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

The President offered the Prayers.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That on Wednesday 17 September 2003 General Business take precedence of Government Business until 5.00 p.m.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That questions commence at 11.50 a.m. on Wednesday 17 September and Thursday 18 September and on Wednesday 15 October and Thursday 16 October 2003.

Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack agreed to:

1. That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid upon the table of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 14 October 2003, and made public without restricted access, all documents dated after 1 January 1993 in the possession, custody or power of the Department of Education and Training relating to Tamworth West Public School capital works, maintenance, site planning and attempts to rezone the current site, including:

(a) all documents relating to freedom of information applications made on this subject,

(b) all documents relating to the establishment and conduct of the review of Tamworth West Public School announced after attempts to rezone the current site were rejected by the Government,

(c) any documents which record or refer to the production of documents as a result of this order of this House.

2. That an indexed list of all documents tabled under this resolution be prepared showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author of the document.

3. That anything required to be laid before the House by this resolution may be lodged with the Clerk of the House if the House is not sitting, and unless privilege is claimed, is deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House and published by authority of the House.

4. Where a document required to be tabled under this order is considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled:

(a) a return is to be prepared and tabled showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document, the author of the document and reasons for the claim of privilege,

(b) the documents are to be delivered to the Clerk of the House by the date and time required in paragraph 1 and:

(i) made available to members of the Legislative Council only,

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.

5. (a) Where any member of the House, by communication in writing to the Clerk, disputes the validity of a claim of privilege in relation to a particular document, the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed document to an independent legal arbiter, for evaluation and report within five days as to the validity of the claim.

(b) The independent legal arbiter is to be appointed by the President and must be a Queen's Counsel, a Senior Counsel or a retired Supreme Court judge.
(c) A report from the independent legal arbiter is to be lodged with the Clerk of the House, and:

(i) made available to members of the Legislative Council only,

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.

Motion by Ms Sylvia Hale agreed to:

1. That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid on the table of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 25 September 2003, and made public without restricted access, all documents in the possession, custody or power of NSW Health and the interim steering committee established by NSW Health to oversee the future of Callan Park, relating to meetings held to date by the interim steering committee, including recommendations developed by the committee.

2. That anything required to be laid before the House by this resolution may be lodged with the Clerk of the House if the House is not sitting, and unless privilege is claimed, is deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House and published by authority of the House.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

1. That, in view of the report of the independent legal arbiter Sir Laurence Street, dated 22 August 2003, on the disputed claim of privilege on documents on the Millennium trains, this House orders that the documents identified in schedule 3 to the report and all remaining documents considered by the independent legal arbiter not to be privileged and not identified in schedules 1, 2, 4 and 5 be laid upon the table by the Clerk.

2. That, on tabling, the documents are authorised to be published.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

1. That the report of the independent legal arbiter Sir Laurence Street, dated 4 September 2003, on the disputed claim of privilege on documents relating to the contract between the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Cross City Motorway Consortium, be laid upon the table by the Clerk.

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

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

1. That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid on the table of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 30 September 2003 and made public without restricted access:

(a) any document created since 1 June 2002, and not previously provided to the House, in the possession, custody or power of the Cabinet Office, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Premier's Department, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Health, including related ministerial offices, relating to:

(i) tunnel ventilation and air quality treatment for the M5 East tunnel, the proposed Lane Cove and cross-city tunnel, and any other proposed road tunnels.

(ii) air quality data from monitoring of in-tunnel, portal and in-stack emissions from the M5 East tunnel, including isokinetic analysis of emissions,

(iii) predicted and actual air dispersion, air quality, cumulative and local health impacts, and compliances with air quality goals relating to the M5 East tunnel and stack,

(iv) the operation of fans in the M5 East tunnel or the fan station at Turrella,

(v) predicted and actual traffic volumes and flows of the M5 East tunnel, and traffic management protocols, logs and incident reports,
(vi) complaints relating to air quality and flooding impacts from the M5 East tunnel or the M5 East stack,

(vii) compliance with approval and licence conditions for the operation of the M5 East tunnel or the M5 East stack,

(viii) communications between the RTA and its contractors including Baulderstone Hornibrook Belfinger Berger, its consultants including Hyder Consulting, Holmes Air Sciences, Flagstaff Consulting Group, the Connell Wagner group, GHD, or the CSIRO, relating to air quality in or on the M5 East motorway,

(ix) any investigation, or cost benefit analysis, on the redesign of the ventilation system or the provision of electrostatic precipitators or other air treatment or filtration systems for the M5 East tunnel,

(x) communications between the RTA and manufacturers or designers of tunnel ventilation, filtration or air quality treatment equipment, or overseas government authorities regarding tunnel ventilation, filtration or air quality treatment equipment,

(xi) health studies undertaken by NSW Health into internal and external air quality impacts of the M5 East tunnel,

(xii) details of any overseas visits made by, or intended to be made by officers of the RTA, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources as well as specialist consultants and contractors associated with either the M5 East, cross-city or Lane Cove tunnels to investigate tunnel ventilation, filtration or air quality treatment equipment,

(xiii) any research, conferences or seminars on air quality standards, issues, health impacts of vehicle emissions or issues relating to ventilation in road tunnels, conducted or attended by officers of the listed agencies,

(xiv) any documents created in response to the report, recommendations and evidence of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, dated December 2003, into the M5 East tunnel,

(xv) the M5 East Property Value Guarantee granted on 1 December 1997, the offer made on 13 February 2001, and any similar offers made to individuals likely to be affected by emissions from the M5 East,

(xvi) any legal agreement between the RTA and Residents Against Polluting Stacks in December 2001,

(xvii) communications between the departments and authorities and the current or former Members for Rockdale and Canterbury, or other Members of the Parliament relating to the M5 East motorway or other tunnels,

(xviii) communications between the departments and authorities and local government councils, community organisations and media organisations relating to the M5 East motorway and Lane Cove tunnels,

(xix) the detailed assessment and costing of the revised tunnel ventilation system for Lane Cove Tunnel as detailed in Appendix C of the Director General, Planning NSW Report November 2002, including the cost of all ventilation tunnels, fans, stacks and associated equipment,

(xx) any communication from the RTA to tenderers (consortia) for the Lane Cove Tunnel in respect of the use of either the Moore Street Compound Site, 130 and 132 Epping Road or Tantallon Oval for provision of an air intake station for Lane Cove Tunnel,

(xxi) any communication, including that to tenderers (consortia) from the RTA in respect of diversion of traffic into local streets in Lane Cove during construction of Lane Cove Tunnel,

(b) any document in the possession, custody or power of the RTA which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

2. That an indexed list of all documents tabled under this resolution be prepared showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author of the document.

3. That anything required to be laid before the House by this resolution may be lodged with the Clerk of the House if the House is not sitting, and unless privilege is claimed, is deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House and published by authority of the House.

4. Where a document required to be tabled under this order is considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled:

(a) a return is to be prepared and tabled showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document, the author of the document and reasons for the claim of privilege,

(b) the documents are to be delivered to the Clerk of the House by the date and time required in paragraph 1 and:

(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council,

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.
5. (a) Where any member of the House, by communication in writing to the Clerk, disputes the validity of a claim of privilege in relation to a particular document, the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed document to an independent legal arbiter, for evaluation and report within five days as to the validity of the claim.

(b) The Independent Legal Arbiter is to be appointed by the President and must be a Queen's Counsel, a Senior Counsel or a retired Supreme Court judge.

(c) A report from the Independent Legal Arbiter is to be lodged with the Clerk of the House, and:

(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council,

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.

Petition opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Petitions objecting to any boundary changes that will force amalgamations of local councils, received from the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

Petition opposing the relocation of Redox Chemicals Pty Ltd to St Andrews and storage of flammable and toxic chemicals within close proximity to residential homes, received from the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

Petition opposing the closure of the railway line and rail services from Broadmeadow to Newcastle, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Petition praying that Professor Dwyer not be appointed to chair the Health Claims and Consumer Protection and Advisory Committee in relation to alternative complementary healthcare products and services, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Private Members' Business items Nos 27 and 29 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of the House, the report of the independent legal arbiter Sir Laurence Street dated 4 September 2003 on the disputed claim of privilege on documents relating to the Cross City Motorway Consortium.

The Hon DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.13 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. 47 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Local Government Amendment (No Forced Amalgamations) Bill, be called on forthwith.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Mr Gay

Ms Hale Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon

Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Egan Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Robertson

Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Miss Gardiner

Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 47 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.23 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Local Government Amendment (No Forced Amalgamations) Bill, especially as Government members voted against my being allowed to introduce it. This bill embodies the policy that Labor took to the people of New South Wales less than six months ago. Yet when the Opposition, with the support of the crossbenchers in this place, sought today to introduce the bill for discussion, the Government voted against its introduction. That is proof of the Government's hypocrisy and its shabby treatment of the people of New South Wales on a daily basis.

During the drafting of the bill it was suggested to me that it could be called the "Local Government Amendment (Keeping Labor Honest to Its Policy) Bill", but I prefer the first title. The bill will ensure that the Carr Labor Government cannot abandon the policy of no forced amalgamations that it took to the March 2003 State election. The bill seeks to amend the Local Government Act 1993 in order to require a poll of ratepayers and eligible residents to be taken as part of the consideration of any amalgamation or, importantly, significant boundary change. The bill will hold this Government to its election policy: nothing more, nothing less. It was not our election policy or that of the Greens or Unity; it was the policy that Labor took to the last election. We would like to enshrine Coalition policy in legislation because it is much better than that of the Government, but Labor won government so we have introduced a bill that reflects Labor policy. If and when Government members vote against the bill for a second time it will reveal the hypocrisy of Country Labor's so-called leader, the Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands), who stood on a Labor ticket at the State election. He did not even have the guts to stand on a Country Labor ticket.

The object of the bill is to require the Local Government Boundaries Commission to poll residents and ratepayers affected by a proposed amalgamation of two or more local government areas or by a substantial change to the boundaries of a local government area. The purpose of doing so is to ascertain the attitude of ratepayers to the proposed change. The bill will prevent local government councils from being wiped out by the stroke of a Minister's pen, on the advice of a boundaries commission that may or may not—that is the important point—have performed its duties properly. At this stage some brief history of the issue may be helpful to honourable members. In January this year, in the lead-up to the State election, I was travelling in the south of the State when I saw an item on a Prime news bulletin in the Wagga Wagga district. The item referred to strong rumours that the State Government was looking to form super councils in regional areas and reported serious concerns in the local area about those plans.

I returned to Sydney and telephoned some regional mayors and general managers, who confirmed that there were some serious, deep-seated concerns about what a re-elected Carr Labor Government would do in terms of structural reform. I then issued a media release calling upon the Premier to come clean about Labor's plans for council reform. It took a couple of days—the previous Minister with responsibility in this area was also slow to respond—but the Premier finally woke up and issued through his spokeswoman some heated denials of any plans for wholesale rationalisation of councils. Some Labor candidates in the State election—including one who is now employed by the Minister for Local Government as a senior adviser—also began to issue denials about Labor's plans to do away with regional councils. On 19 March—just three days before the election—the comments of no less than Premier Bob Carr on this issue were quoted in the Goulburn Post. His comments were important because everyone knew that the then local government Minister was not standing for re-election and thus could say what he liked about the issue. The community was seeking a promise from the Premier. So the Premier was quoted in the Goulburn Post—an illustrious local newspaper—as saying that Labor had no plans for wholesale rationalisation of councils and that there would be no forced amalgamation of councils.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That's a lie.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Absolutely. The Hon. Rick Colless has got it 100 per cent correct: Bob Carr lied to the people of New South Wales. That is why we introduced this bill: to keep the blokes opposite honest. This bill endeavours to keep members of the Australian Labor Party who make promises during an election honest; it is not about the Coalition's policy but about what the Premier said and the Government's policy.

Along the way Labor released its local government policy that it would not force amalgamations but would work with councils to implement further efficiencies in service delivery. I will now fast forward. After the election, at the New South Wales Shires Association conference, the Premier took out the big stick and told reporters that the Government would take steps to implement reform if the challenge of voluntary and amalgamations was not taken up across the State. The Minister for Local Government issued a press release on the same day and welcomed the Premier's comments made at the Yarrowlumla conference. From that day, so far as councils are concerned, all bets were off and the push for amalgamations was on, and the promises went out the window. Everyone knows that we cannot trust the Premier and this Government, which conned the people of New South Wales when it said it would not force amalgamations.

The first council to feel the impact of the Labor Government's policy change was Yarrowlumla, which straddles the border of the Australian Capital Territory. It suddenly found itself the subject of a boundary alteration proposal that would result in half the council area being transferred to the Yass shire, with the area of Yarrowlumla to be dissolved. The Minister merely informed the mayor by letter that consideration was to be given to completely dissolving a council area by shifting the boundaries. Just like Jeff Kennett, Labor is shifting the boundaries. Instead of forcing two council areas to join together the Minister for Local Government is now forcing dissolution proposals onto councils. The Government did not receive an invitation from this council—this was its own initiative. Probably the most galling part of the Yarrowlumla proposal is the final line, which states:

The Boundaries Commission may not conduct a public inquiry into this proposal.

The Minister instructed that there may not be any public consultation on a major proposal to completely dissolve a council and transfer part of the council area to other local government areas. The Government calls it democracy, even though 10,500 residents of the Yarrowlumla area will not have any opportunity to make a contribution on the future local governance of their area. That decision will be left entirely to the Local Government Boundaries Commission—a body that was thoroughly discredited last year during court proceedings involving the proposed transfer of large swathes of South Sydney and Leichhardt council areas to Sydney City Council.

The Minister for Local Government should read what the court said about the way the commission acted. If the Yarrowlumla situation sets a precedent, more than 2.5 million residents in regional local government areas will not have the opportunity to have their say on the future of their council, nor will the four million people served by metropolitan councils. It is not acceptable for the Government to set up a situation in which no consultation will occur. That is where this legislation comes into play, and why it is so important. It is simple in its intent, and as I mentioned earlier, it goes no further than to hold Labor to its election commitment. It does not stop amalgamations that are voluntary or welcomed by the community.

If these amalgamations are as the Government says they are, it should support the legislation. We are not seeking to bring structural reforms to a halt; we just do not want to see Kennett-style forced amalgamations. We want to ensure that affected communities are given every opportunity to have their say on the proposed reform. We have heard that people in the bush were pleased that the Hon. Tony Kelly was appointed as part of the deal done with the unions, but the word now is that Frank Sartor could not have been any worse. That was a quick change of opinion—the Kelly gang has bolted!

Giving people the opportunity to have a say on proposed reform seems to be a concept that is foreign to the Labor Party, and I am appalled that a local government Minister who claims to be a member of Country Labor, even though he was elected on a Labor ticket, is the guiding hand in a process that will see communities effectively excluded from the consultation process. I remind members of the instructions from the Minister in the case of Yarrowlumla:

The Boundaries Commission may not conduct a public inquiry into this proposal.

It is ironic that the Minister for Local Government is going hell for leather to redraw local government boundaries in other parts of the State, but both the Minister and the former Minister for Local Government have refused to correct a bureaucratic bungle that has resulted in the property of a constituent included in the boundaries of Broken Hill City Council following the boundary realignment to bring large parts of the Broken Hill common into the council area. This oversight may leave my constituents thousands of dollars out of pocket through no fault of their own.

The simple message to the Minister is if he cannot help the Creswells by initiating a small but sensible boundary change, he should withdraw his proposal to the Boundaries Commission relating to Yarrowlumla shire, because they are based on the same premise. If the Minister is initiating proposals to do away with Yarrowlumla there is no reason that he cannot assist the Creswells by initiating a boundary change to fix this mistake. This legislation will ensure that affected residents and ratepayers are given every opportunity to have their say. The bill contains some firm mechanisms to take community consultation to the next level.

Unlike the current Local Government Act, which provides for a voluntary postal ballot to be taken of eligible persons in areas affected by amalgamation proposals—which has previously been studiously ignored by the Boundaries Commission—this legislation will require a ballot to be conducted for all proposals for amalgamation and substantial boundary changes. For the purposes of this legislation, a substantial boundary change refers to a boundary change that will have the net effect of increasing or decreasing one or more local government areas by 10 per cent or more. That is an absolutely crucial part of this legislation.

We do not propose to halt the small boundary changes that occur on a fairly regular basis by imposing this condition. We do not want to put in place a ballot for a boundary change that is as simple as moving a shire boundary across a property to include the entire property in a single council area. That would be simply unproductive. This legislation covers substantial boundary alterations because the Coalition and, I suspect, members of the crossbench—and to a large extent the community—are largely suspicious of the motives of this Government. That is the loophole the Government has found to conduct forced amalgamations through the boundary amalgamations. We agree with a 10 per cent boundary alteration—that was put into the Act—but anything above 10 per cent is a forced amalgamation. We want to stop this sneaky coot, the Minister for Local Government, from being able to do it again. I use the word "coot" as a term of endearment, but not the word "sneaky".

The Hon. Tony Kelly: So were the Kelly gang, and they were regarded as heroes.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They were not heroes; they were crooks. Members opposite are supposed to be making and upholding laws. Honourable members will recall that last year the Sydney City Council was given the blessing of the Government to take over large sections of South Sydney City Council and Leichhardt Municipal Council. That structural reform was in the nature of a boundary change rather than an amalgamation. That meant that the Government did not have to undertake any community consultation at all. The then Minister claimed that all the boxes had been ticked because an independent inquiry conducted earlier by Professor Kevin Sproats had taken public submissions in the course of the inquiry—a very good inquiry, I have to say—into inner Sydney local government areas.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: What about the recommendations?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Minister refers to the recommendations.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: You must admit they were good.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The recommendations were good. It is a pity that the Labor Minister at the time did not put up a proposal based on those recommendations, instead of the Mickey Mouse proposal that came forward to satisfy the then Lord Mayor of Sydney.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Thank you.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Do not thank me now. I have gone on record 100 times in regard to that. The whole issue was dragged through the courts as the two councils directly affected fought a fairly tough rearguard action to protect their areas. During that legal action a judgment in the Land and Environment Court in favour of South Sydney City Council found that the Boundaries Commission—the body in which the Minister seems to have every confidence—had not completed its work properly. The commission was found to have allocated the majority of its work of considering the inner-city proposal to two separate firms of consultants and then adopting and signing off on the completed consultancy documents. That is, the commission referred the matter to consultants, who topped and tailed the proposal and presented it as their report.

That is what the court found. That was how appalling that process was. Not only was there no community consultation, but the commission that oversees boundary change processes was found to be distinctly lacking in its approach to consideration of boundary changes. That makes it even more important that affected residents and ratepayers have the opportunity to have their say. If the Minister at that time had put the Sproats recommendations to the ratepayers—rather than to the councils and using a backdoor mechanism—I think the ratepayers may have accepted those recommendations. But we will never know—because the Government was not prepared to give democracy a go.

