Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 31 October 2002, Corrected Copy)

______

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

The President offered the Prayers.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan 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 announced, pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the receipt of the annual report for the period ended 30 June 2002.

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

The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the Auditor-General's Report 2002, Volume Four, dated October 2002.

Ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Richard Jones agreed to:

1. That, in view of the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 25 October 2002, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers on the M5 East motorway, this House orders that the document considered by the Independent Legal Arbiter not to be privileged be laid upon the table by the Acting Clerk.

2. That, on tabling, the document is authorised to be published.

The Acting Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution, documents on the M5 East motorway the subject of a disputed claim of privilege by the Hon. Richard Jones and identified in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 25 October 2002, as not privileged.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, as Chairman, tabled the report No. 20, entitled "Inquiry into the Pecuniary Interests Register", dated October 2002, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions, tabled documents and correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.05 a.m.], by leave: This has been a unique inquiry. For the first time since the establishment of the pecuniary interests disclosure scheme, a committee of the New South Wales Parliament has been required to investigate and report on whether a member has wilfully contravened the requirements of the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation 1983. Section 14A (2) of the Constitution Act 1902 provides that if a member wilfully contravenes the regulation the House may declare the member's seat vacant. When the then Premier, the Hon. Neville Wran, MP, introduced the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Amendment Bill 1981, which led to the establishment of the pecuniary interests register for members of the New South Wales Parliament, he said:

The establishment of a scheme whereby members of Parliament can be seen to be above reproach not only enhances the prestige of our parliamentary system but also protects the members themselves against scurrilous attacks, which in the past they have found difficult to rebut.

The bill was approved by the people at a referendum in September 1981. Clearly, members of the public place high trust in members of Parliament, and they expect high standards of ethical behaviour. It is reasonable for the public to expect that members will comply with the provisions of the Constitution Act 1902. This inquiry was always going to be difficult due to, first, the absence of any legal precedent to guide the committee as to the meaning of "wilful contravention" in the context of section 14A (2) of the Constitution Act 1902; second, the highly charged political background against which the inquiry has been conducted, less than six months from the next State election; third, the fact that eight members of the Legislative Council, representing four political parties and one Independent member, were, effectively, asked to sit in judgment of another member who is a senior Minister in the Government; and, finally, the limited time provided to the committee in which to report on these matters.

This was an important inquiry for the Legislative Council. No doubt the report will be considered a precedent for subsequent consideration of failure to comply with the pecuniary interest disclosure requirements, not only in this Parliament but in other parliaments throughout Australia and overseas. Therefore, it is extremely disappointing that this report is, in my view, inadequate and politicised. On the basis of evidence before the committee, I do not believe that the member has wilfully contravened the provisions of the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation, and therefore he is not in danger of having his seat declared vacant.

I understand that my draft report would not have satisfied all members of the House, but I believe it is fair, balanced, impartial and non-partisan. Chapters 1 to 4 of the report, as agreed by the committee, contain some useful background material that I hope will be of use to the House and inform the public. Unfortunately, chapters 5 and 6 of my draft report were decimated by the majority of the committee. The minutes of proceedings, reproduced as appendix 9 of the report, detail the committee's deliberations. Some of the purely factual elements of my draft report, which, for whatever reason, the majority found unacceptable and deleted from my draft report, include the following facts, which are evident from the table reproduced as appendix 7 and which were confirmed by the Hon. Eddie Obeid:

• that Mr Obeid had made 154 errors in his pecuniary interest returns since 1991;
• 137 of these errors had been "corrected" (in the sense Mr Obeid has disclosed an association, but not the precise details of the nature of the interest or position, in the relevant corporation in the relevant year, through correspondence to the Clerk which has been placed on the register which is available for public inspection) and
• 17 of these errors had not been "corrected" before Mr Obeid gave sworn evidence to the Committee on 16 October 2002.

The majority of the committee also found that the prospect of recommending a sanction was unacceptable and deleted almost the entire text of my draft chapter 6. While the committee concluded that the Hon. Eddie Obeid's contraventions of the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation have not been wilful, and that section 14A (2) of the Constitution Act 1902 has not been offended against, that does not mean that the House cannot impose a sanction in relation to this matter. Provided that a sanction is not punitive, the House may act so as to protect its dignity. The fact that the House has the inherent power to impose such a sanction in relation to the conduct of a member was reconfirmed by the High Court of Australia in Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71.

Other parliaments, including the House of Commons, have imposed a range of sanctions when members have failed to comply with pecuniary interest disclosure requirements. In a previous case concerning the conduct of a member of this House, albeit not in respect of pecuniary interest disclosures, the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics recommended that the member apologise to the House. In line with those precedents and in view of the number of the Hon. Eddie Obeid's contraventions of the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation, I believe it would not be unreasonable for the House to impose a sanction on the member. Accordingly, my draft report recommended:

• That the Hon. Edward Obeid MLC immediately table in the House a full statement of all his interests/positions in corporations since his election to the Legislative Council in 1991.
• That the Hon. Edward Obeid MLC apologise to the House for making 154 errors in his pecuniary interest return since his election to the Legislative Council in 1991.
• That, provided that by 13 November 2002 the Hon. Edward Obeid MLC has complied with recommendations 1 and 2 above, no further sanction be imposed by the House in this matter.
• That, if by 13 November 2002 the Hon. Edward Obeid MLC has not complied with recommendations 1 and 2 above, the House immediately pass a motion of "censure" and "no confidence" in the Member.

The community is demanding greater accountability and greater transparency. I cannot imagine what the public will make of the committee's failure to recommend any sanction, however mild, in relation to the member's repeated failure to fully disclose his interests or positions in corporations. I am perplexed and disturbed by the statement in the report, as determined by the majority, that because section 14A (2) of the Constitution Act had not been offended against, the committee could not recommend any sanction to the House.

As previously alluded to, I believe that this statement is wrong, in view of the inherent power of the House to impose a sanction in order to protect its own dignity. I realise that my draft report would not have satisfied all honourable members. However, I simply ask honourable members to stand back from the short-term politics of this matter and ask themselves whether the dignity of the House and the Parliament as a whole is enhanced or diminished by the failure of the majority of the committee to recommend that any sanction be imposed in this case.

I thank the Hon. Greg Pearce, MLC, and the Clerk of the Parliaments for their detailed submissions. I particularly thank the Hon. Eddie Obeid, MLC, for his approach to this inquiry. He has been co-operative, frank and responsive in all his dealings with the committee. In view of his willingness to present the committee the detail of his interests or positions in corporations and to take responsibility for the mistakes in his pecuniary interests returns, I would not be surprised if the Hon. Eddie Obeid was willing to undertake the actions proposed in my draft recommendations. This makes it all the more curious, and unsatisfactory, that the majority deleted those recommendations. Finally, I thank the committee secretariat for its support during the course of this most unpleasant, frustrating and divisive inquiry.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [11.20 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members Business item No. 98 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to Report No. 15 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, entitled "Feral Animals", dated October 2002, be called on forthwith.

I wish to speak to this report because I was denied the opportunity the other day to thank the committee secretariat and the committee members for their participation. The report is about an issue that is important to many members of this House. I know that the Opposition, particularly the National Party, has a real interest in this report. It is appropriate that this matter be called on to allow committee members to discuss it briefly. I understand that members will speak only for a short time.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Richard Jones agreed to:

That Private Members Business item No. 98 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [11.21 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of report No. 15 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, entitled "Feral Animals", dated October 2002.

I thank committee members—the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Hon. John Jobling, the Hon. Malcolm Jones, and the Hon. Janelle Saffin—and the committee secretariat, who performed a magnificent task on this important report. In particular, I thank Steven Reynolds, Russell Keith—who did an enormous amount of work—Stewart Smith, John Young, Ashley Nguyen and Natasha O'Connor. They have done an extremely good job on the report. The recommendations of the report were virtually unanimous, with some disagreement from a couple of members. No doubt they will speak about that shortly.

There was considerable public interest in this inquiry, particularly from rural areas. As a result, the committee agreed to accept submissions after the initial closing date. In all, the committee received 136 submissions and heard evidence from 74 witnesses at four public hearings. The committee wanted to hear from local people who were affected by the feral animal problem and were dealing with it first-hand. For that reason, two of the public hearings were held in the regional centres of Cooma and Armidale. The committee also visited a number of regional sites to inspect land affected by feral animals, to view demonstrations of control techniques, and to hold discussions with local land-holders. The committee saw and heard evidence on a number of worthwhile and successful initiatives for feral animal control, such as the Brindabella and Wee Jasper Valleys Wild Dog and Fox Program. This program has been particularly successful in reducing the number of killings of sheep, lambs and wildlife.

The overriding theme we heard was that the Government and its agencies that have responsibility for feral animal control need to do more. This means much more funding, more money for feral animal control, and better co-ordination of the whole effort. Rural communities bear the immediate, and often horrific, impact of feral animals. However, this does not mean that feral animal control should be seen simply as a rural problem. We should all note the implications of the increasing reports of the presence in urban areas of feral animals, particularly pigs, which are traditionally linked with the bush. Their presence could lead to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We must make sure that does not occur and use whatever means we can to prevent it. At present, rural communities are the significant contributor, through various rural lands protection boards, to the cost of dealing with a problem that ultimately affects the entire community. The report concludes that feral animals pose a serious enough threat to the environment and agriculture to justify an increase in funding for their control by the State Government.

The inquiry found that there was a notable variation between various agencies in their respective levels of funding for feral animal control. The report recommends that the Government develop a formula that will set the minimum feral animal control budget for each of the government agencies with responsibility for management of public land. There was general agreement during the inquiry about the need for the improved co-ordination of feral animal control statewide. Currently, the New South Wales Pest Animal Council is charged with responsibility of co-ordinating feral animal control. The council is an ad hoc committee that provides advice to the Minister for Agriculture. It has no statutory basis.

The council largely relies upon goodwill between agencies. It meets infrequently and has no effective funding base. The report notes that now is an appropriate time to reassess the structure of the council and transform it into a statutory authority that meets regularly to co-ordinate, fund and promote feral animal control programs across the State. The report recommends some of the necessary functions of this newly empowered council, including the administration of a government-established fund for feral animal control. The new council will use this fund to support appropriate regional control programs. I exhort the Government to implement this proposal, which has the support of all parties. It is essential in its own right and fundamental to many of the other issues that are raised in this report.

In all the report makes 24 recommendations relating to the numerous issues that would contribute towards the effective control of feral animals. The recommendations touched on improving feral animal data, refining systems for countering outbreaks of exotic diseases in feral animals, continuing the precautionary approach to the use of aerial 1080 baiting, and ending the barbaric and potentially catastrophic practice of pig-dogging. I am pleased that the majority of the report received the unanimous support of committee members.

The Government has been requested by a motion of this House to respond to the report within the current session of Parliament. I look forward to the Government's response and I confidently expect it to positively address the issues raised in the report. The control of feral animals is a very important issue for farmers and graziers with regard to reducing stock losses, and it is also important for the general community with regard to protecting our biodiversity. The Government should take immediate action and announce its plans before the next election. Further, I hope that the Opposition will adopt the recommendations and base its policy on this report.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.26 a.m.]: I support the report of the inquiry into feral animals, although there are a few issues with which Coalition members of the committee did not agree. I will speak to them shortly. I congratulate the majority of the members of the committee on the dedication, commitment and understanding they showed during the committee process. In particular, I congratulate the authors of the more than 130 submissions we received and the many persons, particularly primary producers, who gave their time, at considerable expense, when they could least afford it. The drought and the damage caused by feral animals have had a severe impact on their day-to-day operations.

In his foreword, the chair acknowledged the damage to agriculture and the environment caused by the activity of feral animals. He said they cause damage to the native environment. As the honourable member said in his speech, feral animals can cause land degradation and they are a serious potential threat to the spread of exotic diseases. I want to refer particularly to a pesticide known as 1080, or sodium fluoracetate. That substance is present in most native eucalyptus species in Australia and is not totally foreign to native animals. As a result, many species of native animals have a considerable resistance to it. That fact was dramatically illustrated in the report.

The executive summary refers to criticism levelled at the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] about the control of feral animals and their migration from the national park estate. The summary states that, although a large amount has been allocated for feral animal control, that is still happening. Why? If the funding has been increased, why are there more feral dogs? The committee received a submission from Mr Craig Allen of Spring Creek, which is near Ingebyra. He pointed out that in 1995 there were very few dog activities on his property—certainly fewer than 10 each year—because aerial baiting had been undertaken. When it ceased in 1997, he saw a dramatic increase in dog activity on his property, and in 2001 he had 150 incidents. He said that no proactive work had been undertaken in wild dog breeding areas around Kosciuszko National Park to replace the aerial baiting that occurred in 1995 and 1996. He also said that increases in expenditure claimed by the NPWS had been used primarily for staffing and research and recording past activity. With the support of the Cooma Rural Lands Protection Board, NPWS is phasing out the skilled and dedicated local trappers, and that is a concern.

The dissenting report examines a number of issues, and I will deal with them briefly. The National Parks Association of New South Wales had its definitions of "exotic", "feral" and "locally exotic fauna" incorporated in the report. The dissenting members believe that that is inappropriate because those definitions are contradictory and have been taken to the extreme. For example, "exotic animals" are deemed to be local, not native. An animal might be native to Australia, but if it does not live across the other side of a valley it is deemed to be exotic. The definition of "feral" refers to "reverted from domestication, since 1788 (or any earlier introduction)". However, the dingo will not to be considered an exotic or a feral species. Of course, it was introduced to Australia by the Aboriginal people, albeit well prior to European settlement.

I refer the House to paragraph 4.12 on page 35 of the report. The dissenting members believe that that paragraph should be amended to read, "That the committee appreciates the increase in funding over recent years by the National Parks and Wildlife Service for feral animal control and supports its financial commitment." Nevertheless, the committee cannot ignore comments made by national park estate neighbours and members of its advisory committees that more funding is necessary. Much of the additional funding that has been allocated to feral animal control has been eaten up by the more expensive mound-baiting technique. Mound baiting has not resulted in improved levels of dog control. Extensive evidence was presented to the committee to support that observation. Mr Brian Tomalin from Nundle said that mound baiting led to reduced levels of control, and that is a concern. He also pointed out that mound baiting becomes ineffective because the dogs very quickly learn that the baits are dangerous. He also pointed out that it is much more expensive than aerial baiting.

The dissenting members propose that recommendation No. 5 on page 35 be amended to read, "The committee recommends that the National Parks and Wildlife Service further increase its funding commitment to feral animal management so that it has the capacity to better target major problem areas where feral animals are affecting neighbouring communities." The recommendation in the report does not address that issue. Recommendation No. 10 on page 48 states:

The Committee recommends that, in the absence of conclusive evidence that 1080 does not cause significant pain, that consideration be given to conducting a trial on the feasibility of incorporating an analgesic into 1080 baits.

The committee heard a great deal of evidence suggesting that it has not been established that 1080 causes pain in animals that consume it, although there is some evidence to suggest it does not. Of course, we know that dog attacks on domestic stock cause excruciating pain and trauma. If the precautionary principle is to be adopted, the use of 1080 should be continued because of the impact of attacks on domestic livestock. Incorporating an analgesic will require reregistration of the pesticide, and that could take years. This work needs to continue immediately to ensure that the people whose livelihoods are being affected can have the control they need. Section 5.47 states:

The Committee does not wish to rule out possible future use of aerial baiting, if sufficient research becomes available to address current concerns.

That suggestion should be amended to read, "The Committee does not wish to rule out the continuing use of aerial baiting and supports the research of Dr Bob Harden on the rejection of loaded 1080 baits by quolls." That work should be encouraged because the precautionary principle should apply. The committee was told that quoll numbers have increased in areas in which aerial baiting with 1080 has been undertaken for a long time. Recommendation No. 11 on page 58 should be amended to allow the practice to continue in those areas in which aerial baiting is being undertaken and the practice should also be recommended in areas in which domestic stock losses have increased alarmingly, such as the Ingebyra area to which I referred earlier, which is immediately adjacent to the Kosciuszko National Park.

Recommendation 12 refers to category D firearms licences for people involved in feral animal control. The use of category D firearms licences is a major issue for primary producers battling feral pig infestations. Farmers with pigs on their properties wage a war against this ferocious menace every day of the year, not just when there is a formal program in place. The concern is that farmers cannot hold a category D firearms licence, or be in possession of a category D firearm, unless an authorised campaign is in place.

A pig can move up to 20 or 30 kilometres a day. A farmer who spots pigs on his property destroying crops or killing lambs needs to be able to control the pigs straightaway. If this procedure is followed, when the farmer spots the pigs he will then be required to contact the rural lands protection board. An authorised campaign may or may not commence. If such a campaign does commence, the farmer can then apply for his category D firearms licence. He then needs to have his category D firearms licence approved. It is anyone's guess how long that might take; it would probably take three or four weeks. The farmer then purchases his category D firearm. By then, of course, the pigs could be 200 kilometres away. Farmers who face the threat of pigs on their properties in areas where pigs are constantly moving through need to have firearms at their disposal for pig control.

I ask members to imagine the following scenario. A farmer is standing in a crop and a pig—which could weigh 200 or 250 kilograms—approaches him travelling at about 30 kilometres an hour. The farmer gets one shot off but misses with that shot. He fumbles around with his ammunition belt, trying to pull out another shell to reload his single-shot rifle. By that time, the pig would have the farmer; the farmer would not have the pig. It is a safety issue. People who are involved in the day-to-day control of pigs need category D firearms so they can get three or four shots away quickly, to ensure they get the pig before the pig gets them.

The committee recommended that category D firearms licences be available to primary producers for year-round feral animal control, outside specific authorised feral animal eradication campaigns. Recommendation 14 refers to New South Wales Agriculture investigating the development of its feral animal trapping training program. The committee would like a third paragraph to be added to that recommendation. The proposed paragraph reads as follows:

In acknowledgement of the enormous losses that can be caused by individual feral dogs, the Committee recommends that National Parks and Wildlife Service provides continued access to licensed dog trappers into national parks for the purpose of pursuing and destroying identified feral dogs responsible for attacks on domestic livestock from adjoining agricultural land.

Recommendation 16 refers to the statutory Pest Animal Council. The committee believes it is appropriate, given the nature of these issues, that the New South Wales Game Council also be included on the Pest Animal Council. In Chapter 7 the committee recommends that recommendation 20 be deleted. Recommendation 20 reads:

The Committee recommends that the Government investigate minimum fencing requirements for the control of farmed goats and farmed deer, to prevent their escape from farming enterprises.

The committee believes that that would be overregulation, and that the issue can be addressed by better education. It would be a retrograde step to regulate farmers on the fences they can or cannot build. That sums up the Coalition's concerns and those of the Hon. Malcolm Jones about the committee's findings. Apart from those concerns, the Coalition supports the vast majority of the committee's recommendations. The Coalition believes that with those few amendments to the recommendations that I have outlined to the House the report will become much more powerful. In particular, the reintroduction of 1080 aerial baiting programs in various areas around the State is essential to ensure the proper control of feral dogs. If 1080 aerial baiting is not reintroduced, I believe it will be very difficult to ever get the feral dog problem in New South Wales properly under control.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [11.46 a.m.]: Given the comments of the Hon. Rick Colless, who spoke in great detail about the content of the report, I will not take up the time of the House reiterating the points already made as I am in general agreement with the Opposition on the final report. Many people in rural areas have expressed to me their concerns about the savage destruction of both wildlife and agriculture, and it is a serious problem. However, I was alarmed by the quantity and substance of the submissions put before General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 following referral of the issue for inquiry. The committee visited Kempsey, Armidale, Cooma and Nowra. It considered travelling to Cobar, but the motion was voted down as some members either thought they knew all about the feral animal problems of the Western Division or did not want to know about them. I will leave honourable members to interpret that comment as they choose.

