Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 29 October 2003, Corrected Copy)

The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 4.10 p.m. to elect a member of the Legislative Council in the place of the Hon. Malcolm Irving Jones, resigned.

The Clerk of the Parliaments read the message from the Governor convening the joint sitting.

The PRESIDENT: I am now prepared to receive proposals with regard to an eligible person to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Malcolm Irving Jones.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: Jon Jenkins is an eligible person to fill the vacant seat of the Hon. Malcolm Irving Jones in the Legislative Council, for which purpose this joint sitting was convened. I propose that Jon Jenkins be elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat in the Legislative Council vacated by the Hon. Malcolm Irving Jones. I indicate to the joint sitting that if Jon Jenkins were a member of the Legislative Council, he would not be disqualified from sitting or voting as such a member and that he is a member of the same party, the Outdoor Recreation Party, as Malcolm Irving Jones was publicly recognised by as being an endorsed candidate of that party and who publicly represented himself to be such a candidate at the time of his election at the seventh periodic Council election held on 27 March 1999. I further indicate that the person being proposed would be willing to hold the vacant place if chosen.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I second the nomination.

The PRESIDENT: Does any other member desire to propose any other eligible person to fill the vacancy? As only one eligible person has been proposed and seconded, I declare that Jon Jenkins is elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat vacated by the Hon. Malcolm Irving Jones. I declare the joint sitting closed.

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and the second reading of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Second readings ordered to stand as orders of the day.

The President announced, according to the Ombudsman Act 1974, the receipt of the annual report of the NSW Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 2003.

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

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

1. That, in view of 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 RTA and the Cross City Motorway Consortium, this House orders that the documents considered by the Independent Legal Arbiter not to be privileged be laid upon the table by the Clerk.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That the reporting date for the reference to the general purpose standing committees relating to the Budget Estimates and related papers be extended to the last sitting day before the House rises for the summer recess.

Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay and the Hon. Rick Colless.

Petition praying that Berowra Valley Regional Park be reserved as a national park, received from Mr Ian Cohen.

Petitions praying that the House repeal the new gaming machine tax and undertake a review before further tax increases are considered, received from the Hon. Charlie Lynn.

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

Private Members' Business items Nos 31 and 37 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

Government Business Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

1. That we, the Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, on our own behalf and on behalf of the people of the State of New South Wales, desire to express to the members of the California State Legislature and the people of California our heartfelt sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and for those who have lost their homes as a result of the current bushfires. As sister-states we share and understand the tragedy of bushfires and we pray that the current state of emergency will soon end.

2. That this resolution be communicated by the President to Mr John L. Burton, President pro tempore of the California State Senate.

The Hon. TONY BURKE: In accordance with paragraph 6 (2) of the resolution establishing standing committees on 21 May 2003, as amended on 25 June 2003, I inform the House that on 21 October 2003 the Standing Committee on State Development received a reference from the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests). On 28 October 2003 the following amended reference was received by the committee:

That the Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on port infrastructure in New South Wales and in particular:

1. The New South Wales Government's Ports Growth Plan, including any planned closure of shipping freight facilities in Sydney Harbour.

2. The economic, social and environmental impact on the State, including on the proposed Port Botany upgrade.

3. The employment implications for Sydney, the Hunter and the Illawarra regions.

4. Current and future infrastructure needs and social impacts, including with respect to the adequacy of existing road and rail infrastructure.

5. The future of public land at Millers Point, Glebe Island and White Bay, on which shipping freight operations are currently located.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.20 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 52 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the claim by the New South Wales Teachers Federation for a salary increase for teachers, be called on forthwith.

I seek urgent consideration of this motion as already there has been wide industrial action by public schoolteachers. As more action is planned for December I ask members to support this motion. There are only a few remaining sitting weeks this year, and unless the teachers' pay dispute is settled during this short window of opportunity the crisis will drag on into 2004. Clearly the teachers' salary rise and the possibility of industrial action are urgent matters that impact on most families in New South Wales, and the Legislative Council has a responsibility to debate it.

The position of the Greens is clear: we support the teachers' 25 per cent pay claim. Surely all members would support the need to debate this vital public issue, which is already impacting on the majority of young people in our public schools. I am sure all members would agree that we do not want this dispute to overshadow the new school year. By debating this matter now we could play our part in finding a resolution. We do not want our children to go back to school in January with all this uncertainty still lingering. Clearly the current stand by the Government is leaving teachers in public schools with no option but to strike. This House has a crucial role to play and we need to have this debate now. I seek the urgent consideration of my motion because various views of the community can be put in this House in order to help the Government make a reasoned and fully rounded decision—indeed, a fair and just decision.

We are running out of time. Recent developments in the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] highlight that it is becoming harder for the Government to make a well-reasoned decision. I seek suspension also because a debate on my motion will encourage the Government to expedite the process. I also seek suspension in order to hold the Government to its promise. The former Minister for Education and Training, Mr Watkins, and the current Minister, Dr Refshauge, have promised to restrict their arguments in the IRC solely to the Government's ability to pay. Earlier this year I was at a teachers' rally when the then education Minister, Mr John Watkins, promised there would be no acrimony during this round of salary negotiations. He said the Government would avoid industrial turmoil and a protracted stoush with teachers.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: The honourable member is now engaging in debate on her substantive motion as opposed to debate on her motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The first question should be whether there should be suspension, and if that is carried she can move her substantive motion and put the thrust of her argument. I submit she is out of order.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: Clearly I have been putting a number of points on why suspension is needed. I have given many points and I have more to come.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the member that she must confine her remarks to debating whether standing and sessional orders should be suspended. She cannot debate the substantive motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I submit that there are many key reasons why suspension should be agreed to. It is incumbent on the House to debate developments in public education. In the past few weeks the Government's action to torpedo the teachers in the IRC highlights the need for the suspension of standing and sessional orders so we can debate my substantive motion. Across the State there have been spot strikes, stop-work meetings, anger, and falling morale—all factors that strengthen the Greens' argument for suspension today. The Government is playing hardball in the IRC hearings and putting to the commission new arguments about the work that teachers do and its value. All those factors add to the need for the substantive motion to be debated and that is why I urge members to support the motion for suspension.

I have put some new arguments that would enable members to understand the need for suspension. The Catholic schools have reached agreement with the teachers on a statement of facts, but the public schoolteachers are being cross-examined on the very same set of facts. Suddenly the Government announced that the outcome-based assessment and reporting practices were voluntary—that came in the IRC as a surprise attack on teachers. Those further factors highlight the need for urgency, and members need to be aware of them in considering their vote on this motion. It is incumbent upon the House to debate these developments in public education.

The Government's actions in the past few weeks are relevant to our discussion; they are continuing now, and that is why I appeal to members of the Opposition and the crossbench to support the Greens' motion for suspension. We need to debate the substantive motion and highlight the Government's broken promises. I commend this suspension motion to the House. I suggest to members that if they vote against suspension they are effectively voting against our public schoolteachers. Their situation is critical and we are seeking to debate it. What is wrong with that? My suspension motion deserves support.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.25 a.m.]: I oppose the suspension of standing and sessional orders to bring on item No. 52 outside the Order of Precedence. I do so on the grounds I have cited several times over the past 4½ years in this House. On many occasions we have discussed the procedure for dealing with private members' business on Thursdays. We have tried to establish a relatively fair system under which members of all parties, including the Independents, get a reasonably fair go in introducing private members' business. Repeatedly, our time has been wasted by grandstanding efforts to bring on items way outside the Order of Precedence, such as this one, which is No. 52. Today we are supposed to be discussing other matters. Item No. 1 inside the Order of Precedence is the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Joint Parliamentary Committee) Bill, in which I have expressed an interest.

I am very anxious to talk about the Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill, as Mr Ian Cohen, the proponent of the bill, well knows. As well, I have begun my speech on item No. 4, the Family Impact Commission Bill. Debate has begun on numerous items on the list. For example, the Hon. Christine Robertson has begun debate on the Pacific Highway upgrade, a very important matter. The Hon. Melinda Pavey, from The Nationals, has begun debate on the Queanbeyan hospital, and so on. Members use the forms of this House to grandstand on issues—not because of their intrinsic importance or urgency but because members want to tell their constituency what they are doing—knowing that their motion may not necessarily succeed.

Numerous members objected when, towards the end of her diatribe, Lee Rhiannon said in effect that if we do not support her motion we are voting against the teachers. Numerous members vehemently objected to that statement. With 52 or more items on the Notice Paper—and more were added today—voting against gazumping the order of precedence does not mean that members do not care about an issue that is sought to be brought on out of order. I defer to no-one in my concern for TAFE or the role of the Teachers Federation. I note that, as is usual with the Greens, we heard an emotional speech about how important the motion is and how we do not care about it if we do not vote for it. The fact is that item No. 27 in the Order of Precedence, a motion by another member of the Greens, deals precisely with the same issue: TAFE.

I do not know whether there is a new split among the Greens between Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon, similar to the split that we have always had between Ms Lee Rhiannon and Mr Ian Cohen. Honourable members would be aware that Mr Ian Cohen has on the notice paper notice of motion No. 5 relating to the Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill. It is amusing, to say the least, that Ms Lee Rhiannon's notice of motion No. 52 has suddenly become more important than Ms Sylvia Hale's notice of motion No. 27. Other items on the notice paper relate to education and to a number of other issues.

Leaving aside the subject matter of Ms Lee Rhiannon's notice of motion, we have yet again to consider the way in which private members' business is hijacked. Members are not able to make plans to deliver speeches on Thursday on relevant issues. A number of honourable members—I do not think Ms Lee Rhiannon is the only one by any means—have combined to distort the spirit of the rules that have been introduced. One of those things is the way in which certain matters—which are on the notice paper to earn what are colloquially called brownie points—are continually postponed or adjourned. It is not the intention of some honourable members—it is never expected by them—that those matters will be passed. Ms Lee Rhiannon frequently adjourns matters for debate, as does Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. We are now debating for the fourth time the Family Impact Commission Bill. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Cohen Mr Tingle

Mr Breen Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Colless Mr Costa Ms Cusack Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher

Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Robertson Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans negatived:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 6 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Crimes Amendment (Corporate Manslaughter) Bill, be called on forthwith.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: Previous Presidents have ruled that members must not wear badges in the Chamber that are larger in size than the Legislative Council badge. I draw your attention, Madam President, to the badge being worn by the Hon. Sylvia Hale.

Ms Sylvia Hale: I have taken it off.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I withdraw my point of order.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [11.40 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales Act 1901 to authorise the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales to apply to be registered as a public company limited by guarantee under the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 and to alter its membership structure.

The Royal Blind Society began operations as the Sydney Industrial Blind Institution in 1879. The Institution was incorporated by an Act of New South Wales Parliament in 1901 and renamed the Royal Sydney Industrial Blind Institution in 1946. It became the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales in 1952.

Today the Royal Blind Society is the major service provider in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory for children and adults who are blind or vision impaired. It is a not-for-profit organisation that relies heavily on donations from the community and the support of volunteers.

In 2002, the Royal Blind Society entered into negotiations with the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind and Vision Australia Foundation to form one national organisation catering to the needs of children and adults who are blind or vision impaired.

The Royal Blind Society's present status as a body corporate constituted under a New South Wales Act poses legal difficulties for its participation in the national body. The Royal Blind Society Council considers that converting to a Corporations Act company will better meet the needs of the organisation. Therefore the solicitors for Royal Blind Society wrote to the Government requesting amendments to the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales Act 1901 to assist with the conversion process.

The Royal Blind Society called a special general meeting of members on 17 July 2003 to consider resolutions to convert the Royal Blind Society to a public company limited by guarantee registered under the Corporations Act 2001 and to change its membership base.

The meeting was well advertised in the Australian and the Daily Telegraph newspapers, on 2RPH Radio and on the Royal Blind Society's website. An explanatory statement, draft constitution and issues paper were also available to members on request. Information was also mailed out to members and persons who have requested to be kept informed about the Royal Blind Society and to other stakeholders. At the general meeting, Royal Blind Society members overwhelmingly supported the proposal.

A body corporate constituted under a NSW Act can be registered as a company under the Corporations Act 2001 using the provisions of Part 5B.1 of that Act. This Bill sets out the process for the Royal Blind Society to convert to a public company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001.

The Australian Gas-Light Company (AGL) went through a similar conversion process in 2002 using the AGL Corporate Conversion Act 2002. The Royal Blind Society will follow a similar but less complex process to AGL as unlike AGL, it is already a body corporate. Secondly, as AGL had operations throughout mainland Australia and in other countries across the energy sector, there was a need for compliance provisions to ensure that no investor could take unfair advantage of the corporate conversion process.

The Royal Blind Society conversion process involves members of the Royal Blind Society passing a registration resolution that the Society be registered as a public company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001, and members approving a new constitution.

Once the resolution is passed, the Royal Blind Society can apply to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to be registered as a public company limited by guarantee.

The Bill also authorises the Royal Blind Society to continue to use its existing name after it is registered. This is necessary as a Corporations Act company is normally required to include the word "limited" in its name and is normally not allowed to use the word "Royal" in its name.

The Bill also makes a number of amendments to the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales Act 1901.

The objects of the Society are set out in the Act. They limit the Society's activities and do not specifically allow the Society to undertake commercial ventures and other arrangements when providing assistance to blind and vision impaired people. The change to the objects clause made by the Bill will facilitate the Society's participation in the national association.

The Act currently provides that there are 3 classes of members: honorary life members, life members and ordinary members. A person becomes an honorary life member if the council of management of the Royal Blind Society confers such membership. A person becomes a life member by making a donation of at least $1000. A person becomes an ordinary member until 30 June of the next year following the date of the donation or the conclusion of the next annual general meeting following the date of the donation, whichever is the later, simply by donating at least $10, but less than $1000.

The Royal Blind Society believes that the majority of its donors are not aware that they become members of the organisation when they donate funds to the Society.

The Bill will provide that the members of the Society will be the current members of the Council and anyone over 18 years of age who is admitted to membership after lodging an application form and paying a $10 annual membership fee.

The Bill will allow special arrangements to be made for the giving of notice of the meeting that will consider the registration resolution. It will enable a meeting to be held without the usual advertisements, if every member who is entitled to vote gives written approval to the meeting being held without advertising, before the meeting is held.
A number of miscellaneous provisions have been included in the Bill to facilitate the registration process such as giving relief from State tax for the registration process and giving a regulation making power.

The Bill continues the longstanding Government policy to assist charitable organisations by sponsoring legislation in relation to their organisation and affairs.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.40 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Royal Blind Society (Corporate Conversion) Bill, which will allow the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales to seek registration as a company limited by guarantee under Commonwealth corporations legislation. The bill also makes further provisions in respect of membership of the Royal Blind Society and various other matters upon which I will touch briefly. The Royal Blind Society is the major service provider in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory for children and adults who are blind or visually impaired. It is a not-for-profit organisation that relies heavily on donations from the community and the support of volunteers. In 2002 the Royal Blind Society entered into negotiations with the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind and Vision Australia Foundation to form one national organisation.

The Royal Blind Society's present status as a body corporate constituted under a New South Wales Act poses legal difficulties for its participation in a national body. The Royal Blind Society council considers that converting to a corporations law company will better meet the needs of the organisation. This bill sets out the process for the Royal Blind Society's conversion to a public company, limited by guarantee under Commonwealth corporations law. This process involves members of the Royal Blind Society passing a resolution that the society be registered as a public company and then approving a new constitution. Once the resolution is passed the society can apply to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to be registered as a public company. The bill also authorises the Royal Blind Society to continue to use its existing name after it is registered.

The bill makes a number of amendments to the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales Act 1901. A new section will set out the objects of the society and make it clear that the society may engage in commercial ventures and other arrangements in pursuing its objectives and engage in activities both within and outside the State. Furthermore, a new section of the Act will provide for changes to the membership structure of the society, although membership will continue to be available to anyone upon application. The solicitors for the Royal Blind Society wrote to the Government requesting amendments to the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales Act 1901 to assist its conversion to a public company. The Royal Blind Society held a special general meeting of members on 17 July 2003 to consider motions to convert to a public company and to change the society's membership base. The general meeting was well advertised and Royal Blind Society members voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal by 484 votes in favour to 28 votes against. The Opposition supports the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.43 a.m.]: The purpose of the Royal Blind Society (Corporate Conversion) Bill is essentially to convert a longstanding charitable organisation, the Royal Blind Society, to a corporation. The Government does not specify why this change is considered likely to "better meet the needs of the organisation", but the clear implication is that it will allow the society to market products and services more effectively. This activity is increasingly important for charitable organisations, both large and small, in the context of today's increasingly competitive funding environment. The occasion of the corporate conversion of the Royal Blind Society is an opportunity for us, as a Parliament, to ask ourselves whether we are providing sufficient support to people with vision impairment and other special needs.

The increasing role of the society and similar non-profit organisations in providing services to people with disabilities is a double-edged sword. The positive side is that these organisations are able to provide more appropriate care than governments can, particularly when they operate on principles of self-management and ensure the participation of people with disabilities in providing their own services. Unfortunately, the shifting of these responsibilities to non-profit organisations can cover up the failure of the Government to make proper provision for services. The non-profit sector is stretched to the limit, and the Government is placing increasing pressure on the goodwill, skills and volunteer time of those working in these organisations to patch the holes in our welfare system. These organisations should not be expected to turn to marketing or donations to support the provision of services that should, by rights, be the responsibility of government. Non-profit activities can play a vital and active role in the human services and welfare areas but they should not bear the burden of a reluctant government.

The Greens support the bill but we believe the corporate conversion of this charitable organisation sounds a note of caution in reviewing the relationship between governments and charities in the welfare sector overall. The Royal Blind Society appears to have followed an accountable decision-making process in reaching this position. The society is entitled to define its own organisational structure, regardless of the fact that Parliament must implement it. As such, the Greens are happy to support the bill.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [11.46 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. I commend the Royal Blind Society (Corporate Conversion) Bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Costa agreed to:

That these bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Second readings ordered to stand as orders of the day.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [11.50 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce this bill which provides for extending the lapsing period for State significant development consents, and voluntarily surrendering development consents.

Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, there are generally two types of development: State significant development and local development.

State significant development tends to be bigger, more complex, and more capital intensive than local development. It is also a major generator of jobs, and tends to involve major companies that make decisions on whether or not to invest in one project or another on a global—rather than local—basis.

Since 1995, the State government has approved over 180 State significant projects.

These projects have included a vast array of development in the agricultural, manufacturing and mining sectors – including paper mills; smelters; food processing plants; abattoirs; transport terminals; port facilities; and gold, copper, and coal mines.

Together, these projects have a capital investment value of over $11 billion, and have generated (or will generate) over 16,500 fulltime jobs.

Since March this year, the Minister has approved over 15 State significant projects with a capital investment of nearly $440 million, and the potential to create 2,000 jobs.
At present, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources is assessing about 40 State significant development applications with a capital investment value of $2.4 billion, and the potential to create over 2,000 jobs.

In the next year, the Department is expecting to receive at least 40 State significant development applications with a capital investment value of over $4billion, and the potential to create between 3 and 4,000 fulltime jobs.

Clearly State significant development forms the backbone of the State's economy; it is the engine that drives growth; and it is crucial for the continued prosperity of NSW.

Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, a development consent lapses after 5 years if the development has not physically commenced.

A consent authority may only extend the lapsing period by 1 year if the original consent was granted for less than 5 years.

State significant development projects typically require a number of licences, permits and approvals in addition to any development consent; and these consents, licences, permits and approvals are all vulnerable to legal proceedings.

These legal proceedings can delay the physical commencement of development, and make it harder to attract investment for large projects by creating uncertainty and reducing the attractiveness of these projects relative to other projects across the globe.

In some cases, they may even prevent the physical commencement of the development before the consent lapses; and if this occurs, companies are currently required to apply further resources in lodging a fresh development application for the project, even if they are successful in the legal proceedings.

In the competitive global market, this is likely to be a disincentive to investment in NSW, and could result in the loss of jobs and significant economic benefits.

The Cowal Gold Project is located in western NSW, and has a capital investment value of $330 million. It is expected to generate over 300 construction jobs, 200 operational jobs, and significant economic benefits for the.

The Minister approved the project in February 1999, after a Commission of Inquiry and comprehensive merit assessment, involving several Commonwealth, State and local government agencies.

Since January 2002, the owner—Barrick Gold—has been involved in 14 legal proceedings on various aspects of the Project, including 3 separate judicial reviews under Commonwealth native title statues.

I understand that even further legal proceedings commenced this week.

To date, all but one of these proceedings have either been dismissed or discharged.

However, even though these legal proceedings have been partly or wholly unsuccessful, they have delayed the physical commencement of the project to the extent that it may not be possible to start construction before 24 March 2004, when the consent lapses.

In other words, there is a real danger that the Cowal Gold Project may not be able to proceed, even though the Company is keen to proceed, and has gained all the necessary approvals for the Project.

Clearly, this is unacceptable.

This bill will amend the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, to give the Minister for Infrastructure & Planning the power to extend the five year lapsing period for State significant development consents.

Applications for extensions cannot be made to the Minister until 12 months before the date on which the consent would otherwise lapse.

Before approving an application to extend the lapsing period, I will have to be satisfied that one or more legal proceedings have been brought by third parties; that these proceedings were ultimately wholly or partly unsuccessful, or remain unresolved; and that it is appropriate to extend the lapsing period.

There will be no right of appeal from the decision.

Any extension will take effect from the date of the decision.

A consent which is due to lapse after an application is made to the Minister but before the Minister determines that application, will be taken not to have lapsed if it is ultimately approved.

The Minister will have the power to extend the lapsing period only by an amount of time commensurate with the period of delay caused by the relevant legal proceedings.

In effect, the Minister will be able to 'stop the clock' running on the lapsing period.

The maximum period for which the extension can be granted is 3 years.

The new provisions will apply to existing development consents granted for State significant development, and to legal proceedings on foot prior to the commencement of the proposed amendments.
In summary, this proposal will allow the standard five year lapsing period to be extended to eight years.

It is important to note that this proposal does not diminish any existing statutory right under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, or any common law right to initiate legal proceedings.

Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, there is currently no express provision for a development consent to be surrendered voluntarily.

The bill will make it clear that a development consent may be surrendered voluntarily at any time, including where an appeal has been commenced in the Land and Environment Court under s97 or s98 of the EP&A Act.

An applicant can only voluntarily surrender a development consent if there are no continuing obligations under the consent in the opinion of the consent authority.

The Minister in the other House moved amendments to this bill which are minor editing changes. One amendment reflects greater certainty as to what proceedings may be counted as relevant legal proceedings. The current draft Bill is not clear as to the inclusion of the time period from when a hearing has ceased until judgment. Another amendment has the inclusion of the phrase "or by the court or tribunal concerned dismissing the proceeding". The inclusion of this phrase gives greater clarity to what type of proceeding is a relevant legal proceeding. The final amendment introduces the phrase "sought relief". It is thought that this phrase encompasses a greater range of proceedings, especially in terms of judicial review proceedings.

Finally, the bill provides for amendments to the Regulations, and makes any necessary consequential amendments necessary.

The Minister moved minor amendments to the bill in the Legislative Assembly. One of the amendments gives greater certainty as to what may be counted as relevant legal proceedings. The draft bill was not clear as to the inclusion of the time period for when a hearing has ceased until judgment. Another amendment included the phrase "or by the court or tribunal concerned dismissing the proceeding". The inclusion of that phrase gives greater clarity to what type of proceeding is a relevant legal proceeding. The final amendment introduces the phrase "sought relief". It is thought that this phrase encompasses a greater range of proceedings, especially in relation to the judicial review proceedings.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.50 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Development Consents) Bill. The Opposition understands the importance of this bill to industry in this State and to companies that want to do business in New South Wales. This bill deals with major investment proposals that are considered to be of State significance. Companies will be provided a greater measure of certainty if they are considering investing in New South Wales. At the moment New South Wales is not entirely a favourable place in which to do business. The Opposition wants to give a clear message to business that New South Wales wants investment. The important Cowal gold project in regional New South Wales, which was identified in the Minister's second reading speech, will be granted an extension to its development consent. The caveat to the Opposition wanting investment, particularly in regional areas, is that it has to be appropriate to the environment and must meet acceptable conditions.

The Opposition acknowledges that the Lake Cowal project has a long history and will be the first project to be impacted upon by this bill. The Opposition compliments the proponents of that proposal for, in the vernacular, sticking it out in New South Wales, given that the process began in 1995 and has not yet come to fruition. North Ltd lodged its development application in October 1995, as was appropriate for a project of that magnitude, and it was referred to a commission of inquiry. The commission of inquiry handed down its results early the following year, but that did not mean consent was granted. Consent from the Minister did not come until December 1997, and the proposal was granted approval under State environmental planning policy 34. The purpose of this bill is to enable the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning to extend the period within which work must be commenced before development consent for certain State-significant development lapses. It also provides for voluntary surrender of development consents.