As the bill before the House stands, the cost of the ballot of eligible residents and ratepayers will be borne by the State Government—as it should be—meaning that councils will not have to bear the cost of running a ballot for a policy that has been foisted upon their communities by the State Government. The Minister might cast his mind back to another of his Government's follies: the single-city saga. One day the Minister and the Premier were in Albury and Wodonga and decided that those two cities should become a single city. The cost of that to those local government organisations—that is, the cost of a proposal that never had legs—is still being borne by ratepayers. That was because a former Labor Minister and the current silly Premier decided that would be a good subject for their press statement.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: He got the headline though, didn't he?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He got the headline, but the ratepayers were left with the bill. The legislation before the House requires the Boundaries Commission—which I am sure will complete its tasks much more diligently in future—to take into account the results of the ballot. In previous amalgamations the commission and the Government have studiously ignored the results of voluntary polls. In one instance we had the absurd assertion of the former Minister that the majority of residents must have been in agreement with a proposed amalgamation because they did not respond to a postal ballot. I suspect he may have been the only person in the State to ascribe to that logic.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Statistically, a totally invalid interpretation.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans makes an erudite, intellectual and appropriate comment. As the bill reads, the commission will have to consider the results of resident polling. If the commission disagrees with the finding of that poll and recommends differently, the commission will have to publish reasons for going against the will of local communities. We are not seeking, through this bill, to tell the commission that it cannot go against a poll; we are saying that the commission will have to publish its reasons for going against the will of local communities. That is a big ask of the commission. It will have to publish its reasons. That is a fair test. If the commission has good reasons, it can put those forward to justify its decision. The bill also states that a proposal is considered to have been approved only if the majority of residents in all affected council areas vote in favour of the proposal. Similarly, a proposal could be considered to have been rejected if the majority of residents in all affected council areas vote against the proposal.

The intent of the bill is clear. It seeks to embed the concept of community consultation in the council amalgamation and boundary change process. The bill will not halt the reform process; it will not derail voluntary amalgamations. That is not what it is about. However, the bill will hold the Labor Party to its election commitment of no forced amalgamations. The challenge for honourable members opposite—especially those who claim Country Labor links—is to support legislation that will really mean there will be no forced amalgamations. This is legislation that reflects the point of view that Labor put to voters in the last State election. This legislation reflects the words of the Premier to the Goulburn Post that there would be no widespread boundary changes and no forced amalgamations. That is why the Coalition has introduced this bill.

We could have introduced a bill that reflected our policy. Instead, we chose—quite properly—to bring forward a very carefully drafted bill that reflects the Labor Government's stated policy of no forced amalgamations. It also picks up the loophole that the Government has been using to force amalgamations and scare the people of New South Wales. One could have some sympathy for the Government if it actually had a plan for what it is doing. The simple fact is that there is no plan. All the Government is doing is scaring the people of New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House in the hope that all honourable members will take it seriously, because many communities will be depending on the passage of this bill for their future survival.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Madam President, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Leader of the Government is not present for this question time, nor is the Minister for Transport Services or the Minister for Community Services. It is against the sessional orders to bring on question time at 11.50 a.m., particularly when there are no Ministers in the Chamber.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I am here.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Minister for Industrial Relations is here, but at this moment a number of Ministers are not present. Can the Leader of the Government in this House advise why Ministers are not present?

The Hon. Tony Kelly: The honourable member knows the answer. Next question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Was that a point of order or a question?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It was a point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. Business was interrupted for questions according to the resolution of the House. I repeat: Are there any questions?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State. Will he confirm that sheep and wool producers in the Central West of New South Wales are being ordered by WorkCover to remove their petrol-driven shearing plants, including engines and overhead gear, and replace this equipment with single-stand electric units? What action will he take to prevent such impractical orders from being placed on drought-ravaged, cash-strapped sheep and wool producers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: WorkCover has been very active in rural workplace safety, especially initiatives in the shearing and wool industry. The honourable member would be aware of initiatives undertaken in the Shear Safe Program, including a rebate scheme for the replacement of unsafe shearing handpieces with safer, more updated handpieces. His question may refer to a program more generally within the Shear Safe ambit that involves a series of grants for demonstration of best practice shearing modifications to shearing sheds. I am not aware of any instance in which WorkCover would order the replacement of some types of machinery with others. Often recommendations involve change in workplace arrangements. Specific equipment may be unsafe on a case-by-case basis and may be the subject of improvement notices.

If the honourable member has any particular instances about which he is concerned or that have been drawn to his attention I would be happy to take them on notice, make relevant inquiries and get back to him as expeditiously as possible. Generally speaking, WorkCover is very sympathetic to the working circumstances of farmers in the rural sector, particularly the shearing industry, in which WorkCover is undertaking a number of important initiatives to improve safety in what has been traditionally a potentially dangerous industry. If the honourable member would care to make available any precise details about improvement notices or orders, I will happily investigate them for him.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My brief question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What initiatives are under way to better protect children in New South Wales?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It may well be a small question, but that in no way detracts from its importance. I am sure all honourable members would agree that the protection of children and young people is one of the most pressing issues that faces us as a community. Last week during National Child Protection Week I had the opportunity to launch two new initiatives by the Protective Behaviours Consultancy Group of New South Wales: the Safer Generations Program and the group's new web site. These two initiatives fitted in neatly with the theme of this year's Child Protection Week, "Child Protection is Everyone's Business". Child Protection Week highlighted the role of the community in noticing what is going on in the lives of the children around us, and how we should be aware that children may be trying to tell us when something is going wrong in their lives.

Children are powerless to protect themselves from abuse, and rely on us as adults to take action on their behalf. Of course, it is essential to have a system in place that can respond effectively to children and young people who are at risk of harm. The Government is building a more effective child protection system in New South Wales. As I have outlined previously, this year will see the first instalment of the five-year $1.2 billion package for the New South Wales Department of Community Services. It will improve the capacity of the system and further develop early intervention programs for families whose children may be at risk of entering the child protection system. There will be 150 new caseworkers this year, which will greatly improve the ability of the department to respond to risk of harm reports.

Additional funding of $5.5 million has been provided to develop early identification and support services for vulnerable children and families who are at high risk of entering the child protection system. This is a component of the early intervention budget, which this financial year totalled $187.9 million. The Protective Behaviours Consultancy Group of New South Wales does very valuable work in early intervention. It provides training programs and information on protective behaviours. I am advised that this financial year alone the organisation expects to provide training and workshops to more than 800 people. The development of personal safety skills through Protective Behaviours programs has been shown to be effective in helping people affected by family violence. It is a primary child abuse prevention strategy and focuses on two key themes: We all have the right to feel safe all of the time; and nothing is so awful that we cannot talk about it with someone.

Protective Behaviours programs use activities that encourage children to talk through issues in a one step removed way. It enables them to create solutions to problems. Protective Behaviours programs reinforce the message that stopping violence towards children and young people is always the responsibility of adults. The Protective Behaviours Consultancy Group has developed a range of culturally specific publications to encourage greater participation by children and young people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The "Safe Generations Training Resource", its latest publication, was developed in collaboration with members of the indigenous community. Members of Aboriginal communities will receive training on protective behaviours to enable them to deliver the program to children and young people in their local communities.

The presenter will be able to use personal experiences, creativity and stories to help children develop personal safety skills that are relevant and workable. It was also my pleasure to launch the consultancy group's web site, which will enable professionals to access up-to-date information on protective behaviours. The project is significant because it was developed out of a partnership fostered between the Protective Behaviours Consultancy Group and some incredibly talented year 9 students from Caringbah High School, much of it done in their own time. As I understand it, this is the second web site project for the Caringbah High School students. I congratulate them and I commend the Protective Behaviours Program to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Has he ever had meetings with either his colleague in another place the Hon. Pam Allan or any representatives of Environmental Resources Management Australia (Holdings) [ERM] in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown? If so, what was the purpose of those meetings? When did each of the meetings take place? Who was at each of the meetings? What matters were discussed?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The answer to the first part, whether I ever had meetings involving the Hon. Pam Allan, is no. To the best of my recollection I have never had a meeting with ERM or its representatives, but I will check on that. Certainly my recollection is that I have not.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands). On Tuesday 2 September I received a response from the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning to a question I asked relating to the public disclosure of the register of government-owned lands. I was informed that the register:

Is not being established for the purpose of public inquiry, but rather for the Government to facilitate management of its property assets and to provide an overview of its land holdings for future planning purposes.

Nevertheless, the Department of Lands will provide information to the public from the register at a fee, depending on the purpose for which the data is required.

Given the extensive exposé on peppercorn leases featured recently in the Sydney Morning Herald, will the Minister please provide the House with a reason the register of what is, essentially, the assets of New South Wales taxpayers will not become publicly available on the Internet free of charge?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will take the honourable member's question on notice and ensure that he receives an appropriate answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I wish to clarify my earlier answer. I think I said I had never had meetings with the Hon. Pam Allan.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You did say that.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Clearly I have had meetings with the Hon. Pam Allan, but certainly not in relation to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will he inform the House about Government funding of volunteer rescue organisations in New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The community in New South Wales is fortunate to be served by a team of emergency services that is internationally recognised as the world's finest.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Fiery Phil.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Today I am speaking mostly about marine rescue organisations. I particularly pay tribute to members of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association and the marine arm of the Volunteer Rescue Association, of which I was once a member at the Lake Burrendong rescue squad.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: They are very busy out there.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It was very busy. It was part of my job as a deputy shire clerk.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When there is high tide, it is.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes. As Lake Burrendong is 30 per cent full, it is probably not a big issue at the moment. Volunteers in those organisations go to the aid of those in trouble at sea and at inland marine venues. Since 1995 the Government has provided $3.7 million in support grants to these three non-government volunteer emergency services. In 1998 the Government introduced a new funding scheme specifically to assist these organisations to upgrade their rescue fleets and associated facilities. Under the scheme the Waterways Authority provided funding of $350,000 a year so those who benefit from activities of the rescue services contributed directly to upgrading the services' facilities.

Today I advise the House that the Government is paying the latest instalment in the funding of this agreement. Annual funding has again been increased, thanks to the good offices of the Treasurer, to the tune of $660,000. Recently I presented representatives of these organisations with their share of the annual funding, including $149,000 to the Volunteer Rescue Association, $215,000 to the Volunteer Coast Guard, and $294,000 to the Volunteer Coastal Patrol. The volunteer marine services are well known to anyone who has spent time on the water, whether in Sydney Harbour, or the many ports along our coast, or at sea. As well as major rescue operations, they also go to the aid of countless weekend boaties who find themselves in difficulty.

These organisations are sometimes referred to as the NRMA of the sea. They are also an integral part of any public event on the water by helping to maintain good order and safety. We saw an example of that during the sailing competition on Sydney Harbour during the Olympic Games. These organisations are vital to the safety of sailors in the Sydney to Hobart yacht race, which is notorious for its trying and often dangerous conditions. In recent years two members lost their lives while assisting others. In 1986 coast guard member David Waddell was killed when his vessel overturned while he was on a rescue mission on the Ballina bar. Just last year, coastal patrol member Dennis Matthews lost his life while assisting a boat in difficulty on Lake Macquarie. These men's names are inscribed on the Emergency Services Volunteers Memorial at Mrs Macquarie's Chair, along with others who have paid the ultimate price while serving their community.

The three services have 1,722 registered marine rescue operators who work in 58 units with a fleet of 78 vessels. The organisations also operate a network of associated radio bases along the coastline. In one year the three agencies may respond to anywhere around 4,000 calls for help from boats in difficulties, with an average of 10,000 people being rescued or assisted. I place on the record the Government's appreciation of the work of these three key volunteer organisations and those who are members of them. I am sure that all honourable members join me in thanking them for their tireless and brave efforts.

Mr IAN COHEN: I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government, representing the Minister for Energy and Utilities, On 14 and 15 April 2003, a media risk management workshop about Project Waratah was held at the offices of the Department of State and Regional Development and included other State Government agencies. How many such meetings on other projects have been held with State Government agency involvement in the past eight years? Were any of these organised or sponsored by the Department of State and Regional Development? Will the Government ban agency involvement in such meetings or individual discussions?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The question is directed to the Minister for Local Government, but it is probably a question more appropriately addressed to me. Honourable members will be aware that recently I made a statement about such a workshop, which representatives of the Department of State and Regional Development and a number of other agencies attended. I pointed out that I believed that the workshop was an inappropriate involvement for government agencies. That is certainly still my view. However, I will take the question on notice.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Has he ever had any meetings either with his colleague in another place the Hon. Pam Allan or any representative of Environmental Resources Management Australia (Holdings) [ERM] in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown or in his previous capacity as Parliamentary Secretary? If so, what was the purpose of those meetings? When did each of the meetings take place? Who was at each of the meetings? What matters were discussed?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have had numerous meetings with the Hon. Pam Allan over the years, but about nothing to do with any of the issues that the Opposition is fishing around about today. My answer is an unequivocal no to all that. I have not had a meeting with ERM, either when I was a Parliamentary Secretary or now as the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship. Will the Minister provide the House with information regarding safety and security in our correctional centres?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Government acknowledges that security and safety in correctional centres is an important issue, and one that requires renewed vigilance. The department is continuing a major offensive particularly in relation to drugs and contraband items entering correctional centres. First, 80 per cent of inmates in New South Wales have been placed in custody for drug and drug-related offences, which means that drugs are a major management issue for correctional centres. Consequently the department remains proactive in introducing strategies and programs that pre-empt offenders' attempts to smuggle drugs and contraband items into correctional centres. The department has a number of antidrug units that collect intelligence on drug-trafficking activities and conduct interdiction operations.

The security of the system was somewhat tested last week when a model plane landed in the sterile zone of the Silverwater Correctional Centre. Correctional officers were quick to act and deserve to be praised for their immediate response. The officers detected the plane while it was still in the air, they observed it land, and kept it under tight security and surveillance. The fact that the model aircraft was detected demonstrates the efficiency of correctional centres security.

The Hon. John Ryan: Ah, but it landed.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: What does the Hon. John Ryan want us to do—blow it up? The incident was simply a case of an overly enthusiastic hobbyist losing control of this model aeroplane, and nothing more.

The Hon. John Ryan: Ah yes. They swung into action.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: It is interesting to note the type of amusement that this evokes from the Opposition in the circumstances, but I want to share with the House what the shadow Minister had to say on the day following this incident. The shadow Minister said that it:

…demonstrates that we do have a major security risk in our prisons in New South Wales, if any form of contraband, weapons, drugs, or even explosives could be carried into one of our prisons with high risk prisoners using a remote-controlled model plane, it poses a massive threat and a risk to the public.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That is not what the Hon. John Ryan told me.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. John Ryan, of course, had a different solution to the problems of drugs in prisons. When this House was debating marijuana laws he said:

… let me deal with the nonsense that people go to gaol for using marijuana … I suggest the way to deal with the problem … that people are being sent to prison for use and other minor crimes, is to reform the justice system in such a way that it will result in diversions.

In other words, get rid of the problem of contraband by not putting any person involved in drug-related offences into prisons; 80 per cent of them would stay on the streets. I am happy to inform the House that notwithstanding what happened at Silverwater, no prisoner has been able to cause mischief using remote-controlled model planes, boats, cars, fire engines—not high-risk prisoners nor even model prisoners. In fact, Santa may have visited the high-risk management unit, but his sack of toys was definitely not there. The only risk to the public is when misinformed and misguided people, such as the shadow Minister, make such erroneous comments without first consulting the facts. The Government is spending approximately $58.6 million in 2003-04 on specialist security units. That amount includes $42.7 million for court escort security and $1.4 million for the State Investigations Security Group.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Rick Colless should know better than to attract my attention. He was the campaign director in Inverell who at the last election saw the National Party vote go from 60 per cent to less than 10 per cent. Keep it up!

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: The Minister is misleading the House. I was not the campaign director in Inverell.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate the question?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Corrective Services Investigation Unit at $0.8 million—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The question is completely out of order. The member asked for his own question to be elucidated and I am sure that the Minister cannot possibly do that.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: The Hon. John Ryan is simply trifling with the House. It was a silly point of order. Everyone knows what the Hon. Tony Catanzariti meant to say.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If I had to rely on every member in this Chamber to say what he or she meant, very few speeches would be in order.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The State Investigations and Security Group, is allocated $1.4 million, the Corrective Services Investigations Unit $0.8 million, Security and Investigations Unit $7.8 million, the Office of the Director of Security $5.1 million, and the Security Threat Group $0.8 million. In addition, the Department of Corrective Services security systems in gaols including perimeter security, control rooms, et cetera, are valued at approximately $25 million with an annual maintenance cost of approximately $2 million. Safety and security in our prisons is a major priority of the Government. The simplistic solutions of the Opposition show its lack of knowledge and naivety of the most modern and effective correctional centre management.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Is the Minister aware that on 4 September President George Bush signed special interest legislation, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which sets standards for investigating and eliminating rape in prisons, where between 250,000 and 600,000 inmates are raped each year in the United States of America? Does a study show that at least one in four inmates in New South Wales prisons have been raped or sexually assaulted? Minister, what are the actual statistics on how many inmates are raped in New South Wales prisons, gaols and detention centres? If those statistics are not available, where are they? Minister, in this State is there a confidential process for inmates to report incidences of rape? Is there in place an education, prevention and punishment protocol designed to eliminate the rape of inmates?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not aware of the bill referred to by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. If he would provide me with a copy I would be interested in reading it. As in the broader community, sexual assault is a crime wherever it occurs, including in prison. If sexual assault is reported it is handled by the police, not by the Department of Corrective Services. Any statistics on those matters would be in the possession of the police. It is the policy of the department that any criminal conduct that comes to its attention is referred to the police. I do not have those statistics. I will take the remainder of the question on notice and provide an answer.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests). Has the Minister had any meetings with either his colleague in another place, the honourable member for Wentworthville, or any representative of Environmental Resources Management Australia (Holdings) in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown? If so, what was the purpose of those meetings? When did each of the meetings take place? Who was at each meeting and what matters were discussed?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: Today, question time is longer than normal, it will go for 1 hour and 10 minutes. So, the Opposition has decided to recycle the same question several times. To save the time of the House and to enable honourable members to ask questions on a wide variety of important subjects, I suggest that the Government take all those questions on notice and deal with them in globo.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I certainly have had meetings with the Hon. Pam Allan, although I cannot be specific as to the dates or subject matter. To the best of my recollection we have not had a meeting on this particular matter.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Which matter?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The matter referred to in the question.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: There was no matter. Which matter are you talking about?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: He is back at the police academy, doing cross-examination 101, the old police prosecutor! Where is his telephone book? That is more his style. I will take the question on notice.

