Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 13 November 2003, Corrected Copy)

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

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.

Motion by The Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That this House:

(a) notes that 2003 is the seventieth anniversary of the enforced famine in the Ukraine caused by the deliberate actions of Stalin’s communist government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,

(b) recalls that an estimated 7 million Ukrainians starved to death as a result of Stalinist policies in 1932-1933, and that millions more lost their lives in the purge which ensued for the remainder of the decade,

(c) notes that this constitutes one of the most heinous acts of genocide in history,

(d) honours the memory of those who lost their lives,

(e) joins the Ukrainian people throughout the world, and particularly Ukrainian Australians, in commemorating these tragic events, and

(f) resolves to seek to ensure that correct and future generations are made aware of the cause of the famine.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

1. That the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 4 November 2003 on the disputed claim of privilege on documents relating to the M5 East and other road tunnels' ventilation be laid upon the table by the Clerk.

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

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House this day, the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 4 November 2003, entitled "Disputed Claim of Privilege—Papers on M5 East, Lane Cove and Cross City Tunnel Ventilation".

Ordered to be printed.
Petition praying that the House reconsider the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.
Private Members Business item No. 9 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [11.12 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. 54 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Child Abuse or Neglect) Bill, be called on forthwith.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Ms Hale Mr Jenkins Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

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

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

Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid

Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mrs Forsythe	Ms Tebbutt
Mr Lynn	Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I welcome into the President's gallery three members of the Victorian Parliament: Anne Eckstein, the Hon. Helen Buckingham, and Janice Munt.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [11.21 a.m.]: I move:

That Private Member's Business item No. 54 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Ms Hale Mr Jenkins Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

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

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

Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid

Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mrs Forsythe	Ms Tebbutt
Mr Lynn	Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

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

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [11.29 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On behalf of the Opposition I introduce the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Child Abuse or Neglect) Bill, whose purpose is to enable the New South Wales courts to impose a custodial sentence on people convicted of serious incidents of child abuse and neglect. It hardly needs to be said that child abuse is an extremely serious matter, and that those who commit crimes against children need to be given a strong message as a deterrent against others doing the same thing, and as a denunciation of their action. Most people would take it for granted that a person who commits a criminal act of negligence that puts a child's life in danger or at serious risk of physical or psychological harm will face a gaol penalty. But, sadly, that is not the case in New South Wales.

Currently the harshest penalty available for serious acts of neglect and abuse in New South Wales is a maximum fine of $22,000. That amount is not much more than the current maximum fine of $11,000 for an act of cruelty to an animal under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Additionally there is a maximum six-month gaol penalty for a serious act of cruelty to an animal but there is no gaol penalty for an act of abuse or neglect against children. Other Government legislation before the House is aimed at doubling the fine for an act of cruelty against an animal from $11,000 to $22,000. That means that this State will have harsher penalties for acts of cruelty to animals than for similar offences against children. It is ludicrous that the offence of tying up a horse in a paddock and starving it almost to the point of death attracts a heavier penalty than a similar offence against a child, such as abandoning it in a car to dehydrate in the hot sun. In the case of cruelty to the horse the offender faces a possibility of six months in gaol and a fine of $22,000, while the offender who harms a child is free of any threat of a goal sentence and stands to pay a monetary fine that is no more severe.

It is almost as if the State has gone back to the future. One of the western world's first successful prosecutions for child abuse and neglect took place in New York in 1875. It involved a 10-year-old girl, Ellen McCormack, who was found tied to a bed like an animal, neglected and brutally beaten by her foster parents. The offenders in that matter were prosecuted under laws for cruelty to animals because at the time there was no penalty for the neglect and abuse of children. In August this year, magistrate Alan Railton attempted to impose a 12-month gaol term on a 30-year-old man after it was proved that he had recklessly endangered the life of his four-week-old baby son by abandoning him in a yard. The offender compounded his offence by refusing to assist police in locating the baby so that they could rescue it. Fortunately the baby was found unharmed. The man was charged and convicted of neglecting the baby under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act. The magistrate thought the offence merited a 12-month gaol term and he imposed that sentence. But the sentence was overturned after it was pointed out to the court that the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act does not provide for a gaol penalty for abuse and neglect.

Sadly there are people in this society who place such a small value on the welfare of children that they will knowingly place them at risk of great harm. Often the offender is a not the child's parent but someone who is prepared to risk harming a child to escape detection for a criminal offence. We all remember the sad case of baby Leo, who died of hypothermia in a car in December 2000 after it was stolen and abandoned by a thief. The car thief put the life of the child at risk, and that resulted in the death of the child. Since then there have been other cases of car thieves taking vehicles with children inside and abandoning them. They commit the offence of car theft, which does carry a gaol penalty, but they also put a child's life in danger. The Opposition believes that this is an additional matter for which the courts should have the option of imposing a further gaol penalty.

I know of another case before the courts in which a 24-year-old woman was charged under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act after she failed to tell doctors or police that her three-year-old daughter had swallowed five ecstasy tablets. The child swallowed the tablets while she was unsupervised in a motel room where her mother had taken a prostitution client for sex. Police allege that she knew all along that her daughter had swallowed a dangerous quantity of drugs and she refused to tell them exactly what had happened to her daughter. A police officer allegedly asked her 20 times to tell him what her daughter had swallowed and she refused to say anything even though her daughter required intubation, eventually lapsed into a coma, and nearly died. A number of times the police officer involved in the matter approached the woman, assuring her that she would not get into trouble for the drugs, and that he just wanted her to give information vital for saving the life of her child. In a similar situation, in the absence of a gaol penalty for the offence of abuse and neglect, the police are not able to say that the consequences of not giving this sort of information will be more severe than the penalty they may face for any other crime that may be uncovered as a result. Police need to be in a position to say, when it is becoming obvious that a person is not being co-operative, that there is a risk of a gaol penalty if they do not co-operate. I will not comment further on the matter, but my purpose is simply to illustrate the types of offences that are covered by the law now, for which the maximum penalty is a fine of only $22,000.

The Opposition agrees with former Police Inspector John Heslop, who has a much-respected reputation for spending his career in New South Wales Police fighting child abuse. He commented on the outcome of the Central Coast matter I spoke about earlier by saying that the case was "another sign that society had failed to move with the times". He also said, "If you have a dog, your treatment of that dog can have worse implications than your treatment of a baby," and "if you look at the kind of things the neglect of children could cause, it can be catastrophic". There is reason to be concerned about societal attitudes to child neglect. A recent national public opinion survey showed that adults ranked child abuse as less of a concern than council rates. Child abuse and neglect are described in sections 227 and 228 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. The Act provides that a person who "intentionally takes action that has resulted in or appears likely to result in" the physical injury or sexual abuse of a young child or a young person, or any intentional act that causes a child or a young person to be "significantly damaged" or which causes the physical development of a child to be "significantly harmed", is guilty of an offence. A person is also guilty of an offence if they leave a child or young person unsupervised in a motor vehicle.

This bill imposes a penalty of two years gaol for this offence if the matter is prosecuted in a Local Court and judged by a magistrate, and a maximum penalty of five years if the offence is prosecuted as an indictable offence in the Supreme Court before a judge. Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 allow prosecuting authorities to elect to proceed summarily, in which case the maximum gaol penalty can be two years, or on indictment, with a penalty of five years. The bill also increases the maximum fines for child abuse and neglect from the current maximum fine of $22,000 to a maximum of $44,000 if the prosecutor elects to proceed on indictment. The maximum penalty of $22,000 remains for a summary offence, as this is the largest amount a magistrate in a Local Court can impose by way of fine.

When we first announced this bill the Government claimed that there were already gaol penalties in the Crimes Act for child abuse or neglect. I imagine it was thinking of sections 43 and 44 of the Crimes Act 1900 which provide for a five-year gaol penalty for anyone who "unlawfully abandons or exposes any child under the age of two years" such that the child's life or health is endangered, or for anyone who is "legally liable to provide necessary food, clothing, or lodging" to "any wife, child, ward, apprentice, or servant or any insane person" but wilfully fails to do so. I have been told by police that they would never be able to use these laws today because their wording is obviously archaic, they are in some cases limited in their application to children under two, and they can only be tried on indictment where the burden of proof for the prosecution is to prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged offender whose actions put the child at risk deliberately intended to harm the child. These laws are too high a benchmark to be of any effective use in protecting children. They need to be urgently reviewed. This bill is an attempt to do that. The indictable offence in this bill could well replace the offences outlined in sections 43 and 44 of the Crimes Act. I have not moved to repeal those provisions in case I cause unintended consequence. However, if the Government advises that it is safe to do so, I would willingly agree to do that in the bill by way of amendment.

The significant difference between the offences outlined in the Crimes Act and those outlined in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act is that the onus placed on the prosecution in proving a case against the accused is different. Under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act the prosecution needs only to prove that the accused intentionally committed an action that had the potential to cause harm to a child. For an offence under the Crimes Act, the prosecution has to prove in some cases that the accused not only did something that put a child in danger, but also wilfully intended to cause harm to the child. That additional step can be a very difficult, if not impossible, task.

Some may be concerned that as these offences are often committed by the parents or caregivers of a child that it is not in the best interests of the child to gaol the parents. While I understand that concern, the first thing I would say is that frequently and increasingly the perpetrators are not the parents. They can be criminals who put a child at risk of harm to escape detection for another criminal activity, such as, drug trading, car jacking or car theft. Secondly, magistrates and judges are capable of weighing up this issue at the time of sentence.

Finally, I would like to provide the House with some information about penalties that apply to offences of child abuse and neglect in other States. In Queensland the Criminal Code Act 1989 provides for a seven-year maximum gaol term of imprisonment for failure to provide a child with adequate food, clothing, medical treatment or accommodation and a three-year gaol penalty for parents or other adults with a duty of care for a child who fail to provide for the necessities of life for a child in their care aged under 16. The Western Australian Child Welfare Act states that:

Any person who has by wilful misconduct or habitual neglect or by any wrongful or immoral act or omission caused or suffered any child to become, or continue to be a child in need of care and protection or contributed to any child becoming or continuing to be a child in need of care and protection shall be guilty of an offence punishable by a penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both.

Section 261 of the Victorian Children and Young Persons Act 1989 describes child abuse and neglect in terms very similar to the New South Wales Care and Protection Act. It states that any person who has a duty of care in respect of a child who intentionally takes action that resulted, or appears likely to result, in significant harm as a result of physical injury or sexual abuse or psychological harm that damaged the child's emotional or intellectual development "is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 50 penalty units or to imprisonment of a term of not more than 12 months". The Opposition believes that it is time New South Wales child protection laws were updated and strengthened to ensure that our children are adequately protected from the harm of neglect and abuse. We do not propose to proceed further with this bill during this session, but it will now be circulated for comment and consultation. I have an open mind as to how this bill may be improved. However, I am confident that we have done a thorough job and that the bill deserves support.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Joint Parliamentary Committee) Bill be discharged from the business paper and the bill withdrawn.

Bill discharged and withdrawn.

Debate resumed from 18 September.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.45 a.m.]: As the bill is still under negotiation with interested parties, the appropriate course of action is for debate on it to be adjourned.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless.

Debate resumed from 8 May.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.46 a.m.]: As there has been extensive debate on this bill and it is under close consideration in the House, the appropriate course of action is for debate on it to be adjourned.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Debate resumed from 17 November.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.47 a.m.]: In debates on euthanasia the public generally has been ahead of the thinking of those in power. The medical profession is practically the guardian of the process of dying. People do not have natural discussions about death. Everyone plans for the future. When they are young they plan their finances and hope they will have sufficient money by middle age for their retirement years.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I have been advised that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has already spoken in debate on this bill. The honourable member is not entitled to speak again at this time.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.48 a.m.]: I support the Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill. Regardless of one's views on euthanasia, whether it is an appropriate solution to the problems of the terminally ill who often suffer acute pain and are denied proper palliative care, we should endeavour on every occasion to gauge the feelings of the community. That is particularly so on an issue that has aroused so much public interest and is the subject of ongoing public debate. We should not turn our backs on what the community feels. This House is often extraordinarily divorced from the feelings of the general community. That is wrong and we should seize the opportunity to pursue this issue further. A referendum about a trial would allow us to gauge public feelings. It does not mean that the House is compelled to comply with the outcome, but it does give strength and courage to those who believe that such a trial is necessary. The support of this House for the drug injecting room trial indicates that it can, on occasion, be brave and think beyond the normal conservative confines. Euthanasia is a topic of extraordinary concern to increasing numbers of people. It is vital that this House inform itself of the public's views. I would be very surprised if a majority of people did not vote in favour of voluntary euthanasia legislation. I suspect that the honourable members opposing this bill are doing so precisely because they know the general public opinion.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What sort of convoluted logic would make you say a silly thing like that?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is true. If we were fearless and genuinely interested in the public's view we would support this bill. Referenda allow people to tell us their views on legislation directly and immediately. This issue is as vital as council amalgamations and other issues of concern to the community on which referenda are held. It is an issue that we should not be afraid to confront and we should not turn our backs on it. As I said, I do not believe that the people who vote in favour of a referendum necessarily endorse the concept of euthanasia. It would be a vote in favour of a proper process being undertaken to determine public feeling. The Greens support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.52 a.m.]: I congratulate my colleague Mr Ian Cohen. He has introduced a reasonable piece of legislation designed to enable a referendum to be held on a voluntary euthanasia trial after considerable thought and much consultation. I have been concerned about some of the responses of honourable members. The Greens appreciate the support that has been forthcoming. Some honourable members have argued that the legislation should not be supported on any grounds. That demonstrates a degree of unreasonableness and unwillingness to consult with the community that as a parliamentarian and a member of the general public I find very concerning. Surely as members of Parliament one of our jobs is to facilitate community input. Mr Ian Cohen has introduced a reasonable piece of legislation to allow just that. We acknowledge that it relates to a controversial issue, but surely that is all the more reason to present it to the community.

Honourable members have had a lengthy debate in this House about voluntary euthanasia. As Mr Cohen said in his second reading speech, the Greens acknowledge that that debate was lost and we respect the decision of the House. However, this legislation takes the debate to a new forum—that is, to the community—which is the next appropriate step. Irrespective of what honourable members think, that is where we should be heading. It will enable us to involve wider sections of the community and to generate debate. The Greens have always acknowledged that it is a complex issue. Having worked with Mr Cohen over the past four and a half years I know how much work he has put into this legislation and how many representations he has had from an extraordinary range of people. Many people have told tragic, heart-rending stories. As a result, Mr Cohen has taken on the responsibility of dealing with voluntary euthanasia on behalf of the Greens.

Although the debate was lost in the previous Parliament, the Greens thought the issue should not be abandoned. Given the continuing pressure about this issue, surely we should take it to the community and involve more people. Honourable members must remember that a vote for this bill is a vote for a referendum on voluntary euthanasia; it is not a vote for voluntary euthanasia. The Greens are keen to have greater voter involvement in this issue. All honourable members should support that concept. Periodic referenda would make governments more accountable to the people and enliven our system of representative democracy. This legislation does not propose a citizen-initiated referendum; it would be initiated by a member of Parliament. Having worked with Mr Cohen, I know that that concept was arrived at after considerable consultation with experts in this area and with the wider community.

Obviously the Greens strongly support the bill. It is very reasonable and I remind honourable members that it is not a vote for voluntary euthanasia but for a democratic process that will allow voters to express their views in the ballot box. Referenda have a long and fine history in this country, but they are certainly not confined to Australia. However, they have not been used often in recent times in Australia and the Greens see that as backward step for democracy. Referenda are one of the few opportunities Parliaments have to reach out to the community. In the lead-up to a referendum voters can engage in the debate, and politicians can discuss and debate the issues on the hustings. It is regrettable that many honourable members are denying the adult population of New South Wales the opportunity to participate in this way. Participating in debate and voting on issues is a fundamental human right. It does not reflect well on honourable members that they are denying the voters of New South Wales that opportunity. Such a debate would allow people to argue their case with clarity and fortitude. Debate will heighten public awareness of this issue.

The Greens have always acknowledged that voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue. A referendum process, which involves debate in the community and the media, would help us to resolve this complex question. I urge honourable members who have not determined their position or who are considering voting against this bill to think clearly about what this legislation does. The bill does not support voluntary euthanasia; it simply proposes a referendum on a voluntary euthanasia trial. Again I emphasise the importance of a referendum in developing democracy in this State and involving the widest range of people. If we pass this bill we will be doing a service to the people of New South Wales and assisting to resolve this complex issue. So many of us have been faced with very difficult decisions—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. Is the support of the honourable member for Newcastle, Bryce Gaudry, a prerequisite before the Minister announces any changes to the Newcastle rail line, as the Broadmeadow to Newcastle rail line is entirely within the honourable member's electorate? If not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is a very funny question; I do not understand the relevance of it. As I explained—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Does what your members say mean anything?

The Hon. Robyn Parker: He's not happy.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not happy about shrill comments from the backbench. I am not referring to the comment but the way in which the comment was delivered.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you go "ga ga"?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, "ga ga" is for the Greens when they ask questions. There is a lot of difference between a blast and a shrill comment. It is about the pitch.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So you are being sexist, are you?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No. Males can have shrill voices.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that he should not be diverted by interjections, which are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The matter in relation to the future of the Newcastle rail line—in fact, the whole question of transport in the lower Hunter—is subject to a process of review. That is a three-stage process. The first stage of the review process was the release a number of weeks ago of a patronage survey with regard to the rail operations in the Newcastle area. It also contained a discussion about options. I hope that the honourable member, as a representative of the Liberal Party which purports to represent the business interests of our community, is not taking a position contrary to the business interests of the people of Newcastle. Certainly the Newcastle business chamber and others are supportive of changes to rail operations in Newcastle. That does not mean we will take their views as being the definitive views on these matters.

I would be surprised if the Liberal Party has decided to distance itself from the business community. But, I suppose, in this day and age that is not surprising, given some of the comments that were made in relation to contract negotiations between government organisations and corporations and the Opposition's view on those matters. However, that is a separate issue. As I said, the review involves a three-stage process and a number of options are being considered in relation to their cost effectiveness. The details will be released publicly—as all these matters have been released publicly—for consideration of submissions on those options. As I indicated at the time of setting up the lower Hunter—

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Point of order: The question specifically referred to consultation with the honourable member for Newcastle, and I ask you do direct the Minister to address that question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: Madam President, I ask you to advise the Hon. Robyn Parker that she has to be a Minister before she has the opportunity to answer questions.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question related to the rail system in the Newcastle area and the Minister was making general comments about the rail system in that area. Consequently, the answer is in order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Clearly my answer was in order. The question referred to the Newcastle rail system, and that is what I am speaking about. One needs to understand the process to make a meaningful contribution to this discussion—even to ask a meaningful question. Obviously the Opposition does not understand the process, and that is why I am outlining it. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Is the support of the honourable member for Newcastle crucial for any future proposal to be commenced, or is the Minister's refusal to clarify the honourable member's role an indication that his support on this issue is irrelevant?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition is clearly asking for an opinion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is out of order in two respects. It asked for an opinion and it did not seek to elucidate the Minister's answer.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. With the start of the summer outdoor recreation season, is there anything people should know about barbecue safety?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: With daylight saving giving us more evening sun, many of us will be using the time to fire up the barby, and invite some friends around and relax. We need to be aware of the dangers of barbecues. I have just returned from the New South Wales Fire Brigades official launch of Barbecue Safety Awareness Day. Today is an opportunity for the New South Wales Fire Brigades to share some tips for people using barbecues, to ensure they use them safely.

The most important thing to remember is that during total fire ban days restrictions apply to the type of barbecue that can be used. For example, only electric and gas barbecues can be used, not open fires. People should also make sure that they comply with other regulations that specify a 20-metre clearance surrounding the barbecue and that it must be within 30 metres of a residence. So before people light up, they should ensure their barbecue complies with the total fire ban restrictions. They should also ensure that they have a responsible and sober adult keeping watch over the barbecue at all times. Children are naturally inquisitive, and people need to make sure little fingers are kept well away. I must stress that people should never let an intoxicated person operate a barbecue.