As a consequence of legal action, development of the Cowal gold project has not yet commenced and has been tied up in the courts effectively since approval was granted, yet under current legislation the development consent was for five years. It is not appropriate that development should lapse if it has not commenced in that time because ongoing legal disputes have precluded it from commencing. The purpose of this bill is to allow another three years for the project to commence, subject to an extension being granted by the Minister only for a period of time equal to that for which the project has been held up in court. It is not an open-ended three years and it does not mean an effective extension of eight years. It is in response to the effect of ongoing legal action. The Cowal gold project is worth close to $300 million and will provide a significant number of jobs in western New South Wales. The Opposition agrees with the Government that the project would benefit New South Wales.

As a result of the many ongoing legal actions, particularly taken by the Wiradjuri elder Neville Williams, the project has been threatened. Unless construction commences before the approval lapses on 24 March 2004 it could potentially be lost to New South Wales. That would be regrettable, and the Opposition does not want that to occur. For that reason the Opposition will not oppose the bill. I note that the Greens have foreshadowed an amendment that would be specific to the Cowal gold project. I say to the Greens: When specific legislation deals only with a particular project it is far better to strengthen legislation based on principles. It should be remembered that with matters of State significance, almost without exception, development consent will be given only after a commission of inquiry, when the merit of the development has been given wide consideration. If those matters are held up in court for a variety of reasons, we deem as appropriate five years for normal consideration with the possibility of another three years extension. The Cowal gold project is worth approximately $300 million and is important to the economy of New South Wales

More specifically, the foreshadowed Greens amendment is not site specific but is general. The Minister's second reading speech confirms that the first project that will be impacted upon by this bill is the Cowal gold project. I have not canvassed this matter with the shadow Minister, but I believe that if the principles are right, as a matter of principle its application ought to go beyond those developments of State significance. I suspect that many things are under review. We note that the Government has not yet made decisions about PlanFirst, which has been under review since the election. There is a significant degree of uncertainty about the planning system in New South Wales, which is not to the credit of this Government. PlanFirst was a bold initiative but it has not proved to be entirely practicable. We are now in the process of making significant amendments to the 1979 environmental planning and assessment legislation arising out of individual cases, but dealing with them as principles would be a better way to go.

The Opposition believes that certainty for business is essential, but against a clear background of consideration of appropriate environmental matters—in this case, after a commission of inquiry and consideration of all relevant aspects of the merit of the proposal. The Opposition will not support the Greens amendments. Sometimes the Greens amendments are appropriate and we can support them, but at other times we fundamentally oppose them because they lack logic. In this instance the Greens amendments lack logic. I was surprised by comments made by some environmental groups.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Transport Services. Can the Minister give his iron-clad guarantee to the residents of and visitors to the far North Coast that the Sydney to Murwillumbah and Murwillumbah to Casino train services will be retained, and will not be downgraded, following the imminent release of the Parry report?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I refer to my previous answer on matters to do with the Parry report.

The Hon. TONY BURKE: I address my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.Will the Minister update the House on the recent science advances in the Wagga Wagga region?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question and note that in his capacity as Chair of the State Development Committee he recently visited science institutes in the area and has a good insight into how NSW Agriculture promotes first-rate science in this State for the benefit of the farming community and, inevitably, the entire community. As I have emphasised often in the past, I believe agriculture deserves to be recognised as the bedrock of our society. It is a multibillion-dollar sector of the State's economy, and is a major employer, particularly in rural and regional areas. But a profitable and sustainable agricultural future depends on advancing our technology. Technology allows our agricultural industries to remain competitive and improve product quality. That is why it gave me great pleasure to announce recently two separate advances in technology in the Riverina region.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You closed the Murrumbidgee Agricultural College.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not done that. Firstly, I was pleased to open the new state-of-the-art training laboratories at the National Wine and Grape Industry Centre at Wagga Wagga. The centre operates through an innovative partnership between the New South Wales Wine Industry Association, NSW Agriculture, Charles Sturt University and Deakin University. The New South Wales Government and the Australian National Training Authority jointly fund the new laboratories at the centre. The laboratories will give hands-on, practical experience to the many committed people driving our wine industry. Most New South Wales residents appreciate the picturesque site of rows of healthy grape vines heavy with fruit. Most, I am sure, also appreciate a fine glass of New South Wales wine with dinner. I am certain my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, does.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, but it is not as expensive as yours.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Mine is not expensive.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Your sauvignon blanc?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Sauvignon blanc is cheaper than the chardonnay that the honourable member drinks—much cheaper. Indeed, if he were drinking any bottle of red, it would be far more expensive than any glass of sauvignon blanc. However, not all New South Wales residents would be aware of the skill and experience that is necessary to support our very important wine industry. This sort of training will be critical in expanding the size and international reputation of New South Wales wines. Already the industry has tripled in size over the past decade. As it stands, the New South Wales wine industry boasts more than 37,000 hectares of vines and accounts for nearly one-third of Australia's total wine production. It generates $700 million in domestic production and more than $440 million in exports. Add the income generated by tourism, and it is worth well over $2 billion per year to the New South Wales economy. I look forward to seeing this industry achieve even more of its potential.

In another development, last Friday I opened the first stage of a new $710,000 laboratory in Wagga Wagga which will speed up the time it takes to breed better varieties of wheat crops. The laboratory is part of the Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute. It will look at crops including wheat, barley, canola and lupins—which are worth more than $2 billion a year to the State's economy. The laboratory will help identify and create genetic markers for different plant characteristics. The technology has been moving fast in recent years, and we need to keep moving with it. For example, NSW Agriculture recently analysed six of these genetic markers in 1,000 barley plants. The research team collected 6,000 pieces of data on characteristics such as disease resistance and acid soil tolerance. In the past it would have taken several weeks to collect such a large amount of information. With this world-class technology, it took just eight days.

I would like to point out that this laboratory is a highlight of the New South Wales Government's BioFirst Strategy, which will inject $68 million into developing biotechnology. This is vital research. It will help farmers around New South Wales to tailor their crops to their advantage. I welcome the continued support of the Government and the Department of Agriculture for this research. I look forward to updating the House on future developments in this area.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries approached him seeking further assistance for the State's drought-affected farmers when the State Government's drought assistance package runs out in December this year? If so, when did the Minister first approach him seeking this assistance? Can the Treasurer confirm whether this assistance will be granted? Can he also explain why the 2003-04 State budget did not initially provide for drought assistance beyond December 2003? Is he further aware that drought conditions throughout New South Wales have increased by 2 percentage points to 78.9 per cent, with some regions receiving less rainfall this year than last year? Will the Treasurer guarantee that the State's drought-affected farmers will not be left high and dry due to his Government's short-sightedness and lack of preparation?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: One thing New South Wales farmers can be sure of is that they will always be better looked after by a Labor government in New South Wales than by a Coalition government. We all recall how the Federal Government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, before it provided any assistance at all to drought-stricken farmers. We recall also—I might inform some members who were elected at the last election—that Opposition members in this place did not ask a single question about the drought until they were taken to task by me. Then, of course, we saw a flood of questions over the following couple of weeks. But the drought had been under way for about 12 months before the Opposition members asked any questions at all about it.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asks whether in recent times the Minister for Agriculture has made approaches to me about further finance for drought and other matters. I might tell honourable members that the Minister for Agriculture is the most diligent Minister for Agriculture since his predecessor! And he was a very good Minister. All Labor Ministers for Agriculture in this State have made their conservative predecessors look inept by comparison. So I congratulate the Hon. Ian Macdonald for the work he does on behalf of the State's farmers.

One of the difficulties of being the Treasurer of New South Wales—indeed, I suspect, being Treasurer in any jurisdiction—is that never a day goes by when your colleagues are not asking for more money. That is part of the human condition. It is also part of what you learn in your first lesson in economics at high school: there are infinite demands but there are finite resources. Unfortunately, that is the dilemma that I have to deal with day in and day out. I can assure the House that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is always knocking on my door, seeking a better deal for farmers in New South Wales.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. If the people of New South Wales are to accept the Treasurer's assertion, will he detail the exact dates and correspondence relating to his assurance?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am inclined to refer to a speech that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made in this House last night on the budget estimates. He made a complete fool of himself. He referred to a brilliant interview on a late-night radio program between my colleague the Hon. Ian Macdonald and, I think, Stan Zemanek. Before the State budget was delivered the Hon. Ian Macdonald accurately predicted that there would be a lot of money for farmers in drought relief payments. Indeed, the Leader of The Nationals in this State took the Hon. Ian Macdonald to task for saying that tens of millions of dollars would be provided. A couple of sentences later the Deputy Leader of the Opposition conceded that in fact tens of millions of dollars were made available, for the first half of the year.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Will the Minister for Local Government give an undertaking that the local government elections will not be delayed yet again, given that they have already been delayed from September this year to March next year? If not, what is the latest date the Minister will inform councils and the voting public of further deferrals beyond the 27 March election date, given that it is only five months away?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Government has no intention of having a general deferral of the local government election date. The other process will depend on what the Boundaries Commission comes up with and whether it recommends any changes.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. If the Minister can write to Hunters Hill council as he did last week assuring it that he has rejected a hostile takeover proposal from Ryde council and will not therefore—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: This is clearly not a supplementary question; it is a separate question. The first question did not mention Hunters Hill and Ryde councils, and the Minister's answer certainly did not mention them. I suggest that the honourable member should wait her time, ask another question and not try to masquerade a new question as a supplementary question. I would ask that you rule the question out of order.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question, had I been allowed to finish it, goes to the certainty of the dates of the forthcoming local government elections.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have ruled on many occasions, supplementary questions must not contain new information. Put simply, their purpose is to seek elucidation of an answer already given. The question is out of order.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Will the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council please inform the House about the New South Wales Government's BioFirst Strategy and its impact in the regions?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Honourable members will recall that in 2001 the Premier launched the Government's BioFirst strategy—the $68 million, five-year strategy to grow and develop the State's biotechnology industry. It is a very sensible strategy, as one would expect, that is assisting the development of biotechnology not only in Sydney but also, I am very pleased to say, throughout regional New South Wales. If there is one thing that this Government cares about it is regional New South Wales. It is an interest that we have that the Opposition does not have. Under the Regional Biotechnology Outreach Program the Department of State and Regional Development is assisting with the commercialisation of the State's regional biotechnology. An historic agreement on the commercialisation of research was signed last month by the Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga City Council and Australian Technology Park Innovations.

The agreement will give Charles Sturt University access to critical expertise in evaluating the commercial viability of research and provide new ways to do this. The signing will help build a presence in the Sydney market for Charles Sturt University technology and will provide access to new business opportunities for the university and for Wagga Wagga, opportunities that will ultimately benefit the Wagga Wagga community and economy. I believe that this is an exciting initiative for the university's Wagga Wagga based researchers, particularly those in two of the areas of research strength, namely, agriculture and medical biotechnology. The concept for this relationship developed out of a visit to Wagga Wagga by Dr Mark Bradley, the chief executive officer of Australian Technology Park Innovations, together with representatives of the New South Wales Innovation Council in June 2002.

The partnership with the university provides a unique opportunity for Australian Technology Park Innovations to extend its research into regional Australia. It is hoped that with the experience gained through this agreement it can provide a commercialisation model that can be replicated in other regions of New South Wales. Australian Technology Park Innovations manages the BioFirst biotechnology business precinct at Redfern, which delivers business acceleration services to New South Wales biotechnology companies involved in the development of biomedical devices, biomaterials and bioinformatics. The New South Wales Government has committed $2.5 million to the biotech business precinct over five years, an amount being matched by Australian Technology Park Innovations. The partnership with Charles Sturt University—one of the great universities of this State—and the university on which I think the Hon. Tony Catanzariti serves as a member of the council representing this Parliament—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is a graduate, and I served on the first board of governors.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is good to know.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It has improved since those days, hasn't it?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It has always been a good university. I am sure that the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner did the university great credit when she was a student there, and indeed subsequently. I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also served an important role in the university's development. By the way, they produce some good wine, too.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Good reds.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, the stuff you drink, not the political variety. The partnership with Charles Sturt University and Wagga Wagga City Council recognises the quality of research that is carried out in regional New South Wales and gives Australian Technology Park Innovations the opportunity to open up new business opportunities and create jobs in regional New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: Is the Minister for Emergency Services aware that some of the recent bushfires were deliberately lit? What powers of arrest do bush fire brigade firefighters have should they encounter a pyromaniac in the course of their duty? Do they have the power to restrain someone they believe is setting fires on purpose? Is the Minister aware that they cannot detain the fire lighter or even hose him down? Is the Minister aware that volunteer firefighters have no right of citizen's arrest even if they encounter a pyromaniac?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is a very good question. I will take it on notice and get an answer for the honourable member as soon as possible.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: Does the Minister for Disability Services recall writing to the Leader of the Opposition on 13 December 2002 stating, "I can confirm that DADHC is working to meet the original time frame for the relocation of residents from the Mannix Children's Centre by 30 June 2003"? Why is it that four months after this deadline only one child has moved from the Mannix centre? Why have I had five parent representatives in my office, who are now sitting in the gallery, telling me that the centre is constantly staffed by an endless string of casuals, that there are no plans or time frames in place for the relocation of their children, that they have been given endless delays and unfulfilled promises and that there is little chance of any of these young people moving out of the centre during the next 12 months? What action will the Minister take to make sure that the centre closes as the Government promised?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. John Ryan for his important question about the devolution of the Mannix Children's Centre and, in particular, about the young people accommodated in the centre. I advise the House that the department took over the management of Whitehall and Mannix centres on 16 December 2002 at the request of the former operator, the Intellectually and Physically Handicapped Children's Association of New South Wales. The department and the board of the association worked together to ensure a smooth transition. Management of the centre was transferred to ensure the ongoing safety and welfare of the residents. The Mannix centre currently accommodates 26 people. Six properties have been purchased to accommodate clients from Mannix and Whitehall centres, and work has commenced on required modifications to those properties. Plans are under way in consultation with residents and their families to arrange long-term and appropriate community-based support for all residents.

The honourable member raised some specific issues, which I take seriously. I take those on board and undertake to obtain further information. I might just say with regard to issues such as this that I have stated on any number of occasions my view on the way to resolve them. The shadow Minister has come to my office on many occasions about particular issues. I am sure that generally he has found my office and me, and the department I administer, to be responsive to his concerns. I think that the appropriate way to deal with issues such as this and his concerns over this matter would be for him to approach me and ask me to look into the matters, which I would be more than willing to do. Nonetheless, the honourable member has raised issues of concern. I undertake to look into those matters immediately and obtain some further updated information from the department.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister able to inform the House why the Government has not met the deadline of 30 June 2003?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I have indicated that I will undertake to get some further information. With regard to devolution at Mannix or other centres, time frames are set with the aim of working towards meeting them. But the reality is that matters can intervene and impact on capacity to meet those time frames, including finding appropriate accommodation and working with families to meet their needs and expectations, and a range of other issues. The Government has gone beyond the time frame, but to say that it indicates a lack of commitment on the part of the Government is simply untrue. As I have said, the honourable member has raised some important issues, and I will undertake to obtain some further information for him.

The Hon. IAN WEST: Will the Minister for Justice advise the House of the role played by the Department of Corrective Services in controlling bushfires?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Honourable members will recall that earlier this year I criticised the Opposition for having announced a policy of upgrading minimum security inmates to medium security at a cost of $247 million, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars worth of valuable community work. I indicated that that policy ran contrary to even what Michael Yabsley was arguing for. I was interested to read the report of the shadow Minister following his 42-day overseas trip. He commented on the role of overseas corrections organisations in bushfires and the whole question of minimum security inmates. He stated:

The Californian model of 'Prisons without Walls' would be an appropriate option to apply here in New South Wales... they act as firefighters, and make up inmate fire crews and help extinguish hundreds of wildfires each year in California...

In New South Wales we are fortunate to have volunteers in the SES and Rural Fire Service who augment full time emergency workers. There are clearly occasions when additional personnel such as inmate teams could be used to augment those resources in the circumstances of bushfires and disasters...
Inmates could be utilised in repairing fences and clearing to protect and rehabilitate rural properties from fire damage... clearly they are a force that could be harnessed in a range of reforestation wildlife preservation projects. If offenders were to participate in what would end up being a rigorous army style 'boot camp' or 'bush camp' regime, not only are they to contribute something back to society, they can also develop some skills and learn a stronger work ethic.

I do not know how that can be done if all inmates are put up from minimum security to medium security, but in any event I congratulate the shadow Minister on apparently having resiled from his earlier announcement. It would, however, be rare if the shadow Minister, who is not only responsible for the Justice portfolio but also for Emergency Services, were able to familiarise himself with what the Department of Corrective Services does in this area. It would be of interest to him to know that there are firefighting efforts established in a number of centres, but in particular at Glen Innes, to assist the Rural Fire Service in fighting bushfires and in back-burning operations, and in assisting State Forests in general bush maintenance. This unit currently consists of 16 inmates and 6 staff, and it has access to one fire tanker and a pumper.

The Hon. John Ryan: That is one centre out of how many thousand?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will get to the other ones in a minute. During the 2002-03 bushfire season, this unit was called upon on numerous occasions to assist in controlling bushfires. For example, in October 2002 a major fire erupted in the pine forest that is adjacent to the centre. The fire was brought under control with the assistance of the centre's firefighting unit. Due to the quick response of the centre's staff and inmate fire crew, there was no loss of life, no damage to the centre, and the damage sustained to the pine plantation was less than anticipated by State Forests. I will outline some of the views expressed by the community. The Glen Innes Examiner stated:

Fires in the State Forest areas adjacent to the Glen Innes Correctional Centre... were controlled largely thanks to a contingent of Corrective Service officers and inmates from the centre.

A letter to the editor a few months later stated:

My brother Dean currently residing at Glen Innes Correctional Centre... has been fighting fires and chopping down trees... and has been offered a position in the State Forestry Commission upon his release... I can only put it down to the great people in Glen Innes and the Staff at the correctional centre who have seen the good in my brother. Once again thank you Glen Innes for being the great community that you are.

Acknowledgements have also come from State Forests, which has commended the work that is being done by the Glen Innes centre. Inmates from Cessnock and St Heliers correctional centres also provided backup to firefighters in the Hunter Valley during November and December last year. In the near future a firefighting unit will be established at the Oberon Correctional Centre with inmates initially being trained in firefighting, back-burning and hazard reduction. [Time expired.]

The Hon. IAN WEST: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister further elucidate on his answer?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: At the Kirkconnell Correctional Centre, inmates conduct hazard reduction in conjunction with State Forests on a regular basis. During January 2003 inmates and staff at the Cooma correctional centre were requested by the local community to assist with clearing areas around a church.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: This is not elucidation. The Minister is simply continuing to read from a document. It is obvious that his answer was prepared for a six-minute speech, not a four-minute speech.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have pointed out to members on numerous occasions, for a question to be in order a number of criteria must be fulfilled. However, for an answer to be in order only two criteria must be fulfilled: the answer must be relevant, and a member, in answering a question, must not debate the question. The Minister's answer is relevant and it is in order.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The area in question was around Jindabyne and was cleared of all debris by the working party in the most trying conditions. It was evident that if the area had not been cleared, the chances of saving the church and surrounding buildings would have been minimal. At Mannus Correctional Centre inmates assist in hazard reduction programs, and consideration is being given to establishment of a unit to assist in mopping-up operations. These are but a number of efforts that have been taken on by the Department of Corrective Services in the quest to control bushfires. I am pleased that those efforts have the support of the shadow Minister, even though he had to go overseas to find out their value.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services. Is the Minister a greenhouse sceptic? If so, do his views on climate change affect his actions in the Transport portfolio? Does the Minister acknowledge that the Premier's views are in direct contradiction to his?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: Clearly the question is out of order, because it asks the Minister for an opinion. Next we will have the Hon. Lee Rhiannon asking people for their opinions on religious dogma and all sorts of things. The question sought an opinion.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: My question did not ask for an opinion; it asked for the Minister to clearly state his views with regard to his portfolio.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question clearly asked for an opinion. New Standing Order 65 (2) (a) states that questions may not ask for an expression of opinion. The question is out of order.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. Why has no money been allocated to upgrade the Murwillumbah rail line, despite the Treasurer's 2001 promise to the New South Wales Farmers Association that $1.5 billion, including funds from the sale of FreightCorp, would be spent over three years on country tracks? Will the Minister inform the House where that $1.5 billion has been spent? Has the Minister been advised of the increasing numbers of B-double trucks on the Pacific Highway since the cessation of the freight rail service to Murwillumbah last year?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Treasurer answered that question yesterday. I refer the honourable member to that answer.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Can the Minister inform the House about the Third International Wildland Fire Conference and Exhibition and summit?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, I can and I will. New South Wales firefighting agencies are world renowned for their professionalism and expertise in fighting wildland or bushfires. The Third International Wildland Fire Conference and Exhibition was held this month at Darling Harbour. The Sydney conference was the first to be held in the Southern Hemisphere and was by any measure an enormous success. Wildland fire conferences are now regarded as the premier international forums on bushfire issues. Nearly 1,200 delegates representing 46 nations came to listen to 147 fire experts and tour 70 exhibits from global companies covering leading edge research and environmental, practical and managerial issues all affecting bushfire management around the world.

Keynote speakers were drawn from the United States of America, Malaysia, South Africa, Germany and Australia. Leaders in their fields addressed the delegates on issues including: hazard reduction and the need for compromise between the two extremes of "no burn" and "burn everything"; environmental impacts of fire, including wildfire, hazard reduction burns or the absence of fire; urban interface fire protection, community education and development and planning controls; international support during wildland fire events, particularly for the underdeveloped countries where infrastructure is minimal; and firefighters and community safety. I am proud to say that New South Wales Government agencies were heavily involved in the organisation of the event and provided expert speakers during the three days of the conference.

The New South Wales Rural Fire Service Commissioner, Phil Koperberg, was the chair of the organising committee, which comprised staff from the Rural Fire Service, New South Wales Fire Brigades, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests. Commissioner Koperberg also organised for 80 Rural Fire Service volunteers to attend the conference. I know that they all gained a valuable insight into leading-edge firefighting issues. Nations around the world are grappling with the same issues we find ourselves addressing in New South Wales today, and as mentioned this morning, that confront firefighters in California today. As development and lifestyle issues push more and more communities into bushland areas, the issues of fire management and suppression become more important. This, coupled with unprecedented fire activity right across the globe due to human and climatic causes, will continue to force us to approach bushfire issues with more innovative thinking, ever-increasing demands for resources and community support. I congratulate the organisers of that excellent forum, which I know has made a difference to fire readiness in New South Wales.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Has the Minister refused to meet citizens of Lake Cathie, south of Port Macquarie, to discuss the need for a primary school at Lake Cathie? Is the Minister aware of a recent report entitled "Demographic Update of Lake Cathie", which demonstrates the rapid population growth of the area, with a significant content of young families, and also underlines the need for a primary school? Given that the Department of Education and Training owns land for a school site at Lake Cathie, and given that the nearest primary school has an enrolment of children four times that for which it was designed, will the Minister agree to meet the Lake Cathie Future School Committee and explain why the area is being denied the primary school it obviously needs? If not, will be Minister explain why he will not discuss this with concerned local citizens?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I do not have any information on the matters that the Hon. John Tingle has raised. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Education and Training and undertake to get a response as soon as possible.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. In view of the fires taking place in California, about which the Minister moved a notice of motion earlier today, will the Minister advise whether the proposal to lease one Elvis-type helicopter and other medium-capacity aircraft has been revised? Did the Minister advise this House on 14 October that three aircraft, including one Elvis-type helicopter, were expected in New South Wales early next month? What is the current situation?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: There has been no change to the time frame for the arrival of the aircraft. The arrangements to bring Elvis-type helicopters to our State is part of a national aerial firefighting strategy between the Commonwealth and the States, to which, from memory, the Commonwealth Government has allocated about $5.5 million. As part of that strategy, New South Wales has been allocated one Elvis-type helicopter and two other planes. Victoria has been allocated an Elvis-type helicopter. My understanding is that the planes are on schedule to arrive in November.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister advise the House on what action the Government is taking to tackle the problem of homelessness in Sydney's west?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for her interest in the important matter of homelessness. Last week I was pleased to be invited to the launch of the first stage of a very important and much-needed reconfiguration of Parramatta men's services, involving St Vincent de Paul, Mission Australia and Parramatta Mission. The commitment and the sentiment expressed by the three key figures in those organisations—Patrick O'Flynn, Patrick McClure and Reverend Brian Smith respectively—were inspiring and, on their part, very heartfelt. Work on this important project began in February 2002 by local Supported Accommodation Assistance Program services with the aim of ensuring that homeless men were able to access quality services.

Through that project services and support for homeless men in Parramatta will be improved under a innovative plan that includes outreach street workers, support workers, case managers, a new exit housing strategy and a community cafe under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. To do this, total recurrent funding of more than $1.1 million has been allocated to St Vincent de Paul's Cardinal Freeman Centre and Parramatta Mission's Hope Hostel, both residential services for men in Parramatta, and to a Mission Australia project that involves a brokerage worker developing case plans for homeless people.

