members that the New South Wales Government is responding to the challenge of expanding services for people with a disability.

The New South Wales Government has increased its funding for disability services by 77 per cent since 1996, but the Government has also had to address the immediate viability of the network of non-government service providers that deliver Commonwealth-State funded programs. This is why the Opposition is so concerned and why it does not like this answer. The Opposition knows that the Commonwealth has not met its responsibility to pay the impact of the SACS award. The Opposition knows that those services are delivered jointly on behalf of the State and the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth, despite a campaign of some nine months, has not stepped up to meet its responsibilities. The State Government has been forced to step in. We will provide assistance of more than $100 million over four years to cover the Commonwealth's share of wage increases for more than 10,000 of the State's lowest-paid community workers. We have had to do this because the Howard Government has refused to meet its share.

As honourable members will recall, last year the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission awarded salary increases for community workers covered by the Social and Community Services Employees award. The State Government immediately committed to meeting its share, but the Commonwealth has not done the same thing. To assist these services the Government will provide an extra $101.3 million over the next four years to cover these costs. This is in addition to the $182 million already committed from New South Wales. This comprehensive package has been developed with the community sector. It supports people who are providing services to the most vulnerable people in our community: people with a disability, elderly people relying on meals on wheels and home-care support, and young people requiring accommodation. The Opposition's record in this matter is shameless. The Opposition is not calling on its Federal counterparts to put the money in, therefore the State Government has had to step into the breach.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that New South Wales stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in lost carbon credit sales if Australia does not sign the Kyoto protocol? Is the Treasurer aware that failure to stem climate change at the Earth Summit this week will lead to mass extinctions and millions of eco-refugees, and cost the global economy tens of billions of dollars a year? Will his Government use any of the $16.5 million environmental advertising budget to promote Australia joining the Kyoto protocol?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Like the New South Wales Government, but unlike the Neanderthals who sit opposite, Ms Lee Rhiannon at least understands the significance of global warming for the New South Wales economy, our environment and society generally. We see regular headlines in the nation's business pages claiming that investment is suffering because Australia will not sign the Kyoto protocol.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Name one!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yesterday the front page of the Australian Financial Review said, "Investment is suffering because Australia won't sign the Kyoto Protocol".

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Did you read the article?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, I did read the article.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: In detail?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I cannot say I read it in detail but I certainly did read it. The Federal Coalition's position on Kyoto means that country New South Wales in particular and Australia as a whole may miss out on not only carbon credit sales but also major new investments in forestry plantations and renewable energy industries. I remind the House that the New South Wales Government has taken a leadership position on global warming. Our leadership is recognised internationally but, strange as this may seem, not by the current Federal Coalition Government. I make this point for the benefit of the conservatives sitting opposite: The New South Wales Government is committed to taking advantage of the opportunities presented by global warming.

The Hon. John Ryan: The conservatives are sitting behind you.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The conservatives in the Federal Liberal and National parties want to ignore global warming. Global warming is a first-order issue and should be treated as such. This Government has enacted legislation to give New South Wales a first-mover advantage in attracting investment for carbon credits, such as forestry plantations. Other States have followed our lead to some extent but are slow in doing so. We now have Japanese investment in New South Wales-

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Follow their lead.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: You would not know what side you are on; you are like your Federal colleagues. You do not know whether you are Arthur or Martha. We now have Japanese investment in New South Wales offsetting greenhouse emissions in Japan. We are also finalising negotiations with a European corporation for a similar large investment in plantation forestry. These investments greatly benefit country New South Wales and are being linked to salinity reforestation.

The Federal Coalition's failure to recognise climate change as a major issue is appalling and is clearly a source of embarrassment for those opposite. We have sought written explanations from the Federal Government and it should not surprise those on the Coalition benches in this place to learn that we are still waiting for a reply. The Prime Minister is ignoring reality. Business is ready for these new markets. The Environment Business Agency claims that by:

… refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol the government risks Australia being locked out of international mechanisms that would allow the nation to meet its targets with lowest cost and greatest economic benefit.

Frankly, the Prime Minister is ignoring reality, and it will cost Australia dearly. The Premier has led the way in using the environmental budget to promote Australia's joining the protocol and he has been a frequent and articulate advocate for Australia's ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Funds are constantly being expended by agencies such as the Sustainable Energy and Development Authority, State Forests, National Parks, Land and Water Conservation, and Agriculture to promote the need to address climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Did the delegation that you met in December last year to discuss the Oasis development make any specific request about a possible exemption from land tax? Apart from the request that he mentioned to transfer Crown land to Liverpool City Council, what other matters were discussed at the meeting?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The meeting I referred to yesterday as one that I attended in December 2000 was not a delegation from Liverpool council.

The Hon. John Ryan: Hansard records that you said 2001.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It was December 2001; I stand corrected. But it was not a delegation from Liverpool council. I met the delegation from Liverpool council quite some time before that, and my recollection is that it involved a general briefing by the council about the proposal. My recollection is that at that stage the council was seeking some assistance from the Government. I do not recall precisely what that assistance was but I left the delegation in no doubt at all that it would not get a brass razoo out of us.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Treasurer referred to notes in giving his answer, can he, first, table those notes and, secondly, give a detailed response today about what other matters were discussed?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The notes are not in relation to my meeting with Liverpool council.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is directed to the Minister for Fisheries. What action has been taken to better protect the marine biodiversity of the State's North Coast?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: From 1 November this year one of our State's most important holiday destinations will have greater protection for its aquatic biodiversity. The creation of the Cape Byron Marine Park follows extensive community consultation over the past 12 months. The Government will consult further with the community over the next two years about zoning plans for the park. We will listen to what the community has to say about this important region. The Cape Byron Marine Park, on the State's North Coast, is the fourth marine park to be declared by this Government. It follows the successful establishment of the Solitary Islands Marine Park, the Jervis Bay Marine Park and the Lord Howe Island Marine Park.

