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 Government has decided to pursue the latter option. It would be a great shame to leave such prime waterfront land on the Parramatta River as toxic wasteland, of use to no-one and an ever-present source of pollution for succeeding generations to deal with. However, we must ensure that this course of action is guided by good planning and adherence to quality environmental and health outcomes, both in theory and in practice.

We must have an understanding of the extent of the contamination and the most effective way to carry out remediation. Furthermore, the entire process must be carried out in close consultation with the community to ensure that the community remains a participant in the remediation and redevelopment process and is kept informed of the latest developments. The inquiry offered a perfect opportunity to take stock of the situation and assess the concerns of the community. It set out a series of recommendations outlining the best way forward, with particular regard to the protection of human health and the environment, the provision of public infrastructure, and ongoing consultation and communication with the community.

The report contains 33 recommendations, which I believe address the concerns that led to the establishment of the inquiry. They include a number of guidelines to interested parties on the whole process of remediation and redevelopment. The recommendations seek assurances from government agencies and other organisations involved in the remediation and redevelopment process that the process will be undertaken in the best, safest and least disruptive way possible. The recommendations are designed to ensure that the best possible outcomes are reached on redevelopment, the environment and human health. The final four recommendations propose that the committee continues to keep track of the remediation and redevelopment of the site through a watching brief, as has happened with other inquiries.

Issues and concerns regarding the site that are presently not apparent to stakeholders may arise in the future. Therefore, the committee decided that the best course of action would be to establish a watching brief to monitor the remediation and redevelopment activities of the site over a four-year period; to consider issues arising from the process of remediation and redevelopment; to table any additional report from time to time when necessary; and to consider feedback from residents, local community groups, industry, unions, government agencies and local government bodies. The watching brief initiative proved effective in the committee's former inquiry into the use and disposal of pesticides and I am sure that it will serve the community equally well over the coming years.

Again I place on record the committee's thanks to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Bob Debus, for keeping the committee fully briefed on changes to the Pesticides Act and reporting to the committee on a regular basis. I would like to briefly address the suggestion by some that the committee, on its own back, should have specifically recommended a particular method of treating dioxins and other organic chemicals. I strongly believe that such a decision is for the experts, not for members of Parliament, who have no level of expertise in the area. Our task as parliamentarians is to ensure that the interests and concerns of the public are addressed, and that correct procedures and best possible practice are followed by all parties associated with the remediation and redevelopment of the site.

I do not believe that my parliamentary colleagues and I are sufficiently versed in the intricacies of industrial chemistry to decide that a particular method of treatment should be followed. Such action would set a dangerous precedent, and I am pleased that the majority of committee members share this view. Although the challenges of remediating and redeveloping Rhodes Peninsula are many and great, so too are the rewards. Sydney is a city bursting at the seams. The Government strategy of compact cities is the best way forward for urban development and accommodating Sydney's growing population while at the same time preserving green spaces, protecting the environment and maintaining a quality way of life for Sydney residents. The decision to remediate and redevelop the Rhodes Peninsula site was always going to attract its share of critics but, if carried out properly and according to best practice, will unlock and open up a hazardous wasteland and give Sydney a clean and livable precinct that can be enjoyed by a far greater number of people than at present.

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development I thank all those individuals and organisations that contributed to the inquiry. I believe it has allowed a full and frank airing of views. Through the hearings and investigations the committee has been able to make recommendations that will ensure a greater degree of certainty, understanding and co-operation between all stakeholders. I urge honourable members to scrutinise the recommendations.

Also, I thank the committee secretariat for the important role it has played once again in preparing the report. I thank the acting-director, Steven Reynolds, and the committee officer, Annie Marshall, for their efforts. I extend my particular gratitude to the director, Rob Stefanic, whose arduous task it was to wade through the massive amount of highly technical information and often conflicting evidence and views in order to produce this excellent report. The report provides a good base through which to measure and judge the way in which the project is carried out. I commend the report to the House.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [3.29 p.m.]: I speak as a member of the Committee on the redevelopment and remediation of the Rhodes Peninsula. I brought this matter originally to the attention of the Committee.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: A very good member.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for his comments on my membership of the Committee. I know that in his heart the Hon. Henry Tsang must believe that the minority report I put forward, which disagrees with the majority report, is a valid addition to the work of the committee. I hope that both the Government and industry take note of the concerns I have raised. I have reflected the concerns of the community about a significant number of matters in the majority report. However, I acknowledge the sincere and legitimate attempts by the committee to navigate a complex set of issues. As the previous speaker, the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Tony Kelly, noted, the members of the committee certainly are not industrial chemists, and that made it difficult for us to deal with a number of those issues. I appreciate the wonderful help of the committee secretariat-Mr Robert Stefanic, Mr Steven Reynolds, Ms Annie Marshall and Ms Cathy Nunn-who worked tirelessly. I thank them for their excellent support and for working beyond what was reasonable and necessary to draw this information together.

We are dealing with one of the most highly polluted, intractable waste sites in Australia, perhaps in the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, it rates on a global level. The majority report takes for granted that government processes for remediation and development of toxic land are acceptable to the community. The general submission from the local community asked 162 questions; its 45-page submission about transport showed the nature and level of local community concern about this project. My minority report deals with the failure of the majority report to address most of the concerns and requests for information. Issues raised by the Rhodes Peninsula Group about transport should be further investigated and responded to by the arm of government to which they are addressed. To clarify the matter those responses should be included in this report and made available on the Government web site.

The community is well aware of the many conflicting interests of the State Government in redeveloping the Rhodes Peninsula as landowner, clean-up regulator, planner and appointer of a limited number of auditors. Those obvious conflicts, which involve tens of millions of dollars, require the most transparent process. The proposal to put 5,000 residents on remediated toxic land without an international precedent is fraught with danger. We all know about the remediation of the Olympic site, but this is a larger and more intricate project. Ultimately, responsibility must be borne by the New South Wales Government. Many people have expressed grave concerns about problems associated with other developments on contaminated sites. No insurer would be capable or willing to insure against the risk of compensation if adverse health effects are experienced.

Developers may request the Government to guarantee that their purchases of individual titles on the peninsula and surrounding areas, including the bay and its produce, are safe for human occupation and enjoyment. Concerns have been expressed about the lack of a truly independent auditor; all the independent site auditors are dependent on one of the landowners for accreditation. My dissenting report contains a further recommendation that a peak environmental body should be funded to audit the remediation-including emissions to air, soil and other outputs, and their disposal-in parallel with the audit required under the current regulatory regime. A huge number of people have made submissions. A number of people who worked on the original ICI site-I do not have permission to mention their names-have health problems as a result of contamination over a period of time. It is imperative, therefore, that Government get remediation and safety right for future residential development and those who will ultimately move on to these sites.

The State regional environmental plan 29 rezoning, remediation and development are taking place in an environment in which an inclination to question the Government, its regulatory arms and corporations is reasonable. The failure of the majority report to respond adequately to the questions posed by the community in such an environment only heightens concerns about proposed remediation and development. Concerns were further reinforced when the Minister for Planning approved the development control plan, transport management plan and community development plan after the Government supported the establishment of this inquiry, but before it had reported. As has been the case in so many of these situations, the Government staggers along in a less-than-constructive way without the benefit of forward analysis, making decisions driven by developers who are driven by the temptation to maximise profit on these sites.

The majority report does not address whether the peninsula at Homebush Bay should be remediated, although for many years many reputable environmental organisations have campaigned for the clean-up of the bay and its sediments in particular. One argument is that burial of the contaminated sediment by new sediments will reduce the problems in the bay over time without expense. Waterways and the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] seem to have adopted this approach for severely contaminated sediments near the AGL site at Mortlake, in Iron Cove and in a bay in Middle Harbour. The works of Dr Gavin Birch, as presented to the Sydney Harbour Catchment Management Board and senior executives of Waterways and the EPA, show that these three areas are so heavily contaminated that they significantly breach the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council [ANZECC] sediment guidelines. Yet it is not clear that Waterways or the EPA have responded in the manner required under the relevant Act and regulations. There are significant doubts that this approach is valid.

Although I understand their good intentions, I certainly had concerns about the level of expertise of the representatives of Waterways and the EPA who appeared before the inquiry on the local marine environment in Homebush Bay. Because of the time taken and the problems involved in the processing of only 400 cubic metres of dioxin-contaminated soils at the Olympic site, compared to 400,000 cubic metres at Rhodes, the sediments in the heavily contaminated sediments in the bay should be excavated into the existing pit on the former Union Carbide site, which is owned by the Government, and the bentonite wall on that site extended around the Meriton site as well to contain leachate from reaching the bay. The sites could then undergo either some form of bioremediation or simply await improvements in technology.

In 1988 a risk assessment for the New South Wales Department of Planning recommended that in the light of then existing technology even the natural part of the Union Carbide site should never be used for residential development. It is clear, therefore, from what has been achieved at the Olympic site that there is a real prospect that in another 10 to 15 years many of the problems with the proposed remediation will have been solved. That position is supported by those who point to the major changes in the knowledge of dioxins and other hazardous waste over the past 10 years and argue that a dramatic improvement in the scientific knowledge of contamination, remediation and health impacts is likely to render the current proposal either unnecessarily expensive or inadequate to protect human health and ecology.

A variation to the above proposal is contained in the submission by the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales and the Total Environment Centre, which suggests that, given the national significance of the Bicentennial Park and Newington Wetlands and the use of those areas and the bay by protected and threatened species and migratory birds under the Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement and the China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, the sites should be returned to open spaces suitable for use by such species, particularly in light of the problems of remediation, the uncertainty of the safety of human health, the adverse impacts of development proposed for the SREP 29 area and the major developments planned elsewhere around the bay and within the Olympic precinct and Sydney Olympic Park.

The approval of the development control plan and development applications in respect of the redevelopment of the Orica site prior to the completion of the remediation of the strip of sediments and the former Union Carbide site and the Meriton site has dramatically increased the number of people-construction workers, new residents and new employees in the area-exposed to the risk of the remediation. These alternative options and the costs and benefits compared with the proposal for remediation and redevelopment under SREP 29 should be evaluated properly.

I further recommend in my minority report that decontamination of precincts B and C-the sites owned by the Government and Meriton-and development of the Orica site should not proceed until the risks of remediation are dramatically reduced. The most contaminated sediments, including if necessary those from the areas adjacent to Orica such as the former Berger Paints plant and the outflows of Haslams and Powells creeks, should be excavated onto the Government-owned former Union Carbide site. Adequate containment with proper control of dust and odour to the satisfaction of nearby residents can continue to take place until the risks of remediation are dramatically reduced and the state of knowledge of the impacts of dioxins are known with sufficient certainty.

Remediation technology is a most concerning issue, especially when dealing with dioxin. It can best be described as a human carcinogen but it also has non-carcinogenic health effects. The dangers of dioxin are increasingly well known. One of the most comprehensive sources on dioxin is the United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] dioxin reassessment. The reassessment has been strongly opposed by some in industry. According to the United States EPA web site, it has been under development since 1992 and has proceeded through peer review, has been updated regularly and provides a comprehensive scientific resource regarding dioxin.

Central to this inquiry is the in-depth debate about the type of remediation technology that should be used. Theiss won its preferred tenderer status from Waterways on the basis of indirect thermal desorption with base-catalysed dechlorination. I understand that Waterways specifically indicated that it did not want to employ thermal destruction techniques such as direct thermal desorption. Theiss has now indicated that the draft environmental impact statement [EIS] is based on direct thermal desorption. This raises questions about the integrity of the tender process. Meriton has indicated that it is proposing direct thermal desorption and does not propose to utilise a negative pressure shed. These proposals raise serious concerns.

Direct thermal desorption is basically incineration with some pollution controls. The arguments against incinerative techniques are well established. I have opposed those techniques for a long time and many in the environment movement have grave concerns about incineration. Greenpeace concurs with this position. In the publication entitled "Incineration and Human Health: State of Knowledge of the Impacts of Waste Incinerators on Human Health" Michelle Allsopp, Pat Costner and Paul Johnston of Greenpeace Research Laboratories comment that incinerators around the world have been closed because of problems with contaminated emissions to air; the formation of dioxins-in many cases said to be of greater amounts than those destroyed during high-temperature combustion-the volatilisation of metals, particularly in the presence of chlorine; toxicity of byproducts; and problems with the products of incomplete combustion. The United States EPA has several documents that refer to these problems, including its publication "Innovative Site Remediation Technology-Thermal Desorption".

On the other hand, it appears that the risks to the local community of indirect thermal desorption with base-catalysed dechlorination are acceptable to peak environmental bodies provided that dust, odour, water and other outputs are controlled adequately and there is adequate monitoring. Theiss won its preferred tenderer status from Waterways on the basis of this technology. This is what we expect to happen and this is what I believe we should recommend. We believe indirect thermal desorption is the Rolls Royce option and the more closed-loop option. While it is more expensive and takes longer and material must be transported off site for processing, the option allows for far more effective treatment of the material and a far greater reassurance of safety to the local community while the process is taking place. This is particularly true in the case of bulk evacuation drying during the pre-processing stage and, in the case of indirect thermal desorption, the use of a drying process in a negative pressure shed. It is a far safer way of undertaking a potentially extremely dangerous process both at the time and into the future given the nature of these types of intractable waste.