In addition to that support, $782,344 has been made available for a two-year pilot program aimed at improving support for homeless men and those at risk of becoming homeless in Parramatta. The two-year pilot involves outreach workers providing support to homeless people who use a new Meals Plus Community Café for those living on the streets; case managers supporting men using Hope Hostel; 10 new Department of Housing and Office of Community Housing transitional housing bed-sits for men leaving the Cardinal Freeman Centre and the Hope Hostel; Mission Australia's case management team helping those men find long-term accommodation and a job; and, finally, a keycard security system at Hope Hostel and the Cardinal Freeman Centre, so men can have individual lockable rooms, where possible. The Parramatta partnership between government and non-government agencies is a clear demonstration of how homeless services are changing to better meet the needs of homeless people and people who are vulnerable to homelessness.

To summarise, this project seeks to provide men with much more than just a bed for a night. We have been providing homeless men with a bed for a night but we have not done an awful lot to move them out of the homelessness cycle. It is important to develop new and innovative ways of working together to provide flexible and responsive services. All services, both government and non-government, must make a greater effort to identify communities and individuals that are vulnerable to homelessness, and that is what this project will achieve.

It is a great example of the Government's genuine commitment to intervene early to prevent people from entering into a cycle of homelessness and to provide services that are co-ordinated and strongly linked with accommodation, health, employment and other support services. The New South Wales Department of Community Services administers the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program agreement on behalf of the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments. Over 400 community-based supported accommodation assistance projects are funded at more than $100 million. Supported Accommodation Assistance Program funding and projects help some of the most vulnerable people in community. The men's services that are being developed by the Parramatta Homelessness Coalition will ensure that better support is made available to homeless people or those at risk of homelessness. I congratulate the coalition and thank it for its hard work.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Will the Minister inform the House whether any leases or agreements of any kind are being negotiated, have been proposed, or have already been signed, between the New South Wales Government and the Mawland Group? If there are, what kinds of leases or proposals are they and in what exact geographical area are they applicable?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member has asked a detailed question, which I will refer to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. How many submissions has the Minister received in response to the draft habitat protection plan for Wallaga Lake that have related specifically to the water quality of the lake? Can the Minister confirm that he has given an undertaking to the Wallaga Lake Estuary Management Committee and the South East Water Quality Committee to employ a PhD student to undertake a study of the water quality of Wallaga Lake in the Bega shire? When was that commitment made? Has the Minister employed a PhD student to carry out that research? When is the project due to commence?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government is examining this issue, which has been raised in the past. I also dealt with it during the estimates committee process.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister inform the House of the impact on our farmers of the recent recommendations of the National Competition Council to the Federal Government?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Honourable members would be aware that in September the Government received submissions from the National Competition Council, which made certain recommendations to the Federal Government about a number of pieces of legislation in New South Wales. The Government is concerned about two of those recommendations. The National Competition Council suggested that a penalty of $12.86 million be imposed on New South Wales if two pieces of legislation were not altered. Those pieces of legislation are, of course, the Farm Debt Mediation Act and the Poultry Meat Industry Act. The National Competition Council is proposing to impose a hefty penalty—$12.86 million for each piece of legislation—on New South Wales.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are a very lax Minister.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, by way of interjection, is referring to the work that the Government has done. I went public on this issue as soon as I was able to do so. The Government does not accept the recommendations that have been made by the National Competition Council. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes outrageous statements all over the place in an attempt to try to claim some credit for this. The Government won on this issue. The Federal Government will have to back down and cease its outrageous attack on the farming sector in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government presented a strong submission to the Federal Government.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was hopeless.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not read this Government's submission. One need only visit Peter Costello's office to see just how he is twisting and turning in an attempt to evade this issue. Not so long ago I had occasion to meet with him about rice marketing issues. Peter Costello wants to get rid of rice marketing and he wants to get rid of the poultry industry. He is looking for a way out. He told members of the National Farmers Federation and the New South Wales Farmers Association that the Government's submission is weak. As I said earlier, this Government presented a strong submission to the Federal Government. I read the submissions presented by the Treasurer and Cabinet Office in response to the issues raised by the National Competition Council and the penalties that it proposes to impose on this Government.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We have caught you out. You are hopeless.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Opposition members have not caught me out at all. The Government presented a strong submission to the Federal Government. Opposition members will find that the Federal Treasurer will have to back down on this issue as it will impact on farmers right across the State. Over the past few years farm mediation has assisted 940 farmers; It has been effective in 88 per cent of cases.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Why do you have such a cranky look?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not have a cranky look. I will not allow The Nationals to upset farmers across this State by stating that the New South Wales Government did not present a strong submission to the Federal Government. This Government presented the Federal Government with an extremely strong submission. Tomorrow I will quote from sections of that submission to demonstrate to the rabble in The Nationals that the New South Wales Government put up a strong submission. Opposition members are aware of the facts of the matter. The National Competition Council made absolutely outrageous recommendations and the Federal Treasurer has not said that he will rule them out. If the Federal Treasurer wants to keep going down that path, we will fight this issue at the Federal election next year. We will see who is successful and we will establish whether the Federal Treasurer is receiving the support of New South Wales farmers. [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Quite clearly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has been making mischievous statements about this issue, knows full well that the New South Wales Government is getting credit from the farming community for having made such a strong statement. The New South Wales Farmers Association, which is aware of the facts, supported this Government's initiatives and its attempt to overturn the Federal Government's attacks on the New South Wales farming community. Ten days ago in Bourke I made clear the position of the New South Wales Government. The Premier met with poultry growers in various areas and, in statement after statement, he made it clear that the New South Wales Government would not wear the recommendations of the National Competition Council. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is also the Leader of The Nationals in this House, is playing a smart and cheeky little game. The New South Wales Farmers Association and farmers in this State know that the New South Wales Government has taken the lead in its attempt to stop an iniquitous decision that will undermine the New South Wales farming community, in particular those who took on extra debt during the drought.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Yesterday in response to a question I asked about the annual report of the Serious Offenders Review Council the Minister indicated to the House that the number of serious offenders who remain in custody even though they have completed their sentences is not relevant to the New South Wales prison population figures. In view of that answer, can the Minister inform the House how many serious offenders have been recommended for parole by the Serious Offenders Review Council in the period covered by the annual report and whether those prisoners received parole? Can the Minister also inform the House how many serious offenders have not applied for parole even though they are eligible for parole?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Peter Breen does not seem to understand the nature of parole. Prisoners who are on parole are serving—

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: Madam President, earlier in question time you made a ruling about the parameters of questions and answers. With respect to that ruling, Standing Order 65 (6) states:

In answering a question a member must not debate the question.

I simply asked the Minister for Justice to provide some figures. The Minister and I have very different views about serious offenders and how they should be treated. I am not asking the Minister to canvass my question in his reply; I am simply asking him to give the number of serious offenders who might affect the prison population figures but who are not included. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer my question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister for Justice that he must not debate the actual question.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I do not want to debate the question. The Hon. Peter Breen asked how many serious offenders in custody have completed their sentences and how many of them have been recommended for parole. Prisoners who are on parole are serving sentences. It is pretty simple. If the Hon. Peter Breen had read the Act, he would not have asked such a silly question.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I ask a supplementary question. It is not a silly question. A number of prisoners have completed their sentences and been recommended for parole by the Serious Offenders Review Council and the Minister includes them in his prison population figures. I again ask the Minister: How many prisoners have been recommended for parole but have not been given the benefit of parole?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Those prisoners have not completed their sentences; they have completed the non-parole period of their sentences. Any person who is sentenced in New South Wales has a minimum sentence, which is a non-parole period, and a period during which they are eligible for parole if they are sentenced to more than three years imprisonment. Those persons, whether on parole or in custody, are serving sentences of imprisonment.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Is it a fact that on 26 March 2002 the Department of Corrective Services was ordered to pay a female corrective services officer a total of $47,500 damages relating to a complaint of sexual harassment and victimisation? Is it also a fact that on 28 February 2003 the Administrative Decisions Tribunal took the unusual step of ordering the Department of Corrective Services to pay an amount exceeding $77,000 for her legal costs, bringing the total amount awarded to more than $125,000? Why has the Department of Corrective Services not paid any of this money to the officer some 19 months after the date of the original order and eight months after the award for costs?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This matter was brought to the attention of my office by the Hon. John Ryan, who is not in the Chamber, and we are obtaining an response. I understand that the issue related to an employee of the Department of Corrective Services who was also found to be liable, and orders were made jointly and severally. I think, from recollection, that some moneys were paid but the other employee did not pay any money, and the officer in question is seeking recompense. I understand that the issues relating to costs are still unresolved. However, we are investigating the matter and we will respond to the Hon. John Ryan's request, which is the appropriate way to proceed. I have said previously that matters of this nature that affect the lives of individual citizens should not be raised during question time because doing so not only tends to sensationalise issues but also gives undue attention to very stressful situations involving members of the community. We issue stamps and envelopes to members; they can write letters and use the telephone. Their matters will be attended to in the appropriate manner.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship. What is the Government doing to provide support for the Asian community, especially in terms of language programs in a multicultural New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The New South Wales Government has been working hard to sustain and develop support for multiculturalism, particularly with regard to the study of Asian languages. This Government is the first to enshrine multiculturalism in legislation through the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000. The guardian of this Act is the Community Relations Commission [CRC], which oversees the rights and responsibilities of all people in a multicultural society, recognising shared values within a democratic framework and celebrating unity amidst diversity. It does this principally through the Ethnic Affairs Priorities Statements Program, which also delivers language services, a cultural grants program, and a national multicultural marketing awards program, to name but a few of its activities. The CRC has shown ongoing support to all peoples descended from the entire Asian continent.

The New South Wales Government is dedicated to promoting the skill, talent and use of a second language in multicultural New South Wales. Our most significant difficulty in this area is the fact that the Federal Government decided to withdraw millions of dollars in funding for Asian languages and to abandon its policy of teaching those languages in Australian schools. However, the New South Wales Government is committed to developing the cultural heritage of many children born to migrant parents with Asian backgrounds. We are proud of the fact that seven of the 29 languages taught through the kindergarten to year 6 Community Languages Program are Asian languages: Mandarin Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Lao and Vietnamese. Almost half of the teaching resources allocated under this program are for Asian languages. In other words, 105 full-time teaching equivalents are teaching Asian languages under the program.

This important part of cultural heritage has been preserved through an increase in teacher numbers of more than 10 per cent since 1999. The Government also funds student language study overseas, and $2 million has been spent under this program since 1999. Since 1999 programs to China, Indonesia, Japan and Korea have helped 1,572 students from years 10, 11 and 12 to undertake intensive language study in those countries. The Department of Education and Training also funds exchange programs with China and Japan. Each year 16 students of Japanese and 10 students of Chinese participate in reciprocal exchange programs with Nagoya and Jiangdu respectively. Under agreements with Japan and China, specialist language consultants also work with teachers in government schools. Teachers of Chinese, Japanese and Korean can undertake study programs to increase their language skills. Since 1999 approximately 20 teachers have been supported through these programs each year.

As to the Saturday Schools of Community Languages, almost half of the 4,500 students studying their background language in years seven to 12 are studying an Asian language. That is pretty impressive. The Government also recognises through the Community Language Allowance Scheme adults in the public service with a second language skill. The scheme involves a language proficiency test that certifies public servants who use a language other than English as part of their normal duties. More candidates are embracing the promotion of multicultural, multilingual skills, with 60 per cent more public servants claiming recognition for their language skills than last year. Significantly, 52 per cent of candidates asserting recognition were tested in an Asian language in the August examinations. A further showcase of multiculturalism—particularly of Asian culture—is the fact that this year 14 of the 28 languages tested were Asian languages, and six of these were ranked among the top 10 languages tested. The Government will continue to nurture a multicultural New South Wales and to promote the study of Asian languages both by young people and by adults.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about drought expenditure and the NSW Agriculture web site, and I can now provide the following answer:

I am advised the sum the Member referred to was solely allocated to the production, updating and implementation of drought-specific documents and databases during this current drought.

This system has delivered over 600,000 documents during this time of crisis, some over 60 pages long, directly targeted to assist farmers to manage their businesses.

In addition, the drought web-site contains the interactive feed evaluation database that in itself has been accessed over 400,000 times allowing farmers to instantly determine the nutritional profile of their feed to build up least-cost feed rations.

The drought related information should also not be confused with the elements of the Department's website that existed well before the drought set in. The site itself was launched in 1997.

Many of the documents, were specifically updated with current information to ensure their accuracy. In accordance with bibliographic standards in use in all State libraries, they are obliged to carry the date of their original publication.

With over 50% of farmers currently having a computer in their home the Department quite deliberately directed more resources to building up the website knowing that this was one of the most effective means of getting information to farmers.

The website represents less than 1 per cent of the Carr Government's commitment to drought measures to date and has delivered updated information to thousands of farmers at a cost of less than $1 per document which is significantly more efficient and effective than any printing option could ever possibly be.

Not only is the site of great practical use now, but it will also be continually updated as new information comes to hand, so that when we face the next inevitable drought it will be immediately ready for farmers to use.

There can be no doubt that this represents a highly successful, long-term investment for the NSW farming community.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked me whether firefighters have powers of restraint or arrest should they come across anyone lighting fires. I advise the House that firefighters do not have the power to formally arrest or detain people, nor do we encourage them to do so. That is a job for the Police Force, which they do well. The primary role of firefighters, who are nearly all volunteers, particularly in rural areas, is to fight fires, which they also do very well.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly 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.

[The President left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 15 October.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.30 p.m.], in reply: I am anxious to use the remaining time available to place on record the support for the Standing Committee on Social Issues report into the early intervention inquiry by a number of interested parties, some of whom gave evidence at the hearing. Members of the committee are pleased with, and feel optimistic about, the future implementation of our recommendations because they have received strong support from academics such as Professor Vimpani in New South Wales and others in other States and from a number of groups who made submissions or gave evidence during the inquiry.

I refer to the full-page article about our report in the October edition of "NCOSS News". We are pleased that the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] congratulates the committee on its report and supports a number of its recommendations. The article also makes clear a number of issues to which I have referred. For instance, the committee stressed that children from birth to eight years suffer from there being a plethora of different organisations and the lack of an overarching focus. Linda Frow wrote in the NCOSS article that we not only already have a number of specialist units but are establishing more. For instance, she mentioned the Office of Childcare, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Office of Children and Young People, the Children's Guardian and so on. I urge the Government and honourable members of this House to join with us in working for the interests of early intervention for children for the sake of our future. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [2.37 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.38 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 2. Insert after line 15:

5 Consequential amendment of Land and Environment Court Act 1979 No 204

The Land and Environment Court Act 1979 is amended by inserting ", 95B" after "95A" in section 17 (d).

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 95B. Insert after line 35:

(5) The consent authority must not grant an extension if the consent authority is aware of any change in the circumstances that existed when the development consent was granted that would, if the consent authority were considering the application for consent at the time the application for an extension is made, have been likely to substantially affect the consent authority's evaluation and determination of the application for consent.

Amendment No. 1 is consequential, and the thrust of my remarks will be about amendment No. 2. The purpose of the first amendment is to refuse permission to the consent authority to grant an extension if the authority is aware of any change in the circumstances that existed when the development consent was first granted; or if new circumstances have come to light that potentially could necessitate alteration, modification or change to the original approval. State significant developments are by definition often large, and they potentially have significant social and environmental impact. The Act already allows a one-year extension of the consent period if the original consent was for less than five years.

Because five years is a very long time, it is certainly sufficient time in which to commence the development and, in the vast majority of cases, it is sufficient time for legal proceedings to have taken their course. But that is not the real issue in this matter. Even with the Lake Cowal gold mine, where legal proceedings have extended beyond the five years, the essential environmental, cultural or technical information on which the original application was approved almost certainly will have changed over the five-year period. I ask honourable members to consider climate change. Five years ago there was little or no public discourse linking climate change to bushfires and drought of the scale that ravaged New South Wales last year. Five years ago there was no serious questioning of coal as our dominant energy source. It would have been extremely unlikely that a proposed coal-fired power plant would be rejected at that time on the basis of unacceptable greenhouse emissions. But in the last few months we have witnessed the rejection of the Redbank power plant on precisely those grounds.

In the past five years more detailed and extensive scientific knowledge, and altered public perceptions of the dangers of climatic change, have brought about a major Government backdown. Eight years ago Australia had not even signed the Kyoto Protocol. It is ludicrous to suggest that developments generating high greenhouse emissions should be assessed on the basis of the knowledge of climate change that existed eight years ago. Yet that is precisely the effect of this bill. It would have us turn our backs on those major changes and major expansions in technical and scientific knowledge, let alone in our knowledge of cultural matters, which could now be so radically different that a decision that might have been acceptable five years ago is no longer acceptable.

Substantial technological improvements can also occur over an eight-year period, resulting in a dramatic shift in best-practice techniques in industry. In the vast majority of commercial applications, today's best-practice technology is dramatically different from that of five-year-old technology. It is vital that development consent should not be based on outdated data or outmoded technology. This is all the more so when newer technology is less intrusive and environmentally damaging than the old. I believe this is the case with Lake Cowal.

Some of the technology on which the initial development application was based, and is still the basis of the current proposal, has now been superseded. That technology is simply out of step with the pace of technological development and new scientific knowledge. For this reason, the Greens propose an amendment to limit the granting of extensions in cases where there is no substantive change in the technical, environmental or cultural circumstances in which development approval was originally granted. This seems an eminently sensible and reasonable requirement, and it is disappointing that the Government and the Opposition refuse to recognise that.

Let us look back over the history of the past few years. Indeed, we need only look at the disaster that occurred three years ago, in January 2000, in Romania, with the Romanian-Australian gold mine development works by Aural. The Danube River and the Tisza River are being incredibly polluted. Surely in the three years since 2000—and this is a particularly appropriate example, given its relationship to a gold mine, as the Lake Cowal proposal is essentially for a gold mine—one would have anticipated major concerns about the technology that is to be used. To ignore technology is to invite an environmental disaster along the lines and of the extent that occurred in Romania, yet this bill would allow the Minister, particularly in the case of the Lake Cowal gold mine, to merely extend the development approval period. To extend the period to eight years in the light of the rapid change in technological knowledge that is occurring is absurd, and no such request should be made of any Parliament.

It is not just technical or scientific knowledge that can change. Indeed, there can be changes in cultural knowledge. Twelve months ago I was at the Lake Cowal gold mine site that supposedly had been thoroughly cleared of Aboriginal artefacts. Yet as I walked about that site I picked up, examined and replaced spear heads and blades. That indicated that the archaeological examination of the area for cultural artefacts was at best incomplete, and at worst deliberately incomplete. If there had been a proper cultural analysis of the Lake Cowal site we would not agree to a three-year extension of the approval period, or at least allow that possibility. We should be calling for a halt to the entire procedure.

The Lake Cowal development has met with persistent opposition from the Aboriginal community and environmentalists. They have been fighting this matter through the courts. As there has been such prolonged public opposition to the proposal from the people who will be most affected by it, it is inappropriate that the Government should step in and come to the rescue of the developers, saying, "Don't worry about the outcome of the court case because we are prepared to give an extension of up to three years." That is but one more example of the willingness of this Government to wind back whatever environmental protections currently exist. This bill is certainly another blow to those environmental protections.

In this respect, and specifically with this bill, the Government is clearly acting contrary to the community's wishes. The community is demanding better protection of the environment and culture at the same time that the Government is winding back those protections. It is doing that by proposing to allow extensions to the approval period despite the fact that there may well be new revelations about the scientific, technical and cultural aspects of the project. Despite the fact that those revelations may well have come to light, the Government and the Minister feel that they have no obligation to take those matters into consideration.

By its own admission, the Government has said that State significant developments tend to be bigger, more complex and more capital intensive than local developments. The Minister said that these developments tend to involve major companies that make decisions on whether to invest in one project or another on a global basis rather than a local basis.

With this bill, the Government is blatantly putting corporate interests ahead of local community interests. Corporate timetables rather than environmental, social and cultural concerns are going to determine our planning and development decisions. The bill effectively says that five years is not enough time for industry to push through a controversial development that may be challenged in court by public interest leaders, so we need to give industry longer. Multinational companies make investment decisions based on global interests and profit. But the projects have very local impacts.

Whether it is the Cowal goldmine or the sell-off of harbour foreshore land for apartments or a new freeway, each and every development has very significant impacts on the local community. It is the role of the Government to ensure that the interests of local communities are not extinguished by the interests of international capital. This is a vital element of our planning system, and indeed of our system of government. The Premier and his Government appear to have lost sight of this fundamental fact. The Government is not here to smooth the path for corporations: it is here to protect and manage the interests of residents and to protect the environment of New South Wales. As we can see from the clauses of the bill, this is obviously payback time, the time for the Government to say thank you to the developers who have contributed so handsomely to its coffers over the last three years.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Point of order: The honourable member should be speaking to her amendments. This argumentation has nothing to do with the amendments. It is all over the place. It is more in the character of a second reading speech. If Greens members had been in the Chamber at the right time they could have made these arguments in a second reading speech, but we should not subjected to such speeches in Committee.

Mr Ian Cohen: To the point of order: It is obvious that the amendments are about the limits of development approval and the granting of an extension. Ms Sylvia Hale is clearly indicating why it is so important to have a cut-off time, and why an inappropriate set of circumstances should not be the basis for a development application. The Minister said we should have been in the Chamber but, as I said before, these really are Bolshie tactics on the part of the Government to actually—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Is the honourable member speaking to a point of order or making a debating point? He knows full well that he is making a debating point. He will confine his remarks to the point of order.

Mr Ian Cohen: The point of order is that there is no point of order because Sylvia Hale is clearly addressing the amendment that is at the heart of Greens' concerns about this bill.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: To the point of order: Before we have a number of second reading speeches masquerading as speeches on very precise amendments in Committee, I suggest that the member is speaking out of order and effectively delivering her second reading speech. The motivation of the Government has nothing to do with the specific clauses we are now debating.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Further to the point of order: My point is more than adequately exemplified by the fact that Mr Ian Cohen's comments were a succinct analysis of why the Greens moved the amendments. That is how Ms Sylvia Hale should frame her remarks. The analysis she gave was all over the shop. There were references to ports and global capital. It was a statement of philosophy, not a reason why the Greens moved the amendment. Given that the Greens had their opportunity to speak in the second reading debate—an opportunity that other members saw fit to utilise—the honourable member should be ruled out of order.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: To the point of order: The point of the amendment is that there is no requirement for the Minister to take into account relevant changes that may have occurred in the period between the granting of consent and its lapsing. The whole purpose of my remarks is to explain what I believe is the Government's motive for that, and why the Minister should be obliged to take into account changed circumstances. I suggest that the motivation of the Minister is directly relevant to discussion on the amendment.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Further to the point of order: I do not understand how anybody can purport to know what the motivation of the Minister is other than by reading what he said in his second reading speech, which explains why the Government introduced the bill. Now all this extraneous material is being introduced based on somebody's ill-informed opinion of what the Minister's motivation is. It does not address the specific amendment and it is clearly out of order. If the member is allowed to continue, we will forever be subjected to philosophical arguments on every single amendment and to absurdities purporting to be reflections of a Minister's opinion.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Further to the point of order: It seems to me that it is perfectly appropriate and reasonable to hear why a member wishes to amend specific legislation. In giving reasons the member has to canvass the reasons why the Government is proposing to act in a particular way—in this case why the Government is turning a blind eye to technical, scientific or cultural evidence that may have since come to light. I think it is perfectly appropriate in that context to canvass those reasons for the Government's actions. One can only do that by suggesting the Government's motives and then assessing whether they are credible.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Further to the point of order—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! As the points being taken by members are becoming repetitious I will rule on the point of order. In doing so I have taken into account rulings of former Presidents and Chairmen of Committees, which are to the effect that during consideration in Committee members should address the amendments that have been moved rather than seek to revisit the second reading stage of the bill. Accordingly, I ask Ms Sylvia Hale to confine her remarks to the amendments. However, it is acceptable for a member to digress slightly if it is necessary to use an example to illustrate why he or she believes an amendment should be supported.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: What we are seeing in this bill is an attempt to concentrate in the hands of the Minister power that will be used in a largely unaccountable fashion and without the need to take into account changes that may have occurred since the legislation was first introduced. I believe that the reasons behind the wish to concentrate power and additional authority within the Minister relate to the substantial amount of monetary contributions the development industry has made to the—

The Hon. Michael Costa: Point of order: Madam Chairman, you ruled on the contribution of the member in support of her amendments. You made it very clear that she may give an example to illustrate her point. Now she is attempting to introduce more extraneous material that has absolutely no relevance to the amendments. It is irrelevant that corporations choose to contribute to political parties; if they act within the law, it is their right to do that. That has nothing to do with these amendments. The member is again attempting to present a philosophical argument that is more suited to a second reading speech. I regret that the member was not able to be in the Chamber on time to contribute to the second reading debate, but that is not the Government's fault. Members should not be subjected to this nonsense.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Neither of Greens amendments No. 1 and No. 2 relates to the circumstances raised by the Hon. Sylvia Hale. I ask her not to stray too far from the content of the two amendments before the Chair. I uphold the point of order.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I believe it is totally appropriate to require the Minister not to extend consent for an additional three years if changes to circumstances exist—such as scientific, technical or cultural knowledge—and if knowledge of those changed circumstances, taken into account when consent was first approved, may well have led to consent being denied. The provision in the bill that the amendments seek to modify is inappropriate. I think it is a case of the Government, through its Minister, deliberately wanting to close its eyes to new circumstances, particularly in the case of the Lake Cowal goldmine. I urge all members to support the amendments.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [3.01 p.m.]: The Government opposes these amendments. The Government considers them to be unnecessary as the power to extend consent will be for a maximum of three years. I take up the point made by the honourable member and remind her that safeguards are embodied in the provisions of the bill. The Minister is not bound to grant an application for a three-year extension, nor is the Minister bound to grand extensions for all the time sought in an application. As far as a further environmental assessment is concerned, a further three years is not considered to be a period in which environmental assessment data will become outdated. Having said that, if this is not a case of grandstanding, I think the Greens should accept the position that is embodied in the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.02 p.m.]: I support the amendments because they mitigate ministerial discretion. The Legislation Review Committee's analysis is that the bill gives a great deal of discretion to the Minister and I believe that has to be examined carefully, particularly in view of the possibility of changes to the environment. The Committee should note that the Lake Timbarra goldmine was supposed to be safe. Its tailings ponds for the containment of cyanide were said to be safe up to a one in 400 years flood. The mine was quarantined because the price of gold dropped. Subsequently, after tremendous rainfall, all the ponds overflowed. If those ponds had contained cyanide, a huge environmental catastrophe would have occurred because those tailings would have flowed into the Clarence River, which is the biggest river on the east coast of Australia. That example illustrates the point that the environment changes. Clearly, rainfall statistics can be quite wrong.

