The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

Assent to the following bill reported:

Royal Blind Society (Corporate Conversion) Bill

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Transport Legislation Amendment (Safety and Reliability) Bill

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

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

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

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within seven days of the date of passing of this resolution, and made public without restricted access, all documents in the possession, custody or control of the Premier's Department and Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources relating to the preparation of the "Ports Growth Plan" for Sydney, Newcastle and Port Kembla or a master plan for the renewal of lands occupied by these ports, referred to in the speech of Premier Carr on 5 October 2003 to the Labor Party State Conference.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following papers:

(1) Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985—Report of Department of Mineral Resources for year ended 30 June 2003

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

Coal Compensation Board
Mine Subsidence Board
SafeFood Production

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Peter Primrose, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 6 of 2003", dated 18 November 2003.

Ordered to be printed.

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

Petition praying that the House reconsider the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

Private Members' Business item No. 68 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Mr Ian Cohen.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [2.52 p.m.], by leave: I move:

That paragraph 1 (b) of the sessional order for the cut-off date for Government bills adopted on 20 May 2003 be amended by omitting "18 November 2003" and inserting instead "12 noon on 20 November 2003".

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.53 p.m.]: It is appropriate that I take this opportunity to put on the record that over the past couple of days members of this House have become the subject of quite unfair and unjustified criticism about their preparedness to uphold the virtues of scrutiny, accountability and transparency. Through the media the Government, to its absolute disgrace, has sought to beat up members of the Legislative Council who have simply asked, since 20 May, that we avoid the traditional logjam as we approach the end of the season—which, as regards the Government's preparedness to deal with legislation, we refer to as the silly season.

The Government has been aware of this requirement since 20 May and has sought to beat up members of the crossbench and members of the Opposition, through the media, by suggesting that somehow we are trying to derail government legislation. As representatives of the people of New South Wales, all we ask is that members of this House have an opportunity to look over legislation to satisfy ourselves that there has been some consultation with the community in relation to it before it is passed through Parliament. Time and again we have seen legislation that has been pushed through by the Government at the eleventh hour go wrong, and time and again we have had to come back and fix it. It is extremely important that the Government understands—as we tried to tell it last May—that members of the Opposition are not here to block its legislation. We just want to make sure that the public has been given every opportunity to learn exactly what is being pushed through their Parliament in the dying hours of this session. Instead, the Government has decided to beat up members of the Legislative Council.

I am pleased that the Government has recognised the need to approach the crossbench and the Opposition to try to work through some measure by which we can deal with these matters appropriately. However, the Hon. Carl Scully, the Leader of Government Business in the other place, is an absolute disgrace. Members of this Chamber are calling for the return of Paul Whelan; at least with Paul Whelan we could sit down and negotiate a positive outcome. The Minister for Rural Affairs has been prepared to sit down with us today, and he is to be congratulated on that. I say again: Members on this side of the Chamber—and I hope I can speak for members of the crossbench also—are not about blocking legislation; we just want transparency and accountability for the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.56 p.m.]: I listen with interest to the sneers emanating from members on the Government benches—members who have happily vilified us in the media. When given a bit of their own medicine—and they deserve it—they groan and moan as if my criticism will impose on them greatly. The Government has listed this House to sit for very few hours, and that is entirely a matter for the Government, and then it criticises this House for its short sitting hours. How hypocritical can it be! When the Hon. Malcolm Jones, like the rest of us, was sick and tired of staying up until 3.00 a.m. at the end of a session debating legislation because the Government could not get its act together and moved a motion to stop the cramming of bills at the end of the session, his motion was widely supported. And it has been a sessional order all year. The Government knows perfectly well that that is the situation, but still it cannot get its act together. It wants to bring in all the legislation in one lump at the last possible opportunity. It also wants to guillotine debate in the lower House, to ram bills through without discussion. Far be it from me to say that the lower House is a rubber stamp, because the Government wins all the votes there per force of a huge gerrymander that has given it far more seats than it had votes—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Not again!

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, again; and again and again. The lower House is a rubber stamp, but it likes to have its rant. It cannot do anything but it likes to have a rant, and one can understand that sentiment. However, if we want representative government, we have to have proportional representation. Therefore, bills in this place have to be considered in an open fashion. That is what democracy is all about. The Government does not understand that; it wants more time and it has had to ask for more time. It is obvious that no matter what date is incorporated in the sessional order, the Government still will not be ready.