I understood the extent of the problem with cats, pigs and so on, but I did not understand the extent of the problem with wild dogs. Indeed, wild dogs became a major focus of the inquiry. The variation in the responses of statutory bodies once the hearings were undertaken was also surprising. One rural lands protection board pretended there was no problem, by not acknowledging kills unless stupid, unnecessary procedures were followed. Neighbouring rural lands protection boards were getting to grips with the problem and doing very good work. However, we are given to understand that during the course of the inquiry that errant rural lands protection board realised the extent of the problem and is taking steps to remedy its failings. Within the National Parks and Wildlife Service attitudes ranged from a cautious "greenies first" position, irrespective of the daily carnage on their doorsteps, to a positive "roll up your sleeves" approach, which is achieving fine results. Wild dogs in the Kosciuszko area present a real problem for farmers, and the problem is getting worse. I draw the attention of honourable members to the plight of farmers in that region.

Evidence was received from farmers who could barely control their sadness and suffering at the loss of livestock caused by packs of savage dogs that almost nightly tore up their sheep in a most gruesome manner. The farmers produced photographic evidence which was both disturbing and appalling. The land in the Kosciuszko area is marginal at best, but losses from feral dog destruction put the whole area in crisis. The national parks, and especially the Kosciuszko wilderness areas, provide safe havens for feral dogs and other feral animals. Officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS]—unlike those in, say, the Armidale area—pay lip service to the plight of the farmers but are reluctant to stick their necks out and aggressively tackle the destruction caused by feral dogs. Conflicting evidence was received about whether quolls take 1080 baits. Indeed, evidence was received from other areas that 1080 baiting of feral dogs, particularly within national parks, enabled quoll communities to proliferate. I urge honourable members to read the report to form their own opinions.

Authorities in the Armidale region, particularly the Howard River rural lands protection board and the Armidale branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service , have developed a co-operative and refreshing approach towards the control of feral dogs and pigs. The NPWS allowed 1080 aerial baiting and this has been very successful. Feral animal eradication programs receive popular support and appear to be the most effective method of control. These programs generally are organised by local rural lands protection boards. Their programs have been effective in that they do not simply drive feral animals from one property to another.

Dog trapping is also effective but there is a funding problem. Resources need to be redirected to encourage an increase in the use of dog trapping. Commercial dog trappers claimed in written submissions that they have far more success than individual dog trappers who are appointed on an ad hoc basis. I believe that the ongoing activities of commercial dog trappers should receive serious scrutiny as their talents may be helpful in dealing with this ongoing problem. The attitudes of various government agencies have a great bearing upon the success of trappers. The committee received written submissions which stated that a positive attitude towards getting on with the job will reap better results than a fatalistic and somewhat defensive attitude. The Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. John Jobling, the Hon. Duncan Gay and I attended a well-attended wild dog summit in Wodonga. Evidence produced at the summit showed that the problem is Australiawide. Feral animal control across the board is pretty bleak.

I turn to the dissenting report, which has been signed on the final page by the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. John Jobling and me. The dissenting report identifies areas in which the NPWS can redistribute its resources more beneficially to the ongoing fight against feral animals. The dissenting report also comments on the use of 1080 baiting, particularly 1080 aerial baiting. I do not want to spend too much time on this point because it has already been well covered by the Hon. Rick Colless. However, category D firearms licences were raised. It is extremely important for people on the land to have firearms for security purposes. A charging pig can be both a feral animal and a lethal weapon. The current regulations allow the holder of a category D firearms licence—which permits the possession of a semiautomatic weapon—to join feral animal control programs, usually organised by the rural lands protection board.

When these programs are wound down the farmer must hand in his licence and get rid of his gun. However, at that time few people will be in the market for category D firearms. When another program commences a further category D firearms licence will be required, probably requiring the acquisition of a new firearm. That is quite silly. However, the anti-gun lobby on the committee could not grasp that point, hence the need to include it in the dissenting report. Earlier this year the Government's Game Bill was passed, and one of the objectives of that bill is feral animal control. I was amazed that Government members refused to allow the Game Council to be part of the co-operative efforts of the NPWS, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, the rural land protection boards, State Forests and other bodies. Exclusion of the Game Council is absurd. All those recommendations are contained in the dissenting report. Overall, the feral animals report is very comprehensive—notwithstanding the fact that it pays inadequate attention to more than half of the State—and the bulk of it was written with the general agreement of the committee. Feral animals cause major problems for our agricultural sector, which is a major contributor to the economy of New South Wales. Therefore, it is beholden on all members, representing the people of New South Wales, to be cognisant of the contents of the report and to work towards its implementation.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.56 a.m.]: As a member of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, I support the report of the inquiry on feral animals and I commend the Chair of the committee for completing a very difficult task. The inquiry attracted submissions and evidence from extremes, both from those in the environmental movement and from their opposites within the community.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Who are "the opposites"? Name them. Put it on the record who you are talking about.

The Hon. Richard Jones: I have already done that.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I would suggest to the Hon. Rick Colless that as I did not interrupt him when he was speaking to the report he should extend to me the same courtesy. If he does not feel obliged to do that, that is a reflection on his behaviour in the House. The inquiry held a number of hearings in Sydney that attracted representatives from organisations across the State. We also had hearings in Cooma and Armidale and made site visits in the Nowra and Armidale regions, including what I found to be a very informative flight over wild gorge systems in which the problems faced by adjoining land-holders were clear for all committee members to see. I thank the National Parks and Wildlife Service for organising that flight for the benefit of the committee.

The claim that the committee was negligent in not going out to the Western Division is not an accurate criticism of the committee's activities, because representatives from that area attended the public hearings. I believe it was very instructive that people, whether dog trappers or farmers, brought in photographic evidence for the benefit of the committee. Their photographs clearly depicted the problems they were encountering in either controlling several dogs or coping with attacks on livestock. I thank those people for attending the hearings to give evidence. Some fox abatement programs, which demonstrated methods of protecting endangered species through specialised and localised feral animal control, were also very instructive to committee members. I note that the dissenting report, given the potential contentious nature of the matters being investigated by the feral animal inquiry, is only quite short.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Is it a fact that the document the Minister tabled on Wednesday 23 October and that he claimed was "A statement released today by the directors of Linkban Pty Ltd, the publishers of El Telegraph", was in fact a document procured by him on 22 October and was not signed by any director of Linkban Pty Ltd?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The issues relating to my pecuniary interests have been well canvassed. I have answered all questions and I refer the honourable member back to my original answer.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I ask a supplementary question. Considering the fact that the document the Minister tendered was faxed to him at 11.17 p.m. on 22 October, the day before the allegations were raised in the Sydney Morning Herald, how is it that anyone other than the Minister knew of the contents of the Sydney Morning Herald article?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I refer the honourable member back to my original answer.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What has been done to promote aquaculture and raise community awareness of this industry in the Port Stephens area?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I am grateful that Government members, in particular, backbenchers, ask relevant questions that are of interest to our community. Last Saturday the New South Wales Government held a highly successful community open day at the Port Stephens Fisheries Centre at Taylors Beach. This was a major event for NSW Fisheries highlighting its expertise and research facilities. It was an excellent opportunity for visitors to learn more about breeding freshwater and marine fish, marine parks and our threatened species. It was also a great opportunity to highlight the New South Wales Government's efforts to work with the community to protect the sustainability of our fish stocks.

More than 2,000 locals and tourists toured the centre. I am pleased to advise the House that more than $1,000 was raised for the local Westpac helicopter service. Staff at the NSW Fisheries office should be congratulated on their efforts, which resulted in more than 30 exhibitions. These included guided tours of our oysters and marine fish hatcheries. Some of the State's finest aquaculture produce was available to taste, including local snapper, barramundi, silver perch and yabbies.

One of the most popular displays was the children's touch tank. The exhibition was a great opportunity for youngsters to feel starfish, urchins, abalone and hermit crabs. The children's fishing clinic was also a popular event and a great way to highlight the benefits of clinics that the Government holds across the State. Anglers and divers viewed displays of recreational fishing, bait and tackle, and diving equipment, thanks to a number of supportive external exhibitors.

The Port Stephens Fisheries Centre was established in 1970 and this Government has funded an extensive upgrade of the site. The Carr Government's support for the aquaculture industry has seen the centre become a world leader in research and development. It is the largest NSW Fisheries centre outside Sydney and is the base of the aquaculture division. The open day was a great family day. It was a terrific way to promote our finest aquaculture, research and conservation. I thank those who organised and ran the event.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister explain why the Wyong Child Abuse Prevention Service is in danger of closing, despite her claim yesterday confirming the need for such services and the emphasis by the Children's Services Commissioner on the need for such services? I ask this question, particularly given the report yesterday of 21 children who had died with no access to ongoing support services after they were reported at risk to the Department of Community Services [DOCS].

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it gives me an opportunity to respond to some of the claims that the Coalition has made about the Child Death Review Team report, which was handed down yesterday. Before I go to the issue that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I state that I am not aware of the service to which he has referred but I am happy to follow that up. Nonetheless, I inform the House that the Government announced a community solutions package for the Wyong area that covered a range of issues relating to families, children and young people in the area. This was a very detailed package that addressed some of the issues facing the community and families in that area. However, I will follow up the specific service that the Leader of the Opposition has raised because I am not aware of that service, the particular funding difficulties, or who funds that service.

I turn now to the Child Death Review Team report. Yesterday I gave an answer to the House about the Government's response to the report. I say clearly and up front that this very significant report looks at systemic issues behind child deaths, and the Government takes the report very seriously. The Government does not back away from the fact that the report has identified some systemic weaknesses, which we intend to address . That is backed up by the submission I made initially to the Standing Committee on Social Issues not long after I was sworn in as a Minister.

Having said that, I do not believe that it assists anyone, particularly vulnerable children in New South Wales, to make wild and inaccurate claims about what is and is not in the report. That is what the Coalition has done. The Leader of the Opposition has repeated one of those claims. Yesterday Mr Brad Hazzard gave a press conference in which he made all sorts of comments about what is and is not in the report. For example, Mr Hazzard claimed that of the 21 children who died, not one received ongoing support services after the child was reported at risk to DOCS. Mr Hazzard knows full well—and it is stated in the report—that only nine of the 21 cases reviewed were reported to DOCS. Six of these were current cases at the time the child died and three cases were closed.

Further, Mr Hazzard does not even understand the nature of the report. Mr Hazzard claimed that the 21 cases that were reviewed occurred in the last financial year. That is simply wrong. A cursory reading of the report would demonstrate that that is not the case. The Child Death Review Team report does two things: it reports on the deaths that have occurred in the last financial year from a whole range of causes. It also reviews specific child deaths and it makes very clear that it is reviewing the specific child deaths between June 2000 and March 2001. It is not hard to pick that up, even from a cursory reading of the report. Not only that, there is a footnote in the report indicating that the 1999-2000 Child Death Review Team Annual Report noted:

… that the implementation of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act would have a significant impact on New South Wales child protection practice service provision and policy. The 21 children reviewed in this report died between June 2000 and February 2001 before any impact could be expected.

I do not expect the Coalition to point that out, but I do expect a significant and thoughtful contribution because child deaths are far too important to be treated in the cavalier way that Brad Hazzard has done.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Minister was on the Central Coast only a couple of weeks ago, a mere 15 minutes drive from Wyong, can she explain why she is not aware of the plight facing the Wyong Child Abuse Prevention Service?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that this service, as far as I am aware, did not approach me at that Cabinet meeting. A number of services did and I met with preschools and another youth service, which has reported some funding difficulties. As I have said, I am happy to follow up this issue for the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It is for them, not for me. Someone has to raise it with you.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Someone has to provide me with some details so I can respond accurately.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Corrective Services. Why did the Minister, on Tuesday this week in the other place, attempt to intimidate the Privacy Commissioner in relation to a complaint alleged to have been lodged by Ivan Milat? Why did the Minister say of the Privacy Commissioner, "He could see himself playing a key role in handing over $40,000 in compensation … under the Privacy and Personal Information Act", when he must know that the Privacy Commissioner has no power to make compensation payments under the Act? Has the Minister spoken out in this way in an attempt to intimidate the Privacy Commissioner from fully investigating the release of the video material of Ms Skaf visiting her son at Goulburn gaol, stills of which appeared on the front page of the Sun-Herald?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: As the Hon. Lee Rhiannon had a lot to do with the sessional orders that now govern question time she would know that a question cannot contain argument. Her question was loaded with argument. It was more in the form of a speech than a question. Clearly, the question is out of order.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I urge you to allow the question to be asked because it is clearly within the guidelines set down for question time. If the question is blocked, it is a political attempt to stop this matter from being discussed.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: We have just heard another example of Stalinist logic. The fact is that the question is loaded with argument.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that there are a number of new elements in the sessional orders, one of which is that questions may not contain argument. In the past I have been reasonably lenient and have allowed questions that contained argument. I will allow the question on this occasion also. However, I ask members not to contravene the sessional orders by asking questions that contain argument. The Minister may answer the question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I could be tempted to make some observations and further arguments in response to the arguments in the honourable member's question. However, as the question contains some serious issues, and given the Minister's recent response during question time in the other place, I will refer the question to the Minister for a comprehensive answer.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the latest developments in the national electricity market?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am delighted to inform the House that today the National Electricity Tribunal has given its ruling on the South Australia-New South Wales interconnector project, otherwise known as SNI. The ruling by the National Electricity Tribunal is a clear win for an efficient national electricity market and, indeed, a win for electricity consumers in New South Wales, South Australia and, I believe, around the country. New South Wales strongly believes in interconnectors as an essential component to the better operation of the national market. It is ludicrous to suggest that we can have a national electricity market and not have the States connected to each other. The Hon. John Jobling is agreeing with me. We cannot have a national electricity market without interconnectors. The previous Queensland National Government found itself in a ridiculous situation when it was first elected, because it had gone to the people on a policy of supporting the national electricity market and a policy of opposing interconnectors. Only the Queensland National Party would be able to explain how we could have one without the other.

Interconnectors deliver a range of benefits, including lower electricity prices for consumers, as well as reliable alternative supplies during critical periods of high electricity demand. They enable surplus electricity to be delivered to where it is needed by customers, even if those customers are in a different State. The Federal Minister, Mr Macfarlane, was right the other day when he said that the New South Wales Government was "excited about SNI proceeding". The real question is why Mr Macfarlane does not share our excitement. Like many observers of Mr Macfarlane's ditherings on the national energy debate, I am often bemused about what he is trying to achieve. New South Wales unashamedly wants a national market that is not restricted by State boundaries. Interconnectors are a vital link between States and defer investment in more expensive new generation by using existing surpluses. I am sure the consumers of South Australia do not care where their electricity comes from as long as it is reliable and competitively priced.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. I refer the Minister to report No. 12 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 entitled "Review of Inquiry into Cabramatta Policing". Will the Minister inform the House when he will implement the 20 recommendations in the report? Particularly, when will he implement recommendation 10 and recommendation 20, both of which call for the Minister for Police to report to Parliament during the current session? Recommendation 10 is on the outcomes of the Cabramatta-Green Valley quality of service survey and progress on the programmed all-purpose communications terminals initiative. Recommendation 20 is on the implementation of recommendation 3 in report No. 13 of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, regarding the procedure for management when dealing with officers under their command who appear as witnesses before parliamentary inquiries.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the honourable member is aware, I am required to report back to Parliament in December on all those recommendations, and I will do that.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. When will the Treasurer respond to the serious concerns of electricity industry workers about his proposed raid on their superannuation assets through plans to transfer them to the Electricity Industry Superannuation Scheme [EISS]? Will he give a guarantee to the House that he is making every effort to address the issues raised by the work force to avoid threatened power industry strikes as we head into the peak summer season?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I can inform the House that I have had a number of meetings with the New South Wales Labor Council and affiliated unions on this matter; the most recent meeting was last week. While I do not speak for other people, I understand that they were satisfied with the information and assurances I was able to provide to them. However, we are continuing to consult with the unions. I also want to ensure that their members are fully and adequately informed about the proposals. The Electricity Industry Superannuation Scheme has performed very well since its formation in 1996 or 1997. Indeed, it has outperformed the State pool fund, which in turn over seven years has outperformed most other superannuation funds in Australia. The EISS was established largely at the initiative of the unions in the electricity industry, which wanted an industry scheme, and that scheme has performed very satisfactorily.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister inform the House of any government measures to address some of the social issues faced by the Nimbin community?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Last Friday—

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Who is the member for Lismore?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Were you listening to the radio the other morning?

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Yes. Who is the member for Lismore?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is Thomas George—I know that—and he was there when events unfolded, as was Mr Woods, who had not been to Nimbin.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You didn't know the member for Lismore?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, I did. I knew Thomas George's name. Members opposite are complaining because I mentioned Harry Woods in the radio interview. I did apologise to Mr George for that; I clarified the issue.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Harry Woods is the Minister for the whole of regional New South Wales.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is right, he is. On that basis, mentioning Harry Woods' involvement in this package is appropriate as he did originally represent the issues. As I was saying, and as the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti alluded to, at least inadvertently, I visited Nimbin with the Minister for Rural Affairs and announced a new $478,000 community solutions package. The honourable member for Lismore, Mr Thomas George, was there to support the initiatives. Nimbin is a village with a high level of community spirit and involvement. There is a real interest in the welfare of the community and this can be seen by the enthusiasm for volunteer work and fundraising. The package I announced included $60,000 for the completion of the Nimbin skate park. The local community itself raised $40,000 towards this facility. I announced also $92,000 over two years to the Nimbin Neighbourhood and Information Centre to help improve its services, with a focus on crisis counselling and referrals, child protection support and advocacy, and $228,000 over two years to expand the activities of the Nimbin Jungle Patrols Street Beat Team. The work of the team focuses on issues causing disorder in the town, including drug-affected groups, mental health and youth crisis intervention.

The sum of $20,000 was allocated to upgrade the Nimbin Headers Sports Club. Improved canteen facilities will further assist community fundraising, and ground lights will enable training and soccer matches to be played during the evening, attracting both participants and spectators. I announced funding of $30,000 for the Colin Roberts Bush Food and Medicine Project. The project focuses on improved education opportunities for young indigenous people and skills development for their families. The sum of $14,000 over two years was allocated to provide support for the employment of an Aboriginal support worker at the Nimbin Central School. In addition, the sum of $10,000 was allocated over two years to help disadvantaged students at the school to encourage them to attend and participate in school activities, including and especially out-of-school, out-of-town excursions. The sum of $44,000 was allocated to support the creation of a part-time tourism development officer in Nimbin. The officer's work will include attracting tourists to the town and creating job opportunities.