Greenpeace has accepted this combination of technology at the Olympic site, albeit for a project dealing with about 1 per cent of the volume of material. Similar technology has been recommended in Hong Kong. However, this acceptance by Greenpeace does not indicate the belief that the remediation will have an acceptable outcome or that the proposed standards required for the clean-up of dust, odour, run-off and other wastes or emissions will be acceptable. It simply indicates that the process poses little risk to nearby residents and, when properly applied, has the capacity to reduce substantially the degree of contamination. I understand that there are significant concerns about the ability to reach even 1 ppb in soils and about the time that this will take, given experience at the Olympic site where work is not yet complete after three years spent on a project only 1 per cent the size of Rhodes. There are also issues regarding appropriate soil clean-up standards in light of the dramatically reduced tolerable daily intakes [TDIs] for dioxins.

The Australian Department of Health and Ageing proposes the adoption of a TDI for dioxin equivalent to 2.3 pg/kg/bw/day. This should be the required standard for the clean-up of dioxins in the bay sediments. In 1988 the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in the United States issued guidelines requiring a maximum 1 ppb total equivalent [TEQ] for dioxin in soils. This occurred at a time when the World Health Organisation TDI was 10 pg/kg/bw/day. There is a correlation between those two standards. With the reduction in TDIs, the correlation requires that the maximum dioxin TEQ for soil be similarly reduced to 0.23 ppb. There are doubts that this can be achieved. There is a whole range of other contaminants in the soil, including original sediments in the reclaimed areas and throughout the bay. The New South Wales EPA should provide an internationally benchmarked clean-up standard for each of these chemicals and metals.

The human health risk assessments previously done at the bay have some disturbing aspects. The most obvious is that they have not incorporated all chemicals and metals throughout the whole of the bay. This has not been done because the testing of the Orica sediments and the sediments at the outflows of Haslams and Powells creeks have not been tested and the results made public. A human health risk assessment based on incomplete or unpublished data is worthless. The exhibition of an EIS supported by a human health risk assessment that does not remedy these obvious flaws is a waste of taxpayers' time and money.

Also of concern is the lack of an approach that measures, even in an arbitrary way, the total toxicity of the contamination remaining in the whole of the bay after the remediation and assesses the potential cumulative human and ecological health impacts. There are also arguments that the contamination in the other most contaminated areas identified by Dr Birch in the Parramatta River at Mortlake and Iron Cove, both of which adjoin the city of Canada Bay, should be included in the calculations and assessment. The fish do not live only in Homebush Bay and they are not caught only in Homebush Bay. The ecological assessment also needs to adopt a cumulative approach and to consider the impact of the other most contaminated areas at Mortlake and Iron Cove. The entire riverbed is one parcel of land owned by one party.

There are many other matters of concern, a number of which are raised in community submissions. These issues are often compounded by the large number of medium-density to high-density developments in the surrounding area, including Newington, the Olympic precinct, the western side of Homebush Bay, Breakfast Point, Cape Cabarita, the Strathfield triangle, Top Ryde village, the Meadowbank employment area and the Arnott's site. There appears to be no comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impact of these developments on roads, rail, bus services, traffic delays, education, hospitals and facilities for organised active recreation. It is interesting to note that recreational opportunities depend on the effectiveness of the remediation. How would we feel about young kids wading in toxic mud in the mangroves and at the entrance to the bay?

It is a matter of concern that there is no high school located within three kilometres of the area, there is a lack of capacity, and demountables are used at local primary schools. Another concern is the lack of facilities for organised active recreation. Additionally, there is a lack of planning for people with a disability. The community development plan identified that 25 per cent of local residents have a disability, but it did not identify the types of disabilities or the special needs likely to be required. The existing providers of the services lack the capacity to meet a significant increase in demand. There is no evidence of planning for the special needs of an increase in the non-English-speaking background population. I am glad I was able to bring these numerous issues before the committee of inquiry. I believe that this is only the beginning and that we need to investigate further. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.44 p.m.]: Mr Deputy President-
[Time for debate expired.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.45 p.m.]: Mr Small's submission of fraudulent or incorrect documentation was never explained to my satisfaction. However, the circumstances are outlined in the report. The inquiry touched on problems relating to police management. The committee heard of great concerns about command and the controls of process which led to the creation of various cliques within the Police Service. Frankly, a very unhealthy situation arose of warring groups within the Police Service, each of which resorted to tactics as bad as releasing copies of internal affairs files and leaking information to the media, and there was unsatisfactory behaviour by the service.

Mr Ryan's reforms, although probably well meaning and intended to implement the recommendations of the Wood royal commission, were not really thought through. Some had detrimental effects, particularly the decision to effectively sack most of the detectives who formed the Crime Agencies Bureau. The committee heard considerable evidence about problems that that caused. The committee had the opportunity to examine the use of the crime index, and that led to the infamous statement that "Roseville was safer than Cabramatta." The committee also looked at the operations crime review and the resource allocation formula.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: What a farce.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes. A number of the committee's recommendations related to management practices. I am happy to say that the practices have been addressed to an extent in the Premier's report on progress in Cabramatta, which was published in April 2002. I do not propose to read the Premier's report onto the record, but a number of management practices are the subject of review. The committee also heard about some of the poor strategies adopted on the ground. Whilst the Government had trumpeted the success of operations such as Puccini, the real result was that after the operations ceased, crime resumed at its former level.

One very disturbing aspect of the Cabramatta inquiry was the use of public relations to the extent that television media crews were involved in important operational matters before police were involved. In one instance a number of search warrants were executed for different premises, and when the police turned up at 5.00 a.m. the television crews were already there. Paragraphs 5.36 to 5.39 of the report outline the outrageous events at the Stardust Hotel when it was finally raided.

The Premier's fix-which was announced after his visit to Cabramatta and the public relations stunt that went wrong when he was televised in a car not wearing a seatbelt-was to adopt much of what Commander Small had suggested in his seven-point plan. One key feature was the establishment of a tactical group of 90 officers that, according to the Cabramatta report, was fully operational. The full quota of 90 officers of the Greater Hume tactical action group was, according to the Premier's report, "targeting drug crime and crime hot spots in the Cabramatta area".

Unfortunately, in the restructure imposed by the current Minister for Police on the Police Force, that tactical action group has been abolished. That decision highlights a division within the Government and its inability to deal with such issues. On one side is Mr Carr's camp, which includes Clive Small, a man whom we understand through the media the Minister for Police wanted to get rid of; and on the other side is the Minister's camp, which includes his advisory group and people who are at war with each other and with those in the Premier's camp. The report includes a statement of dissent by the Hon. John Jobling and me relating to promotions within the Police Force. We were concerned that the report did not effectively deal with a number of questions about the promotions system that arose in the evidence of various witnesses. It may be that that was outside the committee's terms of reference, which is the primary reason we did not take it any further. However, we recommended:

That a review Committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into all aspects of the police service promotion system and, where necessary, recommend changes in the current promotions system which will overcome problems including those exposed by this inquiry.

We look forward in due course to a real and open response to police promotion from the Minister for Police.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.59 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion, which states:

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.

I had moved exactly the same motion last year on the same day that the Hon. Greg Pearce moved this motion. I subsequently withdrew my motion because his was called on before mine. That is why I withdrew my motion. However, I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion now. At the outset I express my appreciation for the work done by the committee members and secretariat staff, particularly the former committee director, David Blunt, and the current director, Steven Reynolds. I thank them for their assistance and guidance. I also pay tribute to all those who gave evidence to the committee.

I make it clear that I am not speaking today as the Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, which conducted this inquiry into Cabramatta policing in 2000-01 and the Cabramatta review in 2002; nor am I speaking on behalf of the committee. I am speaking today as a member of this House, and the views I am about to express are my own. The Cabramatta policing report, which was tabled out of session on 26 July 2001-more than one year ago now-was the outcome of approximately eight months of tireless work on the part of seven committee members. Although the committee's terms of reference were established in July, the hearing did not start until November, because of the Sydney 2000 Olympics. People did not realise that the committee was not idle. The process took time because we had to advertise and we had to make hearings convenient for police officers. There were those kinds of logistic problems.

The report contains 25 unanimous recommendations that are directed at achieving real and constructive solutions to policing and drug crime problems in Cabramatta. I am pleased to inform the House that following the release of the report both the Premier and NSW Police gave me an assurance that the committee's recommendations would be implemented. I appreciate that after the report was released, the Premier rang me as soon as he came back from an overseas trip and we met almost immediately.

As I said earlier, the inquiry was established in July 2000 in response to calls from local residents and business people in Cabramatta for assistance in dealing with the area's policing and drug crime problems. The committee initially received 31 submissions from the public, but by May 2001 the number had risen to 46. The committee held 10 hearings, at Parliament House and in Cabramatta, it had a number of informal community consultations, and it visited local community organisations. Public attendance at the hearings and consultations was always high. The committee resumed earlier this year and reviewed the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report and the Government's action plan for Cabramatta which was announced by the Premier in March 2001.

The inquiry was at times controversial and highly charged. Almost from the outset the committee was subjected to intense media scrutiny and unjustified political attacks. We were accused of being "in the pocket of the police", of denying the voice of the Cabramatta community, and of deliberately attempting to undermine confidence in the New South Wales police service. Rubbish! None of those accusations were ever justified or proved. In fairness, some of those comments were brought about by misinformation and confusion about the upper House committee system and the inquiry process. But sometimes they were not, and some people tried to politicise the inquiry for their own gain. I will not name names, but the people who attempted to do that will know who they are.

Fortunately, the announcement by the Premier in March 2001 of the so-called Cabramatta package vindicated the committee against the various criticisms that had been levelled against it. The initiatives and reforms in that package were based squarely on the evidence and criticisms that had been presented to the committee during the course of the inquiry. Support for the inquiry was always strong within the Cabramatta community. During the course of the inquiry I received many phone calls, letters, and emails from local residents and police officers expressing their support for the committee's work. Believe it or not, I am still receiving them today. That show of public support, which was immensely gratifying to the committee and me, was particularly appreciated at a time when the committee was being attacked.

Honourable members who have had a chance to look at the report will know that one of the key findings relates to the culture and management style of NSW Police. The committee found that the major deficiencies of policing in Cabramatta were directly linked to the failure of the Police Service to communicate and to the lack of trust of the community. The Police Service failed to listen to the people of Cabramatta, who had been saying that drug trafficking in that area was out of control and that it needed to be the highest priority for the local area command. At the same time senior management at Cabramatta failed to listen to front-line police officers who were saying the same thing.

The Hon. Greg Pearce said that Cabramatta was safer than Roseville. What rubbish! As I said in my foreword to the report, the level of drug-related crime that occurred in Cabramatta could easily occur elsewhere unless action is taken to bring about a more open and responsive police service. For my part, the treatment of police officers who came forward to give evidence to the committee clearly demonstrated the problems of management and culture within NSW Police. Honourable members will remember that Detective Tim Priest, Sergeant Bob Francis, Detective Sergeant Vince Fusca, Sergeant Greg Byrne and Constable Chris Laird bravely came forward to tell the committee and the people of New South Wales about the reality of policing at Cabramatta.

They did not realise that they would be putting their careers on the line in telling the truth about Cabramatta and the Police Service. I feel really bad for them. It was regrettable that they were treated so unfairly by the Police Service. Rather than supporting and guiding those officers through the inquiry process, as I had been assured would be the case, NSW Police attacked their credibility as witnesses. Sergeant Tim Priest, who has unfortunately resigned from the Community Advisory Council of the new Minister for Police, was branded a disgruntled detective after his appearance before the committee-an issue referred to earlier by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

The other four officers were issued with directive memoranda the morning after they gave evidence to the committee in an in-camera session. That ultimately led to the committee's special report and the finding of contempt against NSW Police by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. I am grateful to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for inquiring into those issues. When witnesses appear before any committee it is important that they are protected by privilege. I take this opportunity to again commend those five police officers for their honesty and courage. Without their evidence the committee would not have had a true vision of the policing and drug crime challenges in Cabramatta.

I am pleased to note that the new Commissioner of Police, Ken Moroney, has met with three of those officers and congratulated them on coming forward as witnesses. I hope that Commissioner Moroney and the new Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Costa, will continue their enthusiastic reform of NSW Police, particularly in relation to the internal structure and organisation of the service. It is clear to me that the old "command and control" authoritarian management style of policing, whereby police officers are punished for speaking out against the hierarchy, is still firmly entrenched in New South Wales. That simply must change, but it is changing too slowly for me.

Another major finding of the report was the complete breakdown of communication and trust between police and the Cabramatta community. The committee found that was partly because the community had no input into the way in which they were policed; nor was there any effective consultative or advisory body involving the Cabramatta Local Area Command and the community. In response to that problem the committee recommended that the Cabramatta Local Area Command make use of community satisfaction surveys to enable the community to play a role in the assessment of police performance. That kind of survey is vital in portraying how well the police are performing their duties. I do not think there has been one such survey. If there has, I am not aware of it.