The Cape Byron Marine Park is the next step in the Government's plan to protect our rich aquatic life for future generations. The new marine park covers nearly 23,000 hectares of water from Brunswick to Lennox Heads. The region is one of our premier tourist attractions. Visitors from all over the world travel to this stunning area to view the annual migration of whales and to see dolphins. The area is famous for diving, with major attractions being beautiful corals and plant life. Rare and endangered species such as the leatherback turtle, grey nurse sharks and little terns gather here as well.

The New South Wales Government wants to ensure that the community is fully involved in the next stage, which is the development of zoning plans. A comprehensive community-driven zoning plan is a vital part of protecting this slice of paradise. The plan will recognise the recreational needs of the community, including angling, diving, whale and dolphin watching, ecotourism, boating and surfing. We will call shortly for interested people to form the first Cape Byron Marine Park consultative committee and we are in the process of recruiting two staff who will be responsible for day-to-day park business. That is good news for local jobs and the North Coast community. We are currently looking for a suitable site for the marine park office at Cape Byron. I look forward to updating the House on future developments about the park.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is directed to the Minister for Fisheries. What is being done to give indigenous communities a greater say in the management of our State's fisheries resource? It has been a few years coming.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I commend the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho for her keen interest in indigenous issues and the indigenous communities in this State. The New South Wales Government is committed to making sure that the community has a say in the way we manage our fisheries. After all, it is a community-owned resource. The New South Wales Government is also working to ensure that indigenous communities have their say in our management plan. Last month, as a result of extensive consultation, the draft indigenous fisheries strategy was released for community consultation. This document is a milestone in this Government's acknowledgement of indigenous fishing.

Our commitment to indigenous communities includes providing the funds needed to implement the strategy. The New South Wales Government has allocated $1.6 million for the first two years of this program, which aims to make sure that Aboriginal communities across the State have input into this important strategy. The Government wants to foster greater understanding of indigenous cultural fisheries issues and greater indigenous participation in our State's growing aquaculture industry.

Throughout August, representatives of New South Wales Fisheries have been meeting with Aboriginal communities across the State and listening to local concerns. The meetings have been chaired by an independent facilitator, and members of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council were involved in the discussions. As a result of further consultation with indigenous communities the Government has extended the deadline for public comment on the draft strategy to 6 September. Anyone wanting to make a submission may do so prior to that date.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I ask a supplementary question. Minister, according to your answer you have a strategy. Could you provide a copy of that strategy to me and to other people with whom I have contact?

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Particularly to indigenous people.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes, particularly to indigenous people.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I can understand why the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked that question. Yes, I can make the strategy available. But the interjection by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner shows that she did not listen to my answer to the original question and is not interested in indigenous community issues. Earlier I said that an independent facilitator is meeting with local indigenous communities in relevant areas across the State. This is all about discussing the Government's strategy with the communities and making sure that all relevant local issues are part of that strategy. It is very important to listen to all communities, not only to indigenous communities. Any good government would seek input from local communities before implementing any strategy. However, the Opposition has always contradicted that practice. Every time the Government has consulted local communities the Opposition has been critical of that procedure. The Government will continue to listen to communities, because that is how good policy is formulated. And that is what the Government has done with regard to this resource.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. Given that the alleged murderer of baby Jayden Luke was charged only after circumstances surrounding the baby's death were raised in Parliament last year, how can the Minister justify her refusal to discuss individual Department of Community Services cases during question time? Is the Minister's blanket refusal to respond to individual cases just the latest Government strategy to avoid scrutiny of the department?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I would have expected a bit better of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. She has deliberately misrepresented what I said yesterday, so I will reiterate what I said. In the past calendar year the Department of Community Services Helpline received more than 140,000 reports, and the department has 84 community service centres and a large number of staff. It is simply not possible for me to do justice to individual cases if they are raised during question time. As has happened in Juvenile Justice and other portfolio areas, particularly with sensitive issues that involve dysfunctional families and other areas of concern, members can raise individual matters with me directly. I can then investigate them and provide the member with an appropriate response. Often cases are under investigation by the Coroner, police, the Child Death Review Team or the Ombudsman and I am therefore limited in what I can say in this House.

Having said that, I would not want to indicate in any way that I am unwilling to answer any questions regarding the Department of Community Services. I took the opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which is inquiring into the department-and the Opposition supported that inquiry. In my address to the committee I laid out my approach to this area of the Department of Community Services. I acknowledged the issues that the department faces-issues that child protection agencies across the world are facing. No-one can say that I am not willing to be accountable, open and transparent or to answer any question regarding the operations of the department. As Minister, that is clearly my responsibility. Nonetheless, it is inappropriate and unacceptable to use question time to politicise individual cases and to drag the affairs of families through the political process,. I will deal with any systemic issue that any member of this House raises.