It is hoped that the package will reduce disorder and street crime, improve community and tourist safety, have a positive impact on drug dealing and using in the community, improve the health and wellbeing of young people through increased access to sports facilities and improve school retention and achievement. One of the most appealing aspects of this initiative is that the Nimbin community helped draft the package with its local ideas and contributions. The package is a direct result of the input of community groups working in partnership with State and local government to come up with ways of improving the quality of life and protecting local families. I pay tribute to the Bishop of Grafton, Philip Huggins, who originally called for a united effort to combat some of Nimbin's particular local issues. He was a driving force behind this community solutions package. His input has been invaluable.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is a good guy.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is right, he is a good guy. He was not there only because he was overseas on church business. In developing the package, meetings were held with members of the Nimbin community including the Nimbin Central School, the Nimbin Community Drug Action Team, Nimbin Community Centre, Lismore City Council, police and other government agencies. I thank the community representatives and local agencies who worked with the Government to develop the package.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a question of the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Planning. With regard to the Quarantine Station at North Head, is the Minister aware of the Byron Bay Trust model of development for looking after land? Is the Minister aware that the headland is the largest area of unalienated and relatively untouched bushland on the Sydney Harbour foreshores, and contains some 66 buildings, many from the colonial era? Is the Minister aware that on ABC television last night renowned art critic and historian Robert Hughes compared the Quarantine Station in Sydney with New York's Ellis Island? Will the Minister now guarantee to the House and the people of New South Wales that no part of the Quarantine Station will be sold or leased to private interests but instead will be held in perpetuity in full and complete public ownership protected by a trust?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, I have been to North Head but not for a long time. I am generally familiar with what is at North Head. I am not familiar with the comments of Robert Hughes. While I respect the scholarship and insights of Mr Hughes, I am not familiar with and am fairly doubtful about the validity of the historical comparison between Ellis Island and the Quarantine Station. But I do not think that that is ministerial or parliamentary business for me to quibble with, so I will not take up that aspect of the honourable member's question. I am not aware of the model of the Byron Bay Trust and I am not in a position to compare that. So I will refer that component of the question to the Minister for Planning for a comprehensive response.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Why did Treasury refuse funding to the New South Wales Ombudsman for the establishment of a one-stop shop to deal with complaints right across the government sector, a refusal that the Ombudsman has described in his annual report as "incomprehensible"? What is the Treasurer's response to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour's comments in his annual report that, because of the funding refusal:

The substantial work of many senior staff of our office, the Premier's Department, the Office of Information Technology and other participating agencies over more than six months was effectively wasted."

Why does the Government not support streamlined complaints-handling measures?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That was an excellent question. It reminds me of something that occurred to me last night as I was listening to the honourable member's maiden speech.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Inaugural.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Maiden speech, if you don't mind. That was that she was clearly a young member with great talent. As I listened to her question today, her first question, her maiden question, I thought to myself: why is it that other members of the Opposition and the crossbenches—I particularly have in mind the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans—who have been here for so many years, have still not learned how to ask questions. The honourable member, in her first question, has shown how to ask a very good question. I assure the honourable member, however, that she still has a lot to learn. One of the things she will learn, particularly in 2020 or thereabouts if she becomes a Minister of the Crown—and I suspect if she is here that long she will be a very senior Minister of the Crown—is that everyone always has their hand out. The begging bowl is everywhere and there are finite resources. As I said in my Budget Speech this year, we have not run out of things to do, nor will we ever run out of things to do. We have finite resources and infinite demands on them.

The Hon. RON DYER: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer please inform the House about the economic benefits for New South Wales from the activities of the Industrial Supplies Office?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. Ron Dyer has asked another good question. He is another member who, right from the start, knew how to ask a question. Very few on the other side can do it. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Melinda Pavey and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes on their excellent speeches. The House was treated yesterday to two very fine maiden speeches. I look forward to the contributions in this House of both honourable members. One matter I found obscene about the Hon. Melinda Pavey's speech was the revelation that she was 33 years of age. I think it is appalling that anyone could be that young.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You are a grumpy old man.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Actually I was younger than the Hon. Melinda Pavey when I was elected, but I did not appreciate how marvellous it was to be that young.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who is the curmudgeon now?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: "Curmudgeon" is a lovely word. Curmudgeonliness is a quality we can all aspire to. I think I have arrived and deserve that description. I am pleased to advise the House about the Government's import replacement program, conducted by the Industrial Supplies Office [ISO], which delivered nearly $100 million to businesses across the State in the year to July 2002. This represents an increase of over $16 million on the previous year. The program aims to source locally manufactured products and services for New South Wales firms, instead of relying on imports. The program has been of particular benefit to regional New South Wales, with local firms providing import replacement work worth nearly $56 million. This has resulted in more than 1,000 additional jobs in regional New South Wales. Almost 1,900 jobs have been created throughout New South Wales during the past financial year as a result of the work of the ISO. In other words, 1,900 more people are employed in New South Wales because we are producing locally and not relying on purchasing goods and services from overseas. It is also a vote of confidence in our local industries and manufacturing.

The ISO's regional consultants are busy identifying competitive regional companies in order to enhance their access to major projects. This focus has produced a number of positive outcomes for companies in regional areas. I will give two great examples. Firstly, I refer to the Port Waratah coal loader at Newcastle. The ISO actively worked with the Port Waratah coal loader builder, Bechtel Australia, to identify local suppliers, particularly in the Hunter. Bechtel Australia estimates that of the $90 million originally allocated for imported content, local firms have now supplied more than $70 million. The company estimates that by the end of the $345 million project, imported content will make up only 5 per cent of the total cost.

Secondly, the ISO is helping New South Wales-grown passionfruit to gain a larger place in local markets and to break into foreign markets. Since the Passionfruit Marketing Group in Murwillumbah began working with the ISO two years ago, it has won several domestic supply contracts and its business has doubled each year. The Passionfruit Marketing Group recently won a $380,000 contract to supply passionfruit pulp to Golden Circle, replacing imported product from Thailand, the Philippines and China. Other contracts won with the assistance of the ISO are valued at $50,000 per year. The major beneficiaries of this program are competitive small-to-medium enterprises around New South Wales. I look forward to an increasing number of companies working with the ISO to provide a welcome boost to the State and national economies.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is the Minister aware of a mass killing of flying foxes on a property controlled by Tweed shire councillor Bob Brinsmead? Given that this councillor has been convicted of capturing koalas, and other orchardists have been taken to court and heavily fined for similar activities, has the National Parks and Wildlife Service taken action against this farmer? If not, why not?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am not aware of the details that the Hon. Ian Cohen has raised in his question. I will refer it to the Minister for the Environment in the other place and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Fisheries. Is it not a fact that the Minister was approached earlier this year by citizens of Evans Head who were concerned about the loss of the tuna fleet from their community and the dangers to the rest of the commercial fishing fleet and recreational boating caused by siltation at the bar and in the Evans River? From a fisheries perspective, what has the Minister done about this crisis?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I did make representations on behalf of the citizens to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, if I remember correctly. I was keen to see a positive outcome for them in relation to this very serious issue.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House about specific measures to improve safety on building sites?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Ian West for his question and his ongoing interest in occupational health and safety issues. Last night I asked WorkCover to bring forward a safety blitz on concrete formwork on building sites around New South Wales. This safety initiative had been planned to commence in early 2003. Instead, I have asked WorkCover to bring forward the operation to commence in November. The approaching Christmas period is a traditional time when builders attempt to finish projects quickly to meet deadlines, timetables and client demands. It is a time when risks are heightened, and best practice occupational health and safety can start to slip.

WorkCover's construction team, which includes 42 inspectors, will establish a special project team to visit sites around New South Wales. They will make targeted inspections based on WorkCover's own data and various sources of intelligence. The WorkCover Country Team will also conduct inspections in most rural regions. As honourable members would be aware, WorkCover is currently investigating the death of two building workers at Lake Cargelligo. One focus of that investigation is an engineering evaluation of the scaffolding and support structures used by the building contractor during the concrete pour. Although that investigation is not yet complete, I am convinced that a safety blitz on formwork should commence now. The blitz will focus on compliance in the concrete industry, including the safe erection of formwork and falsework. Formwork is a temporary structure used to hold concrete during the curing or drying phase, and falsework is a supporting structure for formwork, such as those used to construct suspended concrete structures.

During the blitz WorkCover inspectors will gauge industry compliance with occupational health and safety legislation, Australian standards and workers compensation and injury management legislation. They will provide information and assistance to help industry understand and comply with occupational health and safety and workers compensation requirements and they will identify and addresses non-compliance. The death of two building workers at Lake Cargelligo was a tragedy. We will continue to do all we can to prevent further accidents. The incidence of workplace accidents is falling in New South Wales, but we cannot be complacent. This blitz is one part of the major effort this Government is putting into improving health and safety across New South Wales workplaces.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I ask the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice. Has the severe drought caused a significant drop in red kangaroo populations which may accelerate as the drought worsens, as it did in 1982-83? Did 70 per cent of red kangaroos die in the 1982-83 drought? Is the current drought much worse than the 1982-83 drought? Have some 600,000 red kangaroos been killed so far this year by the commercial industry, plus many more killed on the roads and illegally by farmers? Will the Minister order an immediate moratorium on the commercial killing of kangaroos, particularly red kangaroos, to allow the drought survivors to recover when the drought breaks? If not, why not?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Richard Jones for his question. Obviously members of this House have strong views on this issue. I will refer his question to the Minister for the Environment and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister agree to calls by the Albury community to establish a fully operational police station at Lavington, given the ongoing problems of community safety in Albury resulting from a sharp rise in crime, particularly property crime, since 1995?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I notice that the community of Albury has recently been visited by the Leader of the Opposition, who could not make any commitments about the Albury police station. I will leave aside the Opposition's commitment to the people of Albury.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When did you go to Albury?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have been to Albury.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When did you last visit Albury?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I cannot remember when. I will take up the issue with the relevant local area commander. However, we have a PACT [Police Accountability Community Teams] regime in New South Wales that enables local communities to raise issues directly with their local area commanders, including issues related to station operating hours and deployment of police resources. There is no government policy, nor should there be, about operating hours at police stations. Those decisions are made by local area commanders in response to community concerns. We have establish that process to deal with such matters. I suggest that the honourable member refer whoever requested that he ask the question to the PACT representatives. In light of the fact that he probably does not know who they are, I will take up the matter and obtain an answer.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I direct my question to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will he inform the House of the highlights of the Premier's Exporter of the Year awards?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am pleased to inform the House that two Australian Technology Showcase [ATS] member firms have won awards at the thirty-fourth Premier's New South Wales Exporter of the Year Awards held last week.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Didn't you answer this question yesterday?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. I take this opportunity to personally congratulate ResMed Ltd for winning the New South Wales Exporter of the Year Award.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I think you did.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I did not. ResMed recently won another award—the Large Advanced Manufacturer Award. I also congratulate Reino International Pty Ltd.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You've referred to that company before as well.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It has also won awards previously. The Leader of the National Party appears to believe that I have given this answer before. I have not. However, many years ago I did on successive days give the same answer and no-one on the Opposition bench noticed. Reino International is a St Leonards-based parking meter technology company and it won the small to medium manufacturers award. Reino is well known for designing and manufacturing the Reino multi-bay parking meter in Australia.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The Minister has misled the House. I remember sitting reading the answer on the occasion he has just acknowledged he repeated an answer. I recall that the Treasurer was too ashamed to stop.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have warned the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti on many occasions that he must not use points of order to make debating points.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You should throw him out!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Madam President, before he finally goes, and he has only a few weeks left with us, it would be lovely if you were to throw him out just once, just so that we have something to remember him by. You can do it affectionately. Reino commenced operations in 1991 as an exporter and distributor. However, management realised that there was a market for a high-tech, cost-effective, user-friendly parking meter. The company earned its first export order in 1999 in the United States and exports now represent 37 per cent of its total revenue.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is it in the showcase?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, it is. Last financial year, Reino recorded a massive 237 per cent growth in export revenue. The Leader of the National Party constantly asks whether there have been any successes among the Australian Technology Showcase companies. A 237 per cent increase in export revenue is certainly a success.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When you spoke about Reino last time, they invited me to their factory.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Did they?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes. It is a very good company. However, I would prefer that it export its meters rather than use them here at home, and that is what I told them on that occasion.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The installation of parking meters means that I can occasionally get a parking space. That is the reason for their installation. The local councils in New South Wales now receive infringement revenue. For a while, this House tried to stop that happening. It is a very valuable source of revenue for councils. ResMed manufacturers, markets and sells medical devices designed to help treat sleep disorders. In 1989, ResMed commenced operating with nine employees and now boasts a staff of 600 in Australia. It is recognised around the world as a technology leader in the manufacture of these devices. We should club together and buy one for the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti before he leaves this place.

The Hon. John Ryan: Only a Treasurer would be singing the praises of a parking meter.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The company continues to undertake clinical trials to assess and develop its equipment so that it can stay at the forefront of this industry. Every time I go to Bondi Beach I sing the praises of parking meters, because if they were not there I would not get a parking space. If there were no parking meters, I would have to walk all the way from Surry Hills to Bondi. [Time expired.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes. I commend the Hon. Henry Tsang for his interest, because ResMed is recognised around the world as a technological leader in the manufacture of these sleep apnoea devices. The company continues to undertake clinical trials to assess and develop its equipment so that it can stay at the forefront of the industry. Both ResMed and Reino will represent the State at the national awards ceremony to be held in Melbourne on 26 November. The Premier's Exporter of the Year Award program, now in its thirty-fourth year, is organised by the Australian Institute of Export New South Wales Ltd and is acknowledged by the business community as one of Australia's most prestigious industry awards.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Is it a fact that various Governments, such as the French and Singaporean governments, have now prohibited the wearing of Muslim veils by female students in state or government schools to discourage divisiveness and promote unity and tolerance? Will the Government investigate the impact of Muslim female students wearing veils in New South Wales infant, primary and high schools? If the results are negative, will the Government adopt the same policy as that implemented by the French and Singaporean governments?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I normally do not try to answer questions directed to me in my capacity as a Minister representing Ministers in another place. However, I will answer this one because I am sure the Premier would have the same view that I have—that is, to reject any such suggestion. Given what happened in Bali, we are all obliged to do what we can to enhance harmony in the community. All honourable members should remind second, third, fourth and fifth-generation Australians that there are cultural differences in our community and that they are not to be derided—they should be recognised and honoured.

Muslim women who strictly observe their religion wear a garb that is unfamiliar to many other Australians. However, it was not long ago that women of my own religion—that is, nuns who taught me—wore a very similar outfit. The Mercy nuns, the Good Samaritan nuns all wore similar garments. For very good reasons, they no longer wear them, but that is not the point. There are cultural differences and no-one should try to hide them. As I said, they should be recognised and honoured. I do not think the New South Wales Government will be following the lead of Singapore or France. I was going to say something disparaging about the French Government, but I will not. One need only observe what it is doing with agricultural subsidies and industries to get a clear idea of—I will not say what I was going to say.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I have a supplementary question. The question related to students in schools, not adult Muslim women wearing veils. That is a completely different issue.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I make the same point. When I went to school I wore a uniform that clearly distinguished me as a rock chopper, and I had no problems with that. But that was at a time when we had religious divisions in our community. The way to overcome that was not to prevent me wearing my school uniform, and it was not to prevent me putting ash on my forehead on Ash Wednesday. So I do not think that is a solution at all.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Now that the Minister has announced a blitz on country building sites, is this an admission that previous redeployments of 18 WorkCover inspectors to man a call centre was the wrong move?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is not an admission about anything. The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, as usual, has got the wrong end of the argument. First, the blitz I referred to earlier, about which I made an announcement yesterday, is not simply in relation to country building sites; it is specifically in relation to formwork and falsework, concrete pours and concrete structures.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Are the 18 inspectors still working in the call centre?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Leader of the Opposition should not be carrying on like that. The Lake Cargelligo deaths are taken very seriously by this Government, as all occupational health and safety issues are. The Leader of the Opposition came up with a bunch of silly gags about Zimbabwe, joint committees, and other matters. He did not even come to the safety summit, but his rival did. The Hon. Greg Pearce must be really desperate to prove himself. He could be a very impressive leader.

Members of this House are no doubt aware of union concerns that WorkCover inspectors are being used to answer telephone inquiries in the WorkCover information centre. One of the most important roles of a WorkCover inspector involves providing the industry and the community with information, assistance and advice on occupational health and safety so that employers and employees can take their own responsibility for the development of safety programs, risk management, hazard reduction, and so on, in workplaces. Members of the public seeking information about these matters are able to obtain advice by contacting the WorkCover Information Centre—and it is going to be quality advice given by inspectors with field experience; it will not be Mickey Mouse advice.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: I asked whether the Minister has redeployed the 18 WorkCover inspectors he had previously redeployed to a call centre, so they can be inspectors. Has the Minister now taken those inspectors out of the call centre and put them back into the field? If so, I ask whether the Minister will he agree that the decision to have inspectors man telephones was a mistake?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: To the point of order: There is no substance to the point of order. However, I note that when I mentioned "Mickey Mouse" the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti got to his feet.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was speaking about inspectors generally and is clearly answering the question. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: To clarify the matter for the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, the blitz is being conducted by WorkCover's 42 inspectors dedicated to construction and the country team. The inspectors are being deployed to specifically undertake this blitz work. I was about to explain for the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti's benefit—given that he asked a question about what is happening with the inspectors who are part of WorkCover's information centre—what is going on there and how that work is contributing to occupational health and safety. However, the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, like his leader, is not particularly interested in occupational health and safety.

Inquiries received by the WorkCover Information Centre are generally actioned by information offices with support from inspectors in cases where the information sought is of a specialised or technical nature. Inspectors have the technical and specialised skills to deal with inquiries by employers who need to use the telephone to make contact with people who can authoritatively give them advice about occupational health and safety matters.

That is what I was referring to earlier when I spoke about "Mickey Mouse", but then the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti got to his feet. He must have thought I was giving him the call, or that I was making comments about him. WorkCover has commenced recruitment action for additional information officers to provide assistance in the information centre during peak periods. WorkCover has advised that during the past two weeks—[Time expired.]

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What action is the Government taking to expand the Families First Program throughout New South Wales?

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You asked that question two days ago.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Families First initiative was introduced in 1998. It is obvious that the Opposition knows nothing about it, because they confuse Families First with the Community Solutions Program. Nonetheless, Families First has gained recognition as one of the most significant and effective social policy developments of recent times. There is a range of participating departments, including the Department of Community Services, the departments of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, Education and Training, Housing, and the area health services.

Families First targets families with young children aged up to eight years. It is based on the principle that early help for children can prevent more serious problems emerging. I am pleased to advise the House that two days ago I announced the final expansion of the Families First Program to the Illawarra, the Riverina, Murray, Cumberland, Prospect, North Sydney and south-east Sydney areas. It means that consultations will now begin with local communities and families in those areas to determine what sort of programs are appropriate.

The resulting programs for those areas are expected to be up and running by the end of 2003. Families First will give thousands of children in those areas the best possible start in life, as well as supporting parents in the demanding job of raising young children. Parenting is a tough job. It is a most rewarding job, but it can be difficult. Sometimes parents need extra support, a sympathetic ear or a helping hand, particularly if they face other stresses such as financial hardship or isolation. Families First is a universal service, but it also provides the added benefit of being able to identify families that may be at risk and may well need extra support over and above what can be provided by the particular Families First services. It can then act as a referral agency to other support services.