The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister for State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House what the Government is doing to improve workers compensation in New South Wales, especially in light of the release of the report entitled "Partnerships for Recovery"?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Can you get it right for Jean Kennedy before you go out with your press release today? She will ask you that question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Most certainly. Honourable members would be aware of the report by McKinsey and Company, "Partnerships for Recovery: Caring for Injured Workers and Restoring Financial Stability to Workers Compensation in NSW". The report is the next major step in ensuring our workers compensation system is fair, efficient and affordable for workers and employers in New South Wales. Honourable members will recall that I announced a program of reform for workers compensation in this House in 2000.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have a prop. Do you want to describe the cover for Hansard?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can do that. As a result of those reforms I am pleased to advise the House that for the first time since 1992 the premiums collected will cover the operational costs of the scheme for a year.

The Hon. Michael Egan: First time since when?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: 1992.

The Hon. Michael Egan: What an achievement!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: And future liabilities have been reduced by $919 million, with $500 million of the savings coming from legal costs alone.

The Hon. Michael Egan: How much?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: $500 million of the savings come from legal costs alone. Safer employers have received around $67.5 million in premium discounts and around 75 per cent of workers now get weekly benefits within seven days of an injury being notified to the insurer. Disputes in the scheme have reduced by 75 per cent, from 8,000 per quarter to 2,000. The average reporting delay for an injury has almost halved, from a median of 21 days to 13.

Reforms in 2000 and 2001 put the framework in place for providing better injury management and fairer premiums. Initiatives include the premium discount scheme to reward employers for improving their occupational health and safety and injury management systems and the medical management pilot scheme to ensure that general practitioners are appropriately skilled in the clinical management of lower back pain. A number of highly successful initiatives were introduced from 1 January 2002, including provisional liability payments, the Claims Assistance Service and the Workers Compensation Commission.

Following the significant success of the reforms so far, the Government proceeded with the next stage of the reform process, beginning with a comprehensive review of the New South Wales workers compensation scheme design. The purpose of the review was to recommend improvements to the operational and underwriting arrangements of the scheme for the benefit of injured workers. The report does not recommend any changes to workers benefits; it is aimed at greater accountability of insurers to deliver better health outcomes for injured workers. The report recommends that there should be no private underwriting in the scheme, at least until it is financially stable. People who appear not to have read the report, for example, the honourable member for Gosford, have made calls for privatisation.

The report found that privatisation would result in significant increases in premiums paid by the State's employers. So when the honourable member for Gosford calls for privatisation he is calling for the State's employers to pay higher premiums to satisfy his obsession with privatisation. The report recommends unbundling all the functions currently undertaken by licensed insurers, such as claims management and funds management, and allowing special service providers to tender for those roles. That will increase the level of competition by allowing new entrants to operate and improve accountability by replacing the current open-ended licences with fixed-term contracts. Of course, current insurers will also be able to tender for all or any of these roles if they wish to do so.

The Partnerships for Recovery report anticipates that the introduction of these new operational arrangements will deliver substantial savings to the scheme and retire the deficit within 5 to 10 years. Additional savings of $400 million will be achieved through a number of pilot projects already under way on a co-operative basis between current insurers and WorkCover. Forty per cent of the savings will come from better claims management, while savings from fraud detection are less than 10 per cent, including employer and service provider fraud—a matter that does not seem to interest the Opposition or the honourable member who is attempting to interject. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY BURKE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister provide the House with additional information?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Government has endorsed the report's recommendation in principle and its implementation is now the subject of consultation with stakeholders, including unions, employers, insurers and service providers. Subject to the results of this consultation process I anticipate that enabling legislation will be introduced into Parliament before the end of this year to facilitate the implementation of recommendations. The consultation process with stakeholders will continue as recommendations are implemented.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Are more than 50,000 New South Wales teachers taking part today in a one-day strike—a day of action—with thousands of teachers presently outside Parliament House? Are teachers demanding a 25 per cent salary increase to restore their comparative salary levels in view of the higher cost of living in New South Wales, especially Sydney? Will the Treasurer intervene to increase the Government's offer from a 6 per cent increase over two years to a more satisfactory and fairer level to maintain teacher numbers?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am aware that there is a teachers strike in three States today. As well as New South Wales, the other States are Victoria and Western Australia. In each of the three jurisdictions teachers are seeking—or at least their unions are seeking—salary increases of the order of 20 per cent to 30 per cent over a two-year to three-year period. I am pleased to inform the House that, during the terms of office of this Government, salary levels for teachers in New South Wales increased in real terms—I emphasise the words "in real terms"—by in excess of 16 per cent, that is, after discounting inflation over that period. The nominal increase is something well in excess of 30 per cent.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is the CPI [Consumer Price Index].

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: "In real terms" means after taking into account the CPI or the movement in the CPI over that period.

The Hon. Rick Colless: I find that difficult to believe.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Honourable members might find it difficult to believe because a 16 per cent increase is an outstanding achievement. It is a significant increase. We have given an undertaking to the public sector in New South Wales that we will maintain the real level of those significant increases that have occurred in the past. We will maintain the current real level, which is called real salary maintenance. We have made allowance for that—it is about 3 per cent—in the budget for this year, next year, the year after and I think the year after that.

[Interruption]

It is amazing. I understand that the shadow Minister for education has come out in support of the total teachers claim. That would simply mean that the New South Wales budget would be in deficit to the tune of billions of dollars. I think the shadow Minister for education is being completely irresponsible, knowing full well that there is no money to pay increases of that magnitude.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Has the Minister ever had any meetings with his colleague in the other place the Hon. Pam Allen or any representative of Environmental Resources Management Australia (Holdings) in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown? If so, what was the purpose of those meetings? When did each of the meetings take place? Who was at each of the meetings, and what matters were discussed?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: No.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister update the House on the exceptional circumstances applications for areas of the State that have recommended a change in their drought status to one of "marginal improving"?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This is an important development in the evolution of exceptional circumstances treatment in this State. Honourable members would be aware that 76.8 per cent of New South Wales remains in drought, while 17.7 per cent has moved to marginal and 5.5 per cent to satisfactory. That is a slight improvement from August, when 89 per cent of the State remained in drought. While we certainly welcome the slightly improved picture and hope for more widespread follow-up rains, there is concern that some EC applications may potentially be in jeopardy. This is especially true for applications covering part of the Molong and Gundagai rural lands protection board [RLPB] districts and the Maitland application. The Commonwealth has stated that an area must be State drought declared before an exceptional circumstances application will be considered.

Each of the three areas mentioned met the necessary climatic criteria for the period in which they were assessed. In each of these cases the financial impact of the drought has proven to be severe and prolonged. However, since the original assessment conditions have improved and parts of the areas have moved out of full drought. Yet the burdensome process required to lodge EC applications means that consideration is being given only now to submissions lodged during earlier drought conditions. EC criteria specifically provide for assessment of an historical event and applications should be considered on that event. Exceptional circumstances support, which includes family income support payments and interest rate subsidies on new loans, is vital for farmers trying to survive this one-in-100-year drought. As of 1 September, 65 per cent of the State's 43,000 farmers are eligible for EC drought support assistance.

I am concerned that the rural lands protection boards, which have responsibly followed the State's drought assessment criteria, may be penalised for taking the reasonable approach and moving to a marginal improving status. The State Government has already committed and spent more than $90 million assisting the State's farmers, and we will continue to do this throughout the drought. I have written to the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, asking that EC applications be assessed on the basis of the event defined at the time of the submission and not upon current conditions. If the Commonwealth maintains its position, the areas that I have mentioned will miss out on EC funding. We hope that the Federal Government will reconsider its approach to rural lands protection boards moving from drought declared to marginal improving status.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer guarantee that any salary increase the Industrial Relations Commission might grant to New South Wales teachers will be funded in full from Treasury funds and not funded by reducing spending on other items in the Education budget? In light of the looming shortage of teachers in New South Wales, how will the Treasurer guarantee that students in New South Wales will obtain quality public education if teachers are not granted a 25 per cent salary increase?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As I pointed out in an earlier answer to a question from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the budget and its forward estimates contain funding for a 3 per cent pay rise for teachers.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: For all of it?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, for all of the 3 per cent. But they do not contain funding for anything in excess of that. The Hon. Lee Rhiannon obviously believes there is a tap that can simply be turned on and that money appears from nowhere.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: A magic pudding.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: She thinks there is a magic pudding, as the Deputy Leader of the Government points out, or a magic wand. When I became Treasurer in April 1995 the first thing I did was search every nook and cranny of my office, which had been inhabited previously by Peter Collins, looking for the magic wand or the magic pudding. I did not find either then and I have not found either in all my time in the office.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: I understand that under sessional orders an answer must be relevant to the question. As more than 15,000 teachers who are interested in this issue are gathered outside the Parliament building today, does the Treasurer not think he should answer the question?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: To the point of order: I am quite happy that I have answered the question fully and honestly.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was certainly addressing the issues raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon in her question and was in order.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. How will the Minister help to cover the costs of 300 farmers who are enrolled to complete the managing farm safety course in the next two months so that they will be able to comply with the new occupational health and safety legislation, given that funding for the FarmBis training scheme has run out nine months ahead of schedule? What action is the Minister taking to secure more funding for the FarmBis scheme and how will he ensure that this resource is managed more efficiently in future?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The FarmBis scheme has been managed very effectively. We must remember that many millions of dollars have been spent on it.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But there's no money there now.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not interject. As to funding, since 1 July 2001 more than $18 million has been spent on training more than 40,000 farming and fishing enterprises across the State. Training occurs in the areas of people management, financial management, general business management, marketing, production management and natural resource management. FarmBis aims to enhance the capacity of participants to identify, plan and access quality learning activities. FarmBis also aims to enhance the ability of participants to manage change effectively, to communicate the benefits of continuous learning and to adopt management practices that lead to greater resource sustainability, profitability and competitiveness.

FarmBis targets people within the family management team who are integral to the management of the farm or fishing business and who will benefit from improving their business management skills. This includes the principal operator and spouse, partners, family members, managers who are not family members and land managers. Financial assistance is available in the form of a non-repayable subsidy to a maximum of $2,000 per farm business enterprise per training activity and $3,000 for multiple family farms. FarmBis is administered by the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority and is funded equally by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. FarmBis was expanded to include the wild catch fishing industry and land managers and now has a budget of $26.8 million over three years to 30 June 2004.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is all gone.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will get to that; calm down. In February 2003 FarmBis subsidies were discontinued for quality assurance and reduced from 75 per cent to 50 per cent for all other eligible training activities to ensure that funds were available for the duration of the current program. This decision was made by the State FarmBis planning group, which comprises widespread industry representation, including the New South Wales Farmers Association, fishers, rural councillors and individual farmers. The State and Federal governments provided a further $1.5 million each to allow continued access by primary producers. Available program funds have now been fully allocated. However, training activities will continue in the coming weeks and months where assistance has already been approved. The Commonwealth is currently assessing the continuation of the program beyond 30 June 2004, and I will lobby strongly to ensure that this highly successful program remains in place.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the progress in establishing the national Information and Communications Technology Centre of Excellence?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I certainly can. Information and communications technology [ICT] is integral to product development, process improvements and service delivery in most sectors of the economy. The application of these technologies generates substantial productivity improvements and wealth for the nation. In May last year the New South Wales Government-sponsored National ICT Australia—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: NICTA.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Special Minister of State is obviously familiar with NICTA. It was chosen to establish Australia's $130 million ICT centre of excellence. The centre was officially launched in February this year at its headquarters at the Australian Technology Park, which has had ongoing support from this Government and from the previous Coalition Government—the Hon. Robert Webster helped a lot with its establishment. The centre also has additional locations at the University of New South Wales and at the Australian National University in Canberra.

As a world-class research and training institution, NICTA will help to position New South Wales as one of the leading ICT hubs in the Asia-Pacific region. The centre will collaborate—I do not like that word; I prefer to use "co-operate" or "work with"—with businesses of all sizes in research, incubator development, staff exchanges and information sharing. It is estimated that the centre will generate more than 500 PhD graduates Australiawide over the next decade. NICTA is expected to attract domestic and international investment and inject more than $670 million—

The Hon. John Ryan: Why are you using an acronym like NICTA when you're upset about the word "collaborate"?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I take the Hon. John Ryan's point. I do not like acronyms but occasionally they find their way into the text and, without thinking too much about it, I regurgitate them. I will try to do better. NICTA is expected to attract domestic and international investment and inject more than $670 million into the New South Wales economy over the next 15 years. Talking about acronyms, I point out to the House that the forerunner of the Maritime Services Board was called the Sydney Harbour Improvement Trust. That is true. Its name was changed to the Sydney Harbour Trust. The Government's commitment of an initial $20 million to the Centre of Excellence over five years will bring jobs and money into the New South Wales economy. Our contribution will be by way of rent subsidy, payroll tax subsidy and funds for New South Wales-based research and commercialisation.

The ICT Centre of Excellence is already attracting overseas interest. At the end of April, IBM Australia announced the establishment of a centre for advanced studies to consolidate the $40 million-plus the company invests in national research each year. The first new project under this initiative will be collaborating on open-source software with the ICT Centre of Excellence. The IBM Centre for Advanced Studies—the first outside North America—will provide Australian-based researchers with access to the company's worldwide research resources and help support Australia to remain at the forefront of information and communications technology innovation. [Time expired.]

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The announcement demonstrates the importance of research and development and how co-operation between government, research communities and industry can create opportunities to enhance innovation and business transformation. The ICT Centre of Excellence will help transform the New South Wales ICT sector and strengthen the competitiveness of this State's traditionally strong sectors, such as financial services, primary industries, resources, education, entertainment and health. Through its integrated approach to innovation, education and ICT industry development, the ICT Centre of Excellence will boost the capability of our ICT industry and deliver substantial productivity gains across all sectors of the New South Wales economy.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government, representing the Minister for Energy and Utilities. Can the Government, which is charging the multinational company Coca-Cola Amatil a pittance for water—specifically at Mangrove Mountain, north of Sydney—guarantee that the natural aquifers from which this water is extracted will not be depleted by depriving surrounding landowners and residents of the water urgently required during times of drought and bushfires? Can the Government guarantee that this is a sustainable industry? Rather than taking precious water from natural aquifers, can Coca-Cola Amatil be requested to set up a water filtration plan to purify Sydney water and to sell that product to the people of Sydney and overseas? Does the Minister know why so many people who live in Sydney are not prepared to drink Sydney tap water?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will refer this question to the relevant Minister, and provide an appropriate answer. Although I will replace the word "can" with the word "will" whenever it appears in the question, because I assume that is what the honourable member meant.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Has the Minister responded to correspondence from the honourable member for Monaro that was referred to by the member in a media statement of 11 September, in which he highlighted on several occasions the importance of the Canberra and Queanbeyan rail service and his opposition to any cutting of rail service? If so, will the Minister give a commitment to retain this service?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I assume that the honourable member is referring to some speculation that was part of the Parry report in relation to a range of transport matters.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You actually removed the train.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We are talking about this matter in that context.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: No, it is about cutting services Minister.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I acknowledge the interjection from Dennis Denuto about cutting services.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: We have allowed the Minister a great deal of latitude with regard to the way he addresses other members. I ask you to remind the honourable member, as you have ruled on many occasions, that although he does not have to refer to members as "honourable", he has to refer to them with civility and to not use mocking names when referring to them.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: To the point of order: I clearly remember that on a previous occasion the honourable member expressed some pride because I had used the same description when referring to him. On that occasion he informed the House that Dennis Denuto had in fact won his case; he said that he has the same legal skills as Dennis Denuto. I freely acknowledge that Dennis Denuto was a very successful lawyer and that the Hon. Greg Pearce has very similar legal skills to those of Denis Denuto. I do not understand why the honourable member has objected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that the standing orders are very clear: members must not make intimations against other members of the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The recent speculation, as part of an options paper released in conjunction with the Parry process, is about a range of country services being cut. Well, the Opposition has got to me today and I have got to come clean.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: I did tell you to clean up your act.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Do you want me to tell you what we are going to do? We will remove the Northern Mail to Moree, the Western Mail to Dubbo, the North Coast overnight express to Grafton, the Canberra Express, the Canberra-Monaro Express, the Orange-Lithgow local service and the day return Bathurst service. I am sorry, I am reading from a document dated 14 October 1998 from Bruce Baird relating to cuts to country rail services. My staffer has given me the wrong notes. Members of the Opposition are hypocrites. The Coalition stands condemned because when it was in government it cut more rail services than any other government in the history of the management of New South Wales railways. Opposition members should not talk in this House about rail cuts and pretend to know nothing about the history of the rail system. They stand condemned. Many services were cut by the Coalition Government. Bruce Baird said:

Poorly patronised zone country trains will be withdrawn from services, leading to savings in operating costs to State Rail of a minimum of $13 million. The Minister for Transport, Bruce Baird, said today.

The Parry report is an important document.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Who was the adviser to Bruce Baird?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The document does not say, but I remember that Barry O'Farrell was adviser to Bruce Baird when service after service was cut by the Coalition. They are hypocrites. [Time expired.]

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister guarantee that he will not cut rail services?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member has obviously not read the Parry report. It is obvious that all members of the Opposition are stunned by the hypocrisy of the question. Opposition members were asked to make submissions to the Parry inquiry but they refused. The inquiry received 289 submissions in total. The Leader of the Opposition has asked for public documents, and I await with interest his response to the options.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I direct a question to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Would the Minister inform the House of the benefits of Australian Technology Showcase Week?

The Hon. John Ryan: Oh no! Not again?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Opposition members do not like hearing about the Australian Technology Showcase [ATS] because the Opposition has no interest at all in Australian innovation, the development of export industries in New South Wales, or small and medium companies—very often companies that start with good ideas and end up producing a world-beating technology. Every company in the Australian Technology Showcase has produced a world-beating technology.

I am sure the House will be excited to know that this very week is ATS Week. The objective of ATS Week is to raise awareness of technology development, recognise companies making substantial contributions towards expanding their business, and providing networking forums on issues pertinent to the growth of technology companies. The first event in what will be a busy week of business functions was the presentation of the second annual Australian Technology Showcase Investment Ready Award, which took place yesterday. The award acknowledges an organisation which, in the opinion of the judging panel, has presented the best case for early stage equity capital raising.