The Government will ram legislation through and tell us to speak for less time or else the House will sit until 4.00 a.m. in order to punish us physically so that we will be unable to make decisions. That is not good enough. It is time the Government got its act together. We will seek to have an earlier cut-off date next year. In a letter to the Standing Orders Committee I have asked that the sessional order be incorporated into the standing orders as I believe it should be retained. The Government will have to do better next year.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.59 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion, particularly after reading media reports of the imposition of the guillotine in relation to 11 bills this week in the lower House. The crossbench members have agreed that it does not help either House for that situation to occur. The motion moved by the Minister will allow the lower House to debate the more important bills, or it will allow the Opposition to express its views on the more important bill, although perhaps not all the bills.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.00 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the motion moved. We have a great deal of concern about the way in which this Government manages its business. Today the Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, attacked this House in an attempt to deflect criticism about the passage of legislation through this Parliament—a matter to which I will refer later. Honourable members should remember that the Legislative Council is a House of review. This motion is steeped in arrogance. I can only describe as disgraceful the way in which the Premier and the Government have handled the business of this House and the other place. The Government has been aware of this sessional order for some time.

At the time the matter was debated it would have been evident to the Government that the Legislative Council needed more time to carry out its work. The Greens are deeply concerned with the current behaviour of the Government. Honourable members should remember that at this time last year the Government rammed many pieces of legislation through this House. I have been a member of Parliament for the past five years and I have become aware of the set pattern that the Government goes through at the end of every year. There is reduced scrutiny of legislation and the Government rams many bills through this House. On the last day of the parliamentary session last year, 13 bills went through this House in one day.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: It was a good effort.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the de facto Whip of the crossbenchers. The honourable member, who regaled us with his filibustering, would abuse us and hector us regularly. The honourable member, who was extremely aggressive, delivered for this Government and got his ministry. Thirteen bills were rammed through this House in one day, and 24 bills were rammed through this House in one week. Is that the way in which this Government should be operating? Is the honourable member proud of that record? He and other Government members appear to be pleased with themselves.

Their idea of democracy is to ram bills through this House with the minimum amount of scrutiny. They have lost sight of the idea that this is a House of review. Even though the sessional order has been in place now for the past year we have witnessed a high degree of mismanagement by this Government, which is now scrambling to save the day. During this parliamentary session we have sat only 32 days. That represents one out of every 10 days that we have been in this House. In that 32-day period we have passed 76 bills. It could be said that that represents about one bill every two days. In the remaining six days of this parliamentary session it is the intention of the Government to ram through one bill every two days.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the interjection. I am quite happy to be corrected. I hope that that sets an example for the Government. It could at least acknowledge that it has mismanaged the business of this House. Today we were given a list of 24 bills. Members on the crossbenches were not given their regular 12.30 p.m. briefing and they were not supplied with details concerning all these bills. We tried to determine whether or not this was all the legislation that the Government intended to introduce this year but we were given no clear answer. Of those 24 bills, the Government wants 19 to pass through this Chamber in the remaining six days of this parliamentary session. I draw to the attention of honourable members the appalling way in which the legislative program of this Government has been handled. I believe that that has been done deliberately. That is the way in which this Government likes to operate. It rams legislation through this House with the minimum of scrutiny. I urge all honourable members not to support this motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Griffin Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid

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

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON, by leave: On Thursday 13 November Ms Jan Burnswoods took a point of order during the second reading of my Developer Donations (Anti-Corruption) Bill. Ms Burnswoods alleged that one of my former staffers, Mr Dan Cass, used parliamentary office facilities and parliamentary funds while working as campaign director for the Greens on the Cunningham by-election campaign. This allegation is completely baseless and quite malicious. Mr Cass took recreation leave for the entire period that he worked on the Cunningham campaign. He used his own holidays—

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: I do not believe this is a personal explanation. The first part of Ms Lee Rhiannon's contribution may have been in order but she has certainly gone beyond the leave that is usually granted for personal explanations.

The PRESIDENT: Is leave withdrawn?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Yes.

Leave withdrawn.

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 8 postponed on motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald.