Fire Brigades officers have been called to a number of barbecue fires where alcohol-affected residents have accidentally turned the LPG cylinder connection tube in the wrong direction, which has opened it up and the flow of ignited gas has caused serious burns to their arms. People should never pour flammable liquids onto a barbecue to try to make it burn faster. New South Wales Fire Brigades have told us that a number of those issues have caused burns to people in the State. The flames from the accelerant could burn people nearby and cause the area around the base of the barbecue to catch fire as well.

If people have not used their barbecues in a while—I have already used mine four times this year—they should check it for hazards such as frayed hoses and make sure that any fatty build-up has been removed. If it is a mobile barbecue, people should make sure its fittings are still firm and that they have set up the barbecue in a well-ventilated, stable location. Firefighters from across the State will be taking part in a barbecue and backyard safety campaign through their local media. I encourage any New South Wales residents who would like to know more about barbecue safety to contact their local New South Wales Fire Brigades fire station to pick up a barbecue safety fact sheet. I am sure that if barbecue users take on board the advice of their local firefighters, they can be sure that their barbecue will be a memorable one, for the right reasons. I also encourage people to barbecue kangaroo—to look after some of our country industries—and plenty of vegetables. I personally barbecue about nine vegetables when I use my barbecue.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. Does the Minister recall that on 29 October, in discussions about the recent National Competition Council recommendations on the Poultry Meat Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act, he made the following promise to this House, "Tomorrow I will quote from sections of the submission … to demonstrate that the New South Wales Government put up a strong submission." Why, two weeks later, has the Minister still not done this? Does his silence on this matter mean that he confirms that there are in fact no strong sections of the submission to read from?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: What a ludicrous question from the Leader of The Nationals.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Does that mean you do not have an answer?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have a total answer to this question. The Government put a very strong case to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth in relation to this issue. It was a clear-cut case. It argued the merits of the Poultry Meat Industry Act of New South Wales—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why have you broken your promise?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not broken my promise.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, you have. It is two weeks and you have not done it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have been a very busy boy, as the honourable member knows. I have a lot of other things to contend with, without this drivel from The Nationals. The pity for The Nationals is that everyone in the bush believes that Costello is after the Farm Debt Mediation Act. We have argued strenuously for that Act, as we have done for the Poultry Meat Industry Act. The Premier made it clear—

The Hon. Michael Egan: They opposed it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That shows their lack of judgment about what is going on in the bush. There are 940 farmers across this State who have received the benefits of the Farm Debt Mediation Act, and in fact I have taken out of my file a couple of quotes that indicate just how strong the submission to the Federal Treasurer was on these two issues. In relation to the chicken meat legislation the submission states:

The New South Wales Government maintains that the approach proposed by the NCC will undermine the viability of poultry growers and generate significant structural adjustment problems. The losses to individual growers from deregulation would be substantial, with potential loss of livelihood compounding the already significant structural adjustment challenge that growers face as growers' contracts expire in June 2004.

We could go on and on in a similar vein. If that is not strong enough, I do not know what could be said that could be stronger. I repeat:

The losses to individual growers from deregulation would be substantial, with potential loss of livelihood compounding the already significant structural adjustment challenge …

In relation to farm debt mediation, another quote from a submission to Treasurer Costello, the NCC—there is heaps of it here.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: The Minister is clearly using acronyms in contravention of your ruling yesterday during question time. I think you should now pull him up and ensure that he complies with the ruling.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: I support that 100 per cent. The acronym NCC could stand for a lot of things.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Minister to heed my ruling of yesterday about not using acronyms in either questions or answers.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The NSW Government—that is New South Wales Government, incidentally, for the Hon. Greg Pearce—and NCC is not National Civic Council but National Competition Council, so I have straightened that out for members opposite. In relation to farm debt mediation—can I have a supplementary question? [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not have to ask for a supplementary question: He was always going to get one. Given that the Minister has indicated that his submission was of such strength, would he table that submission—we know there are not many pages—to confirm the strength of that submission? If the Minister will not table it, does that mean that there is no validity in his claim that there is strength in it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Another good question for me. I will continue on with farm debt mediation because I have not dealt with that as yet. In relation to farm debt mediation, the National Competition Policy Review demonstrated a clear net benefit to the community—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: The standing orders clearly say that the answer must be relevant to the question. It was a very specific supplementary question that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked and I would ask that you advise the Minister to direct his answer to that very specific question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: I specifically asked the Minister would he table this document to back up his claims of substance. The Minister is not addressing the question.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: Madam President, you have ruled in the past that the Minister may answer a question however he or she likes, which is reasonable. However, in this case the Hon. Ian Macdonald actually said he would continue on another subject, which he was not asked in the supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield Evans is making a point of order about a standing order that no longer exists. However, the standing order that relates to supplementary questions is quite clear: A supplementary question may only ask for elucidation of a Minister's question. The question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in order in asking the Minister to elucidate his answer and the Minister was in order elucidating his answer.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In relation to farm debt mediation I quote again from the—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is the answer, yes or no?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not going to necessarily answer the question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister has indicated that he will not adhere to your ruling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not understand my ruling. My ruling is that a supplementary question must ask for elucidation of the original answer. That is the only supplementary question that is in order. The Minister was elucidating his original answer so therefore his answer is in order. The Minister's time has expired.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government. Has the general manager of Narrabri Shire Council, Ian McCallum, offered the engineer on that council, Mr Gutteridge, a sum of money to immediately leave work, and has Mr Gutteridge been told if he does not do this he will be sacked? Is Mr Gutteridge one of the people who recently sought protected disclosure over assertions that the Narrabri deputy general manager, Mr Booby, had an inappropriate involvement in the awarding of a council garbage contract as well as other contracts?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I believe that this question is out of order. Additionally, I also believe that, as you previously ruled, Ms Lee Rhiannon must be prepared to verify that she believes that what she is saying in the question is a fact. The question is framed so much on hearsay—is it true that somebody said this and did this—that it is completely out of order. I would ask you to rule on that basis.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: Members are entitled to ask Ministers questions in respect of the public affairs for which Ministers are responsible. The question asked by the Hon. Lee Rhiannon is not a matter that goes to the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government; it is a matter for the local council. It would be ludicrous if Ministers in this Parliament, whether the Minister for Local Government or some other Minister, were responsible for local government matters or any local government body of any status.

Ms Lee RHIANNON: To the point of order: I asked the question because I understand these matters are true and it is important that the Minister, who clearly has an overview responsibility for this council, is given the opportunity to answer the question. I urge you, in the spirit of the way in which question time should be conducted, to allow the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The issue is whether under Standing Order 64 (1) the question relates to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected or to proceedings pending in the House. As the Leader of the Government has pointed out, the Minister for Local Government is not responsible for the actions of each local council. Local councils are responsible for their own actions. The question does not relate to a matter of public affairs for which the Minister is responsible in this House and is therefore out of order.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Did Commissioner Ron Woodham recently publish a column addressed to officers within the Department of Corrective Services threatening them with criminal investigation if they take complaints "directly to the Opposition", describing that action as a "dirty trick" and warning that "unauthorised disclosure of information is both a criminal offence and a disciplinary issue". Did police investigate a prison officer at the request of Corrective Services for allegedly leaking information to the Opposition to assist us at a parliamentary inquiry? What was the result of that investigation in which the honourable member for The Hills and I were questioned by police for speaking with the Corrective Services officer? What has Mr Woodham got to hide from the New South Wales Opposition? Is the Minister going to stand by and let him threaten his staff against speaking to their elected representatives?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Opposition raises issues of contact by staff of Corrective Services with members of Parliament in general. This issue has previously been debated. In 1990 Michael Yabsley introduced a code of conduct that forbade officers from going public with matters. In a statement issued by his office he said:

As part of their prison officer conditions they are not permitted to speak to the media without approval.

In 1992 Premier Fahey issued a memorandum saying that members of Parliament should not go to individual officers or public servants to seek information directly from the department. A section of the Act deals with this provision.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. John Ryan to order.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. John Fahey when Premier issued a Premier's memorandum about contact between members of Parliament and public servants. He said that people who seek information in relation to departments should do so by contacting the relevant Ministers. That memorandum has continued to the present time. In the case of prisons, specific provisions in the Act create criminal offences in relation to unauthorised disclosure of information and the honourable member can refer to that. It is a matter for the police. In relation to any disciplinary matter, the department has the appropriate performance division, whose work is oversighted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption on a regular basis. The Corrective Services Investigation Unit of the New South Wales Police Force has access to that information and can initiate inquiries as it sees fit in appropriate circumstances.

It is not my duty to question them as to their rights or their integrity to do so. I expect them to discharge their duties appropriately. There are very good reasons why members of Parliament should be circumspect about the information that they sometimes get on the scuttlebutt, as the Hon. John Ryan would well know. He asked a question in this House about the Acting Governor of Mannus going on what he described as a 42-day junket in a departmental four-wheel drive. He was wrong. That was part of his award conditions.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Who paid for the petrol?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That was all covered as part of his award conditions, for which he had to pay an amount out of his pocket. That is not the only one. Honourable members would remember the information about the transgender officer.

The Hon. John Ryan: Dead right on that one.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yes, dead right about all of that. The information was already being appropriately handled, but he came in here, scandalised the issue, which almost led to tragedy. There was also the fantastic issue about the paedophile whom he was representing from the Grafton Correctional Centre. He claimed he was an informant for the ICAC but the ICAC actually gave him up. He criticised the Governor of Grafton Correctional Centre—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister is alluding to something that I have never referred to in Parliament to the best of my knowledge. I think he is referring to correspondence I have had with the ICAC. If the Minister wants to disclose material debated with the ICAC, that is up to him.

The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: He can correct the record because I think he did refer to it. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JON JENKINS: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Roads. Is it a fact that the New South Wales Government has failed to honour its commitment with the Queensland and Commonwealth governments on the Tugun bypass part of the Pacific Highway? If this is a fact, can the Minister please advise the House as to the reasons for this failure? Does the Government have an alternative plan that addresses the serious traffic congestion on the New South Wales-Queensland border? If not, why not?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is napping Neville doing?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: He is better than yapping Duncan. This is a serious question. I will take it on notice and obtain the appropriate information from the Minister for Roads.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I direct my question to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Does he recall his detailed answer to a question two days ago regarding deep purple protein stain in which he gave sole credit to the Carr Government for playing a key role in a new worldwide distribution agreement for this important product? Did the Commonwealth contribute $500,000 towards the marketing and distribution of this product under its Biotechnology Information Fund, a sum 2½ times greater than that contributed by the New South Wales Government? Were the New South Wales grants only approved after the pioneering work of the Commonwealth, which backed Fluorotechnics in July last year? Will the Minister concede that the New South Wales Government is so far behind the rest of Australia it is being forced to shamelessly bask in the afterglow of the Commonwealth Government's visionary national biotechnology strategy? Will the Minister now apologise to the Commonwealth for his failure to acknowledge its principal contribution to the marketing and distribution of deep purple protein stain?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. Catherine Cusack came into this House with quite a good reputation. However, that reputation will be short-lived if she continues to ask such silly questions. It is true that I provided a detailed answer to the House the other day. Unfortunately, the honourable member does not usually listen to my answers, because no-one could ever say that I do not give credit where credit is due. Indeed, the other day I did not suggest that the Commonwealth Government had not given assistance to this company. I was talking about assistance—

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: We can't hear you.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is because you will not shut up.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Minister to speak into the microphone. It is very difficult to hear him.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Some people cannot think and chew gum at the same time. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans cannot talk and hear at the same time. The other day I was in fact congratulating the company. I am sorry if the Hon. Catherine Cusack was disturbed by that.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister update the House on new initiatives to help families dealing with drug dependence?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This morning I had the pleasure of launching a new video on treatment options for drug users. The video Keys to Recovery: Moving on from Drug and Alcohol Issues helps individuals and families struggling with drug dependency. The video is the result of a key partnership between Drug-Arm New South Wales and the Liverpool Community Drug Action Team. It is a practical new resource for people struggling with a drug problem, and will be a real help to family members supporting somebody entering treatment. The Liverpool Community Drug Action Team was formed in November 2000 and has been extremely active in identifying and working on local drug-related issues.

Drug-Arm is a national not-for-profit, Christian-based drug and alcohol agency and committed to the promotion of a healthy lifestyle through education and prevention, early intervention, counselling, support and rehabilitation. The collaboration between the Liverpool Community Drug Action Team and Drug-Arm New South Wales has resulted in the production of the 50-minute video with an accompanying booklet providing information on various treatment options, including detoxification, pharmacotherapy, rehabilitation and counselling; how to prevent relapse into drug use; and how to support someone with a drug problem. The video and booklet will also be used to educate community workers and better equip them with the skills to support clients with a drug or alcohol problem.

This new resource is another great example of a partnership approach to addressing an issue and filling a gap in local services. It is a result of collaboration between New South Wales government agencies, non-government organisations and community organisations. Funding of $10,830 for the video was made available through the New South Wales Government's Community Action Strategy Special Fund. Along with Drug-Arm and the Liverpool Community Drug Action Team, Family Drug Support, South Western Sydney Drug and Alcohol Services, the Corella Drug Health Service at Fairfield and the Cabramatta Community Health Service were all involved in the production of the video.

There can be no doubt that the Community Drug Action program was one of the key initiatives to come out of the 1999 Drug Summit, and it is having ongoing beneficial effects. I am pleased to inform the House that there are now more than 1,200 people involved in more than 80 community drug action teams across the State. Through their local initiatives, they have attracted more than $1.4 million in funding to support their communities. I congratulate Drug-Arm New South Wales, the Liverpool Community Drug Action Team and all involved in the production of this important resource. For the purpose of the record, I acknowledge that Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes was the foundation chairman of Drug-Arm New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I thank the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, for that reference. I now ask him a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that the employer of Tamworth boy Dean McGoldrick, who was killed in an industrial fall while working for Advanced Roofing on a work site at Broadway in 2001, was fined just $20,000 by the Industrial Relations Court? Is he further aware that Advanced Roofing, which is owned by Tamworth resident John Peter Poleviak, has paid only $1,800 of the $20,000 fine ordered by the court? Will the Minister explain why only the company was prosecuted, rather than the individual company directors, a decision that effectively allows business owners to liquidate and start over under a new name, thus avoiding the fine altogether? Does the Minister believe that justice was served by such a low fine in the first place? What action will he take to ensure that the full fine levied is paid by the employer in order to begin the healing process for the family of Dean McGoldrick?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes for a very good and comprehensive question; I will try to do it justice. I will avoid giving an opinion on whether I think the decision served the interests of justice, but I will give some background to the circumstances of the case. On 1 February 2000 Dean McGoldrick was fatally injured when he fell approximately 12 metres from the roof of a building in George Street, Sydney. WorkCover took prosecution action for breaches of occupational health and safety laws against both the employer company and its sole director, John Poleviak. It is important to understand that action was taken against both the company and the individual director.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: He knows that.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: He asked whether the law provided for the fine to be recovered from the individual employer as well as the company. I am pointing out that in fact prosecution action was taken against both the company and the sole director. The company was convicted and fined $20,000 on 25 May 2001. The director was also convicted but no penalty was imposed provided the initial fine was paid. The company failed to pay the fine in full and as a result the Local Court has directed that Mr Poleviak be required to pay the remainder of the fine personally. As honourable members will be aware, the courts and the State Debt Recovery Office administer the New South Wales fine enforcement system, and are responsible for the receipt and collection of fines and penalties.

I have raised this matter with my colleagues the Treasurer and the Attorney General, and I have directed WorkCover to take a more active management role in ensuring that those convicted of an offence and fined under occupational health and safety legislation pay their dues. The honourable member specifically asked me about jurisdiction. One reason for the relatively low level of punishment in this case—if one wants to describe it that way—was that the action took place in the Industrial Magistrates Court. Upon consideration, and some time after a number of initiatives were taken by the Government and by WorkCover in relation to industrial fatalities, WorkCover no longer prosecutes any matters involving a fatality or serious injury in the Industrial Magistrates Court, because of the caps and other matters that apply in that court.

Fatality matters are now exclusively dealt with in the Industrial Relations Commission, which has the power to gaol serious offenders for up to two years, impose much heavier financial penalties, impose fines for consequent and sequential offences, and pursue action against both individuals and companies, as well as individual directors of companies, for serious breaches of occupational health and safety duty. I think that partly answers one of the concerns raised by the honourable member. The fact is that the exact set of circumstances in the McGoldrick matter could not be repeated, and any similar prosecutions will now be launched in the Industrial Relations Commission, where the caps and limitations are not so severe.

I hesitate to expand on my views about the justice of the situation. I simply reflect on what is clearly a community concern. Probably the entire New South Wales community, including most responsible employers, are concerned about the fines and punishments that apply in cases of breaches of occupational health and safety duty which result in death, particularly of young and vulnerable workers, and when the specific circumstances set out to protect those lives are insufficient. The Government is moving to address those issues with some vigour, and I expect the matter to be placed on the legislative program. [Time expired]

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall Tuesday's announcement by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that drought funding will be extended "as needed" into 2004? Will the Treasurer inform the House how much funding has been guaranteed for drought assistance after the current package runs out in less than four weeks? Will he give an undertaking that "as needed" means until such time as New South Wales farmers are no longer struggling to survive the drought or recover from it?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The House can be assured that this Government will assist farmers not only to a reasonable extent but also to a very generous extent when they face problems such as the current drought, which is by no means over, at least for large numbers of people. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner referred to an answer the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries gave. I can only confirm the Minister's statement, and in due course the Minister will make an announcement about these matters. I will not steal his thunder. I am surprised that the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner would expect me to make an announcement more appropriately to be made by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer please advise the House of the latest major film to be shot in Sydney?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Once again, Sydney will play host to the filming of a major movie with Columbia Pictures, who confirmed that it plans to film its latest action epic, Stealth, at Fox Studios. Stealth will be a $50 million production and is expected to generate 338 full-time jobs over a four-month pre-production period alone. That will be followed by 450 full-time jobs during production, which begins in January, as well as another 1,600 casual jobs. The movie will star Josh Lucas, whom honourable members might recall from the film A Beautiful Mind. He also starred in Sweet Home Alabama, which I have not seen, and The Hulk, which I have not seen. The director will be Rob Cohen.

Stealth is due for public release in 2005. The movie will be set in the near future on a United States Navy aircraft carrier, and it tells the story of an artificial intelligence pilot who is taken aboard to learn combat skills from human pilots. The New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development has worked with Columbia Pictures, which is part of Sony Pictures Entertainment, to get Stealth for New South Wales. Stealth will be mainly shot in Sydney but will also require some shooting at another yet to be announced New South Wales location.

The movie will follow the production successes of other Fox Studios-based Hollywood movies, including the Matrix sequels. The Matrix movies injected a massive $140 million into the New South Wales economy during 2001-02 through expenditure on film studios, production crews and accommodation and film sets, and created more than 1,000 direct jobs and a further 1,000 indirect jobs, including 7,000 days of work for movie extras. Matrix Reloaded, which was released this year, went on to take a massive $1.037 billion in international ticket sales. Other major films produced in Sydney have included Star Wars Episode I—The Phantom Menace, which earned $1.305 billion in international ticket sales, making it the third-most successful box office movie of all time. A few more successes include Star Wars Episode II—Attack of the Clones, which took $914 million in ticket sales, and Mission Impossible II, which took $769 million. The latest addition, Stealth, further adds to the reputation of Sydney, and New South Wales, as a leading international filmmaking location. The Government welcomes Columbia Pictures' decision and we hope that this will encourage more international film-makers to come to New South Wales and take advantage of great movie locations, lower operating costs and the availability of local acting and production talent. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General and the Minister for Police, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of the mysterious circumstances surrounding the 1993 Christmas Eve fire at Offset Alpine Printing, which received within 15 days a $53 million payout from FAI Insurance, yet the book value of assets was only $3 million? Due to the recently announced special team to review the information concerning Offset Alpine Printing by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, will the New South Wales Government authorise a new Coroner's inquiry or police investigation, or both, into the causes of the fire, especially in light of the new information from Mr Rod Vincent, former company secretary of Offset Alpine, that questions the validity of the cause of the fire that triggered the massive insurance payout?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the question to the appropriate Ministers for a response.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. Has the Minister been contacted by rural bus operators expressing serious concerns about the Government's failure to fully implement the private bus recommendations of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, particularly given that the Unsworth review will not hand down its final report until next February? What is his response to the concerns of these operators?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am surprised that we have a good question from the Opposition; it is the first for a number of months. It is a good question because it allows me an opportunity to inform the House that I have been contacted by a number of—

[Interruption]

If honourable members ask good questions they will get good answers. If they ask silly questions that are unanswerable, the Government will be placed in an unanswerable position.