The Hon. John Ryan: What a mouthful!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Early stage equity capital raising? Could the honourable member tell me how one might put that more plainly? If he can come up with an alternative form of words, I will be very pleased to hear them. I am pleased to inform the House that this year's winner was Droneon—the maker of the Venocuff venous stent. My notes tell me that it is a device that provides a solution to the faulty valves in veins and brings relief to the many sufferers of varicose veins and circulatory disease. I would think such a device would have application all round the world. The procedure treats the valve while preserving the vein. It can be performed under local anaesthetic on a day-patient basis. I congratulate Droneon and wish it well with its successful product development. I would like to acknowledge the support of the 10 ATS patrons: Air New Zealand, Buchan Consulting, Idicim, Macquarie Bank, Newport Technology Fund, Pacific Capital, Panasonic, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Spruson and Ferguson and the Write Communications Group.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No ERM?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, no ERM. The ATS continues to be a vital component of the Government's strategy in promoting and encouraging innovation and technology development across the State and has contributed enormously towards repositioning international perceptions of Australia's business capability.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources. In light of the fact that the building housing the Le Sands restaurant was leased by Rockdale City Council for a 19-year period for approximately $43,000 less than market value, and the fact that the proprietor of the Le Sands restaurant made a $2,200 donation to the Australian Labor Party during the last State election campaign, and against the backdrop of corruption at Rockdale council, will the Minister investigate—

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: Firstly, this question, when it was raised yesterday, was taken on notice by the Minister. However, I draw attention to the sessional order relating to rules for questions, particularly paragraph 1(d), and to the imputations that have been made by the honourable member. I submit the question is out of order.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: To the point of order: I have made no imputation about any individual. I have stated facts. This is not the question I asked yesterday. In fact, I am about to go to the crux of the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The rules for questions are very strict, and they state that questions must not contain imputations. I suggest that the member rephrase her question and ask it again when she next receives the call.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is to the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that passengers travelling between Melbourne and Sydney on the XPT last Friday were ordered to disembark at Moss Vale station at 5 o'clock on Saturday morning because the train was being terminated? Is the Minister aware that the bus that had been organised for them did not turn up because the bus driver allegedly slept in? Is the Minister aware that taxis had to be arranged to carry the stranded passengers more than 60 kilometres to Campbelltown station? How many passengers were affected? How many taxis were used? What did it cost the taxpayers of this State to use private taxis in lieu of a broken down public transport system? Is it any wonder the public has lost confidence in public transport when services can no longer be guaranteed to deliver passengers to their destination without massive disruption?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The last part of the question was a statement rather than a question. If it was not a statement, I certainly do not agree with it. We do have problems in public transport. I have acknowledged that freely. In fact, I have commissioned a number of reports that point to not only the problems—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Nineteen.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You keep saying it is nineteen. I hope you have read them all. I do not know the number, but certainly a number of reports have been commissioned on public transport and the problems we face. Of course, these reports point not only to problems but also to solutions to some of these problems, and we are in the process of seeking—

[Interruption]

Did somebody say "cutting rail services" again? Really, I suggest Opposition members read the history of the Greiner-Fahey Government, which cut more rail services than any other government. I find it staggering that Opposition members have not learned the lesson of the last question. They should not ask me about cutting rail services. Interjections about cuts to country rail services coming from the Opposition are the worst form of hypocrisy that anyone in public life will encounter. Coalition governments were masters at cutting country rail services. I have read from a list of rail services they cut. Opposition members should not interject about that. Some of the arguments put up at the time—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Can the Minister tell the House what current Coalition shadow Minister for transport is causing this problem that he talks about?

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am talking about the hypocrisy of the Opposition. Opposition members attack the Government for cuts to country rail services—which, by the way, have not occurred. A report has been published detailing a range of options for public transport and—to go to the heart of the question—improvements in public transport.

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

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]

Committee Reports Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Debate resumed from 4 September.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.47 p.m.]: This bill will establish a joint parliamentary committee to deal with electoral matters. The Opposition is happy to suit the convenience of the Government but is concerned that the Government may propose amendments to the Opposition's proposal. In that regard I have continued to have discussions with the Special Minister of State. The Minister advised that a decision is imminent and that an adjournment for one further day may assist the process of the Government reaching a conclusion.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Private Members' Business item No. 2 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

Private Members' Business item No. 3 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose, on behalf of the Hon David Oldfield.

Motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 3 inside the Order of Precedence on the Business Paper for today remain in its place inside the Order of Precedence notwithstanding that this is the third postponement.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.51 p.m.]: I move:

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to provide for a referendum in relation to a legally and medically supervised trial of voluntary euthanasia for a period of 18 months.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.52 p.m.]: Some years ago there was debate about whether a bill should come on if it was disagreed with. There has been a convention in the House that even if a bill is opposed the member is not obstructed from bringing on the bill, with leave, for its first reading. The member is then able to make his or her second reading speech. If there are objections to the bill, those objections can be expressed during the second reading debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.53 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members would be well aware that some time ago in this House I introduced a bill that dealt with the rights of the terminally ill. The bill, which went through all the parliamentary processes, was defeated by the Parliament. I respect the Parliament's decision. Although the Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill deals with similar issues it is somewhat different from that earlier legislation. The Greens in New South Wales and throughout Australia strongly support the Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill, which will provide for the holding of a referendum. The overview of the bill clearly states:

The object of this Bill is to require the holding of a referendum to determine whether the people of New South Wales approve in principle of a legally and medically supervised trial of voluntary euthanasia for a period of 18 months.

The outline of provisions include:

Clause 3 requires a referendum to be held on the question of a legally and medically supervised trial of voluntary euthanasia for a period of 18 months.

Clause 4 sets out the question to be asked in the referendum.

Clause 5 requires the vote for the referendum to be taken in conjunction with the next general election of members of the Legislative Assembly and that the voters at the referendum are to be the persons entitled to vote at that election.

Clause 6 requires the referendum to be held in accordance with the Constitution Further Amendment (Referendum) Act 1930. Regulations may be made to adopt that legislation for the purposes of holding the referendum.

Clause 7 requires the Electoral Commissioner to publish a case for and against the referendum proposal (approved by certain members of Parliament) in 2 or more newspapers circulating in New South Wales.

This legislation is an appropriate measure. Many people have argued for citizen-initiated referendums [CIRs]. This legislation will not enable a citizen-initiated referendum; the referendum will be initiated by an elected member of Parliament. There is a great deal of support in the community for this type of referendum. It is seen as a sensible way of breaking a deadlock on an important and heartfelt issue throughout the community. Citizen-initiated referendums, which have a long history in Australia, were included in the first draft of the Australian Constitution but they were deleted, along with other clauses, so that consensus could be reached on the Constitution. Moves were made to introduce CIRs to most Australian States and to New Zealand in about 1916 and 1918. All those early efforts failed.

At different times CIRs have been supported by all the major Australian political parties, but when in power they have not legislated for it. Draft enabling legislation has recently been tabled in all State parliaments and in the Federal Parliament, but only the Canberra State Parliament has debated the issue. In local government the Burnie council and North Sydney Council have introduced CIRs on an informal, non-binding basis. In 1993 the residents of Gympie in Queensland opposed council on the issue of council amalgamation. An unofficial, unsanctioned and strongly debated referendum was organised, paid for and conducted by local citizens. Over 26 per cent of eligible voters took part, with 76 opposed to amalgamation. The referendum forced council to hold an official poll later that year. Over 90 per cent of electors voted and the result stopped amalgamations from taking place.

Direct democracy is possible in Australia, as the examples I have given clearly show. There is a keenness on the part of Opposition members to give local government issues proper ventilation. Should that same right not be applied to this issue? Many members will complain about the nature of this issue but when Jeff Shaw was Attorney General in this House he said that often the most testing examples made the best law. I abide by his statement. The Local Government Amendment (No Forced Amalgamations) Bill was introduced earlier today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the argument that was used by him in relation to that bill can equally be used in relation to this bill. The holding of a referendum such as this is a logical next step in the devolution of power.

Power has gradually been devolved to the people over the last few centuries. The logical extension of that is for direct democracy, or CIRs. The history of democracy in the British and Australian political systems shows a clear trend for the devolution of power from the ruling elite to the people. The story begins in England in the eleventh century with the ascension to power of the Norman kings after the battle of Hastings. The Norman kings were an aggressive lot of monarchs who ruled England in something akin to a military dictatorship. Their feudal system relied on landowning barons to administer the land and collect taxes.

Gradually, these barons came to resent the arbitrariness of the monarch's rule and they made increasing demands to share in the powers of the king. That manifested itself in the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. It was, in the words of one historian, "legalised rebellion". The Magna Carta limited royal rights and prevented the king from abusing the law in his favour. Throughout history that tension continued until the great struggle took place between the monarchs and the Parliament. Parliament eventually won and the resulting Bill of Rights guaranteed the supremacy of Parliament. At the Melbourne Constitutional Convention the then Attorney-General of Victoria, Sir Isaac Isaccs, said:

Since [1688], there has been a gradual but sure shifting of power from the Parliament to the people, and it was well said in the House of Commons some years ago that the people were tired of the deluge of debate, and were looking forward to the consultation of the constituencies. This is a tendency which we cannot resist.

The Greens are keen to have greater voter involvement in this issue. It would make governments more accountable to the people and certainly enliven our system of representative democracy. It could be said that one failing of our present system is that people tend to feel alienated from the decision-making process that impacts upon their daily lives. That is certainly true of this issue. People feel they get one chance every three or four years to be involved in the political process and sometimes the choices on offer are quite limited. A referendum gives people a chance to play a far greater role in the process of government by offering a mechanism through which governments can be held to account for their faithfulness to their promises between elections. Theodore Roosevelt once said:

I believe in the Initiative and Referendum which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative.

The 1967 referendum sought to alter the Constitution by giving the Commonwealth the power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people wherever they lived and to make it possible to include Aboriginal people in the national census. That question was passed overwhelmingly by the Australian people.

Many other countries have had referendums. For example, Liechtenstein, a small principality between Austria and Switzerland, knows and practises the three basic procedures of direct democracy—popular initiative, facultative referendum, and obligatory referendum—on a regular basis. Switzerland, a federal state in the heart of Europe, has the most varied, wide and comprehensive experience of citizen lawmaking of any country in the world. After Switzerland and Liechtenstein, Italy has the greatest practical experience of initiative and referendum [I and R]. Over the past 30 years 50 million Italians have put legal issues to the vote more than 50 times in so-called abrogative referendums, which are similar to popular initiatives.

The Republic of Slovenia, one of the new I and R countries in Europe, can subject all laws passed by Parliament to popular approval by means of facultative referendums. The situation is similar in Latvia. Irish citizens—many members in this place take an interest in Irish history—have the last word not only on questions of European integration but also on moral and institutional questions. France has a tradition of presenting important constitutional changes to the people, whose decision is binding. Before his re-election, President Chirac announced that he would promote the introduction of the popular initiative in his second term of office. Since the Revolution France has had a de facto street referendum, but this has been used only very selectively.

In 1999, 2002 and 2003 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile tried to introduce the Constitution (CIR) Referendum Bill in this place. There is an obvious eagerness to democratise our society further. Others say that citizens-initiated referendums can be manipulated by those with much power and money who are able to advertise and promote their views in society. The parliamentary process could provide an opportunity to hold referendums, and my legislation would offer people the chance to vote on the heart-felt issue of euthanasia. Several members have asked me how I would vote on legislation that permitted a referendum on capital punishment. That is a fair call. It is a challenging question to which I gave serious thought and it is worth mentioning in the context of this debate, which is essentially about the right to hold referendums rather than about their subject matter. The capital punishment debate has raged for many decades. The issue was much ventilated in society until the States phased out capital punishment over time.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: There was no referendum.

Mr IAN COHEN: No, but the issue was well ventilated. The people have never had their say about voluntary euthanasia. If the capital punishment issue again came to the fore, I would deal with it at that time. However, I believe the issue has been put to bed in Australia and the capital punishment argument is tangential to this debate. There have been many referendums in New South Wales and in Australia as a whole. There were referendums on the reform of the upper House in New South Wales and the separation of a New England State in the north of the State. The capital punishment debate has raged for more than a century and I believe it has been dealt with effectively.

Before the Northern Territory Parliament enacted legislation in this area euthanasia was barely discussed in public, although it was much practised in private. I believe it is appropriate to take the euthanasia debate a step further and consider the issue seriously. Euthanasia involves the rights of the individual and the changing nature of society. As I have said many times in this place, we respect those with certain religious convictions but we must also respect the many people in society who hold differing views. This year Dr Philip Nitschke participated in "The Life Debate" with Bishop Elect Reverend Professor Anthony Fisher at the University of Sydney. Dr Nitschke recounted how he had watched a debate on euthanasia in the Legislative Council, and said:

I watched three-quarters of the politicians of the Upper House of New South Wales parliament turn down what three-quarters of the people walking down Macquarie street wanted. Now why is this?

Dr Nitschke, I and many others in society believe it is appropriate that people follow their own beliefs on contentious issues such as this. Euthanasia involves an individual's making a choice that will affect that individual; it does not involve criminal action against another person or the community. Those who support euthanasia have certain rights that they should be able to exercise at a critical time, particularly in an age when the process of dying is so elongated. Modern technology and drugs help people to live longer but often prolong and complicate the process of dying. That was not necessarily the case a few generations ago. I appreciate fully the views of those with strong religious convictions. Debates in this place can sometimes become heated but I have always said that while I may not share certain religious convictions I defend the right of people to hold and to express those convictions.

Therefore, I ask honourable members to consider whether they agree with the substantive issue in relation to voluntary euthanasia. They may see the need for a referendum to give the population an opportunity to make a judgment on what is effectively an 18-month trial. Voluntary euthanasia may be very radical but I believe it is practised every day in our society and in most societies throughout the world. The trial will be open, transparent, clear, properly educated and a significant step forward. If a referendum similar to the one conducted in Oregon is conducted here, people can make a choice. The media and people to whom I have spoken have prompted me to move the original bill because I know that this is a very vexed issue. However, with the right checks and balances, a humane society should make such an allowance for its citizenry if an individual wishes to end his or her life in a peaceful and painless manner when other methods of palliative care have failed.

There have been many debates in this House on this controversial topic. I ask honourable members to agree with my point of view, as it may be that the majority of the community believe that people with a terminal illness, who in many cases experience great pain and distress, should be able, as a fundamental human right, to make their own decisions about how to die. I believe that individuals have a right to make that decision, and accordingly, debate on this important matter should be re-instituted in the community between those for and against such legislation. Such a debate would present the ideal opportunity for people to argue their case with clarity and fortitude. Debate will heighten the public awareness of all the issues involved in voluntary euthanasia, and it will show whether the public is prepared to accept and assess an 18-month trial. I commend the bill to the House. I hope that honourable members will consider the issue with an open mind.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Debated resumed from 22 May.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [3.15 p.m.]: Yesterday there was lengthy discussion of a largely symbolic nature in this House. Today we are debating the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill. An inquiry has been conducted, and there has been considerable and intensive consultation with regard to the draft bill, following which the Hon. Peter Breen appropriately presented a detailed list of proposed amendments. After discussion with the Hon. Peter Breen and other honourable members, in the spirit of full and complete consultation about this bill it seems appropriate to allow members the opportunity to consider those amendments in detail.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Debate resumed from 22 May.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.16 p.m.]: I will briefly recap the general thrust and intent of this very important motion. On 25 November 1998 the Premier and the Minister for Transport at the time, Carl Scully, gave a strong commitment to the people of the Central Coast, the lower Hunter and New South Wales generally that the Government would spend $1.2 billion on a 68-kilometre high-speed rail link between Sydney and Newcastle to be completed by 2012. Following that announcement there was much fanfare leading up to the 1999 State election. During the debate in May I drew the attention of honourable members to an article in the Central Coast Express Advocate on 25 November 1998 under the headline "All Aboard" and alongside it a photograph of the Premier at Woy Woy railway station. In the article the Premier was reported as expressing support for the Newcastle to Sydney high-speed rail link. The article stated:

It means we will be able to get more trains to run in the peak hours, so in an hour there will be 12 instead of 9 trains running.

Honourable members know that it is not unusual for some people who live in the upper areas of the Central Coast to commute to Sydney—and some have done so for the past 20 years. When I used to commute from my home in the northern part of the Central Coast to an office in Sydney, the return trip took five hours each day. In 1998 the Premier and Minister Scully said that it was only a matter of time before the people on the Central Coast would be the first in New South Wales to enjoy the latest in technology. They said that the time of commuters and their families—including their leisure time—would be given utmost priority by the Government. I cannot overstate the level of excitement and anticipation that was expressed on the Central Coast, not only in the newspaper article to which I have drawn attention but also in editorials, letters to editors and discussions at public meetings. The Commuters Association on the Central Coast saw this announcement as a final recognition by the Government that something needed to be done.

I cannot adequately express the most recent disappointment of the people of the Central Coast when they realised that this was nothing more than a fraud perpetrated on them in the lead-up to the 1999 State election. Worse still, the Government maintained the fraud for some considerable time. It was not until just prior to the last State election, on 20 February 2003, that the Treasurer—the Leader of the Government in this Chamber—was caught out. When asked questions about the high-speed rail link he said:

"We haven't committed ourselves to that."

That short, simple statement, made in 2003, snuffed out the four years of excitement and anticipation of the people of the Central Coast. That was the comment made by the Minister for State Development, the Minister responsible for the State Government's cheque book. One would think this Minister would have been the one to say, back in 1998, that this project for a high-speed rail link was a goer and that it was to get the support of senior members of the Government. Of course, it did get that support. This was not some announcement that was swept under the carpet. It was not a quiet comment made to a Central Coast journalist that could somehow have been misconstrued. Again I draw the attention of honourable members to a photograph in the Central Coast Express Advocate of 26 February 1999. The beaming, happy, smiling faces in it include that of Carl Scully, who was just about to perpetrate another fraud on the people of New South Wales. In it also are the faces of Marie Andrews, Paul Crittenden and, of course, the current Minister, Grant McBride. It is a great picture! Right up the back is that old warhorse Barry Cohen. They were all heard to be saying that this was a fantastic proposal, that it was happy days and cool drinks. The report noted "High speed train study on track". Of course, the proposal was given the green light. The article stated:

Roads and Transport Minister Carl Scully was at Gosford station on Tuesday …

Gosford station—not a station in the electorates of any of this group of members assembled for the photograph. Of course, Barry was tucked away at the back, in an attempt to hide him as best they could. They were all happy to appear at Gosford station to announce the study which it was said the Minister would carry out over the next 12 months. One would have thought that 12 months later, by February 2000, there would be a clear indication of where the Government was going with the proposal. But, no, they maintained the fraud over the next couple of budgets. As I will indicate to honourable members, this was a well-orchestrated and very long-term fraud perpetrated on the people of New South Wales. It is a disgrace.

A full-page advertisement was placed in the Central Coast Express Advocate in March 1999—just days before the 1999 State election. The advertisement was entitled "Building a high speed rail link". This very simple and clear advertisement could not have been misunderstood, and I can assure the House it was not misunderstood by commuters who opened that newspaper on Friday 12 March as they commenced their five-hour journey that day. Hopefully, the trains were running on time that day and they did not have to spend any more than five hours on the train. If the trains were late, their journey would have been a lot longer. What they read was that the New South Wales Government would spend $790 million building a high-speed rail link between Sydney and the Central Coast. The advertisement stated:

Track straightening will cut journey times between Sydney and Warnervale by 15 minutes, with no loss of service. Trains will travel shorter distances at faster speeds.

