Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 4 September 2002, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 4 September 2002
______

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

The President offered the Prayers.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Michael Costa tabled the following paper:

Ordered to be printed.

BILLS UNPROCLAIMED

The Hon. Michael Costa tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 3 September 2002.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 2

Report

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, as Chairman, tabled Report No. 14, entitled "Quality of Care for Public Patients and Value for Money in Major Non-metropolitan Hospitals in New South Wales: Final Report", dated September 2002, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions, tabled documents and correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: I seek leave to make a statement about the report.

Leave not granted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ONSOCIAL ISSUES

Reference

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.13 a.m.]: In accordance with paragraph 14 (2) of the resolution establishing standing committees, dated 25 May 1999, I wish to inform the House that the Standing Committee on Social Issues received on 3 September 2002 the following reference from the Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts:

MISCELLANEOUS ACTS AMENDMENT (RELATIONSHIPS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 September.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [11.14 a.m.]: I wish to speak briefly to the bill. As honourable members will remember, I amended the parliamentary superannuation bill when it came before the House in 1999. Unfortunately, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods totally misconstrued, confused and obfuscated the nature of those amendments. On the last occasion the proposed amendments received the complete support of the House. I moved the initial amendments and the Government then amended the remainder of the bill. The same procedures are required on this occasion. The definition of "spouse" should not be changed. "Spouse" should be defined as "husband or wife" and "de facto relationship" should be replaced with "spouse or de facto relationship". Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and I have no objection to the definition of "spouse" that appears in the property bill.

Therefore, I support the amendments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and I believe my colleagues do likewise. On an earlier occasion I made a significant contribution about the difference between "spouse" and "married person". In the interests of brevity I shall not repeat those comments, but I stand by every word I said on that occasion. Indeed, it is telling that the House accepted my views. I do not oppose the objects of this bill, which allow for commercial and other arrangements to be recognised in a fair and non-discriminatory way. I do not believe that this House should play with definitions that have stood the test of time. I say to the Parliamentary Counsel once and for all that the word "spouse" should be used to define a spouse, and that there can be a definition for de facto if it is required. However, the two cannot and should not be confused.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.17 a.m.]: The Greens welcome and support this bill, which is long overdue. It is clear that a number of Acts must be amended to recognise the human rights of people in same-sex relationships, and this bill goes some way towards remedying the situation. For far too long the law in New South Wales has discriminated against same-sex couples and against gay and lesbian members of our society in general. Indeed, that discrimination will continue despite the passing of this bill. Although the bill is a significant advance—and we congratulate the Government on it—a great deal remains to be done. Equal age of consent—which is also long overdue, as identified by other speakers—adoption rights and legalised discrimination are just three areas that must be addressed.

The Greens are very proud of being at the cutting edge of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex activism and law reform. In the 2001 Federal election the Greens fielded Australia's—and possibly the world's—first openly intersex candidate. Senator Bob Brown was the first openly gay member of the Australian Parliament. Giz Watson, MLC, I believe is the first openly lesbian member of the Western Australian Parliament. The Greens are proud to provide a forum and a voice for both activists and the lesbian, gay, transgender and intersex communities at large.

There can be no doubt that relationship rights are incredibly important to those in same-sex relationships. From my knowledge of couples with whom I am personally acquainted and those that I know from my time in the Greens and as a member of Parliament, I can honestly say that this is an issue that affects them very deeply. The law as it stands denies legitimacy to their relationship. The law treats their relationship, their loving lifelong commitments, as a fiction—indeed, as an aberration. And it is just not good enough. The law as it stands is an affront to the values of compassion, tolerance and human decency. So this is indeed a most important bill and a bill that the Greens are very happy to support.

However, we cannot let this legislation pass without a brief comment on the state of law reform in New South Wales. The existing inequality in the legal age of consent for gay men is a shameful blot on our legal landscape. It is disgraceful that in the year 2002 the State of New South Wales still discriminates against gay men in this way. The Greens are very disappointed that the Government has failed to resist the pressure from the right wing and the homophobes. It beggars belief that the Labor Party in New South Wales appears to lack the courage to tackle an issue so morally straightforward as the age of consent.

I am of course aware that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods has brought forward a private member's bill to address this issue, and I congratulate her on doing so. However, the Greens say that this is not good enough from Labor; it should be a Government bill backed by Cabinet, and without a conscience vote from the Labor benches. The Government is hiding behind the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' private member's bill, trying to play off the two parts of the constituency that it is appealing to. It is outrageous that a basic matter of human rights is deemed to be a difficult issue of conscience. I understand that some members vehemently oppose the Government's bill. We are dealing with a question of human rights.

The Greens are also concerned that the Government is continuing to discriminate against same-sex couples in adopting children. The reforms to the Adoption Act perpetuated the offensive notion that same-sex couples are less equipped to be parents than heterosexual couples are. Similarly, we are concerned about the exemptions contained in the Anti-Discrimination Act that continue to allow homophobic discrimination perpetrated by private educational institutions and other bodies. That is clearly something that the Labor Government just has to move on. Whilst the bill is to be commended, if it is to be the sum total of Labor's commitment to gay and lesbian law reform since the 1999 election then the public has a right to be angry. Labor must summon the courage to tackle the more contentious issues if it wants to be seen as a gay and lesbian friendly government. It has taken one small step, but the Labor Government has a long way to go on gay and lesbian law reform.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.23 a.m.]: The Democrats are very committed to gay and lesbian issues, particularly equal rights for same-sex couples. I concede that the Greens may have had the first openly gay senator, but I am not quite sure that it was the first party to run a transgender candidate. I do not think that is correct.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: No, I said intersex.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The honourable member may well be right; I will not make any claims about intersex candidates. It was my predecessor, former Democrats member of the Legislative Council, Elisabeth Kirkby, who introduced the De Facto Relationships Amendment Bill in June 1998. The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues and later reappeared as a Government bill. The Democrats are still involved in the fight against discrimination against gays and lesbians. Democrats Senator Brian Greig continues the fight in the Federal arena. I was extremely pleased and honoured to be awarded the Sydney Star Observer Pride Week award as community supporter of the year. I appreciated the comments that I was a forward-thinking politician. I acknowledge that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and Ms Lee Rhiannon were also nominated for the award.

The bill will extend the definition of "de facto relationship" in the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to a number of other statutes. The definition in the Act of "de facto relationship" does not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The bill will amend 25 Acts to give de facto couples the same rights as traditionally married couples. The main benefits are to do with equal access to public sector superannuation and workers compensation; that is to say, what is left of workers compensation after the Government has mauled it. Same-sex couples will be able to access protections under the Evidence Act and the Defamation Act relating to the compellability of spouses. The Credit Act 1984 will be amended so that same-sex couples come within the ambit of provisions relating to guarantors.

The bill contains amendments to the Electricity (Pacific Power) Act 1950, the Public Sector Management Act 1988, the Teaching Services Act 1980, the Transport Administration Act 1988 and the Waste Recycling and Processing Service Act 1970 to extend the right to inherit the unpaid balance of a deceased de facto partner's unpaid long service leave. These Acts all use the term "widow" and "widower" and some also refer to "dependants". Bearing in mind that public service superannuation has now been amended to include the De Facto Relationships Act definition of de facto partners, it does not make sense that a same-sex de facto partner could inherit the deceased employee's superannuation but not his or her long service leave.

The Police Service Act 1990 and the Sporting Injuries Insurance Act 1978 will be changed to extend the provision of death or injury benefits paid to the partners of insured employees. The Police Service Act may cover same-sex partners already as a spouse is said to include a de facto partner, but "de facto" remains undefined. To avoid uncertainty and pointless litigation the new definition of "de facto" could be inserted. The amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 will extend unpaid leave to the non-biological parent—that is, the co-parent—of a child born to or adopted by a lesbian or gay couple. There is no definition of "de facto" in the Act so the Act should be amended to avoid uncertainty.

Further, co-parents are already entitled to carers' leave when the child falls ill, so it makes no sense to deny them unpaid parenting leave. This leaves a set amount to be divided between the parents. So a change to this Act does not give gay and lesbian parents additional rights, just equal rights. Currently the Landlord and Tenant Act 1899 restricts the right of eviction if the lessor's partner is post-retirement and wants to stay in the house after the lessor's death. Considering that the Retirement Villages Act was amended in 1999 to cover same-sex partners, it now seems very unfair that an elderly same-sex partner can be evicted from a private leased premises but not from a retirement village on the death of the partner.