From my experience, Opposition members often get it wrong; they come along with half-baked information that they use to create a story where none exists. In no way am I unwilling to deal with systemic issues in the Department of Community Services. I will take on board any matters raised by any member and respond to them. My interest is in getting the best possible system to protect children and young people and to support families in New South Wales. Members would be better served to raise individual cases directly with me and I will undertake to investigate them and provide an adequate response to the member.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Would the Treasurer provide the House with details of the Government's continuing initiatives for major projects in Western Sydney?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Thirty major investment projects in greater Western Sydney are on target to create more than 58,000 jobs and inject $9.8 billion into the region's economy over the next six years. The projects range from the biggest road projects in greater Sydney to $100 million in housing developments. The projects have all been approved and financed, and they are either up and running or are expected to start next year. Western Sydney is a strong, prosperous, confident region that is competing not against Victoria or Queensland but against the world. The Western Sydney economy is half the size of Singapore's national economy and has grown by more than 34 per cent since 1996. That is an incredible statistic.

Today Western Sydney is one of the fastest growing regional economies in Australia, with one in five jobs in New South Wales now created in greater Western Sydney. More than 150 of Australia's top 500 companies are located in the west, including Colgate-Palmolive, Cathay Pacific Airways, Hawker de Havilland and Kimberly-Clark Australia. The region's population is expected to increase by 700,000 over the next decade, which will further fuel economic growth. The Government will continue to work with business and the community to ensure that mechanisms are in place to support and sustain this record growth. The 30 public and private sector projects identified by the Department of State and Regional Development will generate 24,480 construction jobs and 33,900 operational jobs, and the total value of the projects is $9.81 billion.

The projects include the Western Sydney Orbital, which will cost $1.25 billion; the Parramatta Police Centre, $170 million; St Marys urban development, $1 billion; the Metropolitan Children's Court, a $17.3 billion project at Parramatta; the ResMed expansion, a $92 million project at Baulkham Hills, one of the great success stories of the Australian biotech industry; the Westpoint Shopping Centre expansion at Blacktown, a new investment of $260 million; and a number of projects by Meriton Apartments at Parramatta costing approximately $100 million. The Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board recently released its Western Sydney development portfolio. The portfolio includes the 30 projects and, encouragingly, another 30 projects are on the drawing board waiting for council approval or financing.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier, and Minister for the Arts. Did the Country Public Libraries Association approach the Minister for the Arts seeking increased funding for the public library network in this financial year? Is it a fact that in 2002-03 the State Government is providing funding of only $3.28 per capita of State population to public libraries compared to $5.65 in Victoria and $6.16 in Queensland? Is it a fact that this State Government's contribution to public libraries has increased by only $11.2 million in the last 20 years while the local government contribution has increased by $170 million? Did the Country Public Library Association ask for combined funding of $19.3 million but was granted an increase of only $1.25 million? If so, why was such a small amount granted? Will the Minister review the level of funding for public libraries with a view to making sure that it is adequate?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: An increase of $1.25 million is not a trifling amount; it is a substantial sum of money. I will, however, take the honourable member's question on notice and obtain details which I will provide to him as soon as I can.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Given that the Minister repeated her line that it is inappropriate to raise specific tragic cases relating to vulnerable children and young people in New South Wales, does she recall that the family of Tahlia Brockmann found that, after four years of battling the Department of Community Services to get answers as to why that child died, it was only through parliamentary questions that a coronial inquest was reopened? Does the Minister not agree that the airing in Parliament of specific cases can help to expose systemic problems in a department and that they are, therefore, entirely appropriate?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member referred to systemic issues, which are the issues to which I will be responding. If honourable members raise systemic issues and particular cases highlight those issues, obviously they have some relevance. The Hon. Ian Cohen raised such an issue yesterday. I state again that last year 148,000 reports of concern were made to the Department of Community Services. I do not believe it is an appropriate use of question time to canvas issues relating to individual cases. I cannot state that any more clearly for the benefit of Opposition members. If honourable members have concerns about systemic issues in the Department of Community Services it is appropriate to raise those issues in this forum. I have made it clear that the department is open and accountable. I recently attended a hearing of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which demonstrates how seriously I take these issues. I will respond to issues raised by honourable members during question time. However, if they raise individual cases I will have to take those matters on notice and obtain a response. It is not possible for me to have to hand details of every case that is reported to the Department of Community Services.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What has been done to restore the environment around derelict mines in regional New South Wales?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: This Government is proud of its commitment to rehabilitate derelict mines. It has increased expenditure in that area. The former Fahey Government spent $125,000 a year on the rehabilitation of derelict mines, whereas this Government has allocated $1.6 million to my portfolio and $2.8 million to the Environmental Trust for that purpose. Opposition members should not question the record of this Government in that area as the former Fahey Government had no record in the rehabilitation of derelict mines. This Government is providing $1.6 million to restore and protect the environment around historically abandoned mines. The Government's Derelict Mines Program takes a whole-of-government approach in making safe those areas that were disturbed by former mining.