The committee also recommended that the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales consult with representative organisations of the Cabramatta community to determine how Cabramatta City Watch could be used more effectively. I am pleased to inform the House that I attended one Cabramatta City Watch council meeting, in April of this year, and was impressed with the way in which it had clearly developed over the past year. The link groups formed within Cabramatta City Watch appeared to be cohesive, mutually supportive and representative of a broad cross-section of the community. My congratulations go to Superintendent Frank Hansen, chair of Cabramatta City Watch. Under Superintendent Hansen's direction, Cabramatta City Watch seems well on the way to becoming an effective forum for facilitating communication between community members and police at Cabramatta. However, I must be cautious in praising it so freely as I attended only one meeting. I need more community feedback before I can make a proper assessment of the effectiveness of Cabramatta City Watch.

The rapid turnover of staff and management at Cabramatta in 1999 and 2000 was also found to have played a role in the deterioration of police and community relations in the area. This rapid turnover of staff at Cabramatta can be partly attributed to the five-year rotation policy that exists within the NSW Police. That rotation policy prevents police from remaining at a particular local area command for more than five years. As honourable members may know, the five-year rule was a recommendation of the Wood royal commission into the New South Wales police service in 1996 and is said to be an anti-corruption mechanism. However, the experience of Cabramatta shows that this five-year rotation policy prevents police officers from establishing meaningful, lasting relationships with their local communities.

Such relationships are essential for communication and trust. The former local area commander, Alan Leak, is a classic example. He was well respected and was doing a great job at Cabramatta. But he had to be moved because his time was up. That is most unfair. He did not want to be transferred. I believe that the five-year rotation policy should be reviewed and made more flexible. While I appreciate that the rule is thought to prevent corrupt behaviour by police, I believe that alternative and equally effective anti-corruption methods lie in the use of integrity checks, audits and reviews. I hope that the Minister for Police and the Commissioner of Police will look into this very important issue. I was shouted down on the previous report by committee members who said, "This is a recommendation of the Wood royal commission. How can you change it?"

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Who said that? Not the Opposition members now in the Chamber?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: That is supposed to be confidential. Those committee members said I could not recommend a change to that policy.

The Hon. John Jobling: It was Government members of the committee who caused the distress.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: They seemed to think that because a royal commissioner had made the recommendation, a little committee like ours could not change the system. I do not agree.

The Hon. John Jobling: As a committee of the Parliament, of course it can put forward changes.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I agree with the Hon. John Jobling. It is interesting to note that the breakdown of communication and trust between the police and the local community at Cabramatta was found to be particularly the case for people of non-English-speaking backgrounds, who reported feeling especially isolated from police. The committee determined that the poor relationship between police and ethnic communities in Cabramatta was due to the language and cultural problems that non-English-speaking background communities face and their lack of understanding about the role of police, rather than a reluctance to co-operate. The so-called wall of silence does not exist. In my view, this suggests that the Ethnic Community Liaison Officer Program is not as effective as it should be.

For the benefit of honourable members who may be unfamiliar with the term, ethnic community liaison officers [ECLOs] are employed by the NSW Police to provide support for people of non-English-speaking backgrounds who come into contact with the police service. While ECLOs are required to speak a language other than English, their linguistic skills are not taken into account when they are placed at a particular local area command. Nor are they required to be sworn police officers. To me, this is absolutely ludicrous. Over the course of the inquiry the committee received from both community members and police officers many criticisms about the non-effectiveness of ECLOs. The committee found that the role of ECLOs in New South Wales was unclear. Their role was not understood by local communities or by the ECLOs. They do not know what they are supposed to do. The committee found that, in the past, the ECLO positions at Cabramatta had been poorly defined and inappropriately used. For instance, there had been cases in which ECLOs had been used as interpreters or translators of court documents.

Another problem the committee identified was that ECLOs are not selected from an ethnic background that reflects the linguistic needs of the community in which they will be based. This meant that at Cabramatta there was no Chinese-speaking ECLO, despite the fact that 27 per cent of the population spoke the language. The committee recommended that a fourth ECLO with appropriate language skills be employed at Cabramatta. I am pleased to report to the House that the police service has implemented this recommendation. However, I was told only last week that the Vietnamese-speaking ECLO had left Cabramatta and that the vacancy is not being filled. As more than 30 per cent of the population in Cabramatta speak Vietnamese, this vacancy should be filled immediately. I have great difficulty seeing any real benefit to be gained from the ECLO program as it currently operates. If ECLOs are meant to enhance communication and understanding between police officers and people of non-English backgrounds, not only should they have a sound knowledge of policing but they should also possess linguistic skills appropriate to the communities that they serve. Currently, ECLOs are not required to have these qualifications.

This is in stark contrast with some of the police ethnic liaison officers overseas. Both officers of the Community Liaison Support Unit of the Toronto Metropolitan Police Service and Community Affairs Officers of the New York Police Department provide a strong point of comparison with the ECLO program in New South Wales. I met with those overseas officers during my recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association overseas study tour and had detailed conversations with them about their work. Like the ECLOs in New South Wales, the community liaison officers in Toronto and community affairs officers in New York are required to act as cross-cultural experts and to resource their police services. Unlike our ECLOs, however, ethnic liaison officers in New York and Toronto are required to have a knowledge of and sensitivity to the cultural backgrounds and linguistic needs of the ethnic groups with whom they will work. More importantly, they are both required to be sworn police officers. As Sergeant Alexander, a New York Police Department community affairs officer commented to me, ethnic affairs officers must be sworn police officers in order to have credibility within the community. The public trust a police officer more than a civilian.

My visit to the police departments of Toronto and New York confirms my view that the ECLO program in New South Wales is ineffective and a waste of police resources and should be abolished as soon as possible. I am also aware that some ECLOs have abused their position and put themselves in positions where they have a conflict of interest. They have also misrepresented themselves to the community. I have reports that community members do not know what the ECLOs do and that none of those officers has ever helped the community. So what is their use? I believe that the NSW Police should adopt an ethnic affairs officer model that is similar to the community affairs officers of New York and the community policing support officers in Toronto, both of which appear to be operating efficiently and effectively. It was, in fact, a recommendation of the report that the NSW Police establish a unit similar to the Community Policing Support Unit in Toronto. It is a shame that this recommendation has not been implemented.

A related and substantial concern identified by the committee was the lack of police officers from non-English-speaking backgrounds at Cabramatta, particularly officers of South-East Asian background. It is the fact that ethnic police officers account for less than 2 per cent of police officers in New South Wales, despite making up 23 per cent of the population. I know that NSW Police has attempted to bolster the number of ethnic police officers in recent years. Last year the service began a new recruitment drive aimed at Vietnamese and Chinese communities which specifically targeted parents. I am also aware that the NSW Police Policy and Programs Unit recently commissioned a report on this very issue. That is pleasing. However, it is disappointing that the police service's recent television advertisement, which is specifically directed at recruitment, does not feature one ethnic police officer. The committee recommended that the New South Wales Government set targets for the police service in relation to the recruitment and retention of officers from non-English-speaking backgrounds, as has occurred in other jurisdictions.

I have much more to say, but I am restricted by time. I conclude by commending members of the committee, including the Hon. Rick Colless, for their dedicated and professional approach to what was often a controversial and highly charged inquiry. They have shown that parliamentary committees, as a multipartisan forearm for the consideration of issues on their merits, can be extremely effective. Once again, I extend my gratitude to the many people who had the honesty and courage to speak up about the problems in Cabramatta. I am particularly indebted to the police officer who came forward to tell the committee about the realities of policing in Cabramatta. Last but not least I give credit to the Cabramatta community, who fought for this inquiry and the right to be heard. As I said before, this report belongs to them. I commend the report to the House. [Time expired.]

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.19 p.m.]: I thank all the staff who were involved in our work on the inquiry into Cabramatta policing. It was an extraordinary undertaking and, as we see so often, the staff in the Legislative Council did exemplary work. This was a huge undertaking and an issue of concern to all people, even though many of us approached it from different political viewpoints. The Greens had many concerns about the degree to which the issue of Cabramatta was politicised, and that concern continues today. The inquiry into police resources in Cabramatta provided a vital forum for gathering evidence about Cabramatta policing. This report has obvious implications for criminal-crime policy across New South Wales. We need to be mindful of the fact that we are not speaking about one suburb in isolation. As I made clear when we finalised the report, the Greens support the vast majority of findings, recommendations and general commentary in the majority report.

I thank the chair of this inquiry, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, who did an extraordinary amount of work under very difficult circumstances. We were concerned that the Government's tactic of bringing forward its own report and recommendations-indeed, its own package-with respect to Cabramatta pre-empted the deliberations of this inquiry to a large extent. That report, which is called the Cabramatta Package of Legislative Reforms, has been endorsed by the majority report. However, I put on record our concern about the way the package played out tactically as well as our concern about some of its content. While we applaud the Government for recognising that it had to address a whole range of social justice issues, it is obsessed with prohibition policing. Prohibition policing, or the war on drugs-whatever we choose to call it-has failed. It has failed time and again. It has failed in the United States and it is failing here. Many Government members know that they continue to use this tactic for political expediency. Suppressing the drug trade is no longer a viable policing goal.

The Hon. Rick Colless: So we just legalise it, do we?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection from the Hon. Rick Colless. I urge Opposition members to listen. The Greens position is much more responsible than the current attempt to just use a law and order approach. Surely Opposition members acknowledge that it is not working. People continue to die and the number of people in our gaols is increasing because of prohibition policing. The market for illegal drugs is too strong, too flexible and too much in demand to be successfully repressed. To hold on to this expectation can lead only to disappointment, anger and frustration for all parties involved. I put it to Opposition members-because they are the most vocal-that they are doing the wrong thing by the police and the court system by maintaining the laws as they are. Prohibition policing cannot stop drug use, drug abuse, drug crime and drug-related crime.

Operation Puccini, which was the police operation on the ground at Cabramatta, is the real example of prohibition policing. It supposedly brought down the crime figures when it was operating. However, when it stopped there was a vacuum and the crime returned. Again, that is another example of how prohibition policing does not work. As members of the inquiry saw, closed-circuit television cameras and the loitering laws moved the drug trade away from public gaze but they did not resolve any of the fundamental problems associated with the drug trade in Cabramatta. That is why I emphasise that prohibition policing is failing. It has the policy emphasis wrong. It is clear that drugs are a social and health issue. That does not mean that we ignore the whole issue of drug use and drug abuse, but we need to be more responsible in the way in which we approach it. At the moment, trying to use the heavy arm of the law is failing the individuals involved, their families, the communities who suffer because of the drug-related crime, and the police and justice systems that are put in such an unenviable position.

As the drug trade has such a large impact on the community and police operations, it was to be expected that some submissions to our inquiry would address the form the trade takes. It was interesting to note that a teacher at Cabramatta High School called for a review of legislation and for heroin to be legalised. That person in no way wanted to see heroin widely available. The teacher made that suggestion in an attempt to come to grips with the problem that so often seems to be out of control, and argued that this is a way to reduce the use of heroin and the tragedy that often results when people lose their lives because of heroin use. I notice also that the retired superintendent of police and former local area commander at Cabramatta Mr Alan Leek argued strongly for a safe injecting facility with culturally specific detoxification and the maintenance of a needle exchange program. The cultural context in Cabramatta is critical here. Again, many people who spoke to us, both formally and informally, emphasised this. We noted that some of the people who gave evidence found there was a prejudice against safe injecting facilities amongst Indo-Chinese drug users. According to research carried out by Lisa Maher and Professor David Dixon, more than 35 per cent of Indo-Chinese users would not use injecting or smoking rooms under any circumstances,.

Prohibition policing, which sums up how the Government is still running its police operations in Cabramatta, has real problems. Intensive prohibition policing produces and encourages the development of more organised, professional and enduring forms of criminality. That is what Opposition and Government members need to take on board. Their policies encourage crime. It may be pushed to another suburb, but it is still there. No matter what their attempted interjections may be, they cannot deny that the present practices are not successful. Police excess in street-level law enforcement may, ironically, foster the organised criminality about which so much concern is expressed. Structural changes within the drug-selling networks in the wake of saturation policing can have a negative impact on a community. We believe that was very obvious at Cabramatta. When dealers are arrested or displaced, novices and those willing to work in a high-risk environment move in. Street-level dealing in the wake of enhanced street police operations is, therefore, prone to becoming more volatile and open to penetration by organised groups.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Put up some alternatives!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I note the interjection. We need to approach the problem not only on a suburb-by-suburb basis; as legislators we need to take responsibility. The policy of treating people as criminals for taking drugs is failing. We need to increase the amount of resources available, from the Drug Court to rehabilitation. That should be the starting point. Although the Opposition's approach might go along with liberal philosophy to create a market, surely members opposite must recognise that the drug market being created is very dangerous.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Remove it!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The honourable member is saying, "Remove it", but the Coalition's policies do not allow it to be removed. We have seen that time and time again with the emphasis on prohibition policing. There is evidence that drug-related crime committed by users escalates when police crack down on petty thefts and drug possession. The crime also moves to new areas-this phenomenon is known as displacement. Geographical displacement of places of purchase and consumption of heroin is recognised as having a direct correlation to street-level law enforcement. A number of people who spoke to the committee, both formally and informally, detailed how this happens. As well as drug use, the drug market has apparently been dispersed to areas outside the Cabramatta central business district and to other Sydney suburbs. Dixon and Maher quoted a senior police officer who saw this as a fair outcome:

We knew there was going to be a displacement effect... It is a bit like aircraft noise. We have to spread the problem about and not just have it centred on one suburb.