Amendments to the Evidence Act 1995 will allow a de facto partner to be excused from giving evidence against their partner. The amendment to the Health Insurance Levies Act 1992 will give partners with children access to the family rate of contribution. Amendments to section 63 of the Liquor Act 1982 will allow a partner to carry on business for one month after death of the licensee. Amendments to section 69 will allow the partner to apply for a licence when he or she is disqualified, as can other families and others. There is no definition in this Act currently so it is uncertain what the extent of its coverage is.

The amendments to the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 would extend to a partner the right to appear before a Local Court. That is to say, a person may appear in person, by a solicitor or barrister or by a spouse or employee—in the latter two cases only if authorised in writing. This is not confined to circumstances of incapacity. There is no definition in the Act currently. The amendments to the Adoption Information Act 1990 would provide a partner with access to adoption records after the death of an adopted person or birth parent. It does not give a right to such information as such but states that the director-general may give relatives, broadly defined and including de factos, information. There is also an interim measure for children. While a wide range of issues concerning co-parents and their children have been considered by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, it may be some years before the commission reports and recommendations are implemented. It is also unlikely to spend much time considering adoption as it has already recommended in a previous report that same-sex couples have equal eligibility to adopt.

Communities have expressed strong concerns about protecting their relationships with the children they care for. At present the only means of achieving this is through parenting orders from the Family Court, but such orders are limited in effect and do not continue once the child is of age, nor do they cover inheritance. Amendments to the Adoption Act include same-sex de facto couples. For example, Rob and John wanted to adopt the two children that they had been fostering for the past two years. Under the new Adoption Act only one single person could adopt the children, despite both Rob and John equally parenting the children as foster parents. The home assessment was to assess the suitability of both of them. Consequently, Rob adopted the children. Under the new Adoption Act couples are no longer prioritised over single applicants, so Rob and John would have no trouble adopting the children. The problem is that children are deprived of the economic protection of having two legal parents.

I cite another example. Helen and Nikki have two children by donor insemination, with each woman giving birth to one child. There is no legal father—under the operation of the Status of Children Act, only the consenting male spouse or de facto partner of a woman who conceived by donor insemination is presumed to be the father. Likewise, those two children have only one legal parent each, despite their being born into and raised in a family with two parents. In addition, legally they are not siblings. The definition of the family unit is changing, which I referred to last week during debate on the family impact legislation. There was a time in Australian society when inter-faith marriages between Catholics and Protestants were taboo. Inter-racial relations in marriage is increasing in Australia as well. We should be proud of our diversity. It is logical that same-sex couples in de facto relationships should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. As honourable members would be aware, the Australian Democrats have a bill before the House, the Crimes Amendment (Equal Age of Consent) Bill, which we are keen to debate at the earliest convenience so that the rights of gay couples are given the attention they deserve.

While the Democrats support the bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it, we also expect the Government to support the private member's bill to equalise the age of consent for male homosexuals. The Democrats would like the Leader of the Liberal Party to take a stance in the party room to support the proposed bill to amend the Crimes Act. We know that he supports an equal age of consent and the Democrats would like him to become a real leader on this. If the Government and the Opposition fail to support the bill introduced by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, I will introduce another bill. The Democrats will push this issue until the major parties consent to what should be a moral standard. The Democrats support the bill.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [11.32 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their general support for this bill. As honourable members would be aware, in 1999 the Government passed the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act, which gave same-sex partners the same rights as heterosexual de facto couples in property distribution following the breakdown of a relationship. That bill amended a number of statutes to include same-sex couples in the statutory definition of de facto relationships. This bill continues that process and will amend a number of other New South Wales Acts relating to protections in court, work, leave entitlements and financial security to ensure an inclusive non-discriminatory approach is taken to the recognition of same-sex relationships. Contrary to what was stated by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in his contribution, omnibus legislation of this kind is not unusual—we do it all the time. Apart from the obvious example of the 1999 bill, which has already been mentioned, it has been a regular practice of New South Wales governments to introduce statutory law revision legislation to amend an array of Acts at the end of every parliamentary session.

The number of omnibus bills that have been passed by this House over the years, including the Attorney General's regular program of courts and criminal law miscellaneous reform legislation, is apparent. Accordingly, the concept of omnibus legislation is hardly out of the ordinary. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile made a number of comments on marriage, and proposes in Committee to move a number of amendments relating to that. The Government will respond in specific terms to those amendments. However, the concerns seem to be predicated on the basis that passing this bill will somehow open the door to legislation on same-sex marriages. First, that fails to address the issues that this bill addresses; that is, not legislating for same-sex marriages. Second, as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would be aware, section 51 (xxi) of the Australian Constitution makes marriage the responsibility of the Federal Parliament. It would not be within the province of the New South Wales Government, with the Federal Parliament having taken up responsibility in this area, rightly, under the Constitution, to pass legislation that somehow validates same-sex marriage.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The Federal Parliament is now debating a bill on that.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is something that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile can take up in the Federal Parliament, if he ever gets there, but he need not worry about the consequences that may flow from that because it cannot be done here. All the scaremongering that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has embraced in his contribution fails to address the central point of the bill. The bill does not attempt to equate de facto relationships with marriage. The status of marriage is in no way affected by this bill. This bill does not make de facto relationships equal to marriage; rather it simply extends certain provisions that refer to spouses to include partners in de facto relationships. Therefore, marriage and de facto relationships remain different concepts. It has been suggested that amendments contained in this bill will somehow undermine the concept of the family. In fact, the amendments in this bill do the opposite because they help to promote greater inclusion in the general community of people who live in non-traditional families. The bill does that by applying the property relationships Act definitions to a wide range of concepts that affect people in spousal relationships.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asks why we should do this now. The answer is that this bill continues to do what the Government has already done, and its commitment to de facto and same-sex relationship law, a process that was begun in 1999 when the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act was enacted. That Act introduced the definition of de facto relationships, which the present bill aims to extend to 25 statutes that confer employment benefits and other entitlements, rights, powers and protections that arise as a legal consequence of being a partner in spousal relationships. Whether Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile likes it or not, those relationships exist. If he wants to make a valued and learned contribution to this debate he should turn his attention to why those rights and benefits should not exist in relationships which, notwithstanding his own convictions, exist and will continue to exist.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Not with a same-sex spouse.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Perhaps Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile can tell the House why he believes those rights should not exist in those relationships? Irrespective of his views, those relationships will continue to exist, even if this bill is not passed by the House. They are a fact of life. Apart from continuing the Government's law reform agenda in this area, this bill helps to further the desirable goal of achieving a consistent definition of a de facto relationship across all New South Wales legislation. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that nowhere else do we use the word "spouse" to cover a same-sex relationship. That is not true. Western Australian and Australian Capital Territory legislation does the same thing. It is timely to build upon the Government's commitment in light of developments in other States.

In 1999 Queensland enacted reforms to its Property Law Amendment Act and last year Victoria went further and amended 43 Acts to extend equal rights to same-sex relationships under the Statute Law Amendments Relationships Act 2001. Most recently, this year Western Australia, which used the word "spouse", began stage one of a comprehensive same-sex law reform agenda with the passage of its Acts Amendment (Lesbian and Gay Law Reform) Bill 2001. A second stage of reforms to amend any remaining Western Australian Acts will be pursued later this year. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I urge the House to support the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

New clause 5

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.42 a.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

5 Interpretation

In 1999 I moved this amendment to the Property (Relationships) Act and it was accepted. The amendment removed any doubt about the intent of the legislation. The Government's response to the second reading debate confirmed the need for the amendment by stating that a number of other Labor governments are misusing the word "spouse" to describe partners in same-sex relationships, which only proves my point. Logically, if every State in Australia called partners in same-sex relationships "spouses", it would be very simple for the Federal Parliament—the bill is already before the Senate—to argue that we are discriminating against people of the same sex if we refer to them as spouses but prevent them from legally marrying. Why do we call them a "spouse" if they are not legally married? Why is the Government stopping them from getting married when it has already agreed to call them a "spouse", which means a bride or a bridegroom?