I am advised that yet another major rehabilitation program has recently been completed. The New South Wales Government has spent $154,000 on rehabilitating the former Browns Lane quarry near Canberra. The quarry used to supply material for brickmaking for the local market before being abandoned in 1977. That program will ensure that the site is safer. Sediment and water controls have been put in place to prevent erosion. The work is being managed by the Department of Land and Water Conservation, which is recognised as an expert in the field of sediment and erosion control. Regional contractors have also benefited from this project, which is good news for local jobs. Companies based in Goulburn, Berrima, Yass, Fyshwick, Penrose and Bungendore carried out earthworks and supplied landscaping materials. At the same time as this project was implemented in the south of the State, rehabilitation works at the former Valla Mine near Nambucca Heads were completed. The New South Wales Government has spent $147,000 from the Derelict Mines Program to rehabilitate the site and better protect the environment. I look forward to updating the House about further progress in this Government's Derelict Mines Program.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Energy. In view of the report of the Environment Protection Authority which indicates the poor compliance of electricity retailers with their greenhouse gas targets, will the Minister ensure that the EPA retains the ability to monitor any greenhouse gas reduction strategies in any changes to the Electricity Supply Act?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister responsible and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. If the Minister insists on answering questions about individual children only when they refer to systemic issues, can she tell the House how she proposes to determine whether or not systemic issues are involved when individual cases are usually ones which her department has failed to investigate or respond to and it is preoccupied with a cover-up?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Today Opposition members are all singing from the same song sheet. I reiterate for the benefit of those opposite that the activities of the Department of Community Services are overseen by a number of different bodies, including the police, the Ombudsman, the Community Services Commissioner, the Coroner and the Parliament. I am accountable to this House-an issue from which I am not trying to get away. It is obvious, as Opposition members continually ask questions about this issue, that they do not have any strategy or plan for this whole area of community services. I do not have anything more to add.

My approach to this issue has been proper, both in fulfilling my responsibilities to the House and in endeavouring to obtain satisfactory responses to issues raised by honourable members. Opposition members have demonstrated today that they have no logical approach to this issue. That is obvious from their behaviour today, from the comments made by the shadow Minister and from events that have occurred at the Federal level. Larry Anthony bumbled into the debate, talked about reducing family payments for those who do not undertake parenting courses and, 24 hours later, he popped the bag and withdrew the whole proposal. Opposition members have no idea what they are talking about in this complex area. They have no policies, plans or strategies. I think that is disgraceful, given the importance of this issue to our community.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS: I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you aware that every major reform in child protection has come about because public opinion was galvanised over individual children's cases which were raised in Parliament, including British Columbia's 1995-

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: This is not a question seeking information; it is an argument. As such, the question should be ruled out of order.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS: To the point of order: Clearly, it is an issue that goes directly to the response of the Minister.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As members know, the sessional orders state that a member may ask a supplementary question in order to elucidate an answer. There are also sessional orders which state that questions must not contain argument. I would ask the member to be very careful how he phrases his supplementary question. The honourable member's time has expired. I give the call to the Hon. Henry Tsang.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No. The Minister has the chance to reply. Is she going to answer the question?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: Madam President, although the member's time for asking his question had expired, he had substantially asked his question. I think you should call the Minister to answer the question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: There was no question.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: To the point of order: Madam President, you did not rule it out of order. The question was:

Minister, are you aware that every major reform in child protection has come about because public opinion was galvanised over individual children's cases which were raised in Parliament?

That is the question, Madam President. The question stands.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ruled that the way in which the member phrased his question was disorderly.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, you didn't.

The PRESIDENT: I made that ruling.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You did not rule that way.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Do not canvass the rulings of the Chair. I have given the call to the Hon. Henry Tsang.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: Madam President, at the end of the question you advised the member to be careful with the wording of his question. Since the question was fully asked-and it was fully asked-you should call the Minister to answer it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I made it very clear in my ruling that the way in which the question was phrased was not in order.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House how the Department of Industrial Relations is helping small business?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Government is committed to providing useful and practical services to help small businesses in New South Wales. Presently, there are 200,000 small businesses across the State, employing over a million people. The Department of Industrial Relations provides a range of services specifically designed for those employers. The department's web site provides small business with access to a comprehensive range of information. This includes practical information on employee pay and conditions, employer rights and responsibilities under New South Wales industrial laws, workplace policies and practices, and links to other related web sites. Small business employers without dedicated human resource staff have access to advice from the department via telephone and email.

The series of seminars has been developed specifically for small business. The Employment Issues for Small Business seminars help explain legal obligations and responsibilities as well as rights and focus attention on the benefits of fostering positive workplace relationships. Almost 800 small business owners and managers in New South Wales have attended these seminars. The seminars have been held in more than 35 locations across the State, including Burwood, Parramatta, Penrith, Campbelltown, Chatswood, Liverpool, Grafton, Goulburn, Nowra, Newcastle, Wagga Wagga, Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie. Another initiative has been a series of seminars on specific awards. These are conducted together with relevant employer organisations and unions. For example, a series of seminars has been conducted on the Miscellaneous Workers-Kindergartens and Child Care Centres (State) Award with Employers' First and the Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union. The seminars are proving to be extremely popular with employers.