There is no doubt that families have changed over the last few decades. Thee are more social and economic pressures, and many families can no longer rely on extended family networks for support. That is where Families First comes in. Its programs include home visitors, school-based community centres, family workers, supported playgroups, mobile early childhood services and community workers. I advise the House that the Department of Community Services is now recruiting community programs officers in Wagga Wagga, Wollongong, Orange, Parramatta, Redfern and Epping. They will liaise with other government agencies to develop area plans, in consultation with families and local child and family services. They will also focus on better co-ordination of existing family support networks to ensure that services are being delivered efficiently to those who need them. The Government is spending $117 million on Families First in the four years up to 2006. That is money well spent, because research shows that early intervention works.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister, as a responsible Minister, ensure that police on duty at the protest planned against the world trade organisation to be held in Sydney next month do not perpetrate violence against protesters, as we witnessed by some police at the S11 Melbourne protest in 2000 and some M1 protests in Sydney? Will the Minister ensure that police exercise their duty of care to protesters in such a way that protesters who infringe any law are arrested and not brutalised by police using their horses, batons or wedge chargers?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This has to be the most hypocritical question that has ever been asked in this House. The Hon. Lee Rhiannon has not told us that she has booked a room in this Parliament to host a forum on civil disobedience. I assume that forum is associated with the World Trade Organisation protest. I ask the member whether that is right. It is an absolute disgrace. The member is using the resources of this Parliament to teach people how to cause problems for our police and members of the community as they go about their business.

This is an absolute disgrace. As everybody in this House knows, because I have made some comments on this publicly, some of the people associated with the WTO—not all of them, of course; people do have a right to protest peacefully—have been engaging in activities that lead us all to conclude that a number of them are coming here to create violent disturbances; they are coming here to have a violent confrontation with the police. I do not know if any of these people are going to the forum on civil disobedience that Ms Lee Rhiannon is organising in this Parliament; I would hope that is not the case. I hope she will be able to explain to the public why she intends to use parliamentary resources for this purpose. It is an absolute disgrace.

We saw what these people did on 1 May: they threw marbles under the hooves of police horses to bring them down and cause deliberate injury to the horses, to police officers, and to other people there. These are the people who have a web site that canvasses where people can purchase metal baseball bats and other equipment that can be used in demonstrations to cause damage not only to property but also to humans.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: How can you use a metal baseball bat in a peaceful protest?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know how you can use a metal baseball bat in a peaceful protest. Lee Rhiannon would be better off telling the House why she supports people who are likely to be involved in violent confrontation with the police. She has asked an absolutely hypocritical question. I would ask Lee Rhiannon to come clean about this forum on civil disobedience she is holding in the Parliament, which 60 people will attend. That is an absolute disgrace. I believe that every member of this House, other than Lee Rhiannon and maybe a couple of the nutters that support her on the crossbenches, would be appalled by this move by Lee Rhiannon. She speaks very sanctimoniously in the House about things that other members of the House do, yet she is blatantly involved in a process that could lead to violence at the WTO meeting. It is a disgrace. She ought to resign.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister confirm that if protesters break the law at the WTO meeting in Sydney, they will be arrested and the police will not use inappropriate and illegal tactics?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Again, the height of hypocrisy! I have just said that the WTO has a web site on which it posts information about using violence at a demonstration. Let us be clear: People are coming here to have a violent confrontation with the police. Let me say to the member: The police will be prepared and I will back the police in what they do.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 26 September the Hon. Ian Cohen directed a question without notice to me, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, about the Native Vegetation Conservation Act. The Minister has provided the following response:

The private native forestry exemption will generally be valid in forests with a canopy cover greater than 30% and a basal area greater than 12 square metres/hectare. Basal area is a measure of stand density, which looks at the total cross-sectional area of trees in a stand, at breast height.

However, if the vegetation type to be managed is listed or has land features listed in the Schedule to the exemption, the exemption is not applicable and development consent is required to undertake forestry operations. High conservation value old growth is listed in the Schedule and therefore forestry operations in these areas will require development consent. This vegetation type is further defined in the Schedule.

Some forest types require that groups of trees be harvested in a single operation in order to achieve optimal regeneration and growth. When this occurs, a gap is created in the canopy. Under the exemption, gaps are defined as canopy openings greater than 0.1 hectares and that carry vegetation less than half the canopy height. To comply with the exemption, the sum of these gaps cannot be greater than 20% of the total forested area.

The maximum size of a gap is further limited by the height of trees in the harvest area. The diameter of canopy openings must not be greater than twice the predominant tree height. This allows sufficient light to reach the ground and promote regeneration. A strip of trees between openings must be retained with a width of at least one tree height.

Also, the average basal area of the forested area cannot be reduced below 12 square metres/hectare.

In addition to these requirements that are designed to maintain continuity of canopy cover, there are a number of other measures and conditions pertaining to the exemption that will ensure minimal impact. These include:

the need to adhere to the standards of an Exemption Operating Protocol;
the requirement for development of Forest and Harvest Management Plans;
accreditation of forest operators; and
exclusion of harvesting operations from rare vegetation types and landscape features.

Landholders intending to undertake forestry operations under the exemption must give prior notification to the Department of Land and Water Conservation, indicating the location and expected starting and finishing dates of operations.

In combination, these conditions will result in the exemption causing minimal impact.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 26 September the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Corrective Services, a question without notice relating to prisoners rehabilitation programs. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response:

The Department of Corrective Services provides a range of programs to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them as far as practicable for successful re-integration into the community upon their release.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 26 September Ms Lee Rhiannon asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, a question without notice relating to staff redundancies at Sydney's Hilton Hotel. I now provide the following response:

The NSW Government supports the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU) and Hilton Hotel workers in their claim for a fair and reasonable redundancy package. Indeed, the Federal industrial relations system currently fails to adequately compensate redundant employees by providing a maximum of just eight weeks redundancy pay compared to the superior provisions afforded by NSW industrial relations legislation.

The NSW Government believes there is a clear need for Hilton management to engage in meaningful negotiations with the LHMU. A redundancy agreement that is proper, just and fair will not only protect employees but will benefit the Hilton’s long-term operations and good name in NSW and Australia.

Whilst I note that there has been some progress made in negotiations, the level of redundancy payments on offer and issues surrounding preference of employment for current employees remain unsatisfactory.

The NSW Government will continue to closely monitor this issue to determine if any assistance can be provided to Hilton workers in achieving an acceptable redundancy package.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 26 September the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development, representing the Minister for Planning, a question without notice relating to the Coffs Harbour water supply. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has provided the following response:

The issues of blasting and water efficiency were addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, the species Impact Statement and by the Commission of Inquiry into this project and in keeping with the pipeline and booster pump construction contracts, blasting can only be carried out with the approval of the Project Management Team. The Department of Land and Water Conservation has informed me that the only approved blasting is in association with the Shannon Creek dam wall geological strata investigation. Even though the pipeline is traversing rocky terrain, the Department does not anticipate any blasting being required to complete this part of the project.

When completed the Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour Regional Water Supply Scheme will provide drought security for predicted demands up to 2021. In conjunction with the associated Regional Water Efficiency Program, which has already commenced, it is hoped to extend the life beyond this horizon. Elements of this Program include education and community involvement; retro-fitting of water efficient appliances to existing dwellings; building approvals mandating water efficient appliances in new buildings; restrictions in accordance with need during dry conditions; and pricing structures to encourage conservation and reduced consumption. The Program is flexible enough to also include the use of water tanks.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 26 September the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Agriculture, a question without notice relating to cotton trash cattle feed. The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following response:

NSW Agriculture does not recommend the feeding of cotton trash to beef cattle because of the risk of chemical residues.

No, our beef markets in Japan and the United States of America are not put at risk by feeding our livestock GM feedstuffs. Japan and the United States of America consider that milk, meat and eggs produced by livestock fed GM feed are not GM products. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, which was established within the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, has also concluded that meat, milk and eggs produced by animals fed genetically modified (GM) foods are not GM products.

Notifications to Australia's overseas markets are made under the Commonwealth Export Control Act and are therefore not the responsibility of the NSW Minister of Agriculture. Also it is believed that very few cattle in NSW are being fed cotton trash.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI, by leave: During question time the Minister accused me of not having any interest in occupational health and safety. I regret to tell him that I take great offence at that statement. Over the years I have taken a conscious interest in the occupational health and safety of members, I have participated actively in industrial relations debates, I have asked many questions on notice and without notice, and, more importantly, I have encouraged my staff to be active members of the Parliamentary Occupational Health and Safety Committee, including the official delegate, my assistant Dr Cintina Blayney. I take particular offence at the Minister's statement because he has enlisted WorkCover inspectors to collect money rather than get out and protect employees and advise employers on how to protect their staff pursuant to the occupational health and safety laws.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon Michael Egan 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 1.07 p.m. The House resumed at 2.40 p.m.]

The Hon. Malcolm Jones, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled report No. 24/52, entitled "Report on the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Regulation 2002", dated October 2002.

Ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 12 November 2002 at 2.30 p.m.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business Item No. 79 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Save Callan Park Bill, be called on forthwith.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.41 p.m.]: I move:

That Private Members' Business item No. 79 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.42 p.m.]: Before business was interrupted for question time the Hon. Amanda Fazio was speaking on the motion moved earlier today by the Hon. Richard Jones relating to the important report on feral animals. Various members of the committee had spoken on that motion this morning. As honourable members know, I have strong views about the way in which private members' business and the ballot for the order of precedence in this House are continually hijacked. Honourable members unanimously agreed this morning to debate an item of business outside the order of precedence, so it is very unfair when once again another member seeks to hijack the ballot and the procedures we all agreed to and entered into in a democratic and multipartisan spirit. Once again I place on record my objection to the way the forms and conventions of this House are continually hijacked when it suits individual members.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [2.43 p.m.]: Mr Deputy-President, I seek your judgment on whether it is appropriate for debate on one motion that has been brought on pursuant to contingent notice to be interrupted by debate on another motion brought on pursuant to contingent notice.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.45 p.m.]: I support the statements of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. We have established a system of precedence and we have been through this a number of times. Members who have an item of business that is much further down the list simply want to jump over all the other items of business. I do not believe that is a good practice, and the Opposition and the Government should not support it. If there are pressing reasons for debating an item of business, the member should convey them to members in writing prior to seeking to bring the item on, so that we can carefully consider them.

The Hon. John Jobling: Are you speaking against it?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am speaking against the matter coming on at this time. I am opposed to it coming on.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [2.46 p.m.]: Mr Deputy-President, you called the Hon. Lee Rhiannon after the division, which was resolved in the affirmative. I am not sure whether it is too late for the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to take a point of order and object to the matter coming on.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.46 p.m.]: I understood that if debate is interrupted, it is necessary to again suspend standing and sessional orders to resume the debate. That has not happened with the motion to debate the report on feral animals. The motion to bring on the debate on the Save Callan Park Bill was put to the vote. While some members may not like it, the House made that decision. The vote has taken place and the decision was made. I do not understand how anyone could possibly raise a point of order after the event.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.47 p.m.]: I speak against the motion of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon to bring on this matter now. As a resident of the inner western suburbs of Sydney, and as a member of Parliament, I am well aware of the level of concern that has been generated in the inner western suburbs of Sydney about Callan Park. If the Hon. Lee Rhiannon were serious about bringing on her bill, rather than simply using any opportunistic chance she gets to try to bring it on as some sort of stunt, she would allow people in the inner western suburbs of Sydney who are concerned about this issue and have been protesting and so on to have their say. I do not necessarily agree with all the issues they have raised. However, it would be an abuse of the parliamentary system to bring this matter on now, without giving due notice to the people in the community who have expressed concern about it. It shows that the Hon. Lee Rhiannon has no regard for the community interests she claims to represent.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Look in the gallery.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I am looking in the gallery and I can see four people. Three of them might be concerned about saving Callan Park, and one is a regular visitor to the gallery. Many people, other than those three, feel they have some ownership of the Callan Park issue. I oppose this matter coming on now, particularly as debate on the report on feral animals, which is of concern to Coalition members and the crossbenchers, was brought on this morning by contingency. We are only part way through debate on the report on feral animals.

[Interruption]

I know that today is not Government business day. I am simply saying that the Hon. Richard Jones suspended standing orders this morning to bring on his motion about the report on feral animals, which is an important issue. I would have expected the Hon. Ian Cohen, as a member of the Greens, to have some interest in the recommendations in the report on feral animals. I suppose this is where we see the divide between the inner-city socialist—some might say Trotskyite—Greens and the environmental Greens. It is a pity that the members of the Greens could not get their act together and sort out which group of greens they will be appealing to today, the true greens or the inner-city red greens.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: Point of order: The honourable member has strayed way off the track of the debate. She is attempting to stop a contingency motion that is already in place and is accusing me of disinterest in certain issues. Perhaps I did not speak to that issue but I received a complete copy of the report from the Hon. Richard Jones that I am looking forward to reading; and I listened with great interest to the positions put by honourable members. The honourable member's accusation is unfair and divisive. She may be used to it in her own party, but there are differences.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: As I said at the outset, I am a resident of the inner west. As the Hon. Malcolm Jones would have seen, Callan Park has been the predominant issue every week in the local newspapers. For the Hon. Lee Rhiannon to claim that having three members of the public in the gallery justifies her bringing on this matter shows absolute contempt for other residents who have a concern about it.

This issue has been running strongly in the inner western suburbs for a long time. If the Hon. Lee Rhiannon wants to have an informed and intelligent debate on this issue she should wait her turn in the ballot for private members business like everybody else does. She should then inform the people who have put a lot of effort into the campaign when the debate is to be held and allow them to attend and listen to it. I believe in having free and open debates in this Chamber. I do not believe that one member of a minor party should be able to hijack the procedures of the House to bring on issues when it suits her and in doing so ignore the large number of people in the community who are interested in the issue.

For those reasons, I urge honourable members to oppose the motion of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. This is simply another example of the opportunistic Greens hijacking a genuine community issue. Since the Cunningham election result the Greens have an overinflated idea of their level of support in the community. They only got 23 per cent of the vote there, they did not get an outright majority. They ought to accept that if they are going to try to hijack community issues they should at least tell the public when they are going to do it.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [2.52 p.m.]: The forms of the House are quite clear. The contingency motion to suspend standing and sessional orders has been agreed to and we are now debating whether the motion should be called on forthwith, outside the order of precedence. That is perfectly in order. As the debate has been wide ranging, let me go back to make sure that the chronological steps are clear. This morning the Hon. Richard Jones moved a motion to bring on debate on a report on feral animals. That went through all the steps, it was agreed to, and debate commenced. The debate was then interrupted by question time.

Following question time the Clerk was asked to read the order of the day, at which stage the Hon. Lee Rhiannon moved, according to contingent notice, to suspend standing orders to allow the moving of a motion to bring on item No. 79 outside the order of business, the Save Callan Park Bill; that is, she sought to resume that debate. Under the old structural arrangements that business would have been described as a remnant. Debate on the second reading of that bill had commenced, the business paper shows that the Hon. Ian Macdonald has 20 minutes remaining in which to speak if he wishes, and other honourable members may also speak within the prescribed three hours, at which stage debate will conclude.

At that stage the House may resolve to return to the motion of the Hon. Richard Jones. Today is private members day, so any member may seek to bring on a matter on the business paper of which correct notice has been given. I trust that no-one will disagree with that. That is precisely what has happened. I can understand that some people, who may not want to discuss this matter for whatever reason, might try to find a reason for it not to come on. However, Ms Lee Rhiannon has been perfectly in order; the forms of the House have not been breached.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Amanda Fazio should go back into her birdcage. I listened to her in silence, and I would like her to do the same.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You are so precious.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: No, I am not precious, you are. I know what you are like. The House will decide what will happen. The matter is in the public domain. It has been argued that no notice has been given, but notice was given on 27 August. Yes, Callan Park is in all the appropriate inner western media. Yes, the people out there rightly have a concern about it. For these reasons I think it is proper for the House to resolve that it be brought on for debate. It is a matter of public interest, and correct procedures have been followed. The Opposition supports the matter being brought on for debate, at which stage the House will resolve what will happen. It is a matter for the House to resolve rather than waste further time. I commend the motion.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.56 p.m.]: The Hon. Lee Rhiannon is completely entitled to move her motion; the standing orders make provision for it. The Hon. John Jobling said that, and we are not disputing it. This afternoon the House will receive from the other place the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Bill, and it will be debated in 10 days or so. Honourable members will have unlimited time in which to debate the bill. That is the appropriate course, given that 90-odd private members business items are on the notice paper. This morning we began to debate the Hon. Richard Jones's report on feral animals, and when that debate concludes we will debate an important matter of public health relating to juvenile smoking, which will be moved by the Hon. David Oldfield.

Legislation dealing with the future of Callan Park will come before this House and be debated within the next fortnight. That will be the appropriate vehicle by which to debate Callan Park and all its issues. As the Government's Callan Park (Special Provisions) Bill is shortly to be received in this House we should not spend the next two hours debating Ms Lee Rhiannon's Save Callan Park Bill. The receipt of the Government's bill should have already been announced, but, although it was sitting here, I had not seen it.

In all fairness to the other members of the House, especially the other members of the crossbench, Ms Lee Rhiannon should save her comments until we debate the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Bill. We should give the opportunity to the Hon. Richard Jones and the other honourable members who are ready to speak about feral animals, and then allow the Hon. David Oldfield to move his motion about juvenile smoking. That is a fair way of going about it. This is not a procedural issue. Ms Lee Rhiannon had every right to do what she did. However, the Government will vote against this motion and urge honourable members to take the same course and save their speeches until the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Bill comes before the House, and we can go back to the Hon. Richard Jones' matter.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [2.59 p.m.]: I briefly join the debate on the contingency motion. Clearly, the Government bill is very different from the bill of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. This House is competent enough to deal with both at the same time. The private member's bill and the Government bill have completely different aims. The aim of the Government is to save the Hon. Sandra Nori and the aim of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon's bill is to save Callan Park. They are quite different matters. This matter is urgent. I support the Hon. Lee Rhiannon in bringing forward her bill. After the second reading, the Opposition waited for the Hon. Ian Macdonald to speak on the bill. He jumped to make sure that I could not speak on the bill and indicate the Opposition's support for it. I was here ready to do so, but the Hon. Ian Macdonald took the prerogative of Government to jump. The matter currently before the House is a motion by the Hon. Richard Jones to take note of a report on feral animals. The last time I sought leave to take note of a report—a report on mental health by a select committee of this Parliament—the Hon. Jan Burnswoods objected.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You are being petty, are you?