If every State is introducing similar legislation to call same-sex partners "spouses" it would be very simple for the Federal Government to amend the Marriage Act. I do not anticipate that John Howard, the Prime Minister, would do that. But this seems to be a hobbyhorse of the Labor Party. If the Labor Party were to win government federally then, to be consistent, it would argue that partners in same-sex relationships should be called "spouses" in the Federal Marriage Act. It would be simple to make it gender neutral. The Marriage Act would be amended to delete any reference to male or female and insert instead the word "person". It could then apply to a male and female, a male and male, or a female and female. We have already removed gender references in non-controversial legislation. A minor bill could be introduced to remove gender references in the Marriage Act. Members of the Federal Parliament could vote for it without knowing that they had legalised same-sex marriages. It is their responsibility.

My amendment would ensure that the Government honours what it said in this House: it is not its intention to support, accept, recognise or legalise a purported marriage of persons of the same sex. If that is the policy of the Government, but the bill does not deliver it, then we should make it absolutely black and white and include my amendment in the interpretation so that no government can argue that the use of the word "spouse" in this bill has opened the door to the next step to change the meaning of marriage from a union between people of the opposite sex to a union between people of the same sex. For the benefit of the Committee, as the remainder of my amendments, Nos 2 to 49, deal with the same principle I will seek leave to move them in globo, unless the Government would prefer that I move them one by one.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [11.45 a.m.]: Contrary to what Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile stated, nothing in the Property (Relationships) Act bears any resemblance to his amendments. The Government will oppose them for the reasons I have already stated. Nothing in the bill accepts, recognises or legalises gay marriages. To include a statement in the bill of the nature he asks the Committee to embrace would have no legal utility. It is unnecessary, and we do not support it. As I have already stated, the Commonwealth is responsible for marriage, the States are not. It is not as simple as the Commonwealth waking up one day and realising that the States have passed legislation giving same-sex couples certain rights, then deciding to go the next step by amending the Marriage Act.

Any amendment would require a bill to pass through both Houses. A whole process has to be gone through. I would be astonished if passing this bill would somehow pressure the Federal Government into passing legislation that would legitimise same-sex marriages. Scaremongering of that sort should be put aside. If a bill of the type referred to by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile were ever to come before the Federal Parliament for debate it would be dealt with by those who are responsible for it. Let us deal with the legislation with which we are currently confronted. Nothing in the legislation does what Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is suggesting we should be afraid of: the next stage in the reform process.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.47 a.m.]: As I indicated earlier, the Opposition did not intend to oppose the general thrust of the bill. However, I acknowledge the concerns held by many about the term "spouse". The Opposition will support the amendment.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 14

Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin

Mr M. I. Jones
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Mr Ryan

Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Jobling

Noes, 21

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

Mr Egan
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Mrs Sham-Ho
Ms Tebbutt

Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Ms Fazio
Mr Primrose

Pair

Mr Lynn

Ms Saffin

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

New clause 5 negatived.

Schedule 1

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.55 a.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 2 to 49, in globo:

[2] Section 137 (1)

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

[2] Section 9 (2)

spouse

de facto partner

[1] The whole Act (except section 5 (1))

spouse

de facto partner

Insert "or de facto partner" after " the person's spouse" in section 56 (1) and (2) wherever occurring.

[2] Section 56 (3)

Omit section 56 (3). Insert instead:

(3) In this section, in relation to an answer, discovery or production by any person:

de facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

spouse

de facto partner

Insert "or de facto partner" after "to the spouse" in section 16B (3).

[2] Section 16B (4)

spouse

de facto partner

member of the family

de facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

[2] Section 11 (1C)

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

spouse

de facto partner

Amendments Nos 2 to 49 were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel in response to my instruction to correct the wording in the bill. As the bill is currently drafted, the word "spouse" applies to same-sex relationships. With the introduction of this bill, two males or two females in a same-sex relationship suddenly become known as spouses. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, the word "spouse" historically, traditionally and currently refers to a bride or bridegroom. The Government, in response to Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1, argued that the Commonwealth does not follow State legislation. The Government missed one important point in its argument. As all honourable members would know, the Commonwealth and the States seek to implement uniform legislation. Generally, the legislation originates from the Commonwealth and the States support it by introducing uniform legislation. I believe that in this case it is happening back to front and the States are introducing legislation to apply the word "spouse" to same-sex relationships.

I believe that the Attorney General's intentions are deliberate. He knows what he is doing, even if the Premier and the Cabinet do not. This is a left-wing policy direction, because the left wing of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] believes in legalising same-sex marriages. It sees no ethical or legal reason why same-sex partners should not have the right to marry. The Parliamentary Secretary said that I was scaremongering. I am not—I am stating reality. If all the States introduce legislation that defines "spouse" to include same-sex partners, a strong argument will be put by the Australian Democrats, the Greens and probably the left wing of the Federal ALP in the Federal Parliament that the Commonwealth legislation, the Marriage Act, is inconsistent with State legislation. As an example of the intent of our amendments, amendment No. 3 omits the words "spouse of a deceased person includes" and inserts in lieu "de facto partner of a deceased person means". Amendment No. 4 inserts "spouse of a deceased person means the husband or wife of the deceased". The amendments make it clear that the word "spouse" will apply only when it refers to a husband or wife, not to same-sex partners. That is the only change my amendments seek to make. I presented my case in support of the amendments during the second reading debate and I commend them to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [12.00 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments for the reasons I have outlined. We are trying to introduce in this legislation language that will bring about greater consistency and we do not intend to indulge in a tug-of-war over the use of particular words.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [12.00 p.m.]: As I advised previously, the Opposition supports the amendments.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [12.00 p.m.]: In view of the Government's response, I ask: Why in the past has the Government supported similar amendments that applied the definition of "spouse" only to married partners? Those amendments were accepted and stand part of the bill that was passed on 1 December 2000.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 15

Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones

Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti
Mr Ryan
Mr Samios

Mr Tingle

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Jobling

Noes, 21

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

Mr Egan
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Mrs Sham-Ho
Ms Tebbutt

Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Ms Fazio
Mr Primrose

Pair

Mr Lynn

Ms Saffin

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries pecuniary interest disclosure

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Why does the Minister continue to mislead the House—which he did as recently as yesterday—when he is confronted with discrepancies in his pecuniary interest returns? Is it not a fact that the Minister's non-disclosure of his interests in Jensay Pty Ltd and the Olympia Group Pty Ltd was not raised in Parliament before yesterday and that he has never answered questions about his involvement in these companies? When will the Minister come clean and answer questions about his pecuniary interests?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: If Opposition members did their homework they would know that I declared my interests in Jensay Pty Ltd and Olympia Pty Ltd in the 1994 return. That information was detailed in my pecuniary interests statement lodged in 1994. My brief association with these two companies ended in late 1994 and, due to an oversight, it was not referred to in my pecuniary interests statement. Those opposite are a lot of hypocrites to ask me about my pecuniary interests when the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to be Premier of this State, failed to declare not only his pecuniary interest in Northmist but his income as a consultant. That is yet to come. I have written to the Clerk of the Parliaments about this matter and I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.
______