That statement was made by a police officer who is trying to do his or her job with laws that cannot deliver a safe outcome for the people of Sydney who want to live in suburbs where they will not be harassed by drug users desperate to find a bit of money so that they can score their next hit. The situation is untenable. Drug-related crime will continue in many Sydney suburbs if the current laws are not changed. Once again I emphasise that prohibition policing is a futile exercise. Pursuit of this goal erodes morale in many ways, and it promotes corruption and abuse of process by the police service.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It's the Police Force.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I note the Minister's interjection. When that matter was debated in the House I thought the Minister said that the other names could still be used. Police officers are still instructed to make prohibition their goal through the use of intensive street-level policing. In the same breath they are asked to work within the policy of harm minimisation. Conflict messages within the Police Force, at both a local level and in the higher ranks, have resulted in confusion and lack of direction for the police officers working in Cabramatta and others working to assist people caught up in the drug trade. Prohibition policing causes users, buyers and sellers to adopt riskier behaviour, with negative health side effects for both themselves and the wider community. The tendency of police to disturb intravenous drug users [IDUs] while they are self-administering means that the IDUs are more likely to share needles or use dirty needles, and are less likely to clean up after themselves, posing greater health risks for other community members. Injecting drug users in Cabramatta utilise a wide range of public, semi-public and private locations to consume drugs.

I remember how the inquiry came about. A local councillor, Mr Thang Ngo, alerted Mrs Sham-Ho to the tragic circumstances in Cabramatta, where people were using toilets and parks to inject drugs and leaving their drug paraphernalia in ways that created a real health hazard. I remember also Mrs Sham-Ho describing to me what she had seen. In this House we moved to bring forward this inquiry because of the untenable situation. We have gone some way to addressing the problem in Cabramatta but much more work still needs to be done. As I said, while the Greens are happy to endorse many of the recommendations, we believe that prohibition policing is still a real problem in this State. The major political parties are playing political games with many communities in Sydney which bear the brunt of the Government's ineffective and inappropriate legislation. The legislation has resulted in some spectacular photographic opportunities for the Minister but it does not work to make safer communities in Sydney's suburbs-a matter that this Government so often forgets.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.36 p.m.]: I must confess that when this inquiry was first suggested I had some misgivings. There was interest in criticising the Government for not being tough enough on crime, and I wondered whether there was some fuss emanating from that. Certainly, the Australian Democrats candidate for the Cabramatta area had been extremely keen for me to take a stronger line on drugs. Indeed, he called for a royal commission into the drug problem in Cabramatta, which I resisted on the basis that the Wood royal commission had already largely covered that area. Indeed, that person, who lived in Cabramatta and was having a difficult time socially with people injecting drugs in his front yard and so on, said that the situation in Cabramatta was difficult in terms of the amount of drug use taking place and the ineffectiveness of the policing system.

I knew that the Wood royal commission had dealt considerably with this problem. The policy of the Australian Democrats is harm minimisation rather than prohibition. But the candidate advocated a prohibition policy with the usual reference to corruption and criticism of police for not being successful in the prohibition approach forced on them by policymakers who I believe were driven by populism rather than a rational examination of the situation. So within that context, when this inquiry was mooted I wondered whether there was perhaps, at the middle level of the Police Force, an officer saying, "We know prohibition doesn't work. Let us simply turn a blind eye to some of these things and wait until the Government achieves a greater degree of enlightenment in terms of drug policy."

Then as the stories of police inaction emerged in the press from the findings of this inquiry, I wondered if this was merely a policy decision that had been made but not naturally written down in the sense that it was against the overall thrust of the Government's approach to drug crime-which was highly law and order and prohibitive-or whether it was an attempt to be prohibitive but was in fact relative incompetence. The evidence seemed to suggest that it was incompetence rather than a tacit policy of non-intervention. Also, some people wondered whether racism was involved, in the sense that people were happy to let crime flourish more in an ethnic area as part of inherent racism.

I am not in as good a position to comment on that as are some others, but the issue has to be examined if we are to get to the bottom of what people do and why they do it. I do not think that witch-hunts are really the answer, but clearly the police promotions system is a factor, with those with grassroots experience often not being promoted. In the police service, in common with all management structures, the practical understanding of officers who have risen through the ranks is non-existent in officers who have a theoretical perspective and who are appointed to top-level positions. The dissenting report of Opposition members included a recommendation for an inquiry into the police service promotions system.

The Hon. John Jobling: Quite rightly, and I suspect that the Minister for Police agrees.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I agree.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That is excellent. The bipartisan approach is most pleasing. I have no problem with that; it shows that matters canvassed by parliamentary inquiries that would otherwise be ignored are useful in the State's endeavours to improve policy and practices in all areas that are the subject of investigation. Another point that was very clearly made during the inquiry was the poor relationship between police and members of ethnic communities-a very difficult matter. Fairfield Councillor Thang Ngo, who is a Churchill fellow and a former research assistant of the Hon. Dr Peter Wong, of the Unity party in this Parliament, made the following statement in his Churchill fellowship report:

There is very little trust between many sections of the Cabramatta community and the [Police] Local Area Command. People from a non-English speaking background feel particularly isolated from their local Police... There may be many who have positive experiences of policing in their area but they have remained silent during this inquiry.

He added that the report from the upper House inquiry "summarises most succinctly the relationship between police and the community they protect." He stated further:

Cabramatta is the most extreme example of ethnic diversity, "... in NSW as a whole, only 23% of persons speak a language other than English. The situation is reversed in Cabramatta: more than 75% speak another language, and many are not fluent in English".

Thang Ngo's report also examines strategies that have been used in various countries to improve relationships between police and ethnic communities. The report fits very well as part of the solutions to the problems that are highlighted in the report on Cabramatta policing by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, and certainly has produced figures that I was hitherto unaware of. For example, the report refers to non-English-speaking police officers and states:

Statistics reported in NSW Police annual reports each year are based only on information volunteered by officers.

It is possible that the number of police officers with non-English-speaking backgrounds is higher than the police annual reports indicate, but Thang Ngo asks why, if that is so, are those officers reluctant to volunteer information on their backgrounds?

The report also indicates that non-English speaking police officers accounted for 2.08 per cent of officers in the police service in 1998-99, 1.99 per cent in 1999-2000, and 1.72 per cent in 2000-01. Despite the comments made by the honourable member for Cabramatta, Reba Meagher, at a seminar I attended at the Ethnic Communities Council last weekend, the percentage of police officers from a non-English speaking background continues to decline, and that is certainly a problem. Immigrants from totalitarian or oppressive regimes who may have felt intrinsic distrust of police in their homeland may have difficulty overcoming that barrier when they settle into Australian communities where all customs are strange to them, and it must be extremely difficult to convince them that police officers in New South Wales with whom they are unable to converse are trustworthy, unlike police officers in communities whence they came. It is difficult for immigrants to grasp the concept of an open process of justice, especially when witness protection schemes fail. Against that background it is hardly surprising that people do not come forward with information on ethnic crime gangs when crime gangs generally who are involved in the drug trade are not known for their soft tactics. The point has been made that prohibition policing results in a hardening of the target.

It is quite remarkable, given that the standing committee is constituted by Government, Opposition and crossbench members, that the report includes three dissenting statements. The Government members' dissenting statement suggests that largely matters have been resolved since the local area command was changed and that some of the information given to the standing committee was hearsay rather than proven fact. The dissenting statement of Opposition members referred to problems in the police promotions system which Opposition members had uncovered. The dissenting crossbench statement consisted of the Greens representative, Ms Lee Rhiannon, suggesting that the problem was the failure of prohibition policing, evident from the tendency of most recent immigrants to engage in drug crimes, and the observation by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho that the lack of police language skills in the Cabramatta area has led to a failure to develop an understanding and trust relationship between the police culture and the community, which is certainly a very significant problem.

The police crime index has been cited to show that the control of crime has improved, but absolute numbers on the most serious crimes have been excluded. This tends to create a position in which management's description is the opposite of observations made at the grassroots level. With spin doctoring and public relations increasingly becoming a part of organisations, activities that tend to gild the lily simply erode government credibility. It is vital for governments to call a spade a spade to accomplish progression. A factor that should be borne in mind is that refusal to define problems results in an inability to solve them. It is the position of the Australian Democrats that a new harm minimisation approach needs to be adopted. I noted the interjections made during some of the earlier speeches in this debate, particularly during the speech made by Ms Lee Rhiannon, querying whether the drug trade should be legalised and conducted without restriction. The legal versus non-legal paradigm is a simplistic put-down combined with moral indignation which foolishly perpetuates a policy that manifestly does not work. It is interesting to consider the paradigm in practical terms. Page 19 of the standing committee's report states:

In evidence to the Committee former Cabramatta Patrol Commander Alan Leek explained what these figures meant in human terms:

The figures referred to are those indicating that 15 per cent of all drug overdoses in New South Wales occur within a four-kilometre radius of Cabramatta, that in 1999 the treatment for suspected drug overdoses was used 549 times by ambulance workers in Cabramatta, and that 65 per cent of overdoses in Cabramatta-compared to 19 per cent in Kings Cross-occurred in a public place. Alan Leek stated:

These people died unnecessarily. They were loved ones of different people. My primary role as a police officer was the protection of life. It was incredibly frustrating to see these figures mount up, to see these people become statistics. Had they been killed in motor vehicle accidents there would have been an uproar. They were killed behind buildings. They died in disgusting conditions, amongst litter and needles. It was absolutely heartwrenching... Ambulance officers would revive heroin overdose victims with Narcan. They became expert in their attempts to revive people who had no vital signs when perhaps others would have given up. They had some success but the hidden casualties in such instances are people who suffer brain damage or organ damage or limb damage. We do not seem to talk about them. It is a massive problem.

The report goes on to state:

Maher and Dixon's research suggests Cabramatta drug users engage in high risk and socially harmful drug taking behaviour:

· One third of young Indo-Chinese drug users had their first injection in a public place (a flat stairwell, car park, on the street etc)

· One in 10 had their first injection with a used syringe

· 65% had injected in flats and 52% had injected on the street within a month of the survey

· 21% of those surveyed had shared a used needle within the last month and one in four of new (using for less than two years) users had Hepatitis C.

Here is the practical effect of prohibition policing told in the plain words of a policeman who works amongst it. In drug policy we have to consider what we can do to minimise the harm of drugs; not to get ourselves into a lather about people making profits or about the pharmacology of the drugs. We have to consider what policies will minimise the harm to our society from the already invented and readily available substances. What can we do to lessen their harm? We need to think far more laterally than has been the case with the prohibition strategies that are currently being pursued in New South Wales and that have been shown to fail spectacularly in Cabramatta. Many of the recommendations call for increased resources, et cetera-really throwing good money after bad. We may get some transitory improvement, a movement of the crime elsewhere, but basically this is almost the last hurrah of the failed policy of prohibition which hopefully the Government and the Opposition will not take into the next election-although I am not entirely hopeful. We have a lot to learn from this.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What are your suggestions? Put your suggestions on the record.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I have referred to harm minimisation. I am not going to give a policy speech now; you will have to wait for it. But you guys will have to think beyond your simplistic ideas of prohibition, which have been shown by this inquiry not to work, and which I believe will not work even with further measures along the same lines.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [4.52 p.m.]: Much occurred in this inquiry that was positive, but from the outset I think it should be stated that the inquiry was a political one and it therefore had a number of limitations in being able to progress the issues of concern to the people of Cabramatta. When the inquiry began I thought that it provided a positive opportunity to find out what happened in Cabramatta and to advance proposals to ensure that what went wrong there would never recur, and furthermore that we would get on top of the problems that had been bedevilling that community. At the outset I congratulate those people who came before the committee to give evidence and worked constructively in what they had to put to the committee. However, a number of people appeared before the committee for purposes that can only regarded as destructive. I would have to say that if I had one criticism of the police service arising from the inquiry it was its proposal to evaluate various area commands, which ultimately resulted in the downgrading of Cabramatta police station to a category two police station. That method of evaluation did not include drugs.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: That was just straight out stupid.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I agree; I think it was stupid. Those persons in the police service who engineered that outcome have a lot to answer for, and indeed have answered in terms of this inquiry. Having said that, I must take exception to the denigration of reputations that occurred in the course of this inquiry. Foremost must be Cabramatta High School. Not a scintilla of evidence was able to stand up to scrutiny to suggest that that school provided anything but a first-class educational environment to its students. It was most unfortunate that during the inquiry various characters tried to drag the school into a quagmire in an attempt to downgrade its reputation and, moreover, the reputation of its students.