A map showed Hornsby to the south and Warnervale to the very north. At the bottom of the advertisement there are yet again those wonderful beaming faces of Marie Andrews, Barry Cohen, Grant McBride and Paul Crittenden—the "Central Coast Labor team" as they were proudly termed. But what happened with this proposal? It has gone by the wayside. Why? Because there was never any truth in the comment in the first place. Government members cannot say, "Other matters have arisen since then, and there are new infrastructure needs." We all know that the only such infrastructure needs are those that have arisen since March 2003, the time of the last State election—and those came about as a result of the Opposition's exposing the Government's neglect in maintaining the rail system in this State.

Is the Government suggesting that a concerted effort since 1999 to focus on maintenance of rail infrastructure has somehow delayed this high-speed rail link? It would be hard put to convince its own members that this was anything other than a fraud, let alone convince any member of this Chamber or people who live on the Central Coast or in the lower Hunter Valley. This was a collection of outright lies and distortions designed to mislead those communities into believing they would be the first in this State to experience the latest in technology. It was designed to ensure them that the Government was sincere when it gave that commitment in 1999—but it continued to play out the fraud on the people. We now know there was no truth to its statements. The Government had no intention of fulfilling its promise. It was simply a ruse to get Labor through the 1999 State election. It continued with fraudulent entries in subsequent budget papers, suggesting that it was only a matter of time and that the project was just around the corner. I draw the attention of honourable members to the interview reported in the Central Coast Express Advocate of Thursday 3 October 2002 in which the Premier said there was no point using the existing rail network for a very fast train from the Central Coast. He was reported as having said:

We need a new route, otherwise we would simply have the same problems we now have. We have looked at fast train systems in Germany and France, so it's a matter of choosing the right one for us.

Of course, that is somewhat different from what the Premier was saying back in 1998 and in the lead-up to the 1999 State election. Prior to that election it was full steam ahead; it was only a matter of time before the people of the Central Coast had the very latest and best in rail technology. Of course, as I said earlier, the Government had no plans to implement its announced proposals. These were political statements designed to get Labor through a State election. Significantly, over the past couple of years the Government has moved further and further away from those proposals.

The Premier's story began to unravel with an interview with the editor of the Central Coast Express Advocate, Mr Bob Staines. In that interview the Premier said he wanted a tunnel from Hornsby direct to the Central Coast. Next he will be promising the people of the Central Coast intergalactic travel to enable them to complete their journey to Sydney more quickly! Even the Premier must have been wondering what he was saying when he spoke about a tunnel from Hornsby to the Central Coast "to avoid the bottlenecks". Imagine the cost! The $790 million for the proposal announced back in 1999 and referred to by the Premier on 23 October 2002 was completely blown out of the water when he started to talk about a tunnel from Hornsby to the Central Coast. I would hate to think what the cost of that would be.

Again the Premier knowingly misled the people of the Central Coast. By implication, so also did the Treasurer, the Minister responsible for the Government's cheque book. As Treasurer and Minister for State Development he was the person who had to sign off on what the Government intended to do on this significant State development issue. He would have known that this was nothing more than yet another fraud designed to buy a bit more time. The Premier said he had looked at the existing rail infrastructure and—surprise, surprise—it was not good enough for a high-speed rail line so he had to look at a new route, suggesting that the Government was looking at something new to ensure that the people of the Central Coast had the very best. But one need go no further than the comments of the Treasurer made on 20 February 2003, only a matter of months after the Premier said he was looking at a tunnel from Hornsby to the Central Coast. The Treasurer said:

We haven't committed ourselves to that.

In other words, the whole thing was a complete sham and the Government was not in a position to say any more about it. My motion is fair. It draws attention to a political stunt that was perpetrated over a number of years on the people of the Central Coast and lower Hunter—the victims. We ask the Treasurer to apologise formally to the residents of Newcastle, the Hunter and the Central Coast for the continuous misleading comments and advertising campaigns of his Government over the past five years. It is disgraceful. The Government should apologise as a matter of honour. For the Government to suggest that it is looking at other options beyond this date would be to perpetuate the fraud that it has perpetrated on the people of the Central Coast and the Hunter.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.31 p.m.]: I support this motion. I love the Hunter and I am proud to say that I love living in the Hunter. Like many people who live in the Hunter and on the Central Coast, from time to time my work requires me to travel to Sydney. The reality is that in a time-poor environment we have to choose how to go about that. About 20 years ago, when I commenced living in the Hunter, the journey from the Hunter to Sydney took three hours. Everyone stopped at the Oak factory on the way down to Sydney; it was the halfway point. After milkshakes, motorists continued on to Sydney. Traditionally Sydney was regarded as a place to visit rather than to work. The advent and progress of the F3 has made the trip by road much quicker than it was. I travel the route so often that I know how long it will take to get to Sydney from any point on the F3 treadmill.

On numerous occasions I have heard Premier Carr talk about the need to move people out of the Sydney Basin and into regional areas. To achieve that we must make it easier for people who live in areas outside the Sydney Basin to manage their lives and businesses. Obviously, they must be able to manage the time it takes them to travel from where they live to where they work. If they work, but do not live, in Sydney, the less time they have to spend travelling the better off they will be. If people in the Hunter want to catch a train to Sydney they are faced with at least a two-hour trip if there is not a breakdown and the trains run on time. However, people are questioning the reliability of the rail system because of the current lack of infrastructure and funding for the rail network.

Some people from the Hunter commute to Sydney every day. More people commute to Sydney from the Central Coast, that being a shorter trip than the trip from the Hunter. One can only imagine the delight felt by the people of Newcastle when the Premier, who would like to call himself a visionary, unveiled his plan. They dared to think they could continue to live in Newcastle and other parts of the Hunter and commute to Sydney in less than the two hours they spent driving on the F3 or even longer travelling on a train. The plan would make a huge difference to their lives. It was pretty exciting stuff. They thought they may be able to see more of their children in the evenings—instead of their children being in bed when they arrived home at night—and leave home in the mornings at a reasonable time.

We were told that this Government, which waxes lyrical about regional development and people living outside Sydney, had a plan. It was going to deliver the VFT—very fast train. People in the Hunter started to talk about the train and when it might be operational. My 11-year-old son believes that by the time he grows up there will be flying cars. The way things are going, we will have flying cars before we have a very fast train. In 1998 Bob Carr and transport Minister Carl Scully announced that a $1.2 billion high-speed rail link between Sydney and Newcastle would be in place by 2012. The promise was outlined in the Government's Action for Transport plan, which was unveiled on 23 November 1998, just four months before the 1998 election as my colleague the Hon. Michael Gallacher pointed out.

The Newcastle to Sydney link was to be the second stage of the Sydney to Warnervale rail link, to be completed by 2007. How much progress has been made on the high-speed rail link to this date? Despite funding allocations for planning studies, as late as November last year Mr Scully's office was insistent that the State Government remained committed to its Action for Transport plan and the subsequent time frames for construction of the high-speed rail link. But in December last year, again only months away from a State election, Treasurer Michael Egan released a State infrastructure strategic plan in which the Sydney to Newcastle high-speed rail link was identified as nothing more than a feasibility study. When questioned, the Treasurer denied that the Government had ever committed itself to anything other than a feasibility study.

What about those dates? The promise was for a high-speed rail link by 2012 with the first stage to be completed by 2007. In 1998 Mr Carr boldly stated that the project was fully funded. This broken promise should be a beneficial lesson to voters that a promise made by the Carr Government four weeks before an election is just another con. The people of the Hunter and the Central Coast want to know how both Mr Carr and Mr Scully could be so vehemently and publicly committed to this rail link in 1998 but find it so unnecessary five years later. The people of the Hunter and the Central Coast want an explanation and, as my honourable colleague mentioned, they want an apology. They have been led up the garden path too many times. The Government makes promises just before an election and retracts them after the election. It is not good enough.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Lies!

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Absolutely. The great plans for, and models of, the VFTs were a total con. The people of the Hunter and the Central Coast who were relying on this form of transport to get them to and from Sydney have had to rethink their lives. The Premier talks constantly about moving people outside the Sydney Basin, but he is doing nothing to make it easy for them to live their lives outside the Sydney Basin and attend efficiently to their businesses in Sydney. In the present climate we cannot rely on the rail network. We do not know what will happen. We certainly cannot rely on the XPT.

It should not be forgotten that many people who travel down from the Hunter would be travelling along the F3 to Broadmeadow or to Newcastle to catch the train. Those people may have come from the upper Hunter or other parts to catch the very fast train from Newcastle. Train services to the Central Coast do not affect only those people in the immediate lower Hunter and Central Coast areas: People farther north are also affected. Those people now have no certainty from the current Minister for Transport Services about catching a train at all. We have no certainty because no undertakings have been given about the XPT. The people have been given no certainty about the rail network as it is, and they certainly do not have a VFT.

As a result people have resorted to using their cars and are travelling back down the F3, taking hours to complete their journey. They are hitting bottlenecks as they get to the Central Coast, where the majority of people of the region live because the distance to Sydney is shorter and it takes less time to get there. I can inform the House from personal experience that from where I live it takes me two hours to travel down the F3 to Sydney—I know exactly how long it takes—but when I get to the Central Coast there is a huge bottleneck, with people coming onto the F3 to travel to Sydney. From there it is anyone's guess.

People are getting back into their cars, and what does that say about the Government's vision, the Government's plan and the Government's promise following the recent election? Where is the commitment and the vision that we kept hearing about from this Government? When will the rhetoric about regional development become a reality? This Government has very little vision post-elections for regional areas and people who deserve a high level of commitment. The promises were not just words or talk; they were put into newspaper articles with photographs to promote the issue. The Leader of the Opposition has handed me full-page advertisement which must have cost a fortune. I wonder where the Government got the funding for that.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It could have used that money to start the train service.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Absolutely. In one advertisement the Government promised to build a high-speed rail link. The advertisement outlines the rail link and states:

The New South Wales Government will spend $790 million building a high-speed rail link between Sydney and the Central Coast. Track straightening will cut journey times between Sydney and Warnervale by 15 minutes with no loss of service. Trains will travel shorter distances at faster speeds.

It is not rocket science. It is pretty obvious that the Government expressed a clear intention to do something about providing a good rail service for people who live in the Hunter and Central Coast areas. The advertisement also contains contact numbers for the honourable member for Peats, Marie Andrews; Barry Cohen in Gosford, who I think was a candidate at the time; the current Minister for Gaming and Racing and member for The Entrance, Grant McBride; and the honourable member for Wyong, Paul Crittenden. It is all set out, together with the whole plan for Warnervale, but what happened to it? It was just another con.

The promises go on and on, and people in the Hunter are certainly feeling that they have been conned. People were seriously discussing the possibilities flowing from having a good rail service. They were putting their businesses in the Hunter and planning what it would mean to have numbers of people coming off the trains, and what it would mean to them to be able to travel to and from Sydney quickly. Imagine being able to sit in a train and read all the way and arriving feeling relaxed, and imagine the reduction in the number of cars on the roads as a result.

Another advertisement shows similar promises and I can inform the House that the Newcastle Herald had similar articles depicting designs of the trains and artists' futuristic impressions. As I said earlier, I think my son's idea for a flying car will eventuate before the Government's commitment on this rail link is delivered. Perhaps the Government might promise at the next election to provide flying cars!

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: A flying Bob Carr, flying off into the sunset.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Absolutely. It could look something like the very fast train. One would not need to do very much to the artwork to capture the image. We could just redesign it, and off it would go. Perhaps the Government could put that in its promises for the next election at which the people of the Hunter and the Central Coast will vote. I have to inform the Hon. Henry Tsang, who is at the table, that the people of the Hunter and the Central Coast can be conned only so many times. They remember promises, and they know the difference between what is spent per capita in areas outside Sydney compared to what is spent in Sydney. We are able to add up and work it out, and we think we are getting a raw deal; we actually think we are being taken for granted. We will remember these broken promises, and I can assure Government members that the people I join when I drive onto the F3—the people of the Central Coast—will remember them. Those smiling Government members made promises but pulled the plug just after the election campaign. The promise, which was fully funded in 1998, was all an absolute con.

When honourable members who live in Sydney escape on the weekend and drive back to Sydney on a Sunday afternoon, they should notice all the cars coming back into Sydney on the F3. They should spare a thought for those people who live on the Central Coast and in the Hunter and travel to Sydney from Monday to Friday for work. That is what those commuters face every single day. A lot of those people live outside the Sydney Basin because the area offers a better lifestyle for their families. It is not a better lifestyle for the parents, though, who have to get up early in the morning, leave home in the dark and return home in the dark. Those parents do not have a better lifestyle because they have to spend so much time on the road.

The expenditure on a rail link would certainly have made a huge difference to the environment. It would have given the people of the Hunter and the Central Coast a belief that perhaps some of their taxpayer funds would be spent in their area, and that there is a genuine commitment to meeting their needs as well as to solving the transport problem. Currently the people who live in the Hunter and on the Central Coast have no certainty about an XPT and no reliable rail network—no certainty and no standards. But more than that, they also do not have a very fast train, and there is no prospect of them having one. The Government has conned us once more.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They lied. They lied to the people of the Central Coast.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Absolutely. If the Hon. Rick Colless lived on the Central Coast, how would he be feeling right now about this matter?

The Hon. Rick Colless: That they lied.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Absolutely. It is the stuff of a satirical movie: A newspaper headline states, "The high-speed train on platform 1 won't be leaving the Central Coast for two generations." We will be in flying cars before the people of the Central Coast and the Hunter get a very fast train. I will read out some of the comments made by people in the article:

We need a fast train, but the Government will not do it …

We also need more services from Newcastle to Sydney …

These are not regular services at the moment, and a lot of the time you have to stand most of the way.

Another man said, "It can be extremely irritating in the morning when the trains are delayed, which happens very frequently." A lady who lives on the Central Coast said, "I have lived over a lot of Australia and to get from A to B here is quite impossible." People would travel more if they could get a very fast train, as they do in other countries.

The Hon. Rick Colless: If they could get a train at all.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Exactly, and if they could get a reliable train service, let alone one that is clean. Perhaps that is a little bit too much to ask for. Those of us who live on the Central Coast and in the Hunter will continue to do so because we enjoy it. However, there is a lack of conviction, a lack of support and a lack of genuine integrity in the Government's rhetoric of creating a better environment, having fewer cars on the road, and encouraging people to move out of Sydney. The rhetoric is not backed up when it comes to getting people from point A to point B. My colleagues have articles about the number of crash hot-spots on the Central Coast, a matter which I have not yet addressed. Accidents constantly happen on the F3. In conclusion, I agree with my colleagues that the Government is not delivering on its promises and has conned the people of the Central Coast, and that is something we will not forget.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.51 p.m.]: I have been discouraged by the Government's attitude to the rail network. The lack of any real intelligent commitment is a real worry. The Government allowed the rail network to become run down, and was then horrified to find that it was too expensive to fix, and that resulted in further closedowns. The Government has continued to build roads, adding to the greenhouse problems created by car emissions. What is needed is transfer depots on the Hume Highway and other major routes. It is stupid to build an Alice Springs to Darwin railway, a route that will carry less than 1 per cent of the country's freight. Instead, we should be improving the Sydney to Melbourne route and the Sydney to Brisbane route. The Central Coast route is part of that Sydney to Brisbane route.

The priorities for rail have been well examined and documented by the Australian National Rail Corporation. On its web site is a timetable, with costings, of augmentations in a stepwise, progressive and sensible fashion to improve our rail network. The corporation knows how much time each improvement, each little bit of straightening, each signalling improvement will save. The corporation has projected the cost of each improvement. The Government has done very little about that; it has let the rail network run down. We often talk about a private sector initiative that will result in some whizzbang technology. Apart from the Sydney to Melbourne train route, the passenger volume is not sufficient to cover the cost of any improvements. Instead, the air routes are well patronised.

Most private sector developers want a real estate concession along the rail routes. They want a big swag of land with a rail line through the middle of it—they would make a motser on that. The Australian capacity to pay a lot of money for blocks of land would be utilised to the full. The cargo cult mentality of a magic train zipping through the countryside is a myth that government's find convenient. The hype about the Central Coast rail link may indeed reflect the vision of Carl Scully; he could not even manage effectively the trains that he had, but he had a vision for building more trains. I think one should have a vision, but the Government is so poor on vision that it did not even acquire easements for the north-west sector.

The Government is allowing individual developers to build single dwellings in car-dependent areas, and is not forcing development along the existing rail links, such as at Schofields. Initially the Government said that there was not sufficient development to justify a rail service, then, after overdevelopment, it said that the area was car-dependent and that it could not afford to buy an easement. The Government was too stupid to acquire the easement in the first place, even when it was taking parks out of the Parramatta and Liverpool areas for the western orbital. It did not commit to a rail easement in that area.

The huge development around Campbelltown and Ambarvale justifies the provision of a spur line or loop line, but the Government has no easements in that area. The Government does not think through these matters. Around Dunheved and St Marys there was potential for development of the Australian Defence Industries Pty Ltd site, but the Government did not utilise the existing rail line to make a loop line to the Richmond and Castle Hill lines. The Government did not look for areas in which trains could take some of the load, change the dependence on cars, lessen congestion on the roads and decrease air pollution. The Government would have needed only to draw an easement on a map and buy the land, but it has not done that.

We have a cargo cult mentality of doing wonderful things for the North Coast. The Government has not responded to the National Rail Corporation timetable, has not acquired easements where needed, is not progressively improving the system, and does not have a timetable for improvements. It seems that rail service accounting is a shambles. The Government does not know what assets it has, what bridges it is replacing, and so on. During all this the Government placed a full-page advertisement in the Central Coast Express Advocate for the building of a high-speed rail link, with photographs of smiling politicians.

Yesterday the Hon. Malcolm Jones resigned as a member of this House, because he would have been kicked out for using his electorate allowance to send out letters—which he was not entitled to do, according to the ICAC. The figure of $20,000 was bandied about as a rort of the legislative support allowance. But in advertisements the New South Wales Government has promised to do things that were extravagantly favourable to the Labor Party. Effectively, that was taxpayer-funded advertising for the incumbent Government. That was not illegal but it has the same moral component. It is one thing to nab an Independent member of this House for sending out a few letters, but it is another thing for Ministers to spend much more money on deceptive advertising campaigns, media monitoring and various works of office for electoral advantage.