Eddie Obeid

Minister for Mineral Resources

Minister for Fisheries

MEDICINAL HERB INDUSTRY

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer provide the House with details of the development of the medicinal herb industry in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am pleased to inform the House of a project established earlier this year to help develop an industry strategic plan for the development of the medicinal herb industry throughout the Northern Rivers, mid North Coast and New England regions by a consortium of regional development agencies. This project could significantly contribute to the State's regional economy as Australia currently imports approximately $50 million of herbs and herb extracts each year. Along with ongoing expansion in the entire natural therapies industry, there is potential for local growers to obtain a slice of the lucrative medicinal herb market. My office is yet to advise me whether any medicinal herbs might be able to cure my lateral epicondylitis.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Cure your smoking.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: He is a doctor and he thinks epicondylitis is something to do with smoking. He does not know what it is. Even the Hon. John Jobling knows what it is. These local growers could increasingly supply herbs to domestic natural therapies companies, replacing their current reliance on imports. The consortium's key role is to identify specific markets and the full range of herbs that can be grown in the area in order to provide ongoing research and advice for growers who want to support those markets. There may also be opportunities for existing agricultural businesses to diversify into herbs, establishing a second stream of income. As part of the consultative process, public meetings were held in Armidale, Kempsey, Grafton and Lismore with current and potential growers and industry representatives to discuss issues relating to the ongoing local development of this industry. I understand the project also involved consultation with local indigenous communities, which have longstanding traditions in the use of native plants as remedies and treatments. Interestingly, in addition to conventional herbs, there is a growing market for native herbs and plant extracts.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Like tea-tree oil, which is already big in the north.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is a big industry, particularly around your part of the world. Increasingly one sees tea-tree products on shelves and in pharmacies.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: And in my medicine cabinet.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is interesting. These are not only being used in herbal medicines but also as ingredients in cosmetics and as food additives and dietary supplements. Of course, herb growing is not new to these regions. Last year the first herb conference and festival was held at Lismore. The festival was organised by the Australian Herb Growers Industry Association and included a technical conference at Southern Cross University and a growers conference and field day organised by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. I am very pleased to report on this initiative, which will generate and promote a new growth industry that has the potential to provide a boost to the Northern Rivers regional economy. I am particularly heartened by the fact that this issue is of such interest that the media is here to report my answer.

MINISTER FOR MINERAL RESOURCES, AND MINISTER FOR FISHERIES AND Mr CONSTANTINIDIS

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Why did the Minister act as guarantor for a $1.5 million loan to Mr Constantinidis of the Olympia Group and what did he receive in return for providing that guarantee? Has the Minister or any company associated with him ever received any other benefit or remuneration from Mr Constantinidis or any company associated with him?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: That question has nothing to do with the Minister's responsibilities as Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. It is to do with some private business dealings for which the Minister is not responsible to this House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: Madam President, you have regularly ruled that questions relating to matters of public interest and the pecuniary interest disclosure of Ministers are matters that can be asked. This is a matter that directly arises from the Minister's lack of disclosure.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: If a question relates to a member's pecuniary interest declaration then it would be in order. However, the question that was asked by the Hon. Greg Pearce did not relate to a member's pecuniary interest declaration. It related to business dealings.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Yes, it is does.

The Hon. Michael Egan: On a pecuniary interest declaration we do not report business dealings, we report our interests.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: It includes matters of public importance, and a matter of great public importance is the ability of a Minister to be able to do his job properly and impartially. The failure or not of this Minister to detail business dealings that have an effect on issues in this State certainly comes under the gambit of a matter of public importance, and it is a disgrace for the Leader of the Government to try to cover this up.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: I shall read the sessional order in relation to questions. The very first sessional order states that "Questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible."

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: So he is not connected to his pecuniary interest declaration?

The Hon. Michael Egan: That is a silly comment.

The Hon. John Jobling: To the point of order: Clearly, the question of a Minister's standing in dealing with public affairs as a Minister of the Crown is one ground on which the point may well be taken for ruling the question in order. Irrespective of whether members are Ministers or ordinary humble backbenchers, they are required on an annual basis to make disclosures of pecuniary interests under the heading of "Loans" and also under the heading of "Other income". In this case they were not made.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: As I understood the question, it related to whether the Minister had acted as guarantor for a loan. That is not receiving a loan. If we receive a loan, then obviously, in the right circumstances, we are required to declare it as part of our pecuniary interests. But if we give someone a loan, that is not a matter we are required to declare.

The Hon. John Jobling: To clear up any misunderstanding, as the question was put some moments ago, I might remind the House that the question specifically asked the Minister, "Have you ever received any benefit or remuneration?" So both circumstances relating to the pecuniary interests are contained in the question asked by the Hon. Greg Pearce and it specifically names from where the benefit or remuneration had come.

The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: The Minister already has, to some extent, commented on these matters both in the House and in the media. He has associated himself, in my view, by having made some of those comments in any event.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: The comments made by the Hon. John Ryan are so ludicrous that I am surprised he would make them. The fact that a member may have made comments about a matter outside the House does not mean that the comments relate to the public affairs with which the member is officially connected. I might make a comment about the South Sydney Rugby League team. I might make a comment about my favourite beach in New South Wales. I often do. But those are not matters for which I am responsible to this House.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Further to the point of order: The question revolves around a benefit or remuneration. The question asked, "In acting as guarantor for a $1.5 million loan did you receive anything in return?" If the Minister did, that is a benefit, and it needs to be detailed in the Minister's pecuniary register. It is a legitimate and fair question to ask in the public interest.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will now rule on the various points of order. I remind members that the sessional order requires that questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected—not, as argued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, a matter of public importance. It must be a matter with which the Minister is officially connected. In the past I have ruled that questions may be asked about entries in a member's pecuniary interest register. However, the question was not specifically related to the Minister's pecuniary interest register. In future, questions to do with a Minister's private affairs must be directly related to the Minister's entry in the pecuniary interest register. The question was not in order.

WORKCOVER PREMIUM DISCOUNT SCHEME

The Hon. RON DYER: I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. Will the Minister advise the House whether the WorkCover Premium Discount Scheme, which I understand rewards employers who improve their occupational health and safety, has been successful?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I commend the honourable member for his ongoing interest in occupational health and safety and workers compensation. When this Government announced the Premium Discount Scheme the Opposition was sceptical that employers would be able to access the scheme. They were sceptical that there was not enough time to qualify and sceptical about the assistance employers would receive. Their concerns were unfounded. In its first year this scheme to improve occupational health and safety has resulted in a $21 million saving for employers through reduced workers compensation premiums. The initiative already has meant safer working conditions for 121,000 New South Wales employees. The scheme has exceeded all expectations. Eight hundred and sixty-five employers are taking part in the scheme, earning premium rebates of $21 million, and establishing a greater awareness of occupational health and safety throughout workplaces in New South Wales.

The Premium Discount Scheme was introduced in 2001 as part of a drive to change the culture in workers compensation and occupational health and safety. The scheme gives employers great incentive to improve workplace safety and to help employees recover and return to good health sooner. Employers who achieve their goals can attain a maximum discount of $75,000 in the first year. One hundred employers achieved the best possible result, with an average saving to individual businesses of more than $24,000. These figures clearly demonstrate that the scheme is succeeding.

The scheme is also achieving its primary goal of attracting small and medium-size employers, employers with a history of poor claims and employers in the high-risk industries. Employers in high-risk categories make up 73 per cent of participants in the scheme, headed by manufacturing, health and community services, property and business services, and construction. Among the many individual success stories to come from the scheme this year is a family-run supermarket at Cobar, which received a $8,800 rebate; a group of aged care facilities at Nowra which received rebates ranging up to $19,000; and a Newcastle-based engineering firm which topped the $64,000 mark.

These examples demonstrate that investing in occupational health and safety is not only good for the wellbeing of employees but also makes good business sense. A safer workplace is a more productive workplace. Employers who improve their occupational health and safety will experience the dual benefits of fewer claims and fewer injuries to their employees. The Premium Discount Scheme—with $21 million in premium reductions—is a great example of the positive change this Government is bringing to workers compensation and occupational health and safety in New South Wales.

FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE VEHICLES

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Transport. What is the Minister's view of Paul Keating's indecent, discriminatory and insulting attack on law-abiding owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles? Does Paul Keating have any influence on the Government's policies? As Paul Keating was swept from office in an electoral backlash of such proportion perhaps bested only by the equally appropriate drubbing of Gough Whitlam, are his views of any consequence to the Government? Will the Government at any stage adopt the Paul Keating view of four-wheel-drive vehicles and hence legislate in any way that would be considered negative by the hundreds of thousands of legitimate law-abiding four-wheel-drive owners in New South Wales?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: While we enjoyed listening to the question, it was out of order in that it seeks an opinion. If the Hon. David Oldfield has a fascination with Paul Keating, might I suggest to him and all other honourable members of the House, particularly Liberal members, that they get last Thursday's Australian Financial Review and read Paul Keating's letter to that newspaper about Michael Baume.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is quite clear that the question was seeking an opinion. Therefore the question is out of order. The honourable member might wish to rephrase the question.