[Interruption]

My time to answer this question will probably be eroded. I was looking forward to answering it because it is a good question. In a number of meetings I have had around the State I have been contacted about matters of transport reform by bus operators concerned that the 25 per cent premium that applies to rural bus fares in certain locations was frozen by the Director-General of Transport. I point out to the Opposition, and certainly to the questioner, that the Government does not have to adopt decisions of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal—hereinafter to be referred to as the tribunal. It is clear, however, that such recommendations are for the consideration of the Government. The tribunal makes recommendations to the Government, and it is within the discretion of the Government to make decisions in line with those recommendations. That is my understanding. It is completely in order for the Government to make a decision to freeze the fare. I am surprised that the Opposition is championing the cause of fare increases for rural constituents, whom it allegedly represents. The consequence of not freezing the fare would be an increase in fares for users of rural bus services. It is an extraordinary position for the Opposition to take.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: These people are having trouble keeping their businesses open.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The interjection of the Leader of the Opposition is completely without foundation. He refers to financial viability. The honourable member should wait until the Unsworth report is handed down.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: In that report there will be details about the financial viability of the bus industry. I suggest the Leader of the Opposition wait until he reads the report, rather than make uninformed interjections. I am getting used to uninformed comments from the shadow Minister for Transport Services. As I said, representations have been made. It is within the Government's purview to not accept a recommendation of the tribunal. Fares are a matter for the Director-General of Transport. Given the structure of the legislation, the Minister is not required to be involved in fully implementing a decision of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister illuminate the House on the work of Corrective Service Industries and the important role it plays in generating revenue for victims of crime groups in providing employment outcomes for inmates?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Corrective Service Industries, part of the Department of Corrective Services, has enjoyed considerable success in providing inmates with work readiness skills, and negotiating and implementing new business opportunities in correctional centres across New South Wales. In particular, Corrective Services Industries' high rate of inmate employment, its outstanding commercial performance and the diverse range of activities undertaken by inmates deserve mention in this House. One of the outstanding results is the transformation of Corrective Service Industries from a loss-making enterprise to one that sets a best practice commercial performance. Corrective Service Industries' figures for 2002-03 reflect this outstanding commercial achievement. Its sales of products and services totalled $35.9 million in 2002-03 compared to $15.7 million in 1993-94, and represented an increase of 129 per cent.

Corrective Service Industries has provided a trading contribution to the Department of Corrective Services in 2002-03 of $12.8 million compared to $4.2 million in the last full year of the Coalition Government. This is an improvement of 203 per cent. Inmates have undertaken the following work: the maintenance of demountable school classrooms and refurbishment of school furniture for the Department of Education and Training; the fabrication of fire trailers for the New South Wales Fire Brigade and the Rural Fire Service; the recycling of spectacles to third world countries; and the manufacture of computer cables for export. Additionally, inmates work on a range of projects which improve the correctional system's self-sufficiency, including dairy and meat production, vegetable processing and bread and dessert manufacturing.

Importantly, Corrective Service Industries' remarkable commercial results help to defray part of the cost of inmates' incarceration, and goes towards helping victims of crime. Each year Corrective Service Industries contributes a proportion of sales turnover to support victims of crime groups. The balance of profits offsets incarceration costs. In 2002-2003 the department allocated approximately $207,000 to 17 community organisations under the Victims of Violent Crime Grants Program. Organisations that have benefited from the funding include the Anti-Violence Project Men's Resource Centre Inc. in Lismore, which operates a five-day healing camp for Aboriginal women who have been the victims of domestic violence and assault; the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre Ltd in Gosford, which has produced a video that outlines the effects of child sexual abuse on individuals, families and communities; Life Activities Inc. in Newcastle, which has produced a practical resource for services working with victims of violent crime who have an intellectual disability; the Linking Women with Safety across Communities Inc. in Dubbo, which has established and trained a network of domestic violence court support volunteers in six Central West communities; and Streetwize Communications in Redfern, which has developed effective and culturally appropriate postcards addressing issues of sexual violence. The cards primarily target young indigenous women in New South Wales.

In 2002-03 the funds generated by inmate labour programs were allocated to the victims support group Enough is Enough Anti-Violence Inc. In July, together with Mr Ken Marslew from Enough is Enough, I launched a video on anti-violence called Someone Else's Shoes, which is now being shown to the State's 8,100 inmates across New South Wales. Enough is Enough has received $72,084 under the Victim Awareness Program to deliver the R Project in a correctional setting. The R Project—R for responsibility, rehabilitation and reintegration—aims to encourage inmates to accept responsibility for their crimes and to recognise the damage that their crimes have caused to others.

By world standards, Corrective Service Industries engages an extraordinarily high number of inmates in work programs—about 4,800 inmates, or 63 per cent of the correctional population. This compares with the number in the United Kingdom, which is generally about 30 per cent, and the United States of America, which is between 3 per cent and 10 per cent. Corrective Service Industries is helping to ensure that inmates are equipped with a broad range of work skills. This will enable them to more readily re-enter the changing and dynamic external employment market. Additionally, inmates who are engaged in productive employment are given a sense of purpose and achievement, and this assists in their rehabilitation. I commend Corrective Service Industries and departmental staff across correctional centres in New South Wales for their dedication and hard work. I particularly want to congratulate Corrective Service Industries Corporate Excellence Awards Officer of the Year, Peter Rouse from Glen Innes Correctional Centre, and the runner-up Officer of the Year, Michelle Chapple of Emu Plains Correctional Centre, on their outstanding work. [Time expired]

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Does the Department of Education and Training have guidelines on the observance of Remembrance Day? What comments does the Minister have on reports that some schools did not observe Remembrance Day? What comments does the Minister have that other schools had their Remembrance Day ceremony disrupted by Muslim students who claimed that Remembrance Day was of no consequence to them? Does the Government acknowledge the inappropriateness of the apparent lack of desire of certain minority groups to understand, accept and embrace that Australia's history has meaning and significance for all its citizens?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am concerned about the tone of some of the aspects of the honourable member's question. It is not a matter that falls within my portfolio responsibility. I will refer the question to the Minister for Education and Training for a reply.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. Is the Minister aware that there was an error in the original Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal calculations for the 2003-04 non-commercial school bus contract revenue for private bus operators, which were implemented by the Director-General to the Ministry of Transport? Has he investigated why the director-general has not agreed to adjust the relevant amount paid to private operators, even though the tribunal acknowledged the error and has subsequently revised its original calculations?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not aware of the information. If the Hon. Charlie Lynn provides my office with the information I will look into the matter. As I understand it, the Government can choose to accept or vary the recommendations of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, provided it does not exceed the maximum recommendation. The structure of fares for bus operators is an important issue, and that is why I initiated the Unsworth inquiry. I can advise the House that an interim report is due to be handed down soon. The report will canvass a range of issues. I welcome the question of the honourable member because it gives me the opportunity to speak about the reform agenda in transport, which I will oversee. I have put this on the public record: I believe that the bus industry is the most important area of reform. I hope that we can proceed in a bipartisan way on the reforms. People in rural communities have raised concerns with me about the operation of school buses and rural bus services. They are legitimate concerns. It is absurd that we fund the School Student Transport Scheme—which I will refer to from this point on as "the subsidy"—in a manner that is not accountable or transparent. In the past, governments of both persuasions have sought to reform the subsidy, but it has been a difficult exercise to undertake because—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Only the Treasurer fell for it this time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is not true. The Government is not looking at changing the eligibility requirements for the subsidy; I have made it clear that the reforms will not deal with eligibility. That is where these reforms have failed in the past. These matters will be canvassed in more detail during the Unsworth inquiry. They relate to transparency, accountability, and the relationship to minimum services levels.

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

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following papers:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Reports for year ended 30 June 2003:

NSW Board of Vocational Education and Training
Teacher Housing Authority of New South Wales—Supporting education through a quality housing service

Ordered to be printed.

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 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until Private Members Business item No. 5 inside the Order of Precedence has been dealt with this day.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca Mrs Forsythe

Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Mr Obeid Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon

Ms Robertson Mr Ryan Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Reverend Dr Moyes Tellers, Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.
Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.57 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am proud to introduce the Developer Donations (Anti-Corruption) Bill on behalf of the Greens. Our democracy in New South Wales is quite literally up for sale; its very essence is being destroyed by massive developer donations. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people but, increasingly, members of Parliament are representing their corporate donors first and their constituents as an afterthought. Nobody believes that developers give something for nothing. Nobody believes that developer donations are about altruism. In fact, it is a misnomer to even call them donations. They are not donations, they are purchases. Developers are buying influence, they are buying access, and they are buying government policy. When it comes to planning policy the Carr Labor Government has been bought and paid for. The Carr Labor Government represents its developer mates, not the people of New South Wales.

The title of this bill has been chosen quite deliberately. The Greens believe that donations by large developers amount to corruption. The Macquarie Dictionary defines "bribe" as "anything given or serving to persuade or induce". To suggest that developer donations are not given in order "to persuade or induce" is akin to asking us to believe in the tooth fairy. Anyone who suggests that those donations do not persuade or induce the Labor Government to take certain action has not been paying attention. Section 8 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act defines "corruption" as follows:

Corrupt conduct is any conduct of any person that adversely affects, or could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest and impartial exercise of official functions by any public official.

Under that definition developers certainly have something to worry about. Section 8 also states:

Corrupt conduct is any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions.

Does favouritism towards developers count as "partial exercise of official functions"? I am not a lawyer but I know the commonsense answer. Who are these big developers making these very large donations? They are the companies whose names we see every day on the sides of cranes, on construction hoardings, and in the real estate section of the newspaper. Some time ago my office began an extensive research project to work out how much developers are giving, and their identity. The results are published on my web site, www.lee.greens.org.au. I thank Dr Norman Thompson, who has voluntarily given many hundreds of hours of his time to do this research. It was painstaking research because our donor declaration laws are so weak. The record is often only the name of a company, with no way of working out who is behind the donation.

The research is quite remarkable. Over the past four years the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party has received donations from at least 80 companies involved in the property industry. For instance, the Walker Corporation gave $165,000; McRoss, also associated with Lang Walker, gave another $122,000; Meriton donated $294,500; Multiplex donated $258,350; the Mirvac Group donated $98,000; Leightons gave $147,550; the Lend Lease Group gave $241,850; and Paynter Dixon Construction Pty Ltd gave $298,450. Eric Roozendaal must be flat out banking the cheques. It is little wonder that he needs to relax with a night at the Colosseum, where I understand he is going tonight. Of course, these are only donations to the New South Wales branch of the ALP. Hundreds of thousands of dollars also flow to the national office of the ALP and to their branches.

I understand that Lend Lease now has a policy of not donating to political parties. If that is the case, I congratulate that company on its change of heart. It is reassuring that some developers, whether they are convinced by the arguments or public relations considerations, are cutting the flow of donations. I hope that is a sign of the times. The people of New South Wales in general, and the communities fighting inappropriate development in particular, have a right to know just what the Labor Government sold in return for these massive donations. What did Labor give to developers in return? Was it private certification, State environmental planning policy 5, some harbour foreshore, hectares of endangered Cumberland plain woodland in Western Sydney, Aboriginal heritage at Sandon Point, the new coastal State environmental planning policy 71, or development applications that the various planning Ministers have called in and approved—hundreds and hundreds every year?

We can only surmise exactly what policies, what decisions and what parts of our State Labor has sold. However, we know one thing: the developers have bought access to power. I will always remember one episode of Stateline from a year or two ago in which Quentin Dempster interviewed Harry Triguboff, the owner of Meriton, the giant apartment builder. Quentin asked what access Triguboff has to the Premier. Triguboff replied along the following lines, "Oh well, I can always pick up the phone and ring him but I do not do it often." The most disturbing aspect of that interview, which I clearly remember, was the casual, offhand manner in which he said it, as if it was no big deal and only what any multimillion dollar developer would expect.

Nothing more dramatically illustrates the access that developers have to power in New South Wales than the obscene fundraising dinners that Labor holds. With tables costing tens of thousands of dollars they are priced well out of the range of ordinary people—the sort of people who are campaigning against Labor's development atrocities, but also the people who elected Labor to office, the ones who staff the polling booths. At those dinners big donors are lavished with attention. Ministers and members of Parliament are spread around the room, allocated to different tables. These dinners are selling access, plain and simple. And it does not come cheap. In the latest edition of the Sydney magazine, which is published by the Sydney Morning Herald, there is a fascinating interview with former Prime Minister Mr Paul Keating. In it Mr Keating takes a swipe at Labor's relationship with developers and fundraising dinners in particular. Mr Keating is quoted as saying:

Party fundraisers are at their beck and call, more's the pity. A handy implement for party fundraisers and politicians in NSW would be a hipflask of mace for all the cadgers and developers who cross their doors looking for government favours.

It is amazing how honest Labor leaders can become after leaving office, but I still very much welcome Mr Keating's contribution to the debate. As it happens, a Labor fundraising dinner is to be held tonight. It is billed as "A Night at the Colosseum" and features a State-of-origin great debate between Bob "The Gladiator" Carr and Steve "Maximus" Bracks. Interestingly, Graham Richardson was going to feature as the master of ceremonies until the Swiss bank account revelations forced him into hiding. The invitation offers an emperor's table of 10 for $11,000, with a senior Labor representative guaranteed, or an imperial table of 12 for $3,300.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Whom do you get for that—Costa?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, you do not get a senior Labor representative at your table. One can also purchase an individual ticket for $275. Could there be a better example of selling access? People who can afford $11,000 for a table of 10—$1,100 a seat—can spend the whole evening lobbying a senior Labor representative. Those who can afford a bit less can still get in the door and do their best to get the ear of power. Those who cannot afford at least $275, or those who think the whole thing stinks, can stand out in the street and join the Greens protest.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How much does that cost?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is free, of course. The back of the invitation for tonight's dinner is especially revealing. It features the logos of sponsors of the dinner—Multiplex, the developer; Stockland, the developer of the disastrous Sandon Point development at Bulli; St Hillers Pty Ltd, also a developer; Aussie Home Loans; the Tenix Group, a defence contractor; British American Tobacco, the global mass murderer; and the Manildra Group. Of course, it was only three months ago that Federal Labor returned a $50,000 donation from Manildra in light of the ethanol scandal. How hypocritical does that now appear?

The Hon. John Ryan: Is Manildra going?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, Manildra is going.

The Hon. John Ryan: That is called recycling.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. I wonder if the $50,000 that Manildra received back from Federal Labor will be used to attend the State Labor banquet. Labor certainly lives up to its side of the deal; its track record since 1995 demonstrates a long record of shameless capitulation to developer greed. Time and time again local communities have had inappropriate, destructive developments imposed on them. From Bega Valley to the Tweed, coastal communities and environments have suffered from developers moving in, exploiting weak planning laws and wreaking havoc. In the Illawarra the beautiful escarpment is under threat and public land and Aboriginal heritage at Sandon Point has been desecrated.

The Hon. Tony Burke: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. We were told that all of this information was disclosed on the New South Wales Greens web site. I have just been to the clean up politics link on the Greens web site, which says, "Greens MLC Lee Rhiannon's campaign donations page". When I clicked on the link I got the message, "The page cannot be found". In terms of misleading the Parliament, I am concerned about the speech we are currently hearing.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: Clearly, it is not a point of order. The web site is accessible. If the honourable member cannot use the web, or if there is a problem with a firewall, that is not a point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The matter raised by the Hon. Tony Burke was in response to a comment made by Ms Lee Rhiannon earlier in her speech. I do not think it was a genuine point of order and I rule that way. Ms Lee Rhiannon may proceed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: In Sydney, shoddy, lowest-common denominator developments have become the norm, maximising developer profits at the expense of quality design, residential amenity, community facilities and the environment.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: My point of order relates to the definition of "public funding". Does the fact that the former staffer Dan Cass, the campaign director for the Greens in the coming by-election, used the parliamentary office facilities and parliamentary funds of the office of Lee Rhiannon disqualify the member from making this sanctimonious speech?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: Clearly, that is not a point of order. The member is trying to waste time. On the specific allegations, which I will answer at a later time, Dan Cass took holidays throughout that period. The honourable member knows that, but she is trying to stop me making this speech.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I am advised that pursuant to the standing orders no point of order is involved. Ms Lee Rhiannon may proceed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Recent days have seen a wonderfully illustrative example of the power of the donors. The Collex waste facility at Clyde was always a disaster—a disaster for waste management, for local residents and for the environment. The Government has pushed ahead regardless, with utter disrespect for the residents nearby. Earlier this week two courageous individuals won a stunning victory against Collex and the Government in the Land and Environment Court. I warmly congratulate John Drake and his colleague on the stand they took. Consent for the facility was refused.

Anyone at all familiar with the Land and Environment Court will understand what a remarkable event this is. The rules of the court are so biased in favour of developers and against objectors and residents that to achieve such a win is truly stunning. The case was reminiscent of the movie The Castle, with two local men representing themselves against a phalanx of high-priced lawyers and experts. It was a wonderful win for commonsense and community values. The only people for whom the Clyde waste facility is not a disaster are the ex-Woodlawn mine workers. They were left without their entitlements when the mine ceased, and in a despicably cynical move Collex and the Government linked the paying of the entitlements to the Clyde project.

The Woodlawn workers should get their entitlements. Labor should have legislated years ago to better protect workers entitlements. But it is a completely separate issue to the merits of the Clyde waste station. How has the Government reacted to the Land and Environment Court decision? Has it resolved to reconsider the project? Has it taken any notice at all of what the Land and Environment Court judge had to say? Absolutely not! Labor's reaction has been to foreshadow special legislation to override the court decision. What an absolute disgrace! What a treacherous betrayal of residents in a strong Labor voting area!

Why has Labor reacted in this way? Again, let us follow the money trail—maybe it has an answer. In 1998-99 Collex donated $33,450 to the Labor Party in New South Wales; in 2000-01, $52,200; and in 2001-02, $3,300. That is $88,950 over four years. That is why Labor is listening to Collex and not to residents. That is why it is prepared to overrule the judicial process. Labor is governing for its wealthy donors, not for ordinary people, not even Labor voters.

I have spoken at some length about Labor's development sins, but it is worth noting that lack of opportunity is about the only thing stopping the Coalition from showing the same faults. It is commonsense that developers will want to donate to a party that can actually deliver for them in the short term, so for the time being the Coalition has lost out in the developer donation stakes. Nevertheless, it has received some fairly hefty donations over the past four years: $111,500 from Lend Lease, $150,667 from Meriton, $261,500 from Multiplex and $74,833 from Stockland. When one is wondering why the Opposition does not take the Government on with regard to overdevelopment and strengthening the development instrumentalities in this State that are so weak, perhaps the answer lies here.

Oppositions cannot sell access to power or government policy, but they do have something to offer—silence. The Opposition's silence on the Sandon Point development in particular has been absolutely disgraceful. But then again Stockland has been generous—$75,000 worth of generosity. Sometimes money talks and sometimes it is whisper quiet. Of course, sometimes oppositions can support a Government decision. Yesterday John Brogden came out in support of the Government's disgraceful position on the Clyde waste facility, despite the widespread community support for the court's decision. Over the past four years Collex has given the New South Wales Liberals $32,742.