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: It is not the only time she has done it.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You want retribution, you don't want to look at the issue.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I love it when both of you toil and bubble and interject. Talk dirty to me. Come on, talk dirty to me. I love it, I love it. I love it when you talk dirty like that.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti will return to the subject matter of the motion.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: Members are permitted a fair go in debate in this place. But in terms of our society as it exists today this constant sexist language, imputation and remarks that come from the Opposition, and more recently from the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, are totally against the general views of most members of this House. They are certainly against the views of people in our society who have any sort of commonsense. During debate in this House members can argue back and forth and call other members all sorts of names if they wish. But I believe the remarks of the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti are grossly inappropriate. I do not call upon the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti to apologise—perhaps he is unable to do so because of something in his character— I simply request that members make it clear to all concerned that they do not support such sexist behaviour and imputation.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: To the point of order: I take exception to being called racist by the Hon. Peter Primrose. I ask him to withdraw that remark.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Further to the point of order: I have never called the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti racist. I called him sexist. I would ask him to withdraw his remarks as a consequence.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Further to the point of order: I ask the Hon. Peter Primrose to withdraw the statement that I am sexist.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Further to the point of order: The honourable member has indicated clearly by his comments that he is sexist.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Further to the point of order: I ask for a withdrawal.

The Hon. John Jobling: To the point of order: Pursuant to Standing Order 81 a member who finds a charge or a statement against him offensive may ask that the member who made the statement withdraw it. My colleague the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti has asked that the comment "sexist" be withdrawn. I ask that you uphold Standing Order 81.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to Standing Order 81, I ask the Hon. Peter Primrose to withdraw the remark.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Given your guidance, I withdraw it. I ask that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti withdraw his sexist imputations against members in this House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Under the same standing order, I call on the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti to withdraw his imputations.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I was accused of being both racist and sexist and I asked for those remarks to be withdrawn. I would be more than pleased if the Hon. Peter Primrose can indicate where I called a member sexist, because I did not. I deny that I said it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: The Hon. Peter Primrose took a point of order that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti used language that was sexist. Pursuant to Standing Order 81, I ask the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti to withdraw the remark.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I withdraw any imputation against honourable members that they might be sexist.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: I am not sure that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti understands the point. The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti made imputations by asking two members to "talk dirty" to him. Exception has been taken to those imputations. I ask him to withdraw the remarks pursuant to Standing Order 81.

The Hon. John Jobling: I seek your guidance. If a person puts a question inviting someone to "talk dirty" to him, that phrase is commonly used by people in the everyday world. A reasonable amount of cut and thrust is allowed in debate. As I understand it, the remark was not directed to a specific member.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! This has gone on long enough. Regardless of whether or not particular comments are commonly used outside the Parliament, they were directed at two female members in this House and exception has been taken to them. I ask the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti to withdraw the comments in order that this House may continue with its business.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I comply with your request. It is extremely important that this issue be debated. I am aware that there has been an urgent motion to bring in the bill in the other place. That bill has not yet come to this Chamber. As the Hon. Ian Macdonald said, it may be 10 more days before we debate it. Even if the bill had its first reading today and the second reading was moved on Tuesday of the next sitting week, it will be more than 10 days before we debate the matter. In any event, the House granted leave to the Hon. Lee Rhiannon by way of contingency motion to move forward on her bill. That was a vote of the House.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Another vote has to take place.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I know another vote has to take place. I believe that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods was canvassing the deliberation of the House on the previous vote. I may be wrong about that. The House has agreed to allow the Hon. Lee Rhiannon to introduce her bill by way of contingency motion. We are about to vote on that motion. I indicate that I will support the motion.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [3.08 p.m.]: I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are concerned about Callan Park. Unfortunately, today is not the day to debate the bill. I came here with expectations of contributing to a debate on feral animals. That take-note debate, procedurally correct as it is, has been essentially hijacked and thrown out. Following debate on that report, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's bill will be brought on and, as I understand it, adjourned. The juvenile smoking bill, which has been waiting many months to come before the House, is supposed to proceed today. If we continue to allow motions such as this to take up private members' day, there will be no more private members' days for the rest of the year. Ultimately those private members' days will be turned over to Government business as we try to close down proceedings between now and the middle of December. The Government bill on Callan Park will be introduced and appropriately dealt with in the next couple of weeks on a Government business day.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [3.10 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. The situation is urgent.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The Hon. Ian Cohen has already spoken in this debate.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! I understood him to speak on a point of order, not to the motion.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: When the Hon. Ian Cohen spoke he said he was speaking to a point of order. However, he did not understand that this is a debate on the motion of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. He did not speak to the point of order; he spoke in the debate.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I raised a point of order. If I raised my own point of order on a matter, surely I was speaking to that point of order. I did not speak following anyone else; I raised that point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! That is my understanding. The member now has the call.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. This indicates that some honourable members are interested in obfuscation and wasting the time of the House. The Hon. Fred Nile might have a position on this matter that I find peculiar. It might have something to do with the fact that the motion has been moved by a Greens member rather than by a member of the Opposition. He would probably support it under those circumstances.

This is an urgent matter. As the Hon. Ian Macdonald said, the Hon. Lee Rhiannon had every right to raise this issue as an urgent matter and to seek contingency. In that respect, everything that has been done has been reasonable. We are not holding up the Government's agenda; this is not a Government business day. However, for some strange reason, members of the Government are mortally afraid of having a debate on this matter before their bill comes before the House. I am convinced there are some severe deficiencies in the Government's bill. The about-face in the Government's recent political posturing was stunning. Of course it is a very important bill. The Government has done a major turnaround, but it has not been sufficient. The original bill has attracted widespread support from the crossbench and the Opposition. That is a valid argument for seeking contingency and putting the motion forward for debate.

The Hon. John Jobling: It is the right bill.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Yes, it is the right bill. It is the original bill and it is supported by the Opposition and many people in the community. Much of this debate is wasting the time of the House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Harwin

Mr R. S. L. Jones Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Dr Pezzutti Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Mr Samios

Mrs Sham-Ho Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Jobling

Ms Burnswoods Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield

Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Ms Fazio Mr Primrose

Mr Gay	Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Lynn	Ms Saffin

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 26 September.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.22 p.m.]: Ms Lee Rhiannon's claim that the Callan Park site will be turned over to developers is wrong. She is desperately trying to divert attention away from the blunder that would see junior sports teams evicted from the site, which was never intended to occur. Ms Lee Rhiannon has only ever been interested in Callan Park for political points she can score from the issue. This is why her plan for Callan Park will, forever, ban junior sports from the site and ensure the development of a privately funded 400-bed mental hospital on the site.

As this motion gives the House an opportunity to consider the issue in detail, and as we look to the future with respect to the bill that will shortly be moved in this House, I wish to outline the Government's plans for the Callan Park site. There are five objectives to the Government's approach, as will be outlined in the bill to be put before this House shortly. The Government's objectives will ensure the continued public ownership of, and access to, Callan Park. As the objectives state, the Government's bill will ensure the preservation of open space at Callan Park.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: Point of order: The Hon. Ian Macdonald is specifically referring to the Government's bill, not the bill before the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is a tradition in this House for the contributions of members to be wideranging. The Hon. Ian Macdonald was speaking in general terms about the Callan Park issue. I remind him, however, that speeches are meant to be relevant.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is the Government's intention to allow public access to that open space at Callan Park, including the harbour foreshore. The Government will allow public access for both active and passive recreation. It is the Government's intention to preserve the heritage significance of Callan Park, and it will impose appropriate controls on future development. The Government's bill, which is being passed in the lower House, guarantees that all of Callan Park will remain in public ownership. For the benefit of the Hon. Ian Cohen, under clause 5 of that bill Callan Park may only be transferred to another statutory body representing the Crown that is subject to the direction and control of the Minister.

For the benefit of honourable members, clause 5 of the Government's bill also prohibits leases of any part of Callan Park, except those expressly permitted by the bill. A further clause of the Government's bill, which will be tabled and printed in this House today, permits leases or licences of buildings or lands to be granted with the Minister's consent. However, clause 6 requires the Minister to engage in extensive public advertising and consultation on any proposed lease or licence. Clause 6 also permits the management of Callan Park, or any part of it, to be contracted out with the Minister's consent. This provision recognises that the Crown body that owns Callan Park might not always have the appropriate expertise or resources to best manage the site.

There are two important restrictions on the ability to contract out management of Callan Park. First, the extensive public advertising and consultation provisions that apply to leases also apply before the Minister is allowed to consent to a proposed management contract. Second, the Management of Callan Park may only be contracted to the local government area in which Callan Park is situated, or to some other body specifically formed to manage Callan Park. The Government also intends to set out the key restrictions on the development of Callan Park. The provisions in clause 7 of the Government's bill override the environmental planning instruments that otherwise apply to the site.

Under this clause, development is permitted, with development consent, for the purposes of health care facilities, aged-care facilities, educational facilities and community facilities. It is important to note, however, that in permitting such uses clause 7 of the Government's bill also limits buildings at Callan Park to the footprints of existing buildings, specifically prevents any reduction in the amount of open space, and specifically prevents any increase in the total area of buildings at Callan Park. The Government's bill ensures that Callan Park will retain its character as a health and community facility, as honourable members may already be aware. The need for adequate aged-care facilities is an increasingly important issue throughout Australia. It is a particular need in Sydney's inner west, including the electorate of Port Jackson.

Many local elderly people at present have limited opportunities for staying in the area they know and love if and when they reach the stage of needing aged care. Aged care use has already been raised as a possibility for the site, and Callan Park may well present an ideal opportunity for providing essential aged care facilities in the inner west. I wish to emphasise, however, that clause 7 of the Government's bill specifically rules out State environmental planning policy 5 aged care and disability housing. Under the Government's bill there is no way we will end up with a monstrosity such as the 400-bed privately funded hospital that the Leader of the Opposition has promised to build at Callan Park.

Clause 7 of the bill also specifically protects the important gardens in Callan Park. The Broughton Hall Garden, known locally as the Japanese Gardens, the Charles Moore Garden and Kirkbright Garden are each named in and protected by the Government's bill. Under this clause the consent authority is required to consider the objects of the bill when determining a development application. Madam President, I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

The House divided.

Ms Burnswoods Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield

Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Ms Fazio Mr Primrose

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Harwin

Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mrs Pavey Dr Pezzutti Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Mr Samios

Mrs Sham-Ho Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Jobling

Mr Hatzistergos	Mr Gay
Ms Saffin	Mr Pearce

Question resolved in the negative.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Under clause 7 of the Government's bill, which will be introduced later today, the consent authority is required to consider the objects of the bill when determining a development application. This means that public and foreshore access and heritage issues will be considered in every development application. The Government also proposes, as part of its bill, a clause that enables regulations to establish a community consultation committee for Callan Park.

The Government's bill also includes a clause to ensure that the Heritage Act still applies to Callan Park. I shall now outline the objects of the Government's comprehensive bill so that honourable members opposite understand the Government's direction on Callan Park. The first object is to ensure that the whole of Callan Park remains in public ownership. That is an unequivocal commitment. The second object is to ensure the preservation of the areas of open space at Callan Park that were in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act, and that extend to and include the foreshore of Iron Cove on the Parramatta River. The third object is to allow public access to that open space, including that foreshore, for public recreational purposes.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: It appears to me that the Hon. Ian Macdonald is simply reading from another bill, which has been passed by the lower House but has not been presented in this House. He should be brought back to the leave of the bill before this House, which is different from the Government bill.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: Surely it is within the leave of the bill, when considering its provisions, to consider alternatives to those provisions. That is what we do all the time in Committee when we consider various bills in detail, clause by clause. The Hon. Ian Macdonald is considering a range of alternative options. Because of the duplicity and the tricks adopted to bring this bill on today, there has been no opportunity for the Government to formally introduce its bill to the House, even though the bill is sitting on the table. I suspect strongly that that is precisely the reason this bill has been brought on now. Surely, it is within the leave of the bill before the House for members to consider the range of alternative policy options.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Further to the point of order: The Hon. Peter Primrose is partly correct. It is simply a matter of whether or not the Hon. Ian Macdonald can make clear when he is relating to this bill, which was presented by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: To the point of order: I was detailing the objects of the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Bill 2002 in order to compare it with the bill that is before the House. I was seeking to demonstrate the superiority of the Government's proposed legislation on Callan Park over the rather limited proposal of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. That is the reason I was reading the objects of the Government's bill. Therefore, I contend that my comments are entirely in order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have ruled on other occasions, it is a tradition in this House for the contributions of members to debate on bills and motions to be wideranging. I will not make a ruling the effect of which would prescribe discussion in this House in a way that would make it impossible for members to refer to alternatives to those proposed by a bill or motion. Debate in this House would be boring and ordinary if members were confined to referring only to the wording of a bill before the House. There is no point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary may proceed.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As I was saying, the third object of the Government's bill is to allow public access to that open space, including that foreshore, for public recreational purposes of both an active and a passive nature. The fourth object is to preserve the heritage significance of Callan Park, including its historic buildings, gardens and other landscape features. The fifth object is to impose appropriate controls on the future development of Callan Park. Clause 5 states:

Callan Park not to be sold or otherwise disposed of

(1) The sale, transfer, lease or other alienation, and any mortgage or other encumbrance, of Callan Park, or any part of Callan Park, is prohibited, except as provided by this Act.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: It is perfectly clear that the Hon. Ian Macdonald is simply reading from the "Save Sandra Nori Bill" rather than the bill that is before this House. He continues to refer to "this Act", rather than to the bill before the Chair. He should not talk about another bill unless he makes it perfectly clear that when he does so he is not referring to the bill that is before this House. I accept your point, Madam President, about free-ranging debate, but in the past 10 minutes the Hon. Ian Macdonald has not even come close to mentioning the bill before the House.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: We should bear in mind the difficult position in which this House finds itself of unexpectedly having to debate a bill that is similar in its subject matter to a Government bill that was about to be presented to the House. Had it not been for the political games that have been played in this House today, a little more understanding would have been given to the quite detailed comparative exercise being undertaken by the Hon. Ian Macdonald, as he tries to compare one projected piece of legislation with another bill that has already been passed by the lower House. What he is doing in that comparison is perfectly within the conventions of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have previously said, I will not prescribe what options can and cannot be discussed when a bill or motion is being debated. However, it might help the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti when the Hon. Ian Macdonald refers to other legislation that he refer to it by its full title.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am always keen to be helpful to the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti. I had almost finished referring to the Government's bill; I was about to turn to the Save Callan Park Bill 2002. Clause 5 of the Government's bill states:

(2) The Governor may, by proclamation, vest Callan Park, for an estate in fee simple in a statutory body representing the Crown that is subject to the direction and control of the Minister.

The provisions of the Save Callan Park Bill are not as strong on those contained in the Government's bill, which at this stage could be referred to as the draft bill. Later this afternoon it will be a bill before the House and every member will have an opportunity to debate it. The Government's bill outlines more clearly the objects of the Act. There are no real objects to the Save Callan Park Bill. It merely states that Callan Park should be alienated or unencumbered. It fails also to spell out the future of Callan Park such as is proposed in the much more superior Callan Park (Special Provisions) Bill, which has more clear and extensive objects. That bill better defines the area, the foreshore and public access. It also defines the appropriate controls on future development of Callan Park. Clause 4 of the Save the Callan Park Bill is clearly inferior to the provisions in the bill that the Government intends to introduce.

This is a stunt to try to drum up support from the Greens and the Liberals in the seat of Port Jackson. Jim Parker is the Greens candidate for the electorate of Port Jackson, and the Greens are desperate for Liberal preferences at the next election. Everyone knows that; the Hon. Ian Cohen knows that more than any other member of this House. He knows that it is a cosy little arrangement in Port Jackson to try to get a Greens candidate up in that seat. I assure honourable members of one thing: Sandra Nori will survive the ballot and this trial by the Greens, in conjunction with the Liberal Party—the green Liberals, as we call them. [Time expired.]

Madam President, for the final 10 seconds of my contribution to this debate members opposite did a football-style countdown.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Who did?

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: The Hon. Rick Colless was one of them. At least the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner has been honest enough to acknowledge that she was another. And the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti was another; I heard him.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: I didn't say a word.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I want members opposite to withdraw that countdown. It was one of the most shameful exercises I have witnessed in this House for years. The countdown was an insult to the dignity of this House, and members opposite should be reprimanded accordingly.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have reminded members continually that the level of noise in the House at times makes it very difficult for me in the chair and for Hansard to hear properly. I ask members to reduce the level of noise at all times.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.51 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the local residents who have expressed concern about saving Callan Park for recreational use—they want it retained as a public asset. We also support the conservation of Callan Park and the placement of restrictions on its use. As we were not ready to debate this bill we have not made a considered decision as to whether to support it or the Government's bill, for which notice of presentation has been given. There are problems with both bills. The bills need to be improved by amendments, and we are in the process of discussing those amendments with Government members and with community representatives.

Today I received an email from the Friends of Callan Park in which they express concern about the future of Callan Park. They believe it is necessary to prevent the leasing out of Callan Park—the parkland as well as the buildings. The Friends of Callan Park are strongly opposed to the leasing out of the open space as the public will inevitably be excluded from it. Although the bill introduced by the Greens—one might call it the Leichhardt council bill—provides for the protection of the parkland, we are concerned that that protection will be placed in the hands of Leichhardt council. Its protection will be at the council's mercy. Clause 5 (6) provides:

The consent authority for development applications relating to land within Callan Park is the council of the local government area within which the land is situated …

The Greens did not even have the courage to mention Leichhardt council in the bill. The bill contains the following vague reference, "that the authority rests with the council of the local government area within which the land is situated". The Greens know that that council will be Leichhardt council, so they are concealing the fact that this bill will virtually put Callan Park in the hands of Leichhardt council. The member who introduced the bill—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: No, it's in the hands of a trust.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: There is no reference to a trust in the bill. Where is a trust referred to in the bill? The bill will provide Leichhardt council with a blank cheque. It is a sell-out of the local residents who think that this bill is the Save Callan Park Bill; it is really the "Save Callan Park for Leichhardt Council Bill". It is a question of who is the greater villain, the State Labor Government or Leichhardt council? I do not have any personal knowledge of the individuals on Leichhardt council but over the years I have gained the impression that its membership is radical and unstable, and that there is a power struggle among the councillors. The Greens may have made a deal with Leichhardt council, because they trust the council to have control over Callan Park. Does the Hon. Richard Jones trust Leichhardt council to have control over Callan Park? I think it is foolish to trust Leichhardt council to have a monopoly over Callan Park. Clause 5 (6) states that the council will have control of Callan Park "despite any other Act or any environmental planning instrument". That means that all other environmental protection laws will not apply; this bill will suspend those laws.

The bill is dangerous, and honourable members should examine it closely. The Opposition may be making political mileage by supporting the Greens on this occasion, but it must be said that there are dangers with this bill. Normally the Opposition acts carefully and, I believe, in the wider interests of the community on such matters. However, it is not doing so with this bill. The Friends of Callan Park are also concerned that the bill does not provide a time limit on leases or licences. Clause 6, which provides for 10-year leases, states:

Leases and licences

(1) Leases may be granted of buildings situated within Callan Park (and of any land in their immediate vicinity necessary for their use) for a term that, including the term of any further lease that may be granted under an option for renewal of the lease, does not exceed 10 years.