Committee members had the opportunity to visit the school. None of us left the school with the view that it was providing other than a first-class educational environment. Both the teachers and the students indicated that, whatever went on around them in Cabramatta-they were critical of various things that were going on in Cabramatta-that school was fulfilling its educational mission in providing education to the students and producing great citizens for this country in the future. Taking into account that overwhelmingly the student population came from non-English-speaking backgrounds, it is of particular credit to the teachers that they were able to produce such great outcomes with the students.

Let me address some of the comments that have been made, particularly by Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who somehow surprises me. He always goes on about prohibition policing and states that we ought to be more liberal in our approach to drugs and drug issues. He goes on about how deadly smoking is but when it comes to drugs he seems to have a different approach. Ms Rhiannon does not have the same obsession about smoking but I find her dissenting report-she read slabs of it to the House during her speech-quite intriguing. The first recommendation was:

It is recommended that the inquiry solicit information about culturally appropriate options for the regulated supply and safe administration of heroin, with a view to the possible implementation of a legalised distribution program.

What a load of nonsense that is! This is the Greens policy for the next election. They are going to have a drug bazaar set up in Cabramatta. They are going to ensure that it is culturally appropriate so that we can get all the interest groups to come along to use the services. They will freely distribute and supply heroin and no doubt help people administer it. Not too many participants in the inquiry came forward to embrace such absolute nonsense. Ms Lee Rhiannon is not in the Chamber; she might be listening in her office. Why does she not nominate where she wants this drug bazaar to go and what volumes of material we ought to distribute? What a load of absolute drivel to propose a policy that is not sourced from any of the submissions. Nobody actually came out and said, "We want this in Cabramatta." She went out to all the various forums promoting her vision of what was going on in Cabramatta but never explaining to the community that this was her suggested solution. The follow-up recommendation, No. 5, states:

It is recommended that the police service consider strategies which 'contain' and localise the drug market rather than simply displace it to another area.

That is code for saying, "Cabramatta can keep the drug problem. We are going to localise it and let it stay in Cabramatta." I would really love to know whether the Greens intend to field a candidate in Cabramatta at the next election on that sort of ridiculous, absurd platform. It is absolute nonsense. I do not believe that too many people would go along with it. I was a bit disappointed that Thang Ngo, who was one of the instigators of this inquiry, actually shared a platform with Ms Lee Rhiannon when she launched her dissenting report. He praised her for her role in setting up the inquiry. No doubt he was implicitly supporting the dissenting report.

During one of the hearings I asked Thang Ngo where he had in mind that this drug bazaar might go on, and whether he thought that was a way forward for the police service. To his credit, he moved away from embracing this recommendation and indicated that he supported the Government's proposal of having a safe injecting room trial in Kings Cross.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Commos are like that; they are very deceptive people. Lee Rhiannon probably deceived him into sharing a platform.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I think Mr Ngo was particularly ill-advised to share a platform, on an occasion when this dissenting report was being put forward before the media. Ms Rhiannon signed a motion to allow the Cabramatta inquiry to be set up. As a consequence of that inquiry there have been a lot of changes to policing priorities, particularly in Cabramatta, which ensure that drugs are made a particular priority for the Cabramatta Local Area Command. There have been changes in the structure of Cabramatta policing, and enormous resources have been put into Cabramatta. In addition, there has been a raft of legislation, which is reported on in the Government's latest submission to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3.

That legislation not only deals with sniffer dogs; it also deals with drug houses. All committee members will recall the evidence we heard in relation to the problems that the police service was having in closing down establishments that were clearly used as distribution centres for narcotics. When the police attempted to break into them they found that there was no direct evidence of drugs on the premises because they had been destroyed just before entry was made. Ms Rhiannon and the Greens can take credit for those outcomes. They may not be in accordance with their policies, but it will teach them to carefully consider whether they will support the establishment of committees that have outcomes that are completely contrary to what they sought to achieve and what is expounded in this dissenting report.

In other words, all those results-the prohibition policing, which Ms Rhiannon complains about, the legislation giving police more powers and the increased resources-are the ex-nuptial product of Ms Rhiannon signing up to this Cabramatta inquiry. Whether she likes it or not, she can boast about that as one of her achievements. After she has signed up for an inquiry that uncovered evidence of the nature that this inquiry uncovered and made all the recommendations aimed at resolving the problems in Cabramatta, it is no good Ms Rhiannon saying, "You got it all wrong. This is the way we want to go ahead." She knew what the evidence was; she participated in the hearings and she heard it. To issue a report that is at odds with the evidence and seems more in accordance with her discredited Greens policy does her no credit at all.

I look forward to the final report that the committee will soon release, which will no doubt indicate the achievements and progress that the Government has made in addressing all the recommendations that the committee has made in its report. All the evidence we have so far heard has indicated a level of satisfaction on the part of the residents, the police and the various community groups with the way the Government has addressed this problem. As I said, that is a matter of great credit to the Government. Hopefully, the committee's final report will be issued within the next month or so.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [5.04 p.m.]: I have read Ms Lee Rhiannon's dissenting statement. Had I been the chair of the committee I would not have allowed that statement to go unchecked by the Clerk. A dissenting statement cannot be edited by the chair of the committee and, as the Hon. Tony Kelly would be aware, nor can it be refused by the committee. However, it must be a statement that is relevant to the evidence before the committee, and it must be relevant to the committee's terms of reference.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: The Coalition has nothing to do with it either.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I know. I am simply saying that the dissenting statement is illegitimate in that it does not comply with standing orders relating to committee work.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It's a joke.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: It is an absolute joke. It has no relation to the evidence or to the terms of reference. It is simply a flight of fantasy by the Greens; it is a political statement. The report of a parliamentary committee should not be allowed to be used and abused by Ms Lee Rhiannon to put forward a policy statement about what the Greens would like, in their airy fairy way, to do. Had I been the chair of the committee I would have asked the Clerk, having read the statement, to see whether it was kosher. The Greens could then have obtained an opinion from the Clerk as to whether the statement complied with the standing orders. However, the statement was simply accepted, I think through lack of knowledge and understanding, and it is highly offensive. Apart from being illogical, it has no relation to what the report is meant to be about.

To that extent, I was highly offended by the report. We need to be watchful of the Greens' misuse of public moneys, not only in this regard but in many others. I particularly note the way in which the Greens use Parliamentary Counsel to draft amendments purely for political purposes that they know will not be successful. The time members devote to addressing them and the time devoted by Parliamentary Counsel to drafting them involves a waste of taxpayers' money.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party fully supports the comments of the Hon. John Hatzistergos and the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti with regard to this report. It seems that "prohibition policing" is now a new swearword. The term was mentioned over and again in this debate, particularly by Ms Lee Rhiannon. I believe the problem in Cabramatta was not prohibition policing but, rather, that there was confusion and a lack of direction as to where the police were going and whether, either by accident, deliberately or simply by mismanagement, Cabramatta was becoming a drug zone. Everyone knew that drugs were available. We saw it every night on the television. People would get on the train, go to Cabramatta, and dealers would stand at the railway station and sell the drugs. That went on day after day.

I believe the general public's perception was that somehow a line had been drawn around Cabramatta and things were allowed to happen in Cabramatta that were not allowed to happen anywhere else in New South Wales. As I said, it is not clear how that happened. Was it deliberate, accidental or simply by mismanagement? It seems that some situations become too difficult for government: What do you do about it? I am pleased that the Government has now taken a firm direction, particularly as outlined in the plan by the Premier in March this year. That plan should have been implemented some years ago, but at least it is being implemented now. We fully support the plan outline by the Premier and look forward to its implementation. Of course, it is one thing to have a plan but another to have it implemented.

I was disappointed by recent negative television programs that sought to discredit individuals such as senior police officers and police officers on the street. Indeed, the dissenting report by Government members also raised allegations with regard to the reputations of certain individuals. I believe that too much time and energy have been wasted on that approach. I was particularly angry at the way in which Michael Carlton from radio 2UE accused former Detective Sergeant Tim Priest of having mental problems. That is not helpful to any parliamentary inquiry. Those allegations will now have to be refuted. One wonders where it will all end. Witnesses should be encouraged to stick to the terms of reference and, if they do not, committee members should take points of order because once comments are on the record and are covered by parliamentary privilege the matter becomes very serious. The Hon. Lee Rhiannon attacked what she called prohibition policing. Her policy could be described as hit and myth rather than hit and miss. She believes that the presence of police encourages organised crime and that if the Police Force were disbanded, crime levels would drop.

The Hon. Richard Jones: They would, by about 70 per cent.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Hon. Richard Jones supports that policy. They do not understand how criminals operate. All the criminals will vote for the Greens. Another myth that has been disproved is that if police crack down in one area, the problems shift to another. Even some former police officers share that view. That, too, is negative because people question the point of cracking down on crime if it just moves to another area. One must deal with problems where they occur and recur. Reports indicate that the Cabramatta drug problem has not shifted to another area.

Confusion arose among Cabramatta officers with respect to the police indicator scale, which measures crime in various suburbs. Roseville was shown to be the number one crime area while Cabramatta was near the bottom. However, the scale did not include murder, violent crime and drug offences. Any figure can be manipulated by excluding those offences. The crime indicator should be realistic and include assault, car theft and serious crime, which did indeed occur at Cabramatta. Former Commissioner of Police Peter Ryan said that 80 per cent of crime in New South Wales was drug related. The Greens seek to legalise drugs, but drugs are at the core of the problem and they must be dealt with. Recommendation No. 1 of the Greens, which appears on page 282 of the report recommends the investigation of regulated supply and administration of heroin. It states:

It is recommended that the inquiry solicit information about culturally appropriate options for the regulated supply and safe administration of heroin, with a view to the possible implementation of a legalised distribution program.

The end result would be that organised crime would be replaced and the Government would become the dealer and supplier of heroin in the Cabramatta area. The opposite of that policy is prohibition, but prohibition does not work. I suggest that we adopt the policy adopted by the Swedish Government-a policy that was supported by all parties, including the Communist Party, the greens party, the liberal party, Democrat equivalents, and the farmers party-for Sweden to be a drug-free society. Sweden introduced cohesive or compulsory drug rehabilitation programs in which people thought to be drug addicts are taken by police to an assessment centre run by medical personnel, not police, who are on the street.

Professionals in the assessment centre examine those people and, where necessary, refer them to an independent judge at the local court. The judge weighs up the evidence and decides whether the drug addiction is serious enough to warrant rehabilitation. If so, they enter a rehabilitation program for a minimum of six months. With our system only those who commit offences are afforded the opportunity of rehabilitation as an interim step. We need to go to the next stage to prevent drug addicts from overdosing. Often their addiction is so powerful that their only concern is whom they can rob to get their drugs, and rehabilitation is not a consideration. Rehabilitation will help save many lives.

The needle distribution program was not dealt with in great detail, but more than 20,000 needles are being distributed throughout New South Wales. They are found on railway stations, in gutters and in school grounds. The program has never been a needle exchange program: that was just a confidence trick played on the people of New South Wales. It is a needle distribution program, a needle hand-out program. At least a needle exchange program would prevent needles being left on streets, beaches and other public places, endangering the health of the community. The report makes considerable reference to harm minimisation, which is stated to be a policy of the Government. It notes that police either do not understand it or do not enthusiastically support it. I do not believe that police are happy with the harm minimisation approach because they support harm prevention.

Police know that schools run courses on how to use heroin safely, and that undermines police operations on the street. It causes confusion and lowers police morale. It is a double standard to seek, on the one hand, to crack down on drugs and, on the other, to show young people how to use drugs safely. The concept of harm minimisation confuses police. We should have a policy of harm prevention. Harm minimisation may be adopted by the hierarchy at 14 College Street, but it has never been adopted by front-line police on the streets. I note that page 95 of the report refers to the Premier's initiative, the Cabramatta package, which we support.

Legislation passed by this House to close down drug houses, drug fortresses, has been very successful. The program announced in March is a step in the right direction. The Premier was quick to pick up on recommendations given in evidence at the inquiry as well as policies outlined by the Opposition, such as the power to arrest look-outs, persons entering or leaving drug houses, and persons knowingly using premises as drug houses; the power to detain an individual and have a medical practitioner conduct a search for drugs when it is suspected they have been swallowed; the power to move on individuals loitering; the introduction of new laws targeting the illegal trade in firearms; and the removal of the presumption of bail in favour of those charged with hand gun, prohibited firearm and offensive weapons charges.

These positive policies relate to front-line police, and give them the ability to fulfil their responsibilities. The Cabramatta package also included increasing the number of officers initially dedicated to Cabramatta, which will eventually have 90 officers. Perhaps the Minister for Police could bring us up to date on whether those 90 officers have been appointed. The package provides for the assignment of 10 extra detectives to deal with the concerns raised by Detective Sergeant Priest and others about the decline in the number of detectives at Cabramatta, the need for a dedicated drug unit and the allocation of an extra 500 treatment places. All of us who support strong policies against illegal drugs also support better policies for drug rehabilitation. It is not a case of either/or and locking people up, but rather providing rehabilitation programs and extra treatment beds. I am sure that members of my party as well as members of the Opposition support that approach.