The Greens position on these issues is considered radical in this Parliament, but we are in step with public opinion. The public understands that politics is increasingly being conducted for the benefit of the wealthy donors and not them. If one were to step out into Macquarie Street, Hunter Street in Newcastle, Keira Street in Wollongong or any street in any town in New South Wales and ask passers-by whether the actions of governments and oppositions are influenced by the corporate donations they receive, one would get nearly 100 per cent agreement. It is one of those issues about which the major parties are in total self-serving denial, thus creating an enormous gulf between mainstream politics and ordinary people.

It is these sorts of issues that cause people to be so disillusioned with politics and so in contempt of their representatives. It is the Greens who are striving to reunite the Australian people with their parliaments by addressing the root causes of their disenchantment. This bill is the result of an extensive drafting and consultation process that took more than 12 months. It is bold and far-reaching. It seeks to completely reform the process for receiving and declaring all donations in State and local politics, to ban donations from large developers in particular and to make the ministerial call-in power accountable.

As the law currently stands, parties, candidates and groups in State and local elections only have to declare their donations once every four years following an election. Once every four years? What a joke! What goes down in four years? We know in this place. That deprives the public of any opportunity to assess whether their actions have been influenced by their donations, or even to discover where their financial support has come from. The bill would replace this with a system of continuous disclosure.

The Hon. Tony Burke: Like your web page.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am happy to give the member a lesson on the web later. All donations will have to be declared to the State Electoral Office within 21 days of receipt. The State Electoral Office will then have a further 14 days to make the donation record publicly available, both at its office and on the Internet. This way the public will get to see quite quickly what money has changed hands, and to compare it to the Government's actions during that period. It will end forever parties accepting controversial donations and not having to disclose them for up to four years.

As a further reform, all donations will have to be made and declared by means of a standard donors form approved by the Electoral Funding Authority. It will be an offence, with a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, for a party, a person acting on behalf of a party, a group, a person acting on behalf of a group, an independent member of Parliament or a person acting on behalf of an independent member of Parliament, a candidate or a person acting on behalf of a candidate, to accept a donation that exceeds $1,000 if the donation is not accompanied by a completed donors form. This also applies to donations that, when added to donations received from the same source in the preceding 12 months, would exceed $1,000. In other words, there will not be any loophole where donors can give $999 repeatedly without having to disclose anything.

As a minimum, the donors form must require the donors to state the amount of the donation; details of all donations made by the donor to the recipient in the preceding 12 months; the donor's postal, residential and head office address; and, if the donor is a corporation, details of that corporation, including the names of all directors and a description of its basic activities. This last point is quite crucial, as our research has shown. All too often, under the current rules, the only information given is a nondescript company name and it can be almost impossible to work out exactly what that company does or who is behind it. Money can easily be passed through obscure shelf companies. Requiring the list of directors to be disclosed would greatly assist in joining all the dots together. The donors form will also require donors to state that they are not major developers. That is the mechanism that will be used to ban developer donations. It will be an offence for a major developer to make a donation, with the maximum penalty of 20 penalty units. That is how we can clean up the system and bring the planning system into balance.

The final feature of the donors form will be a requirement to state that the donor has not been convicted of an offence involving bribery or corruption. Again, it will be an offence for a person convicted of an offence involving bribery or corruption to make a donation, with a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units. Surely we can all agree that anyone who has actually been convicted of bribery or corruption is not an appropriate person to be contributing financially in our political system. The form will further require the donor to state that he or she is not making the donation on behalf of a major developer or a person convicted of a bribery or corruption offence. This is important. Money can easily be passed through third parties unless there is a mechanism to prevent it.

A major developer is defined in the bill as a person or corporation who has, in the past five years, lodged a development application or applications relating to the carrying out of development on any one or more parcels of land if the estimated cost of carrying out the development totals $5 million or more. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation requires those submitting development applications to include an estimated cost of carrying out the development, and it is this estimated cost that will be the relevant figure.

An exemption is contained in the bill if the developer intends to occupy at least 75 per cent of the total floor area of any buildings on the land for at least 12 months after the development has been carried out. In other words, if a manufacturer is building itself a new factory on land it already owns, it will not qualify as a major developer. If a wealthy individual is building himself or herself an expensive new house, that person will not be a major developer, and so on. This is important because the essence of being a developer is the development of land for sale, not for self-use. An intention to occupy at least 75 per cent of the total floor area must be evidenced in writing and submitted with the original development application.

One final important aspect of the definition of major developer is that, if a corporation meets the definition of major developer, each and every director of that company is also defined as such. This is needed because generally a corporation and its directors cannot be considered independent players. The interests of one are generally the interests of both. The ability of the directors of major developer companies to make political donations would be an enormous loophole.

The Developer Donations (Anti-Corruption) Bill also seeks to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to make accountable the ministerial call-in power. Currently, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning can call in any development application in New South Wales and make himself or herself the consent authority for the application. The Minister can arbitrarily remove the development application from a council at any time, without ever having to account for that action. It is a discretionary power that is wide open to abuse and almost tailormade for the granting of political favours. Is some community-oriented council giving you a hard time? Just call the Minister and remind him about your fat donation and get him to call it in. Magic—problem solved. The call-in power as it currently stands is so corruption-prone that reform is desperately needed. The call-in power is widely used, despite its relative obscurity. In March 2002 I asked the then Minister for Planning how many developments he had acted on as the consent authority. The answer, when it was grudgingly given, was that in the preceding three years he had acted as the consent authority on around 1,200 development applications—around 400 per year on average. This is a widely used and widely abused power, and it is about time that some light was shone upon it.

The bill amends the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to require the Minister to publish in the Government Gazette any use of the call-in power, and to allow either House to disallow that use in the same manner as a regulation. This would achieve two important things. First, Parliament and the public would be automatically made aware every time this dangerous and fundamentally undemocratic power is used. Second, the ability of Parliament to disallow its use would make the Minister far more cautious—knowing that at any time he or she might be required to provide Parliament with a defence of his or her actions. If the Minister can mount a good case, fair enough, and the call-in will probably stand. But if it is exposed as arbitrary, as favouritism, as corruption, then the public at large will have been done a great favour and it will be one more step towards cleaning up the planning process in New South Wales.

Why target developers? Why not any of the other categories of donors who are corrupting politics in New South Wales? Why not poker machine interests, clubs, tobacco interests or anything else? The answer is that, while this bill is cleaning up the process of receiving and declaring all donations, at this point in New South Wales's history developers simply are the biggest donors and the biggest problem. Planning policy is central to the future of New South Wales. The loss of native habitat, bushland and public open space, and the loss of our coastal communities and cities, would be devastating. Planning controls the amenity issues of noise, sunlight, privacy and design, and the sustainability of our community facilities and services. The Greens believe that the links between wealthy interests and government policy are nowhere clearer or more dangerous that in planning—with disastrous consequences for New South Wales.

If this bill is passed, it will restore public confidence in the planning system. It will allow the community to feel confident that planning issues are being considered on their merits, not on financial influence. Removing the distorting financial influence of big developers will inevitably affect the whole planning system—rules, laws, policies and individual decisions will come to better reflect the community's wishes. New South Wales might finally get the planning system it deserves—one based on community needs, not developer greed. I commend the Greens bill to the House

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [3.29 p.m.]: My office, as I am sure many others have, has received a great deal of correspondence in relation to the bill. I am cognisant that the subject of euthanasia invokes all manner of emotional, irrational and illogical debate. That is understandable given the various beliefs and, in many respects, the prejudices associated with the life and death of human beings. I feel that the attention of many members in this debate has been misguided. The bill is for a referendum; it is not a bill to allow euthanasia. It is One Nation policy that important ethical and moral issues relating to the people of New South Wales be decided by referendum, so we believe that the people of this State should have the opportunity to have their say. As the elected representatives of the people of this State, it is our duty to allow them as much input into legislation as possible.

This debate should not be focussed on the subject of the questions posed as much as the right of the community to determine matters through referenda. As I said, this debate is about referenda, not euthanasia. I note that Ms Lee Rhiannon made similar remarks in her contribution to the debate. To oppose the bill on the basis of the questions to be put in a referendum is, as they say, putting the cart before the horse. Should the bill reach the Committee stage I will move an amendment to include a further question regarding the reintroduction of the death penalty as an option for certain heinous crimes.

Mr Ian Cohen: Point of order: Standing Order 92 (1), states:

A member may not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion; or anticipate the discussion of any matter shown on the Notice Paper …

The Hon. David Oldfield is anticipating discussion of a matter on the notice paper. The bill has not reached the Committee stage. It is inappropriate for the member to raise another issue. He is transgressing the parameters of the debate.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: To the point of order: I was foreshadowing an amendment, which I have circulated. It is my intention to move the amendment should the bill reach the Committee stage. I do not understand the point of order taken by Mr Ian Cohen.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! There is no point of order. It is common practice for members to refer in debate to amendments that will be considered later in Committee.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: Should the bill reach the Committee stage I will move an amendment to include a further question in the referendum regarding the reintroduction of the death penalty as an option for certain heinous crimes. As a point of debate, crimes such as the murder of children and acts of terrorism would no doubt be considered by many as crimes that appropriately attract the option of the death penalty. The principle of the people having an opportunity to directly determine legislation through a referendum, and, in particular, community and citizen initiated referenda, has been One Nation policy since 1997. I stress that the passing of such legislation would not automatically introduce the death penalty but rather would allow the community the opportunity of an informed debate and ultimate determination of the matter.

It is unsustainable nonsense for anyone to suggest that the community should not have the right to such a debate or, indeed, the opportunity to resolve other matters through the democratic process offered by referenda. Prime Minister John Howard recently called for a debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty, following the conviction of the Bali bomber Amrozi earlier this year. That is another example of John Howard's adoption of One Nation policies. Expanding the subject of the referendum suggested by Mr Ian Cohen would be sensible and cost-effective, but should the Cohen bill fail, then I will still have in the list my private member's bill for a referendum on the death penalty for debate at a future time.

I am disappointed that Mr Ian Cohen took a point of order to exclude debate on additions to the referendum. I can only conclude that Mr Ian Cohen supports only the euthanasia part of the bill, rather than the principle of a referendum. I find that most distasteful. I support a referendum and, in so doing, support the people's opportunity to debate matters, such as euthanasia and the death penalty, and determine whether they should be included in legislation. It is apparent from his point of order that Mr Ian Cohen supports merely the topic of euthanasia.

Mr Ian Cohen: Point of order: I believe that the Hon. David Oldfield is straying far from the subject of the debate, which is, as the bill is entitled, a referendum on voluntary euthanasia. I could not make it any clearer. It is a clear and separate topic. The member is attempting to merge issues in an inappropriate manner and broaden the debate to include a matter that is not in line with the purpose of the bill. His comments are completely inappropriate. He is not prepared to confine himself to the debate and has raised a separate issue for his own political interests.

The Hon. David OLDFIELD: To the point of order: Ms Lee Rhiannon, Mr Ian Cohen's colleague, said in her contribution that the debate is about a referendum, not euthanasia. Having heard those words, I reasonably assumed that the Greens position was that the debate was about a referendum rather than euthanasia. I am expanding on that position, which was initially raised by a member of the Greens. Therefore, I believe my comments have been reasonable.

Mr Ian Cohen: Further to the point of order: I do not deny that Ms Lee Rhiannon clearly emphasised that the bill was about a referendum on voluntary euthanasia. It is clearly indicated in my debate on this bill, in the title of the bill and in the contribution by Ms Lee Rhiannon that we have no intention of straying from the parameters of the bill, which is entitled Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill. It could not be clearer.

The Hon. David OLDFIELD: Further to the point of order: It is all very well for the honourable member to talk about the title of the bill. I have already circulated amendments and foreshadowed that I will be moving them in Committee.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The comments made by the Hon. David Oldfield, although relevant, are bordering on breaching the bounds of relevance. On a separate issue, I draw the attention of the Hon. David Oldfield to Standing Order 91 (3) and ask him not to impute improper motives to Mr Ian Cohen.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My support for the bill should not necessarily be interpreted as support for euthanasia but rather my absolute belief in the right of the people of this State to make their true views known by answering such questions themselves through the use of referenda, whether they be about euthanasia, the death penalty or the keeping of the flag. Whatever the questions may be, the people should have the right of choice.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [3.40 p.m.]: I oppose this bill. In doing so I acknowledge the commitment of the Hon Ian Cohen on the issue and I commend him for his crusade. Notwithstanding that, I am totally opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia. This measure has been introduced in this House previously and has been defeated. I recall it was a conscience vote, which added to the significance of its rejection by the House. The tactic of reintroducing the legislation in the form of a referendum is clever, but it will not wash. A referendum would be an expensive and futile exercise. This Government is wasting enough money on Millennium trains, the building of infrastructure projects and the administration of essential services. It does not need any help from the Greens in that regard.

If the Greens support a referendum on euthanasia, I wonder if they would also support a referendum on capital punishment. It would be easy to get support for such a referendum given the level of lawlessness we are experiencing in the State under this Government. However, as legislators we have a responsibility to enshrine the value of human life, so we would not support such a referendum even though it would probably be supported in the broader community. The same is true of support for voluntary euthanasia. The last time we debated this issue I stated that our fundamental responsibility is to give every protection we can to people who are not in a position to protect themselves. The fundamental right of every person to the integrity of his or her life—the right from which all other rights derive their validity—is well articulated in the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It declares that right to be equal, inherent, inviolable and inalienable, and that it should be protected by law. There are no exceptions. That right is not to be dependent upon a life's quality at a particular time and it may be neither given away nor taken away. Australia, together with a great majority of other nations, is a signatory to that United Nation's document.

In recent times five government-sponsored inquiries in four countries into the consequences of legalising euthanasia have been published. Oral and written evidence was taken from a wide range of community and professional sources. Although debate on euthanasia seldom achieves anything approaching a resolution, all these inquiries reached the same conclusion: such law would always be unsafe because it could never be made free of the possibility that the lives of some who did not wish to die would be endangered. More astonishingly, that was decided unanimously by three of those committees, although each of them included members—in Tasmania a majority—who supported the concept of euthanasia. The inquiries and their published reports were: the Select Committee on Medical Ethics of the House of Lords, January 1994; the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, May 1994, entitled "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the Medical Context"; the Senate of Canada, June 1995, entitled "Of Life and Death"; the Community Development Committee of the Parliament of Tasmania, June 1998, entitled "The Need for Legislation on Voluntary euthanasia "; and the Social Development Committee of the Parliament of South Australia, October 1999, entitled "Inquiry into the Voluntary euthanasia Bill 1996".

Although it is beyond the scope of the paper from which I obtained that information to examine the many reasons that those committees came to the same conclusion, a good deal of the reasoning in the reports is summarised in an extract from the report of the New York State Task Force (Executive Summary), which states:

For purposes of public debate, one can describe cases in which all the recommended safeguards would be satisfied. But positing an "ideal" or "good" case is not sufficient for public policy, if it bears little relation to prevalent social and medical practices. No matter how carefully any guidelines are framed, (assisted suicide and) euthanasia will be practised through the prism of social inequality and bias that characterises the services in all segments of our society, including health care. The practices will pose the greatest threat to those who are poor, elderly, members of a minority group or without access to good medical care.

As I said earlier, it is our duty as legislators to ensure that such people are protected. The report of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom concluded:

... we do not think it is possible to set secure limits on voluntary euthanasia it would be next to impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary. These dangers are such that we believe that any decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia would give rise to greater problems than it would solve...

I recall a briefing note from the then shadow Minister for Health when this issue was last debated which quoted Professor Malcolm Fisher in the following terms:

Let me explain this to you by talking about a patient, he is a patient that has recurrent diarrhoea and he comes into us very sick, he has actually got some cancer for which he is receiving oestrogens. He is a retired Diplomat, a member and a past President of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and one day he delivers to me his "Living Will", which is the standard "Living Will", "when I am no longer of sound mind, when I can no longer make decisions, all the usual things", if there is no reasonable prospect and those are the only words you need to read from that. This man while he was in the Unit deteriorated and with the best we could do with computers by about day ten his predicted survival using the difference of the standard tools we use, he got 3% on one and no chance of survival on any of the others.

His wife on day twelve delivered us a letter, suggesting that she had come to the conclusion his life should not be prolonged, unless by being kept alive and totally free of pain he could serve a useful purpose in furthering medical knowledge. When the Doctors considered this, four believed we should make him comfortable and no longer try to save his life. There was one dissenter, who said he could not accept that at this moment in time there was not a reasonable prospect. We negotiated with the man's wife for another two days to care for him, after which if there was no improvement, the fifth Doctor believed he would be happy to withdraw. I wouldn't be telling you this of course, if six years later this patient wasn't alive and well and very grateful to be alive.

I draw the attention of honourable members also to the Hon. David Clarke's excellent research into the euthanasia experience in the Netherlands. The Remmelink report based on 1990 figures established that a high percentage of persons were killed by members of the medical profession when no genuine consent had been given. A 1996 report showed that the practice of ending a patient's life without explicit consent "seemed to have decreased slightly". The Hon. Ian Cohen would assure us that this would not be the case in an Australian setting. Perhaps, but perhaps not!

I refer honourable members to a survey of South Australian medical practitioners which showed that 19 per cent of respondents admitted to ending a patient's life deliberately and that 49 per cent of those did so without the patient's consent. Why would a medical practitioner commit such an act? I am sure that there are many reasons, including pressure from family members of the patient, the doctor's own beliefs on euthanasia, the rogue doctor and so on. Whatever the circumstances, there is no justifiable reason that a person should take the liberty of ending another person's life. With Australian doctors already admitting to ending patient lives without consent we cannot afford to pass legislation that will give medical practitioners in this State the power to terminate life and further place those most vulnerable in society at risk.

An underlying reason that so many people are against euthanasia is the perception of fear, particularly on the part of the elderly who need to go into hospital to receive treatment for a serious illness. Elderly people would be afraid that while they were in hospital somebody would give them a needle or pull the plug on a machine and they would not go home. That is a very difficult issue to address because their fears are generated by rumours in the community. That fear could grow in the minds of elderly people, with the result that they would not want to go into hospital or a hospice. The Government is aware of the need to deal with community perceptions to the extent that it now forms part of the police commissioner's contract to address the public perception of crime. The same is true of euthanasia. When people read that health administrators publicly say their top priority is the bottom line of their operating budget they start to worry. Such a statement was recently reported in the Macarthur Advertiser as a proud boast of a former senior administrator.

As honourable members know, 17 patients died at Camden District Hospital and Campbelltown Hospital during the time that the bottom line was the major priority. One can only imagine how secure an old widow with little means of support would feel when her doctor suggested that she go to hospital! Her perception would be that it was the start of a one-way journey if euthanasia were legalised because a lengthy stay would obviously impact on the bottom line. As legislators we must look after older people, the disadvantaged and those who cannot look after themselves. That is our prime responsibility. If the Government will not protect them, who will? That protection must address all their fears—both real and perceived.

The argument against capital punishment is that we cannot risk taking even one life if that life is wrongly taken as a result of an incorrect process in law. The same applies to voluntary euthanasia, except that capital punishment is subject to all sorts of processes whereby the case can be tested, appealed and so on. None of those safeguards exists for voluntary euthanasia. Our research and resources should be devoted to palliative care and to providing patients with every possible comfort and chance. We are concerned with preserving the dignity of life and we should not interfere with that process. We have a right and a duty to protect people from the groups to which I referred earlier. A report on palliative care by John Zalcerg and John Buchanan in the Medical Journal of Australia states:

... pressure to provide improved palliative care in the community and in hospitals may wane were euthanasia to be legalised. Interestingly, the move to legalise euthanasia has occurred in regions in which palliative care services were underdeveloped (e.g., in the Netherlands and the Northern Territory).

Although the idea of euthanasia is that it be voluntary, it would be impossible to ensure, enforce and legislate that every act of euthanasia is voluntary, especially by those who are most vulnerable. Permitting euthanasia would ultimately lead to a deterioration of the law, whereby the boundaries of the bill would be tested further. I believe that this is what is referred to as the slippery-slope effect. If such a practice were extended and became widely accepted, what measures would be in place, for example, to stop hospital administrators and/or governments reducing budget blow-outs by terminating the life of a seriously ill patient without consent before the patient would have died naturally, so as to free up a hospital bed and save some dollars? This fear has been reiterated by the Senate of Canada, which said:

Since a second person is directly involved, adequate safeguards could never be established to ensure consent was given freely and voluntarily, though this would be essential to prevent abuses and to avoid opening the door to non-voluntary euthanasia. Permitting euthanasia would to the most vulnerable members of society present a major threat and we as legislators must protect these people.