That is disgraceful, and needs to be looked at in a broader context. I will ask the Auditor-General to look at Ministers' use of the public purse and the electoral consequences of their spending. That newspaper advertisement was an example of getting out the good news stories, which may or may not have been true, or may have resulted in the later policy backflip. In the meantime the Government has set out those good messages, to give people a warm, fuzzy feeling which will turn to votes for the Government when the time comes.

The wonders of technology and of private-public partnerships are seen as the new clever way of distributing good news without having to pay for it. The Government tends to work in that way and has fallen over itself in creating private-public partnerships, as mentioned in this House. Someone who knows about financing said to me that each project should not be financed individually. A number of projects should be financed together, because one will be a dud and will blow over its budget, many others will come in close to budget, and a few will make a big profit. A private developer who is engaged for a single project will want the risk built-in for a worst case scenario—so the Government will always be paying through the nose. That is why the Government should borrow the money and do things itself, rather than have private-public partnerships.

It is worth noting the response of the private sector when it was building the airport rail link through a number of disused industrial sites, which were later to house high-rise residential buildings. The private sector was quick to complain when it did not get its money back. It was soon looking for more money and more guarantees. The Government has an obligation to plan rail sensibly, to put in place easements and to make systemic, gradual improvements sensibly and comprehensively, as suggested by the Rail Transport Corporation, the overall Federal body. The Government must co-operate in that endeavour. It certainly should not use public money to promise things that it will not deliver to people on the North Coast. That says a lot about the way in which this Government is managing this State. Attention should be drawn to the Government's inadequate handling of this issue.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.01 p.m.]: I commend those who established the Government's costings on this rail project. In November 1998 the then Minister for Transport, the Hon. Carl Scully, indicated that the 68-kilometre high-speed rail link between Sydney and Newcastle, which was to be completed by the year 2012, would cost $1.2 billion. Four months later, on Friday 12 March 1999, it was announced that the Government would be able to do that for $800 million. That represented a saving of $400 million in four months, which is quite remarkable. I commend the Government for that great cost saving. However, since that time the Government has saved even more. It has saved an additional $800 million by doing nothing about the rail link.

I have had a house on the Central Coast for the last 24 years, although normally I stay at Roseville in the city. Every week I travel to the Central Coast, where I live between Gosford and Warnervale. Tuggerah station is my local station. I travel very rarely on the train—I normally drive—and I leave after midnight and arrive at my home at 1.00 a.m., or thereabouts. I spend one day a week on the Central Coast where I prepare parliamentary work and other work. I return the following morning before dawn in order to miss those horrendous car journeys. All my neighbours who work in Sydney travel by train. They go to Gosford and Tuggerah stations. I do not know whether people realise what that does to family life. I have realised, after seeing the families of my neighbours, that if they are spending between 4½ and five hours every day in travel time on top of their work hours it is a great destroyer of family life.

We are not talking about a rail problem: we are talking about a social and a family problem. It is no accident that Warnervale has one of the highest degrees of social dislocation in any community in Sydney. In my earlier life at Wesley Central Mission I established those areas in which the highest degree of social dislocation occurs. I targeted the Central Coast and Warnervale areas because of the high degree of unemployment, youth dysfunction, single parents and suicide. I want to say a good word about that latter issue. Eric Trezise, a local person on the Central Coast, has put together a team of people who are working specifically on the suicide issue. That has become a model for the rest of Australia in lowering the suicide rate.

If the Government does not take seriously the business of providing a very fast train to the Central Coast the emphasis on social dislocation in that area will continue. This motion calls for a formal apology. However, I believe we should be calling for a formal commitment to better transport for the Central Coast and to a very fast train. Sooner or later we will have to provide a better transportation system for this major populated area in Sydney. The Government's credibility depends on that being done sooner rather than later.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.05 p.m.]: The Greens do not often see eye to eye with members of the Coalition, but we certainly agree that the Government has broken many promises, especially in the area of transport. If there were an Olympic event in transport policy backflips the Carr Labor Government would get a gold medal. Back in 1995 the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, promised:

Labor will end the Los Angeles-style road expansion mentality operating in the RTA

Since then we have had a parade of Los Angeles-style road projects, courtesy of the Carr Labor Government. We have witnessed another big backflip. There has been no change whatsoever in the mentality of the Roads and Traffic Authority. That would be laughable except for the fact that the consequences are so dire for the health and wellbeing of the people of Sydney—in particular Western Sydney—and for our environment. This motion has relevance for the people of Western Sydney. Minister Carl Scully promised them a rail link from Parramatta to Chatswood, but that commitment has gone off the rails.

Only one week before the Parramatta-Epping stage of the project was officially scrapped the new Minister for Transport, Michael Costa, told Western Sydney that it would get its rail link. He boasted about it and gave people in Western Sydney assurances. One week later it was gone. Another broken promise is clearly outlined in this motion. The people of New South Wales have been bitterly disappointed with Labor's broken promises on transport. There have been far too many broken promises. They no longer trust the Carr Government to deliver substantial new public transport infrastructure. This Government seems determined to preside over a shrinking public transport network and to force people onto those shiny new motorways.

The Minister talks about unreliable trains, but what is truly unreliable in the public transport sector is the Government itself. That is where we have the real problem. It is all talk and no action, all promises and no delivery. We can rely on the Carr Government in only one area. We know for sure that it will continue producing an endless stream of action plans, blueprints, interim reports, final reports, ministerial inquiries—Minister Costa certainly has a lot of those—departmental inquiries and restructures. All those reams of paper tell us the same thing: the public transport system needs a major injection of fresh capital investment. But the Government has buried its head in the sand, or perhaps I should say that it has buried its head in paper. It has decided that it cannot deliver on its promises and it has brought in Minister Costa, the cost-cutter, to take the rap.

We know that Minister Costa loves a good fight as we are subjected to them time and again. He is prepared to cop the well-deserved abuse. Minister Costa might think that he has bamboozled the public by deluging them with inquiries and talking tough about reform. But they can see what he is up to. He is using ministerial reports to soften up the public before officially breaking election promises. We have seen this style of government before. We have seen it with both the major parties when they were in government. Costa is constantly pushing that approach. This stingy Government would rather balance a ledger than ensure there is a decent public transport service. Treasurer Michael Egan basks in the praise of the international banks and the credit rating agencies but the people of the Central Coast, Western Sydney and rural and regional Australia are paying the price.

The people of New South Wales would rather have investment in transport infrastructure than a triple-A rating. I note that the mover of the motion, the Leader of the Opposition, is a member of a party that is not renowned for keeping its promises. But for the moment the problem is the Carr Labor Government. It is time for the Government to repair the damage that it is causing to public transport by honouring its promises to the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.10 p.m.]: I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, which is important because it underlines what is wrong with this Government, which will do anything for the sake of a media headline. It will do anything to get into government and to stay in government. The Government does not care about breaking faith with the electorate. This is a momentous issue that addresses the quality of life of families in the Hunter, on the Central Coast and in Western Sydney. It is about their lives and their broken dreams. This Government was prepared to lie to the people of New South Wales to secure good results at the 1999 State election. It did not care about the impact on families, which is very sad.

On 24 November 1998 the Premier and the then Minister for Transport, Carl Scully, promised that a $1.2 billion 68-kilometre high-speed rail link between Sydney and Newcastle would be completed by 2012. It will not happen by 2012. The only hope for the people of the Central Coast and the Hunter is that the Coalition will come to government in 2007. We will introduce proper management procedures in the rail transport area and devise a plan to provide proper services for the people of the Hunter, the Central Coast, the North Coast, the South Coast and elsewhere throughout the State. I have listened with interest in recent days to discussion about the Parry report. A fundamental problem with the current rail system is that people do not want to travel on dirty trains that do not run on time. This causes a fall in revenue. That is a basic management principle.

The Minister for Transport Services has ministerial reviews coming out of his ears in an attempt to clean up the mess left by the incompetent previous Minister. The sad fact is that after eight years of Labor Government the transport system is in rack and ruin and the State's taxpayers are funding it. Carl Scully, 3½ years into his tenure as Minister for Transport, and his Premier tricked and deceived the people of the Central Coast and the Hunter. An article that appeared in the Central Coast Express Advocate on 25 November 1998 featured a photograph of the Premier at Woy Woy railway station expressing his support for the Newcastle to Sydney high-speed rail link. The Premier said:

It means we will be able to get more trains to run in the peak hours, so in an hour there will be 12 instead of 9 trains running.

That is not happening. It takes five hours for mothers and fathers with small children to travel to Sydney from the north of the State. That is not an acceptable commuting time. The Premier has no vision for regional development and he has no solutions for the problems confronting families across the State. He simply complains and blames the Commonwealth for high immigration levels. If the Premier had a commitment to those who live outside Sydney he would take on board good, achievable ideas. But he is not prepared to do that, which is sad. Coalition members will work hard in opposition for the next 3½ years to make sure that we are elected to government so that we can be good managers and deliver the outcomes that the families of New South Wales and the State as a whole need.

The Central Coast Express Advocate of 12 March 1999—which was 10 days before the State election—carried a costly full-page advertisement headed "Building a high speed rail link." It carried the names and photographs of Labor members representing the electorates of Peats, The Entrance and Wyong as well as the Labor candidate for Gosford, and made the commitment:

The NSW Government will spend $790 million building a high speed rail link between Sydney and the Central Coast.

The Government's behaviour is an absolute disgrace. The general public have less faith in parliamentarians because Labor was prepared to lie for the sake of a few votes. Such behaviour devalues all parliamentarians and our democracy. It is disturbing. When I speak to school students they are interested only in how much parliamentarians earn; that is the level of respect they have for us. They think politicians are overpaid and underworked. We all know that is not true of the vast majority of us. Labor's stunt before the 1999 State election devastated the community and people's faith in politicians. People expect politicians to lie and to say anything to win government. The same aspersions are cast upon us all. Coalition members do not do that. I have been associated with the political process for 15 or 16 years and I would not be party to a scam or fraud such as this.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: What about the Federal Government's children overboard claim at the last Federal election? There was a public inquiry and it was found to be untrue.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That has nothing to do with the 1999 New South Wales election. No fraud was perpetrated.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Hon. Henry Tsang will allow the Hon. Melinda Pavey to continue her speech.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: On 3 October 2002 the Premier said that there was no point using the existing rail network for a very fast train from the Central Coast. He said:

We need a new route, otherwise we would simply have the same problems that we now have.

He continued:

We have looked at fast train systems in Germany and France so it is a matter of choosing the right one for us.

If the Government had not wasted $100 million on the failed Millennium trains perhaps the bureaucrats in State Rail would have had the time and the money to investigate some sensible and serious options for a fast rail link to the Central Coast and the North Coast. Let us have some vision and some ideas that will deliver a better quality of life for those who wish to move out of Sydney and commute to their places of work. It is not acceptable to have high population levels and poor living standards in this city when people could move to the regions and benefit the whole State. A high-speed rail link would encourage many to make such a move.

On 20 February 2003 the Treasurer said, "We haven't committed ourselves to that." That is the Government's response. It claimed in newspaper articles that $790 million would be spent on reducing commuter travelling times from the Central Coast but this year the Treasurer said, "We haven't committed ourselves to that." It is a con, it is deceitful and it is disappointing. It reveals a lack of vision and a lack of commitment to doing what is right by the taxpayers of New South Wales. We call on the Treasurer to apologise formally to the residents of Newcastle, the Hunter and the Central Coast for his Government's continued misleading comments and advertising campaigns over the past five years. The failed former Minister for Transport, Carl Scully, should apologise also. He is an absolute and utter disgrace to the Government and he should not be a Minister of the Crown. Yet he remains a Minister and this Government continues to thumb its nose at good government and good practice. That is very sad for the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [4.20 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Rail services are most important to people who live in regional and rural areas of New South Wales. This motion is about much more than simply addressing the loss of a very fast train service to the Central Coast: as two earlier speakers said, it is about truth in politics, pre-election promises and integrity in political campaigning. The Hon. Melinda Pavey referred to quality of life, which is extremely important to people who want to live—or who do so through no choice of their own—in outlying areas around Sydney such as the Central Coast and need to commute daily to the city to work.

The Leader of the Opposition said a return trip from the Central Coast to Sydney can take five hours a day, which affects the quality of life for those commuters. I am lucky to live about five minutes from where I work so I commute for only 10 minutes and have a much better quality of life. It is important to note that every minute less the people living on the Central Coast spend travelling is a minute that could contribute to their quality of life. In November 1988 the Premier and the Minister for Transport promised that a $1.2 billion, 68-kilometre high-speed rail link between Sydney and Newcastle would be completed by 2012. High-speed rail in New South Wales is non-existent. In fact, ordinary speed rail in New South Wales is almost non-existent.

I remind honourable members about problems on other rail lines in New South Wales, in particular, the northern lines. The XPT to Tamworth and Armidale has to travel so slowly now because of the condition of the tracks, the speed limits on bridges and other issues that people will not use it because of the time it takes. The people from my home town of Inverell who elect to go to Sydney by train have to make a three-hour bus trip to Tamworth to catch the XPT, which then takes another six or seven hours to get to Sydney, so that is a total of 12 hours. Apart from that bus to Inverell on a regular basis no other public transport is available—there are no buses or aeroplanes. On 25 November 1998 the Premier stood at Woy Woy railway station and expressed his support for the Newcastle to Sydney rail link. He said:

It means we will be able to get more trains to run in the peak hours, so in an hour there will be 12 instead of 9 trains running.

I wonder whether the Premier would dare go back to Woy Woy station now and have his photograph taken in peak hour with the people to whom he promised the high-speed train 5½ years ago.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Ordinary folk!

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Ordinary people who travel to and from the Central Coast to work.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They believed him.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: They believed him. Would he stand there now with the honourable member for Peats and others who were with him on 25 November and apologise for not building the high-speed train because he cannot afford it? I do not think they would accept that. The fact that he made that announcement with the honourable members representing the electorates of Peats, The Entrance and Wyong and the Labor candidate for Gosford is proof that it was nothing more than a shallow pre-election lie. The Premier did not adopt any integrity or honesty in his tactic. It was nothing more than a very shallow pre-election promise that he had no intention of keeping. The Government has an abysmal record in rail management. Recently I moved to Erskineville and I catch the train from St Peters. On my first day at St Peters railway station to catch the train into the city, guess what went past going the other way?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Not a "mil-lemon"?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: An empty "mil-lemon" train that was actually travelling along the tracks. I boarded an old grey rattler and rattled into town and on the way I saw another four "mil-lemon" trains at Eveleigh workshops with mechanics working on them. None of them were operating on the tracks.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They all had their bonnets up.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: They all had their bonnets up, as my colleague pointed out. Today in question time the Minister criticised the Coalition for its 1998 decision—one that made me very angry—to cut some country rail services. I was not even a budding politician in those days.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: You voted for Labor, didn't you?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I have never voted Labor. This Government came to office in 1995 and in those 8½ years of further rail mismanagement the Government has not attempted to fix those decisions, yet today the Minister for Transport Services had the gall to criticise the Coalition! The real proof of the Premier's lie in November 1998 that the rail link would be built by 2012 was when the Treasurer said on 20 February, "We haven't committed ourselves to that". In conclusion, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on bringing forward this issue. As I said, nothing is more important to people in rural and regional New South Wales than having access to a proper rail system. The Premier's statement that he would build a new rail system was a shallow lie. The statement by the Treasurer five years later—"We haven't committed ourselves to that"—proves that it was nothing more than a cynical pre-election lie.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.29 p.m.]: In my first speech in this place in 1991 I said I would be an ambassador for the city of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. Since that time there has not been a motion or bill involving the Hunter and Newcastle on which I have not spoken. I certainly did not intend to let this occasion pass without adding my voice in support of the motion moved by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition. This motion is important in a number of respects. It focuses first and foremost on the Carr Government's cynical disregard of the people of New South Wales—in this case the people of the Central Coast and those who regularly use the rail service to the Central Coast, including the people of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. This motion is about broken promises and the Government taking the people of that area for granted.

Earlier the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans spoke about Carl Scully's vision. His only vision related to winning seats for Labor by hypocritically making big promises without any intention to fulfil them. So, on one level, this motion is about broken promises, about the hypocrisy of the Government and about the Government letting down the communities of the Central Coast, Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. But, beyond that, the motion deals with the Government's total lack of vision regarding infrastructure and regional development in New South Wales—two issues dear to my heart, and public policy matters in respect of which I have particularly keen focus and interest. The motion not only relates to the Government's promises to build a high-speed rail link and improve services for people on the Central Coast, it also underscores that the Government does not have a comprehensive infrastructure plan for New South Wales.

Earlier in the debate it was said that the Government allowed significant development of the north-west sector of Sydney without so much as an appropriate rail corridor. But, in relation to this motion and the actions of the Government, through Landcom and its approvals for other land developments, it has allowed ongoing development on the Central Coast and in the Hunter Valley without due regard to whether those areas have appropriate infrastructure and services to provide for their communities. It is well known that the Central Coast rail line and the F3 are at capacity and are inadequate not only for Central Coast commuters but also commuters from the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas.

My colleague the Leader of the Opposition referred earlier to the five-hour daily journey that he embarked upon as a commuter from the northern end of the Central Coast. But that was a few years ago. The fact is that today people from the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie region commute to Sydney. I know that for a fact. My sister lives in Newcastle and on a number of days commutes to Sydney for work. Many of us would like those commuters to be able to use the rail service. But that service is totally inadequate because of the Carr Government's lack of capital investment, lack of vision and disinterest in doing something to provide better infrastructure for this State, not just on the Central Coast and in the Hunter Valley.

The Government has fraudulently promoted this northern region of the State. One need think only of the advertisements for Landcom and other government instrumentalities, juxtaposed with the sorts of messages it allowed to come out in the period 1998-99 through to 2002 and the promises it made about the Central Coast rail link. Imagine your thinking at the time if you had been contemplating purchasing land in various parts of Sydney. You might have been impressed with the Government's promise to build a high-speed rail link, provide additional services for the Central Coast and run 12 trains instead of the existing 9.

They would have been significant factors exercising the minds of those who were choosing where to buy land or houses. One need only look at the progress of urban development through the Central Coast and Hunter region to understand why in recent years many people have made a choice to live in those areas. As my colleague the Hon. Robyn Parker said, those areas have a very good lifestyle, but it is tempered by the fact that its residents would contemplate commuting to Sydney to work. The Government's lack of vision ensures insufficient jobs on the Central Coast for its residents. But most young families and first home buyers must look to places like the Central Coast because Sydney housing is priced way beyond their reach.

Quite apart from the issue of infrastructure is that of regional development. The Central Coast and the Hunter Valley are two of the most significant regions in New South Wales. Both deserve the strong support of the Government. To promote those regions one must take into account many factors that create sustainable development. Fundamental to the considerations of any corporation that is contemplating relocating to or locating in a region is the transport infrastructure of the region. This infrastructure is fundamental to transport employees as well as materials and goods to and from the area.