I am pleased to inform honourable members that the third edition of the popular guide, the "Small Business Employers Handbook", has just been printed by the department. This is a comprehensive, easy-to-read resource to help small businesses hire and manage staff so that they can continue to grow their businesses. The Department of Industrial Relations is also an active member of the Government Business Education Network. This network is a group of more than 20 State and Commonwealth agencies with an interest in helping small and medium businesses throughout New South Wales. Through Department of Industrial Relations support services to small business, the Government is ensuring that advice on employment and industrial relations issues as well as personal matters is close at hand for all employers, including those with small businesses.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Will the Minister responsible for the Department of Land and Water Conservation-now seen as the department of logging water catchments-comment on the statement of the Auditor-General "that the DLWC does not have an adequate information system and operational capacity to efficiently and effectively regulate native vegetation in New South Wales"? Will the Minister concede that key milestones outlined in the Commonwealth-State agreement relating to the national action plan for salinity and water quality have not been met? In light of these concerns about the performance of the Department of Land and Water Conservation, I ask the Assistant Treasurer whether it is prudent for this agency to have sole carriage of so much Commonwealth money for the purpose of achieving conservation outcomes when it has shown itself to be incapable of meeting agreed milestones. Are there no other government agencies that would be more reliable and better placed to achieve results within the specified time frames?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The very detailed question canvasses quite a range of policy issues on which I am sure my colleague the Minister for Land and Water Conservation will be able to provide a comprehensive answer. I will ask the Minister to provide that response to the honourable member as soon as practicable.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. What information has the Treasurer sought, or was he given, in relation to the investments of the State Super Pooled Fund relating to the year 2001-02? Did he at any stage raise concerns about the performance of the fund, especially considering that State Super recorded a return of minus 7.3 per cent for that year? If he did not raise such concerns, why has he not undertaken an investigation or made any inquiries?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am inclined simply to refer the honourable member to my answer given yesterday in which I comprehensively dealt with this matter. Once again the Opposition seems to be promoting the notion that the Treasurer of the day, whoever that happens to be, should be the person who directs the investments in the $25 billion State Super Fund. That, of course, would be a course of action that would be not only irresponsible and reckless but one which any Treasurer would reject. The State Super Board, of course, issues an annual report each year in dealing with the success or otherwise of its investments. Over the past seven years they have paid out benefits to beneficiaries of some $17 billion. At the same time assets under management have grown from $10 billion to almost $25 billion, a very impressive performance.

For as long as I am Treasurer I will not be improperly intervening in investment decisions made by the trustees. The message seems to be from the members of the Opposition that if they were elected to government their Treasurer would be sitting in his office directing individual investments. The Federal Government does not do that. No Treasurer in Australia would do that. The Opposition does not understand how these things work. Could you imagine George Souris sitting in his office saying, "Today I think we will put $10 million into the National Party. Tomorrow we will put another $40 million, perhaps, of the borrowings of the super fund into the Queensland National Party."

The Hon. John Jobling: Point of order: With a degree of reluctance but on the grounds of relevance, Madam President, I ask you to direct the Treasurer back to the question, which essentially was whether the Treasurer made any inquiries or took some action and, if so, what. He has not answered the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer was dealing with the issue of how investments would be made by the Superannuation Fund. I rule that his answer is relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have any further questions, they might like to place them on the notice paper.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Yesterday the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked me a question about a fatal accident at Bendemeer. I have sought advice from the Department of Community Services [DOCS] and I advise the House that the DOCS Helpline received a report from Tamworth Base Hospital following this tragic incident, which occurred around 6.00 p.m. on 23 August. The DOCS client services manager at Armidale was contacted by the Helpline and was asked to place the children in care following a request from Tamworth Base Hospital. The manager was advised that police were trying to locate the father of the children in Armidale. Neither the father nor the children had been advised of the mother's death.

I am advised that the client services manager made a decision not to place the children in care as this would further traumatise and distress the children. A social admission was arranged so the children could stay at the hospital. The children's father was located around 10.00 p.m. and travelled to Tamworth. Further support and assistance were offered to the family the following day, but this was declined. I have asked that the provision of counselling be discussed with the area health service as I understand hospitals have the capacity to call a community health psychiatrist to provide counselling if they feel this is necessary.

This was a terrible tragedy for this family. I express my condolences to the two children, who have lost their mother, and to their father, who has lost his wife. DOCS did not place the children in care as the department did not want to further traumatise them or to pre-empt the father's rights before ample time was given to locate him. As it was, he was located within two hours of the accident.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: I draw your attention and the attention of the House to the length of time taken to get answers to questions placed on the notice paper or to questions taken on notice by Ministers during a previous session. One of my questions to which I am awaiting a response dates from 13 June, more than two months ago. I want to know what steps can be taken to ensure that answers to such questions are lodged by Ministers within the 35 days provided by the sessional order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will address tomorrow the issue raised by the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti.

Questions without notice concluded.

The PRESIDENT: I welcome into the President's Gallery a delegation from the National Parliament of Kenya, led by the Hon. Peter Kaindi and the Hon. Laurence Sifuna.

The Hon. Michael Egan tabled advice from the Minister for Corrective Services relating to the Government's response to the final report of the committee, dated November 2001.

The Hon. Michael Egan tabled the Government's response to the report of the committee entitled "Review of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000", dated February 2002.

[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 12 June.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.45 p.m.]: Previously I spoke briefly to the report of the Legislative Council's Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Safety Net? Inquiry into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2001-Final Report: On-line Matters", which was issued in June 2002. As honourable members know, the House unanimously passed the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill, including schedule 2 to that bill. The Government introduced that bill in the other House, and as far as I am aware all the parties supported the bill in principle. However, since it was passed some members, particularly the Australian Democrats, have raised reservations about schedule 2. The Australian Democrats have a very permissive policy on pornography matters. Indeed, in the Australian Capital Territory they receive grants from the X-rated pornography industry for their political activities, because people involved in the pornography industry regard them as being worthy of support and assume that they will support the objectives of the pornography industry.