Prevention and early intervention were also part of the package announced by the Premier. Those initiatives will put us on the right track to deal with the problems at Cabramatta. As honourable members would be aware, I was the chair of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics when it inquired into whether some of the witnesses who appeared before the Cabramatta inquiry were in contempt. Even though we did not investigate the Cabramatta situation in detail, we had to cover some of the ground to get a general understanding of it. Criticism directed at Assistant Police Commissioner Clive Small is a negative aspect of the inquiry. I do not know him personally, although he was a witness before our inquiry, and he has given evidence before the Cabramatta inquiry. However, my reading of his activities and his successes have always impressed me. Assistant Police Commissioner Clive Small announced a worthwhile seven-point plan to make drug-related crime the number one operational priority.

There seems to be some confusion as to whether police could regard drug-related crime and drug crime as a priority. The seven-point plan had a positive outcome in Cabramatta, and helped to improve the situation. Recommendation 2 of the committee's report is fundamental. The Premier required the Minister for Police, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Community Services, the Minister for Housing, and the Minister for Juvenile Justice, together with the Special Minister of State to report regularly to him on the progress of the implementation of the package of initiatives for Cabramatta announced by him on 27 March 2001. The report he receives should be given to the Parliament. We should be kept up to date. Have all the initiatives announced by the Premier been implemented? Like other members of this place, I was somewhat puzzled by the dissenting report of Ms Lee Rhiannon. However, I note that members of both the Government and the Opposition followed the normal conventions of the House.

Usually a dissenting report consists of only one page. It is not meant to be another report knocking the committee, but rather an opportunity for individual members to raise matters about which they feel strongly but which they do not think were covered in the main body of the report. The dissenting report of Ms Lee Rhiannon is a six-page document in small type. It is basically a mini report. I agree with the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti that an inquiry should have been made as to whether it should have been included in the report. I note that it is a sensitive area. The Clerks do not want to be put in a position of being judges. We may need to implement a new procedure so that the committee chairman can refer it to the President for advice. The committee chairman would be criticised by the member if he or she were to condense the dissenting report to one page. That could have been done, but to protect the chairs of individual committees we may need to consider whether we consult the President about what is permitted in a dissenting report.

The Hon. Richard Jones: You can't do that!

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: What will happen the next time if the dissenting report is 30, 40 or 60 pages long?

The Hon. Richard Jones: That very rarely happens.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is the reason I am raising it. Ms Lee Rhiannon seems to revel in breaking conventions. Now that she has got away with it this time she may be tempted to think that she can do what she likes in future inquiries. I support the concerns expressed by other members of this House about such a lengthy dissenting report. It seems to be the Greens manifesto rather than a genuine dissenting report.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [5.27 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to defend Ms Lee Rhiannon, whose dissenting report is only six pages out of 285 pages. It is less than 3 per cent, it is less than three pages in 100. She has a right to have a six-page dissenting report as part of a 285-page report. It is nothing at all. Obviously, the Greens and Ms Lee Rhiannon feel strongly about prohibition, and for a good reason: it is not working. In 1988 I made my first speech in this House on the legalisation of heroin. It was a very long speech. It was almost midnight, and I do not think anyone was listening to it. My leader, the Hon. Lis Kirkby, walked out half way through it. Then, about five years later, she agreed with me. My speech was on this very issue of prohibition, which, unfortunately, was not and is not working. The prohibition of tobacco would not work. People would break into homes.

It is clear that 70 per cent of people in prison have drug-related problems. I have met some of them. Whenever you talk to heroin addicts you will almost always be told that they came from disturbed or bad backgrounds, they were abused, their parents were alcoholics or they had other problems. It is not very often that people who are addicted to heroin come from loving, comfortable homes. Most often they come from homes where there are major problems. We talk about heroin addicts as junkies and drug addicts, but we forget that they are ordinary young men and women who come from disturbed homes. They are sons and daughters. We should understand that they are people who have a problem, a medical problem, and they should be treated as such. These people self-medicate with heroin in the same way that members of this place self-medicate with alcohol and tobacco. There are addicts in this Chamber who have tried desperately to give up tobacco but who cannot. Highly intelligent people cannot give up tobacco, which is far more deadly than heroin. Tobacco kills 50 per cent of smokers while heroin kills a far smaller percentage of its users.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It does not. You continue to peddle this twaddle.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: It is true. At least 19,000 people die every year from tobacco use while heroin kills about 1,000.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a dangerous drug.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: They are both dangerous drugs. I have the facts at my fingertips. There is an enormous dichotomy between two dangerous drugs: tobacco and heroin. It is absurd that we treat the two drugs differently. Why is one legal? Tobacco use was encouraged not so long ago and it is used publicly on the streets and on the balconies of Parliament House. Yet tobacco kills 50 per cent of those who use it. Should tobacco be legal?

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is legal.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: It should not be legal. If heroin is illegal, tobacco should be illegal as well. Why is tobacco legal when it kills so many people every year? I am sure Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would agree that tobacco should be illegal. It is a stupid anomaly that tobacco is legal and heroin is not. A number of other dangerous drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat various medical conditions. Some members of this House take such drugs, which are perfectly legal. If heroin were legal today, as it was in 1953, society would not have a drug problem. I talked to a former member for Monaro who was a chemist and who dispensed heroin in the 1950s. He said he had no problems with his customers when heroin was legal.

In those days 70 per cent of crime was not associated with drug prohibition: It did not exist because heroin was legal. The problems began only when heroin became illegal and a criminal fraternity developed around its sale, as occurred during the prohibition era of the 1930s when criminals made money by selling illegal alcohol. When there is a profit motive involved people will push any illegal substance. That is the key problem: If there were no profit motive there would be no incentive to push drugs on the streets of Cabramatta or anywhere else. When people finally realise that they will find a solution to the drug problem.

I do not advocate handing out heroin on every street corner, but I think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem-they have finally taken that approach in England-and give treatment to those who need it. I have met heroin addicts, as I hope other members have, and talked to them about their problems. I know of a couple from Tasmania who kicked their heroin habits and who became members of the community again. I know of another ex-addict who died from cancer. I met an addict who continues to take heroin every day but who is involved in no other unlawful activities. The trouble with Cabramatta is the enormous dichotomy between the Police Force-that is what it is called under this new Minister for Police; unfortunately it is no longer a service-and the community. That is clear in the report. Chapter 5 states:

There is very little trust between many sections of the Cabramatta community and the Local Area Command.

That is right. The report gives many examples of instances when people called the police who did not respond for half an hour, 20 minutes, an hour or 10 days later in one case. In one instance a machine-gun was fired, bullets ricocheted everywhere and people were petrified. The police turned up 10 days later. Is that a proper response by a Police Force or police service? It is absolutely outrageous.

Cabramatta has the largest proportion of residents from non-English-speaking backgrounds of any community in the country. Some 23 per cent of New South Wales residents are from non-English-speaking backgrounds and only 2 per cent of New South Wales police officers are from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Not a single officer stationed in Cabramatta could speak Vietnamese, Chinese, Khmer, Lao or any other South-East Asian language. How can we expect police to relate to a community that speaks those languages? It is absurd. The Government must act immediately to recruit into the police service people from the Cabramatta community who can speak those languages. However, there is nothing in the Premier's response to indicate that that is a Government priority. The Government has said that it will crack down on crime, bust into people's houses and smash the drug trade. That is fine, but it has not responded to the committee's recommendation No. 9, which states:

(a) The Committee recommends that the Government establish targets for the police service in relation to the recruitment and retention of officers from non-English speaking backgrounds, against which the Service should report progress in its annual reports to Parliament.

(b) The Committee further recommends that the police service include in its annual reports the strategies put in place to raise the proportion of officers from a non-English speaking background to a level reflecting the proportion of the NSW population from such a background.

In other words, 23 per cent of officers in the New South Wales police service-or Police Force, as it is called under this hard-headed Minister-should share the backgrounds of those whom they are supposed to serve. It is absurd that only 2 per cent of officers come from non-English speaking backgrounds when 23 per cent of the community come from such backgrounds. This problem reached crisis point in Cabramatta, where the police could not talk to the community. The police had no relationship with Cabramatta residents. I think recommendation No. 9 is the committee's main recommendation, and we should promote it.

The Government must address this problem and the Minister for Police, who goes around big-noting himself and getting his face in the newspapers and on television, should act rather than simply making a name for himself. The Minister must ensure that police officers relate to the communities they serve. I know that prohibition will not end under the Government or any future Coalition government. However, I acknowledge that the safe injecting room in Kings Cross has saved a number of lives and we should monitor the situation further when the report is released, which will occur after I have left this place. Above all, we must recognise that people who take illegal drugs suffer from a medical problem and need our help. The drug problem should not be allowed to become a crime problem: People must be prevented from breaking into homes and committing robberies on the street. We must understand the addicts, meet and talk to them and get them into some kind of rehabilitation program that will encourage them to get off these pernicious drugs and back into society. These ordinary men and women, many of whom are young, need our help.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [5.37 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and her team on this excellent report by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3. I offer her my apologies for doubting at the beginning of the process how it would turn out. I also congratulate Councillor Thang Ngo of the Unity Party, who lobbied the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and Ms Lee Rhiannon about establishing an inquiry into Cabramatta policing. I am deeply concerned about the Cabramatta community and I was initially worried-Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Richard Jones also made this point-that exposing the community's drug problems would backfire and that Indochinese would be perceived as a bad bunch. So-called "Chinese gangs" are often mentioned in newspapers.

We took the risk and decided to expose the drug problem. We raised the alarm and urged the Government and police to look into it. During that process it was admitted, even within Government circles, that the former Minister for Police was totally ineffectual. He had done nothing; he probably did not even go to Cabramatta. The former Commissioner of Police did not understand the cultural diversities in New South Wales. The committee highlighted that in the report and made many recommendations in that regard. Since then the Government has initiated a number of reforms.

I often go to Cabramatta, and I have seen a remarkable change. Previously the community had many concerns but Cabramatta has now become a much quieter place. Previously people dared not go there because they did not want to be exposed to the many problems. Business people have regained confidence, many more tourists visit Cabramatta, property prices have risen and local people are much happier. I urge the Government to read through the committee's recommendations; it is a worthwhile report. As mentioned by the Hon. Richard Jones, many statements by the Government are rhetoric; the Government still has no firm policy to reform the Police Force overall. I accept that there have been changes to the police philosophy, environment and attitude in Cabramatta.

I congratulate the Minister on the way he has dealt with the recent problems in Chinatown and with the gang wars among the undesirable elements of the Chinese community. The Police Force has co-operated with the community to eradicate those undesirable elements. I, my party, and many citizens of this State, particularly those in Cabramatta, are proud of Councillor Thang Ngo. He stood up not only to the drug trade but also to the police; they are both dangerous activities. His car tyres were slashed and he was threatened by many people. Councillor Thang Ngo did great things for the citizens of this State to fight the drug trade. Like other members of the House I do not agree with the recommendation of Ms Lee Rhiannon. I believe she had good intentions but I feel uncomfortable with her recommendation. As a medical practitioner I agree with the Hon. Richard Jones that addiction is a medical problem.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Would you agree with prescribing more drugs to fix the problem?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: No, I do not think that would fix the problem. If a person has an illness, a doctor would not prescribe more drugs. It is better to provide counselling and rehabilitation, a career pathway and education, but never to give more drugs. That is not medicine. We accept that if there is an illness, providing more drugs in the hope of curing the patient is not the answer.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [5.43 p.m.]: It was not my intention to participate in this debate, but after listening to a number of speakers I find myself prompted to make a number of comments. The Cabramatta policing inquiry conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 was lengthy and somewhat difficult. It took some time to give witnesses the confidence to come forward and talk to the committee so that the committee generally was able to obtain a broad and general view of the problems and concerns. It was not easy to do that in an inquiry pertaining to illegal activities, illicit drugs, alleged improprieties and an alleged failure to act. In addition, a large proportion of the community was greatly concerned that the complaints were not being addressed and nothing was being done about the problem.

For those reasons, one tends to find that some statements were perhaps a little gilded. That was found to be the case with many witnesses who appeared before the committee. It is important to remember that on 29 June 2000 the committee resolved to except the following terms of reference for the inquiry:

That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquire into and report on:

1) the adequacy of police resources in Cabramatta, especially in relation to drug crime;

2) the impact, if any, of the crime index on Cabramatta policing; and

3) the effectiveness of the police service in addressing the needs and problems of Cabramatta residents and in particular people from non-English-speaking backgrounds.

The terms of reference were specific. First, the committee was to inquire into police resources available for deployment to fight drug crime in Cabramatta, which is part of the Greater Hume Local Area Command. Second, the committee was to inquire into any impact of the crime index on Cabramatta policing. It should be noted that the crime index is a clearly defined performance indicator that has been used by the police service since 1998 to compare the success of local area commands in reducing the incidence of five categories of crime. Chapter four of the report deals in great detail with the Greater Hume Local Area Command and the crime index. The third term of reference concerns the effectiveness of the police service in addressing the needs of Cabramatta residents. The committee took evidence from a great number of witnesses and considered that evidence in detail. In some cases the evidence was completely divergent. As the committee continued its investigations the reasons for that divergence became a little more obvious. The committee began to understand why certain positions were being taken.