For those reasons I oppose the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.51 p.m.], in reply: Many aspects of the debate on this issue were raised also in debate on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill, which I presented to the House during the last Parliament. It has become clear that a significant majority of the members of this House oppose the measures that I, on behalf of the Greens, have put forward on this topical issue. I thank all those who participated in debate on the Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill; it has been most interesting. Such groundbreaking debate must be held in western technological society, in which many people are in favour of voluntary euthanasia and the provision of assistance at the critical time of a person's death. Too often in modern technological society the actual act of dying is extended quite remarkably. Obviously, we are considering a human rights issue of a very different type.

Some members have attempted to equate a referendum on voluntary euthanasia with a referendum on capital punishment. I regard the two issues to be quite different. A request to die made by a person in his or her dying days is a completely different issue from a State-authorised and State-sanctioned end to a person's life. The right of an individual to do as they will cannot be compared with the punishment meted out for offences in a so-called civilised society. The Greens, and I personally, strongly oppose capital punishment and regard debate on this bill to be very different from debate on capital punishment. I would have thought that honest debate would show clearly that the two issues are quite separate.

Clearly, the input of many members in this debate has been influenced by the debate on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. I could speak at length about that, but time does not allow me to do so. The Hon. Charlie Lynn said that euthanasia is practised in countries in which palliative care is, to use his words, somewhat underdeveloped. The honourable member used the Netherlands as an example. The proponents of voluntary euthanasia are consistently saying that it involves the slippery-slope effect. It has been said that the Netherlands has very few palliative care hostels.

What is conveniently ignored here is that in the Netherlands there exists the tradition of home palliative care. It is true that there are no palliative care hostels or institutions in that country, but that country has a very humane way of dealing with the situation: people receive palliative care in their own homes. That provision of itself skews the statistics and the argument superficially in favour of those who are against voluntary euthanasia. I suggest that the Netherlands example is a poor choice in that it does not enhance the argument relating to the so-called slippery-slope effect.

Euthanasia has been practised for probably as long as we have had civilisation, and that continues to be the case in terms of involuntary euthanasia. The Voluntary Euthanasia Trial (Referendum) Bill stimulates the issue of palliative care throughout society; it does not replace it. Obviously many people feel strongly the other way. I constantly receive research material showing that of the order of 5 per cent of people who are dying do not respond effectively to palliative care, and that they die in agony as a result. It may seem to be a small percentage, but we must remember that the legacy of certain diseases is a very painful, ugly end to life, and it is those who are suffering from such diseases who make up the 5 per cent of people I referred to earlier. No-one in the voluntary euthanasia movement is seeking to denigrate in any way the wonderful work that is done in palliative care institutions. In his contribution to the second reading debate the Hon. Dr Peter Wong said:

It does not take courage to die—we all die somehow—but it is less courageous to force another person to kill you.

The honourable member went on to say that assisted euthanasia was a selfish, cowardly practice. I disagree entirely. I believe that people who assist to end a person's life in a peaceful and humane fashion are neither selfish nor cowardly; indeed, in many cases it is with a great generosity of spirit that people are moved to accede to the wishes of a person who is close to death. I do not believe in elongating the dying process by creating a situation in which people are kept alive for much longer than they wish to be, when they have given a clear indication that they wish to end their lives at a particular time. The Hon. John Tingle and the Hon. Robyn Parker said that in this debate I spoke much about the referendum but very little about the issue at hand. I did that deliberately. I ask that before members, particularly those who are new to this House, accuse me of cowardice they consider the overall debate. In her contribution the Hon. Robyn Parker said:

It is a gutless way to introduce a policy. The proposal of a referendum is a backdoor way to introduce euthanasia—a means to an end.

I take that as fair criticism. However, I do not accept the "gutless" perspective on the matter, because it was not done through cowardice. The Greens went into great detail on voluntary euthanasia during debate on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. During debate on the bill now before the House I sought to argue the appropriateness of a referendum on voluntary euthanasia. With regard to debate on the bill introduced during the last Parliament, given the limited time one has to argue and debate such a bill, it was appropriate that I go through all the details. The issue has been well reported, it is on record, and there has been much debate about it both inside and outside the House. The Hon. John Tingle said that he regards the referendum proposal as the iron fist in a velvet glove. If only it was. I do not agree with him. He then used the colourful description of looking at the hole rather than the doughnut. I deliberately sought the agreement of members—which is obviously not forthcoming—to a very humane position. I was certainly not in any way shirking the issue at hand.

I thank Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their predictable, reasonable and understandable position—and I uphold their right to adopt that position. People can be motivated by religious conviction, and although I do not share that religious conviction, I uphold and defend their right to have that conviction. However, part of the reason I sought a referendum on this matter was my belief that the vast majority of people in the community have sympathy for the position taken by the Greens, and one way of resolving the issue is to have a referendum.

Much has been said about the cost of a referendum. A paper was circulated stating that the referendum should be held at the time of local council elections. In my discussions with various people I made it quite clear that in my view the most appropriate time to conduct the referendum would be at the time of a State election. The intention to put this issue to a referendum at the 2007 New South Wales State election was deliberate: to minimise cost to the community and to facilitate a process that would benefit the community. I concede that there could be political advantage in that. However, I am convinced that this is a very humane option by many people, including friends old and new and others I have met through the process of debating the bill—people who have legitimate reasons for seeking voluntary euthanasia as an option for ending their lives.

The essential question is: Does an individual have the right to decide his or her own ending? I fervently believe that an individual does and should have that right, and that it is not any business of the State. We hear about "slippery slopes" and involuntary euthanasia—which happens anyway—and about people, elderly people particularly, who, moved by a sense of desperation, do terrible things to themselves because of their age and their level of infirmity. People just do not understand. This is happening right now in our community. Some people are doing terrible destructive things to themselves in an effort to end their lives at a particular time.

Sadly, many people in the community fear that they will lose the opportunity to end their lives at the time of their choosing because they are suffering from a serious medical condition that will prevent them from making their decision known at the appropriate time, and because they know they cannot call on their loved ones—because of the laws of the State—to give them assistance in this regard. Because of that fear, many feel they have to end their lives even earlier. I have spoken to a number of people who hold such fears, many of whom, for very good reasons, do not want to go public about it. That is a terrible state of affairs. Their lives are being shortened to an unacceptable extent. The greatest fear of people suffering motor neurone diseases and various types of paralysis is that they will be placed in the hopeless situation of being kept alive on a life-support system because they have not been able to call on their loved ones to assist them to end their suffering. That fear in turn drives them to suicide. Of course suicide in this State is not a crime, but the act of assisting a suicide in any way is a crime.

I wish to read to members a letter that I received. I am well aware that other members have received many letters on this subject and have not been moved by them. However, I have received many such letters and I believe that the rights of those who sent me their letters should be respected. This referendum legislation will respect their rights. Ella Williams wrote to me in the following terms:

I am a 29YO MS sufferer (diagnosed at 22YO) currently in relapse; more than a little unfortunate, as I'm getting married in three weeks. It's not too bad this time as only the right side of my body is affected by partial paralysis; I can still wander around in sluggish, ungainly fashion and type slowly, mostly one handed. I'm exhausted, but at least I don't have pain or double vision or vomiting. Hope I'm not too late in writing this; the request came from VES when I couldn't do anything about it. And speaking of taxes, I'm not paying much at the moment as I haven't worked for almost a month - this torturous disease is not only having an adverse effect upon my family, my wedding budget, and my employer, it's affecting your coffers too!

As a society, Australia has one end of life pretty much sorted. We offer birthing classes; family tax benefit to help with basic baby needs; childcare; IVF; specialised birthing units with good doctors; a midwife to help with water birth; and many more options. That Australians appreciate being offered a choice is the idea I'm trying to impart. How is it that a government showing so much concern for its members preferences at the commencement of life almost completely ignores the time preceding death and the dying process itself?

The preceding is meant to promote the concerns of all Australians; viewing this selfishly, the rage wells up as I contemplate that not only has MS already taken away a myriad of options that life had on offer, but that if or when it moves in for the kill (or worse, some debilitating, humiliating, pain inducing permanent maiming) our state legislation ensures that I will slowly rot in an aged care facility with no other available option (regardless of age, and the fact that I will still in all likelihood be in possession of an active mind).

There are a couple of other options. The first is a little grim, and those going down this path before me that took option one should not have been put into the position of feeling they had to suicide whilst still having some capacity to participate in a (limited) life, in the hope of avoiding the severe pain and disability that can accompany advancing MS. The second option should be the ability of every individual to have a say in how they die when faced with severe illness, that is, the option of voluntary euthanasia should be easily accessible when requested. Yes, there are some medical and legal questions, however such legislative difficulties pale when compared to the suffering and fear that are currently left unchecked.

I wish to take responsibility for myself … The ultimate in taking responsibility for myself would be for me to be able to decree that if I am ever in a position of irreversible pain and/or debility I wish to be helped to die (that is, spelled out in a very basic way, for me to not be an ongoing financial and emotional cost to the community and my family, particularly when, if I am ever in such a situation, I have no wish to continue with such an existence). The ultimate in having the weight of fear of an uncertain future lifted from me and many others would be to be promised the security and certainty of a 'gentle death' if wished. Please also consider that where this option is available in other countries it is often not actively utilised, it just provides the comfort of knowing that if the fight becomes untenable there is the option of quietly departing.

To finish, I do not have a death wish or any other flippant dismissal that may be leveled at me. I'm hoping that the cause of MS will be discovered and a cure developed so that I am able to live a full life; be a healthy wife; and contribute something; this has been said before, but I'm not just repeating rote from something I've read, it's my honest, hopeful wish.

Yours sincerely

Ella Williams

I have also received a letter from Anne Faraday and John Wren which states:

This message comes to you from two residents of NSW who are both approaching their eightieth birthdays …

The period since this subject was last discussed by your Council has seen a huge increase in the number of elderly people too frail to enjoy quality living and also of young people similarly precluded because they suffer from cancer. In those earlier debates, frequent mention was made of the fact that the majority of the general public are in favour of decriminalizing the assisting of suicide with proper safeguards against criminal abuse, but we appreciate that legislators might be reluctant to vote on the basis of such a vague statement. A referendum, however, would provide solid evidence on the subject for those on both sides of the argument about just where the majority of voters in New South Wales stand, without in any way committing Parliament to specific legislation on Voluntary Euthanasia itself.

Those two people seek support for the bill. This debate will continue; it will not somehow fade into oblivion. Many cases will be cited in the various parliaments, as they have in the New Zealand Parliament and the South Australian Parliament. Indeed, I believe that the Democrats are moving that way. The trial was successful in the Northern Territory for a time. It appeared not to be such a disaster; it was in the spotlight so much that there was no way to circumvent the law. I am pleased to relay to the House a press release dated 24 May 2002 in which Senator Bob Green proposed a new Federal private member's bill. The press release refers to Mrs Nancy Crick, whom I met before she died. She was an amazing woman who lived a fulsome and whole life. She approached her death with a degree of understanding. The press release states:

Greens Senator Bob Brown says the euthanasia (literally "good death") of Mrs Crick on the Gold Coast marks another step to Australia legalizing euthanasia, in the wake of the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.

"In an age when we are living longer and also dying longer the law should not condemn people to a lingering, painful or undignified death, "Senator Brown said.

"None of us has the right to insist on months of indignity for our dying elders. It should be everyone's right to choose or reject euthanasia.

"I will be introducing a private member's bill after the new Senate sits on July 1 this year to overturn the Kevin Andrews' Act which outlawed voluntary Euthanasia in the NT and ACT," Senator Brown said.

I hope we see a repeat of that bill. I look forward to the day when society gives people a choice, where they are not dictated to by those who, quite understandably, oppose the process. I believe that a referendum would be a part of that and would give people the individual right of choice.

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

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Ms Griffin Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Debate resumed from 15 October.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [4.20 p.m.]:The Pacific Highway is of major significance to the whole of Australia. It is an essential part of the north-south connection of eastern New South Wales, it is the Sydney to Brisbane connection. Knowing this and given the tragically high death toll on the motorway over many years, the upgrade of the Pacific Highway must be a State and Federal priority. The whole issue is further influenced by the high population growth on the North Coast and the often conflicting use of land and the environment with rural industry, urban development and tourism.

Since 1996, under the joint project the State Government has provided $160 million a year and the Federal Government $60 million a year. We must get the Federal Government to renew its commitment, which it has so far refused to do. It is recognised that it was a Federal Labor Government that made the current long-term agreement for the program, which runs out in 2006. It was a joint Keating Government and Carr Government commitment. All the more reason for a commitment from the Federal Coalition Government and John Anderson! The New south Wales Government contributes the lion's share of funding for the upgrade. The only reason the Federal Government and John Anderson contribute anything at all is because they are contractually bound to do so by the agreement between the Keating Labor Government and the Carr Labor Government, which cannot be broken.

For five years the Greiner-Fahey regime spent on average $70 million per annum on the Pacific Highway. When Labor came to government we dedicated $100 million immediately in our first year. A year later, in 1996, Labor had initiated a comprehensive long-term Pacific Highway upgrading program with the Commonwealth—the largest infrastructure project anywhere in regional Australia, which is pretty exciting. The program is a $2.2 billion project, $1.6 billion of which this Government is contributing over 10 years. Since I last spoke there has been considerable political activity on the North Coast and the mid North Coast by the Opposition on this issue, not working to get a Federal Government commitment, but blatantly working on the next Federal election and the multiple local government elections by trying to denigrate the magnificent work that has been done over the past seven years.

We are now having a politically motivated Pacific Highway safety forum, continual negative press, and a confused, not always accurate, message from all and sundry. That is most unfortunate. The Minister for Roads has asked Associate Professor Soames Job to undertake a scientific investigation of road safety issues. The investigation will focus on all issues, including road conditions, speed limits, rest areas, police enforcement, and heavy vehicles. That is far more use than running up and down the coast trying to make trouble. We have also been subjected to an unfortunate press release from The Nationals leader in the other House attempting to gain political capital from the sad death of individuals on one of our highways. This was despite the co-operative work in this House to avoid such political gain. The upgrade of the Pacific Highway is not just an investment in safety, it is an investment in the North Coast region. In 1996 Michael Knight, the Minister for Roads in the first Carr Government, said:

We are making a solid investment in the future of the route and those who use it. The results will be there for all to see, whether you use the highway daily or just for a holiday trip up the North Coast.
Not only are we building a safer Pacific Highway, but one which will generate income through being an efficient transport route and thereby reducing costs for business and consumers.

He concluded:

Tourism will benefit as visitors will have reduced travel time to their destinations and be more confident of driving on a safer road.

Twenty-one major projects and 19 smaller ones have already been completed, and this has reduced the travelling time between Hexham and the Queensland border by almost an hour. Approximately 880 jobs are created each year—each year, not over the 10-year period. The upgrades along the Pacific Highway are strategic and well planned. Funding goes where it is needed, for example to the Raymond Terrace bypass. This 7.6 kilometres four-lane bypass, which was opened in 1998, removed a traditional bottleneck.

The Bulahdelah to Coolongolook deviation was a $130 million project between Newcastle and Taree. It bypasses the two worst black spots on the old Pacific Highway—O'Sullivan's Gap and the Wooton Bends—and took 15 minutes off the previous travelling time. This new stretch of road carries 11,000 vehicles daily. The need to improve the Pacific Highway between the Wang Wauk River bridge and overtaking lanes north of Bundacree Creek was acknowledged early in the development of the Pacific Highway upgrading program. In the five years to 1997, this section accounted for 16 accidents involving two fatalities and seven serious injury cases.

The $16 million project involved duplicating the old highway to provide four lanes over a distance of about five kilometres, and improvements to the intersection with Wang Wauk Road. Conversion to four lanes started in 1997 and was partially completed in June 1998, when a 1.8 kilometre section of new northbound carriageway initially opened as a two-lane road. This allowed for rehabilitation and reconstruction to start on the old highway, which became the southbound carriageway of a divided highway in September 1998. Motorists began using the full dual carriageways in December 1998.

The Raleigh deviation overcame one of the worst crash sites on the Pacific Highway—a narrow box girder bridge at Raleigh, where passing semi-trailers regularly clipped their external driving mirrors. Now disused, the old bridge hazard was exacerbated by right-angle turns at either end. The 54-metre concrete arch bridge carrying the Waterfall Way above the reconstructed Pacific Highway at Raleigh opened to traffic in 1997. One of five bridges constructed as part of the deviation project, the $1.6 million structure was built without the use of scaffolding. Instead, the ground on site was dug out and shaped, and the supporting foundations were cast into the rock. Reinforcement and concrete were laid into the shaped earth and the ground beneath later excavated. This is believed to be the first use of this construction method anywhere in Australia.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What about the world?

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Anywhere in Australia. The original Raleigh deviation was expanded from a two-lane to four-lane project incorporating an additional 280-metre crossing of the Bellinger River. In addition to the new Bellinger River bridges, other structures along the Raleigh deviation include single bridges over North Arm Road and Valery Road and twin bridges over Man Arm Creek. The deviation extends from the Kalang River bridge at Urunga to Mailmans Track at Repton. The $72 million project opened in September 1998. Probably the most impressive upgrade is the Yelgun to Chinderah Freeway. It is located between the existing Pacific Highway and the coast, running from Yelgun to the existing highway at Oak Avenue, south of Chinderah. When completed, this freeway will offer an alternative route to the existing highway, which passes through the Burringbar Range, providing a safer, shorter, and significantly better standard of highway. Since the project commenced in May 2002 steady progress has been made on the construction of the freeway and associated structures. Sealing and paving of the road surface have already commenced in some areas.

I would like briefly to give this House an idea of what the Government, through the extremely capable guidance of the Minister for Roads, Mr Carl Scully, has done on this project. Forty-five bridges were built, 6 million cubic metres of soil and rock were excavated and moved to construct the road embankment for the freeway, 90,000 cubic metres of concrete pavement was laid, approximately 300,000 square metres of hydro mulch seed mix are being put down to regenerate the roadside corridor, and a fauna corridor is being built and will include large fauna arches.

The Cudgen Road tunnel project is another feature worth mentioning. This involves two tunnels, one north, one south, avoiding the need for a deep road cutting and so preserve the Cudgen ridgeline, minimising the visual intrusion and protecting surrounding areas that are some of the State's most productive sugar cane areas. This is a $350 million deviation, the most expensive single road project undertaken in regional Australia. It took about three years, starting in late 1999, and was completed in August 2002. The 29 kilometre realignment bypasses the Burringbar Range, which was a very dangerous part of the highway, and it is about 15 kilometre shorter than the original route. This fantastic upgrade is in many ways the centrepiece of the Pacific Highway upgrade program.

Apart from relatively frequent private use of the Pacific Highway, I had personal experience of this very exciting project when opening the new section at Halfway Creek to enable completion of the dual carriageway. Talking to the very proud Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] work force was most satisfying. The RTA won the contract for this section of the highway, and its accent on quality work and developing a native vegetation corridor will ensure the long-term high quality of the road and the environmental future of the Halfway Creek area. The RTA community update of May 2003 states:

The RTA encourages active community participation in projects, from planning through to completion. Consultation is conducted regularly with all interested parties.

Environmental impact assessments are undertaken to minimise any effects. Local heritage, flora and fauna are protected through initiatives such as compensatory habitat, koala proof fencing, fauna underpasses, as well as the collection and propagation of local native plants.

Projects are designed to blend with the environment. The RTA strives to achieve balance in meeting the need of local communities, road users and the environment.