Other members also have concerns about the bill. Indeed, I understand that the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues had concern about schedule 2, as evidenced by the report and the committee's findings and recommendations. I hope the House will seriously consider this report and its recommendations, which I call on the House to reject. In particular, I call on the Government members to reject the report and its recommendations. As Legislative Council members we are not the final arbiters on these policies; usually the Government initiates such policies. The Carr Labor Government was right to introduce the bill and to seek its passage through both Houses of Parliament, and I commend the Government for that. In the bill the Government was seeking, as far as possible, to harmonise its intentions with those of the uniform national enforcement legislation initiated in the Federal Parliament.

The content of Internet material, videos and films, and related issues, are matters that affect the nation. Over many years, as the States have recognised the need for uniform legislation, steps have been taken to avoid practices that are banned in one State being permitted in another, with the exception of the two delinquents areas of government, the Australian Capital Territory [ACT] and the Northern Territory, especially in regard to Internet content and classification of material. Whether all honourable members of this House know it or not, sadly the pornography capital of Australia is Canberra-our national capital-because of the way in which the ACT Legislative Assembly has operated. Another example of ACT social policy is legislation that was passed recently in the ACT to decriminalise abortion. The 17 members of the ACT Legislative Assembly seem to be easily influenced to adopt what the Christian Democratic Party considers to be very permissive policies. Other honourable members may take a different view and believe that the ACT is setting the standard and the pace and that New South Wales should jump on the bandwagon. It is pleasing that that has not happened, and I do not wish it to happen in the future.

The ACT and the Northern Territory have adopted a very permissive attitude to matters of pornography. When restrictions were introduced in New South Wales and other States the companies dealing in hard-core material simply shifted their operations to Canberra and set up a mail order business. Some of the material is no doubt sold in Canberra. I hope that such occurrences are minimal, given that many public servants work in Canberra, for I would hate to think that all public servants are influenced by X-rated videos. But a nationwide mail order system has been established, and very detailed, hard-core pornographic catalogues are distributed throughout Australia, often unbidden. The catalogues display explicit photographs that are taken from various pornographic and X-rated films and videos. Significantly, people who live in New South Wales can order pornographic material directly from Canberra and can have that material delivered to their home-usually by Australia Post.

It is a conflict of law that X-rated material which is banned in New South Wales and enforced by very severe penalties can be mailed from Canberra and delivered by Australia Post to a New South Wales resident. In other words, Australia Post is actually facilitating illegal activity. I believe that Australia Post should not do so and should not in any way be an accomplice or participate in the X-rated material distribution industry in the ACT or in Darwin. The facts I have outlined reflect the reality of what is currently occurring. It is therefore imperative to maintain this State's existing laws which prohibit the sale of X-rated videos, in spite of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Issues report. I am staggered that such recommendations could have been made because I believe that they are outside the committee's terms of reference. Recommendation 5 states:

The Committee recommends that:

· the Attorney-General, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, investigate the constitutionality of the national classification scheme and take any remedial action required...

The recommendation almost invites participants in the X-rated industry to consider the possibility of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General deciding that the New South Wales laws are unconstitutional, thereby creating possible opportunities for the industry to sell X-rated products directly in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: If you read the report you will find that the report refers to a High Court case that was cited by a number of witnesses. The point of constitutionality was made to the committee.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I know that, but the issue is not a part of the committee's terms of reference. People in the pornographic industry may be hoping that the recommendation will create a legal loophole. More importantly, recommendation 5 goes on to state:

· the Attorneys-General consider either establishing a licensing scheme, similar to that which operates in the ACT...

That part of the recommendation exemplifies the whole point I have been making. Through legislation implemented by Labor governments and even through Labor Premiers who are recognised as adopting a broad attitude to these issues, such as Premier Wran, this State has supported the legal restrictions operating in New South Wales. I suggest that the report being considered by the House is the first report presented to either House of Parliament that suggests the possibility of departing from that policy and adopting the ACT approach, which may consequently lead to the sale of pornographic material in New South Wales. To put it in more direct language, the report recommends the legalisation of X-rated material for sale in New South Wales so that it can be sold in video stores and other shops, just as it is sold in the ACT.

Recommendation 5 goes on to suggest that consideration be given to an online regulatory scheme, including a weighted list of objectives of the scheme, and the development of effective and enforceable nationally uniform provisions for implementation by States and Territories. Philosophical objections against censorship have been expressed by people who have adopted a knee-jerk reaction to any proposal that even sounds like censorship, but I regard this State's existing restrictions as a control on moral pollution. Although I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, I would argue that just as control of air and water pollution is necessary to protect the environment, the control of moral pollution is even more necessary. It would be criminal of any government to ignore the issue and fail to exercise control over the sale of pornographic material in this State. I note that the Australian Democrats, particularly in the Federal Parliament, continually argue against the implementation of controls mainly on the basis that they do not think that controls will work. I do not know whether controls will work either, but at least let us set up legislation and institute a process that can be tested. All legislation that is introduced into Parliament has to be tried and tested, and the control provisions would be no exception. They could be amended if necessary; after all, that is the purpose of amending bills. But it is wrong to adopt the attitude that because we do not have enough brains to formulate a bill that deals adequately with the classification of publications, films computer games and other material, we therefore should not even try. I believe it can be done.