MINISTER FOR MINERAL RESOURCES, AND MINISTER FOR FISHERIES PECUNIARY INTEREST DISCLOSURE

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. In reference to the Minister's pecuniary interest disclosures or omissions, and to his probity as a Minister of the Crown, did he sell any of his or his family's stake in the company group Media Press to a family member of corrupt Rockdale councillor Andrew Smirnis? When the Minister had an interest in Media Press did it ever charge less or more than standard commercial rates for printing jobs done for the Australian Labor Party?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The question is clearly out of order—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Because you don't like it?

The Hon. Michael Egan: No. It is out of order. It does not relate to public affairs for which the Minister is responsible.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It refers to the Minister's pecuniary interests, as it has been suggested that Opposition questions should do.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Just because the words "pecuniary interests" were contained in the question does not make it admissible.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: It is hard for Opposition and crossbench members to address the question of the Minister's pecuniary interests because the Minister has not been putting his pecuniary interests on the register. Therefore, Madam President, when you rule the question out of order because the pecuniary interest is not on the register, members have the problem that the Minister has not registered the interest in the first place. Can you suggest to us how we can get around that problem?

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order: I argue that this is a matter of public interest. The relevant standing order provides that questions may refer to other public matters connected with the business of the House. Clearly, the question that I asked is connected with the business of the House in terms of the ability of the Minister to carry out his job. It goes to the very heart of the issue, the integrity of the Minister. I argue most strongly that we cannot separate the two issues; otherwise, this House is headed down a very dangerous path.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: If Ms Lee Rhiannon is suggesting that her question was impugning a member of the House, she should know that she cannot do that by way of question; she must do it by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: It is important for this House and the Government of this State that we maintain comprehensive registers of pecuniary interests. If there is any questionable conduct by Ministers the House should be able to inquire about that. If technicalities stop that process then parliamentary accountability is impeded. I put it to you that it is important that questions such as this should be heard and answered.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: The question is as relevant as my asking the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who he sold his cattle to.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am not a Minister of the Crown—yet.

The Hon. Michael Costa: You never will be.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Even though he probably never will be a Minister of the Crown, the point simply is that his dealings as a farmer have nothing to do with the public affairs of the Chamber.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am an Opposition member.

The Hon. Michael Egan: And guess what? You are going to stay one too. The question of Ms Lee Rhiannon had nothing to do with the Minister's pecuniary interest declaration.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Oh, you know that, do you?

The Hon. Michael Egan: I listened to the question. It was about the prices that Media Press charged at the time. It was also about to whom the Minister may have sold some interest in the business. It had nothing to do with this House.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: To the point of order: I am not aware what the Minister was referring to when he was referring to the standing orders. I am looking at Standing Order 29. It says specifically:

Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other Members, relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such Members may be concerned, and the Clerk shall enter upon the Minutes of Proceedings the Questions...

That is under the heading of "Answers recorded to Questions respecting Public Business". I do not know where the Minister got his other little quote from but that is what is provided in Standing Order 29.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti that Standing Order 29 has been superseded by the sessional orders agreed to for this session and the previous session. The sessional order, that superseded Standing Order 29, provides that questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. The sessional order referred to by Ms Lee Rhiannon, which relates to any matter connected with the business on the notice paper, is for members of Parliament who have charge of a matter but who are not Ministers. So it is quite clear what questions may be asked of Ministers. I have in the past allowed questions which relate directly to a statement made by a Minister in the pecuniary interests register, and I will continue to allow questions that relate directly to a matter that has been reported in the pecuniary interests register. So that part of Ms Lee Rhiannon's question which relates directly to a particular statement made by the Minister in the register may be in order and she may wish to rephrase it, but the rest of the question is certainly out of order.

MINISTER FOR MINERAL RESOURCES, AND MINISTER FOR FISHERIES PECUNIARY INTEREST DISCLOSURE

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. I refer to your pecuniary interests disclosures for 1994 and 1995. In 1994 you disclosed that you were a director of Jensay Pty Ltd and Olympia Group Pty Ltd along with Al Constantinidis. You further disclosed under sources of income that you received income as a member of Parliament and as a director of Obeid Corporation. In 1995 you failed to disclose the two directorships, in breach of the Constitution—

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce is now making assertions. He is not entitled to make assertions in the question. A so-called question that includes assertions is clearly out of order.

The Hon. John Jobling: To the point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce is merely giving some information to make the understanding of the question perfectly clear. He is not making assertions; he is giving information relating to the question that he proposes to ask.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Paragraph 1 (a) of the sessional order relating to the rules for questions makes it clear that questions must not contain statements of fact or names of persons, unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated. Therefore, the question of the Hon. Greg Pearce is out of order.

INDEPENDENT ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth. What is the New South Wales Government doing to provide young people in New South Wales with safe entertainment?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am pleased to provide the House with information about what the Government is doing to support young people. All members would have read this morning's reports about binge drinking. Incredibly serious information has come forward that is of concern to anyone who cares about young people, particularly parents of adolescent children. Access to safe and affordable recreational opportunities that are drug and alcohol free can play a part. I do not say that it is the sole answer to binge drinking—it is clearly not—but it has to be one of the factors. That is why the Independent Entertainment Network or Indent, which I will again talk about today, is a most important initiative that the Government has in place for young people.

Time and again young people raise concerns about the availability of entertainment and recreational opportunities that are not just about having fun but a way to prevent social problems among young people living in isolated situations. This is particular the case for young people in rural and regional communities. Indent supports young people in planning and staging their own events and in showcasing local talent in locations where young people have limited entertainment options. In 2002-03 the Government will provide $250,000 to Indent. I am pleased to advise the House that as part of that commitment a new round of eight Indent grants was recently agreed to. Seven of the grants were for young people in rural and regional areas. The grants of up to $2,000 will go to the following organisers: Coffs Harbour Indent, Barraba Indent, Queanbeyan Youth Council, Griffith Youth Committee, Tyro Indent in Temora, Newcastle Women's Performance Network, Yenco Indent in Lismore, and Wise 'Em Up Indent in Parramatta.

The events include a multimedia and electronic music exhibition in Coffs Harbour, a show featuring comedians and an air guitar competition in Lismore, an all-ages event showcasing young local female musicians and performers in Newcastle, and an all-ages show in Griffith with a high-profile band that will conduct songwriting and music workshops as well as performing. All the events funded through Indent are devised, developed, promoted and presented by young people with the support of a local organisation such as a local council, a police and community youth club or youth centre that provides practical support to help make the event a success.

MusicNSW co-ordinates the project and provides support, information, resources and workshops in event production and promotion to ensure that the events are safe and successful. Indent is also guided by an advisory committee, of which half are young people. All events are drug and alcohol free and a transport subsidy is also available in regional areas. This is the fifth round of one-off event grants announced since Indent was launched in October 2000. This, together with an additional 15 partnership grants announced annually, brings the number of Indent assisted events in New South Wales to 77 in this year alone. I advise the House that applications for the 2003 Indent Partnership Grants are now open and applications close on 14 October 2002.

MANLY AND MONA VALE HOSPITALS

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the likely possibility that Manly and Mona Vale hospitals will be merged, or one of them will be closed, leaving only one hospital on the northern beaches—and I live on the northern beaches. Given that the local community is strongly against the closure of either of these hospitals and last year 6,000 local residents attended a rally to save Mona Vale hospital, will the Minister inform the House whether there will be any community consultation before the final decision is made? If not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health. When I have obtained a response I will provide it to the House.

BULLDOGS RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Local Government. Has the Minister ever discussed the proposed redevelopment of the Bulldogs Rugby League Club site at Belmore with any member of the Canterbury City Council? If so, what was the nature of that discussion? What did the Minister ask the councillor to consider? What did the Minister indicate were the implications of the council failing to approve the project?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The answer is no.

OPERATION VIKINGS

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on Operation Vikings?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the Hon. Tony Kelly for asking a question that does not waste the time of question time. As the House would be aware, from 1 July all police officers are required to perform visible street policing as part of the Government's high-impact policing strategy. I am pleased to advise that since 24 May a number of operations have been conducted by the New South Wales Police Force under the umbrella of Operation Vikings in Sydney, Wollongong and Dubbo. I am advised that there will be further operations in regional centres. On the night of Saturday 31 August New South Wales Police staged the tenth Operation Vikings on the streets of Western Sydney. I am advised that 380 police saturated the streets of Granville, Rosehill, Parramatta, Blacktown, Mount Druitt, Holroyd and St Marys.