Debate resumed from 12 November.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.12 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing) Bill. This legislation fulfils the Government's pre-election commitment to extend the vesting of the ownership of the New South Wales rice crop in the Rice Marketing Board past its current expiry date of January 2004. The Rice Marketing Board is constituted under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 and was originally established in 1928. The purpose of the New South Wales Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 is to facilitate the commercial and efficient marketing of agricultural commodities in the best long-term interests of producers. The Rice Marketing Board has vesting power over rice grown in New South Wales. The board, under a formal agreement with the Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited—otherwise known as Sun Rice—has appointed the cooperative as the board's agent under section 50 (1) of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983. The Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited carries out the purchasing and marketing of rice. Because the vesting of rice in the Rice Marketing Board and the Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited may contravene the Trade Practices Act 1974, the bill before the House is necessary in order to extend the legislative protection provided against any possible breaches.

The Opposition believes the legislation before the House will have a number of significant and beneficial impacts for regional New South Wales, and particularly the Riverina region. The New South Wales rice industry has sales of $793 million and exports of up to $436 million. The industry has traditionally produced 1.3 million tonnes of rice annually and provides direct employment for 8,000 people. Rice is Australia's third largest cereal grain export and its ninth largest agricultural export. While Australia grows 0.2 per cent of world's rice production, it conducts more than 4 per cent of the global rice trade. Sun Rice is owned completely by its 1,834 growers, who are spread across the Riverina. There are 571 ricegrowers located in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, 281 in the Coleambally Irrigation Area and 982 in the Murray Valley. Mills are situated in Leeton, Coleambally and Deniliquin and deliveries are made to major storages across the Riverina region.

The five-year extension of vesting for the New South Wales rice industry is estimated to be worth approximately $50 million per year in premiums. This will have significant benefits for the Riverina region and for the centres where rice mills are located. For example, Leeton—where 412 of Sun Rice's 820 highly skilled and qualified people work—will be a major beneficiary. Rice provides 20 per cent of job opportunities in the Riverina and the industry has invested $2.5 billion in land, plant and equipment. Sadly, I suspect that some speakers who will follow me in this debate will bag the industry. I certainly hope that will not happen. The leverage of the impact of this vesting decision will have a flow-on effect from the premiums, with most of this remaining in the Riverina region. I was pleased to learn from an article in the 7 November edition of the Rural newspaper, which circulates throughout the Riverina, that at a recent meeting in Leeton on 13 October the Ricegrowers Association, Sun Rice, the Rice Co-operative Research Centre, the CSIRO and NSW Agriculture discussed ways in which Australia could play a key role in the United Nations International Year of Rice. The meeting heard that the United Nations General Assembly had proclaimed 2004 the International Year of Rice in an effort to encourage recognition and sustainability of this food, which is eaten by half the world's population.

The rice industry could be expected to draw attention to Sun Rice as the international brand and identity of the Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited. The co-operative is 54 years old and is owned by Australian ricegrowers. Sun Rice is Australia's largest exporter of processed, branded food products, and is virtually an integrated agribusiness. The company produces and markets an extensive range of table rice and value-added food products to more than 60 countries. It is also the fifth largest rice food company in the world. The Sun Rice brands are recognised internationally, particularly in the markets of Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and New Zealand. Sun Rice exports approximately 80 per cent of production but all revenue stays in Australia, and particularly the Riverina region of southern New South Wales. Sun Rice creates employment opportunities in both metropolitan and regional areas and helps to sustain a number of southern regional communities, employing approximately 1,000 highly skilled and qualified people.

The Government has indicated that vesting the ownership of the New South Wales rice crop in the Rice Marketing Board was identified as imposing restrictions on competition during the national competition policy review conducted into the rice industry in 1995. Despite this conclusion, the benefits of single-desk selling were recognised, as it reaps approximately $50 million in export income for Australia. New South Wales therefore extended the operation of this arrangement until 1 January 2004. Because the National Competition Council [NCP] criticised this move and threatened to cut NCP payments to the New South Wales Government, the New South Wales Government and the rice industry agreed that if the Commonwealth Government could provide the ricegrowers cooperative with a single-desk export licence, New South Wales would deregulate the domestic market.