The committee has raised concerns about academic or other material being affected by the legislation. Some people raise these doubts sincerely and others raise them as red herrings. It is claimed that a famous painting, a worthwhile book or material put on the Internet for research or for academic reasons could suddenly be banned by the bill. The classification board has the power, intelligence and commonsense to deal with these issues. The first finding of the report recommends that schedule 2 be repealed because of the unintended consequence of criminalising a wide range of academic or other material which it would be legal to publish offline. It is raising a red herring to claim that we cannot control this type of material effectively and therefore we should have no controls. Scheduled 2 must be allowed to stand. The Government-I ask the Leader of the House, the Hon. Michael Egan, who is present at the table, to pay attention to these remarks-introduced a very good bill which was based on a national agreement of Attorneys-General. The bill was implemented by the Parliament, as was the Government's intention.

Schedule 2 should be allowed to stand and should not be repealed, because repealing it would create a vacuum, and that would open the door to the other recommendations regarding X-rated material and so on coming into play. I do not criticise the processes of this House that allow references to committees for investigation and report, but on this occasion I do not believe that the Government should just rubber stamp the recommendations of the committee. It would be very lax of the Government to do that. These recommendations are totally inconsistent with previous legislation introduced not by Coalition governments but by Labor governments very cautious not to affect the civil liberties of people or to inhibit academic research. Labor, perhaps more than the Coalition, has been particularly concerned about such issues. What is in place is workable and should be allowed to remain. I urge the Government to do all it can to retain the bill as it was originally introduced into this House. Some people pushed for the matter to be referred to the committee because they missed the debate or did not have a chance to move amendments. But that is not the fault of the House. This is a democratic House. We have a timetable and bills are listed. I gather that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans argued that he missed the debate and the bill was passed.

The Hon. Michael Egan: He missed the debate?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, and he used this process to raise the issue again. He was not present when the bill was debated and passed.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That is not fair, Fred.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It is.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: It was because the Government brought it on out of order. Do not blame us.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am just saying that this is a democratic House. The obligation is on members to be in the House to participate when bills are being debated. We cannot cry over spilt milk, claim that we were in the toilet or in the dining room and ask for a committee to investigate the bill, to put up amendments to change the bill retrospectively. That is what is happening in this case. This bill is noncontroversial in that it seeks to enact uniform legislation agreed to by the Attorneys-General. The other States have passed similar legislation. We may make minor amendments to such bills but schedule 2 is a key part of the bill and should not be rejected. We accept that there should be national uniform legislation on these issues. Rejecting schedule 2 would put New South Wales out of line with the other States and create massive problems. In fact, the Federal Parliament would have to review the whole issue of uniform legislation relating to the Internet and so on.

I am not an expert on the servicing procedure with the Internet but there must be ways of introducing controls. It may not be possible to deal with each computer in private homes but we should concentrate on the providers and servers. Around the world authorities are catching up with and taking action against people distributing pornography. In Australia someone had, I think, 7,000 child pornography photographs on a computer. But that material had to come through a process, through a server or provider. As well as providing penalties for individuals having child pornography on their computer we should have a system of very heavy penalties consistent with the penalties for companies under other legislation, perhaps fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars, for the server or provider.

The server or provider should not only be fined for allowing this material to pass through its process, but should also lose its licence and no longer be able to operate and provide that service. That approach would result in more self-regulation under the law. Providers and servers would monitor what is passing through their systems to ensure that material is not going through to individual customers. They would not want to lose their licence and receive fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars for allowing child pornography to pass through their Internet system. This is a very important issue for the Parliament. Sometimes reports are out of date before we debate them but the recommendations in this report are critical and must be rejected. We endorse the recommendations of many reports but the recommendations in this report are taking us down the wrong track. I call on the House, and particularly the Government, to reject the recommendations.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [3.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank speakers who have contributed to the debate. When the debate commenced on 12 June the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. Amanda Fazio and the Hon. Ian West, as members of the committee, spoke in support of the report. The one member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues who was unable to speak in the debate on that occasion was the Hon. Doug Moppett. At the time I pointed out how much the committee had missed his wise input into our final deliberative meeting. I might say a little more about that later. This debate relates to two reports. Back on 14 March we produced our first report on the inquiry into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill. It was drawn to our attention that the sections of the Act dealing with miscellaneous matters not related to the Internet needed to be proclaimed so that they could commence on the agreed date for the national legislation, 22 March. We therefore quickly produced an interim report. We were pleased that the Government was able to act very quickly and the bill was assented to in time for the legislation to commence on 22 March. Technically, therefore, although the Government's response to that report is almost due-perhaps in two or three weeks-the Government has already totally implemented the recommendations of part 1 of the report.

The final report, which was tabled in June as required by the House, dealt with issues relating to the Internet. In particular, it dealt with the issue of how to achieve two objectives on which almost everyone is agreed, an objective enshrined in the Commonwealth legislation, which has controlled this area for some time now: that is, preserving the right of adults to see and hear what they choose, and the right of children and others to be protected from exposure to offensive and possibly dangerous material.

As other members of the committee have said in this debate, in dealing with the tension between those two principles the committee heard a lot of evidence from many very thoughtful people. On behalf of the committee I thank the witnesses for grappling with those issues. In particular I thank Vicki Buchbach, who was seconded to the committee to produce this report but is now with the lower House. As members know, this year the social issues committee has been extremely busy, and we are extremely grateful to Vicki for her assistance in producing the report.