The committee found that police resources were not adequate and that there was dissent, unease and tension between the officers in the police station and those in charge of the local area command. Those issues had not been addressed for many years, and they have not been addressed since this report was released. Drug problems developed and the situation in Cabramatta deteriorated. Cabramatta residents did not want that to happen; they certainly did not ask for it. They wanted somebody to take notice of that problem and act on it. Of course, the drug dealers, the drug peddlers and those associated with the drug trade did not want any action taken. Whether one likes it or not, that has led to an increase in crime. Many people would not argue with the fact that drug taking is a socio-medical problem with legal implications. People who take drugs become reliant on them.

Ample evidence was given to this committee by heroin and other drug users to the effect that when they require a shot of their preferred drug they will do anything to get it. At the time they do not regret whatever action they take to obtain the funds to purchase their drugs, but they might later suffer remorse. This major problem must be addressed more fully in another place and at another time. It is an accepted fact that drug users, whether in Cabramatta, Singapore, America, Asia or throughout Europe will go to any lengths and commit any crime-whether it is robbing their parents or other people's homes, threatening people with knives, cricket bats, guns, or using physical force-to obtain funds to satisfy their requirements.

Drug-taking is a growing problem in the Cabramatta area. People arrive on the smack express that runs through Cabramatta and obtain their drugs in the blink of an eye. Anyone not watching closely would not notice it. The drug trade in Cabramatta is active and thriving. In fairness, Cabramatta is not the only place where drug-taking is occurring, but Cabramatta is rapidly becoming the major drug centre in the west. The police have failed miserably to address the problem. Some police officers who gave evidence to the committee said that Roseville was a more dangerous place to live than Cabramatta-a statement that beggars belief. Most people realise that there is a major drug problem in Cabramatta.

The committee's report identifies the many problems facing Cabramatta. It has been said that Cabramatta is an extraordinarily ethnically diverse and culturally rich area of Australia. There are some fine people and good schools in this growing and diverse area, and many people enjoy travelling to and from its commercial and retail centres. However, the failure of police to act in Cabramatta has not been satisfactorily addressed. Honourable members will be able to read in the committee's report the comments of Assistant Commissioner Small. He admitted that when he took over the command of that area the police had taken their eye off the ball. Police tended to turn a blind eye to a major problem that was developing as it was all too hard and they had many other things to do.

As the Cabramatta issue was not listed on the crime index it could not be used to justify the increase in crime in other areas. The committee heard evidence from senior members of the Police Force about the crime index in other local area commands-an issue that forced them to try to clean things up. Police did not want the drug problem listed on the crime index. If it was not listed as one of the five major issues in the crime index it was their belief that there was no drug problem in their local area command. Cabramatta, a pivotal point in the western suburbs, can be accessed by rail and by road. Many of the problems that are evident in more remote areas were not evident in Cabramatta. The people of Cabramatta were specific about what they wanted. They had spoken out but nobody in authority listened to them. Paragraph 3.3 of the committee's report, entitled "Origins of the Crime Problem: Drug Supply Factors", states:

The 1999/00 annual report of the NSW Crime Commission is forthright as to the extent of drug crime in Cabramatta.

I am sure that all honourable members are aware that the New South Wales Crime Commission is a responsible and reputable organisation. The report also states:

South East Asia is overwhelmingly the main source of heroin imported into Australia. The importations are controlled by South East Asian organised criminals mainly located in Sydney. Even where the importations occur in other States, the domestic controllers of the importation and distribution are usually based in Sydney. Heroin is mainly obtainable from Cabramatta, Kings Cross, Redfern, Marrickville and Chinatown at wholesale and street levels. Many heroin dealers in regional areas regularly travel to Cabramatta to purchase supplies whilst others arrange for it to be delivered from Sydney.

Frankly, those statistics should have sounded alarm bells-a factor that led to the reference to the committee. The committee was then concerned about getting people to come forward and tell it what was going on as opposed to hearing the sanitised and whitewashed views being presented by people in authority. The extent of the problem in Cabramatta, the growth of that problem, and the way in which the committee dealt with the police crime index are all dealt with in chapter 3 of the report, which is entitled "Cabramatta: Crime Profile."

The report deals also with the drug problem, the demand for drugs, and the supply of drugs. As an area becomes better known for its supply of drugs, there is a honey pot effect. That is what occurred in Cabramatta. Several witnesses said they were concerned that Cabramatta would soon become the drug capital of Australia-something they did not want to happen. Residents had every right to voice their concerns about this matter. Residents affected by drug-related crime in Cabramatta told members of the committee many tales about their concern and distress. They referred to damage to commercial property, to the involvement of young people in drugs, and to the fear of parents for the safety of their children. They referred to needle-stick problems and to the fact that syringes were simply being discarded without any care or concern.

The committee heard from a large number of community members. The committee visited Cabramatta and saw some of the toilets, parks and other areas adversely affected by the drugs problem. Quite frankly, most self-respecting people would be disgusted with those areas. They would not want their children to enter or use those public places and facilities. There and elsewhere the committee observed the types of actions taken by councils that wished to keep public toilets operating. They include removal of normal incandescent lights and replacing them with ultraviolet lights, which I am told makes it difficult for drug users to find veins for injection.

What could be done? The police were not acting to overcome the problem and residents were not being supported. Therefore, the problem could only get worse. Lack of action to deal with the problem caused major distrust between the residents of Cabramatta and the Cabramatta local area command. The committee found that the relationship between police and the community had soured dramatically. That was totally undesirable and unacceptable.

Pursuant to resolution, debate interrupted.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor:

Governor

MESSAGE

I, Professor MARIE BASHIR AC, in pursuance of the power and authority vested in me as Governor of the State of New South Wales, do hereby convene a joint sitting of the Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of the election of persons to fill the seats in the Legislative Council vacated by the Honourable Douglas Moppett and the Honourable Elaine Nile, and I do hereby announce and declare that such Members shall assemble for such purpose on Tuesday the third day of September 2002 at 3:45pm in the building known as the Legislative Council Chamber situated in Macquarie Street in the City of Sydney; and the Members of the Legislative Council and the Members of the Legislative Assembly are hereby required to give their attendance at the said time and place accordingly.

In order that the Members of both Houses of Parliament may be duly informed of the convening of the joint sitting, I have this day addressed a like message to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Office of the Governor
Sydney, 28 August 2002.

The Honourable the
President of the
Legislative Council

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: I warmly welcome to the President's Gallery distinguished guests Ovoau Indiki, his son Andy Indiki, Francis Siga and Alex Ramos, all of whom are from the Naduri village in Papua New Guinea. I understand that Mr Indiki is the oldest surviving Fuzzy Wuzzy Angel.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [6.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [6.03 p.m.]: It is my great honour tonight to welcome to the Chamber and introduce my very good friend from Naduri village, Mr Ovoau Indiki, his son Andy, and two people who have helped me tremendously over the past 11 years in trekking across the Kokoda Track: my head guide, Mr Alex Ramos, and my second head guide, Mr Francis Siga. This is a great honour because, as I said yesterday, today is the sixtieth anniversary of the third day of the Battle at Isurava. As I said last night in the House, 60 years ago the fate of Australia hung in the balance as young men fought a desperate battle, holding the line against a very superior force. Because our support aircraft had been taken out in a bombing attack on Port Moresby, the only way we could resupply our forward troops was with labour from Papua New Guinea, the Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels. They were indentured labour.

Under the old colonial regime Mr Ovoau Indiki was the village constable for Naduri village. He proudly wears a Papua New Guinea independence medal from 1975 but, to our great shame, he wears no medal presented to him by the Australian Government. To this day we have not honoured their service with a medal. Hopefully this is something we can correct in the very near future. As I said, they were our indentured labour to carry our supplies forward. Without that support our diggers would have been defeated. That is a matter of historical fact. They were not paid to carry our wounded back along the track. There was no medical evacuation system. When they came across wounded diggers who could no longer make their way these selfless men-young men at the time-made stretchers out of rough material and picked them up. It took them up to three weeks to travel from Eora Creek back to Sogeri.

One of the men who was carried out was an Australian sapper by the name of Bert Beros. I had the great honour of taking Bert Beros' grandson, Ian Beros, across the Kokoda Track a couple of years ago and he met with Ovoau. It was a very emotional moment. Without the selfless support of Ovoau and his people Bert's grandson would not have been conceived. We owe these people a great debt. When Bert Beros was recuperating in Sogeri hospital he penned a few words of his experience. He coined the phrase "Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels"-they were known as Fuzzy Wuzzys. I would like to share his poem with the House because it captures the spirit and symbolism of the selfless service these people provided. There were many mums back in Australia whose boys-15, 16 and 17-year-olds-were serving up there. The mums had no news of how they were going and could not find out anything because there was no communication system such that we have today. The poem written by Bert Beros reads:

'Tho they haven't any haloes
only holes made in their ears
Their faces are marked with tattoos
they wear scratchpins in their hair
Bringing back the wounded
as steady as a hearse
Using leaves to keep the rain off
and as gentle as a nurse
Slow and steady in bad places
on that awful mountain track
The look upon their faces
makes us think that Christ is black.
Every care to help the wounded
they treat him like a saint
It's a picture worth recording
that an artists yet to paint
Many a lad will see their mothers
and husbands their wee ones and wives
Just because the fuzzy-wuzzies
carried them out and saved their lives
From mortar and machine gun fire
and chance surprise attack
To safety and the care of doctors
at the bottom of the Track
May the mothers of Australia
when they offer up a prayer
Just mention those impromptu angels
with the fuzzy-wuzzy hair.

Fellow members, we are greatly honoured in this Chamber tonight, on the sixtieth anniversary of the battle of Isurava, to have one of those very angels in our midst. I welcome him again to the Chamber and look forward to sharing the next few days with him as we proceed towards the great Kokoda memorial game at Stadium Australia this Saturday night.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [6.08 p.m.]: Community attitudes to sentencing have certainly given judges a beating. This view is not aided by last year's lenient sentence handed down by Judge Latham in the case of R. v AEM (Junior) and AEM (Senior), involving three years for the gang-rape of two Sydney teenagers. The sentence consequently sparked the long debate on sentencing laws and the perceived absence of justice in the court system. It became of concern because the disparity between community opinion and judicial sentencing is such that it may lead to a diminishing of the legitimacy of our court system. Clearly, effective sentencing is an important issue in the minds of the public, and proper debate and discussion has only been hindered by a trigger-happy Opposition.

Talking tough on talkback radio, Opposition members commit a future Coalition government to harsher sentences for every crime that seems to get into the media. The recent flavour of the month is their bravado on mandatory sentencing announced in June, arguing for so-called tougher minimum sentences for rape and drug-related crimes. Last month they called for harsher sentences for hate crimes in another knee-jerk reaction typical of Coalition law and justice policies. Before the last election the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Lane Cove in another place, talked tough on grid sentencing-a discredited policy emanating from America and one which every section of the New South Wales legal profession has passionately opposed, including the judiciary, the Law Reform Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The public evidently also agreed, as the Government was re-elected for a second term.

Not seeming to have learnt their lesson, they now come back to the community with a mandatory sentencing policy that would affect only 5 per cent of criminal offences and that is as despised as the much criticised mandatory sentencing policies adopted by the Burke Government in the Northern Territory a couple of years ago. Indeed, more than two years ago when the New South Wales branch of the National Party voted to call on its MPs to introduce mandatory sentencing for crimes against property and people, one party member at the annual State conference warned that supporting mandatory sentencing could:

... send out a signal not that we are tough on crime but that we are a bunch of reactionary rednecks who do not understand the justice system.

And when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Brogden-he is a known wet in his party who previously opposed mandatory sentencing-starts sprouting lines such as "I am tougher than the lot of you", one can smell opportunism and a grab for cheap populism. The reason for this surprising makeover is allegedly that this will be the Tampa for the Coalition-the issue that will win it the next election. Sensibly, the shadow Minister for Community Services, Mr Hazzard, disagrees with Mr Brogden. In a leaked submission, Mr Hazzard argued that mandatory sentencing and minimum sentencing reduce the level of accountability of the criminal justice system. This is because it transfers the punishment decision to the prosecution, which is not open to public scrutiny though the judges are. Instead, Mr Hazzard argued that we should be looking at ways to ensure that judges properly reflect community values yet still have discretion. But do not take Mr Hazzard's word for it. Take this comment from the Hon. John Ryan to the Sydney Morning Herald last year:

I'm totally opposed to any form of mandatory sentencing.

To further highlight the point, the former Attorney General and Leader of the Opposition in this House, in a comment that one would think was made by the current Attorney General, said to the Australian eight years ago:

There is no doubt that the community wants judges to ensure that sentences reflect the severity of the crime; they do not want politicians interfering in the sentencing process.

And if one wants more convincing, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was not afraid to voice his opposition to the policy. Only two months ago he was quoted as saying:

I don't agree with mandatory sentencing. Look, as a lawyer and as an individual, I think it's better to leave sentencing discretion to judges.