The police were led by Deputy Commissioner Dave Madden and Senior Assistant Commissioner Peter Walsh, who personally oversighted the operation. As a result there were 117 arrests, 143 charges for antisocial street crime and criminal offences, 53 knife searches, patrols of 97 trains and 98 licensed premises, 892 traffic infringement notices issued, 4,680 random breath test conducted, and 46 people charged with drink-driving. I congratulate NSW Police on that very effective operation that demonstrated how high-visibility, high-impact policing works to make our streets safer. No wonder the community strongly supports those operations. Wherever I go members of the community ask me when Operation Vikings is going to their local community.

I am pleased to report that police have conducted 10 Operation Vikings and that since the first operation have arrested 403 people, laid 581 charges, and conducted 18,466 random breath tests. Police have patrolled 1,397 trains and 500 licensed premises, issued 3,774 traffic infringement notices, conducted 497 knife searches, issued 525 move-on directions, and conducted 85 drug searches and 55 drug dog searches. Nearly 2,700 police were deployed in those operations, drawn from a range of commands including transit police, special crime and internal affairs, police and community youth clubs, traffic services, education services, the water police, legal services, the dog squad and the mounted police.

The results speak for themselves. Again, I thank the police who have been involved in the very important Operation Vikings. The Opposition had described Operation Vikings as "operation knee jerk". John Brogden, the Pinocchio of Pittwater, who constantly lies about crime matters, described Operation Vikings as "operation knee jerk". That shows how out of touch the Opposition is on crime-related incidents. The Pinocchio of Pittwater, John Brogden, should apologise to the community.

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS REGISTRATION

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. In relation to the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council's work on a framework for national minimum standards for the conduct and safety of alternative and complementary medicine, how is the Government's submission to the Federal Government seeking funds for this activity progressing? Does the Government still intend to register traditional Chinese medical practitioners? What is the time frame for that registration? Will it occur before the next election?

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: You wouldn't have a clue.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I see that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is suffering from a blood simmering. I do not want an argument between the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti and the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. On this issue I am probably on the side of the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. I will very happily refer his question to the Minister for Health and obtain a response.

MINISTER FOR MINERAL RESOURCES, AND MINSTER FOR FISHERIES PECUNIARY INTEREST DISCLOSURE

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Has the Minister received any income or remuneration arising from his directorship of Jensay Pty Ltd or Olympia Group Pty Ltd? If so, why was that not disclosed in his pecuniary interests declaration?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I am very happy to answer that question. The answer is no. Neither was I a shareholder.

BEIJING 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer provide the House with the latest details of business generation opportunities from the Sydney-Beijing Olympics Secretariat?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: This is an important question that deserves an important answer. The other importance of today's question time is that it has taken almost 45 minutes for the Opposition to learn how to frame a question.

The Hon. Don Harwin: No it has not; question time started at 12.08.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Okay, I apologise. It has taken almost 40 minutes for the Opposition to learn how to frame a question. And I thank the Hon. Don Harwin for drawing that to my attention. But look at the embarrassment of members opposite! I am pleased to provide an update on the activities of the Sydney-Beijing Olympics Secretariat. I would have thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know how to frame a question; he has been here long enough. Earlier this year I informed the House that the State Government had established the Sydney-Beijing Olympics Secretariat, a program to assist New South Wales companies capture business opportunities directly connected with the Beijing 2008 Olympics.

[Interruption]

The present Leader of the Opposition is probably the dumbest person ever to hold the office. The secretariat's services to the Beijing Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [BOCOG], the Beijing Municipal Government and the Olympic-related agencies in China include the provision of strategic advice and assistance, the co-ordination of games-related visits between Beijing and Sydney, introductions to businesses in Australia, independent appraisal of Australian consultants and businesses offering services directly to BOCOG, and workshops and other fora in Beijing and Sydney to assist in strategic and operational planning. The secretariat offers a range of services to local businesses, such as informal strategic advice and assistance, independent and realistic assessment of opportunities, a specialised information resource, and assistance with the timing and composition of trade missions and other Australian promotional activities in China.

To date the secretariat has provided advice and briefings during site visits to Sydney Olympic Park to some 25 trade missions from China. In fact, a major workshop for up to 20 senior BOCOG personnel is proposed in Sydney in mid November. During August there was a major program to support three Chinese construction companies seeking Australian partners and consultants for Beijing Olympic project bids. I understand the secretariat has been working closely with Telstra to assist its efforts to win Olympic-related work in Beijing. The secretariat has helped four local legal firms that are bidding for a role to assist the Beijing Municipal Government with the evaluation of Olympic tenders. The secretariat has assisted two trade missions to China, provided technical advice at a number of the business fora in Sydney and provided direct advice to a large number of local businesses.

The secretariat further advises that the first major sports-related fundraising event will be held later this month in Beijing. Organised by a Sydney-based marketing company together with the Australian Embassy, the event will focus on a visit to Beijing by the Australian swimming champion, Ian Thorpe. I am pleased to report on the ongoing activities of the Sydney-Beijing Olympics Secretariat, and trust that it will continue to assist the growing number of New South Wales companies to capture business opportunities associated with the Beijing Games.

MAJOR EVENTS FUNDING

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. On what criteria does the State Government give public money to major events? How many applications for public funding of major events are accepted by the Government, and how many are rejected? On what grounds are these decisions made? What was the cost benefit of the $6 million granted to the Rugby World Cup and the decision not to grant support to the mardi gras? Does the Government use any cost-benefit analysis to grant or reject funding to one event over another? If so, why does the Government not release these figures publicly and promptly? In the absence of cost-benefit analysis, does the Treasurer admit that ad hoc handouts may be granted using improper criteria?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has asked a number of questions involving some detail. I will obtain information on those aspects of his question and provide them to the House. In relation to the Rugby World Cup, I read in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Rugby World Cup will have an estimated economic benefit to Australia of some $800 million.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What I want to know is where I can get some tickets.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: For the Rugby World Cup?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Like everybody else, you will have to buy them. I too would like to go to the Rugby World Cup. Four of the main events will be held at Sydney Olympic Park, at the Olympic stadium.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Telstra Stadium.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is right, Telstra Stadium.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: No, it will be called Stadium Australia for the purposes of the World Cup.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am a little confused, as one becomes when one relies on information from the Opposition. It gives out conflicting information. Are we all going to the Rugby World Cup?

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: If we can get tickets.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am sure we will get tickets somehow. I tell you what, I will host a function and you can all come and watch the final on television with me. It will be fought out between Australia and Ireland. For all the other events I am afraid you will have to make other arrangements. Is the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans interested in the Rugby World Cup?

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Yes, I am.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Will you go to see it?

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: I would hope so.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Does that mean that you will accept my invitation? I am not sure I extended it to everyone in the House.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: I would be happy to. Thank you.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: He is a Kings boy. They buy their rugby players.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: And can't you tell!

CHIFLEY POLICE LOCAL AREA COMMAND

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is to the Minister for Police. How can the Minister claim that the recent attestation of officers from the Goulburn Police Academy will boost country police numbers when, in the case of the Chifley Local Area Command, 11 probationary constables are replacing 12 officers on long-term sick leave, effectively leaving the command still under strength?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am absolutely amazed by this question. If the honourable member believes that the probationary constables who will go to that particular area are not appropriate police officers to serve the community he ought to say that. Also, he ought to know that we have already made a commitment to use our December class to backfill against long-term sick leave. We will finally have a solution to this problem in December. We have record numbers of police. The Opposition has been highly embarrassed. It has made absurd assertions about policing numbers, crime statistics and government legislation. The Pinocchio of Pittwater has been caught out again this week making statements about criminal infringement notices [CINs]. He has made incorrect statements about police station operating hours and police crime statistics in Orange. He is fast developing a reputation as someone who cannot tell the truth about policing.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: The question specifically related to the Chifley Local Area Command. It has nothing to do with Pittwater or anywhere else. I ask that the Minister be directed to confine his remarks to the Chifley Local Area Command.