Although this bill will supposedly save Callan Park, it will actually give Leichhardt council control over the future of the park. Clause 5 (2) states:

Development of Callan Park may be carried out for the purpose of any one or more of a health service, an educational facility and a community facility …

Clause 5 (7) defines "educational facility" to mean a university. That means that under this bill Leichhardt council could agree to establish a university on the site. We all know how many buildings a university requires, even if it is associated with the University of Sydney or the University of Western Sydney or it is a new university. Perhaps Leichhardt council will establish a left-wing green university on Callan Park. The bill also states that other facilities may be established on the site. However, for some reason, it provides that a university can be established on the site but not a secondary school or a primary school. Again, I fail to understand why this bill places the emphasis on a university. That suggests that there is a proposal in the wings for some of the land to be allocated to an unknown, unnamed university. I wonder whether the residents who are fighting tooth and nail to save Callan Park—they think for recreational uses—realise that they are being sold out to Leichhardt council. Like other councils, Leichhardt council is often short of revenue, and it may feel justified in allowing development of Callan Park if that development produces revenue for the council. The council could even argue that because it wants to help aged and disabled people in the Leichhardt council area it is morally right to use the land at Callan Park for those revenue-producing activities.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: No, it is not. It is a mental health establishment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: This bill specifically allows an educational facility, a university, to be built there, but not a school or primary school.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: It is for training nurses.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The bill does not say that.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: That is what it means.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It says "university". Did you help to draft the bill?

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: It is to train mental health nurses. That is what people want.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am saying that that is not in the bill. The emphasis is on seeking to save the green space, the park space, for the people of Sydney and I do not believe they expect to see any development on it, even a university training college for nurses. They do not expect that to be built on that land. The Friends of Callan Park believe there should be restrictions on the erection of temporary structures. I do not see in this bill any restrictions on temporary structures being erected on the Callan Park land. I do not believe that the local citizens are clear about what will happen. They are concerned about the Labor Government—and that can be justified, given its previous actions—but they are not concerned that the control of the land may be contracted to some other body.

I wonder whether they understand that it is contracted to Leichhardt council. I know that some of the people who are playing a leading role in the Friends of Callan Park group are genuine, because I have met with deputations. However, when I get documents pleading on behalf of Leichhardt council, I am a bit suspicious about whether those individuals have an association with the council. Are they acting on behalf of Leichhardt council and not on behalf of local citizens who are concerned about the future of Callan Park?

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: That is the point, you cannot trust the Government.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Does the Liberal Party honestly support Leichhardt council having control of anything?

The Hon. Don Harwin: Absolutely.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is a change.

The Hon. Don Harwin: The mayor of Leichhardt is elected.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is a very different position from what you have taken on other issues.

The Hon. Don Harwin: For the past four years Leichhardt council has been in excellent hands—for the first time in its history.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is a dramatic change. Unless you think the Liberals have control of Leichhardt council. Is that the reason for your change of tune?

The Hon. Don Harwin: No, we have a voice there.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: You may have one person, but, even if you have a voice, you need to know how all the council members will vote. Having one voice does not mean you can prevent abuse of Callan Park, which I believe is possible under this bill. The Friends of Callan Park are also concerned that there may be some provision for aged care facilities at Callan Park. It is not clear to me from the bill that that would be prevented. Is there anything to stop Leichhardt council establishing some aged care facilities? The bill states:

Development of Callan Park may be carried out for the purpose of any one or more of a health service, an educational facility and a community facility …

A community facility could be interpreted to include facilities for aged persons. The debate on Callan Park has centred on trying to protect it as parkland.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: No, as part of a mental health service.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is what the citizens who have been seeing us have been talking about. They show us photos of all this nice green parkland and they give us very attractive maps and photographs, and they plead with us to keep it that way.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: I have been saying we want to keep it for health care and green space for sick people.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: They have given us all these maps showing this green space and that is what they believe they are fighting to maintain. Is there any likelihood that Leichhardt council will maintain all that green space? The bill provides no guarantees whatsoever. In fact, the bill states that the council will have the authority to do those three things.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: What were they?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Callan Park may be used by the public for passive recreation, that is the parkland; development of Callan Park may be carried out for the purpose of any one or more of a health service, an educational facility, a community facility; and minor works—"minor" is subjective because what is minor to you may be major to someone else—may be carried out at Callan Park, but only with development consent. The development consent is in the hands of Leichhardt council. Clause 5 (6) states:

The consent authority for development applications relating to land within Callan Park is the council of the local government area within which the land is situated—

this is the important point—

despite any other Act or any environmental planning instrument.

It virtually exempts Leichhardt council, while it is controlling the Callan Park site, from the provisions of any other Act or environmental law. Honourable members seem to be reluctant to allow the Government to have the power, yet they believe the council should have it.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Who should have it?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is the question. Our policy is that a genuine trust should be established. The bill does not provide for a trust.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: The Minister for Health owns it. He would have to do the development application. Why would the Minister for Health do something with his own land?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: A trust needs to be established and I would not object to its having a representative of Leichhardt council, a representative of the State Government, and a representative of the Health Department.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: The Health Department owns it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, but we are virtually putting an embargo on it. That is what we want to do. The residents want it protected. That trust could include some genuine local residents who have no vested interest but who will ensure the protection of the parkland. There are many flaws in the Greens bill as a result of the rush to get it drafted, and there may be flaws in the draft government bill that has been sent to this place.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: I am having great difficulty hearing Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's contribution to the debate because of the continual, incessant and inane interjections of the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti. I ask that you call him to order or throw him out.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti knows that all interjections are unparliamentary and contrary to standing orders.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I was just saying that there are also problems with the Government's bill. It has not yet been presented to the House so I will call it the draft bill. It has passed through the other place, so it does exist. It does not provide for a trust, either. We are having discussions with the Government at the moment about how a trust could be established, and we will move an amendment to that effect to the Government bill when it is considered in this House. There may be some other way to do it, but a trust seems to be the most logical to me.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: It is in trust at the moment. It is entrusted to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I do not regard that as a trust. I am talking about a genuine trust like the Centennial Park Trust and others that have representatives of citizens and residents. We thank the residents in the area and those who are genuinely concerned about the future of Callan Park. All of these issues have become political footballs. The Greens hope they can build on their success in Cunningham and win one or more seats in the inner Sydney area, where the Labor Government seems vulnerable. I warn the Greens that they cannot trifle with this House. They cannot use the House for publicity stunts in their election campaign. If that is what they seek to do, we will object to their being granted leave on any matter between now and the election. This House has to operate as a genuine House of review, not for publicity stunts by the Greens.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.10 p.m.]: It does not give me any pleasure at all to contribute to this debate.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: It does not give us any pleasure to hear you, either.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: The Hon. Greg Pearce is being rude and obnoxious as usual. I am delighted if my speaking does not give him pleasure. His behaviour in this House would suggest that all of us might waste a little bit of time trying hard to make sure the Hon. Greg Pearce does not get any pleasure in life. I am pleased he is getting no pleasure, and I hope that continues. I have similar thoughts about the other members of the Opposition who are present in the House and seem to be persuaded that their role in life is to be personally objectionable and unpleasant. I do not look forward to contributing to this debate because I believe that the whole exercise this afternoon has been an exceptionally grubby one that has brought the whole of the Opposition and a considerable percentage of the crossbench into disrepute.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods talked about the grubby behaviour of this House bringing the bill forward. That is a reflection on the vote of the House. Pursuant to the standing orders, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods should not reflect on a vote of the House or comment in such negative terms about what the House is doing. She is out of order in that regard.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has spent almost two minutes not only insulting me and the House but also reflecting adversely on the House. I did not take a point of order while the member was merely showing her lack of grace when addressing me, but I support the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti's point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! It was not a reflection on a vote or decision of the House. There is no point of order.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I have already explained to some extent the problem I have about the proceedings this afternoon. On a number of occasions I have expressed my concern—as have numerous other members, pre-eminent among them Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile—that we debate private members' business on Thursdays according to the order determined by a ballot, which fundamentally has been determined by a democratic process in this House.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: I draw your attention to the fact that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is now canvassing and reflecting in a negative way on a vote and a decision of the House to bring this bill forward. Her remarks are disorderly and unnecessary.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders state that a member should not question a vote of the House. I ask the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to continue her speech.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I did have a great deal to say, but it seems that the Opposition is frightened to hear some of the points that I may make. Therefore, I move:

That this debate be adjourned to the next sitting day.

The House divided.

Ms Burnswoods Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan Mr M. I. Jones Mr Kelly

Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Tebbutt

Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Ms Fazio Mr Primrose

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Harwin Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon

Mr Samios Mrs Sham-Ho Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Jobling

Mr Dyer	Mrs Forsythe
Mr Hatzistergos	Dr Pezzutti
Ms Saffin	Mr Ryan

The PRESIDENT: Order! There being 17 ayes and 17 noes, I cast my vote with the ayes and declare the question to have passed in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, as Chairman, tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 24 October, Report No. 15, entitled "Budget Estimates 2002-2003", dated October 2002, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, answers to questions taken on notice and relevant correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to.

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

Debate resumed from 24 October.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.28 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party [CDP] is very pleased to support the Public Health Amendment (Juvenile Smoking) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. David Oldfield, because it will amend the Public Health Act 1991 to create certain offences aimed at reducing the use of tobacco products and non-tobacco smoking products by people under the age of 18 years. As honourable members know, the CDP has led the way with bills designed to protect the health of the citizens of New South Wales with regard to the use of tobacco products.

We had the privilege of introducing the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill and the Smoking Regulation Bill, both of which were passed by the House. The Smoking Regulation Bill was designed to prohibit smoking in public places. It was taken over by the Government and amended to allow smoking in hotel bars and so on. The CDP did not agree with that because it watered down the original legislation. Moves are now finally being made to prohibit smoking in all public places, and the CDP commends the Government for pursuing that goal. The Government will be vigorously lobbied by the Australian Hotels Association and casino operators, but that should not stop it.

This bill is part of an overall move on tobacco products, which are extremely harmful to the health of people around the world. I am deeply concerned that while health bills are being passed by various governments in our Western society—whether in Australia, the United Kingdom or the United States—for that reason the tobacco industry is conducting a vicious promotion campaign in the Third World countries of Africa, Asia and South America, where I gather it is having some success. That is a tragedy for the health of the people in those underdeveloped countries, because not only do they have health problems caused by tobacco but those countries lack adequate health care facilities to care for the people who contract lung cancer and other diseases as a result of smoking. Obviously, not many people start smoking when they are 25, 30 or 50 years of age. The majority of people who smoke started smoking in their young teenage years, even as young as 12, 13 or 14 years of age, and they are the people who are most vulnerable.

I believe that the tobacco industry is targeting those individuals in many clever ways. Even though there are restrictions on tobacco advertising, recently I observed the cunning of the tobacco industry in producing what appears to be a silver cigarette case, into which one places the packet of cigarettes. Obviously it is not made of silver, but it has the appearance of silver. I understand that the silver cases are very cheap, or are perhaps even provided free. However, the silver cigarette case covers up the warnings on the cigarette packet that is placed inside it; only the brand of the cigarettes is shown. It is a very clever way, on the part of the tobacco industry, of undermining the Parliament's intention of including health warnings on cigarette packets. It is a clever merchandising ploy by the tobacco industry, which is not short of ideas on how to get around the law. I recall that some years ago, at the time when tobacco posters were banned, tobacco-selling outlets arranged a series of cigarette packets together to create a poster effect.

This bill is therefore very important. Given that the majority of people who smoke start smoking under the age of 18, we need to consider methods of reducing young people's temptation to smoke, and thereby reducing the opportunity for those individuals to become addicted to nicotine. Not surprisingly, health research shows that nicotine has a more powerful impact on young people. Apparently, nicotine withdrawal is more serious in a growing young person than it is in an adult. We know how seriously nicotine affects adults. Indeed, some members of this House are affected by nicotine, which is a drug. Even though they know that smoking is harmful to their health, their demand for nicotine is so powerful that they are prepared to risk their own health. Even members who are doctors, and are obviously aware of the literature on the subject, find it very difficult to break the habit.

The bill will change the legislation so that, by law, persons under 18 years of age will be prohibited from smoking tobacco and non-tobacco smoking products. It will also make it illegal to purchase tobacco and non-tobacco smoking products on behalf of a person under 18 years of age, or to send a person under the age of 18 to premises for the purpose of purchasing any such products. Importantly, the bill does not penalise under-age smokers. Indeed, section 58 (3) provides for a police officer to seize tobacco and non-tobacco smoking products from a person reasonably suspected of being under the age of 18 years. Section 58 (2) specifies that a person who contravenes subsection (1) is not guilty of an offence, but may be given a caution or warning under the Young Offenders Act 1997 as if the contravention were an offence to which that Act applies. The bill is not draconian legislation under which under-age smokers will become criminals; it is simply a further step in discouraging young people from commencing the habit and finding in later years that the power of the nicotine addiction makes it very difficult to break the habit.

It is extremely important for the whole society that legislation such as this is put in place. I am aware that bills to be introduced by other members are in the pipeline. Some time ago the Hon. Richard Jones introduced a bill regarding smoking in cars, which was another positive move. This bill is simply one means of tightening up the current law. The bill has the potential to assist in the prevention of the introduction of smoking to people at a young age. If we can achieve this, we will have fewer adult smokers and hence fewer smoking-related illnesses, together with the associated costs. Various statistics have been quoted, but I am aware of statistics that show that one of every 10 people in public hospitals is there because of the health problems caused by smoking. Obviously, if the number of people who have health problems caused by smoking were reduced, the pressure on the public hospital system would also be reduced. In turn, this would save revenue and taxpayers' dollars, and the savings in funding could be directed into other health services and facilities, including improvements to our public hospitals.

Members may be surprised to hear that smoking is a major killer of people in Australia. It is also statistically proven that most regular smokers were introduced to smoking when they were juveniles. Indeed, the vast majority of adult smokers started smoking very early in life, usually between the ages of 12 and 16. According to surveys, more than 107,000 secondary students annually smoke $32 million worth of illegally obtained cigarettes. Of the $32 million in sales, around $13.5 million goes to the New South Wales Treasury, $7.5 million to the Federal Government, $6 million to tobacco companies and $5 million to retailers. Further, tobacco use is the biggest single, preventable cause of both cancer and heart disease, causing more than 80 per cent of all drug-related deaths.

I know members are concerned, as I am, that when one passes by a high school prior to 9.00 a.m., before classes have commenced, one often sees groups of teenagers smoking. Sadly, in many cases the majority of those students are female. It seems that males, perhaps because of sport and other factors, may be responding to the health department's anti-smoking campaign, Quit Smoking, in larger numbers than female students. It would be interesting to conduct a survey to ascertain why that is occurring. One of my theories is that perhaps females feel that smoking is a way of proving their adulthood or femininity. Perhaps it is a flashback to women's liberation that young women think they should smoke. Obviously, the health department's Quit Smoking campaign will need to focus more on teenage girls than it has in the past.

Tobacco diseases are responsible for one in every seven adult deaths, killing several thousand people in New South Wales every year. It is estimated that smoking causes 21 per cent of all cancer deaths and 13 per cent of all new cases of cancer. New South Wales businesses lose $2 million each working day to tobacco-related sickness, absenteeism and medical retirement. Because of the success in prohibiting smoking in public places, people are coming out of their offices and smoking in the foyers of office buildings. This is happening all around Parliament House in Macquarie Street and all around the city. Those people who work on different levels of office buildings go down in the lift and congregate in the foyer to have their smoke. Some people may argue that it is equivalent to their coffee break, or whatever break they have, but I would suspect they still have a coffee break or morning and afternoon tea, all additional time taken from the employer who pays those people to produce a day's labour.

That practice raises further health problems. Many people smoke in the foyers, and others who may be non-smokers and may be affected by smoke have to walk past a small congregation of people who are smoking. Even when people smoke in semi-open air areas surrounded by breeze or wind there is no doubt that smoke is present. I have seen that myself. Because I am asthmatic, when I am walking in the street I have to look ahead and anticipate where I am going so that I do not walk into one of these areas and be surrounded by cigarette smoke. People who are worried about their health need to avoid those areas but sometimes it is not possible when they have to enter an office block and there are people smoking in the foyer where they have to walk through.

In 1998 more than 142,000 Australians were hospitalised due to illness caused by smoking. It is hard to be accurate on the figures but I have heard that one-tenth of the beds in public hospitals are filled by people with smoking-related illnesses. More than 940,000 hospital patient days are swallowed up each year by tobacco-related illnesses. This bill is very important and is just one small step forward for our community. Only the tobacco industry stands to lose as a consequence of these amendments. Losses to State revenue would be more than offset by reduced health costs. The bill allows the police to confiscate tobacco and other products and to issue warnings and cautions to underage smokers, but it does not seek to criminalise under-age smokers. The bill sends a strong message to children that smoking is bad for people's health and that the Government has made it illegal. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.43 p.m.]: Tobacco causes disease. We must use the word "cause" and not say that a disease is "tobacco-related". That phrase is a hangover from the 1950s and 1960s, when the tobacco industry did not know that tobacco caused diseases—and for the following 15 years it pretended that it did not know. We now know that tobacco causes diseases and that the phrase "tobacco-related" should not be used. Hemlines and the stock market are said to go up and down together, but their rise and fall may not be related. About 13 deaths occur every day in New South Wales, and about 45 deaths per day throughout Australia, as a result of tobacco-caused disease. Every two days we lose almost as many people from tobacco-caused disease as were lost in the Bali bombings, yet we get no action on it.

It is very disappointing that the Government, which introduced the Smoke-free Environment Act in September 2000 and asked clubs and pubs to establish a working party to work out how they would go smoke-free within a strict 12-month timetable, has managed to delay that process for more than two years with a do-nothing committee that has not set any firm smoke-free timetable. The Government appears unwilling to act by imposing a timetable on people who continue to allow smoking in pubs in the mistaken belief that restrictions will damage business. I believe that is scare tactic by the tobacco industry. The position of the Australian Hotels Association has always been indistinguishable from that of the tobacco industry. I am not sure that the Australian Hotels Association position represents the opinion of most hoteliers. Only a few may be active and, guess what, they are the ones who are somewhat close to the tobacco industry: the tobacco industry was named on their web site as a sponsor of the Australian Hotels Association.

It is farcical that 52 years after Richard Dol—later Sir Richard Dol—showed that tobacco caused lung cancer, the hotel and club industries still resist going smoke-free. Instead those industries try to put up absurd tokenistic voluntary codes they hope will be approved by the Government to absolve them of the liability to drive the campaign against tobacco use in Australia. That campaign has been left to activists and others—some of whom have been killed by lack of action in relation to the tobacco industry—who are driving their way through David and Goliath tort cases: people such as Leisel Scholem, Rhola McCabe and Roy Bishop, who took on the Surveyor General's Department way back in the 1970s. There has been a complete lack of action by the Government on the Smoke-free Environment Act yet it wants to big-note itself by supporting a measure that will achieve little of what needs to be done in New South Wales.

Funding of the Quit campaigns in California amounted to US$7 per head per year and that was a cost-effective way to reduce health costs. That is the equivalent of about A$14. We are puddling along at less than $1 per person in New South Wales and that is having precious little effect. The Government will not run a decent quit campaign—indeed, it never has—and does not have the guts to tell the hoteliers to go smoke-free despite the fact that 71 per cent of people wanted that in 1984. A plebiscite was held at that time of all the people of middle-class North Sydney, in association with a local government election, and most people said they wanted smoke-free restaurants. That was many years ago and the Government still refuses to take on the hoteliers. Last week I went to two different clubs where the air was absolutely vitiated and appalling because of recirculated cigarette smoke. The working party is totally dominated by the hotel industry, whereas the unions and health groups who are in a minority on the committee are still being led by the nose. There is no Government leadership on this issue.