Negotiations on this agreement have proceeded for a number of years, and the Commonwealth Government has encountered a number of problems that are preventing it from handing over to the cooperative the single-desk selling licence. The New South Wales Government therefore intends to extend the current rice marketing arrangements until 1 January 2009, pending a further NCP review. This extension date will allow for a thorough review of the benefits of the marketing arrangements, allow the Commonwealth more time for negotiations, and allow for industry readjustment if New South Wales deregulates.

The Opposition believes that there are a number of compelling reasons why single-desk marketing boards, including the Rice Marketing Board, should be retained. Single-desk marketing boards establish integrated marketing systems, facilitate niche market systems, meet the requirements of national competition policy and public benefits, and certainly have the support of the grains industries. They ensure that Australia's rice exports are of a consistent quality, and deliver premiums, cost advantages and savings, as well as superior access to overseas markets for Australian rice. Accenture's Vesting study carried out in 2001 has concluded that vesting in the New South Wales rice industry should be maintained until heavily subsidised foreign competitors cease to be a factor in both domestic and export markets.

The study identified vesting to provide significant benefits to the industry and the broader economy. The estimated quantifiable net public benefit of vesting is $60 million, in addition to the substantial unquantified or intangible benefits. Vesting in single-desk marketing boards enables benefits to be derived from export premiums and scale economies, without disadvantaging domestic consumers. Without the Rice Marketing Board, the Accenture report found that 4,000 jobs would be lost and transitional unemployment in the Riverina region would rise by 5 per cent. Statutory market boards such as the Rice Marketing Board enable Australia's primary commodities to compete more effectively in the international marketplace, which is, as we know, distorted by protectionist measures such as producer subsidies by overseas governments.

In international markets protectionist measures such as subsidies increase the volatility of international commodity prices. This is due to production decisions being driven by subsidy programs rather than market demand. While Government subsidies heavily cushion overseas growers from actual price movements, the long-term effects of these protectionist measures are depressed commodity prices, a misallocation of resources, and in some cases a waste of resources. The Ricegrowers Association has indicated that under the United States Farm Security and Rural Investment Act—known as the Farm Bill—which extends to 2007, United States rice producers will receive a large number of subsidies and production incentives. These include a United States target price whereby the United States Government subsidises the price deficit between the actual weekly market prices and the target price to equal a coupled income support and price support for rice, which is provided as a subsidy in the form of a loan deficit payment of any gap between the loan rate and the world price.

Eighty-five per cent of United States rice producers are eligible to receive these direct farm subsidies. The fact that Australia has to compete with heavily subsidised countries such as the United States, without receiving any direct payments ourselves, highlights just how efficient we are in producing agricultural commodities, including rice. For this reason, it is anticipated that the removal of these subsidies will cause overseas producers who receive subsidy payments more harm than what it will do to Australian producers. Sun Rice has indicated that the rice industry supports the full liberalisation of world trade by removing all government support for agriculture without discrimination. However, the rice industry does not support the relinquishing of the vesting rights of the Rice Marketing Board unless there is total elimination of direct and indirect United States domestic and export support payments to United States rice farmers.

The Opposition has consulted with both the New South Wales Farmers Association and the New South Wales Ricegrowers Association on this piece of legislation and both parties have indicated that they welcome the bill, which will extend the current rice marketing arrangements from 31 January 2004 until 31 January 2009. The Opposition welcomes the fact that the New South Wales Government recognises the importance of the single-desk arrangements and that these arrangements are essential for the Australian rice industry to survive and prosper in the face of heavily subsidised foreign competitors in all of its key markets, including the Australian domestic market. In conclusion, the Opposition supports the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing) Bill. I hope that the Government took the same diligence in all their dealings over national competition policy matters.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.27 p.m.]: The Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing) Bill is significant as it marks one of the few measures in respect of which this Government has honoured an election commitment. One of the reasons for the bill, as stated in the briefing paper, is that it was an election commitment. The bill will allow the Rice Marketing Board to avoid breaching the Trade Practices Act and to escape some of the harm done by the national competition policy. It is interesting that ricegrowers have enlisted the help of the Government when other sectors that would be better off if similarly protected, such as the dairy industry, were thrown to the wolves. Does the Minister remember the dairy deregulation?

Rice was first grown in the Riverina in Australia in the 1920s. There are now some 2,500 rice farmers in Australia, producing about 1.3 million tonnes of rice per year. The industry earns about $800 million in revenue, and nearly $500 million comes from value-added exports. It operates without any production for export subsidy, in contrast to many of its subsidised competitors in the international market. Although it must be conceded that the cost of water has historically been treated more as an externality, those who believe in markets to control water use are currently raising the price.