The Hon. Michael Egan: On another point of order: The Minister should not refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Pinocchio of Pittwater because to do so is disorderly. What he can do is refer to the Opposition leader, who is commonly known as the Pinocchio of Pittwater.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the sessional order relating to questions without notice, which requires an answer to be relevant to the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the Treasurer for his advice. I will no longer refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Pinocchio from Pittwater. I will refer to him as the Leader of the Opposition, often referred to as the Pinocchio from Pittwater. He is the Pinocchio from Pittwater because he tells lies constantly.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: The Minister for Police is flouting the ruling that you gave in response to the point of order, that is, that the answer had to be relevant to the question.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: The Minister has flouted the ruling, just as he flouted the rules of this House when he and the Minister for Mineral Resources passed before the Chair earlier today. I ask that you call him to order.

The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: The Minister made the statement that somebody lied. As I understand it, that accusation is an imputation and an unparliamentary remark.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Are you asking that the imputation be withdrawn or are you speaking further to the original point of order?

The Hon. John Ryan: I simply ask that he not use unparliamentary remarks.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister again that his answer must be relevant to the question, which related to police strength in Chifley. A general discussion about police strengths in other areas is permissible, but the Minister must answer the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We have record numbers of police at the moment. Last Friday 637 recruits graduated from the police academy. It was a great honour to attend that graduation and see the enthusiasm of our police, who will be sent out across a range of regional areas. The Opposition should point that out to the Pinocchio from Pittwater. [Time expired.]

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister care to elucidate on police numbers in Chifley?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am pleased to elucidate on police numbers in this State. It is very gratifying to be police Minister at a time when we have a record budget of $1.8 billion and a record number of police. As the Treasurer rightly points out, it is because of his generosity that we have a record budget of $1.8 billion. Last Friday 637 new recruits graduated from the police academy. More importantly—and this has not been widely reported—11 people rejoined the Police Force. There is a sense of vigour and optimism in policing. The numbers I referred to when speaking about Operation Vikings—

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The Minister was asked specifically about police numbers in Chifley. He is now waffling. He has had time to make comments. He should now answer the question about police numbers in Chifley.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have already ruled that the Minister may make general comments about police numbers. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is pleasing to be police Minister at a time of a record budget of $1.8 billion, record numbers of police and a record number of recruits and rejoinees coming through the police academy. For the first time we have rejoinees. We are experiencing a renewed vigour in policing in this State. Operation Vikings has been a tremendous success. The only problem we have is that Pinocchio from Pittwater continues to tell untruths.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The Minister has had plenty of time to make comments. He has now been asked a specific question about police numbers in Chifley. I ask that you direct him to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I ruled previously, the Minister may make general comments about police numbers. However, I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: I ask that you rule that the expression "Pinocchio from Pittwater" is out of order.

The Hon. Michael Egan: What about "Tutti Frutti"?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That has been ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Certainly imputations against members of this House or of another House are out of order unless raised by substantive motion.

TED NOFFS AWARDS

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister advise the House as to the recognition given to individuals and organisations working in the drug and alcohol field?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Sadly, the work of many individuals and organisations in the drug and alcohol field often goes unrecognised. However, recently I attended the Ted Noffs Awards evening, which is an annual event to honour the life-long work of the late Reverend Ted Noffs. As honourable members would be aware, the late Ted Noffs devoted much of his life to helping some of the most marginalised people in our community, particularly those with drug and alcohol problems. The Ted Noffs Awards recognise the exceptional work being done by individuals and organisations and promote best practice in the drug and alcohol field. Awards are given in the areas of treatment, prevention, organisational excellence, individual contribution, and youth and specialised service. Family Drug Support, headed by Tony Trimingham, won the organisational excellence award. This organisation provides an important support service to families and carers who struggle with the drug use of a loved one. The service relies on trained volunteers who provide 24-hour telephone support.

Many honourable members would also know of Garth Popple, Executive Director of "We Help Ourselves", which is an organisation with a 30-year history of helping people recover from drug and alcohol problems in a therapeutic community setting. Garth received a special commendation for his lifetime contribution to drug and alcohol service. I had the honour of presenting the Treatment Award to the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia for its Illicit Drug Training for Pharmacy Project. This project recognises that pharmacies, as key community service providers and respected sources of reliable information, are in a unique position to work with illicit drug users and address drug issues from a community perspective. There were many other deserving award winners, but I would like to particularly mention the special commendation award under the youth specific category received by the Mudgee Community Drug Action Team.

The Mudgee Community Drug Action Team is one of the 73 teams formed as a result of the New South Wales Drug Summit. The team was established in 2001. Its members consist of representatives from parents and young people in the community, local high schools, police, Police and Community Youth Club [PCYC] and other youth liaison officers, Mudgee Shire Council, Community Health, Legal Aid, the Frontline church and local pharmacists. The Mudgee Drug Action Team receives support and sponsorship from local business and the New South Wales Government. The team is clearly a great example of a community working together to address its local issues. I congratulate them on their work and on winning this award. I also congratulate Wes and Amanda Noffs on their organisation of the awards night and their work with the young people of New South Wales, particularly in relation to drug use and abuse.

NATIVE FORESTS CHARCOAL PRODUCTION

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Planning as head of the Cabinet sub-committee on forestry. This question may also be referred to the Minister for Forestry. I seek guidance where a question relates to two portfolios. On a number of occasions a question has been referred to one Minister then sent to another Minister after the statutory time period and we do not receive an answer for a very long time. What proposals are being considered or investigated by the Government or State Forests regarding the production of charcoal from either the public native forests or private native forests in New South Wales? Will supply of charcoal production from public native forests be sourced only from areas subject to a regional forest agreement with the Commonwealth and, if so, which areas may be the source of supply?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will refer the question to the Minister for Planning and ask him to provide a prompt answer to the Hon. Ian Cohen. If the Minister for Planning is required to pass the question on to the Minister for Forestry, I am sure he will do so as expeditiously as possible.

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

DEFERRED ANSWERS

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

PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS COMPULSORY PHYSICAL EDUCATION

NSW Schools Fitness and Physical Activity Survey 1997,

HOTEL TRADING HOURS

WOMEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Questions without notice concluded.

ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTERLOCK DEVICES) BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Eddie Obeid agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

[The President left the chair at 1.11 p.m. The House resumed at 2.40 p.m.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT

Report: Redevelopment and Remediation of the Rhodes Peninsula

Debate resumed from 28 August.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.40 p.m.]: The report on the redevelopment and remediation of the Rhodes Peninsula basically deals with the difficult area at which scientific information meets with legislative and planning regulation, the difficulty being that science has no certainty. Also, available land close to rail transport has significant financial incentives for those who wish to develop it, and, therefore, pressure is on the Government to come up with an appropriate method for approval. The land in question is divided into a number of sites and is quite complex because it involves different owners, remediation procedures and pollutants. The remediation methods comprise various attempts to treat the affected area or cover it with a physical barrier, such as walls, to stop leaching.

This may have an effect on concentrations which, as time passes, results in a number of chemicals remaining attached to elements in the soil or leaching down a gradient where a barrier does not exist. If the barrier is disturbed one finds a wall with a capping layer of relatively impervious clay-like soil. The soil is then treated to return it to appropriate levels, exposing the land to the atmosphere and to the danger of further leaching. Therefore, any treatment must result in low emissions so that it does not adversely affect those involved in the treatment process or surrounding residents when gases are emitted or leachate enters the water systems. If that happens and the mud becomes polluted, small creatures in the mud may be eaten by bigger creatures, which are then eaten by humans, and this chain of events may cause a higher concentration of pollutants to the extent that it becomes toxic.

When I was involved in occupational medicine, remediation studies were carried out on some of the sites around the Parramatta River. I was asked by extremely intelligent and well-motivated people to examine them. They wanted to be tested for everything because they were unaware of what pollutants were in the soil. I told them that was likely to be an unproductive exercise unless I knew their involvement. They told me that once a week they would take buckets of samples from the site to be examined by scientists at the laboratories. I told them that did not appear to be too toxic, but I asked whether they wore protective masks. They informed me there was no smell or visible evidence of pollutants. Test results proved normal. It is not merely a question of whether a toxin is present in the soil but whether it is biodegradable—in other words, whether it is in the air in a quantity that could be absorbed by the body or is ingestible. If that is not the case the danger is relatively small.