Amendment No. 2 allows for a change in the state of knowledge after the date of consent. Rainfall statistics vary according to geographical areas, but the danger of relying on rainfall statistics is nevertheless clear. Therefore, the amendments are critical. I should add that the delay in production at the Lake Timbarra mine was because of the low price of gold—subsequently the price of gold rose from US$250 to US$400—not because of litigation. These amendments mitigate ministerial discretion and should be supported if environmental safeguards are to be maintained, as I think they should be. People feel great concern about giving Ministers unfettered discretion through what I refer to as "Minister may" legislation.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.04 p.m.]: There is not too much ministerial discretion involved in this bill except when a development has been delayed as a result of legal action. In those circumstances the Minister may grant an extension for a period of up to three years. What has been overlooked in this debate is that in the first place the Ministry is the consent authority. Suggestions that this bill concentrates power in the hands of the Minister are simply wrong. The Minister is the consent authority, but does not have discretion to make a decision without regard to heads of consideration that the Minister must analyse and take into account. In the specific case of Lake Cowal, there have been two separate commissions of inquiry. I can think of no major developments of State significance that have been approved without first having been the subject of a commission of inquiry. I am sure the Government will correct me if I am wrong about that.

This is not a case of the Minister saying, "Well, you can have five years and then up to another three years." The extension can be given only as a result of legal challenge. At the end of the day, what is the bill before the Committee about? It is about investor confidence, certainty in process and events beyond the control of a company that prevent a company from taking action on its development consent which operates for a maximum of five years. If circumstances beyond the control of a company prevent a company from commencing development—that is, a legal challenge—the Minister has an option to extend consent for up to a further three years. In the context of the circumstances, that is fair and reasonable, given that there are heads of consideration, given that the application will be judged on its merits and that the consent was granted on the merits of the application, and given that an extension of three years is provided only so that some certainty is inherent in the process. The extension is not about corporate interests. At the end of the day, it is about providing a process that will give investors a sense of certainty in investing in major projects in New South Wales. For that reason, the Opposition cannot and will not support these amendments.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.07 p.m.]: The amendments moved by Ms Sylvia Hale will prevent the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources from extending the lapsing period on development consent for projects of State significance for a maximum of three years. I must say that, after hearing comments made by the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests), this is a matter of concern. The suggestion is that the extension is for a period of three years only, but what would prevent the Government from introducing another bill for further extensions? The Government has done that before, and I am sure it will do so again.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It is up to Parliament, but I am sure you would obstruct it.

Mr IAN COHEN: It is quite obvious that our power is limited. We have the example of a consent that lapsed after three years concerning a copper smelter. During the term of the previous Parliament, the Government introduced another bill to extend the consent period. I cannot envisage this Government turning with its tail between its legs and refusing to grant further extensions to meet the convenience of the developer, which in this case is a mining company. The Greens support the amendments on the grounds that extension of a five-year development consent without further evaluation could pose new risks to the environment because environmental circumstances and knowledge of best practices change over time. The amendments are an appropriate response to the situation concerning Lake Cowal. Despite what is contained in the briefing note to the bill, third party litigation has not been brought by environmental opponents of the development; rather, litigation has been primarily over the issue of the collection and destruction of Aboriginal artefacts, and all litigation has been brought to the courts by Wiradjuri elder Neville "Chappie" Williams.

It is quite clear that they still have grave concerns, are agitated and feel defeated by this project. That this bill is being debated makes it clear that the Greens are responding to concerns by a significant part of the community, in this case the Aboriginal community. In the past, litigation delayed the project to some extent; currently the project is delayed because of the flaws in the project's engineering and concerns that have been raised about environmental risk. Therefore, the project needs to be redesigned to meet current best-practice guidelines. The amendment is a step towards that best practice, not an extension of its development consent. Extending the current development consent would be negligent. The area's hydrology has changed since 1999 with an embargo on the water licences now in effect, and the design of the project has become outdated with new information now available on state-of-the-art cyanide tailings ponds, designed to minimise bird mortality.

Understanding the impacts of cyanide and best practice in cyanide destruction technology has also grown immensely since 1999. That is why the Greens are so concerned that an opportunity be given for the amendment moved by Ms Sylvia Hale to be properly debated. Times have changed; we have seen many changes and we have seen disasters of bird kills at the mine at Parkes. As the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said, there has been a lot of ventilation of this issue, including the concerns with the Timbarra goldmine. The conservation movement, the community, farmers, land-users and downstream users, including fishers, are very concerned about the potential for the destruction of irreplaceable habitat because of the cyanide processes in mining. In light of new evidence, what may have been appropriate in 1999 is not appropriate in 2003 and thereafter.

As none of those changes, new information or technology are reflected in the current development consent, extending the consent will ensure that an outdated project design is implemented and more damage will be done to the environment than is necessary. If Barrick Gold is unable to commence construction for the Cowal gold project in a timely fashion, the development consent for it should be allowed to lapse. We should not even consider allowing Barrick Gold to continue to rely upon the original development approval process, which was flawed, unsatisfactory and is now totally out of date. However, the bill is likely to cause problems for not only Lake Cowal. That is why this amendment is so important. It will prove to be problematic to other projects of State significance as an extension of the lapsed period for development consent is likely to be sought where the social or environmental impacts of a proposed development are particularly controversial and hence the subject of extensive litigation.

If we are to fulfil our duty of care not only to the environment but also to the people who elected us, we should ensure that those impacts are evaluated in the light of the most current knowledge of environmental and social circumstances, and of best practices. I wonder why we are even considering simply extending the lapsing period for development consent. I wonder why the Carr Government is still supporting this development. After all, it was the Carr Government that originally knocked back the project in 1996 because, as it said, "the project then proposed was simply incompatible with the high conservation values of Lake Cowal". While a few changes have been made to the design since then, some changes have served to increase rather than decrease the risk of the project. Reducing the number of tailings ponds from four in 1996 to two in the current plan—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask Mr Ian Cohen to speak to the amendments, not to the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN: It is important to recognise that there has been change in the design of the project and the amendment gives that extension on the existing changes to the project. In those circumstances, I suggest that I am speaking to the amendments before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: The member may proceed.

Mr IAN COHEN: The proposed tailings ponds will prove to be too big to manage. They are 1.3 kilometres square. Birds would find them an attractive habitat, thus raising the risks of cyanide accidents and massive bird kills. This comes back to the amendment, which clearly indicates that as we have new information, that type of project should not be going ahead. The project should be questioned, but based on old information the developer is being let off the hook. While the Government assures us that the cyanide levels will be kept low, the proposed measurement regime of weak-acid-dissociable cyanide discharged in the mining process is inadequate, as is the method proposed to neutralise the cyanide.

The environmental impact statement is short in assessment of the project. Lake Cowal water quality results are based on only three samples that may have been taken during a dry period. Both total and filtered levels of metals in lake water need to be measured. The use of Lake Cowal as an inland fishing area requires that an assessment of the impact of existing levels of heavy metals on fish should also be assessed. Lake Cowal has provided New South Wales with its only commercial fishing venture in wet years. The project will also involve high levels of arsenic in the estimated 52 tonnes of waste rock to be piled tens of metres high over approximately 150 hectares on the western edge of Lake Cowal.

[Interruption]

In response to the interjection by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the project may have been considered legitimate at a particular time. As early as 1996 the Hon. Richard Jones and I vehemently opposed this development. The honourable member would have to admit a certain consistency on my part in this place. I have opposed it and I have opposed particular members of the environment movement who supported it at various times. The Greens, including me, have opposed the Lake Cowal goldmine development all the way along the line. It is wasteful, it is environmentally destructive and it is socially dislocating. It is also incredibly disrespectful to the local indigenous people. I have always believed it should not go ahead. However, given that we are in this situation I strongly believe that amendment No. 2 moved by Ms Sylvia Hale is appropriate in controlling limits on development approval.

In itself, that moves us all into the twenty-first century in which we will have to make all sorts of assessments. The amendment points in the direction of a current assessment with available information. Clearly this amendment allows that to occur. We are talking about arsenic, a dangerous poison, which can enter the food chain affecting fish, wildlife and humans. That has happened time and again. I note the comments of Minister Costa in relation to people wearing gold, a metal that lasts for a long time. I have a gold ring, which I got about 25 years ago, before I was aware of the implications of goldmining.

The Hon. Michael Costa: You should send it back.

Mr IAN COHEN: It would have to go long way. I can give the history of it and tell the Minister who gave it to me in the first place.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the amendment.

Mr IAN COHEN: The story is quite romantic, but I could not expect the Minister to appreciate such things. Nevertheless, let us get down to tintacks about the reality of this bill. Massive gold reserves and ugly ingots—that almost reminds me of the Minister's head—are stored in vast areas to maintain some semblance of value in the system of economy, to which the Minister would excitedly kowtow as some sort of god that he perceives as a way of resolving all issues that confront the New South Wales Government. But this is about more than a piece of jewellery; this is about the industrial extraction of gold for economic means and, as a result, the destruction of archaeological, sociological and environmental values of our community. Minister, do not use the gold earring trick, the old sleight of hand, as you would want to do with a superficial interpretation of this issue.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Do you have a gold earring?

Mr IAN COHEN: No, it is silver. Do not give a superficial interpretation of this. I know that the Minister is a cynic about many things.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: There is no reference to gold, per se, in this amendment. This amendment is about whether the consent authority should be able to grant an extension; it is not about the other factors to which the honourable member has referred. This amendment relates specifically to the role of the consent authority and that is the issue that we should be addressing. As we are in Committee honourable members should not at this stage attempt to address issues that should have been dealt with during the second reading debate.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: I concede the point that was made by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I was blinded for a moment by the gold-like shine that is coming from the dome of the Minister for Transport and I did not concentrate on the issue at hand. I will return to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member may proceed.

Mr IAN COHEN: I thank the Minister for that visage of enlightenment. Concern has been expressed about this proposal going ahead without the constraints that would be imposed by the proposed amendment, as that would negatively affect economic benefits in that region. How many workers will be harmed as a result of this mining venture, which presents health issues for workers and local people? Enormous quantities of water will be removed from underground bores for use in the mining processes. Alternatives to this mining proposal could deliver ecological and sustainable jobs and save the environment. It is incomprehensible then that we should be considering taking action that would ensure these dangers and risks will not be addressed and rectified. Lake Cowal, which is this State's largest natural inland lake, forms part of the Wilbertroy-Cowal wetlands that are located in the large Jemalong floodplains. Lake Cowal—which is fed by its major tributary, Bland Creek, and by occasional floods from the Lachlan River—is ephemeral, but it is substantially full for 7 out of 10 years.

As the floods recede, Lake Cowal drains back into the Lachlan River and communicates with the Murray River. Lake Cowal is also included in the Australian National Estate register and in its directory of important wetlands. The National Trust of Australia has listed Lake Cowal as a landscape conservation area. The Australian Heritage Commission has suggested that the New South Wales Government consider the Lake Cowal region for listing under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands as a wetland of international importance. Under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, contracting parties, of which Australia is one, are obliged to promote conservation, repair and wise use of all wetlands. That is exactly what we should do. According to the World Watch Institute, the earth has lost over one-half of its wetlands in the last 100 years and more than 800 million people are now without clean, fresh water.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Point of order: My point of order is similar to points of order that were taken earlier. Honourable members have been indulgent and they have listened to extensive debate that is beyond the scope of the proposed amendment. Mr Ian Cohen should show some respect to all honourable members. He had an opportunity to contribute to the second reading debate, but he did not do so. We are now being inflicted—and that is my description of events; other honourable members might argue to the contrary—with a second reading contribution by the honourable member. He is not addressing the amendment.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: We have yet another amendment.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I can only imagine what will happen when that amendment is discussed. Amendment No. 2, which is clear, relates to the powers of the Minister to grant extensions. The honourable member's arguments should be confined to that amendment. I have already said that the Government will oppose this amendment and I made it clear why it is opposed to it. The honourable member should limit his contribution and refer only to the amendment rather than wander off on a philosophical journey, no matter how enlightening that might be to some people. It seems to me to be a self-indulgent approach.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: My contribution might be an affliction to some but it could also be enlightening to others. I refer to the importance of the wetlands and to the whole ecosystem in an area that will be affected by the Lake Cowal project. This amendment will attempt to ensure that conditions and regulations that were imposed in 1996 or 1999 are applied and that will determine whether or not this project goes ahead. The Government, through some whimsical stroke of the pen, is attempting to increase the power of the responsible Minister to grant extensions. The Government should acknowledge the importance of these environmental issues and impose conditions that are relevant today. It is important for me to spend some time debating the value to us of Lake Cowal.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Further to the point of order: If the honourable member were appropriately addressing the amendment, as opposed to addressing arguments that are more appropriate in a second reading debate, he would understand that, once a consent process has been granted, the Minister is able to grant an extension. The honourable member's argument relates more to the consent process that already includes appeal rights, and third party appeal rights, to decisions. The proposed amendment does not refer to those appeal rights; it refers solely to the fact that the Minister should not have a power to grant extensions once an application has been made and consent has already been given. The Committee has indulged Mr Cohen. He must now refer to the amendments rather than drift all over the place.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! In ruling on the point of order I remind members of a ruling I gave earlier. If necessary, it is acceptable for a member, when speaking to an amendment, to use an example to illustrate the point being made. Mr Ian Cohen has exceeded the latitude I extended to members earlier. I ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment and not to go into such detail when using an example to illustrate his point. He should use an example as an example, not as a test case. If the member confines his remarks in that way, he may proceed.

Mr IAN COHEN: We have heard in this Chamber what might be considered to be long-winded diatribes on proposed amendments. The Minister appears to have a low opinion of environmental issues.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Point of order: I do not have a low opinion of environmental issues; I have a low opinion of environmentalists who use spurious arguments to promote sectional interests. I do not mind being criticised by the Greens. Actually, I welcome that criticism as it increases my acceptability in the electorate. The honourable member's contribution is irrelevant.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Is the Minister asking that the comment be withdrawn?

The Hon. Michael Costa: I am not asking for the comment to be withdrawn; I just wanted my comments on the record.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order. I remind all members that they should not use points of orders to make debating points. If they want a comment to be withdrawn, they should ask for it to be withdrawn. In addition, members should not seek to make a personal explanation under the guise of a point of order.

Mr IAN COHEN: We have in this place a sceptic, a person who takes great pleasure in bagging the Greens and everything that they stand for. He just made a statement to the effect that he is a concerned conservationist, which is quite rich. Not many honourable members appear to be receptive to the arguments that I expressed earlier. Greens amendment No. 2, as moved by Ms Sylvia Hale, is in keeping with best practice in a development of this size and sensitivity. The Government will stand condemned—as it has been condemned in the past—for its actions with regard to Lake Cowal and for its short-sighted interpretation of the environmental issues associated with this monumental project. Members would do well to accept the excellent amendments moved by Ms Sylvia Hale.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.30 p.m.]: Members would be wise to support the amendments moved by Ms Sylvia Hale, which offer a means of limiting the extension of the development approval period. If we do not accept these amendments, the bill will award a free kick to Barrick Gold, the company behind the Lake Cowal proposal. That is clearly the intention of this bill because, although the project is not mentioned specifically in the bill, the Minister indicated that was its aim from the moment the bill became public knowledge. If the bill is not amended as proposed by Ms Sylvia Hale, Barrick Gold will be allowed to use for another three years an already outdated environmental impact statement [EIS]. That is why we feel so strongly about this issue. It is an abuse of process, an abuse of the environment and an abuse of the people of western New South Wales. If limits are not placed on the consent authority, when the Lake Cowal mining operation finally commences, its EIS will be based on technology, techniques and ecological surveys that are almost a decade old.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Let them get it under way.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The company has not got the project under way in all this time. It may be a convenient outcome for Barrick Gold, which would obviously be very pleased with the bill—perhaps the company helped to devise the legislation; that has been known to happen in the past—but it will be an appalling outcome for everybody else. It is bad process and bad policy. If the Government were to accept its responsibility to the environment of Lake Cowal, the Wiradjuri traditional owners and to the people of New South Wales, it would accept these amendments. The Government should ensure that mining proposals are subject to proper scrutiny and that their impact on the environment is minimal. This bill distances the Government from that responsibility, and that is why Ms Sylvia Hale has moved these amendments. The Greens want to return to the process that is needed in New South Wales. Allowing an EIS to stand for nearly 10 years is a flagrant breach of the Government's responsibilities in this area.

The Lake Cowal project's opponents say that the cyanide tailings ponds are fraught with design flaws, not to mention the fact that arsenic waste rock could contaminate groundwater. The danger is real and the checks are needed. These amendments, if passed, would provide those checks. If the Government does not accept these amendments, at the very least it should commission another major EIS and embark upon another community consultation exercise in respect of this destructive project. If that does not happen—and we fear that it will not—we must ask: What have the Government and Barrick Gold got to hide? Extending a five-year development consent without further evaluation is likely to be extremely dangerous to the environment, and these amendments, if passed, would help to reduce that danger.

Environmental circumstances and knowledge of best practice change over time. That is a major reason why the bill must be amended. Members have taken many points of order on these amendments. The Government is trying to continue its unpleasant practice of rushing through legislation with minimum scrutiny and maximum support for corporations. In this case the Government is helping a foreign company, Barrick Gold. The new understanding of mining techniques is not reflected in the current development consent, and the amendments go some way towards developing that understanding. Furthermore, the project's design has become outdated in the past five years. More information is now available about state-of-the-art cyanide tailings ponds that can minimise bird mortality. That is surely a reason to agree to these amendments. Some limits must be placed on the consent authority.

Similarly, our understanding of the impact of cyanide and best practice cyanide destruction technology has grown immensely since 1999. Extending development consents, such as that for Barrick Gold, will ensure that outdated project design does more damage to the environment. Ms Sylvia Hale's amendments will put some limits in place. The amendments deserve members' support, and the Greens commend them to the Committee.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Dr Wong Tellers, Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon

Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Ms Cusack Mr Egan Mrs Forsythe

Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Griffin Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Parker Ms Robertson Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): I shall now leave the chair for the joint sitting. The business of the House will be suspended during the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting following the ringing of the bells.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe) left the chair at 3.45 p.m. The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! I report that at a joint sitting this day Jon Jenkins, was elected to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Malcolm Jones. I table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.

Ordered to be printed.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.30 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 95B. Insert after line 5:

(6) The consent authority must, within 30 days after an application under this section is made, give notice to the applicant, and the public, of its determination of the application.

The bill does not require the Minister to make public whether an application for an extension has been lodged. Nor does it require the Minister to make public whether he has determined that application. As long as the proprietor gets the application to the Minister on time the Minister can sit on the application and wait for the outcome of any pending legal action or other relevant process. If and when legal proceedings are resolved, the Minister can then grant the extension retrospectively for anything up to three years. This is outrageous. Local communities are entitled to know the period and conditions under which any extension has been granted. They are entitled to know whether any application has been lodged. State significant developments by definition already have ministerial involvement and sign off. The Minister's office will have been well briefed on issues surrounding the development. There is absolutely no justification for an application to extend the consent period not being determined expeditiously. The only plausible, if indefensible, explanation is that the bill's purpose is to concentrate even more power and control in the Minister's hands and to make him less accountable to the community. State significant developments are almost invariably large and extremely contentious developments. There is no doubt that the community will want to know whether an application for an extension of the development consent period has been lodged. Yet the bill is silent on this matter.

The community will want to know whether it has been determined and what the outcome has been, whether the application has been approved or refused. In the case of Lake Cowal, the local indigenous community will have a vital and immediate interest in knowing whether an application has been lodged and in the outcome of such an application. After all, as both Ian Cohen and Lee Rhiannon have indicated in the debate, Lake Cowal is at the centre of the Wiradjuri nation and contains important sacred sites. It is rich in artefacts and cultural objects and is of immense significance to the local indigenous community. Environmentalists will also want to know whether an application has been lodged and whether it has been determined. Lake Cowal, as has already been pointed out, is the largest inland lake in New South Wales and provides a vital habitat to numerous threatened species and migratory birds, including significant numbers of migratory species listed in the China-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement and the Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement. Lake Cowal is on the National Estate registry of important wetlands and the National Trust has listed the area as a landscape conservation area. So, obviously, environmentalists will wish to know whether a determination has been made about an extension to the consent.

We all deplore delays in determining development applications. This amendment requires the Minister to determine an application for an extension of the consent period within 30 days of its lodgement. The amendment seeks to remove uncertainty and to add a degree of transparency to an otherwise murky, unaccountable process. Certainty, clarity and openness in decision making are essential to good governance. The requirement for the Minister to make a decision public and as expeditiously as possible is the least that the community can expect, and that is the purpose of this amendment.

The Opposition's rationale for not supporting the Greens amendment is that industry needs certainty. I challenge Opposition members to demonstrate how greater certainty is achieved by having an application sit undetermined on the Minister's desk for anything up to three years. Surely the proponent, the community and the Government will be given greater certainty if a determination of the application is made expeditiously. I am genuinely perplexed as to how the Opposition can argue otherwise. To assert, as Opposition members no doubt will do, that it is in the Minister's interest to make a determination speedily is to be down at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. What motivation is there for him to act? What is stopping the Minister from simply sitting on an application until a pending court case has run its course? Why bother with the paperwork if the judicial proceedings drag on for more than three years?

As it stands, there is no legal requirement for the Minister to make a determination quickly or publicly. The Greens are disappointed that the Opposition has refused to support the Greens amendment, because without this amendment and others this will remain an appalling piece of legislation which hands increased powers to the Minister and the government of the day, and to developers, all at the expense of the environment and local communities.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.38 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by Ms Sylvia Hale, who mentioned the environmental importance of the Lake Cowal area. This amendment will allow a degree of transparency for environmental groups. More notably, the Wiradjuri people, one of the oldest continuing cultures in the world today—their culture, heritage and tradition are as old as time itself—should also benefit from the amendment. The surrounding area contains many artefacts and marked trees that are of importance to the Wiradjuri, whose ancestors lived near and visited Lake Cowal for millennia, conducting ceremonies and other cultural activities. It is a very sacred and special place. When explorers first came to Lake Cowal they recorded that tribal Aborigines used the area as a campsite and sacred site. The thousands upon thousands of artefacts and relics at the Lake Cowal site are testimony to this usage. Wiradjuri people with traditional ties to the Lake Cowal area still visit and carry out ceremonies there. The majority of the Wiradjuri people are against the proposed mine. Lake Cowal will benefit from the amendment moved on behalf of the Greens by Ms Sylvia Hale. A Wiradjuri elder, Neville "Chappie" Williams, has stated:

This is part of the sacred heartland of the Wiradjuri nation. We don't want to see our cultural heritage destroyed, or the land and waters poisoned by the cyanide used to extract gold. The place should be left as it is. But Barrick doesn't care about any of this. They just want to mine the gold under the lake and take the profits out of Australia. The mine's only got a possible 13-year life, but the lake is millions of years old. We've got plenty of gold mines in Australia. We don't need this one.