This program has been called the biggest peacetime civil construction project in Australia's history since the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme. Since Federation, governments have been talking about coming together to improve the Pacific Highway, and thanks to this Government, and the former Federal Labor Government, it is happening. The key now is to make sure it continues. Labor's policy on the highway is to continue a substantial investment in the Pacific Highway upgrade beyond 2006, and to seek continued Commonwealth Government support for the Pacific Highway upgrade beyond 2006. Members of the Opposition in this House have on occasions, including recently, criticised the Government for its commitment to the Pacific Highway—a commitment that, I remind the House, within two years of coming into Government, equated to more than double the Coalition's funding allocation under John Fahey and Nick Greiner.

If members of the Opposition wish to make a genuine contribution, particularly The Nationals, I suggest they make a brief trip to Canberra, march down to the House on the hill, and demand that John Anderson make a commitment to the highway beyond 2006. This is the issue. The New South Wales Government has already committed to continued substantial investment beyond the expiry of the 2006 agreement. That has been said and done. Our Premier, our Minister for Roads, and our Government have locked that in.

The Federal Government collects somewhere in the region of $12 billion in fuel taxes, but returns only $1.8 billion to the States. I am reminded of what a young backbencher by the name of Mark Vaile, now a Minister, said in 1995. He was speaking on a motion that endorsed the need for special priority funding for the Pacific Highway and he argued that the Commonwealth should direct more fuel tax revenue into road funding. He said:

We just want to see a reasonable amount of the money that is collected by the Commonwealth aimed back at where it should be going—into road infrastructure …

Perhaps members of this House should lobby the Hon. Mark Vaile, and not the Minister for Roads. At least he has, at some stage in his parliamentary career, expressed the desire for the Commonwealth to increase funding for the Pacific Highway. Perhaps he cannot stand up for his own electorate now that he is a Minister in a Liberal Government. The Coalition has no credibility on this issue, particularly not members of The Nationals—the party that let Fahey and Greiner spend a pathetic amount on the Pacific Highway when they were in government. That party sat back at the last election and watched as John Brogden announced his billion-dollar North Shore tunnel. Hopefully members opposite will never get a chance to pour New South Wales taxpayers' dollars down the drain like that.

Their Federal colleagues have the opportunity to decide whether they will continue funding the Pacific Highway beyond 2006. I can only pray that they have a little more sense than this Opposition. It is time for the Federal Government to make a commitment. I remind the House again that the funding the Federal Government currently provides was committed to before the Coalition formed government. It will not get a vote of thanks in 2006 for funding provided over the past 10 years, because it did not decide to give it.

Labor signed their heads of government agreement, and the three Johns—John Howard, John Sharp and John Anderson—have been forced to continue that commitment. However, if John Anderson and the Federal Coalition commit to significant funding beyond 2006 I will happily move a vote of thanks. Then and only then will they have illustrated their own commitment to the Pacific Highway rather than be obliged to continue Labor's commitment. Recently the Opposition claimed that its submissions would be more likely to succeed with the Commonwealth than one of ours. We do not care which submission succeeds. If the Opposition can help gain a new Commonwealth-State agreement, please do it.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.38 p.m.]: I do not think we will have long to wait for the Hon. Christine Robertson to move a vote of thanks, and we look forward to that. The Nationals might invite her to a special ceremony so she can move a vote of thanks to the Hon. John Anderson and The Nationals for their support for the Pacific Highway. It is worth reminding the House that the upgrade of the Pacific Highway was initiated by the New South Wales Nationals. The debate on upgrading the highway got under way when branch delegates to The Nationals annual State conference were successful in getting the whole party to commit to an upgrade of the Pacific Highway with a dual carriageway from Hexham to the Queensland border. I well remember the then leader of the New South Wales Nationals, Deputy Premier and Minister for Roads, the Hon. Wal Murray, led the way and got the bulldozers onto the old highway.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: All he did was bulldoze trees.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is true that some trees had to be removed for the project.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I did not say that he bulldozed trees to create a dual carriageway. He just bulldozed everything in the bush.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is not true. In those days the Pacific Highway was described by one of The Nationals Federal members, who represented the seat of Cowper on the North Coast, as a "goat track". Mr Garry Nehl travelled the length and breadth of the Pacific Highway in the cabin of a truck with a truckie who regularly freighted goods up and down the highway so as to elevate the issue in the public domain. One of the first substantial sections of the Pacific Highway to be upgraded was the Bulahdelah to Coolongolook stretch, a completely new road, replacing one of the most treacherous stretches of road along the east coast of Australia. Currently substantial road works are under way at Cundletown and to the north near Taree, which will extend the Taree bypass—a major Pacific Highway project in itself—transforming another very dangerous main stretch of road into a dual carriageway.

Tragically, while the road works have been in progress there have been fatalities on that stretch of the highway. Only several Sundays ago another three people died on that stretch of the road. Just after the accident I was flying into Taree airport and saw the aftermath. To the south, in and around Karuah, which is a notorious bottleneck on the highway, the old route will be bypassed with bridges across the Karuah River. Again, four lanes will replace the dangerous two-lane stretches of the highway. Karuah has been a particularly bad bottleneck during school and public holiday periods, sometimes resulting in many hours of delays being added to travel times. Another dangerous two-lane section of the highway is from Nabiac to the southern end of the dual carriageway. It is often referred to as the Taree bypass. At present that stretch of the highway is considered to be so dangerous that traffic is required to travel at reduced speeds. The maximum speed varies between 80 and 90 kilometres per hour.

Because of the successful campaign by The Nationals member for Myall Lakes, Mr John Turner, in highlighting the unsatisfactory and dangerous road design at the intersection of the Lakes Way and the Pacific Highway at Rainbow Flat, the Minister for Roads has acknowledged that major upgrade work must be done soon to make the junction safer. The Lakes Way is the main route into and out of the substantial and rapidly growing twin towns of Foster and Tuncurry and the smaller communities in the district. Following road deaths at the junction at the beginning of this year, traffic on the dual carriageway has to slow down to a maximum speed of 90 kilometres per hour. The relatively new stretch of road was supposed to take traffic travelling at 110 kilometres per hour, and before the road deaths in January that was the speed limit.

I contend that in a metropolitan setting the Roads and Traffic Authority would never design an intersection that allowed considerable traffic from a major road to enter across a high-speed dual carriageway motorway. It is a tragedy that the Lakes Way and other intersections along the dual carriageway—for example, one of the major entrances to the highway is used by people who live just south of Port Macquarie—were built with such fundamental design shortcomings. Although funding has been allocated in the current State budget—as a result of the campaign by the honourable member for Myall Lakes—to rectify this design fault at the Lakes Way intersection, the road works have not yet commenced. A fixed camera has been installed at the site to observe traffic and any accidents that might unfortunately occur.

I regularly drive up and down the Pacific Highway and I remember the dastardly accident sights to be encountered almost routinely on some of the horror stretches of the highway before the Greiner-Murray Government came to office. Clearly, it is now a much safer experience, even though the traffic on the route is much heavier. A further improvement to the whole coast-to-Sydney road link, and to the flow of traffic up and down the Pacific Highway, is occurring on the F3. Road workers are building a new lane at Mt White, placing giant sandstone blocks to form the basis of new roadworks. It is fascinating to watch those roadworks under way. If you could view the scene from a helicopter it would be like watching little kids playing with building blocks, such is the seeming simplicity of the construction of the new road.

The improvements to the Pacific Highway and the F3 have changed the economies of many east coast communities. I can recall discussions with the chief executive officer of Tweed Heads District Hospital about the impact that the Yelgun to Chinderah motorway would have on the workload of the hospital. It was anticipated that the drawing area for the hospital would rapidly increase and patients from further away would be admitted to the hospital much faster. That had to be taken into account in the management plan of the development of the Tweed Heads hospital.

Because of the elimination of the dangerous Burringbar Range route which the highway had crossed, many people living north and south of the range changed their shopping, business and leisure habits. Their options are now wider for the accessing of services, such as from medical practitioners. The Nationals have a number of branches along the Pacific Highway route. Some of our members would report on a dreadful part of their life when they had to regularly go outside their front door and wash the blood from the highway following the latest accident. It was part and parcel of living in that part of the Tweed Valley.

The dramatic improvement in the road conditions in the Tweed Valley has resulted in an increased potential for the valley's economy to further diversify and thrive, as many people choose to leave the hurly-burly of Brisbane and the Gold Coast and set up their domicile and workplace on the Tweed coast and in sensationally beautiful towns, such as Murwillumbah. Kingscliff has been famously transformed, so that today it is a mecca for people who want to go for a drive and join other diners at one of the many cafes and restaurants located along Marine Parade. Further, the opening of this part of the new carriageway of the Pacific Highway has attracted substantial heavy transport away from the New England Highway. Previously the Burringbar Range deterred many transport operators from utilising the Pacific Highway, for both cost and safety reasons.

The Minister for Roads said that, whilst the Roads and Traffic Authority had anticipated increased traffic from the New England Highway, it had not anticipated the extent of the increase. That is a problem on parts of the coast, particularly on the far north coast where there is still not a dual carriageway. In some ways it has become more dangerous. Further down the coast cities such as Taree and communities in the Great Lakes and Manning areas are experiencing growth in population and attracting new industries and businesses. That is partly due to the dramatic improvements in the Pacific Highway bringing those communities closer to the State capital. The rebuilding of the Pacific Highway has concentrated on the parts of the highway that had a high incidence of fatalities and crashes, that is, the area north of Newcastle around Coffs Harbour and south of the Tweed. The Howard-Fischer and Howard-Anderson Federal Governments have been pleased to join with the New South Wales Government in substantially contributing to the rebuilding program.

The Commonwealth Government created the Pacific Highway Reconstruction Program, which commenced in 1996-97 and is scheduled to be completed in 2005-06. It will provide $600 million to New South Wales to assist in upgrading this important State road. It must be emphasised that it is a State road. That partnership allowed, for example, the Yelgun to Chinderah section to be built to freeway standard, which the Hon. Christine Robertson correctly stated was the largest rural road project undertaken in Australia. The Federal Minister for Transport and Leader of The Nationals, the Hon. John Anderson, and the Australian Government recognise that the upgrading of the route is a long-term objective. To that end, it will consider a further commitment beyond the end of the Pacific Highway Reconstruction Program and closer to expiry under the new AusLink proposal. That is a very high priority for Mr Anderson.

To draw attention to the alarming number of road deaths on the highway I and my colleague the Hon. Melinda Pavey participated in a Pacific Highway summit at Coffs Harbour a few weeks ago convened by The Nationals and chaired by our New South Wales Leader and honourable member for Oxley, Mr Andrew Stoner. The NRMA participated in the summit, as did representatives of councils from along the highway, volunteer emergency services personnel and private citizens who are concerned about the state of the highway. The NRMA provided the summit with its Pacific Highway Route Performance Report dated September 2003 and prepared for the association by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Field surveys were conducted during August covering the 643 kilometres between Hexham and the Queensland border.

I will provide a rundown of some aspects of that research. According to the research the traffic volume on the Pacific Highway is characterised by significant peaks in many of the town centres along the route. The largest peaks occur in Coffs Harbour, Ballina and Tweed Heads, with other centres such as Taree and Kempsey experiencing less extreme traffic fluctuations. The average daily traffic volume exceeds 10,000 vehicles at most locations along the route. As a general rule, and not considering the cost of the specific length of road or local factors, approximately 10,000 to 11,000 vehicle journeys a day justify the construction of dual carriageways. Heavy vehicles use the Pacific Highway to haul freight between Sydney and Brisbane. Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] traffic volume data indicates that 10 per cent to 20 per cent of traffic along most of the route is heavy vehicle traffic. However, those figures predate the opening of the Yelgun to Chinderah bypass. As I said, the opening of that bypass has meant that more heavy traffic has been diverted onto the Pacific Highway from the New England Highway.

The fundamental measure of the traffic-carrying capacity of a rural roadway is the number of trafficable lanes that it provides. Of course, they provide overtaking opportunities. An assessment includes road alignment and terrain, the prevailing speed limit and specific design elements, such as width of lanes, provision for turning and sight distances. The Pacific Highway has a mix of two, three and four-lane roadways. I point out that 33 per cent of the route has four or five lanes and 43 per cent consists of two lanes. In addition, 70 per cent of the route between Grafton and Ballina has only two lanes and more than 50 per cent of the route between Taree and Ballina has two lanes. The percentage of the road with four or more lanes generally decreases towards the north, with less than 6 per cent of the section between Grafton and Ballina consisting of four or five lanes. Of course, that area from Grafton to Ballina has been a major concern in terms of road accidents and deaths in recent times.

Speed zones should be set to balance the relative safety of travelling a length of road, the desire being to provide adequate mobility and amenity to adjoining communities. A measure of speed limits along a roadway should therefore give an indication of both the safety and the level of service afforded. Speed limits on the highway range from 60 kilometres an hour up to 110 kilometres an hour. The majority of the route—that is, 68 per cent—is signposted at 100 kilometres an hour, and less than 14 per cent is signposted in the range of 70 to 90 kilometres an hour. The speed limit between Kempsey and Ballina does not exceed 100 kilometres an hour at any point. The 60 kilometre an hour speed limit is more common between Kempsey and Ballina, reflecting the higher incidence of towns between those two locations. The section between Grafton and Ballina has the highest percentage of speed zoning of 100 kilometres an hour.

The speed limit on the Pacific Highway changes 77 times between Hexham and the Queensland border. That is a change on average every 8.4 kilometres. Speed limit changes are most common between Kempsey and Coffs Harbour, with a change every 5.8 kilometres. Conversely, the speed limit changes once every 10.9 kilometres between Coffs Harbour and Grafton. The highway has 210 speed limit reminder or confirmation signs at an average of three reminders for every speed limit zone. Reminder signs are located on average once every 2.3 kilometres from Hexham to Taree and from Ballina to the Queensland border and once every 5.5 kilometres between Coffs Harbour and Grafton. There are eight speed cameras located along the route: one near Kew, four between Macksville and Coffs Harbour and three further north.

School speed zones are sections of the highway where the limit is reduced to 40 kilometres an hour during peak school activity—usually 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. on school days. There are five school zones on the Pacific Highway: one north of Grafton, one south of Ballina, one north of Kempsey and two between Hexham and Taree. Of course, some of those schools—for example, the school at Ulmarra—are so close to the highway that one would be able to feel the traffic while sitting in a classroom.

Overtaking is an important efficiency measure on rural roadways, particularly when traffic speeds are inconsistent because of topography and/or a diverse mix of road uses. Centreline markings, gaps between approaching traffic or multiple lanes in one direction may accommodate overtaking. Centreline overtaking is not desirable on high traffic volume roads on which higher levels of conflict and inappropriate driver choices resulting from frustration may be the product of the time spent following other vehicles combined with fewer and shorter gaps between oncoming traffic. About 45 per cent of the Pacific Highway in each direction allows for safe overtaking. When centreline opportunities are taken into account, 56 per cent of the route in each direction has possible overtaking opportunities. In other words, 44 per cent of the route is completely restricted with regard to overtaking unless drivers attempt to do so in dangerous circumstances; that is, illegally across barriers or centrelines or with insufficient overtaking distance. From Hexham to Taree and from Ballina to Queensland border drivers find the best overtaking opportunities, primarily because those areas have a greater percentage of four or more lanes. Safe overtaking is least possible between Grafton and Ballina, because much of the road consists of two lanes. As I said, there has been escalating concern about the terrible accident rate in recent times.

Another criterion for assessing progress on the highway is horizontal alignment. The presence of a large number of curves along a rural roadway can be related to lower travelling comfort, poorer performance and higher crash rates. That is particularly pertinent for curves that require vehicles to negotiate well below the prevailing speed limit. The analysis demonstrates that between Hexham and Queensland the border there are—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I drive to Ballina all the time.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Then you can speak to the motion. On the Queensland border there are 119 sign-posted curves, 90 single curves, 29 curves as part of 12 multiple curves— [Time expired.]

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.00 p.m.]: I support the comments of the Deputy Leader of The Nationals in relation to the motion moved by the Hon. Christine Robertson. I place on record that I totally refute this ridiculous motion—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.03 p.m.], by leave: I move Liberal Party amendments Nos 1 to 3 in globo:

No. 1 Page 10, schedule 4 [4], proposed section 164A (2), lines 20-23. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 10, schedule 4 [4], proposed section 164A (3), line 24. Omit "(other than in Court Session)".

No. 3 Page 10, schedule 4 [4], proposed section 164A (5), lines 35-39. Omit all words on those lines.

I refer the Committee to the excellent speech by shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Epping, in the other place. The Opposition's concern about the bill as drafted is that it vests in the Industry Relations Commission a power to make its proceedings secret and to keep them from the public for "any other reason"—a test we do not agree with. The Industrial Relations Commission exercises jurisdiction in a much broader manner than many members of the legal profession and the public suspect. The Opposition therefore believes it is wrong to vest in the Industrial Relations Commission the power to keep its proceedings secret.

The Opposition believes that the general principle that should operate is that suppression of evidence in proceedings should only take place when it is in the interests of justice to do so. Again I refer to the lengthy comments of the shadow Attorney General in the other place, in which he set out various quotations from the courts in relation to this matter. It is a fundamental but simple proposition that the Opposition is putting forward with these amendments, and I commend them to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.04 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendments. Schedule 4 [4] of the Courts Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Industrial Relations Act to ensure that the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] may make non-publication orders in appropriate circumstances, regardless of whether it is sitting in court session or as a tribunal. The Industrial Relations Commission sits in two modes: as a superior court of record—the commission in court session, with the same status and powers as the Supreme Court—and as a tribunal, the commission other than in court session. As a court, the commission already has extensive inherent powers to make non-publication orders, and there is a wealth of decisions elaborating the principles that circumscribe the exercise of this power. The Government does not wish to impinge upon these powers, or fetter the development of this area of the common law. The court also already has the power to hold hearings in private.

The Government wants to ensure that there is absolutely no doubt about the commission's power, when sitting in court session or otherwise, to make non-publication orders in proceedings under the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 where it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or for any other reason. When sitting as a tribunal, the powers of the commission are much less certain. It is well-established law that courts have the power to make a non-publication order where it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, but the extension of this principle to tribunals is not settled law. For this reason it is also desirable to ensure that the commission not sitting in court session may make non-publication orders where such orders are necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.

The Opposition's amendments would have the effect of limiting the existing power of the Industrial Relations Commission in court session to make non-disclosure orders, as it could only make orders in the circumstances prescribed in new section 164A (3). Its broader inherent powers would not be preserved, due to the solution in section 164A (5). Section 164A (2), which the Opposition seeks to remove from the bill, ensures that there is no doubt that a non-publication order may be made by the commission in court session due to the confidential nature of the evidence or for any other reason, and section 164A (5) ensures that this clarification does not derogate from the court's inherent powers. The language of section 164A (2) is identical to section 75 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. As the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the Industrial Relations Commission share jurisdiction under the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998, it is highly desirable to ensure that both tribunals have the same power to make non-publication orders.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.07 p.m.]: I note that the Legislation Review Committee has considered this issue. It stated:

The Committee is of the view that the public have the right to be fully informed of judicial proceedings. However, the Committee notes that this right is not absolute and that in some instances information relating to proceedings needs to be restricted to protect other important rights and interests.

The Committee is of the view that the power of the Industrial Relations Commission to make non-disclosure orders if satisfied that it is desirable to do so because of the confidential nature of the evidence or matter, or if satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice, does not unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties.

Another matter of concern is the personal identifying information, a matter I thought the Opposition may also have been concerned about. In a recent case, a union official finally admitted that he had damaged a vehicle at a picket line. That may necessitate evidence from other union members and members of the public who were present at the time. However, some of those union members and members of the public may not want the information or their identification made known to the public. If the power to make non-disclosure orders is available to other courts and tribunals, it is possible that it will be exercised whenever necessary, although I assume that it would not be exercised very often. However, in certain cases it may be desirable for the Industrial Relations Commission to have the power to make non-disclosure orders. For those reasons the Christian Democratic Party does not support the amendments.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Lynn Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Mr Tingle

Tellers, Mr Harwin Ms Parker

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

Mr Egan Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Jenkins Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield

Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Colless Mrs Pavey

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedules 5 to 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.19 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 granted.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Coroners Act 1980 to improve the efficiency and operation of the court and to streamline the procedure for conducting fire inquiries. The office of the Coroner, which is one of the oldest known to English law, was first provided for by statute in 1194 in the Articles of Ayre, though references exist to the office from AD 871. The first statute relating to coronial matters was passed in New South Wales in 1861. The current statute, the Coroners Act 1980, commenced on 1 July 1980. In 1993 substantial amendments were made to the Act as a result of recommendations and proposals examined and evaluated by a consultative committee. The amendments made significant changes to the administration of the coronial system and jurisdiction of the State Coroner.