What has to happen to seriously discourage kids? We have to discourage adults from smoking, and we have to encourage the whole society to stop smoking. The idea that we must look after kids but not adults, as they have already made their own decisions, is a nonsense. People are addicted and they rationalise. There are members in this House who rationalise. This morning I saw the Hon. John Fahey, former Premier and Minister for Industrial Relations. I reminded him that in 1991 I begged him to make workplaces smoke-free, as recommended by WorkSafe, but he would not do so. Since then he has been diagnosed with lung cancer. Today he said he would like to do something. He will be giving a speech to the Cancer Council, but he is out of politics now. The person who is influencing that decision is Nick Minchin, who has arranged at a Federal level for a subsidy for research by the tobacco industry. He is taking a very hard line and has asked very pro-tobacco questions at a Senate select committee to which I spoke.

We cannot stop kids from smoking unless we also stop the adults. Therefore we need to put in place a program that actively discourages smoking. Many people believe that we must use non-smokers to get smokers to quit, but it is in the interests of smokers to have a policy to reduce smoking. People should be discouraged from smoking at a workplace level by authorities subsidising the programs and making them far more accessible. Instead of mealy-mouthing we need to be serious about tobacco and the exemptions to some sports, particularly motor racing, which has been totally irresponsible and tobacco driven. The Dutch grand prix has been cancelled because that country would not lean on tobacco sponsorship. The Dutch people are very lucky. I never trusted the rugby league because of its prolongation of tobacco advertising. That is what sponsored tobacco advertising in Australia for a decade. Rugby league happily pocketed the money with no regard to the harmful effects of tobacco on Australian kids.

As tobacco advertising has been slowly ratcheted down, the tobacco industry has become more cunning. Once smokers smoked in ignorance. Actors Gary Cooper, Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen all smoked and they all died of lung cancer. The evil tobacco companies had advertisements for cigarettes included in film scripts to make it exciting to smoke, using the villain as an interesting character. The new generation of actors, Winona Ryder and Arnold Schwarzenegger, took money for smoking in their movies. Basic Instinct was an interesting film: it was so successful in telling healthy people that they were silly fuddy-duddies and tough people smoked that Philip Morris introduced a cigarette called "Basic" to capitalise on that publicity. Recently I read an article by the writer of Basic Instinct, who has since developed carcinoma of the tongue and has undergone radiotherapy. His condition may well be terminal and he is extremely guilty about the harm he caused with his film script in his younger, Rambo days.

Actors who are aware of the harmful effects of smoking are paid to smoke. The Insider depicts how a big tobacco industry tried to destroy the evidence when it became aware of the harmful effects of tobacco. The film starred Russell Crowe, who has taken up smoking since that film. The question is whether he has been paid to do it. I believe, because of the way he shows cigarette packets and lights a cigarette at appropriate times during interviews, that he deliberately smokes. That is immoral. The clothing and entertaining industries have also been very busy. I believe that Kate Moss, a very famous model, promotes cigarettes. Carla Zampatti—

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: She doesn't smoke.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: She does not smoke. Carla Zampatti gave feedback to Rothmans. Those industries have been extremely immoral and the Government has been slow to take action against them. It is important to encourage the unacceptability of smoking in indoor public places and places of entertainment. The public service went smoke-free in response to a case involving the Surveyor General's Department, a decision by the head of the public service, a Renaissance man Peter Wilenski who later became the ambassador to the United Nations. At the time I thought that decision was made because he understood the necessity for it, but it may well have been in response to the tort cases against the department.

Research carried out at the time that the Australian public service went smoke-free showed an immense decrease in smoking. If that were to happen in all places of entertainment, recreation and hospitality there would be a corresponding drop. The Government has been cowardly in not adopting that approach. The bill provides for seizure of tobacco and cautioning of children, and makes supplying a crime. The bill also provides for identification similar to that required for alcohol purchase, but it is really tokenism. It is poor psychology to expect children not to smoke when adults smoke. Children copy adults. They internalise the norms and recognise hypocrisy instantly. Many education programs have tried to prevent children from smoking, but they are doomed to fail because society as a whole does not adopt a non-smoking program.

Philip Morris, through a program called Right Decision Right Now, is seeking to educate children about the harmful effects of smoking. If the kids had not previously regarded smoking as a big deal, then the promotion of the program encouraged children to make a decision about it and act immediately. As they were doing nothing, the only decision change meant that they would take up smoking; if they had not tried it they could not make the right decision. The program resulted in an increased rate of tobacco smoking. I would like to believe that was purely coincidental, but that is extremely unlikely. We should not expect children to act differently to adults. Originally the bill sought to criminalise children. The Democrats do not believe in criminalisation. Society needs a spectrum of penalties for offences that should be strongly discouraged, such as murder and rape. The other end of the spectrum seeks to discourage obesity, smoking, alcohol and dangerous driving. We should work out what measures we should take to minimise harm from each behaviour and whether it should be criminalised or whether progressive methods of discouragement should be adopted, such as economic sanctions, behavioural changes and so on.

This bill adopts the normal paradigm established for alcohol abuse and brings tobacco within that paradigm. That is a reasonable proposition, but the question is whether the law will be enforced. The number of prosecutions for selling cigarettes to minors is extremely low, as the police do not regard that offence as important. Health officers generally do not prosecute, except in isolated areas in which they have a particular interest. The policing of this measure was particularly good in Gosford. Generally speaking, children can still obtain cigarettes. It will be interesting to see whether the bill makes any difference. If this legislation is not strictly enforced I believe it will make little difference.

The bill is a step in the right direction but it is not the major step that needs to be taken. The Government seeks credit, yet it is being extremely hypocritical in not going the whole way, as has always been the case with tobacco control. What is needed is a tobacco termination bill under which the industry is ilegally wound up, as happened with the asbestos industry. The money from cigarette sales can be used to encourage people to quit smoking, a habit that has continued for approximately a century and caused immense public harm. The industry does not really care. I support the bill. I note that Ash Australia, which initially did not support the bill when it criminalised children, does so now. However, this bill is not really what is needed for tobacco control in New South Wales. The Government should get on with the main game and inject money in the order of $13.70 per person per year into Quit campaigns.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.00 p.m.]: I move:

1. That in accordance with section 42B (4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1988, this House approves funds being provided for an additional period of 2 years to fund the provision of claims assistance by organisations representing employers or employees to help them assist their members understand and comply with the new workers compensation and occupational health and safety legislation, and

2. That a message be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly requesting it to pass a similar resolution.
Section 42B of the Act enables WorkCover to provide financial assistance to employer associations and registered unions for a period of one year to help them assist their members understand and comply with the new workers compensation and occupational health and safety legislation. This financial assistance has been provided under the WorkCover Assist Program. Section 42B provides that WorkCover can provide financial assistance for a further period of two years if both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution before 1 January 2003. Yesterday I tabled a report concerning the WorkCover Assist Program and details of its substantial results to date. The report also provides information concerning the comprehensive and robust administration of the program and its independent probity assessment.

The primary objective of the program has been to provide funding to registered employer and union organisations in order to help them assist their members understand and comply with the new workers compensation and occupational health and safety legislation. The program recognises that employer and employee organisations are uniquely positioned to assess the needs of their members, and are therefore able to develop and implement innovative programs to help employers and workers understand and comply with the new legislation. To be considered for a funding grant, applicants are required to clearly demonstrate that the funding would directly assist their members in meeting the objectives of the new legislation; in other words, that their proposals would contribute to improved safety outcomes and/or claims assistance and advisory services.

Applications from employer associations and unions were ranked separately, and $5 million of funding was evenly divided between the two groups. A funding agreement was developed specifically for the program, with built-in reporting and performance requirements. A copy of the funding agreement is included in the program's report and indicates that funding would be provided to organisations on the following basis: first, 50 per cent when the project commenced; second, 25 per cent upon completion of the project milestones; and, third, the balance upon completion of the project in a satisfactory manner.

Pursuant to section 42B (5) of the Act, on 14 December 2002 WorkCover gazetted the name of each organisation to which funding would be provided, the amount of funding to be provided, and a description of the assistance that would be provided. Funding agreements were signed in early 2002 and required organisations to report on their performance against their project plans as at 26 weeks, or the end of August 2002; at 44 weeks, or the end of November 2002; and at 52 weeks, or at the end February 2003. The report also included information concerning project background, objectives, methodology, and outcomes; project progress summary, including a description of progress to date against identified key activities, such as people employed, systems established, development of materials and resources, and training undertaken; an expenditure statement; and a statistical tabulation or report component, including reporting against the key project strategies, including training, advice and assistance, web-based services and publications.

All organisations taking part in the program have submitted their 26 week—that is, August 2002—interim report. An assessment of these interim reports indicates that to date the program has resulted in over 4,250 different workplaces being reached through strategies including the production of 87 industry-specific products comprising trainer guides and training presentations; training manuals and packages; workplace guidelines; brochures and booklets; web-based information and a web-based course; video training packages; printing of over 35,000 publications and 200 CD-ROMS; over 2,390 phone call inquiries received by 11 organisations; and training, including a total of 518 training sessions conducted, representing 4,200 training hours, and a total of 8,216 participants trained, including delegates, organisation officials and members.

Yesterday morning representatives from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and Australian Business Ltd gave presentations to a number of members on the success of the program to date and how it has helped employers and workers understand and comply with the new legislation. Other examples of the diverse and innovative approaches used by different organisations are also illustrated in the case studies included in the program's report. I also encourage members to contact the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council offices if they are interested in looking at publications and associated materials prepared by different organisations. Copies have been lodged with the offices for the information of members. Copies will also be provided to the Parliamentary Library.

As I have stated previously, there are outstanding examples of effective education and training rolled out by both unions and employer organisations. I would like to outline some of the most innovative programs. The National Electrical and Communications Association [NECA] delivered an awareness project using a workshop methodology based largely on face-to-face interactive contact to focus members' attention on their obligations and liabilities in the workplace under the new Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulation. Industry-specific educational resources formed the basis for conducting workshops for NECA members in Sydney and country areas. The workshops covered occupational health and safety requirements for the electrical, data and communications industries.

The Baking Industry Association of New South Wales aimed to provide retail baking-specific resources that could be used on the job by employers and workplace occupational health and safety representatives. Specific achievements are the development of a print-based induction training program, a video for bakery employees and an information kit for employers. From the union programs, the Australian Manufactures Workers Union [AMWU] had an approach that was evaluated as highly successful. Its training invigorated workers, encouraging them to participate in partnerships with employers to improve safety in their own workplaces. The AMWU project focused on identifying, contacting and delivering training to workplaces with more than 20 members, in this first phase, to maximise the impact of the project in its early stages.

The learning outcomes for the project were to understand the major changes to both workers compensation and occupational health and safety legislation; to assist in the minimisation of workers compensation disputes; to understand the risk management process and demonstrate the process of hazard identification, risk assessment and control; and to understand and explain the new duty to consult. The AMWU developed resources and guides to facilitate its training program. Training sessions were conducted in both regional and metropolitan areas, with over 309 participants. One very positive result from its efforts has been a marked increase in workers willing to act as occupational health and safety representatives in their work sites.

Another outstanding project was developed and delivered by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union [AMIEU] in Newcastle. AMIEU members are located in rural areas and are often isolated from immediate assistance. The AMIEU program aimed to implement the most efficient and cost-effective method of providing advice and assistance to members on the new dispute resolution process and claims processes. It provided members, Occupational Health and Safety Committee Members, Consultative Committee Members, union delegates and officials with the skill and knowledge to implement risk management and consultative processes at the workplace by implementing an 1800 toll-free number to ensure that AMIEU members in any location could obtain immediate assistance, employing a workers compensation claims officer, and conducting regional training seminars. Again, this program was evaluated as highly effective in informing employees about the new workers compensation scheme and the new framework for occupational health and safety.

For the information of honourable members, including the Leader of the Opposition, WorkCover has budgeted for a further two-year WorkCover Assist Program, at $5 million per year. Employers and workers have emphasised that the program has been effective because it encourages workers, employers and WorkCover to act in partnership to achieve their common goal—the improvement of safety in New South Wales workplaces. It is in this spirit of partnership that I call on members to support the motion and extend this worthwhile program for a further two years.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.09 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition in debate on this motion. At the outset I observe that it is disappointing for the Opposition and for the Parliament that such an important aspect of the Government's reform package was not presented by the Minister. The business paper advises that the Treasurer has the carriage of the matter, but clearly responsibility for it rests with the Minister for Industrial Relations. I am disappointed that he is not here to move this motion. It is clear also that he shows little interest in the proposal. Be that as it may, I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to the passage of the legislation that brought about the creation of this assistance funding. Honourable members might recall that one of the concerns of the Opposition at the time of the introduction of that legislation related to the amount of money that was to be spent on the assistance program and the fair and equitable distribution of that money. Honourable members have had an opportunity to study the report tabled by the Minister in the past couple of days. It is fair to say that there will be pretty much a 50:50 distribution between employer representatives and employee representatives.

The Hon. John Jobling: As long as it stays that way.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Coalition will revisit the matter in March next year when it is in government. The project is worth while and we will monitor the distribution of the funds. I give the Hon. John Jobling an ironclad commitment that a Coalition government will ensure that members of the workforce who are not members of a union will have equal access to information regarding reforms. An employer can go to an employer organisation and an employee who is a unionist will have access to advice, but to whom does an employee who is not a member of a union turn for assistance? As I have said many times in this Chamber, the difference between the Coalition and the Government is that the Government represents 25 per cent of workers but when the Coalition wins government next year it will represent 100 per cent of the workers of the State. The Hon. Ian Macdonald can be assured that that will be an important focus for us in government in March next year when we consider the ongoing viability of this scheme. We will look after 100 per cent of workers, not just the 25 per cent that the Government purports to represent.

This motion is about providing assistance and information about reforms to employers and employees who are members of a union. The Hon. Ian Macdonald spoke about some of the information that is provided to employees and employers but he did not say that there is nothing in the package to indicate to employers why premiums are not coming down, and people want to know. This is an information package about workers compensation reform. Most employers would want to get access to information explaining why premiums are not coming down. Had the Minister for Industrial Relations been here—

The Hon. John Jobling: He would have told us.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Not only would he have told us that, I am sure he would also have told us why a couple of weeks ago he got the figures of the unfunded liability so terribly wrong. I am sure funding could be allocated to provide that level of information to employers and employees, and most certainly to Parliament. It is a shame the Minister is not here to give us further information. Perhaps his credibility has been so severely damaged with regard to workers compensation matters that he does not want to have anything to do with workers compensation between now and when Parliament rises for the election. There is probably more truth in that statement than we care to realise. The real damage to the Minister will be caused in the next few weeks when it becomes obvious to all that he will make no comments about workers compensation other than to questions he will be forced to answer in question time in this House.

This proposal is a very important part of the assistance package. Initially, the Government tried to push this motion through as formal business, but we resisted and took a position consistent with that taken by us when the legislation creating the assistance scheme passed through this Chamber. We wanted to know how much money would be available and how it would be distributed. The Hon. Ian Macdonald has pointed out that the package amounts to $5 million each year for the next two years—that is $10 million over two years. He did not indicate to the House whether it will be spread equitably, as it has been since the passage of the legislation and up to the tabling of the report. We would like to think that the Government, in its last five months, will continue with the 50:50 split. When the Coalition wins government next year, we will make sure that the distribution is equitable.

The project is worth while and we are happy to support it. Up to this time, from all accounts it appears to be working well. It appears that employers and those lucky employees who happen to be members of unions are getting access to information. But it is painfully obvious that the 75 per cent of the workforce in this State who are not members of a union do not have access to this sort of information. That is typical of this Government. I look forward to the day when a Coalition Government—and that will be in only five months time—has the responsibility of maintaining the industrial relations system in this State. A Coalition Government will represent 100 per cent of the employees and employers of New South Wales, not just the one in four employees that the present Government represents.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.16 p.m.]: The Greens support these measures. We are pleased that there is support all round for this motion. It brings back some painful memories from the WorkCover debate, but it shows that good outcomes can be achieved when discussions are held with the stakeholders. We congratulate the Government on consulting all parties.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their comments. The Government took into account the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to employees who are not members of an industrial association when it was devising the system. The WorkCover Claims Assistance Service was established as part of the package to meet this problem. The staff of that service provide impartial assistance to injured workers and employers and help them to smoothly navigate the workers compensation system. The service will intervene in any aspect of a claim or injury management process where normal processes are frustrated by one or more parties. Since it commenced on 1 January the service has received around 3,050 calls on a broad range of issues including early injury notification, unpaid benefits and return to work for injured workers. The matter of concern raised by the Leader of the Opposition is covered by this service. In relation to his comments about the commitment of the Government I advise that the Government regards this program as a partnership between employers and employees. Our policy is a 50:50 split in funding between employer associations and employee industrial associations. Of course, improved safety on work sites will lead to fewer claims and eventually lower premiums.

Motion agreed to.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.22 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.22 p.m.]: Unfortunately I missed my chance to speak on the excellent motion of the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Army Reserve. I will use my time this evening to add my speech to that debate. The motion acknowledged various military events where Reserve forces played a significant role and also the work of Reservists during times of natural disaster. Speakers to the debate covered the beginnings of the Army Reserve in September 1800 through to the excellent service given by Reserve members in East Timor. The Hon. Charlie Lynn, in his noteworthy contribution, successfully rebutted a tasteless and ignorant assault on events surrounding Australia's initial defence of the Kokoda Track.

I am sure Brigadier Pezzutti would agree that we should also be grateful to those Australian businesses that so strongly support the Reserve Defence Forces through the assistance they lend to their employees on the many occasions they are called away to undertake Defence Force responsibilities. Of course, the Army Reserve is not only a place for those who want to serve in their country's defence on a part-time basis, it is also a starting point for many who later seek transfer to regular duties. The Army Reserve is also a place where regular Defence Force personnel will often transfer rather than retire or remove themselves entirely from their heartfelt commitment to Australia's defence. Such transfers have been undertaken by members of my own family.

Closely related to both Australia's reserve and full-time military service were the military rifle clubs. In 1878 the Rifle Companies Act led to the reorganisation of the many volunteer companies into formal regiments of the New South Wales volunteer infantry. In 1903 the new Federal Government updated those early pre-Federation Acts and ratified them as the Defence Act part 2. The rifle clubs were regarded as a national defence training asset. They were essentially considered a tier of the defence forces because of their organised training of safe and responsible firearm handling and marksmanship skills with military-style firearms. This well-considered Defence Act allowed members who had given their allegiance to Australia to own and use approved military rifles without being subject to State licensing laws. Members travelled freely to the many rifle ranges across the nation for both training purposes and competition. These military-based rifle clubs were also encouraged to form working associations with local militia units and to assist with their training.