As Mr Williams has said, the integrity of the Wiradjuri people's sacred heartland will be irreparably damaged if the mine goes ahead. There are many artefacts beneath the surface of the lake because Lake Cowal is very, very old. The Wiradjuri artefacts are not relics. They have not been abandoned. They are where they were meant to be left and were left there by the Wiradjuri old people. It is impossible to collect every artefact, and those collected can never be returned to their exact location. The marked trees in the area that the company wants to cut down are hundreds of years old, like the other huge river red gums at the lake. Animals and birds that live there will have to leave or die. The company has already done a lot of damage to the integrity of the site by collecting and damaging artefacts.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Point of order: I had not intended to take this point of order because I thought that the member would have enough commonsense to finish a bit earlier than he did. We are discussing an amendment that requires a Minister to provide an indication on an application. The arguments that have been advanced have no bearing on the amendment. This is another unwarranted attack on a company that is seeking to do business in New South Wales. I again ask the member to address the amendment.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: I was elucidating on an amendment that would ensure that the Minister provides transparency. I thank the Minister because he did not interrupt me, as he so often does, when I was speaking about the Wiradjuri people. I will not make any further comment. I appreciate that the Minister allowed me to put those comments in the context of this amendment. This is a very important amendment to a very important group of people, and I wanted those facts placed on the record. Having said that, I will conclude my remarks, but reiterate that the amendment is worthy of support.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) [4.42 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. Clearly, the reasoning behind it is confused. On one hand, arguments have been advanced against the extension of consent, but, on the other hand, arguments have been advanced in favour of rushing a decision. No rationale has been presented for why any sensible person would not make a decision in the most appropriate time frame. I cannot understand the rationale for a Minister sitting on an application, given that the legislation seeks to extend consent to enable a project to get under way. The Government is opposed to the amendment.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.42 p.m.]: The Opposition also opposes the amendment. Since I was told of the amendment yesterday I have been at a loss to understand it. Having listened to the explanation, I am still at a loss to understand it. The notion that a Minister would want to approve an application in secret, sit on it without telling anybody about it, and then retrospectively grant consent baffles me. I do not know where the Greens are coming from. Let us be clear that the purpose of this legislation is to extend consent for up to three years. The Minister may extend a development consent that has already been granted, and the applicant will have a piece of paper to prove that it has been granted.

When an applicant has five years in which to commence a project but is unable to because of legal action, the Minister may grant an extension for a period not greater than three years, depending on the extent of the delay. Why would a Minister grant consent retrospectively when the whole idea is to grant an extension to enable a project to get under way, to get the bulldozers moving, and to do whatever it takes for the project to commence? There is no logic in the argument that a Minister would want to sit on the application or apply retrospectivity when the purpose of the process is to enable a project to commence, unless the purpose of the amendment is to provide would-be litigants with new reasons to take matters to court. Perhaps the Greens will make their position clear on that. Other than that, I have to say that I have been absolutely mystified by the amendment. At the outset I said the Opposition was not prepared to support the amendment, but I was interested to hear the explanation for it because I was at a loss to understand it. I sought advice from departmental officers to help me understand it and, although I would not want to verbal them, I think they are as mystified as I am.

Amendment negatived.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.45 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendment Nos. 4 and 5 in globo:

No. 4 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 95B (6), lines 6 and 7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(6) A person who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application or the failure of the consent authority to determine the application within 30 days after it is made may appeal to the Court, and the Court may determine the appeal.

No. 5 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 95B (7), line 13. Insert " or, if the Court has allowed the extension in determining an appeal, the date on which the Court determined the appeal".

Amendment No. 4 provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the determination of an application or the failure of the consent authority to determine an application within 30 days after it is made may appeal to the court and the court may determine the appeal. Amendment No. 5 goes to the relevant amendments that would need to be made to the Land and Environment Court. A third party right of appeal is the mechanism whereby the voice of the community may be heard in the legal and political processes. Without that right of appeal, the power of money and ministerial influence win the day.

Without a third party right of appeal, the voice of the community will be absent from the consent extension process. The Government should support this amendment and the concept of third party rights of appeal. It should also support community groups and organisations, such as the Environmental Defender's Office, which work tirelessly to represent the interests of the public good over corporate profit. Indeed, the Government should have nothing to fear from organisations or from legislative mechanisms aimed at securing a greater voice for the community. Instead, this bill is an explicit attempt to silence that voice. An appeal would be the only process in which a Minister's reasons will be subject to public scrutiny. It would be the only time that the Minister would be held accountable for a decision. The right of appeal should be a standard part of an open and transparent government. It is appalling that the Greens should be forced to argue that point.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) [4.47 p.m.]: I suggest that the argument advanced in support of this amendment not only is unclear but also is completely ridiculous, given that the previous amendments were not passed by the Committee. It is ridiculous that this amendment is even being discussed, because it relates to amendments that have been negatived. The Government is opposed to the amendment.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.48 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by Ms Sylvia Hale. I cannot see the logic in the Minister's argument that because one amendment has failed, others should not be moved. The Greens know that the amendments have failed but it is our right, as duly elected members of this Parliament, to move amendments. I think the executive arm of government tends to forget that members are elected to represent the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. Michael Costa: "Duly elected".

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, that is right. Ministers forget that each member has a right of expression and that this Parliament is not solely the domain of Ministers and Executive Government. Barrick Gold and its predecessors have not properly consulted many Aboriginal traditional owners in the region, many of whom have declared their opposition to the Lake Cowal goldmining project. There is no doubt now that Barrick is overriding the deep concerns and opposition of the Wiradjuri traditional owners. In March 2002 a Wiradjuri traditional owner, Neville Williams, took Barrick to court to claim that the company's current exploration desecrated Lake Cowal. He also claimed that the desecration and removal of artefacts are illegal acts. I am talking now about third party rights, in case the Minister is ready to spring and take a point of order.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I am ready to spring, but if the Mr Ian Cohen keeps his comments short, I will not.

Mr IAN COHEN: I will not be hurrying, in trembling fear that the Minister might spring, being the athlete that he is. The destruction and removal of cultural objects and artefacts is illegal. Mr Williams and other traditional owners have maintained their position that without their consent Barrick Gold and the New South Wales Government will risk a judgement against them in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, similar to the Ok Tedi precedent. In fact, Mr Williams has gone as far as to say:

The company and the New South Wales Government would rue the day that they proceed without consent from the traditional owners. They will face a common law suite for trespass and damages.

Legal opinion estimates that such a suit could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, many times more than any compensation payable under a native title agreement. It would also open up a Pandora's box of litigation from other traditional owners who have legitimate grievances that the Native Title Act is being used as a vehicle to dispossess and destroy Aboriginal land and culture. It is quite clear that the amendment to allow the continuance of third party appeal rights would be of significant importance to Aboriginal people in the area. As such it is worthy of being put on the record.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.51 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the two amendments. Earlier Ms Sylvia Hale spoke about the need to examine the Minister's reasons. I would have thought that it was fairly clear that an application would be lodged if a development consent were to lapse and the project could not commence because of legal proceedings. The Minister would grant an extension if legal proceedings prevented the commencement of the development. It is not a question of other reasons; there is only one issue here, the period of time the development is delayed in the courts. Development can be granted for that period, not for a longer period.

There is no other opportunity to go back to the courts to revisit the Minister's decision, when the Minister is very clear that this legislation is about delay caused by legal proceedings in relation to an already valid development consent. I use those words very carefully. We are talking about a valid development consent already granted for a State significant project. We are talking about a project that, in all likelihood, has been through a commission of inquiry and, of course, has been subject to full merit consideration by the Minister. This is not a question of revisiting the merits of the original development application. It is a question of extending the development consent because the development cannot commence within the five years because of legal proceedings. That is what we are talking about.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.53 p.m.]: The crux of this debate is that the process of ministerial callings is murky and accountable. When the Minister makes his initial decision he is not required to give reasons. This bill extends that lack of accountability to not having to give reasons. The Greens argued in relation to their first amendment that there may be considerable changes and that the basis for the original decision, however unaccountable and unclear, may have changed. A decision that may have been acceptable five years prior to the lodgment of the application may, eight years later, be totally unacceptable. It may be unacceptable because of technological or environmental changes, or because of new knowledge coming to light.

The Minister has not been obliged to tell the public that an application has been lodged or what the decision was. The Greens have argued that that is totally unacceptable. That process leads to an unaccountable, untransparent outcome. The bill potentially allows eight years between the granting of the initial approval and the end of the consent period. The Greens say that is far too long, and therefore the reasons for the approval must be transparent and subject to public scrutiny. The only means whereby that can be done is for the bill to provide for a public discussion of that via the legal process. For that reason the Greens strongly argue that there should be a third-party right of appeal to the court. Without that, the public interest is removed entirely from the equation.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [4.58 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.58 p.m.]: This bill has one intent: to keep the Lake Cowal mine proposal on track.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: Numerous Presidents and Acting-Presidents have ruled to the effect that a member cannot at the third reading stage make a speech that would more appropriately have been given at the second reading stage. I suggest that Ms Lee Rhiannon, having missed the opportunity to do so earlier, is now attempting to deliver her second reading speech. I ask you to confine Ms Lee Rhiannon to commenting on issues raised by the Minister in his reply to debate on the second reading.

Mr Ian Cohen: To the point of order: The Hon. Amanda Fazio has clearly presumed what Ms Lee Rhiannon will say, because she did not give Ms Lee Rhiannon an opportunity to embark on her speech. We have discussed what Ms Lee Rhiannon will say. She wishes to make comments that are pertinent to the Committee stage, and the third reading stage is the relevant time to do that, as traditionally has happened in this House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: As my colleague Mr Ian Cohen said, I was about to introduce new material. I draw attention to previous rulings that, to my understanding, allow such a course of action. On 4 May 1989 former President the Hon. Johno Johnson ruled at page 7452 of Decisions from the Chair:

The prime purpose of a third reading of a bill is to ensure a last opportunity to oppose the legislation. The debate upon the third reading of a bill should be confined to that question.

That is what I will be doing. I understand that that ruling has been reiterated by other Presidents. Page 272 of the tenth edition of Australian Senate Practice Odgers states:

Debate on the motion for the third reading should be confined to reasons for then passing or rejecting the bill but new arguments may be advanced.

I acknowledge that I have some new arguments that I believe to be most relevant to this debate. It would be tragic if the gag were applied at this stage.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! Given that the rulings of former Presidents referred to by the member support her argument, she may continue. However, as the member indicated, debate on the third reading of a bill does not present a member with an opportunity to revisit the second reading stage. So long as the member confines her remarks to the question that the bill be now read a third time, she may continue.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: As my Greens colleagues and I have said, the intent of this bill is to keep Lake Cowal goldmine on track. It is vital that honourable members are made aware of the most likely consequences of cyanide-based goldmining at Lake Cowal, if that mining proceeds. I would like to inform honourable members of experiences in other countries where this form of mining has been undertaken. Honourable members should be aware that cyanide-based goldmines have a long and dark history. They have regularly caused environmental damage on a massive scale, and harmed the health and safety of mineworkers, often fatally. I will give examples of tragedies during the past decade that, at times, have been quite massive.

In South Africa in February 1994, 10 miners were killed when a disused slime dam at the Harmony mine, operated by Randgold, burst its banks and buried a housing complex in cyanide-laced mud. In August the following year more than 3.2 billion litres of cyanide-laden tailings were released into Essequibo River in Guyana when a dam collapsed at the Omai goldmine. Studies by the Pan American Health Organisation have shown that all aquatic life in the four-kilometre-long creek that runs from the mine to the Essequibo was killed. In May 1998 a truck transporting cyanide to the Kumtor mine in Kyrgyzstan plunged off a bridge and spilled almost two tonnes of sodium cyanide, or 1,762 kilograms, into local surface waters. Local people reported at least four deaths that might have resulted from that spill. Hundreds of people also checked into local hospitals complaining of health problems following that spill.

We do not have large populations in western New South Wales where Lake Cowal is located, but the region would be set back enormously if an accident occurred there. The few jobs that were created at that mine would be negated by the damage that could be done to rural industries. I refer next to the well-known tragedy that occurred in Romania and Hungary in January 2000. Thousands of tonnes of fish died in the Tisza and Danube rivers from a cyanide spill near Baia Mare in north-western Romania, and 130,000 cubic yards of cyanide-tainted water were discharged from a goldmine reservoir into river systems in Romania, Hungary and Yugoslavia. The incident is described as Europe's worst river pollution disaster in a decade.

No doubt many honourable members in this Chamber will remember the horrifying television images of that event. Biologists estimate that it will take at least five years to restock fish and that it will be 10 to 20 years before most of the river life returns. We have beautiful and internationally renowned wetlands at Lake Cowal. Australia is signatory to a treaty to protect birds that fly into that area, so surely the protection of that area should be a priority for the Government. I refer again to the disaster that occurred in Romania and Hungary. The upper Tisza, which was one of Europe's cleanest rivers, was home to at least 20 species of protected fish. Rare osprey, river otters, foxes, and many other birds, mammals and wildlife are known to have died from ingesting poisoned fish. That devastation is unacceptable.

There was an incident closer to home. In March 2000 there was an incident in Papua New Guinea. Sadly, like a lot of incidents in Papua New Guinea, it received little coverage in Australia, but it had devastating consequences for the environment and local people. An Australian mining company was responsible for that contamination. Dome Resources contaminated an important river system in a Papua New Guinea rainforest. While flying from the capital of Port Moresby to the Tolukuma mine, a Dome helicopter dropped into the rainforest a crate containing one tonne of sodium cyanide pellets—the most concentrated form of cyanide—that were to be used in cyanide-leaching goldmining processes. The evidence is clear.

In October 2001 villages in the Wassa West district of Ghana were hit by the spillage of thousands of cubic metres of mine wastewater contaminated with cyanide and heavy metals. The cause was a ruptured tailings dam at a mine operation owned by the South African mine company Goldfields. Virtually all life forms in the Asuman River and its tributaries were decimated, and people's livelihoods were endangered.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Do you have any Australian examples?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is tragic when Opposition members attempt to belittle such terrible consequences. Even if members intend to support this mine, they should have some sympathy for the hardship that people have gone through.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Are there any Australian examples?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, there are. I ask the Minister to be patient. In October 2001, two weeks after the cyanide spill, Ghana was hit by a second cyanide spillage, this time in a swamp area that provides local people with mudfish, local medicine, and bamboo for a wide number of uses. In November 2001, 11 tonnes of liquid sodium cyanide leaked into a tributary of the Luohe River, a shallow tributary of the Yellow River in Henan Province, China, after a traffic accident. Livestock animals were poisoned and at least one person became sick as a result of contamination. In February 2002 in Australia, 400 litres of liquid cyanide were spilled in the Northern Territory, killing over 500 birds and other wildlife.

A similar accident occurred in Parkes in New South Wales when a large number of cattle died. It is astonishing that anyone, after considering this litany of disasters, could still support a goldmine in a place of such ecological significance as Lake Cowal. We often hear the Premier singing the praises of rural New South Wales and talking about his environmental credentials. Those credentials will be dead and buried if this bill is passed.

At one time the Carr Government was opposed to the mine, but just before the 1999 election the Australian Labor Party underwent a dramatic conversion from an opponent to a supporter of the Lake Cowal goldmine. This is one of the biggest smears on the record of Premier Bob Carr, the so-called green Premier. Premier Bob Carr will only further taint his reputation if this bill passes today. It is still not too late to force Barrick Gold to conduct another environmental impact statement. Surely such a process should be undertaken. We still have an opportunity to save Lake Cowal by voting against this legislation. I urge all honourable members to do so.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.08 p.m.]: I was prompted by the interjections of the Minister for Transport to take part in this debate. It is important to reiterate the examples that were referred to so clearly by Ms Lee Rhiannon, and to emphasise the effect on the region of the Lake Cowal goldmining project.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: Honourable members contributing to the third reading debate must state clearly why the bill should be passed. This bill amends the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It makes no reference to Lake Cowal.

Ms Sylvia Hale: The Minister said it was all about Lake Cowal.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: The bill will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Honourable members do not have an opportunity at the third reading stage to make speeches that should have been made at the second reading stage. They must confine their remarks to this legislation and not rehash the history of Lake Cowal. The honourable member should refer only to matters concerning this legislation.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: I was clearly using Lake Cowal as example of why the Greens oppose this bill. I believe it is in keeping with the spirit of third reading debates for me to cover areas that I have not explored previously. I would have presented that new material in far less time than it is taking to discuss the Hon. Patricia Forsythe's point of order.

Ms Sylvia Hale: To the point of order: The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources made it perfectly clear in his speech in the other place that the bill concerned Lake Cowal. He said:

In the competitive global market, this is likely to be a disincentive to investment in New South Wales, and could result in the loss of jobs and significant economic benefits. The Cowal Gold Project is located in western New South Wales …

The Minister continued in that vein. He was very clear that the bill is about Lake Cowal.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Further to the point of order: The bill is not about the life history of Lake Cowal; it is about the issuing of development consents. The third reading debate on this bill is not the time to recite the entire history of the Lake Cowal development.

Mr IAN COHEN: Further to the point of order: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe is pre-empting my speech, which I had only just begun when she took her point of order. She is presuming that I will recite the history of Lake Cowal when I am simply seeking to add to an argument that I believe is valid, even though it was rejected by the House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! It is customary during a speech on the third reading of a bill for a member to debate whether the bill should be passed. Accordingly, I uphold the point of order of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Development Consents) Bill is about development consents. Mr Ian Cohen should confine his remarks to debating whether the bill should be passed and refrain from referring to any other issue. Any point made in his speech must be relevant to whether the bill should be passed.

Mr IAN COHEN: I will add to Ms Lee Rhiannon's comments about cyanide spills. Members will be aware that cyanide is legal. One teaspoon of a 2 per cent cyanide solution can kill an adult human. Cyanide is even more toxic to aquatic biota than to birds. Contrary to goldmining industry claims, cyanide leaks and spills are commonplace in the industry.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: The third reading of this bill is definitely not the time to discuss cyanide spills. The third reading debate presents an opportunity to discuss the extension of development consents, not to discuss any and all environmental matters as Mr Ian Cohen sees fit. The bill is about allowing the Minister to grant an extension of up to three years on a valid development consent. The bill is not about cyanide, wetlands or anything else; it is about development consents and their extension.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the futility of continuing my speech. However, I point out that the Murray River system is already overstretched by salt, nitrogen, acidity and agricultural chemicals, and the Lake Cowal project could prove disastrous.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.14 p.m.]: I have taken account of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe's comments and I think the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Development Consents) Bill is an appalling example of planning legislation. It is about a lack of transparency, lack of accountability and lack of relevance to changed circumstances. As a piece of planning legislation, this bill is unacceptable. It establishes an unacceptable precedent by way of an inappropriate process—namely, the ministerial call-in of State significant developments—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That's a different issue.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is happening. The bill gives the Minister the right to grant a further extension of the approval period. By doing that, I believe the bill establishes a very poor precedent. The Greens amendments were defeated in Committee so the Minister will be able to ignore new information, changed circumstances and scientific knowledge when taking a decision on development consents. Nor is the Minister obliged to make public either the lodging of the application or his determination. That is surely an appalling process that goes to the heart of transparent governance in this State.

The bill does not require the Minister to act expeditiously. That goes to the heart of certainty and security of outcome—goals that I thought would be important to the corporate community. The bill also goes to the heart of the public's right to intervene in this process and at least challenge the Minister to provide reasons for his decision. Even if one ignores the appalling consequences of this bill for Lake Cowal—including contamination of groundwater at that site—and concentrates on it as a piece of planning legislation, one will still find nothing to recommend it. The only comment possible on this bill is that it is in keeping with the standards set by this Government that most of the community finds reprehensible.

Question—That this bill be now read a third time—put.

The House divided.

Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Ms Cusack Ms Fazio Mrs Forsythe

Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Robertson Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Breen Mr Cohen

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [5.25 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On 8 April this year I announced the Government's intention to put in place a range of reforms to focus the full resources of the State's public transport system on safety, reliability and cleanliness. The first priority is safety. A clean, safe and reliable system will be achieved only if accountabilities and responsibilities are clear to its operators, the Government and the public. The Ministry of Transport has now been established. Preparations for the merger of State Rail and the metropolitan functions of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation are well advanced and I will be bringing legislation before Parliament in future to give effect to the merger. This bill establishes an Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator. The regulator will be independent of the Ministry of Transport and transport operators. It will have the authority to regulate and audit the safety of transport services, investigate transport accidents, and advise on the reliability and performance of transport service providers. This bill builds on the Rail Safety Act, strengthens its provisions and extends its principles across the other transport modes.

The Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator will have as its principal objective the safety of transport services in New South Wales, including bus and ferry passenger services, and rail passenger and freight services. The rail safety powers under the Rail Safety Act will transfer to the new Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator. Within the regulator, there will be an Office of Transport Safety Investigation, headed by a chief investigator who will report directly to the chair to avoid any conflict of interest with the compliance functions of the regulator. Within the regulator, the audit and investigation functions are independent, with accountabilities separated. One of the new regulator's priorities will be to review all previous accident investigation and safety reports of transport agencies and operators to ensure appropriate action had been taken. Rail agencies have already started identifying all relevant documents from the past 7 to 10 years.This process will complement the review of safety critical infrastructure by Fellows Medlock and Associates commissioned by the Co-ordinator General of Rail earlier this year.

Independence is critical for the regulatory and investigative functions to be effective. That is why the regulator will be a stand-alone statutory authority, independent of other transport agencies and the Ministry of Transport. It will report to Parliament through the Minister for Transport Services. This bill establishes the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator as the central focus of transport safety in New South Wales. There is no ambiguity as to its primacy and role. The bill also makes clear the safety responsibilities of transport operators and the regulator's role in enforcing these. This will prevent the competing priorities and unclear responsibilities that have developed in transport safety management in other countries.

To ensure the regulator remains independent, the bill provides for strict limitations on ministerial control and direction. The Minister will have no control or power of direction regarding accreditation decisions to prosecute, investigate or audit the conduct of any investigation or audit, or the contents of any report or recommendation. The Minister will, however, be able to direct that an investigation be undertaken, consistent with the traditions of ministerial responsibility. The limitations over ministerial direction and control are similar to legislation establishing the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission, and other similar regulatory agencies within New South Wales, such as the Health Care Complaints Commission and the Casino Control Authority.

The corporate governance provisions of this bill will provide a further protection in regard to the independence of the new regulator. The bill provides for the creation of an advisory board consisting of a chairperson, the chief executive officer of the regulator and three independent members. The board will have a key role in reviewing the organisation's decisions and outputs, and provide quality assurance on the reports and recommendations made. It will provide the regulator with greater access to technical and industry expertise, and ensure strong mechanisms to review the rigour of its activities. Importantly, the bill provides that the chairperson of the Independent Regulator must have experience in transport safety management systems. Other members of the board must collectively have experience in areas such as safety management, safety science, customer service, accident investigation and public administration. In this regard, I remind the House that Mr Ron Christie has been advising me on the establishment of the Independent Regulator and has taken an active leadership role in this process. As I indicated publicly yesterday, I intend to recommend to the Governor that Mr Christie be appointed the chair of the Independent Regulator upon its establishment.

I am committed to transparency in the operations of the transport agencies. Honourable members need only look at the range of reports and information now made available on the transport agency web sites to see my commitment to transparency. I believe we can go further. Nowhere is the need for transparency more important than in the area of safety—people are entitled to know whether their mode of transport is safe, what the issues are and what is being done to make transport safer. That is why I am committed to providing the public with more information about our public transport system. Taxpayers will now be able to access performance and safety data not previously available. This means both greater transparency and improved accountability. The more educated the public becomes, the more confident it will become in the integrity of the transport system.

As I mentioned earlier, the Rail Safety Act 2002 significantly strengthened the regulatory powers for rail safety and the requirements for open and transparent reporting of rail safety issues. The Act requires the Rail Safety Regulator to prepare an annual industry safety report and to report to the Minister on all accident investigations undertaken by it. The bill extends these public reporting requirements to other transport modes, including buses and ferries. The new regulator will be required to provide an annual report to the Minister on both the safety and reliability of transport services across all modes—rail, bus and ferry. These reports, along with any transport accident investigation report, must be tabled by the Minister in the Parliament no later than 28 days after their receipt. In addition, the Independent Regulator has the express function under the proposed legislation to publicly report on safety and reliability issues as they arise. These reports will be posted on its web site. This public reporting will be the basis of its transparency and underlines its independence. Effective regulation involves more than reporting.

This bill also strengthens the requirements of operators of transport services in relation to their provision of safe services for the people of New South Wales. This includes the requirement for bus and ferry operators to have and maintain a safety management system to underpin their operations; providing the Office of Transport Safety Investigations with the power to undertake investigations into bus and ferry, as well as rail, accidents; and enabling the regulator to provide government with advice on the reliability and performance of all modes of transport services. Implementation of an effective and responsive safety management regime, supported by appropriate accreditation, is the required mechanism by which operators demonstrate that management systems are in place to deliver safe outcomes.