The Attorney General's Department has continued to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the 1993 amendments and to develop protocols to improve the level of service for clients of the coronial jurisdiction. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the level of public interest in the role of the Coroner and the practices and procedures of the Coroner's Court. In the decade since the 1993 amendments there have been substantial procedural and client service initiatives introduced by the Coroner's Court, particularly in the area of counselling and information provision to relatives. There have also been significant developments in police investigative techniques and the conduct of forensic medicine.

As a consequence of this jurisdictional, procedural and technological change and the heightened public interest in diverse aspects of the coronial jurisdiction, the Attorney General commissioned a broad-ranging review of the Act to allow interested members of the community and organisations to contribute submissions on areas of interest and concern. As a result of the broad scope of the review, the submissions produced a diverse range of comments, opinions and suggestions. The reform proposals canvassed in the review range from amendments of a minor procedural nature to matters that substantially affect the rights and obligations of parties.
The Government has decided to refer the more far-reaching proposals contained in the review to an expert working party. This bill contains practical, expedient reforms which have been identified during the review and which are supported by court users. Most importantly, the State Coroner, the Senior Deputy State Coroner and two Deputy State Coroners all approve of and support these amendments, which will clarify or amend the existing law and processes to improve the efficient operation of the court. Schedule 1 to the bill amends sections 15 and 15 (2) of the Coroners Act 1980 and adds section 15B. These amendments require the Coroner to inquire into the cause and origin of a fire unless a broader inquiry is requested by the Minister, the State Coroner, the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service or New South Wales Fire Brigades. This is one of the most significant aspects of the bill and will have a major impact on enabling more rapid coronial investigation of fires.

At present a fire is required to be reported to the Coroner when there has been a death or damage to property. This bill will not change that requirement. What this bill deals with is the terms of that inquiry, that is, what will be required in most cases. A number of issues were raised in submissions on the review of the Act in relation to coronial inquiries into bushfires. Bushfires attract a great deal of public concern because of their scale and frequency, the potential for fatalities, injury to people and animals, and the large number of firefighters and resources deployed. Property damage, evacuations, travel restrictions and cessation of transport and essential services all add to the trauma experienced by victims. Investigations have become protracted and time-consuming because the unlimited scope of the fire jurisdiction given to New South Wales coroners sees the Coroner go beyond finding the cause and origin of the fire and inquiring into the circumstances of the fire.

The interpretation of the term "circumstances" as contained in the Coroners Act 1980 has tended to be broad, resulting in lengthy and wide-ranging police coronial investigations, adding to the time victims, property owners, firefighters and the public must wait for an outcome. Over recent bushfire seasons the increased complexity of police investigations, due to the broad terms of the jurisdiction, has caused delays in the presentation of the hundreds of briefs of evidence to the Coroner. Many of those briefs contain thousands of pages of evidence covering issues that are not necessarily needed to determine the cause and origin of the fire. In relation to the 2000 fires, investigations and briefs were presented to the Coroner well into the following year. In 2001 and 2002 the police created and resourced a special task force called Tronto to investigate fires and prepare briefs for the Coroner. In 2001, Strike Force Tronto 1 investigated 573 fires and produced over 6,500 pages of briefs. In 2002, Strike Force Tronto 2 investigated 771 fires and delivered the briefs to the Coroner.

Delays in investigating, preparing briefs, and holding and finalising a fire inquiry mean that the Coroner's recommendations are sometimes made several bushfire seasons after the event, lessening their effectiveness as a tool for disaster prevention or better fire management. After considering the submissions to the review and the results of subsequent consultation, the Government is of the view that delays in holding coronial fire inquiries could best be avoided by clarifying the scope of the inquiry to the cause and origin of the fire rather than the broader and less easily defined term, "circumstances". The current New South Wales coronial jurisdiction can be contrasted with those of the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and the Northern Territory. These jurisdictions allow the Coroner to inquire into and make findings in relation to the cause and origin of a fire.

There will almost certainly be circumstances in which a broader inquiry could be considered to be in the public interest, such as when it is alleged that the fire damage occurred due to the misconduct or negligence of a government official or instrumentality. This amendment also allows the parties who are currently able to request a coroner to conduct an inquest—that is, the State Coroner, the Minister, the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service or New South Wales Fire Brigades—the discretion to request a broader inquiry into the circumstances of a fire. The fact that the State Coroner, an independent judicial officer, can request this broader investigation means that investigations cannot be arbitrarily restricted by narrow political or bureaucratic interests.

Schedule 1 also replaces references to "member of the police force" with "police officer" in line with the current title of the position. Schedule 1 also clarifies that all coroners have the right to give directions to police officers concerning investigations to be carried out for the purpose of a coronial inquest or inquiry. Section 17B of the Act expressly allows the State Coroner to give a police officer directions. This restates the common law duty of police officers to investigate matters for the benefit of the Coroner and, where necessary, at the Coroner's direction. The amendment adds section 17C, which expressly confers the power on all coroners. All coroners, not only the State Coroner, rely on police to investigate matters for them and police instructions require police to investigate matters for all coroners. It is confusing that the Act confers the power only on the State Coroner when the common law and current practice confers it on all coroners.

Schedule 1 further amends the Act to allow a coroner to issue a subpoena to any person whose evidence is deemed necessary for the inquest or inquiry. Section 35 of the Act allows a coroner to issue a summons for a witness to appear to give evidence only if satisfied that the witness would not attend voluntarily. This provision means that coroners and investigators must make inquiries prior to the hearing about the likelihood of a witness attending. Witnesses do not always advise police of their reluctance to give evidence and non-attendance on the date of the hearing causes disruption and the adjournment of proceedings. Witnesses are better protected from criticism for giving evidence if they are compelled to do so. Many willing witnesses require a written document from the court as an official record of their attendance to arrange or explain their absence from work or educational institutions. Subpoenas also protect witnesses who are compelled to give evidence that may otherwise constitute a breach of privacy or confidentiality.

Schedule 1 amends sections 30 and 44 of the Act to allow a coroner, in special circumstances, to exclude any or all persons from an inquest or inquiry if it is in the public interest to do so. This includes the administration of justice, national security or the security of any person or the public. Section 30 of the Act currently provides that the room or building in which a coroner holds an inquest or inquiry shall be open to the public. While the general principle of holding hearings in public must be supported in the interests of justice, there are special circumstances when it may be preferable for the coroner to exclude some or all people from the hearing room. Such circumstances would include hearings held in hospitals, gaols and psychiatric facilities from which the public are generally excluded, or when a witness may be in danger.

The common law allowed coroners to exclude individuals or the public generally. The Victorian and Queensland coronial legislation similarly allows exclusion of any or all persons if it is in the interests of any person, or the public, or of justice. The amendment preserves the general requirement that hearings be open to the public so that justice can be seen to be done, and proceedings can be fairly and accurately observed and reported to the public by the media. The amendment to exclude any person is expressed to be exercisable by the coroner only in special circumstances, when it is in the interests of any person, of the public or of justice.

Schedule 1 amends the savings and transitional provisions of the Act to ensure the jurisdiction of the coroner is limited to deaths that occurred less than 100 years ago. Section 13B of the Act purports to do this. The section was commenced on 1 February 1994. It was inserted by the previous Government to prevent the coroner from having jurisdiction over what are essentially relics of the past. However, there is a great deal of doubt about the effectiveness of that section to achieve the purpose for which it was enacted. The weight of legal opinion holds that the amendments do not apply to inquests into deaths that occurred prior to the amendment. This means that the section, in its current form, would not become effective until 1 February 2094. It is necessary to amend the Act so that the section can operate as it was intended, that is, to prevent the coroner from holding an inquest into historical remains. This is particularly important for members of indigenous communities, for whom the coronial processes of investigation and inquest into ancestral remains could cause serious problems and great distress. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.20 p.m.]: The aim of the Coroners Amendment Bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Coroners Act with respect to the holding of inquests and inquiries. The Opposition does not oppose the bill but will move amendments to it in Committee. The amendments arise from concerns about the effect this bill will have on the capacity of a coroner to make inquiries in particular about bushfires and other fires. The bill seeks to amend the provision in the Coroners Act with respect to the unlimited scope of the New South Wales Coroner's fire jurisdiction. If the bill is passed in its present form, inquests and inquiries will be limited generally to the cause and origin of a fire and not, as currently exists, into the circumstances of a fire. The Opposition has concerns that the Government may well evade its responsibility to properly remove undergrowth to prevent fires.

The bill will also amend the Coroners Act to allow a coroner to issue a subpoena to any person whose evidence is deemed necessary for an inquest or inquiry. It will also permit a coroner to issue a summons for a witness to appear before an inquest or inquiry if the coroner is satisfied that the person will not voluntarily attend. The bill clarifies a number of matters. Coroners will have the right to give directions to police officers concerning investigations to be carried out for the purposes of a coronial inquiry or inquest. The bill also provides that coronial inquests and inquiries in most cases will be open to the public. However, under the bill a coroner has the discretion to exclude any person if the coroner is of the opinion that special circumstances exist in the interests of a person, the public or of justice. The Opposition supports that provision. However, it is unfortunate that the report of a coroner will not be readily made public. I draw attention to debate in the other House during which Opposition members spoke at length about concerns and experiences following the recent Australian Capital Territory bushfires and the inability of interested people to obtain a copy of a report on the bushfires within a reasonable time frame.

The Government asserts that the aim of the bill is to increase the efficiency and operation of the Coroners Court and to ensure that inquiries and inquests are conducted in a timely manner. The Opposition does not oppose that objective but is concerned that the reason underlying this fairly innocuous statement is much more insidious. Apparently the State Coroner's Office and NSW Police do not have the necessary resources to conduct inquiries in a timely manner. The shadow Attorney General described lengthy discussions he had with the State Coroner. It is obvious from those discussions and other material that the State Coroner's Office and police have been limited in their inquiries because the Government has not provided them with the appropriate resources. The Government issued a briefing note, which was not referred to in the second reading speech but was referred to by the Opposition during the debate. That briefing note stated:

During 2003, a Bushfires Investigations and Procedures Roundtable was convened to identify the issues causing delays and improve the efficiency of the system. The Roundtable consisted of the State Coroner, and representatives of the court registry, the Attorney General's Department, NSW Police, the Office of Emergency Services and the Cabinet Office. It was agreed that long delays could best be avoided by modifying the reporting protocol between the police and the Coroner and narrowing the scope of the inquiry to the "cause and origin" of the fire rather than the broader and less easily defined term, "circumstances".

The Government has stated that the bill is not about efficiency but about narrowing the scope of the inquiry and modifying the reporting protocol to reduce delays. The Government does not seek to target those who light fires, those who may be responsible for failing to adequately undertake hazard reduction in our national parks or those who avoid responsibility for fire risks. Rather, it seeks to limit the power of coroners so that those issues do not emerge. It is important to note that the bill seeks to preserve the discretion of coroners to conduct a broader inquiry. The Opposition does not believe that discretion is sufficient to deal with serious problems, in particular, bushfires. I shall comment further on the bill in Committee.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.28 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the bill. We note that schedule 1 [17] will amend section 44 (6) of the Coroners Act, which relates to a coroner's ability to clear a court or other building. Despite that provision being in the bill, the Government made no mention of it in its briefing note to crossbench members. I assume this was just an oversight because it is not a controversial bill or provision. However, the oversight is unfortunate. Members of the crossbench like to think that they can rely on the Government's briefing notes, but now we must wonder whether there have been other oversights in other briefing notes.

Schedule 1 [10] will amend section 30 of the principal Act to allow a coroner to hold hearings in private. In other words, a coroner will be given the power to keep the public at bay. The Greens are somewhat concerned that people may be excluded from hearings that they believe they have a legitimate right or need to attend. Therefore, we hope that a grievance or appeal process will be put in place to enable people to challenge a coroner's decision. This should include a right of appeal to an authority independent of the Coroner's Office.

The Greens support the idea that people should, within reason, be given access to and information about legal and administrative processes in which they have a strong interest or involvement. However, since few complaints about the operations of the Coroner ever surface in the public domain, we are not planning to seek amendments to the bill to enforce that principle.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.29 p.m.]: The briefing paper from the Office of the Attorney General, the Hon. Bob Debus, is headed:

BRIEFING NOTE—CORONERS AMENDMENT BILL 2003

OPPOSITION AMENDMENTS—not supported by Government

The Coroners Amendment Bill, which will change the nature of coronial inquiries, amends section 15 of the Coroners Act 1980 to restrict the scope of a fire inquiry to "cause and origin", unless a broader inquiry is requested by the Minister, the State Coroner or the fire services. The briefing paper states that one reason for the change is the amount of work conducted by police. Obviously, the change will result in more work for the Coroner. The briefing paper states:

Thousands of pages of evidence were collected and collated by the police in hundreds of cases that never proceeded to an inquiry. This complex and protracted process delayed the hearing of those important cases where an inquiry was required.

It is desirable to have a system in which police know they are required to investigate a particular case in depth. I do not know what the simple solution is. When the Coroner opens an inquiry and, after an initial briefing, understands that the matter is simple and does not require hundreds of hours of work by police, does he indicate that to the police? Or when he opens an inquiry about a fire and wants evidence from police, does he ask the police to conduct further investigations? In other words, there would be two stages. The first stage would be the initial coroner's inquiry, which would proceed if it is a simple, straightforward case. If it is not a simple, straightforward case, it would be adjourned and the police would then collate the information. That means that police would not have to work in the dark collecting and collating information that, according to the Attorney General, is never required for any inquiry. That would be a waste of police resources and taxpayers dollars.

I can understand the Government's thinking in restricting an inquiry to cause and origin; it believes that will save a lot of time. Today in question time I asked a question about the Alpine printing fire some years ago. I am concerned that the words "cause and origin" might restrict aspects of an investigation. I wonder whether there is a way to retain the words "cause and origin" and to add the words "and, where required, the circumstances". I think the Government is trying to do that with the provisions in the bill that give various people the power to call for further information—people such as the head of the Rural Fire Brigade, the Minister and others in senior positions. Some members of the public may still be concerned that if those people do not call for an extra inquiry, one will not be held. That may mean that some information is not presented to the Coroner.

I am not concerned so much about bushfires, although I know they are of concern to the people of New South Wales; I am concerned more about suspicious fires in buildings, dubious insurance claims and so on. The word "circumstances" may still be necessary to give the Coroner the power to go beyond investigating the cause and origin of a fire. Restricting the Coroner to "cause and origin" may prevent him from investigating the owners of a building who may benefit financially in terms of a large insurance payout if, for example, the building is destroyed by fire. There are many other factors. I am not so concerned about bushfire investigations, which other speakers have focused on.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. The Coroners Amendment Bill clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving access to justice. It is part of the ongoing process of continuous improvement that incrementally creates more efficient and responsive courts. Section 30 of the Act currently provides that the room or building in which the Coroner holds an inquest or inquiry should be open to the public. While the general principle of holding hearings in public must be supported in the interests of justice, there are special circumstances when it may be preferable for the Coroner to exclude some or all people from a hearing room.

Coroners are often called upon to sit in locations other than a courtroom. In order to get the best evidence available about a person's death, it is sometimes necessary to hold hearings in hospitals, gaols, psychiatric facilities and private homes. In these circumstances the Coroner needs the legislative flexibility provided in this bill to decide in the interests of justice who should be present in the room with the witness. It is vital that the Coroner be granted the power to protect vulnerable witnesses such as small children or people fearful of the consequences of giving evidence. The amendments to sections 30 and 44 of the Coroners Act will ensure that the Coroner has the power to protect witnesses who need to give evidence in the absence of any person they fear.

These amendments will further protect witnesses and improve the administration of justice by allowing the Coroner to issue a subpoena for a witness to appear to give evidence. Currently, the Coroner can only issue a summons to a witness if satisfied that the witness will not attend voluntarily. This means that coroners and investigators must make inquiries about the likelihood of a witness to attend prior to a hearing. Witnesses do not always advise police of their reluctance to give evidence. Inquests and inquiries are hampered and delayed because witnesses do not turn up on the hearing date. This is a source of grief and stress for families and friends who are hoping to find some answers about the death of the person they loved.

Witnesses will be better protected by the provisions of this bill. Even willing witnesses often require a written document from the court as an official record of their attendance at court in order to arrange or explain their absence from work or educational institutions. The subpoena will also provide protection to professionals, such as doctors and health workers, who may be worried that their evidence breaches confidentiality or privacy. All witnesses are better protected from criticism by giving evidence if they have been compelled to do so by the court. These amendments will enhance public confidence in the justice system by providing greater protection to those called upon to assist the court.

The amendments to section 13B ensure that the jurisdiction of the Coroner is limited to deaths that occurred less than 100 years ago. This was the intention of the Legislature in 1994 when the provision was inserted. However, because it was not made retrospective, the current provision will not become effective until 2094. This bill clarifies that not only the State Coroner but all coroners can give police directions concerning investigations to be carried out for the purposes of an inquiry or inquest. Coroners rely on police investigators to assist them in their inquisitorial role. The amendment expressly confers the power that existed under common law and was current practice.

The bill makes some important amendments to the coronial fire inquiry jurisdiction. Fire investigations by the police are time consuming because the unlimited scope of the fire jurisdiction in New South Wales requires the Coroner to go beyond finding the cause and origin of the fire to inquire into the circumstances of the fire. These inquiries can be very complex and protracted, requiring dozens of witnesses to be interviewed and the preparation of thousands of pages of written statements of evidence. This causes a great deal of stress and anxiety, particularly among firefighters, many of whom are courageous volunteers who put their lives at risk to save the lives and property of others. Delays in investigating, preparing briefs, holding, and finalising fire inquiries mean the coroner's findings and recommendations are sometimes made several bushfire seasons after the event, thereby lessening their effectiveness as a tool for disaster prevention or better fire management.

During early 2003 a bushfires investigation and procedures roundtable was convened to identify the issues and causes for delays, with a view to improving the efficiency of the system. The roundtable consisted of the State Coroner and representatives of the court registry, the Attorney General's Department, New South Wales Police, the Office of Emergency Services, and the Cabinet Office. It was agreed that long delays could best be avoided by modifying the reporting protocol between police and the coroner and narrowing the scope of inquiries to the cause and origin of the fire rather than the broader and less easily defined term "circumstances".

It was agreed that it was necessary to provide investigating resources along the lines of the TRONTO model when there were large numbers of fires within a short period. The current New South Wales coronial jurisdiction can be contrasted with that of the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and the Northern Territory. These jurisdictions allow the coroner to inquire into and make findings in relation to the cause and origin of a fire. However, there may be circumstances where a broader inquiry will be considered to be in the public interest. This bill defines the scope of the coroner's inquiry as determining the cause and origin of the fire but it also ensures that the parties who are currently able to request the coroner to conduct an inquest—that is, the State Coroner, the Minister, the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service, and New South Wales Fire Brigades—are given a discretion to request a broader inquiry into the circumstances of a fire. The amendments in this bill are relatively simple, eminently practical, and part of the ongoing improvement process that is undertaken by all courts to continually enhance the operation of the justice system.

In the debate in the Legislative Assembly the honourable member for Epping said he had discussed the issue with the State Coroner, Mr John Abernethy. He said that Mr Abernethy supported the Attorney's amendment to confine the breadth of fire inquiries because it was all a matter of dollars and resources. It was suggested that the State Coroner only agreed to the amendments because he had not been provided with sufficient resources to conduct more comprehensive inquiries. This is incorrect. The State Coroner wishes to clarify that his support for the Government's bill was not related to any alleged lack of resources provided for the coronial jurisdiction.