Of the 16,000 Australian volunteers who served in the Boer War, 6,566 were former members of these rifle clubs. During World War I some 16,000 rifle club members, like so many other Australians, volunteered and enlisted to serve the nation. No doubt an outstanding characteristic of this group was that they took their skills and knowledge with them to the training camps. During World War II about 32,000 military-based rifle club members volunteered and took their place defending Australia. Many thousands died in that defence, and the ranks of former rifle club members produced eight Victoria Crosses. I consider it virtually a criminal act that political opportunism and expediency caused the repeal of the Defence Act in 1997 and hence the removal of thousands of military-style rifles from law-abiding patriotic Australians. In 136 years there had not been a single firearm offence committed by a rifle club member with a military rifle. There was no justification for the repeal of the Defence Act.

That ridiculous decision, which impacted so terribly on military rifle clubs, will have a significant effect on Australia's capacity to defend itself, as will the unwarranted destruction of tens of thousands of government-stored military firearms—unless the Government recognises its errors and take steps to undo its unnecessary actions. When the time comes for Australians to again defend themselves—and be assured that time will come, for perhaps no truer quote can be found than "Only the dead have seen the end of war"—the regular and reserve forces will be better placed if they once again have the support of people drawn from military rifle clubs. Disarming law-abiding citizens disarms the nation. It is a foolish act at any time, especially so at this time.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.27 p.m.]: On 11 October 2002 I had the pleasure of hosting the Music Teachers Association of New South Wales ninetieth anniversary luncheon in the Parliament House dining room and representing the Premier at that luncheon. The Governor of New South Wales, Her Excellency Marie Bashir, attended the luncheon and addressed those assembled, as did Richard Gill, one of Australia's pre-eminent and most admired conductors. On behalf of the Premier, I congratulated the association on its ninetieth birthday. That ninety years of existence is an achievement of which all the members of the association should be proud.

The Music Teachers Association, which was established in 1912, is the only official professional organisation1 administered by a council of highly skilled and respected music professionals for music teachers and those interested in furthering its aims. The directors of the council are responsible for promoting and administering the various activities, including the professional development of music teachers in New South Wales. It is worth taking a moment to consider the great work done by the association in promoting the study, practice and knowledge of music in New South Wales through its many programs and initiatives. The performance festivals—the Singers Festival and the Junior Music Festival—give singers and musicians of all ages the opportunity to participate in friendly competition. In fact, on the day of the luncheon a junior festival was taking place in Sutherland.

The association's scholarships assist aspiring musicians to further their studies, and the association's benevolent fund, which was set up during the Depression, assists music teachers, musicians and their families in times of illness, accident or financial distress. The referral and locum services must be greatly appreciated by association members and students alike. I know that the association has assisted a great number of people through these two services. The association also carries out the very important task of accrediting music teachers and providing for their professional development by organising workshops and seminars in Sydney and selected country areas. These crucial tasks help to ensure that music teachers in New South Wales are taught by the best music teachers in the country.

It is my opinion, however, that one of the association's greatest achievements is its involvement in the introduction of music into the secondary school curriculum in 1936. For the first time, students in the first year of high school could study music. Jump forward 65 years to 2001 and 4,425 Year 12 students studied music as part of their Higher School Certificate. Also in 2001 the New South Wales Board of Studies won the Australian Music Centre award for "most distinguished contribution to the advancement of Australian music and education by an individual or organisation". These are fine indicators of the state of the New South Wales music curricula.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, just over 20 per cent of school-age children, or 167,100 children, played a musical instrument in 2000. Four out of five, or nearly 134,000, of these budding musicians received lessons. These figures do not even count the proportion of New South Wales adults who play musical instruments or sing. The members of the association must be very busy indeed catering to all of these budding musicians young and old. Of course, it is not just the novices amongst us who benefit from the work of the association. By engendering an appreciation of music in so many people, the members of the association are enriching our community. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2000 New South Wales businesses employed 45 per cent of Australia's musicians and performing artists. A significant proportion of our greatest music and performing arts professionals can be thankful for New South Wales music teachers. If they are not, they should be.

In addition to our music teachers, New South Wales has another fine resource in quality music teaching just down the road at the most enviable location in the country—the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, which is nestled in the beautiful grounds of the Royal Botanic Gardens on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, next door to the Sydney Opera House. There are 637 tertiary music students enrolled at the conservatorium and the Conservatorium High School has a further 166 students. The Sydney Conservatorium Access Centre, which is the conservatorium's community education provider, has approximately 2,000 enrolments annually. The new videolink program utilises state-of-the-art technology to deliver real-time music lessons to rural students via videoconferencing. To date, the conservatorium has delivered more than 200 music lessons to students in seven regional centres in New South Wales. The $144 million redevelopment has provided an essential teaching and learning environment for music education in New South Wales. Many of Australia's finest musicians and music educators have graduated from the conservatorium. The commitment of the Carr Government to supporting music education is not only confined to the Sydney conservatorium. The Government has also increased grants to many regional conservatoriums.

I had the pleasure of attending the annual awards of the Tamworth Conservatorium and look forward to visiting the new premises earmarked for the conservatorium in Muswellbrook. It was also appropriate that the celebrations involved some fine music: vocal performances from Colla Voce, Yina Zhang with some traditional music from the Chinese lute and Emma Knott on flute. These were followed by a rendition of Happy Birthday and a vote of thanks from Dr Miriam Hyde, AO OBE, a most remarkable woman.

It was a pleasure to meet with Richard Gill again, and I will be acting on some suggestions he made about ways of improving music education. I would like to acknowledge the work of Julie Spithill, the president of the association, and the directors of the council for the initiative shown in organising the ninetieth anniversary luncheon and wish them and the association well in their future activities.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [5.32 p.m.]: I recently had the pleasure of visiting Evans Head in the company of Mr Steve Canstell and the chairman of the local fishermen's co-operative, Mr Neil Black, to look at certain problems in the district. Since then the Evans Head Chamber of Commerce has made representations to various Ministers of the Crown, including the Minister for Public Works, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and the Minister for Fisheries, regarding problems encountered crossing the Evans River bar.

The Chamber of Commerce points out that on a recent occasion a professional fishing vessel escaped capsize only because it was resting on sand at the river mouth. Another vessel was able to turn in time and retreat into the river. It is difficult enough for professional fishermen who have experience on their side and boat handling skills to deal with this situation, but amateur fishermen who come down to the sea from the inland regions who do not have those skills or the knowledge to negotiate the bar are in a bad position. Often they do not recognise the dangers that confront them and proceed to cross the bar in extremely dangerous conditions.

A number of reasons have been put forward to explain the build-up of sand at the river mouth. The most often mentioned reason is the attempts at flood mitigation in the upper reaches of the river to retard the flow of freshwater into the Evans River and saltwater flowing back into the Richmond River. That has met with a measure of success with respect to water oxygenation and the resultant fish kills, but the restrictions on water flow have seen a decrease in the river's capacity to shift sand from its upper reaches. Because of human intervention the river has lost its ability to flush itself naturally.

The professional fishermen who use the Evans River boat harbour expect to be able to navigate in and out of the river. The chamber believes that decisions made by other parties regarding the river upstream should not be authorised or continue if they have flow-on effects further downstream. The tuna fleet that operated out of Evans Head has relocated. The fishermen can no longer be assured of safe passage over the bar or along the channel into the boat harbour. Access into the Evans Head fishing co-operative to unload their catch in a timely manner to enable access to foreign markets can no longer be guaranteed.

The local slipway approaches have silted up, and vessels can no longer access the slip to effect periodic maintenance or repairs. Fishing vessels cannot rely on there being enough water under the keel to allow safe manoeuvering. That has seen them seeking slippage elsewhere. The Evans River fishing fleet has been in existence since the mid-twentieth century. It has been the major employer in the town over that time. How much longer it will last is unknown. Given the situation with the bar, it will not be long before the fleet is compelled to seek a safer harbour from which to work.

The prawn trawlers, which operate overnight, have been forced to cross the bar in the early afternoon and then sit at anchor because the bar would be too shallow to allow them to cross later in the day. As night falls, they move off to the fishing grounds. Next morning, they can be seen once again swinging at anchor awaiting the rising tide to ensure they have enough water under the keel to get across the bar.

An extensive emergency and rescue network operates out of Evans Head. However, it comprises volunteers who are elderly, and the majority have come from other environments. Their seamanship skills can be described as amateur at best, and they do not have the years of experience required to provide them with the skill to tackle delicate rescue work from boats in confined and agitated waters. In addition, the new coast guard boat has not been rated for confined or close-to-shore rescue.

In recent times an ad hoc experiment of sorts has been conducted with compressed air being injected into the sandy riverbed. That process has been very successful. Offers have been made to the local officer of the Department of Public Works and Services to dredge the river at no cost. The offer has apparently fallen on deaf ears, because no dredging has taken place. It has been reported that this officer has informed local professional fishermen that their complaints will be lost in the paper jungle that is the State Government bureaucracy.

While no-one wishes to be a harbinger of doom, it is only a matter of time before a tragedy occurs on the bar. The solution seems to be readily available, but no department seems prepared to take the initiative and apply preventive solutions. The river is in desperate need of dredging to maintain a safe channel for the passage of commercial and recreational fishing craft to and from the boat harbour and adjacent slipways. The river is the lifeblood of Evans Head. It provides access to the sea for the commercial fishing fleet and recreational fishermen. The recreational fishermen come from the inland regions and once they have reached the river they are loath to pack up and seek a safer passage to the fishing grounds.

A number of local businesses are directly affected by the visit of recreational fishermen. The fuel supply outlets, bait and tackle shops, and a number of food outlets in the town would be disadvantaged should the river become unnavigable. Over the Christmas holiday period, the town population usually swells by as many as 8,000 to 10,000 people. Many of them bring trailable boats ranging from 12-foot tinnies to larger runabouts and expect to be able to get out of the river. To date, only luck has prevented a serious mishap. Unless some positive preventive action occurs soon, there will be a tragedy on the Evans River bar. I concur, and I trust that the Government will get stuck into it and try to solve this problem.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [5.37 p.m.]: I again revisit an issue which remains unresolved, is still a bone of contention, and should be addressed by any modern society: taxes on insurance premiums. Over the past few years many complaints have been voiced about high insurance premiums. Premiums have escalated and people are angry. Insurance is under the spotlight as never before, and the need to be insured has never been greater. Insurance is also harder to obtain and is certainly very expensive. As an advocate of the benefits of insurance, I am very well aware of people's oft-quoted dissatisfaction with insurance companies, especially as benefits become restricted and premiums escalate.

I became aware only last week that traditional travel insurance does not cover airlines going broke. If it did, premiums that are usually about $140 would be about $800. That is a result of events such as the demise of Ansett and it reflects the perilous predicament of many major airlines around the world following reduced demand as a consequence of September 11. As insurance is under the spotlight, I will examine on-costs of premiums and consider what is actually going on. First, I will address the fire brigade levy. Insurers pay it and property owners and others who do not insure do not, but all are entitled to excellent service. Is that fair? Absolutely not. It is a tax on the prudent.

Businesses in New South Wales pay 34 per cent of premiums as a fire service levy. The goods and service tax is levied on top of that and stamp duty is levied on top of the fire service levy. That increases business on-costs by 62 per cent. The situation for householders is a little better, but not much. The total burden is 36 per cent on top of the cost of premiums. The good news—if that is the appropriate term—is that Victoria is even worse off. However, Queensland is much better off, and the reasons for that should be examined. It has a 19 per cent levy on businesses, compared with our 62 per cent.

Obviously someone has to pay for the fire brigade. The question is whether the prudent should pay for the reckless. Should tax be collected from the prudent to benefit everyone, or should the cost be spread across the community? That disparity in charging is out of date and must be changed. The GST—the panacea of all the financial problems of the States, which has been a bonanza beyond expectation—should meet that cost, and meet it now, not at some ethereal future date. As premiums grow, so do taxes. That is not fair and it should be addressed now. The Treasurer has commented on the begging bowl being everywhere, and I agree. However, this is a question of equity. It is clearly unfair for one group in society to pay for the universal benefits enjoyed by all.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [5.41 p.m.]: The Australian Bureau of Statistics describes almost 30 per cent of the total work force as being employed in casual and contract work. The number of workers employed in irregular employment in the manufacturing industry has increased by more than 70 per cent in larger companies. This figure is increasing exponentially as the method of employment of choice by both legitimate employers and those who choose to exploit labour hire as a means to deunionise their work force and also to evade their legal and statutory responsibilities. While labour hire is a convenient means for enterprises accessing short-term labour to meet operational demands, it is also a means of distancing the enterprise from the responsibilities of employee management. This is of particular concern in relation to the new rights and responsibilities set out in the new occupational health and safety and workers compensation legislation.

A specific concern has been the experience of labour hire companies that deliberately enter into corporate restructuring as a means of evading and/or avoiding their responsibilities. Yet the Federal Government has consistently and persistently bowed to the corporate lobbyists who have persuaded it to avoid any reform of Federal Corporations Law that would prevent this sort of unscrupulous corporate behaviour. Whether it be Australian or overseas owned companies, this sort of behaviour is equally offensive.

One glaring example of the exploitation of labour hire workers is the employees of Hoya Lenses at Alexandria. The company manufactures optical lenses and employs more than 70 staff, of whom just 11 are permanent employees. While the company justifies this on the basis of what Tony Abbott would call "flexibility", most of these labour hire employees have worked at Hoya for at least 12 months. Many have worked there for more than two years. They are highly skilled and valuable members of the Hoya work force. Yet, by retaining them as labour hire employees they are forced to forgo holidays, sick leave and the other normal arrangements that apply to workers.

Members of this place who are still trying to balance family and work commitments will recognise the importance of leave arrangements, especially those who have a young family, aged parents or other dependents to care for. In addition to the usual insecurity of labour hire work, labour hire employees have no guarantee of a job when they return to work after taking annual or sick leave. Yet, despite the strictures imposed upon these workers, they are still paid substantially less than the permanent workers at Hoya and work longer hours.

Hoya is not alone in arranging its affairs in this manner, but what makes Hoya stand out is its other employee practices, such as refusing to allow its employees to drink water during their shifts, even though the premises are unusually hot and are not airconditioned. Following a recent review of work practices, management also decided to remove the chairs from employees involved in complex and very fine lens process work. They deemed it appropriate that employees should stand at their work stations all day. To facilitate this, management even chocked up the workstations so that the employees could reach the table tops that had originally been designed for seated workers.

Hoya also has an interesting and creative arrangement to avoid paying overtime rates to its employees. Many of the employees are employed by more than one labour hire company. At the end of a shift the workers are then employed for a new shift by another company, so they appear as a new employee with a new shift, rather than one employee working extended hours, which would attract overtime rates and conditions. Needless to say, the occupational health and safety implications of such an arrangement are horrendous, to say nothing of the ethical and other issues.

Labour hire workers at Hoya have recently approached the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union [AMWU] about their wages and conditions, and the union is working with the employees to ensure that major changes take place at Hoya. Labour hire workers are entitled to the same rights and conditions that are enjoyed by all other workers. The families of labour hire workers have the same rights to financial security as the families of other workers. Because they are deemed to be "in precarious employment", labour hire workers are treated as second-class citizens, or worse, by financial institutions and the other gatekeepers in our society who refuse to give them the same right as other workers to loans, leases and other necessities of living.

The AMWU and other unions are campaigning for improved rights and conditions for workers in the labour hire industry. They know that when labour hire workers have poor wages and conditions, the wages and conditions of all workers are threatened. When it costs less to employ a labour hire worker, no-one's job is secure. When it is easier to employ a labour hire worker, no-one's conditions are safe. The Federal Minister for Workplace Relations has justified reintroducing his flawed unfair dismissal legislation on the basis that small business needs to have flexibility. It is no longer good enough to simply focus on profits. The Federal Government has a responsibility to stop this exploitation of workers. [Time expired.]

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.46 p.m.]: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fine work being undertaken by NSW Young Lawyers, a section of the Law Society of New South Wales. I have some experience with the Young Lawyers section, so I am able to speak about some of the fine work the group is doing. I also compliment many of the youth wings of professional organisations—and, for that matter, the youth wings of political parties—which ensure that professional organisations and lawyers are continually reminded of their obligation to ensure that the rights of community members are always paramount.

Under the current Government there has been a tendency towards lawyer-bashing and perhaps not enough recognition of the very valuable work lawyers do to ensure that people's civil rights are protected. There is also perhaps not enough recognition of the extremely valuable and extensive work lawyers do, on a voluntary or pro bono basis, in assisting community members who have legal problems, and the important work they do in developing and maintaining a stable political system, which is so important to our community.

I was one of the originators of the Young Lawyers section of the Law Society in the late 1970s. Indeed, I was privileged to serve as the chair of the section in 1983. During that time the section had an extremely active group of young lawyers, who, amongst other things, established Law Week in New South Wales. I am proud to have been involved in establishing Law Week, a community service and education activity that continues to this day and is supported by the State Government.

It is important to recognise the contribution of these young members of the profession and young members of various groups. Since I was involved with Young Lawyers in 1983, our community has become much more competitive, the participants work very long hours, their work is much more complex and they are required to work in a heavily regulated environment. It is therefore particularly laudable that they do such excellent voluntary work.

I bring to the attention of the House two recent publications of the young lawyers section and also some of the work that the section is doing on education and professional standards. The first is a recent publication of the Young Lawyers section, which is available through the Law Society, called A Practitioner's Guide to Criminal Law. It is a very useful summary of how the criminal law works. It certainly would be something that some members of the House would find a valuable addition to their library.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And some of them need it.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: And some of them may need it, yes. The second publication—which is absolutely essential for members of the House to have, so they should think about acquiring it—is a publication called Older People and the Law. This publication sets out a great deal of useful information for people as they grow a little older, including information on health care decisions, wills, powers of attorney, finances, housing, consumer rights, age discrimination, disputes with neighbours, accidents and family law issues. It also has a resources section, which lists various government departments and other avenues for obtaining assistance.

In relation to continuing education, the section has a fairly vigorous program dealing with such matters as the Bail Act, tort law reforms, Australian Stock Exchange listing rules, the Privacy Act, and functions in relation to family law and various other matters. I congratulate the section on doing something that young people certainly have no problem in doing, which is maintaining a sense of fun and a sense of community in their activities. On Saturday 2 November the section is hosting their Las Vegas ball. I commend them for not only the good work they are doing with their publications, their community work, and their continuing legal education and professional development, but also for their ability to continue to have some fun as they do it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.51 p.m.]: Save Erskineville Estate is a local residents action group convened to voice community concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Erskineville housing estate by the New South Wales Government. The Department of Housing, through a doubtful consultation process, is attempting to advance a private-public partnership project at this estate. The present Erskineville estate is a model for public housing. The residents are truly integrated into the fabric of the Erskineville community and enhance its diversity. It is clear that the integration of the community is facilitated by the open design of the existing estate.

Unfortunately, and most inappropriately, the Department of Housing refers to this estate as being underdeveloped. This is as good as saying public housing tenants have too much parkland and open space, that it is too good for them. The Department of Housing has demonstrated considerable duplicity in how it has pushed for the redevelopment. Some very worrying meetings have been held and tenants have been asked to sign letters whose intention has not been clear.

Save Erskineville Estate has written to the Minister for Planning, Dr Refshauge, indicating their concerns about the Government's plans for the estate and their willingness to welcome the Minister on a visit to the estate to ensure the protection of this important piece of public infrastructure. The Greens urge the Minister to work with the people of this estate to promote its virtues and end its plans to break up this model of public housing.

Motion agreed to.