The Rail Safety Act 2002 introduced a specific requirement for rail operators to have and maintain a safety management system to underpin their operations. This bill introduces a similar requirement for bus and ferry operators. This should not be seen as a regulatory regime that will unnecessarily burden these operators. In fact, many bus and charter vessel operators should already have a safety management system or be moving towards the implementation of one as required under the Occupation Health and Safety Act. The bill provides a transition period of 12 months for operators to ensure their systems are in place. The new regulator will work with the Ministry of Transport's Operations Division, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Waterways Authority to assist the bus and ferry industries in introducing the required systems. Commercial bus operators will be required to have a risk-based safety management system, commensurate with the size and complexity of their business, in order to achieve accreditation with the Ministry of Transport as a public bus operator.

Ferry and commercial vessel operators will be required to have safety management systems aligned with the proposed National Standard for Commercial Vessels to maintain their licence with the Waterways Authority. The regulator will work with industry to ensure that the costs of implementation are appropriate to the risk and size of the operator. This rigorous and consistent approach to safety management across mass transport in New South Wales will be backed up with budgetary and staffing resources to enable the Independent Regulator to enforce this approach. Robust governance and organisational arrangements have been developed for the new entity. The Independent Regulator will have four divisions: Transport Safety Regulator, Service Reliability, Corporate Strategy, and an Independent Office of Transport Safety Investigations, headed up by a chief investigator, within the organisation.

A chief executive officer will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Independent Regulator and will hold delegated responsibility for all safety and performance responsibilities, excluding investigations. The chief investigator will report to the chair, not to the chief executive officer. This quarantines the investigations function from the remainder of the functions of the regulator. There will also be significant enhancement in the number, skill level and expertise of staff. There will be more resources for audits and inspections of operators, a dedicated team of investigators within the Office of Transport Safety Investigations, and a significant increase in resources available to collect and analyse transport safety data and other information, such as investigation reports from other Australian and overseas jurisdictions. The proposed structure will also provide a senior level support structure to support the chief executive, and will enable accountabilities to be clear and properly defined.

Under the bill different reporting accountabilities separate safety regulation and investigation functions within the same agency, whilst maximising the practical benefits of sharing resources and, in particular, technical expertise. The concern with vertical separation of agencies both in New South Wales and internationally is that the splitting of functions across separate organisations reduces communication, spreads scarce technical expertise and leads to ambiguities in accountabilities and responsibilities. In the safety context this could result in valuable industry intelligence and safety information being lost rather than shared. It is recognised that accreditation and investigation are fundamentally different functions and that there may be a need for the activities of the regulator to be reviewed as part of an investigation. For this reason, the chief investigator and the Office of Transport Safety Investigations will be functionally separate from the regulator.

The chairman will have responsibility for appointing the chief investigator and for overseeing accident investigations. In turn, the chief investigator will report directly to the chair and not to the chief executive of the regulator. This will enable the investigator to provide frank advice to the chair, including advice on the activities of the regulator. An investigation team may draw on the technical expertise within the regulator, or indeed in the industry. However, the conduct of its investigation, its findings and its report will be independent of both.

The Government recognises that conflicts between performance and safety functions can arise when the same organisation has the same responsibility for setting and funding performance and regulating safety. To avoid this conflict the regulator will not set service standards or control funding to service providers. Funding and standard setting responsibilities will remain with the Minister through the Ministry of Transport's contracts with service providers. The regulator's role will be to provide independent expert advice on whether operators are meeting the performance standards Government has set. This performance monitoring role will enable the regulator to identify problems and notify the Government of them before they become safety critical—in other words, predict safety issues; not simply respond to them after they have happened.

Recent experience has shown there can be a long lag between a deterioration in asset maintenance and its impact on safety. Monitoring performance in this area will help the regulator anticipate likely safety issues. This arrangement will ensure responsibility for safety is not compromised or overridden by responsibility for driving performance. The regulator will also advise Government and the public as to how the transport system is working. It will gather detailed information for performance benchmarking with other comparable systems in other jurisdictions. In that way the commuters of New South Wales will know how their system compares with others in Australia and around the world. Given its importance, and the establishment of new transport agencies, the Government wants to set up the new regulator promptly. We will review the legislation in 12 months time.

This review will provide an opportunity to consider the final outcomes of the Waterfall inquiry. It is important to understand the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry. There are three. The first is the cause of the railway accident at Waterfall on 31 January 2003 and the factors which contributed to it. We expect the interim report on this term of reference in late November. The second is the adequacy of the safety management systems applicable to the circumstances of the railway accident. The third is any safety improvements to rail operations considered necessary as a result of findings under the first two matters. An extension until April next year has been granted for reporting on the second and third terms of reference. Now, it is the second and third terms of reference that seek recommendations for systemic and organisational changes.

In granting his extension the Premier has advised Justice McInerney that the Government is proceeding with its legislation and would reconsider safety legislation following the receipt of the final report. This means the Government can consider recommendations from the commission of inquiry on the second and third terms of reference at that time. I refer to the notice of motion that the Leader of the Opposition moved in the House today. As I said to him this morning, I am happy for Ron Christie and Kent Donaldson to brief members on the establishment of the new regulator. However, given the importance of rail safety, the Government cannot afford to delay the setting up of the new independent regulator. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [5.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The matters addressed in this bill have arisen primarily from a competition policy review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986. This review assessed whether the current Act provides net public benefits and whether the identified net public benefits could be achieved in different ways that do not restrict competition. Although the competition policy review group found that some provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 generate public benefits, it recommended that the net public benefits could be significantly increased by implementing some reforms to the Act. Consistent with these findings, the objectives of the Veterinary Practice Bill 2003 place significant emphasis on promoting the welfare of animals.

The bill has other objectives. It ensures that consumers of veterinary services are well informed as to the competencies required of veterinary practitioners. It also ensures that acceptable standards are required to be met by veterinary practitioners in order to meet public interest as well as national and international trade requirements; and it also provides public health protection through compliance with other legislative controls including the possession and use of veterinary chemicals, including stock medicines.

I will now deal with some of the proposed reforms within the bill. First, the Act will be renamed the Veterinary Practice Act and the Veterinary Surgeons Board will be renamed the Veterinary Practitioners Board. These changes better reflect the purposes of the Act in regulating certain practices of veterinary science in the public interest. The Veterinary Practitioners Board will continue to regulate the registration of veterinary practitioners in New South Wales. Having been in operation since 1923, the board has seen many changes. However, it remains focused on maintaining registration requirements that ensure the provision of high standard veterinary services to the New South Wales public. As at 30 June 2002 this meant overseeing the registration of 2,527 veterinary practitioners in New South Wales, 106 of whom were honorary and 214 of whom were provisional registrants from universities.

Membership of the board will increase from six to eight with the addition of two community representatives. These additional representatives will ensure that community expectations in areas such as animal welfare are considered in board deliberations. To further enhance the accountability of the board to its registered members and the public, the board will be required to hold an annual general meeting at which the board's budget and certain payments to board members will be able to be debated. In relation to the registration of veterinary practitioners changes are proposed that will maintain appropriate professional standards, while at the same time ensuring that no unnecessary impediments are imposed on new entrants to the profession. The existing "good character test" will be supplemented with provisions that will allow practitioners to be precluded from being registered if they have committed criminal offences in respect of other key legislation such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, the Stock Medicines Act 1989 and the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

A further requirement will be that all veterinary practitioners will have to submit an annual statement to the Veterinary Practitioners Board specifying certain matters in respect of their registration: for example, their tertiary qualifications, whether they have any health issues that may impact adversely on their ability to practice veterinary science and whether they have had their registration cancelled or suspended in any other jurisdiction or whether they have been refused registration in another jurisdiction. Other details required may be prescribed by the regulations. This information will enable the board to gather statistical data in respect of a variety of matters but, more importantly, it will assist in maintaining high professional standards by requiring each practitioner to declare annually specific information concerning their continued suitability to practice veterinary science. Also, the board will have the power to investigate matters disclosed in the annual statement.

Another key change concerning registration brought about by the proposed bill is in relation to the qualifications of overseas graduates. A graduate that has an academic award in veterinary science from a university, college or institution approved by the board may be eligible for registration as a veterinary practitioner. This means that overseas graduates who hold qualifications from certain institutions may have their veterinary qualifications automatically recognised in New South Wales without necessarily having to sit the entrance examination. To ensure that these arrangements do not unnecessarily exclude certain overseas graduates from automatic registration it is imperative that the board's list of recognised educational institutions be updated regularly. The board will therefore be required to review the list of approved universities, colleges and institutions at least once every year, and the results of the review will be published in the board's annual report.

Let me turn now to the regulation of acts of veterinary science. As I stated earlier, a key change brought about by the bill is its unambiguous focus on regulating veterinary practitioners for the purpose of achieving certain public benefits, particularly in relation to maintaining appropriate animal welfare standards. To this end, a key reform is to replace the previous monopoly over acts of veterinary science that was provided to veterinary practitioners with a specific list of veterinary practices that, on animal welfare, human health and domestic and international trade grounds, can be undertaken by registered veterinary practitioners only. This list of restricted acts of veterinary science that only veterinary practitioners, the owner of the animal, or an employee of the owner will be allowed to undertake will be determined on the advice of an advisory committee and set out in the regulations.

The persons that I will appoint to the advisory committee to provide advice on what should be restricted acts of veterinary science will include persons with appropriate technical expertise, including technical experts in animal welfare, veterinary practice and animal husbandry. Whatever the ultimate membership of the advisory committee, the intention is that its views will be representative of the animal welfare, human health and trade concerns of the broader New South Wales public. This will enable the citizens of New South Wales to be confident that those acts of veterinary science that remain the sole domain of veterinary practitioners will be regulated in the public interest, rather than in the interests of just the veterinary profession.

This arrangement will also enable animal health care services not needing to be restricted to veterinary practitioners to be provided on a competitive basis by both veterinary and non-veterinary service providers. This in turn will have flow-on benefits to consumers of animal health services, including New South Wales farmers. It has been argued that removing the veterinary monopoly on acts of veterinary science will reduce the number of veterinarians in rural areas, and hence will reduce the extent and effectiveness of passive disease surveillance, with disease threats to the New South Wales economy increasing. Put another way, proponents of this argument are essentially saying that unless the New South Wales Government subsidises the veterinary profession through the provision of a business monopoly on all acts of veterinary science, veterinary practitioners will not find work in regional New South Wales sufficiently financially rewarding and will go elsewhere. Let me assure the House that the changes proposed in the bill will not result in an increase in the incidence of disease.

By virtue of New South Wales stock diseases legislation and arrangements established with the Commonwealth Government and the Rural Lands Protection Boards significant resources will continue to be devoted not only to maintaining disease surveillance but also to ensuring that our response capabilities are appropriate. First, I emphasise that the existing requirements for occupiers of land—the owners of stock, the persons in charge of stock, veterinarians, any other person who attends or is consulted in relation to stock—to report suspected animal diseases will continue. Second, a major role of the 48 Rural Lands Protection Boards across the State is the management of stock diseases, and it is a requirement that boards employ veterinarians for the purposes of disease surveillance and control. In relation to the concern over the overall number of veterinarians in rural areas, I point out to the House that veterinarians will not be precluded from undertaking any acts of veterinary science, including those potentially open to other practitioners.

I further point out that a reform in the bill aimed at ensuring our rural communities are well serviced by the veterinary profession is a provision that will enable agricultural supply companies to provide veterinary services as an adjunct to their main business. The approach of regulating certain restricted acts of veterinary science only will allow the public to decide whether they wish their animals to receive those types of treatment from a registered veterinary practitioner or from a technician who specialises in that type of treatment. In relation to disciplinary proceedings against veterinary practitioners, during 2002-03 the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee investigated 22 new complaints and continued the investigation of 21 complaints from the previous year. In total, 29 complaints were finalised and at 30 June 2003 17 complaints were current.

As an alternative to the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee, it is proposed the board be empowered to deal with cases of professional misconduct directly, or to refer them to a subcommittee of the board. The aim of this new scheme is to give the board greater control and flexibility in dealing with complaints. When a member of the public is aggrieved by the treatment of their animal by a current or former veterinary practitioner in terms of professional conduct, they will be able to complain in writing to the board. Although the board will have the same powers as the current investigating committee, it will also be able to impose a fine of up to $5,000 on a veterinary practitioner whom it finds guilty of professional misconduct. Veterinary practitioners may, in turn, appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. As at 30 June 2003, only two complaints were awaiting determination by the tribunal.

Currently under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986, disclosing information regarding a complaint against a veterinary practitioner is not permitted. Under the proposed bill this restriction will be repealed. All information other than confidential information will be made publicly available. The intent of these changes is to enhance the transparency of disciplinary proceedings and in so doing to enhance the accountability of the board. I turn now to hospital licensing. It is proposed that the current system be simplified and that the licensing of premises will apply only to veterinary hospitals where major surgery is undertaken. As at 30 June 2003, there were 624 licensed veterinary hospitals in New South Wales. In order to gain a licence, a veterinary hospital will need to demonstrate to the board that it can effectively carry out major surgery to acceptable standards of veterinary care. This will remove the need to maintain prescriptive standards for hospitals and allow flexibility with regard to veterinary practices that wish to provide a small number of specialty services. It will also allow these hospitals to demonstrate to the board that they can meet current veterinary standards in innovative ways.

It is also proposed that the rules applying to ownership and business structures of veterinary practices will be changed. The bill allows any form of business arrangement to be used to set up a veterinary practice, so long as the majority interest in its ownership is held by one or more registered veterinary practitioners. This will ensure that the persons with the controlling interest in a veterinary practice are directly accountable for the standards of veterinary care provided at that practice as they are in a position to influence business decisions of the practice accordingly. These provisions free up the current controls by allowing for non-veterinary business partners. In terms of advertising, it is proposed that all previous controls on advertising by veterinary practitioners and the provisions in the Veterinary Surgeons Code of Conduct be repealed. The basis for this is that the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Fair Trading Act 1987 provide adequate protection to the public. The current controls in the Act merely duplicate these existing statutory controls.

In summary, I believe the new Veterinary Practice Bill 2003 introduces a number of significant reforms which on the one hand will make a significant contribution to meeting the animal welfare concerns of the New South Wales public, and on the other hand will ensure a high level of efficiency in the provision of animal care services in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [5.57 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

The hairdressing trade has been the subject of regulation in New South Wales since 1936, with the current licensing and training framework having been basically set in legislation from 1950 and tied to a definition of hairdressing of the same vintage. The present legislation in the form of part 6 of the Shops and Industries Act 1962 has the following three-fold effect. Firstly, no person shall act as a hairdresser for fee, gain or reward unless he or she is the holder of a hairdresser's licence. Secondly, licence eligibility necessitates completion of a prescribed course of training and the passing of prescribed examinations, or otherwise being qualified. Thirdly, off-the-job hairdressing training is restricted to persons engaged under the direction, control or supervision of the New South Wales TAFE Commission.

A public consultative review of part 6 of the Shops and Industries Act 1962 was undertaken as part of the Government's commitment under national competition policy to review all its legislation which potentially restricts competition. It is the case that the National Competition Principles Agreement, ratified by the Council of Australian Governments in 1995, requires the removal of impediments to markets where they are not in the public interest. This intergovernmental agreement has a guiding principle that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can dually be demonstrated that the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs and that the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition. The Hairdressers Bill reflects the conclusions of a completed national competition policy legislation review.

The Hairdressers Bill aims to remove the current licensing system for hairdressers and to permit training providers other than the NSW TAFE Commission to conduct hairdressing courses in this State. The bill will prohibit unqualified persons from acting as hairdressers for fee, gain or reward by statement of the required qualifications for professional practice. So that honourable members may have a clear understanding of the bill's reform purposes, it is necessary that I outline the current background, involving overregulation, of the State's hairdressing industry. The hairdressing industry consists of a large and transient workforce. Approximately 15,000 persons are engaged in New South Wales hairdressing salons with workers moving from salon to salon and across State and Territory boundaries. It is a geographically diverse industry with heavy concentrations in metropolitan areas, regional centres and small country towns. Around 99 per cent of hairdressing businesses in New South Wales, being between 4,300 and 5,000 establishments, are classified as small businesses with approximately 80 per cent of those employing less than five persons.

Although it is the administrative responsibility of the Department of Commerce's Office of Industrial Relations to issue hairdressing licences, it is the function of the Vocational Training Tribunal, as established by the Apprenticeship and Traineeship Act 2001 and administered by the Department of Education and Training, to assess trade skills, issue trade certificates as formal recognition of such skills and to determine if a hairdresser trade licence test is required for any licence applicant. In effect, the Department of Commerce issues a hairdresser's licence on the basis of a trade qualification recognition assessed and determined outside that department. If a licence applicant's case is referred by the Department of Commerce, having charged a $75 licence application fee, to the Vocational Training Tribunal for trade recognition purposes, the person is required to pay a fee of $125 to the tribunal for its consideration of the individual's qualifications or experience.

If the tribunal's assessment is such that the applicant should undergo a trade test, the completion of that TAFE trade test will entail the further payment of $250 to TAFE. Therefore, it is obvious that a person wishing to lawfully perform hairdressing services in New South Wales may presently be financially penalised at several administrative layers in having his or her qualifications or experience assessed for licence purposes. An issued hairdresser's licence does not require periodic renewal. It cannot be a guarantee of service quality over time. Certainly, there is no historic register maintained by the Office of Industrial Relations relating to all licences issued since 1950 and, in any event, such a document would always be an inaccurate representation of New South Wales in that it would not be reflective of deaths, incapacities and relocations. I seek leave to have the remainder of my contribution incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Hairdressing is a recognised trade vocation (within the meaning of the Apprenticeship and Traineeship Act) and a Vocational Training Order under that Act is in force in respect of a hairdressing apprenticeship.

The Hairdressing Order directs that training shall be given for a nominal period of 4 years for a Certificate III outcome or until achievement of the specified competencies. A junior (that is, a person under 21 years of age) is prohibited from being employed in a recognised trade vocation unless he or she is an apprentice or is a qualified tradesperson recognised by the Vocational Training Tribunal.

In Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory there are no statutory limitations placed on a person's practising as a hairdresser in terms of the possession of requisite training and qualifications. Rather, the concern in these jurisdictions is restricted to the occupational health and safety practices of hairdressers and the hygiene standards of their premises.

Western Australia is currently reviewing its system of hairdresser title registration based upon required training/examinations; whilst South Australia's negative licensing scheme has been maintained after completion of a NCP review but competency standards have been made more flexible and the broadness of the definition of 'hairdressing' has been amended to allow certain hair functions (notably, washing and massaging) to be performed without restriction.

Section 111(b) of the Shops and Industries Act confers a training monopoly on the NSW TAFE Commission and so prohibits private institutional training providers from training hairdressers in this State.

New graduates from private hairdressing colleges in other States and Territories are considered not to be immediately eligible for a NSW hairdresser's licence because they are adjudged by the Vocational Training Tribunal to lack sufficient on-the-job trade experience (as compared with 4-year indentured apprentices). Thus, these interstate private college graduates—be they under or over the age of 21—must undertake a shortened apprenticeship with an employer in NSW or otherwise convince the Vocational Training Tribunal of their experience if they ultimately are to be issued with a hairdresser's licence.

The National Training Quality Council (representing the Australian National Training Authority) in August 2000 endorsed the Hairdressing Training Package, as developed and reviewed every 3 years by a representative Industry Training Advisory Board. The Hairdressing Training Package addresses the training and career pathway needs of this industry and links the National Hairdressing Industry Competency Standards through assessment processes to qualifications. The outcome is a nationally recognised and consistent basis for trade qualification in the hairdressing industry, being a description of the skills and knowledge needed to perform effectively in the workplace.

As recognised in the Hairdressing Vocational Training Order relevant to the apprenticeship pathway into the industry, Certificate III in Hairdressing is the nationally accepted standard trade qualification for the industry. Certificate III is structured to enable employees to work flexibly in a range of hairdressing applications.
Through the Australian Quality Training Framework (as agreed to by all Australian jurisdictions in 1997), Madam President, all registered vocational training providers (including TAFE colleges, community and private commercial training providers) under the Framework base their hairdressing industry training and assessment on the Hairdressing Training Package. Being so based, the hairdressing courses offered by NSW TAFE and recognised private training providers throughout Australia all lead to a Certificate III outcome.

This inter-governmental policy commitment to greater diversification in the training market is retarded by the operation of the section 111 TAFE monopoly provision and the NSW hairdressing licence qualification requirements.

Bearing in mind this explanation of the industry's regulatory background, the conclusions of the National Competition Policy Hairdressing Review can be succinctly stated in the following terms:

1. There is sufficient justification for the retention of regulation at the point of entry to the hairdressing services market (based on ensuring competency in the provision of a hairdressing service and meeting possible public health concerns involving skin infection and chemical application hairdressing procedures).

2. However, there is no continuing justification for the retention of a licensing form of regulation administered by the Office of Industrial Relations, being a scheme which essentially is reliant on the Department of Education and Training's prior assessment of hairdressing skills, qualifications and experience.

3. The justified and future appropriate form of regulation at the point of market entry is based upon the existence of the National Hairdressing Training Package (which also addresses safety issues) and the functioning of the Vocational Training Tribunal.

4. There is no present policy justification for the continued existence of the NSW TAFE monopoly in the hairdressing training provider market and private hairdressing training colleges should be lawfully permitted to operate in NSW in accordance with an Australia-wide governmental commitment to the diversified delivery of vocational training.

Turning now to the provisions of the bill, clause 3 at the outset prohibits an unqualified individual from professionally acting as a hairdresser.

Clause 4 importantly then states that a qualified individual is required to have attained a Certificate III in Hairdressing, as recognised in the National Hairdressing Training Package as developed by the industry parties and endorsed nationally. A former licence holder is taken to be qualified, as also are hairdressers from interstate or overseas who have their qualifications recognised by the Vocational Training Tribunal.

Honourable Members will note that the bill's clause 5 preserves the current statutory safeguards in ensuring that the prohibition on unqualified individuals acting as a hairdresser does not extend to apprentices and health care professionals.

Moreover, clause 6 of the bill essentially recognises the primacy of section 25 of the Apprenticeship and Traineeship Act 2001 in that the accepted apprenticeship pathway of persons under 21 years of age into the hairdressing trade is safeguarded.

The bill generally provides for the repeal of the current industry regulatory provisions of Part 6 of the Shops and Industries Act in its clause 10 and Schedule 1. Apart from the removal of the licensing provisions, this will have the added major effect of abolishing the NSW TAFE Commission's monopoly on off-the-job hairdressing training in this State.

The remaining provisions of the bill are of a supportive nature and include necessary inspectorial and prosecution powers.

The bill accords with the National Competition Policy review conclusion that the terms 'hairdresser' or 'hairdressing' should not be defined (as at present) by a listing of work examples.

To so provide a broad 'hairdressing' definition would create a degree of inflexibility in a profession which reacts over time to fashion trends. Moreover, such a drafting technique would serve to create barriers to entry in the conduct of certain hairdressing practices where there is no public benefit case for having a particular entry qualification—for example, the washing of hair or simple hair trims or cuts. The creation of less skilled employment categories and the promotion of competitive innovation would also be hindered by the adoption of an instanced or expansive definition.

Certainly, the review concluded that the tying of industry entry or practice to the attainment of the qualifications and competencies referred to in the Hairdressing Vocational Training Order (which itself is absent of a practical definition) will suffice. The current bill reflects this view.

I particularly emphasise that the industry-developed and nationally recognised training package for the hairdressing industry addresses competency standards and includes reference to public health matters. An individual's attainment of a Certificate III outcome under that package is full and satisfactory evidence to the public that that qualified person is eminently suitable to professionally render hairdressing services.

Further, I would point out that the provision of beauty treatment services is a recognised trade vocation and services market separate from hairdressing and is thereby properly excluded from continuing regulation in relation to the supply of beauty therapy on hairdressing premises.

It is definitely the case that specialist beauty therapy establishments have developed since 1950. Their prevalence and use defies any attempted restriction of such services to hairdressing salons.

I assure Honourable Members and hairdressing industry participants that the Government recognises that these reforms will have an incidental impact on the coverage of workers under the Hairdressers (State) Award. Accordingly, the intended Act—in so far as it relates to the abolition of the present licensing system—will not be commenced until industry parties have had time to apply to the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for appropriate award adjustment.

The hairdressing industry reforms contained within this bill are timely, realistic, equitable and properly protective of hairdressing customers and public health concerns.

Indeed, I remind Honourable Members that the reforms stem from the application of a standardised cost-benefit analysis of the current regulatory system under agreed National Competition Policy principles. Moreover, the reforms reflect the hairdressing training competencies developed by the industry parties themselves.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.05 p.m.]: Although the Coalition will not oppose the Hairdressers Bill, we have a number of concerns about it, which I will outline later. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit unqualified people from acting as hairdressers by specifying the qualifications required to act as a hairdresser. At present, part 6 of the Shops and Industries Act 1962 requires hairdressers to be licensed. The Act also prevents people from employing or engaging unlicensed hairdressers and provides that only the NSW TAFE Commission can run hairdressing courses. By repealing part 6 of the Shops and Industries Act, the bill removes the licensing system and the prohibition on employing or engaging unlicensed hairdressers and allows other trainers to provide training in hairdressing.