As chair of the Standing Committee on State Development in 1993-94 I recall the committee undertaking a significant inquiry into regional development in New South Wales. As part of that inquiry I met representatives of the Central Coast Chamber of Commerce at Gosford. There we talked about ways in which the chamber could enhance the local community and grow the region. One topic was the cut flower industry, along with the significant use of hydroponics for that industry and for the growing of vegetables, as well as their transport to port, or flying them to overseas destinations within 24 hours of being cut. That significant growth area for the Central Coast was reliant on good transport networks, whether rail or road. This Government has let the community down and missed opportunities to expand its vision. The same comment applies to Newcastle.

As my colleague the Hon. Robyn Parker said, Newcastle used to be regarded as an area to be visited from time to time. That is no longer the fact. It is now very much a choice of people who wish to reside in the area and work on the Central Coast or in Sydney. The Government promoted that aspect in the late 1990s. This is just a small example, but it is relevant to this debate. At that time the Government closed the juvenile detention centre at Broadmeadow, saying that, at least at the overnight stage, all juveniles would have to be housed on the Central Coast. The Frank Baxter Juvenile Centre is on the Central Coast. Its employees were offered relocation to the Central Coast. I recall a very angry public meeting with Juvenile Justice employees who lived in the Hunter Valley but were told they would have a job on the Central Coast. The expectation was that they would travel to and from their place of employment.

The Government's decision required people to use the road network or the rail service. The Government then held out promises of a high-speed rail link and additional services, but it was never prepared to deliver on those promises. The motion concludes by calling on the Treasurer to formally apologise to the residents of Newcastle, the Hunter and the Central Coast for his Government's continued misleading comments and advertising campaigns over the past five years. I presume that neither the Premier nor previous Ministers would have made these commitments unless they had some expectation that the Treasurer was prepared to release the appropriate funds to ensure that studies could be undertaken and that we would benefit from improved services.

On a number of occasions in recent years I have had the benefit of travelling on a high-speed train in France, the TGV, that enables people to travel from one end of France to the other in just a couple of hours. The TGV provides people with the opportunity to live in one part of the country and to work or conduct business in another part of the country. It was an absolute joy to travel on that service. In the 1980s France had a vision to put resources into rail. Earlier this year I met with a senior bureaucrat of the French regional development department who spoke of the benefits the nation had derived from a rail network vision into which the French Government was prepared to put resources. The French community is reaping the benefits.

Today I could have talked about tourism and the enormous benefits to our State if the Government had put resources into a vision for tourism in New South Wales. Overseas visitors who arrive in Sydney should be able to access many of the jewels in the crown of New South Wales, including some of the wonderful scenery of the Central Coast from the Hawkesbury region right along the coast, the Hunter Valley and its wonderful vineyards, and the beaches of the Central Coast, Newcastle and Port Stephens. I realise that one can travel to those areas on the F3. But if the Government had a little vision and improved rail services, visitors and the people of New South Wales could experience these marvellous places more safely and more quickly. My colleague reminded me of an article that appeared in the Newcastle Herald on 31 January 2001. It was written by Scott Tucker, whom I compliment on his research. In his article he mused about what it meant to live in Newcastle under the Carr Government. In doing so, he contrasted the rail service of 2001 with the rail service of 1938. He wrote:

In 1938, the Newcastle Flyer made the steam journey from Newcastle to Sydney in two hours 24 minutes, including a 10-minute stop in Gosford to take on water.

Today, the fastest train journey between Newcastle and Sydney is two hours 21 minutes.

From 1938 to 2001 we improved the journey by three minutes! When I was a teenager I remember the joy during the school holidays of catching the Newcastle Flyer at a little after 7.00 a.m. for a day of shopping in Sydney. It was an annual highlight for my sister and me. We left Sydney after 5.00 p.m. we were back home by about 7.30 p.m. I am sad to say that I am old enough to remember when the service had to stop at Gosford to swap over the engine after the line from Gosford to Sydney was electrified. The stopover was long enough to allow us to buy an ice cream at the shop on the platform on Gosford station. The reality is that little has changed.

Despite the fact that the Government appeared to have a vision for the Central Coast and for regional and infrastructure development, despite the fact that in 1998 the Minister for Transport gave a commitment to a $1.2 billion high-speed rail link—a commitment that has been restated again and again by the Minister, the Premier and their colleagues on the Central Coast—the reality is that the communities of the Central Coast, Newcastle and the Hunter Valley have seen nothing: not one dollar has been expended on this commitment or on improving rail services. And there seems very little hope that they will see any improvements in the foreseeable future given the great deal of money that has been poured into a train that does not even run properly.

For some time my colleagues have been talking about the "mil-lemon" train. From the time I saw that doors of trains were being painted yellow to make the train look like Millennium trains I have asked, "Why did the Government paint the trains yellow?" The answer is "Because the Government knew the train was going to be a lemon." Even at the time that the Minister for Transport, the Premier and their colleagues were photographed with the Millennium train, I am sure they knew it would be a lemon.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [4.46 p.m.]: This motion is about rail services between Sydney and Newcastle. However, I am advised that this is a transport planning matter that falls under the administration of the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Accordingly, I have received the following information from the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning in the other place. The strategic transport plan released in 1998 by the previous Minister for Transport sought to improve passenger and freight rail services between Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle. I am advised that in late 2002 the Government announced the selected tenderer for the design and construction of 41 outer-suburban carriages, approximately 20 of which would serve the Central Coast on a regular basis. These carriages will provide improved comfort, as well as some additional seating for Central Coast commuters.

A considerable amount of investigation has been conducted since 1998 to examine ways to improve the rail corridor between Sydney and Newcastle. A detailed analysis of this project since that time has determined that the high-speed rail alignment is more expensive than originally anticipated due to the difficult nature of the corridor, including the river crossing, steep terrain and the need for a considerable amount of tunnelling. I am advised that any plan to upgrade the line between Sydney and Newcastle will be subject to an open and transparent discussion about required funding arrangements. Furthermore, the establishment by the Minister for Transport Services of a ministerial inquiry into current funding, fares and investment options for transport services as part of the restructure of transport will provide the community with a better understanding of the relationship between fares, government contributions and other interested sources.

The Minister for Transport Services released the interim report by Dr Tom Parry earlier this year; a final report is due at the end of the year. The report sets the direction for future revenue needs, investment options, fare structures and service standards for public transport services. It is an opportunity to, once and for all, establish transparency in fares and standards of service in public transport. It will provide the Government with realistic information about funding all desired improvements to transport services, including improvements to the Sydney, Central Coast, Newcastle line.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [4.49 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. In particular I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang because he was given the hospital pass of trying to explain away the Government's sheer negligence to the people of the Central Coast. When the Hon. Henry Tsang, in following instructions, attempted to dilute the message, he very carefully applied the term "I am advised", which is political speak for "I am only as good as the information I have been given." I am sure the people who gave the Hon. Henry Tsang the information that formed the basis for the speech he made are the very same people who are responsible for the fraud that has been perpetrated on the people of the Central Coast since 1998.

This is not just a transport issue; it is also a social issue relating to time. It is about giving back time to the people on the Central Coast. Given the high rates of domestic violence in the Wyong area in particular, the Parliament should be focusing on implementing measures that will give more time to individuals and families. That is what people thought about most when the high-speed rail link was proposed. They saw it as an opportunity for them to spend more time with their families and more time at home. But of course, the announcement was nothing more than a fraud.

The Hon. Henry Tsang referred to 20 new train carriages to service the Central Coast. With all due respect, he should closely examine the commitments that were given. The commitments were not about new train carriages but, rather, about a high-speed rail link and about a tunnel from Hornsby to the Central Coast. There was no mention of new seats, new toilets and far more comfortable trains. People expect comfort, but that is an entirely different matter from the promise of a plan that will allow them to arrive at their destinations more quickly. This is an important debate. The Opposition intends to hold the Government accountable.

When the Minister for Transport Services was asked about this plan recently he said he knew nothing about what was happening. He took on notice the question asked of him, but surely he should have been able to respond immediately to such an issue. Those of us who live on the Central Coast have been saying for some time now, "People reside in Sydney, but people live on the Central Coast". We want to make sure that living on the Central Coast is even more pleasant and more enjoyable in the future. We want them to spend more time on the Central Coast. I commend the motion to the House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher

Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Hale Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Ms Parker

Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Robertson

Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Harwin

Mr Catanzariti

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Dr Henry Tsang 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.

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [5.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The amendments in this bill arise from the acceptance of recommendations made in a report to the then Minister by a properly constituted subcommittee of the board of directors of the New South Wales Institute of Sport [NSWIS]. In complying with the statutory requirement in section 34 of the Institute of Sport Act 1995 the board's subcommittee reviewed the operations of the Act to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

The Institute of Sport Act 1995 constituted the New South Wales Institute of Sport as a statutory body to promote excellence in sport and for other purposes. In reviewing the Act, the objectives as outlined in section 5 of the Act entitled "Objects of the Institute" were considered. The principal objects of the institute are as follows: to provide resources, services and facilities to enable New South Wales sportspeople to pursue and achieve excellence in sport while also furthering their educational, vocational and personal development; to foster the development and co-ordination of high-performance and talent development programs for New South Wales sportspeople; and to assist the development of Australian sporting performance at international levels through co-operatively developed and complementary national programs.

In order to achieve these objectives, the institute, pursuant to section 4 of the Act, was constituted as a body corporate with the corporate name of the New South Wales Institute of Sport. During its establishment in 1996 the setting up of the institute was done through, and with the assistance of, the Department of Sport and Recreation. The director-general oversaw administrative, legislative and statutory requirements of the new body until it could support and conduct its own affairs with its own staff, systems, polices, procedures and so on. This included having the director of the institute reporting to the Director-General of the Department of Sport and Recreation. Naturally, ties remain with the department. However, to all intents and purposes, the institute has now developed as an agency in its own right and the proposed amendments will reflect this consolidation.

Before I go through these provisions it would be remiss of me not to mention some of the achievements of the institute in the short time it has had to establish itself as the premier State sporting body in Australia. During the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games, I am proud to say that 155 athletes—134 Olympians and 21 Paralympians—15 coaches and a large number of NSWIS support staff were part of the Australian Olympic and Paralympic teams. These athletes and coaches came from 21 sports supported by the New South Wales Institute of Sport. Forty-two NSWIS-supported Olympic athletes were part of 22 medal winning performances across nine individual and team sports. These athletes won eight gold, six silver and eight bronze medals. An additional 40 NSWIS-supported Olympic athletes contested 32 finals in 11 different sports. Seven NSWIS-supported Paralympic athletes won 11 gold medals across three sports, 12 silver medals across four sports and two bronze medals in one sport.

One in five Australian Olympians were supported by NSWIS. An astonishing fact is that, had the institute competed as a country in the 2000 Games, it would have finished in fourteenth place on the medal table. That is a graphic measure of the institute's success. I now move to the 2002 Commonwealth Games where the success continued. Eighty-one NSWIS-supported athletes competed in the Manchester Commonwealth Games with more than half, or 55 per cent, returning home with a medal. NSWIS-supported athletes won a total of 53 medals. There were 22 gold, 18 silver and 13 bronze medals across 12 different sports. Finally, I mention two other major events and achievements.

Since the establishment of the NSWIS in 1996 the institute has helped to develop just over 100 world champions in a variety of sports. Highlighting this ongoing development was a period in September 2002 when 10 NSWIS-supported athletes became world champions in 10 days; and the number of NSWIS-supported athletes selected in national teams has grown from 212 athletes in 1996-97 to the current number of 587 athletes. Today the institute has approximately 750 high-performance athletes on squad or individual scholarships and it offers 31 sports programs. The institute provides specialist services in sports science, medical and coach and athlete management. These innovative support services are provided to New South Wales athletes, both centrally and in their home environment, through the institute's Regional Mobile Services Program.

The New South Wales Institute of Sport is the first institute in Australia to implement a Regional Mobile Services Program, which brings the institute's specialist services to athletes regardless of where they live, enabling regionally based athletes to reach their goals in sport while maintaining their usual family, work and study arrangements. Athlete performances in May and June 2003 saw 29 regional athletes represent Australia and achieve seven gold, 10 silver and five bronze medals at significant international events. Over the same time period, regional athletes won 15 gold, eight silver and five bronze medals at national events.

In order to continue with its success and build on its achievements to date, the following amendments are required to the current Act. New section 17 will establish the position of the chief executive officer, which is currently entitled director, and creates the requirement for the position to report to the board as opposed to the Director-General of the Department of Sport and Recreation. This change has evolved, given the position's consolidation since the institute was established and the board is in a better position to manage this position. The Director-General of the Department of Sport and Recreation continues to represent the Minister on the board of directors in accordance with the Act.

Similarly, section 18 has been redrafted to clarify the status of staff of the institute as being employed by the institute, and not the department under the general public service provisions. New section 19 refers to the Sporting Development Advisory Committee. Parliamentary Counsel has advised that the Institute of Sport (Sporting Development Advisory Committee) Regulation 1996 was automatically repealed on 1 December 2001 under section 10 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1998. Section 27, which relates to the personal liability of members of the board and certain other persons, has been replaced.

The institute wrote to Parliamentary Counsel during the review process seeking advice as to whether there were any standard sections in the Act that may require updating. Parliamentary Counsel advised that this clause be updated as drafted. These are the main amendments, apart from wording changes such as changing "director" in the Act to "chief executive officer" and other minor editing. The amendments are consistent with government policy and are necessary for the institute to continue to prepare our elite athletes for the 2004 Olympics at Athens and beyond. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [5.04 p.m.]: The New South Wales Institute of Sport is the organisation charged with specific statutory responsibility for developing and assisting New South Wales athletes and coaches by improving New South Wales representations on national teams, achieving excellence and success at international level and conducting internationally recognised high performance sports programs; and, capitalising on the legacy of the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games to provide a platform for the ongoing development of high performance sport in New South Wales and Australia. Today the institute has approximately 750 high performance athletes on squad or individual scholarships and offers 31 sports programs. The institute provides specialist services in sports science and medicine, and coach and athlete management. Those innovative support services are provided to New South Wales athletes both centrally and in their home environment, though the institute's Regional Mobile Services Program, the only program of its kind offering comprehensive coverage of the entire State by a sports institute.

The bill fulfils the statutory requirement to review the Institute of Sport Act 1995 after five years. As part of this review the Government has determined that several changes were required in order to clarify the authority of the board to employ staff and the director, to repeal the Sporting Development Advisory Committee and to insert a standard personal liability clause. The prime objective of the New South Wales Institute of Sport Amendment Bill is to amend the 1995 Act in relation to the employment of the chief executive officer and staff at the institute. Currently, the Director-General of the Department of Sport and Recreation employs the chief executive officer. This presents an anomaly when the day-to-day and strategic responsibility of the position is reported directly to the institute's board. This means that the employer does not have access to the employee. This amendment will clarify that process.

The staff profile at the institute is distinctly different from that of a traditional public sector agency. For example, the institute employs coaches to service its 31 targeted sports. The coaches are required to work flexible hours throughout the week and year, and often are required to undertake overseas travel. All staff members at the institute are employed under contract as the institute is a declared authority. The amendments to the Act in regard to the employment of staff are in line with the flexibility required by authorities to engage the appropriate work force for their specific business. In this case, the institute is able to employ a diverse range of specialist staff to coach and train our State's most elite athletes. The Sporting Development Advisory Committee, which is being repealed by this bill, was never established and was deemed unnecessary by the board.

The New South Wales institute is the leading State institute and the changes will ensure that it continues to hold this place into the future, and in particular for the preparation of athletes leading up to the 2004 Athens Olympics and the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. It is important for us to keep in mind that the elite athletes we support at the New South Wales Institute of Sport come from the ranks of thousands of sporting organisations run by a veritable army of volunteers throughout the State. The Opposition will not oppose this bill, which contains amendments to the Institute of Sport Bill 1995.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.09 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Institute of Sport Amendment Bill, which will clarify and make more efficient the administration and organisation of the Institute of Sport.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth), [5.10 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their support and contribution to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [5.11 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.11 p.m.]: In recent months I have had the opportunity to either open or present awards at a number of community technology centres [CTCs] in New South Wales. For those who are not familiar with CTCs, the New South Wales Community Technology Centre Program [CTC@NSW] is a partnership made up of the New South Wales Government, the Commonwealth Government and regional New South Wales communities. Through the partnership, small regional New South Wales communities are supported in planning, gaining seed funding and implementing community-owned information technology enterprises that provide communities with the ability to enhance service and program delivery in their towns.

CTC@NSW improves the social, economic and cultural life of small regional New South Wales towns through the implementation of local information technology infrastructure that enhances service and program access. It supports small regional towns in taking up the opportunities of the new information economy through community designed and planned facilities. The Commonwealth Government, through its Networking the Nation Program, has provided $8.25 million to CTC@NSW as seed funding for CTC establishment. CTC@NSW manages the funding program and development work with communities through the New South Wales Government funding of $7.2 million. CTC@NSW was launched in March 2001 and has been funded up to June 2004.

In May 2001, CTC@NSW was successful in gaining further funding of $1.29 million from the Networking the Nation Program for business planning and recapitalisation programs for existing telecentres, the establishment of a videoconferencing network based in CTC@NSW network centres, and the establishment of a number of specific purpose learning centres. CTCs provide community members, business groups and organisations with access to affordable, quality information technology for services and programs that enhance community access to services and programs such as online New South Wales government services, business services, training programs, e-commerce incubators, online banking, teleworking, web site development services, virtual office facilities, youth programs, and digital media facilities.

On 12 March this year I had the pleasure of opening the CTC at Tambar Springs, a small village in the electorate of Upper Hunter, which is in the Gunnedah council area. The level of community involvement in that small village, which is commendable, shows what a group of committed people can do to ensure that their locality does not miss out on the opportunity to embrace new technologies and the advantages that that brings for all residents, regardless of age or familiarity with new technologies. The access that people like those have to technology through CTCs will help to build strong communities outside the metropolitan area and in larger regional centres. It is part of the State Government's commitment to rural New South Wales to ensure that equal access, regardless of where one lives, becomes part and parcel of the delivery of government services.

In August I had the privilege of presenting awards to winners in the CTC photographic competition, which this year had the theme "Things We Do Together". That competition was run by 28 community technology centres across New South Wales. Young people had the chance to participate in the competition through their local community technology centres as part of the 2003 Youth Week celebrations and throughout the Easter school holidays. The competition encouraged young people to make use of digital cameras, scanners, computers and a wide range of other technologies. The competition was divided into two categories—best photograph and best digital photograph.