Scientists and supervisors working in laboratories many kilometres from the relevant site were thoroughly tested, with no expense spared, whereas the blue-singlet contractors driving the bulldozers and backhoes to excavate the site did not turn up to be tested. While I worked at Sydney Water an attempt was made to combine sewage sludge and waste products with fly ash, in some way that I did not quite understand, to get rid of the toxic material by incorporating it into bricks. It was claimed to make the bricks lighter and was said to be a brilliant idea. A pilot program was set up at Greystanes. The substances were put into a kiln and boiled up.

The experiment came to an abrupt end because the smell from the kiln was so awful that the entire laboratory was evacuated. The poor scientist responsible was given a very bad time by his colleagues as the man who stank out the office for some time. The experiment was considered to be a general failure. One of the hygienists I later worked with, who was himself a very accomplished industrial chemist, commented that the class of chemical involved was not destroyed by heat until it was some hundreds of degrees hotter than the kiln was capable of achieving. He said that the process might have worked if a hotter kiln had been used and it was a shame that the process was thrown overboard because it was quite a good idea.

These remarks are somewhat parenthetical to this debate. What is being suggested is thermal desorption technologies in which things are heated and then become harmless as they are effectively consumed in the heating process. The materials have to be excavated and put into fairly large kilns, because fairly large quantities of soil have to be remediated. A large amount of heat has to be put in and emissions will be given off. Whatever chemicals are there may be turned into the more toxic forms, which are often gases, than if they were still attached to the soil under some sort of covering layer or simply attached to the lower sediments. They become far more bioavailable—available to pollute the atmosphere and people working on the remediation process or people in the surrounding area.

It is one thing to say this is possible and to establish such a process and to say that we will monitor it and we will stop it if it causes more than a certain amount of measured pollution. Of course, once the project is started and huge amounts of money are put into excavating the soil, setting up the treatment technology and then using it, the items monitored may not be exactly as anticipated. Complaints from the residents may depend on wind directions. Technology that works in some areas may not work in others, depending on the previous contamination of the soil. After the commitment of such huge resources there can be an immense incentive not to desist following complaints from residents. An example is the Port Kembla copper smelter, where new technologies were grafted onto an old plant that had been closed for some years. It caused a problem to residents and they wanted to close it down. The monitoring, at least according to the residents, was quite unsatisfactory. The contract allowed certain peaks to be exceeded a certain number of times per month and so on, which meant that the health effects were difficult to follow.

All of this leads to the conclusion that if we are not sure of what we are doing it is perhaps better to do very little and to be very conservative in what we attempt. The recommendations ask that the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] be an approval body. It is very difficult for a group, often of lay people, to come to a conclusion as to what ought to be done on a complex issue. The Democrats advocate caution. I have not heard all the evidence and it is very difficult to assess the situation. As I said last week, I am impressed by the fact that the report has a number of dissenting reports. The Hon. Ian Cohen from the Greens has put considerable effort into his dissenting report. Other groups also had concerns about certain aspects. I would certainly urge caution. The science has to be very good before we embark on these projects. Certain groups being able to make a huge profit because of the price of Sydney real estate is a powerful driver, but the proponents of the project must define exactly what is in the areas and what they propose to do about them, and show the EPA that the technologies work. They must have a good grid of samples of the material that they are experimenting on, and demonstrate success with the material collected.

As in the case of the laboratory that was evacuated once certain material was heated, the products of combustion in these complex reactions of bound chemicals are not as easily predictable as one might think, particularly if one is not quite sure what one is starting with. So I would urge that a very conservative approach be taken and that the health of the residents who will ultimately inhabit the site be considered. The people involved in clearing up the site, the people picking up the soil in order that it should be remediated and the residents in the surrounding area must all be considered. With the spread of pollution, a lower level of pollution affecting a larger number of people may result in as many people being affected from the lower doses as if a smaller number of people were exposed to a higher level of pollution. Air pollution, water pollution and site pollution need to be balanced and taken into account when dealing with the planning aspects relating to the density of housing on the site, the amount of recreation facilities and the number of school kindergartens and so on.

If the costs of remediation are very high—I believe this is likely to be the case if significant volumes of existing sediments have to be processed—then the incentive is to put higher density developments in place to attempt to get the money back by amortising it with a larger number of people buying property. That may lead to an error in itself. If there are some areas that are not easily remediable it may be that the best solution is to put a relatively impermeable cap on it and use it as recreational land. That may be safer than trying to excavate it. Caution should be exercised. Individual areas have to be considered on their merits. Undertaking a massive project with very high density development to offset the costs is not a good idea, and I am concerned that that is what might happen.

I make the point that considerable information has been put together in the report. It is one thing to put it together, but another to remediate it. Certainly it causes me some concern. It is difficult for me, as a person who was not present at all hearings and who has not gone through all the scientific evidence, to make a recommendation that is as prescient as that of members who have that information. This is a difficult problem and the report attempts to do a good job, but the area must be managed with conservatism. The Environment Protection Authority must be allowed to have its say, and good science must be the basis for what is done; the basis should not be real estate and development policies.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [3.00 p.m.]: As Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on State Development I support the report and its recommendations. It is worth noting some of the history of the acquisition of the sites and the way in which they have been treated. For ever and a day the sites have been used for industrial purposes. Precinct A, the old Dulux and Bergers Paint site, is on the left as one travels down the peninsula. The site had been fixed up, substantially by aeration and treatment of the soil. The soil that had been contaminated by lead was taken away and disposed of. The land is now being developed by McRoss Developments. Precinct B, the old Union Carbide site, was previously the Timbrol Ltd plant on which various agents, including 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D and so on, were used. That site was of most concern to the community and the site about which much of the report is concerned. Precinct C, at the end of the peninsula, contained a flour mill and is now referred to as the Meriton site. The area of most concern to the people of Sydney, and of those who appreciate the waterway, is that heavily contaminated area offshore of Homebush Bay. The area has been extensively mapped but over time the sites have gone through various ownerships.

Although this is not mentioned in the report, from memory Union Carbide stopped manufacturing at precinct B and the company sold the site to Brierley Investments for about $60 million. Brierley spent some money remediating the site, but it all got too hard. Brierley vacated the site and handed it, lock, stock and barrel, to the Waterways Authority. Waterways held the site in trust. Eventually Trafalgar Corporate Pty Ltd came along, assisted by Thiess Services Pty Ltd, and was handed the site for nothing. Trafalgar was given $20 million by Waterways. That site had $60 million, $20 million and then another $20 million spent on it. When the site was handed to Trafalgar and Thiess to clean up, some $100 million had already been spent on it. Trafalgar and Thiess have to pay for the remediation, and that was the main subject of the committee's inquiry—cleaning up of not only precinct B but the whole foreshore. Obviously it is in the public's interest that the foreshore be cleaned up and that is why the State Government has invested so much money and has assisted the clean-up.

When the inquiry was set up the main complaint of local residents and other groups was that there had not been adequate transparency or communication. The community was concerned about the process of remediation. It is not easy for the corporate world to deal with issues such as remediation and technical aspects of this clean-up while, at the same time, keeping the community informed and on side. Corporations must take notice of the community's wishes while meeting their own commercial interests. That is a challenge for all developers and major corporations. Projects such as this involve many agencies that must be satisfied, not the least of which are the Environment Protection Authority, PlanningNSW, transport authorities and so on. Then, having dealt with all agencies, the corporations may think they have done their job, but they have not unless they have consulted and communicated with the community. Each and every agency should do the same thing. That is why these projects take a lot of time, but with consultation there is certainty. One thing that the committee strongly recommended in its report is better and more open communication with the community and organisations. For example, the community should be advised when soil is to be moved and why so many trucks are on the move so that people do not put out their washing on a certain day.

The big issue, of course, is how to remediate the site, particularly precinct B and the sludge off shore. How will the pollutants be removed after they have been dragged out of the waterway? The committee heard that two practical processes were being actively considered. One process is the installation of a high-temperature incinerator t