The bill specifies the qualifications required to act as a hairdresser for fee, gain or reward, therefore preventing unqualified people from hairdressing. I note that the bill results from a review under the national competition policy, which determined that there was no justification for keeping the old licensing regime that is administered by the Office of Industrial Relations and which also requires applicants to pay several fees to different agencies. The Government has indicated that private hairdressing colleges will be able to operate in New South Wales as a result of the removal of the requirement that to hold a hairdressing licence a person must have completed a TAFE course. I note that the Government has indicated also that the bill will not commence until the hairdressing industry has had time to apply to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission for award adjustments necessitated by the abolition of the present licensing system.

As I said earlier, there are a number of points of concern in the bill. One issue raised with Coalition members is private colleges training young hairdressers. As the shadow Minister for Industrial Relations said in the other place, private colleges will be able to train hairdressers in a shorter time frame, but at a higher cost. As many honourable members would be aware, apprentice hairdressers receive four years of study at TAFE while they also undertake practical experience in a salon. That is four years of on-the-job training that is invaluable in allowing apprentices to gain the necessary physical and interpersonal skills to deal with the needs of their clients.

The Professional Hairdressers Association has expressed its concern that those students with the financial resources to do so, will be able to access the private training colleges in order to gain their qualifications with much less practical experience than those at TAFE. This would allow prospective young hairdressers to enter the profession to work full time at the age of 17, to compete in the job market with those trained at TAFE colleges throughout the State who are 20. The Professional Hairdressers Association is concerned about the potential obvious disparity between these two groups. I understand that the association has also expressed those concerns to the Government.

In leading for the Opposition in the other place, the honourable member for Gosford made it clear that the Coalition's final position would depend on advice received from the Professional Hairdressers Association. That written advice, which is entitled "Professional Hairdressers Association", and which has just been received, states:

The PHA has not had the opportunity of consulting widely with its members at this time however in the brief time available since the introduction of the Bill and without the benefit of adequate notice of the introduction of the Hairdressers Bill the PHA comments hereunder—

1. Licensing—General

The PHA accepts removal of licensing from the hairdressing industry. However, the industry would have preferred that a statutory basis be established for self-regulation by the industry with three year renewable licences providing the basis for such self-regulation.

2. Authorised Qualification

The authorised qualification being Certificate III in Hairdressing as a single stand alone qualification is not an acceptable qualification. It is recommended that a further two year time served basis be required with such time served to be in any operational hairdressing salon in New South Wales.
3. Age Requirements

There is an absence of any age requirement in the Hairdressers Bill. With the introduction of private providers an authorised qualification (being a 1,000 hour course) may be completed in one year. A person qualified to act as a hairdresser may in the foregoing circumstances be 16 years of age. The ability of any person who has not been previously employed in the industry to conduct a hairdressing salon at 16 years of age with issues such as industrial relations, occupational health and safety, public health and hygienic standards of salon operations, is questionable.

4. The Role of VETT

The role of VETT should be continued so that there is a standard assessment conducted independently and so that interstate and overseas hairdressers continue to undertake trade testing as briefly outlined in the Minister's second reading speech.

5. Prohibition on Unqualified Hairdressers

It is noted that Parts 5 and 7 are the regulatory provisions of the Bill and the PHA requests detailed information as to the number of "authorised officers" duties, inspection role, funding and dates of appointments. What responsibility is to be placed on employers in order to satisfy themselves as to the status of their employees?

6. Introduction of the Award

As the Minister noted the current VTOs require a four year program and the overall problem noted by recognition of Certificate III only is referred to in paragraph 2 hereof. However transitional arrangements for persons currently subject to such VTOs should be addressed.

7. TAFE and Private Providers

a. With the introduction of private providers legislation should be considered for such providers to be licensed. There have been numerous complaints from other state hairdressing organisations of rip-offs and incompetent private providers conducting training with the adverse results of such training not being recognised for some years.

b. The industry through the PHA should have a role in the licensing of private training providers.

c. Any licensing provision should be reviewable and renewable.

d. TAFE through its current services can assist disadvantaged people who wish to become hairdressers. What provisions will be made for TAFE to preserve these support services and require similar support services to be provided by private providers?

Philip Teitzel, Executive Director of the Professional Hairdressers Association, prepared that submission. It is a great shame that the Government did not give the Professional Hairdressers Association sufficient time to fully consult its members and make appropriate submissions that could have been considered before the Government pushed this bill through with such undue haste. There is little point in introducing such legislation in a hurry if hairdressers are disadvantaged because there is insufficient time for them to be fully consulted.

Honourable members would appreciate that there has been no time for the Opposition to consider the submissions of the Professional Hairdressers Association or to draft amendments. The Opposition, while not opposing the bill at this time—and it does not seek to amend it—will reserve its right to hold further consultation with the Professional Hairdressers Association and revisit this legislation at a later date, either through a parliamentary committee or by way of a private member's bill, if those options are deemed appropriate.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.14 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the Hairdressers Bill. In the past few days I have spoken to a number of hairdressers and teaching professionals who all share the concern that hairdressing standards in New South Wales will slide as a result of this bill. Opening the hairdressing training market to private providers without the necessary market framework to protect consumers and the industry has the potential to undermine standards and the TAFE apprenticeship scheme on which the industry is built. TAFE plays a fundamental role in the hairdressing industry. A paramount concern of the industry is for teacher standards in private training schools. In the newly privatised market there will be little to stop disreputable providers from employing uncertified teachers.

This bill should require teacher registration to ensure that private providers employ only teachers of a standard comparable with the current high level set by TAFE. It is the role and responsibility of government to ensure that the reputation and standards of TAFE are maintained. Sadly, we see no evidence of that in this bill. A further concern of the industry is the grading of TAFE and private graduates. Private training schools in other States rely on simulated and classroom training only, with graduates having no hands-on workplace experience, even after completing a full one-year course. There is nothing to stop a 15-year-old from leaving school, completing a one-year private course, and graduating at the age of 16 as a full grade 3 certified hairdresser.

Customers will have no way of differentiating that student from a 20-year-old TAFE graduate who has had four years salon experience. That will be a problem in the short term when current second-year and third-year TAFE apprentices graduate in one to two years time and compete in the job market with private graduates who began training after them but graduated before them. To address this issue, the industry argued for the staggered introduction of private courses and suggested the introduction of new grades in the certification system. None of that is evident in the bill. Another concern is equity and accessibility. The cheapest basic hairdressing course in Victoria costs $10,000. Most courses cost around $15,000. How does a 16-year-old afford those fees?

One of the great benefits of the apprentice system is that it enables young people to undertake formal training without requiring major financial assistance from their parents. That helps to give young apprentices financial autonomy and independence. The Professional Hairdressers Association is concerned that this legislation, in its current form, will lead to a reduction in the number of apprentices undertaking hairdressing. The Government has done nothing in this bill to address that issue. The bill must be seen in a broader context. It is the latest step in the systematic undermining of TAFE and the erosion of the Government's commitment to public education.

When Dr Kemp was Federal Minister for Education and Training he had the bright idea of funding "choice in technical education". That meant the systematic Federal de-funding of the public provision of technical education in favour of private providers. Currently, approximately 14 per cent of Federal technical training funding goes to private providers, not because they provide a better service but because of the blind ideology of the Federal Government. That funding has spawned a whole industry of private providers—a trend that the State Government will encourage with legislation like this. As we have been told that this is the future of TAFE, it is worth assessing the outcomes of this process.

The arguments for encouraging private provision include competition, improving the performance of public providers, and giving students a wider range of options. They are the same arguments that are being put forward in relation to hairdressers, yet the facts show that privatisation does not necessarily deliver the promised outcomes. These matters are on the public record. Kaye Schofield, on behalf of the Queensland Vocational Education, Training and Employment Commission, conducted an independent study of private technical training providers receiving Federal funding. The results, which were shocking, included revelations of one federally funded provider whose office was a caravan, whose staff were the proprietor's daughter and her boyfriend, and who clearly had never trained anyone for anything.

The blind commitment of the Federal Government to private providers regardless of quality or standards is an open invitation for rorting. This State Labor Government seems determined to follow the same path. It is not an overstatement to say that the TAFE system has been a vital force in making Australia what it is. Our educated work force separates us from countries such as Argentina that rely on primary industry and resources. Our prosperity is based fundamentally on the contribution of a very well-trained and well-educated work force. It is the commitment to training, and particularly to extending that training beyond the technical realm into education, that has given us the edge. On the whole, our citizens are flexible, adaptable, and able to cope with the challenges of a modern economy. Educated workers are a special commodity and keep the entire nation abreast of world standards. If we lose such workers we will become the proverbial banana republic: resource rich but not able to utilise those resources ourselves.

TAFE is committed not merely to making money or churning out skilled workers but to extending training into education. Private providers may be cheaper in some cases—although this cannot be assumed, because of their driving need to make a profit from their activities—but they will assuredly not put energy into education. Training will be about the lowest common denominator, the biggest profit margin, and the largest number of graduates. There are other dimensions of TAFE that the blind commitment to private training provision fails to appreciate. TAFE is about second chances—giving opportunities to people who missed out the first time around.

There are many in our society for whom formal modes of education did not work during their school years or whose school years were disrupted due to any number of factors. Playing this second-chance role is expensive and difficult, and private providers simply will not do it. Yet if private providers are allowed to cherry pick the courses that are profitable, in demand, and easy to provide—such as hairdressing—TAFE will be left with only the courses that are difficult and expensive to run.

TAFE also provides education to youth at risk. This is a special service for kids who cannot go to school but who need an intermediary stage between the institution of school and the freedom of adult life. For such kids TAFE is the thread that can keep them tied to a positive future. This function can never be outsourced because it is expensive, difficult, and inherently unprofitable. Therefore, this vital function will also be under threat from the creeping privatisation of TAFE. The inevitable conclusion of outsourcing is that the remaining courses, including those that give a second chance to New South Wales residents who need it, will be marginalised and undermined. Once the private sector has taken the richest pickings, the remainder will be targeted for elimination due to a lack of demand.

We are already seeing this trend with the scandalous increases in TAFE fees, which deny access to education to those who need it most. Today a delegation of TAFE students came to Parliament House to tell their stories of hardship and exclusion as a consequence of those fees. Their challenge to Bob Carr and his Ministers was to walk a mile in their shoes—to really imagine what fee increases of up to 300 per cent mean to people who are struggling to improve their lives. I commend those students and I can only hope that the Premier and the Government will listen to their message and heed it. It is baffling that the Government continues to ignore the impact of its policy on core Australian Labor Party constituents.

The Government justifies this latest of a thousand cuts by claiming that it is simply acting in accordance with competition policy. In this House we are used to all manner of outrages being justified by so-called competition policy. Unfortunately, this represents nothing but a rush to the bottom. Members should ask themselves how they can best provide quality education to all residents of New South Wales, including TAFE students. Instead we are justifying the dismantling of our vital apprenticeship scheme on the basis that other States have already made that mistake and we are simply responding to competition policy.

It is time the New South Wales Government and this Parliament had the courage to stand up to the bullying of the neo-Liberal ideologues. Competition is for commodities and markets, not people. By rejecting this legislation the Greens are clearly saying that education is our future and is not for sale. I ask all members to draw a line in the sand to stop the creeping privatisation of TAFE, and to reject this bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [6.24 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Hairdressers Bill. I particularly thank Opposition members for supporting the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [6.25 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! Ms Sylvia Hale should state her objection more quickly when the Chair puts a question.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: The Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Vehicles and Carriers) Bill proposes two important amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996. To give the House some background, chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act provides for a modified industrial relations system for drivers of public vehicles and carriers of goods who are engaged under contracts that are not contracts of employment. Madam Deputy-President, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Chapter 6 recognises that whilst these drivers are not employees in the true sense, nevertheless they share many of the characteristics of employees and deserve protection from exploitation. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Taxidrivers, van drivers, motorcycle and bicycle couriers, and truck drivers share one characteristic in particular: they lack the bargaining power to achieve reasonable rates of pay and conditions of employment. Our industrial relations system recognises the right of employees to join together and bargain collectively to achieve reasonable outcomes for pay and conditions. But people who work under arrangements that are not employment contracts are generally excluded from the industrial relations system. They are left to bargain individually. Chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 provides a way to regularise outcomes for drivers and principal contractors in New South Wales.

Under chapter 6 the Industrial Relations Commission can make contract determinations, like awards, to determine the rates of pay and conditions under which these drivers are to be engaged. The commission can also approve contract agreements, such as enterprise agreements, between parties in relation to such contracts. However, chapter 6 is not without its challenges. Sections 45 and 45A of the Federal Trade Practices Act 1976 prohibit anticompetitive conduct. Section 51(2) of the Federal Act exempts from this prohibition conduct engaged in pursuant to employment agreements and arrangements—essentially the whole area of industrial relations is exempt. But section 51, as it is generally understood, does not exempt conduct engaged in pursuant to independent contractor agreements and arrangements.

It would seem, therefore, that much of chapter 6 contravenes the Trade Practices Act. However, the Trade Practices Act contains another means for exempting such conduct. Section 51 (1) (b) of the Trade Practices Act provides that the prohibition against anticompetitive conduct does not apply to anything that is done in a State if the thing is specified in and authorised by legislation of that State or by regulation under such legislation. I refer honourable members to the balance of the second reading speech delivered by the Minister in the other House.

[The Deputy-President (Ms Kayee Griffin) left the chair at 6.33 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [8.00 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition and indicate that the Coalition does not oppose the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment (Public Vehicles and Carriers) Bill. The intention of the bill is to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1996 with a view to permanently exempting that Act's chapter 6 jurisdiction from the effects of part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Commonwealth and the Competition Code of New South Wales. It will also remove the current geographical restrictions on access to chapter 6 provisions that limit its effect on taxidrivers and hire car operators.

Chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 provides a mechanism for the Industrial Relations Commission to prescribe rates of pay and conditions for drivers of public vehicles and carriers of goods who are engaged under contract. The special provisions for those drivers have been operating for more than 20 years. However, the Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Commonwealth prohibits certain restrictive trade practices and anticompetitive conduct. Furthermore, section 51 (1) (b) of the Federal Act specifies that its prohibitions do not affect anything done in a State that is specified in and authorised by a State Act of Parliament or regulations made under such an Act.

In 2001 the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Vehicles and Carriers) Act was passed to provide the necessary authorisation. The Opposition did not oppose the legislation. However, the amending Act had a sunset clause of two years from the date of commencement, to ascertain the effectiveness of the legislation. That was in late 2001, and the sunset clause expires on 14 December this year. Hence this bill has been introduced to make the exemption permanent. I note also that the Employment Studies Centre of University of Newcastle has recommended that the exemption be made permanent. Its report concluded that:

... there was a market failure in road transport when contract carrier rates were unregulated because the price mechanism did not effectively regulate the supply and demand of contract carriers.

In addition, chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, which allows the Industrial Relations Commission to regulate taxicab and private hire vehicles, is currently confined to allowing contract determinations only in the transport districts of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. Prior to the State election the Government promised to extend chapter 6 to the whole State, and this bill does that. The Opposition has consulted with the New South Wales Road Transport Association, which has said it is comfortable with the amendments in this bill. Accordingly, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [8.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its contribution to the debate, and 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) [8.08 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I refer honourable members to the second reading speech delivered by the Minister in the other place.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.08 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Funeral Funds Amendment Bill and I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose it. In fact, the Opposition supports it. The Opposition supports extra consumer protection for people who make their own funeral arrangements. Such arrangements are highly sensitive, and people who responsibly make provision for what happens at the end of their lives so as not to burden their families and friends need to know that the arrangements they make can be relied upon. My colleague the shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs in the other place, Katrina Hodgkinson, consulted widely with many people in relation to this issue, and we commend her for her work.

The Funeral Funds Act 1979 established standards for the conduct of prearranged and contributory funeral funds and provided protection for funds paid in advance. It also introduced provisions to ensure that the funeral service that the customer paid for was in fact delivered. The national competition policy review of the Funeral Funds Act 1979 was started in 2000, with the final report being released in April 2002. The review found that some reform of the original legislation was required and prudential oversight of some areas should be strengthened. The review also found that some areas covered by the legislation no longer reflected current practices, were outdated and should be repealed. This legislation does not regulate the funeral industry as a whole, only the operation of funeral funds. There are two basic types of funeral funds: prepaid or prearranged, where the whole of the cost of the funeral is paid in one or several large instalments; and contributory, a plan whereby money saved plus interest goes towards the cost of a funeral.

I will now go through the many amendments contained in the bill. It provides for an annual report of contributory funds, in which members pay regular instalments attracting interest. Members will be able to see the growth of the funds and how well managed they are. They can therefore adjust their expectations accordingly. This will have the additional benefit of reminding contributors or their families of the existence of the funds. Some contributory funds have not been claimed, with the age of the subjects now well over 100 years. So having a regular reporting mechanism is important for the families and the individual involved. It allows them to know the exact status of their prepaid funeral contributions. The bill will remove exemption provisions in the Act so that all funds are subject to registration. There will be transitional arrangements for funds which are closed to new business and whose client base is declining. The bill will introduce a cooling-off period to address some high-pressure sales tactics currently in use. The last thing the industry or consumers want is high-pressure, aggressive salespeople forcing people into situations that they may not fully understand. The provision of a cooling-off period is an excellent change from the current situation.

The bill also addresses areas of legislation duplication, including prudential reporting of funds, in Commonwealth and State law whereby some insurance-based funds are subject to regulation by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Another amendment will remove the cap on the maximum number of fund directors permitted to manage a contributory fund to bring current practice more in line with Corporations Law. The bill will remove the maximum level of benefits that can be paid to the consumer under a contributory fund. Currently the upper limit is $20,000. Consumers wishing to provide for a funeral costing above this limit have to deal with two or more funds. The bill will remove the requirement for funds to maintain deposit accounts in a New South Wales bank, building society or credit union. This will benefit organisations that have their managerial operations based in other States. It will now be a requirement that deposits be held with an authorised deposit taking institution.

The bill will remove the cap on the management expenses paid for prearranged and contributory funds—currently 2 per cent of accrued income on investments—to encourage competition. The Commissioner for Fair Trading will continue to be able to direct a fund to reduce its management expenses or improve benefits to the consumer. Another amendment removes the requirement for the words "funeral contribution fund" to be included in the name of the fund, which is considered today an unjustifiable restriction on trade. The bill will also extend the ability of the Commissioner for Fair Trading to refuse an application for registration to contributory funds on the grounds of character and reputation. This provision is currently applicable only in relation to prearranged funerals. The bill also allows guidelines for the approval of transfers and amalgamations of funds to be prescribed. The bill allows for a set of information, such as terms of cancellation and aspects of the funeral service not covered by the contract, to be provided to the consumer before he or she enters into a prepaid funeral contract.

Currently contributory funds are not permitted to carry on any other business. This is considered to be anticompetitive. The bill will ease the restrictions to the level of those applying to prepaid funerals. The bill will also give the Commissioner for Fair Trading the right to ask a fund to show cause why its registration should not be cancelled if a person of questionable reputation becomes a fund manager after the fund is registered. The bill will also extend the existing requirements for actuarial assessment for contributory funds to prepaid funds and give the Commissioner for Fair Trading the right to request the whole actuarial report, not just an abstract as is currently the case. As I mentioned, the shadow Minister has consulted widely on this issue, including the Funeral Industry Council, the Australian Funeral Directors Association, the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales, the Australian Consumers Association, the Council on the Ageing New South Wales, Norwich Union, Australian Unity Friendly Society, and some funeral directors within her electorate.

Generally, industry is supportive of the changes, which will increase consumer protection and remove some unnecessary anticompetitive restrictions. The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association has raised other concerns. It believes for several reasons that consumers need some sort of transferability within the funeral funds so that if, say, a contributor's death occurs away from home the person's family will have the right to transfer the funds to a local funeral home. Another recommendation is that no-frills funeral plans below the $5,000 threshold be allowed, funerals that can cost no more than $2,500 for cremations and $3,000 for a burial. In conclusion, I congratulate the Department of Consumer Affairs, which again has been very diligent in supporting the recommendations of the national competition policy review. I also commend shadow Minister Katrina Hodgkinson for her work. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.17 p.m.]: Funerals are not a service like many others. In the funeral industry there is always a risk that people will be preyed upon at a vulnerable time in their lives. The arrangement of a funeral is not an activity of which most of us have extensive experience. The emotional and psychological pressure we are under when grieving can often make it difficult to make a rational decision about what is best for the deceased and how to balance the needs of the living with the wishes of those who have died. As a result, it is difficult for people to make genuinely informed decisions in the same way they do when buying other products. Given this situation, there is a special onus on government to make sure that this industry is closely regulated and operates to the highest standards. The Greens support measures to improve the performance of the industry. In particular, we encourage prearranged funerals because people are in a better bargaining position when arranging them. In the calm light of day customers are more likely to be able to shop around and to negotiate low-cost funerals, as well as to opt for innovative measures that would otherwise be difficult to negotiate.

For example, there is a growing industry in biodegradable coffins, a move that is being resisted by large sections of the funeral industry. Some members of this House may find the idea of biodegradable coffins laughable, but I assure them that conventional coffins are far from environmentally friendly. Designed to give mourners the reassuring impression of permanence, conventional coffins often contain plastics and other harmful chemicals that can damage the environment with, let us face it, no significant benefits in terms of the final outcome. Biodegradable coffins are often cheaper than conventional coffins, which is the basis for resistance to them by the industry. The Greens have no objection to this bill and will be interested to follow the impact of these measures once they are put into practice.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [8.19 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate. I acknowledge the support of honourable members who spoke during the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Tony Burke) left the chair at 8.21 p.m. The House resumed at 10.08 p.m.]

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House this day, documents on the Cross-City Tunnel the subject of a disputed claim of privilege by Ms Lee Rhiannon and identified in the report of the Independent Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 4 September 2003, as not privileged.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly 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.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [10.11 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I refer honourable members to the second reading speech delivered by the Minister in the other place.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.11 p.m.]: I indicate, as was indicated in the other place, that the Opposition will not oppose this legislation. The Mudgee Regional Abattoir closed in early September and its 244 employees were officially made redundant on 11 September. The Federal Government immediately offered to help workers under the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme [GEERS]. However, under New South Wales law those workers were covered by the Local Government Act, which does not guarantee the Federal Government—if it stands in place of the workers—priority of place in the creditors queue.

I do not think any of us wanted to be faced with this legislation. I am sure the people of Mudgee, given a choice, would not want that either. But, having said that, I simply say that we are here debating the bill. This is not a matter that is easily dealt with. It is a no-win situation for everyone. The legislation is an attempt to find the best possible solution to the problem. However, it is interesting that we are debating this bill at all, because I asked the Minister in this House whether we would need legislation to fix the problem and he said we would not. But we do. He said it was the Federal Government's problem. But it is not.

The Minister told me that it was the Federal Government's problem, but it is not. I put that on the record because it was only the week before last, the last sitting week, when I asked that question. It seemed incredible that only a day passed before events developed. But I suppose that is politics and we are here with this bill before the House. Much could be said about it. I think that the most important thing is that we get the bill passed. I know that the Minister is genuinely trying to help the employees, as was John Anderson. It is a pity that it got into a public slanging match at one time. I frankly cannot understand this mindset whereby if there is a problem that faces us in New South Wales the immediate reaction is to bag the Federal Government rather than get on and get something done. Thankfully, the Minister has bitten the bullet and is getting something done. To that extent, I congratulate him and offer whatever help the Opposition can provide for a sensible settlement that looks after the people of Mudgee. That has to be our prime concern. I guarantee that we will not be opposing this bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.15 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support the bill as a good way of closing this loophole and doing the right thing by the abattoir workers.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.16 p.m.]: The Greens support the bill. However, we have grave reservations about the circumstances surrounding the closure of the abattoir. On the ABC Stateline program of 26 September the Minister for Local Government, through a spokesperson, said that he was trying to find a quick solution to the financial and jurisdictional problems raised by the facility known as the Mudgee Regional Abattoir. That is what we are presented with in the bill now: a quick, ad hoc solution. Much has been said about the financial position of the abattoir and the actions of the key players on this issue. Like many matters in local government, this issue has become a vitriolic and internecine dispute with the key players throwing all kinds of allegations at each other. I do not propose to address these issues but rather to focus on the fundamental problem that has allowed this situation to deteriorate, and ultimately had such a devastating impact on the lives of workers who have lost their jobs.

The abattoir was established 36 years ago. It grew ultimately to become the region's single largest employer. The impact of its closure and the failure to pay workers their full entitlements following the closure have had a devastating impact on the Mudgee community: 254 workers have lost their jobs and a further 200 agricultural jobs involved with supplying the abattoir are at risk. The abattoir contributed some $50 million to the local economy. The ramifications of this sorry tale of financial mismanagement affect not only the immediately employed workers but the entire local economy. The situation is made all the more desperate given that the closure of the Mudgee abattoir followed closely on the heels of the closure of the nearby Forbes abattoir, which resulted in the loss of some 240 jobs. The real question is: How did two shire councils and an associated county council rack up $8 million in debt, as against $2.5 million in assets, without anyone being brought to account? Clearly, there is an urgent need for the State Government to clarify the lines of accountability, both managerial and financial, in these arrangements. The State Government cannot absolve itself of all responsibilities in these matters. I quote directly from the Minister's second reading speech:

In 1997, under the administration of the then Minister for Local Government, special legislation was enacted at the request of the county council to enable it to secure loans for expansion by mortgaging its lands.