The centres participating in this year's event were Boorowa, Bowraville, Canowindra, Cobar, Coonabarabran, Delegate, Dungog, Eden, Gundagai, Guyra, Hay, Ivanhoe, Khancoban, Lake Cargelligo, Lithgow, Merriwa, Mudgee, Mullumbimby, Narromine, Oberon, Port Stephens, Tambar Springs, Tibooburra, Tweed Valley, Ulladulla, Walcha, West Wyalong and Wilcannia. Over 470 entries were received from across the State. In Mullumbimby I presented awards to two young winning photographers. In the 15 to 18 age group Nelson McKev was the winner with his photograph "Butterflies". In the 19 to 25 age group, Aimo Kostiainen was the winner with his photograph "Tyagarah Reflections". Two other young photographers, Steve Kostiainen and Kimba Kuhlamnn, were runners-up.

In Mudgee I presented an award to another young talented photographer. In the 15 to 18 age group Nicole Thompson was the winner with her photograph "The Show". The winners in the major categories were presented with certificates, framed copies of their winning photographs and a digital camera, so that they can continue to develop their skills in photography. All entrants in the competition were presented with achievement certificates. Last Saturday I represented the Minister for Commerce at the opening of the Tea Gardens CTC, which was also attended by Bob Baldwin, Federal member for Paterson. The Tea Gardens CTC is now part of a network of 88 community technology centres across regional New South Wales. Eighty-eight small towns and villages now have access to a range of information technology equipment and services and expert advice to help them keep abreast of the cyber world. None of those centres would have got to first base without a lot of hard work by local committees and a team of volunteers.

That was certainly the case in Tea Gardens. I congratulate the Tea Gardens CTC committee on its commitment, patience and hard work in getting the centre off the ground and up and running. Through that commitment the initial steering committee was successful in gaining State and Federal funding of $150,000 to give the project a kick-start and to help make its vision a reality. I also note the significant support given to the project by the Port Stephens Masonic Lodge. The official opening of the centre signalled a marvellous day for the whole Tea Gardens community and it coincided with the inaugural Myall River Festival and the opening of an art walk along the riverbank, which will play a major part in the festival in years to come.

The Hon DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.16 p.m.]: Tonight I express concern about the resources available to assist dyslexic students. Dyslexia is a reading disorder that persists, despite good schooling and normal to above average intelligence. It is a disability that affects 7 per cent of our population. It is a frustrating disability for those who have it. Those who are dyslexic have trouble recognising certain written words and they often mix up the order of spoken words. So what goes wrong? It appears that the part of the brain that is used for analysing the printed word, recognising constituent sounds and automating the process of reading, breaks down in children with dyslexia.

Children with dyslexia have to deal with each word they see as though they have never come across them before. Dyslectics appear to compensate for that deficiency by leaning more heavily on that area of the brain that helps sound out words, and by recruiting areas from the right side of the brain that process visual clues. While help is available to children who are dyslexic, it is important that we increase the awareness of both parents and teachers of this disability. An article that appeared in Time magazine on 28 July 2003 found that in the United States of America the most successful programs in helping children with dyslexia concentrated on the same core elements—practice, sounding out words, building vocabulary, increasing comprehension and improving the fluency of reading.

A particularly good technique found to increase the fluency of children with reading difficulties was to practise reading aloud with a skilled reader who could correct mistakes. That way the brain builds up the right association between words and sounds from the start. Time magazine also found that technology could play a supporting role. Some dyslectics supplement their reading with books on tape and, because their condition affects their ability to read as well as write, a growing number of dyslectics in the United States are turning to voice recognition software to help in written work. It is not surprising that better results are achieved if the disability is treated early.

Recently I was pleased to discover that dyslexia has been included as a disability under the draft antidiscrimination policy of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, which is now available for public consultation. Up until this point the Department of Education and Training has maintained, through its criteria of disability, that dyslexia is not a disability but a learning difficulty. As the State and Federal antidiscrimination laws are used to determine what funding is available to assist students, the Department of Education and Training has missed on this important funding. Additional funding for the Department of Education and Training will mean that a greater use of technology can be used to assist those students to overcome any learning difficulties that they experience because of a dyslexic condition. It may also mean that additional staff will be available to be employed to assist with children who have dyslexia through hearing them read and offering extra help with spelling and vocabulary.

It is alarming that, because of the large size of primary school classes in New South Wales, many students suffering from dyslexia may fall through the cracks and not get the help that they need. Most often, dyslexic students stand or sit at the back of the class, or they are sent out of class to playgrounds or gardens in case they become a distraction to other students because of their frustrations. Unless some real effort is made on behalf of those students we will continue to see numerous students with high IQs but poor reading and writing skills. I urge the Government to ensure that this matter of discrimination is rectified as rapidly as possible so that students with dyslexia will no longer be discriminated against by this New South Wales department and so that the necessary equipment is purchased and installed to assist those students to overcome any learning difficulties that they experience because of a dyslexic condition.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.20 p.m.]: Today I pay a tribute to a great country and western singer and social justice campaigner, Johnny Cash, who died last Friday, 12 September, at the age of 71. Born one of seven children to a poor farmhand in Arkansas, he served in the United States of America's Air Force in Germany, where he learned to play the guitar. Upon his return to the United States he moved to Nashville. He had hit songs almost immediately and went on to record some of the most recognisable country songs of all times. The best known of these are Folsom Prison Blues, I Walk the Line and Ring of Fire. In his career he recorded 1,500 songs. Johnny Cash represented the archetypical American hero. He was proud of his country's achievements but he also recognised that America was built on the back of slaves and the blood of native Indians.

Johnny Cash was a strong advocate for Indian land rights and reconciliation. He was a strong advocate for prison reform in the United States. He stood up for the poor working class and the disadvantaged in the southern part of the United States. He opposed the United State's invasion of Iraq and proudly defended the right of his daughter, Rosanne Cash, to express her opposition to the foreign policy of the Bush Administration when country radio stations banned her songs and tagged her as un-American for criticising George Bush. Johnny Cash was called "the man in black" and he wrote a song explaining why he always wore black. With the indulgence of the House I will read the lyrics of that song, because they explain better what Johnny Cash was about than anything I could say. He wrote:

Tributes flooded in for Johnny Cash following the news of his death. Veteran singer Ray Charles said:

The passing today of my old friend, Johnny Cash, makes me very sad … When I went to Nashville 40 years ago to record my first country song, Johnny was a very welcoming figure and became a lifelong friend.

He made a giant contribution to music, not just country style and his legacy speaks for itself.

Kris Kristofferson, who played with Cash in the Highwaymen, which also included Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings, said:

Johnny Cash has always seemed larger than life to me … He is a true American hero, beloved the world over as much for his kindness and compassion and championing of the underdog as for the power of his art … And he was damned funny, even in the darkest times.

Country singer Emmylou Harris said that Cash's singing voice was:

… probably one of the most recognisable sounds—certainly in this country and probably around the world … There's never been a voice that had that kind of power, that kind of voice-of-God kind of quality to it.

Brad Paisley, one of the leaders of the new generation in country music, said:

I don't know anybody who doesn't like Johnny Cash. He's one of the rare people you can say that about.

Robert Oermann, a Nashville-based country music historian, called Cash's death:

… a terrible loss to the country music community … He cut across ages and music genres. It would be impossible to overstate what a giant he was.

Even in Washington, George W. Bush said in a statement:

Johnny Cash was a music legend and American icon whose career spanned decades and genres.

His resonant voice and human compassion reached the hearts and souls of generations, and he will be missed.

He will also be missed for his criticism of George W. Bush. According to his manager, Lou Robin, Johnny Cash died at the age of 71 due to complications from diabetes, resulting in respiratory failure. The singer's wife, June Carter Cash, died only in May at the age of 73 and people were most concerned that her loss could hasten his death. Indeed, it may have done so. Let us hope that more singers will be like Johnny Cash and show that they have a social conscience and concern for the poor.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [5.25 p.m.]: When he sought office, the current Prime Minister said that no worker would be worse off under his government. Since its election, the Howard Government has used Federal legislation to restructure the Australian economy, and as a consequence Australian society, towards a radical conservative agenda. The Federal Government has a very clear ideological perspective, which it has sought to pursue through every aspect of its legislation. The result has been that many citizens of New South Wales are indeed much worse off under this Federal Government. Housing, health, education and other social infrastructure policies have in the past been used properly to redistribute resources to ensure that all Australians have an opportunity to live with dignity and to fulfil their potential. These same portfolio areas have now been starved of essential funds, and new policies effectively subsidise those who need government assistance least. The differences between the advantaged and the disadvantaged have never been more distinct and there has been a return to the cold charity of the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor.

John Howard has had only two Ministers for Workplace Relations, and both have made a very public ideological commitment to destroying the trade union movement. This is explained as being a necessary precondition for the fulfilment of the Howard vision for Australia as a place in which there may not be a place for everyone but everyone knows their place. Such a vision has no room for mass organised dissent. Peter Reith's successor, Tony Abbott, has an equally sanctimonious and self-righteous ideology. He shares his Prime Minister's world view that the trade union movement has no legitimate place. John Howard and Tony Abbott completely reject the right of ordinary Australians to organise and protest against government. Despite the fact that his credibility was completely shattered by the blatant bias of the Cole royal commission, Tony Abbott is this week introducing his own new wave of industrial relations legislation. In many respects, he has simply put a new cover on the legislation that Peter Reith tried to introduce in an earlier incarnation. This raft of new legislation is aimed squarely at further empowering employers against their unionised work force while at the same time imposing penalties against unions' traditional rights to organise their members. None of these bills makes equal demands of employers.

The "Genuine Bargaining" bill aims to prevent unions organising and bargaining on an industry basis. But there is no requirement for employers to "bargain genuinely" in good faith. The "Fair Termination" bill allows employers to terminate employees, with scant regard for procedural fairness. But there is no requirement that employers be transparent or accountable when they terminate their entire work force and close their business in order to avoid legal or statutory liabilities. The "Secret Ballots for Protected Action" bill imposes lengthy and expensive organisational requirements upon unions involved in industrial disputes. But there is no such requirement for democracy in corporations that make financial and other decisions on behalf of their shareholders that may result in corporate collapse and financial ruin for employees, shareholders and the public. The "Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees" bill is extraordinary coming from a Minister and a Government that never stops hectoring and lecturing on the values of the user-pays principle.

Tony Abbott and his colleagues are clearly prepared to commit enormous public resources to introducing punitive legislation aimed at destroying the trade unions that represent workers in this State. But they are not prepared to spend any time at all introducing legislation to protect the same workers and their families through higher standards of corporate governance. Against this background, the role of the Australian trade union movement has rarely been more important. Historically, organised labour has provided the most significant voice of organised dissent against unreasonable and unconscionable governments. In New South Wales unions have worked with students, women, environmentalists, indigenous peoples and a wide range of other community groups in a co-operative movement based upon very strong principles of justice and equity.

The recent collapse of Metro and that of countless other companies demonstrates only too clearly the need to reform Australian Federal corporations laws so that unscrupulous employers cannot contrive to restructure themselves to avoid their financial, legal and statutory responsibilities. It is very difficult for workers in this State and their families to accept that Tony Abbott and his Government are sincere when they say that their new legislation is in workers' best interests. It is impossible to believe that "no worker will be worse off." So-called industrial relations "reform" is clearly a part of the Howard Government's broad legislative program that has hurt ordinary workers and their families throughout New South Wales. Despite the very great risks and high costs, the trade union movement is continuing to organise and to work in the interests of a more equal, fair and just society for all Australians.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.29 p.m.]: I draw honourable members' attention to this Government's continuing deplorable record on accountability and transparency. I refer particularly to the Government's actions in respect of documents about the Millennium trains and point out that lack of accountability in this regard has continued on the Hon. Michael Costa's watch.

The Minister for Transport Services has regularly trumpeted in this place his commitment to transparency and openness in government, but the Millennium Train episode reaffirmed that Mr Costa is very much in the same habit as other members of the Carr Government when it comes to making sure that secrets are buried and there is no accountability. The report of Sir Laurence Street in relation to disputed documents on Millennium Trains was provided to the Clerk on 22 August and was tabled in the House on 3 September. It is important to briefly note some of the conclusions of Sir Laurence Street in the report:

Cabinet immunity lies outside the authority of the House. With this one exception all of the documents that were produced fall within the authority of the House to allow or reject the claim for privilege. Ordinarily the House gives great weight to validly based claims of Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Immunity and Commercial in Confidence Privilege and such claims, where validly based, will frequently be allowed by the House although none is legally binding on the House in absolute terms.

Some of the documents that were the subject of spurious claims for privilege, and therefore kept secret by the State Rail Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation in relation to the orders of the House for documents, include a Treasury document which states:

Commercial in Confidence privilege has been claimed … documents as revealing the information contained in such documents to the public would clearly be seen as undermining the commercial and business interests of the SRA,

I am really not concerned about the commercial and business interests of the SRA when the interests of the public are at risk, because it is the interests of the public that prevail. This claim for privilege by Treasury also said that it impacted on the ability of the SRA to obtain value for money in its negotiations with private suppliers, including EDI. We all know what value for money the SRA was able to obtain in relation to its dealings with EDI. Some more unusual documents for which privilege was claimed are the January 2003 ANZ Bank foreign exchange risk management table that can be picked up from the desk of any ANZ Bank. To make sure that secret information about the value of the Australian dollar was maintained, privilege was also claimed for the exchange rates of the Westpac Banking Corporation.

Privilege was claimed for invoices from Penrith Waste Services Pty Ltd for the tipping of waste. Privilege was also claimed for the Certificate of Registration of Rail Services Australia under the Quality Assurance Services Program, something that would be displayed in the offices of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. However, the best was their claim for privilege for a newspaper clipping from the Western Advocate on 1 July 1998 that announced the awarding of the original Millennium Train contract. I suppose with the benefit of hindsight it is understandable to claim privilege for that contract to keep it hidden.

I want the Minister for Transport Services to live up to his commitment to transparency and to update the Millennium Train web site. I notice in relation to incident reports and action taken that the site was updated as at 17 September. However, in relation to the delivery status report, and in particular the amount of money that has been thrown away under this Minister's guidance in relation to maintenance costs, the site has not been updated since 31 July. That site still contains the curious statement that maintenance costs to 30 June 2003 are estimated to be around $2.6 million, with a note that the July invoice is yet to be received. I ask the Minister for Transport Services to live up to his commitment to transparency by updating that web site with the true details of the waste of money paid out under his watch.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.34 p.m.]: In his weekly column in the Sydney Morning Herald on 29 August, Richard Ackland made a surprising admission about his friends: most of them are pleased Pauline Hanson is in gaol, he informed us. By way of contrast, the Roy Morgan Research Poll taken the following week suggests that only 13 per cent of Australians believe Pauline Hanson should have been sent to gaol for breaching Queensland electoral laws. It seems to me Richard Ackland should move back to Kings Cross, or at least strike the names of a few lawyers from his list of friends. Lawyers are products of their training and experience, and when they become judicial officers, their judgments invariably reflect their passions and prejudices. As a rule of thumb, the toughest judges are former prosecutors and defence lawyers, while a former plaintiff lawyer is the most likely to hand down a Father Christmas decision. There is nothing surprising about this, except perhaps that it is not more widely recognised as the reason we have appeal courts.

Any strict application of the law is likely to cause injustice in particular circumstances. Equally, people are rightly incensed when judges apply the law in a seemingly inconsistent and arbitrary way. Applying the law fairly is always a balancing act, but the drift towards conservative politics over the past 20 years has thrown up too many black-letter judges. After all, judges too are part of government. Whatever the technical requirements of Queensland electoral laws might have been in 1998, nobody could seriously argue that Pauline Hanson did not have a morally legitimate party structure when she registered Pauline Hanson One Nation in Queensland. The redoubtable David Oldfield, who frequently boasts about drafting the party's constitution, registered the same party structure under Commonwealth law and again in New South Wales. Indeed, the rushed registration of 80-odd political parties prior to the 1999 State election suggests the then New South Wales electoral office was every bit as congenial as its Queensland counterpart so far as party registration is concerned.

David Oldfield is clearly a beneficiary in New South Wales of the same party structure that Tony Abbott and Terry Sharples pursued so vigorously in Queensland. Could David Oldfield withstand the kind of pugilistic legalism and electoral scrutiny directed at Pauline Hanson if the same campaign were waged in New South Wales? Another beneficiary of the 1999 State election was the many-partied Malcolm Jones, who has been subject to intense scrutiny by the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], including a finding of corrupt conduct for the way he used parliamentary resources to recruit members for front parties. Some of those parties in various guises were around in 1999 and contributed to about 70 per cent of the Jones vote that secured him a seat in the Legislative Council. This week Malcolm Jones resigned his seat in the Legislative Council rather than subject himself to an expulsion motion moved by the Government. Like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Jones protested his innocence, but the similarity with the Pauline Hanson case ends there.

While Pauline Hanson enjoys wide public support and sympathy for her current predicament, the same cannot be said for Malcolm Jones. Some people will question whether the ICAC is the best public authority for dealing with allegations of electoral fraud. I have been criticised for referring the Jones matter to the ICAC, an organisation that sometimes engages in public floggings as a means of extracting admissions. On the other hand, if State electoral offices fail to apply the law, or apply it inconsistently, it falls to authorities like the ICAC and the Director of Public Prosecutions to clean up the mess. The process works well, provided extraordinary powers are exercised sparingly, and those adversely affected by decisions retain the right of appeal to the courts. Each step in the judicial process needs to be taken with care because it is so expensive and such a lottery in terms of both judge and jury.

Often in the Pauline Hanson case I found myself saying, "Where's Joh's jury when you need it?" This may be some kind of contempt, but not a few of us descendants of Irish convicts find the way Pauline Hanson was treated quite contemptible. The Bible still has the best advice on the legal system so far as I am concerned: settle your disputes before going to court. No doubt Pauline Hanson was trying to do just that when she repaid the money she was said to have misappropriated. I note that the Court of Appeal in Queensland this week gave Ms Hanson some hope for the prospects of her appeal, and I for one hope her appeal is successful.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.39 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of honourable members a recent publication entitled "We are not machines. The need for civilised working hours in the building industry" by Paul Truan, published by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU]. The first very telling sentence of that publication states:

Not all that long ago there used to be a thing called the weekend.

That is a very disturbing statement because it is not too long ago that one of the most significant achievements in this country was the reduction in the working week. The fact that that benefit has been eroded so considerably is of great concern. Paul Truan cites many examples of where a shorter working week is recognised as being beneficial not just to workers but also to production, and therefore to profits. Princeton University in the United States of America produced a report that was used during the Second World War, and that report states:

Long hours with excessive overtime are of limited value after three to four weeks operation.

The report continues:

A workweek of more than 60 hours seems to cause not only a sharp increase in absences and accidents and a rapid decrease in individual productivity, but other unfortunate complications.

I recommend this excellent report to honourable members.

Motion agreed to.