In light of the remarks of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile I wish to make a few comments about exactly what this report is about. Almost all of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's speech was about matters that are not dealt with in this report. It is true that one paragraph of the report is devoted to the issue of X-rated videos. That was covered in a chapter dealing with a number of issues that were raised with the committee. For example, the issue of constitutionality was raised by a number of witnesses and relates particularly to a High Court decision. It is quite possible that as that High Court decision is played out it will throw into doubt the constitutionality of some of the legislation we are talking about.

Overwhelmingly, the report deals with the agreed need to ensure that children in particular are not exposed to offensive and dangerous material over the Internet, and the difficulties of accomplishing that in a rapidly developing, fast-changing medium, particularly where almost all of the medium is controlled from outside Australia. While it is true, as has been said, that in this area uniform, Australiawide legislation would be desirable, it is also true that just about everyone who spoke to the committee, including Commonwealth authorities, agreed that even since the agreement of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General things have moved on to such a point in relation to Internet developments that what was agreed then is already considerably out of date. It is also the case that changes in a number of States-I say "States" advisedly; we are not talking about the Territories, as did Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile-have meant that it is now not possible to achieve uniform legislation because different States have gone down different paths.

Finally, with regard to these practical difficulties, the committee pointed out that it has been agreed under the national co-operative scheme for regulation of Internet content will be reviewed by early 2003. The committee strongly agreed with the suggestion that, with a review almost literally about to commence, it would be foolish for New South Wales to proceed with legislation that was not by definition uniform, given that other States had done different things or had done nothing at all, and that might soon be overturned by a nationwide review.

As I said, that is in addition to all the issues relating to the overseas origin of most material, and the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which has carriage of the whole national complaints system, informed the committee that very few complaints relate to material that is hosted in Australia. For example, in the first six months of last year only 16 complaints investigated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority related to content hosted in Australia and only half of those were found to be prohibited.

It is all very well for people to say it would be wonderful if offensive and dangerous material, pornography, objectionable photographs and other objectionable material could be somehow banned or expunged. However, as yet no-one has found a way to do that, and the legal steps proposed in the Act do not effectively do it because there is no way to control material originating offshore. It may be that we could enter into agreements, as we have in part, with countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom, although those countries' systems are also controlled markedly. What has tended to happen is that some of the material we are talking about is deliberately hosted in countries that are effectively tax havens, where there is no way of dealing with it by way of legislation.

I commend the committee's report to the House and I look forward to the Government's response to it. The committee grappled with a number of complex issues and with two principles that are, as everyone admits, in considerable tension. The committee firstly tried to look at what it is desirable to control and regulate and, secondly, how it would be possible to do that. It tried to produce a report that draws attention to the practical difficulties of some of the fairly simplistic proposals that are offered, but nevertheless calls for the development of as much co-operative regulatory work as possible, investigations of the newest filter technologies, and so on.

I believe that the report tries to balance the arguments on various sides. Since it is now almost the beginning of 2003, as a country we need to go back to that national review and ask where we are now when it comes to dealing with Internet technology and therefore the issue of the censorship of undesirable material. In conclusion, although the committee members believe that this is a good report which grapples clearly and elegantly with the relevant issues, it remains a matter of great regret that in producing the report we were unable to have the assistance of the Hon. Doug Moppett with all his ability, particularly with difficult technical matters, to produce a report that was elegant in both language and principle.

When I last spoke to this report the Hon. Doug Moppett was absent because of illness and we did not expect to see him again. However, since his sad death, we, as a committee, continue to miss him very much. I again pay tribute to his contribution to the early stages of this inquiry, as well as his contribution to so many other inquiries of the Standing Committee on Social Issues.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr. Brian Pezzutti): Order! The question is that the House take note of the report.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: Mr Deputy-President, for the benefit of the House would you clarify that this is a take-note debate, so it is clear that the House is not endorsing the document before the House but simply taking note of it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! This is a take-note debate, and therefore the question is that the House take note of the report.

Report noted.

Debate resumed from 27 June.

The Hon. TONY KELLY [3.19 p.m.]: I am pleased to contribute to the take-note debate on the inquiry of the Standing Committee on State Development into the redevelopment and remediation of the Rhodes Peninsula. The remediation and redevelopment of the Rhodes Peninsula site, located some 14 kilometres west of Sydney's central business district, is without doubt one of the most challenging projects confronting the State in terms of environmental remediation. We have been left with a site severely contaminated by almost a century of industrial activity. A short history of the site shows what we are up against when it comes to cleaning up the past.

Various parts of the site have been used to produce paints, chemicals and herbicides, including DDT, 2, 4, 5-T and 2,4D-a nasty cocktail of products that has left a terrible mark on the site and its surrounds. That is the legacy we have inherited. The Government is faced with two possible courses of action: either leave the site unremediated, with significant levels of contaminants in the site and adjacent waterways or, in conjunction with the private sector, take up the challenge of remediating and transforming this industrial wasteland into something beneficial for the people of Sydney.

This type of challenge was put to the State Government when it reclaimed Homebush Bay and today we benefit from new suburbs, sporting and entertainment facilities, a showground, and parklands and wetlands in a rejuvenated Homebush Bay. I am pleased that the Gove