In September 2001 the former Minister for Local Government consented to the county council participating in the formation of a joint-venture company to manufacture biopharmaceuticals...

In March 2002, pending sale of the abattoir, ministerial consent was given to the abattoir's incorporation as a company.

As I said, the State Government cannot wash its hands or absolve itself of any responsibility for the financial difficulties into which the abattoir moved itself. In this case the losers are essentially the employees of the abattoir and the workers in the region. It is clear that we urgently need a national scheme to ensure that workers are not the losers when companies go belly up, to ensure that workers receive 100 per cent of their entitlements rather than only a small portion of them. It is impossible to comment on the detail of this bill because the Government introduced it into the House yesterday. In fact, it forgot about the bill at the regular briefing of the crossbench and staff hurriedly delivered notification of it later in the day. The notification consisted of one page containing 17 lines of text. The bill was delivered to my office less than an hour and a half ago.

To the people who lost their jobs at Cudgegong, the Greens would like to say that their plight has not been debated in this House in a meaningful and considered way. Unfortunately, they have been dismissed and the bill has been rushed through in 24 hours. The Greens recognise that the blame does not lie solely with the State Government. While the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, has suggested that the State should guarantee these workers' entitlements, the Howard Government has acknowledged that employee entitlements in cases of insolvency are a Federal issue and that that is why the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme [GEERS] was established. But there is nothing in the operational arrangements of GEERS to suggest that the employees of Cudgegong should not be eligible.

The Howard Government set up GEERS following the payment of 100 per cent of entitlements to the employees of National Textiles, a company that was run by the Prime Minister's brother, Stan Howard. Since then, only a limited part of the entitlements owed to employees in other cases have been paid as a result of other corporate failures. It remains to be seen what GEERS ultimately pays the workers involved in this case, but I suspect that it will not be 100 per cent of their entitlements. The union has joined in with Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson's calls for the State Government to guarantee that it will make up any shortfall in their payment. The Greens add their voice to the call. The State Government must accept part of the responsibility for this debacle.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands) [10.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for their support for the bill. In particular, I thank the Opposition for its support in ensuring that former employees of the Mudgee Regional Abattoir will not have to wait any longer for their entitlements. I also thank the honourable member for Upper Hunter, George Souris, in the other House. I quickly point out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, that comments I made in the Housed in response to his question were made prior to the Federal Government informing this Government of exactly what was required in legislation. In response to his question, I am now able to inform him that the Federal Government made that known the next day—that is, a week ago last Friday. I also state for the record that on that day the Federal Government flew its representatives from Canberra to discuss exactly what was needed in the legislation so that the State provisions could mirror Federal provisions.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You should have listened to me the day before because I was right.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: We spoke to the Federal Government representatives that day. I phoned them that day and spoke to them.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I told you that you needed legislation, but you said no.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: But the Federal Government would not tell us what it wanted, and that was the issue. In any case, that is history and the matter is sorted. At that meeting, the Federal Government's representatives indicated that they needed another week to wrap up administrative procedures. The administrator also told me that he would need approximately three weeks to pay the employees. I assume that a month from today the employees will be able to get their money. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands) [10.26 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [10.26 p.m.]: Recently the Government acknowledged that nurses who work in our public hospitals system have been the subject of harassment and attacks from disgruntled or dissatisfied patients. While we all find it difficult to comprehend such attacks, we acknowledge that they occur. No-one would suggest that nurses should put up with violence, nor would anyone suggest that nurses are to blame. I hope that staff working for the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care [DADHC] will have reason to expect the same support as has been extended to nurses. During this week representations that I received from a residential support worker who is employed in a group home known as Yarabin Street on the northern beaches have caused me to question that assumption. The worker told me that, as a result of a violent attack from visiting relatives of a group home client, she has been force transferred from her normal place of employment, involved in legal action and driven to the point of taking extended stress leave.

Earlier this year the worker became concerned about some increasingly aggressive behaviour being exhibited by the relatives of a particular group home client. The worker reported her concerns to DADHC management. As one might expect, management of the group home raised this matter with the relatives concerned. However, when the matter was discussed, management also unwisely revealed the identity of the worker, placing her at risk of a further attack. Hours later the relatives allegedly arrived at the group home and delivered an enormous level of verbal abuse to the two staff members who were on duty, and they included this particular worker. The attack came very close to an actual physical attack when a fist was raised in great anger. Because no effective action was taken to curb the abuse, the worker reluctantly sought an apprehended violence order [AVO] from the courts.

On 11 February 2003, not only was the DADHC worker successful in obtaining an AVO to restrain the client's relatives from assaulting, threatening, molesting or harassing her, but the magistrate at the Manly court extended the order, on her own initiative, to cover all the other staff working at the group home. In April this year there was further intervention by DADHC's regional director, Mr Chris Woodgate, who informed the worker that, because she had become the subject of further threats from the same person, she had to be forced to transfer to another work site—another DADHC-operated group home in the same neighbourhood. This was allegedly done to protect the worker. I am informed that because she was an additional member of staff at the new location, she was expected to exhaust sick leave to cover days when she could not be gainfully employed. Initially she had been told that the move would be temporary, but as the length of time for which she was at the new location was extended, conflict arose between DADHC senior staff and the worker.

The situation became so strained that the worker went on stress leave. Consequently, she now receives a great deal less income because she received no compensation for lost penalty rates. I understand that the other worker who was attacked on the same night was also transferred. Adding insult to injury, senior staff told the worker that she cannot return to her original place of work because her action in seeking an AVO has created what senior staff refer to as an irreconcilable situation with the client, making her return to work impossible. Comments that were made by the magistrate—that DADHC is hiding behind the excuse of workplace safety to avoid facing the issues created by the violence from group home visitors—add credibility to the submission that this person made to me. I also understand that there are another two or three staff members from the same group home who are involved in conflict with the same family.

No-one should have to tolerate violence at work. If violence arises, workers should be able to count on getting appropriate support from their employer. It would appear that DADHC has been extremely lacking in the support that has been given to this worker and her colleagues. The Minister for Community Services should have the matter thoroughly investigated, independently of the northern regional director, and ensure that the worker is properly compensated for any financial loss suffered by the worker in trying to properly protect herself and for lost salary. Her sick leave should be restored and she should also be compensated for legal expenses associated with the AVO—expenses that that would have been avoided if DADHC had acted more decisively in the first place.Most importantly, DADHC needs to develop and implement protocols and education programs that are similar to those that have been implemented to support and protect staff in the New South Wales public hospitals system. I urge the Minister to address this very important issue of workplace safety for DADHC staff.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [10.31 p.m.]: On Tuesday 28 October 2003 I had the honour of speaking to a crowd of more than 5,000 Vietnamese Australians who were protesting against a Vietnamese Government television program that had been produced by VTV 4 and broadcast on Special Broadcasting Service [SBS] television in Australia. I wish to share with my honourable colleagues the sentiments expressed on some of the posters at the protest rally:

SBS TV Has betrayed the Vietnamese Australians
Stop force feeding us with poisons
No communist propaganda on SBS
Stop communists hacking SBS
No VC News
Refugees vs VC

The Federal Government should know that this issue goes to the core of democracy, freedom and human rights. It is an issue that touches the soul of every Vietnamese person in Australia. SBS has been ignorant, insensitive and arrogant to think that it is in any way suitable to broadcast what protesters call "poisonous propaganda". One wonders what the SBS board could have been thinking. It implies no memory or knowledge of the history of Vietnamese Australians or, indeed, any heartfelt consideration of their plight to become Vietnamese Australians. Could honourable members imagine the reaction if our Jewish community were force-fed Nazi propaganda in Australia without consultation? The outcry would be justifiably deafening but, fortunately, that would never happen. I am at a loss to know why it has happened to the Vietnamese Australians.

I was a refugee from communism. In 1950 my parents fled with their children from China to Indonesia. To this day, I still can recall the pain and suffering of my parents at having to leave our homeland and all we knew. I understand the difficulty of leaving behind loved ones and abandoning all possessions to move to a totally new country and environment. In the 1970s hundred of thousands of Vietnamese fled their homeland to make dangerous journeys in tiny leaky boats They suffered thirst and hunger, risked their lives in high seas, encountered pirates and were turned away by unsympathetic neighbouring countries. Many perished. The lucky ones arrived in Australia to begin new lives. Many now call Australia home because of the generosity of the Australian Government and the Australian people at that time.

This was the proudest moment of our refugee settlement history. For many, the memory of invasion from the communists and all its fears of persecution, torture, loss of freedom, danger of imprisonment and even death are still vivid in their minds. The last thing these new Australians want or need is to relive the nightmare in their own lounge rooms. At the protest I was deeply touched by these wonderful hardworking Australians who chose not only to sing a Vietnamese anthem, but also sang the Australian national anthem with heartfelt conviction, despite being so appallingly let down by the Australian Government. The protest organisers informed me that this communist propaganda has been broadcast without consultation or consent since 6 October, despite earlier written advice from SBS that the Vietnamese community would be consulted before any such action would be taken. It is naive to expect Vietnamese Australians to be happy with the flimsy excuse put forward by the SBS board, who claim that the programs are innocuous in content.

This program has been rejected by several countries, including the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia and others. Indeed, any student of political philosophy would know that programming in countries with State-run media, such as Vietnam, must be approved and is imbued with the values and philosophical underpinnings that drive the Vietnamese communist regime. The excuse is insulting to their intelligence to say the least. Experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs often argue the need for a constructive engagement policy towards Vietnam. I accept the needs for mutual friendship in the promotion of trade, tourism and education to improve the relationship of our two countries. I also acknowledge a positive friendly dialogue is essential to encourage reform, especially in the area of freedom and democracy.

I am sure no-one in this Parliament would endorse a total sell-out of our principles, just because such a program can be obtained for next to nothing. No excuse can justify the failure of SBS to provide appropriate programming for its audience. SBS is known for its broad range of culturally diverse programs. It enjoys the support and positive feedback from viewers. However, on this issue, the Vietnamese Australians have been let down and betrayed. Dr Tien Nguyen from the Vietnamese Community of Australia had this to say to SBS:

The Vietnamese Australian Community has always been a strong supporter of SBS—both Radio and TV. And we hope that SBS TV will pay due attention to the views of its Vietnamese Australian audience. We also respect the editorial independence of SBS as a national broadcaster. However, in this case, we believe that SBS TV has abandoned its editorial responsibility by blindly broadcasting a program made by the Communist Party of Vietnam, which falls short of the media standard required by the Australian public.

I have no doubt that this House will give full endorsement to this statement from the Vietnamese community of Australia.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [10.36 p.m.]: I am saddened to report to the House the passing of Mr Deen De Bortoli on Sunday 26 October 2003. Deen De Bortoli was the patriarch of the De Bortoli family and chairman of one of Australia's largest family-owned wine companies, De Bortoli Wines. He passed away suddenly at his home in Bilbul, in the Riverina region. For more than 50 years of his life, Deen was involved in the wine industry, working side-by-side initially with his family on the winery in Bilbul that his father had built from nothing. Early on, it was naturally assumed that Vittorio and Giuseppina De Bortoli's only son, Deen, would study to be a winemaker. But hard times in the 1950s forced young Deen to leave school at just 15 years of age to help his father, Vittorio, with the family business. Some years later, the opportunity arose for Deen to complete his training as a winemaker and since 1959 Deen increased the capacity of the winery from a crush of 2,000 tonnes to today's crush of 70,000 tonnes, increasing the winery to a size of 110 vats, holding 795,000 gallons.

Under the direction of Deen and his four children, an expansion strategy has seen De Bortoli Wines expand successfully to become one of the countries most successful wineries. Deen oversaw the setting-up of a highly successful winery and restaurant facility in the Yarra Valley, vineyards in the King Valley, distribution and sales branches in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and offices in the United Kingdom, Belgium and the United States of America. De Bortoli wines amazingly now export into more than 52 countries worldwide. When Vittorio passed away in 1979, the winery was left entirely to Deen. Today only Deen's immediate family has any involvement or equity in De Bortoli Wines—and his family is very involved. With Deen's son, Darren, as managing director, his daughter, Leanne, and son-in-law, Steve, running the Yarra Valley winery, his son, Kevin, as viticulturalist managing the vineyards, and youngest son, Victor, handling export, the family business will remain Deen's legacy.

A quiet achiever, Deen did not confine himself to winemaking. He contributed enormously to the wine industry through his work with the MIA Wine Improvement Society, as Chairman of the Riverina Advisory Council of Australia, as a Councillor of the State Branch of Australian Business, with the MIA Sustainable Drainage Committee, as a representative on the Community Water Board, as President of the MIA Winemakers Association and as the Riverina representative for the National Outlook Conference. This is not to suggest that Deen's contributions went unnoticed. Deen was often offered nominations for awards in his field. And while Deen modestly declined many nominations for awards, one that he was particularly proud to receive was the prestigious Graham Gregory Award, in recognition of his contribution to the New South Wales wine industry. Another career highlight for Deen came in 1997 when he won Australia's most coveted wine makers trophy, the Jimmy Watson Award. These were two of the awards that paid tribute to his skills as a winemaker, and both were very much deserved.

De Bortoli's wines will be honoured by these awards for a long time, another example of Deen's lasting influence. This is the seventy-fifth year of the De Bortoli Wine company, and Deen De Bortoli spent a wonderful 2003 celebrating that milestone. It is a shame he will not see his company's 100th year. A requiem mass for Deen De Bortoli will be held on Friday 31 October at the Sacred Heart Church in Griffith at 10.00 a.m. Deen De Bortoli was 67 years old and is survived by his wife, Emeri, their four children and six grandchildren. He will be sadly missed by all who knew him. Vale, Deen De Bortoli.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [10.40 p.m.]: In a previous adjournment debate I spoke about the terrible bridges in Dungog. Fortunately, action has been taken on some of those bridges—although I suspect that this will be an ongoing story. Another ongoing story in Dungog is the state of its roads. Anyone who has travelled over Dungog roads in the past few years will attest that one puts one's transmission and sometimes one's life in danger doing so. Since the deregulation of the dairy industry we have encouraged tourism in Dungog through farmstay and other ventures.

Sadly, tourists travelling to Dungog and in Dungog shire find themselves driving into potholes so huge that they have to change gears in order to drive back out. Last week the Newcastle Herald reported NRMA chief Ross Turnbull as labelling the Hunter as the most dangerous region in the State for motorists. By region, more deaths and injuries occur on roads in the Hunter than anywhere else in the State. The NRMA is working on a plan to lobby the State Government to increase its share of road funding. At present, the State Government is spending more on Sydney roads than on regional roads—something that does not surprise me. In this year's budget the Premier, Mr Carr, slashed the maintenance package allocation to rural and regional roads.

In 2002 Minister Scully stated that 79 per cent of the year's maintenance package would be spent on rural and regional roads. This year, only 60 per cent of the capital and maintenance budget will be allocated to rural and regional roads. Furthermore, the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has recognised that the arterial road network is ageing and that many roads are reaching the end of their serviceable life. It stated that these roads are facing increasing traffic pressure. Why then is the Government not spending more money to combat the problem? Road conditions and safety concerns are important issues facing regional communities as roads carry the heaviest traffic and are relied on not just for general transport but also for business and industry. The State Government is responsible for meeting routine maintenance costs for regional roads, but the RTA's Regional Road Repair Program funding of $2 million is grossly inadequate for the 940 kilometres of regional roads in the Hunter.

Dungog, for example, has about 13 per cent of all regional roads in the Hunter, and the length of regional roads in Dungog shire alone is greater than the combined length of regional roads in Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Maitland. However, the combined total road funding for Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Maitland is $261 million compared with Dungog's $7 million. With councils made to compete for funding according to benefit cost ratio analysis, about 95 per cent of our regional roads are rendered ineligible for repair. That problem is worse for shires like Dungog, which does not have a State road and has not been provided with adequate funding for maintenance since the previously poorly maintained roads were transferred to the care of council in 1995. At that time 134 kilometres of substandard main roads in Dungog shire became 107 kilometres of regional roads and 27 kilometres of local roads.

Dungog shire inherited a significant backlog of road works. The requirement for councils to contribute 50 per cent towards rehabilitation costs on regional roads is an unfunded mandate. Councils are provided with no new income for that purpose and they have to go begging to the State Government for funding support. Fortunately, the Federal Government has assisted with black-spot funding, but there is an increasing need for a regular maintenance program and funding regime to ensure that roads in Dungog are up to standard. They are certainly nowhere near the standards that we have come to expect in other cities in the Sydney Basin. With ongoing funding for maintenance of regional roads not forthcoming from the State Government, Dungog shire now fully realises how poorly it has been treated compared to the rest of New South Wales. Shame!

The Hon. PETER BREEN [10.45 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House two important human rights days to be celebrated next month. The first is the Australian Bill of Rights Day on 15 November and the other is the International Day for Tolerance on 16 November. Those two human rights days are linked in several ways. I would like to take this opportunity to canvass their significance from the point view of my party—Reform the Legal System—which party was originally formed as the Australian Bill of Rights Group and contested a Federal election before changing its name in the March 1999 State election to Reform the Legal System. Although the party has a new name, its primary focus remains the enactment of a statutory bill of rights, which explains my interest in the Australian Bill of Rights Day on 15 November.

Of course, Australia does not have a bill of rights—it is the only country in the common law world not to have one—and the Australian Bill of Rights Day is not celebrated by the international community. But it is an important day on the Australian human rights calendar because on that day in 1985 the Australian Bill of Rights Bill passed the House of Representatives. It was a cognate bill with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [HREOC] Bill and it contained the enforcement provisions of the HREOC legislation. A cognate debate commenced in the Senate on 2 December 1985. Unfortunately, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill became bogged down in the Senate and the legislation effectively lapsed.

The HREOC legislation eventually went through both Houses of the Federal Parliament but, without the bill of rights to enforce the noble objectives of the commission, the full potential of the legislation has never been achieved. Honourable members may be interested to know that Gough Whitlam told me, following publication of my book on the bill of rights issue, that the reason the Australian Bill of Rights Bill failed in the Senate was that the then Western Australian Labor Premier, Brian Burke, was worried about his gerrymander. Gough said that Brian Burke pressured the then Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, to drop the bill and Hawke agreed because he was, in Gough's words, "excessively dependent on Burke for campaign funds". The Burke Labor Government was re-elected on 8 February 1986 and, two weeks later, Gareth Evans successfully piloted the Australian Bill of Rights Bill through its second reading in the Senate. But that was the last anybody saw of the bill. Gough said:

Without informing the Cabinet or the caucus or the Parliament or the party, Hawke agreed to Burke's proposition.

As we approach Australian Bill of Rights Day on 15 November, honourable members might spend a moment thinking about a very different kind of legal system that might have evolved in Australia in the last 20 years if Bob Hawke had remained true to his working-class origins. I am reminded of the biblical instruction that God and money are incompatible masters. Just last week I speculated about a society in which basic human rights principles underpin its legal system. Immediately I realised that former Premier Neville Wran could have stayed home instead of attending the New South Wales Law Society annual dinner if our legal system recognised basic citizens right and freedoms. Mr Wran said that the biggest danger to basic human rights and long-established freedoms is silence. I quote from Alex Mitchell's report of the speech in last Sunday's Sun-Herald. Mr Wran also said:

There is something wrong when we are willing to go to war on Iraq to defend and promote fundamental democratic principles such as natural justice, human rights and fairness, while we are prepared to abandon those same democratic principles when it comes to David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib.

In the same week a horror story appeared in Brisbane's Courier-Mail that would never have been published if we had a bill of rights or other human rights legislation that protected fundamental principles of justice and fairness. The Courier-Mail story, which was headed "Redneck line moves south of the Tweed" quoted Queensland Attorney General Rod Welford as describing New South Wales as the new "deep south" on account of its draconian crime and justice initiatives, including police powers to deal with terrorism that are totally inappropriate under Australian law. Mr Welford also referred to the New South Wales Parliament's intrusion into the power of judges to determine custodial sentences.

Honourable members will be aware that the High Court will be asked to overturn a sentencing law passed by this Parliament in the case of Baker v The Queen. I expect the case to be listed in January or February next year, and my advice suggests that the challenge to the sentencing legislation will be successful. Unlike Australian Bill of Rights Day, the International Day for Tolerance on 16 November is recognised by the international community. At the initiative of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 1995 was declared the United Nations Year for Tolerance, which saw the launching of a worldwide campaign for tolerance and non-violence. I will explain that day further at the next opportunity.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.49 p.m.]: I have regularly advised members of the range of very serious problems caused for workers in this State by the Federal Government's Workplace Relations Act. A particular problem is the Australian workplace agreements [AWAs], or individual contracts, which the Federal Government introduced very early as a means of disempowering workers. There are daily examples of how AWAs are being used by the Federal Government and compliant employers in the war on trade unions. Members in this place will recall the infamous example of Judith Beswick and the recent protracted dispute at Morris McMahon. Today I was informed of two new examples of workers in this State being exploited by employers who are committed to the Federal Government's hideous agenda.

When Electrolux sold its Botany site recently it terminated the employment of more than 100 workers. The business has been bought by the former site manager, Mr Brian Walkington. It seems that in the years he was managing the site for Electrolux he could not quite turn a profit for the company but he thought it was sufficiently worthwhile to buy the business himself. I will leave that issue for another day. After initially telling the employees that he did not know who was buying the company and then admitting that in fact he was the buyer, Mr Brian Walkington terminated the employment of all former Electrolux workers. He then offered a small group of workers their old jobs with his new company, Grimwood Heating. He told the employees that the old collective agreement conditions would apply. But it turned out that there was a catch: The former Electrolux employees would get jobs only if they signed individual contracts, or AWAs, with the labour hire company E. L. Blue.

The AWAs being offered by E. L. Blue are significantly inferior to the collective agreements that used to operate on the site. Hours of work, wages, redundancy and other conditions are worse. In addition, the workers are bound to take no action against the contract for three years. If workers breach their contract the company can take them to court. But the same does not apply if the company breaches its contract. Fortunately, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, which represents the workers on the Grimwood site, is taking every action available to it to ensure that those workers are protected against the activities of Mr Walkington. As I said, I will raise several other issues related to this affair at another time.

A further example of the problems associated with AWAs can be found in the Hunter. For more than seven months the workers at P&H MinePro, Mount Thorley have been trying to negotiate a new collective agreement with their employer. But the company is not interested in negotiating a new agreement because it wants all its workers to sign individual contracts, or AWAs. The company said that there should be a secret ballot on its proposal. Management said that it would abide by the outcome of that ballot, but the company lost. In a result resembling the score in some recent Rugby World Cup games, the workers voted overwhelmingly in favour of a collective agreement, not individual contracts. The company is now refusing even to talk to the workers or their unions. It has told them that they have 14 days in which to sign the AWAs. This is not a dispute about an agreement; it is nothing less than an attempt by the company to crush the unions and impose AWAs on its work force.

P&H MinePro is part of the American Harnischfeger Group of companies. This is the same group of companies whose dispute at Joy Mining, Moss Vale lasted more than six months, with scabs brought from interstate to try to break the picket. Members in this House may recall that I have already spoken about Harnischfeger and the thugs it employed in the Joy dispute. The company lost at Joy and it will not win at Mount Thorley. P&H MinePro workers will not accept the Americanisation of our industrial relations system and they will never accept the Howard Government's agenda to impose individual contracts on Australian workers.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [10.53 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to a significant forum held recently on the State's mid North Coast. On Monday in Coffs Harbour about two dozen people attended the Pacific Highway Safety Forum, which was convened by The Nationals to discuss issues of great concern regarding that highway. This is a serious matter. This year 43 people have died on the Pacific Highway. That is a national disgrace. Management of the highway is woeful, and we must come together as a community to devise the best way forward. That is exactly what the forum achieved. Representatives of a number of councils on the North Coast—including Pristine Waters Council, Kempsey Shire Council, Nambucca Shire Council, Hastings Council and Coffs Harbour City Council—formulated some significant motions to take the issue forward. Importantly, we need accountability on the part of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and an explanation as to why the cost of highway improvements under the State-Federal funding agreement has blown out by more than $1 million. That blow-out is a major concern.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Will you get your Federal colleagues to sign the agreement?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I note the Hon. Amanda Fazio's interjection. The Federal Government is determined to shoulder its responsibilities in relation to the Pacific Highway, even though it is not a national highway but a State highway. The Federal Government has made it very clear that it is committed to improving the road and constructing a dual carriageway. We must ensure that the highway is managed and improved in a sensible manner and that there is proper accountability. The meeting resolved that the RTA should be more transparent about the future construction of the dual carriageway.

Motion agreed to.