We on this side agree. It is evidently clear to most people-including Mr Hazzard, the Hon. John Ryan, Mr Hannaford, the Prime Minister and even that sole National Party member who spoke against this draconian policy-that mandatory sentencing is not good law. This proposal runs contrary to the expectations of justice. Taking away discretion from judges and the courts only leads it to reappearing elsewhere, and that reduces transparency and accountability. Courts have to provide written judgments with every sentence, and therein lies the accountability. Deciding on an appropriate sentence is never easy. Simplistic and knee-jerk solutions are never the answer, despite the Opposition's attempts to make it so. What is important is that sentences achieve justice.

In 1996 the New South Wales Law Reform Commission outlined the basic principles of sentencing law to include proportionality, consistency and totality. In short, a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, must be consistent in its delivery and must reflect the totality of the offence. These three points seem to provide the common theme emanating from the justifiable community outrage on lenient sentences. The public wants fairness and justice in sentencing, consistent and proportionate to the crime. However, one must be aware of the likes of Opposition members, who are promoting the politics of the lynch mob. As Chief Justice Spigelman of the New South Wales Supreme Court said recently, sentencing is:

... best done by independent, impartial, experienced, professional judges. It is not best done on talkback radio...

In addition to that, nor is it best done in Parliament, and it is simplistic and populist to suggest so. It is unlikely that we as legislators could foresee every possible crime and the circumstances in which it was committed, and propose laws accordingly. [Time expired.]

The Hon. PETER BREEN [6.13 p.m.]: Tonight I draw the attention of honourable members to the plight of Fred and Evelyn Lettice, who are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings issued on behalf of LawCover Pty Ltd, the professional indemnity insurance company wholly owned and operated by the Law Society on behalf of New South Wales solicitors. I spoke about this matter during debate on the Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill, and members may recall that Mr and Mrs Lettice sued their solicitor for negligence over a conveyancing error that failed to reveal they did not have access over a right of way to most of their 25-acre property at Theresa Park, near Camden. The Supreme Court ruled that the solicitor was negligent, and costs and damages were awarded to Mr and Mrs Lettice. LawCover appealed this decision after paying the verdict to the Lettices, and the Court of Appeal ruled, unbelievably, that more than six years had elapsed since the solicitor's error and ordered Mr and Mrs Lettice to repay the original verdict to LawCover plus the costs of the appeal. Now LawCover has issued a creditor's petition against the Lettices for $408,420.

Since I last spoke about the matter the Lettices have successfully forced access to the landlocked part of their land by bringing another action in the Supreme Court under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act. Unfortunately the relevant legislation provides for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs where access is obtained by this means. These additional costs, subdivision costs and selling costs mean that the Lettices will be lucky to clear $300,000 from the sale of the formerly landlocked part of their land. But this would be enough to get them out of trouble if LawCover called off the marble-and-glass lawyers and settled for something less than they might otherwise be entitled to. These lawyers, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, demanded the Lettices sign an undertaking not to further encumber their property, and then subsequently criticised them for not raising the money to pay the LawCover debt. LawCover and their fancy lawyers are not easy to deal with, and others might say they are a landmine on the road to justice. But I call on the Attorney General, who has ultimate responsibility for the Law Society and the administration of justice in New South Wales, to intervene in this matter and attempt to interpose some sanity in the negotiations.

When I last raised this matter with the Attorney, he responded through his Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, to the effect that he, the Attorney, has encouraged LawCover to resolve the matter. The Hon. Ian Macdonald also indicated that the Attorney could not otherwise intervene in the decision-making process of LawCover because it is an independent company. That is simply not true. As I said earlier, LawCover is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Law Society, which is a creature of statute. The Legal Profession Act requires the Law Society to report to the Attorney General each year and the Attorney shall cause the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Attorney General has the same responsibility for the Law Society as the role of God in the order of the universe. Either he can remain silent, as is the custom of the Creator, or the Attorney can involve himself in some planetary manoeuvring on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lettice.

Today I learned that Mr and Mrs Lettice have commenced some manoeuvring of their own by filing a statement of claim in the Supreme Court seeking an injunction against the Law Society. I must emphasise that I knew nothing about this claim, which is breathtaking in its audacity. Mr and Mrs Lettice have asked the Supreme Court to protect law consumers by requiring solicitors to warn their clients that any conveyancing work they do may be rendered obsolete after six years under the statute of limitations. Such a warning would be consistent with the finding of the Court of Appeal in Scarcella v Lettice that the errors of an incompetent solicitor are cured after six years, as if by magic, provided that those errors are discoverable by a competent solicitor.

The appeal judges said it would be apparent to a competent solicitor that the Lettices had a problem. And yet six separate solicitors have conveyed either the Lettice property or the property of their adjoining neighbour in the past twenty years, and none of the solicitors picked up the flaw in the right of way granting access to most of the Lettice property. So much for the judges' observations about conveyancing practice in New South Wales and the competence of solicitors! It says in the Bible we should settle our disputes before going to court, and I sincerely hope that the Attorney General heeds that advice in his role as master of the Law Society.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [6.18 p.m.]: In July this year, I was pleased to attend the changeover night of the Ku-ring-gai Rotary Club when Ivan Edwin Cribb was received as a Paul Harris Fellow. Ivan has been a member of the Rotary Club of Ku-ring-gai for a total of 12 years, holding the classification of "Legal-Local Government". He first joined the club in 1978, but after three years of service was not able to keep up his membership as he had many commitments with organisations and committees working to serve blind and vision-impaired persons. Ivan rejoined the club in 1993 and has served on the board for four years, including as the club's president for the year 1999-2000. Ivan has been interested in many aspects of club service but has always been available to assist with his vocational expertise in law to advise on legal matters as required by various club offices.

Ivan decided to become a lawyer quite early in life as, having lost his sight when he was four, he believed that a legal career would provide opportunities for a person who was blind. He was not prepared to study in a special school and accept the very limited prospects normally available to blind students 60 years ago. He studied arts and law at the University of Sydney and was one of the first blind students to undertake university studies there. Throughout his life he has pioneered the way and created openings for himself that have allowed other people with disabilities to follow. The greater part of Ivan's legal career was served with solicitors Blake Dawson Waldron, where he specialised in local government law. He mainly attended to the diverse and demanding legal requirements of two very large clients: the City of Sydney and the City of Parramatta. Today Ivan is still interested in what he terms "the law" and is currently preparing a lecture series for the University of the Third Age.

Ivan's career in community service began over 40 years ago when he joined the Apex Club of Hurstville. It was as a representative of Apex that he first joined the board of the Guide Dog Association of New South Wales. This was the beginning of 36 years of service to the Royal Guide Dog Associations of Australia, through its many committees, and as National President from 1975 to 1978. Ivan was granted life membership of the New South Wales association in 1997. As well as his work with the guide dogs, Ivan has assisted other organisations and agencies working to improve services for people with disabilities, and he still serves on the Ku-ring-gai council's Access Committee. Ivan has particularly contributed over the last 23 years to the work of the Royal Blind Society. He joined the council of this organisation in 1979 and is still a serving member. He served a maximum term as vice-president and has chaired several of the council's service committees. Information technology and library services have been areas of particular interest, and the recent establishment of National Information and Library Services to provide services taking advantage of technological development has seen him attending committee meetings for this new organisation.

In the 35 years Ivan has lived in the Ku-ring-gai area he assisted many local community organisations. When his children were young his expertise and guidance were sought by their schools and other organisations connected with their sporting and other interests. In more recent times his skills proved very useful during a three-year term as foundation secretary of the Probus Club of Ku-ring-gai West. Ivan was made a member of the Order of Australia in 1994 in recognition of his service to the community and vision impaired people. I bring this matter to the attention of the House because I believe that someone who has given extraordinary community service and found a way to overcome his own disabilities serves as an example for many other people in the community.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [6.22 p.m.]: The Finance Sector Union [FSU] has called on the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [ANZ] to review its relationship with its workers after the Federal Court fined the bank $10,000 for breaches of the Workplace Relations Act. Justice Wilcox imposed the fine after he found that the ANZ had breached the law on four counts for threatening to sack suburban branch manager Joy Buckland for talking to the media about work issues. Justice Wilcox noted in his ruling that the ANZ's conduct went "right to the heart of the rights to be protected under the Act". He accepted the FSU argument that freedom to join and participate in industrial activities is frustrated "if employees are not free to articulate their dissatisfaction with respect to work related matters, both between themselves and through media". FSU State Secretary Geoff Derrick said that the challenge was now for ANZ to deal with the causes of staff dissent rather than shooting the messenger. Mr Derrick said:

The ANZ has been found to breach the most anti-worker laws in the country.

No amount of money can hurt a bank like the ANZ but the decision sends a message to workers that they have rights to speak out on workplace issues.

While ANZ has sought leniency on the basis of their contrition after the event, the reality is that this is the one major bank that has refused to sit down with us and start to deal with the issues of understaffing and stress caused by overwork in the bank.

It's time the ANZ came out of the cold and sat down with its work force and dealt with the issues that are important to ANZ staff and customers-staffing levels, branch closures and customer service.

I fully agree, and also call on the ANZ to act in a civilised way and negotiate with its work force and their representatives.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.24 p.m.]: I recently had the pleasure to participate in the Killara High School's year 12 annual political forum. The forum gives students the opportunity to hear about and question the major issues that are influencing Australia's civic and political life. The usual format is that speakers from four or five parties speak about their philosophy and their day-to-day work, and then students ask their questions.

The project is outstanding for the excellent teaching forum it provides for Killara students. I was very impressed with the organisation of the forum and the whole concept behind it. I was also impressed to find out that the forum has been running for 22 years and the initiator of this great idea, Mr Bruce Kelso, the head history teacher, is still at Killara and still organising this most educative forum. I congratulate Mr Kelso and also the Killara High principal, Dr Mark Carter, who spoke of his commitment to the project when I attended this year's forum. The whole day was very well organised and most enjoyable.

Today I joined the Greens contingent at the rally calling on the Cole royal commission to investigate poor safety in the building industry. Some 8,000 people blocked off Goulburn Street to send a powerful message to the royal commission. That message is one that the Greens completely endorse. If there were a skerrick of commitment on the part of the Coalition Government and the royal commission to clean up the building industry, the commission would focus on safety.

Robyn McGoldrick was one of the speakers at the rally. Robyn's story is tragic, and it was deeply moving. On 4 January 2000 her son Dean and a friend headed to Sydney. Less than one month later he returned to his hometown of Tamworth in a coffin. The chief magistrate hearing the case found that Dean's employer, Advanced Roofing, had failed to provide a safe system of work, adequate instruction and training, and adequate supervision, yet fined the employer less than half the maximum penalty. I understand that the penalty was only $20,000. A 17 year-old's life is worth only $20,000-how disgraceful!

How can a court return seven convictions against an employer yet impose such a small fine, given union estimates that the employer saved $8,000 every time he failed to provide proper scaffolding? Why does not the New South Wales Government enact industrial manslaughter laws to protect the innocent? That question still has not been answered, because I understand from people I spoke to at today's rally that builders are still acting in the same cavalier way as the employer of this young man who died so tragically. What has the Federal Government said about this matter? That embarrassment to the human race, Tony Abbott, has accused the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of misusing safety concerns as an industrial tactic. That is just beyond the pale.

Mr Abbott is peddling rumours to justify a patently political royal commission. Building workers in his own electorate have been killed and maimed in the period that this royal commission has been running. This year in the Warringah electorate a building worker died and several others were injured while working on the job. But the Labor Party has also been found wanting when it comes to the royal commission. Why has the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, not spoken out against this blatantly political royal commission? I acknowledge the excellent speech by a member of this House, Mr West, but I still cannot find a public statement by one Labor leader on the blatant misuse of taxpayers' money to launch an attack on unionism in Australia.

The misuse of taxpayers' money is widespread. The cost of the royal commission into the building industry has blown out to $60 million, and the incomprehensible salary of Mr Cole has contributed to that blow-out. The base salary for Mr Cole is $660,000 plus allowances. That is totally unacceptable. When that is compared to the base hourly rate of builders labourers of $13 an hour, one wonders what political answers that man will come up with for the Coalition Government, which is looking for a clearly political outcome.

The Hon. TONY KELLY [6.29 p.m.]: On behalf of the House I would like to extend my best wishes to a Parliament House employee who has recently become critically ill. Owen McLachlan of Security Services is always a polite and friendly face around Parliament. I believe he developed many close friendships and has earned considerable respect amongst his parliamentary colleagues. I am also aware that Owen is an active member of the Public Service Association and a former Chair of the parliamentary Occupational Health and Safety Committee.

In early July Owen was admitted to intensive care with acute severe pancreatitis. which rapidly progressed to multi-organ failure. Owen is still in a critical condition at Westmead Hospital and will remain there for at least the next two months. Recently parliamentary staff organised a fund-raiser for Owen and his family from which a decent sum of money was raised for the family in this most distressing time. I would like to pay special tribute to all those who organised and helped with the fund-raiser. It is always pleasing to see parliamentary staff and members responding in such a way to the obvious pain and distress of one of their colleagues and their family. On behalf of the House I would like to take this opportunity to send our best wishes to Owen, his wife, Angela, his four-year-old daughter, Krystie, and six-year-old son, Cooper. Our thoughts and prayers are with Owen and his family during this most difficult time.

Motion agreed to.