The State Coroner is of the view that restricting the scope of fire inquiries to cause and origin is a practical and effective method of ensuring that resources are not wasted in hundreds of fire inquiry matters where they are not needed. The amendments enable resources to be properly and promptly directed to deal quickly and thoroughly with the relatively few cases that require more detailed investigation.

The State Coroner has confirmed that the Government has consistently provided him with the resources he has requested. The amendments are not a resource issue; they were requested by the expert working party to improve the efficiency of the court and the investigation process. They address delays by drawing on the experience of all the professionals involved in the field and the lessons learned from three consecutive horrific bushfire seasons. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Committee ordered to stand an order of the day.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 18 November 2003 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.45 p.m.]: A few weeks ago we had the first anniversary of Greens member of Parliament Michael Organ's historic win in the Federal seat of Cunningham. It is appropriate to mention this event because the issue I speak on tonight was a vital part of that election success. Yet, just over a year later, the Labor Government has still to learn the lessons. Sandon Point is one of the last green spaces in the Illawarra that joins the escarpment to the coast. It is the site of a 6,000-year-old Aboriginal burial ground and is an environmentally valuable estuary and wetland. The community campaign to prevent the ongoing destruction of Aboriginal, European and environmental heritage at Sandon Point will surely be a thorn in the side of Wollongong City Council and this Government for years to come. This urban planning fiasco, pushed ahead in blatant disregard of heritage and environmental considerations, has left a cynical community questioning the relationship between large corporations and government.

The dispute surrounds the proposed 20-stage housing development by Stockland, which, if not stopped, will total nearly 1,200 houses. Currently, Stockland is attempting to develop stages one to six of the proposal. The campaign to protect Sandon Point stretches back almost 20 years. The Sandon Point Aboriginal tent embassy was set up at McCauley's Beach in December 2000 and is staffed 24 hours a day. Indigenous people have come together at the request of Uncle Guboo Ted Thomas to watch over the land and a sacred burial site, approximately 6,000 years old, which was uncovered during a storm in 1998. The local non-indigenous community has also taken a stand. A community picket and information centre was established in March 2001 and is also staffed 24 hours a day. A community blockade on St Valentine's Day 2002, attempting to stop destruction equipment being moved onto the site, was met by approximately 60 police, armed security guards and dogs. The resolve of the more than 300 community members present was only increased by these heavy-handed tactics.

Last year this Government came under so much pressure over Sandon Point that it was forced to refer the development to an independent commission of inquiry. The report released last month includes significant environmental and heritage protection measures and sweeping changes to the Stockland proposal, vindicating the community's 15-year campaign to protect the area. Recommendations include a reduction in the number of houses in the development, as well as larger creek setbacks and additional studies into Aboriginal heritage. With the findings of the commission of inquiry seen as a damning indictment of both Stockland and Wollongong City Council, the community is celebrating a partial victory. However, the campaign to save and protect Sandon Point is far from over. It must be noted that the findings and recommendations of the commission of inquiry are just that: findings and recommendations. The power to put them into effect lies with the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning.

Although Stockland was reported in the local media to have welcomed the findings, its actions since suggest otherwise. Less than a week after the release of the commission of inquiry's report, Stockland began excavation works on the site. The works are in an area recommended by the commission for preservation due to its environmental importance, an area that also contains Aboriginal artefacts and the endangered central estuarine forest complex. Members of the Aboriginal community put their own safety on the line once again in an attempt to stop the work. My Greens colleague Lee Rhiannon spoke to Minister Debus's office, which advised that the matter was a council responsibility and that the National Parks and Wildlife Service would not get involved until damage to the endangered ecosystem was already done. This response exemplifies the buck-passing and short-sightedness of this Government.

I am informed that since that time, National Parks officers have been on site—not to protect the area but to attempt to force local Aboriginal people to sign a consent for the destruction of yet more of their heritage. Fortunately they were unsuccessful, and concerted community opposition to this damaging development continues. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning to step in to sort out the mess at Sandon Point and to protect this important heritage site once and for all. The conduct of the Government on this matter has been shameful from start to finish. It has one last opportunity to redeem itself in the eyes of the local community in the Illawarra.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.50 p.m.]: I raise an issue of great concern to so many Australians who feel we are becoming hard-hearted, that we have lost our compassion, and we do not care what happens to children in our society. I am referring particularly to children in immigration detention centres. As many honourable members may be aware, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission is conducting a national inquiry into children in immigration detention. I have taken the opportunity—and I wish that those on the Opposition benches in particular would do the same—to look at submissions from organisations which represent a very diverse range of interests across this nation and which are equally concerned about what we are doing to children in immigration detention centres.

The Queensland Teachers Union is concerned about the Federal Government's detention program. In a submission the union said that all refugees and asylum seekers who now attempt to enter Australia without government sanction—that is, if they actually manage to land in a place that has not been excised from our shores—are placed in detention centres. In the past, all the detention centres were located on the Australian mainland. Currently, there are detention centres in Nauru and on Manus Island. These centres form part of the "Pacific Basin solution", which is a very expensive and inhumane solution to the problem. Rather than utilising the Pacific Basin solution, the Federal Government could have saved money by giving asylum seekers $1 million each and an around-the-world first-class air ticket. The damage that has been done to these people while they have been in detention is appalling.

The worst aspect of the situation is the arbitrary detention of children over an extended period of time. This is in direct contravention of the rights of children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, which was signed by the Australian Federal Government. Not only are our actions morally wrong, they are in contravention of a United Nations agreement to which we are signatories. The Federal Government is abrogating its responsibilities to ensure that children in detention are treated in the least damaging and most humane way. Those children, who have come to Australia by a variety of means, are being held in detention centres that are run in a way that would not afford them a chance to remediate any problems they may have arising from experiences in their homeland or during the journey to Australia.

The children in the detention centres come from countries where there have been extensive civil wars, and they have seen the traumas of war. Often when they come here their families are separated. One parent may be stuck in Indonesia and the other has made it to Australia. The children are not necessarily co-located with the parent in Australia in the detention centre. The damage to the children, both psychologically and to their health, is considerable. Regardless of whether they are granted asylum in Australia or deported, they are damaged children. Whether they are released from detention and permitted to stay in Australia or sent back to where they came from, they are in a worse condition than when they arrived.

Members should be ashamed about this situation and up in arms about it. We hear members say in this Chamber that they want to do more about child abuse prevention in New South Wales. Let us start by ensuring that any child held under government orders is kept in a safe and secure environment. That is not happening to children in immigration detention centres. Worst of all, they are not even under the control of the Government. The centres are operated by an American-based multinational company, Australasian Corrective Services. Every time I hear the name I think of the acronym ACS, and I am reminded of the television program Robocop, in which everything is controlled by an all-present profit-making organisation known as OCM. It involves the same thing: an abrogation of government rights in the provision of basic services. We should express our heartfelt concerns and support the community organisations that call for these children to be dealt with in a humane way and to help with their rehabilitation, regardless of the outcome of their application for asylum.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [5.55 p.m.]: Last night my Nationals colleague the Hon. Rick Colless paid tribute to the Australian legend RM Williams. One of RM Williams's greatest legacies is his famous riding boots. Tonight I wish to pay tribute to another Australian legend, Cliff Young, who made the gumboot just as famous as a pair of RMs. Cliff came to prominence in 1983 when he unexpectedly shuffled his way down the highway from Sydney to Melbourne to win the world's longest and toughest ultra-marathon. At the time he was a 61-year-old potato farmer from Beech Forest. He finished the 875-kilometre race in 5 days, 15 hours and 4 minutes. At the time I was serving in the Army at Holsworthy and I watched the start of the race on television.

I was amazed that this group of runners was going to run from Sydney to Melbourne. I was even more amazed to hear the introductions. I had heard of the New Zealand runner Siggy Bauer, Tony Rafferty from Victoria, and Joe Record from Western Australia. Then the camera focused on a 61-year-old potato farmer, who did not have any teeth because they rattled when he ran, who trained in his gumboots, and who wore a hanky with knots on the corners on his head. His trainer was his 81-year-old mother. Neville Wran, who was present with John Saunders, was the starter of the race, and he said to John Saunders, "That old bloke will not even make it to Westfield Liverpool"—the race commenced at Parramatta—and we all thought the same. When we woke the next morning we heard that Cliff had jogged all night down to Mittagong. His tactic to win the race was to keep a distance of 20 miles in front of the other runners.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Didn't he accidentally get woken up early the first morning?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: He believed he was 20 miles in front of the other runners, so he stopped to get some ice from a Shell service station. He was about to have a sleep when Joe Record knocked on his car door and asked whether he had any ice. Cliff said he did not have any ice but there was some available at the service station back up the road. When Joe went off to the service station, Cliff put his boots on and said, "If he's that close we'd better get going." The rest of the runners did not see him again until they got to Melbourne.

When he got to Albury he was asked about his tactics for the rest of the race. He said he would run through to the finish, and he did. Cliff was awarded the first prize of $10,000. He did not know there was a prize and he had not entered for the money. He said, "There're five other runners still out there doing it tougher than me," and he gave them $2,000 each. He did not keep a single cent for himself. That act endeared him to all of Australia. Cliff was a humble, ordinary man, who undertook an extraordinary feat and became a national hero. Not long after the race he met and married Mary. John Saunders arranged a reception for them at the Boulevard, and Cliff and Mary were provided with accommodation at the Shore Inn on the North Shore. Cliff was decked out in a tuxedo and new shoes. They were put in a chauffeur-driven car and taken to the Boulevard.

Cliff met with all the people at the reception and had some hors d'oeuvres. Then he said to Mary, "I've met everybody and I've eaten. Let's go home." She told him that the doors to the main reception area were about to be opened and they would have their main meal. He said, "I've eaten. You can stay, but I'll go." He ran from the Boulevard to the Shore Inn in his tuxedo and went to bed. When they opened the doors John Saunders asked Mary where the guest of honour was. Mary said, "He's had his feed and gone home." It was typical of Cliffie. He was not there for the pomp and ceremony. What you saw was what you got: a wonderful man.

People wanted to know the secret of this 61-year-old man, and they discovered that he was a vegetarian. All the vegetarians said, "We said that meat was no good for you. Look at Cliff." When they asked Cliff why he was a vegetarian he said, "About five years ago me and my mum went over to my sister's place for dinner and she served up stew. If you ever had my sister's stew you would be a vegetarian too." He had no scientific reason for becoming a vegetarian.

The following year the race was run from Melbourne to Sydney and Cliffie came seventh. He ran with shin splints, his hip popped out of the joint socket, and his knee played up, but he struggled through. The media and race officials were to award a car for the most courageous runner. Cliffie won the award because of the injuries he had to overcome. When Cliffie was announced as the winner and presented with a Mitsubishi Colt, he said, "I didn't do it near as tough as old Bob McIlwaine. Here, Bob, you have the car," and threw the keys to him.

Cliffie never kept a single prize. People gave him watches, because he never wore one. He would thank them because he did not want to hurt their feelings, and then give the watch away to the first child he saw. He did not understand why he would need a watch because, he said, he knew when it was daylight, when it was dark, and when he was hungry. In the running fraternity Cliffie became known as Gandhi in gumboots. He was a wonderful man, who never said anything bad about anyone. He inspired a lot of people and gave us a great deal of joy. Australia is a better place for Cliff Young's presence on this earth.

Mr IAN COHEN [6.00 p.m.]: I refer to water, subterranean water and aquifers in parts of New South Wales where people are being severely affected by what appears to be a significantly unequal extraction of water for various industrial and agricultural uses. I received a letter from Judi Heckendorf of Trangie, who is concerned about the extraction of bore water from the aquifers around her family's property. Water usage has increased in recent years to such an extent that levels are dropping and the quality of water is being severely impacted upon by the cotton industry. Concerns have been expressed throughout the area. A number people from the area have said that their quality of life and the quality of their water has been dramatically affected by inappropriate use by cotton producers. They do not believe that water is being equitably distributed. That could have a significant environmental impact as water levels drop due, as is asserted by Ms Heckendorf, to the heavy use by the cotton industry. The letter is dated 1 November 2003 and it states:

For many years since my family purchased our property "Auburn" in 1954, which is situated approximately 27 kms south west of Trangie on the Dandaloo Road, our bore water has always been palatable for drinking and household use.

However, since 1996 when underground water was allowed to be extracted for large irrigation purposes, i.e, namely cotton, the levels have never returned.

From 1972 to 1996 the depth to the watertable from ground level was pretty constant at 50 metres. From 1996 onwards though the level has dropped from 57 metres to 58 and 59 then 62 to 65 metres in 2003.

Not only have the water levels dropped but the quality of our water has deteriorated to the point that we can no longer drink it and we have been forced to go 10-15km to get water for drinking in 10lt containers.

Our water prior to the irrigation subtraction has always been very palatable and our home water system is piped from the bore.

Early this year we were also forced to spend $20,000 and sink a new bore as directed to and supervised by the Department of Land and Water Conservation, but the water quality is no different to that of the existing bore.

I have since heard nothing from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) and am very concerned for the future of the falling water levels and of course the deterioration in our water quality.
I am also concerned for the farmers further out who are not always privileged with adequate rainfall and rely on their bores for water for their stock.

It seems to me that no one cares about stock and domestic bore users as this raping of the underground water is still being allowed to happen and water sharing plans have been deferred until June 2004.

In the area 8 zone 4 and 5 in which we live the bores are in sandstone, the Great Artesian Basin, and I have always been of the understanding that sandstone bores did not replenish quickly enough to allow irrigation from these aquifers.

That is exactly what is happening!

In our area there are 660 stock and domestic bores, as stated by DIPNR, and 2 towns with a population of approximately 1,200 people who are totally reliant on this bore water.

Yet just a handful of irrigators, 5-7 according to DIPNR, are being allowed to have a devastating impact on our region.

Water sharing is therefore a joke as this handful of people is effectively dictating to the majority and DIPNR.

I really do wonder who is paying DIPNR their wages.

Water is for everyone not just a few.

Pumping should be halted in sandstone irrigation bores until further investigation can be carried out.

If this does not happen and the irrigators are allowed to continue to sink their bores deeper, as they have been doing year after year, then all bore water may be unusable and unobtainable for everyone!

Really, if commonsense does not prevail then everyone who is reliant on this precious water source will be severely affected in years to come.

Ms Heckendorf asks that action be taken. I ask the Government to investigate the matter to avoid a disaster in the very precious aquifers in the area in the near future.

The Hon. IAN WEST [6.05 p.m.]: I will raise some issues related to employment levels and conditions for workers in New South Wales. Figures recently released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] in the month of October reveal that the national unemployment rate is 5.7 per cent. The rate in New South Wales is slightly better at 5.6 per cent. Those figures seem positive, but they must be considered in the context that the employment participation rate of the Australian population is only 63.5 per cent. That means that more than one-third of the population is not looking for work, not to mention all those who are underemployed. Although that rate is slightly higher than it was 10 years ago, it does not take into account the fact that the ABS now considers a person to be employed if he or she has done one hour's work or more per week in the preceding 12 weeks. That includes people working on the family farm, one hour here and there over three months.

An Australian Council of Social Services [ACOSS] September 2002 study reveals that the real extent of enforced joblessness in Australia is 12.9 per cent rather than the official figure of 5.6 per cent. ACOSS believes that the ABS figures exclude about 716,000 hidden unemployed who worked for only a few hours a week, those who have been discouraged from seeking work, and those who wanted to work but could not start a job immediately. Extensive evidence demonstrates that those findings are relevant to today's rates.

It is important to include those hidden unemployed people because they experience all the economic and social disadvantages experienced by the unemployed but they are not counted in the official statistics. In many cases the official statistics demonstrate quantity without quality. Another example of the detail that is left out of these sobering figures is the fact that almost 2 million Australian workers earn the minimum wage of $11.80 an hour. The Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union will use its low-pay project to stimulate debate on ensuring that such workers are given proper recompense, recognition, and respect for their efforts.

The New South Wales Branch Secretary, Annie Owens, has said that child-care workers, security industry guards, cleaners, and hotel employees are surviving rather than living on the minimum full-time pre-tax wage of $448.40 a week or about $300 net. Many of these jobs are becoming part-time, casual or fixed term contracts, which means that award wage rates fall behind. How much one-way, downward, so-called flexibility can we accept? This is something that hardworking people on the minimum wage need like a hole in the head. Supporting a family and even moving out to live independently of parents is going beyond difficult—it is becoming a luxury or dream.

The Federal Government has done little to indicate that it cares about the welfare of the unemployed or people earning the minimum wage. Today's media reveals that John Howard is pushing his anti-worker and anti-union agenda through public agencies again. This time the so-called Office of the Employment Advocate is doing the dirty work under the deceitful guise of flexibility. The Employment Advocate, Jonathon Hamberger, sent a letter to every high school in New South Wales spruiking Howard's Australian workplace agreements for students leaving school. The web site set up by the Office of the Employment Advocate is designed to inform students about the so-called virtues of Australian workplace agreements. However, the site does not appear to contain any information about alternative employment conditions or arrangements. In fact, the single case study available of the 19-year-old on an Australian workplace agreement is a blatant advertisement for individual contracts.

Clearly, the Labor Government in New South Wales opposes that approach. Indeed, the Minister for Education, the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, has made it clear that it was completely inappropriate for the Employment Advocate to write directly to school principals. A teacher at Nimbin Central School said the Employment Advocate's letter was a blatant example of the Howard Government's work agenda permeating into schools. It is being suggested that more of these grubby tactics will be employed. [Time expired.]

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [6.10 p.m.]: On 26 November 2003 I will relinquish the responsibility I have had for three years within the New South Wales Liberal Party as President of the New South Wales Women's Council. I have held the position with a great deal of pride; it has been an honour and privilege. Prior to becoming president of the council I was the country vice-president of the Liberal Party. Both those positions gave me a position on the State Executive of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party, a party I am immensely proud to belong to. The New South Wales Women's Council is the peak body of women in the New South Wales Liberal Party. Membership of the council is open to any financial member of the New South Wales division. We hold a number of functions within the party, primarily to encourage women to participate in political debate, and to ensure that women's voices are heard and that issues of relevance and interest to women are raised in a variety of forums.

The aspect of my role in the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party that I hold most dearly is the nurturing of members, encouraging women to join the party and mentoring them in the political process. I do not intend to give up that role, as all our women members of Parliament take on the large responsibility of nurturing and mentoring other women in politics, and encouraging more women to be involved in the political process. The Women's Council holds regular meetings, with guest speakers. From the inception of the Liberal Party women members have worked tirelessly during State and Federal elections, simply for the sake of the party and not for individual gain. They assist with disseminating information, manning pre-poll booths and polling booths, letterboxing, doorknocking, and a large number of other tasks—all of which is sheer hard work.

Some of the council's initiatives over the past three years have involved rural outreach programs, in which the party has gone outside the Sydney metropolitan area to find out exactly what issues are affecting the people there. In all these activities we have concentrated on supporting women members of Parliament. Indeed, we believe we have been instrumental, particularly federally, in supporting the class of 96, many of whom are now Ministers. The women in the Liberal Party were elected not on an artificial quota system but on the basis of merit, and will continue to be. In many cases they have taken on hardluck seats, or traditional Labor seats, and made them strong Liberal seats. I refer to Joanna Gash, who holds the seat of Gilmore, Danna Vale and Jackie Kelly. Those women have enormous energy and have worked hard. They have been good on-the-ground community members.

The other aspect of the Women's Council is the Liberal Women's Forum, which is a training program for women. Over the past three years I have developed, in conjunction with other people, a pathways training program, which trains women in public speaking, networking, lobbying, and dealing with the media. They can use those skills not only in the Liberal Party but also in their corporate and community lives. It is a great support network. I am very proud of our achievements, I am immensely proud of the women in the party, and I am very enthusiastic about our chances in the future. All the women we have elected to the New South Wales Parliament have come through that system. We owe a great debt to those who preceded us, and those who will follow us will have our support. I have previously referred to a number of those women, and I will not do so again now. I celebrate the New South Wales Women's Council. I have learned a great deal on the council and it has been a great honour to be a member of it.

Motion agreed to.