Rice is Australia's third-largest cereal grain export and the ninth-largest agricultural export. Australia has only 0.2 per cent of the world's rice crop but sells 4 per cent of internationally traded rice. It is exported to 70 countries, including the Middle East, Japan and Hong Kong. Honourable members may be interested to know that 2004 has been proclaimed International Year of Rice by the United Nations in recognition of the fact that rice is the staple food of more than half of the world's population. We are concerned, of course, about the environmental effects of rice because it is a very heavy water user. The irony is that in Nevada in the United States of America, and in Australia, which are both very dry, rice is grown by irrigation. Indeed, it was put to me when I visited Las Vegas, Nevada, that 97 per cent of the water in Nevada produces 1 per cent of the gross domestic product of the State, and that 1 per cent of the water, which is used to run the casinos, produces 97 per cent of the revenue of the State. One has to recognise that water, in terms of dollars per mega litre used, is not necessarily well allocated.

Obviously, nothing I have said should be taken to support a notion that I in any way support gambling. Certainly, if Australia is to grow rice—which must be looked at in the context of water use and environmental effects—the least we can do is get a decent price for the product. These sorts of marketing arrangements at least mitigate the effect of the international subsidies, and therefore the Australian Democrats support them.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.30 p.m.]: The Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing) Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to stimulating the growth of agricultural industries where possible. Rice is a vital industry for thousands of families in the southern Riverina region. In fact, there are more than 8,000 people employed directly and indirectly by our 2,500 rice farmers. The rice industry delivers up to 20 per cent of all job opportunities in the Riverina and has $2.5 billion invested in land, plant and equipment. The Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 has been critical in this success.

Through vesting, 44 per cent of the retail price of rice is returned to primary producers. This compares to 23 per cent for milk, 21 per cent for beef, 17 per cent for apples and 4 per cent for bread, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. These results have largely been achieved through a highly successful export strategy. In fact, rice exports in recent years have been worth more than $600 million per annum. It is estimated that the current vesting arrangements provide a net public benefit of $50 million per annum. Without vesting, up to 4,000 jobs would be lost and transitional unemployment in the Riverina region would grow by 5 per cent.

The average medium grain return has been more than $200 per tonne for five of the last six years. In 2003-04 it is anticipated this will jump to $280 per tonne. As we battle through the worst drought in the history of New South Wales, this represents one of the most valuable returns possible based on water consumption. It would be an unmitigated disaster if we abandoned these measures, which enable producers to buy and sell rice at a time when water allocations are reduced by as much as 92 per cent as a result of the drought. This bill aims to help maintain a vibrant New South Wales rice industry well into the future. Currently all rice grown in New South Wales is vested in the Rice Marketing Board by proclamation under section 56 of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983. The current proclamation expires on 31 January 2004.

The purchase and marketing of rice is carried out by the Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd. The board, under a formal agreement with the co-operative, has appointed the cooperative as the board's agent under section 50 (1) of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983. In accordance with this agreement the cooperative has full use of the board's storage facilities and other assets, and is responsible for their maintenance. The cooperative pays the board enough to cover the costs incurred in normal board operations, depreciation on board assets and other costs. The board also has appointed the cooperative to be its authorised buyer under subsections (1) and (2) of section 51 of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983, thereby authorising the cooperative to purchase from growers and pay them directly for their rice.

This arrangement has to be specifically authorised so that it does not breach the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974, and is given under clause 7 of schedule 6 to the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983. When the authorisation was first made it followed the recommendations of a competition policy review that vesting should be extended while discussions on the potential for a single export desk for rice continued. These negotiations proceeded slowly, and eventually were abandoned in early 2003. Six months earlier, because of the slowness of the negotiations, in July 2002 the board had written to the Minister asking for an extension of vesting powers for five years after January 2004. As no resolution of the export desk was likely in the short term, the New South Wales Government committed to extending rice vesting arrangements as part of its pre-election promises.

After the election the Commonwealth abandoned discussions. Rather than abandon our rice farmers, the New South Wales Cabinet agreed to extend vesting for a further five years and to review the powers of the Rice Marketing Board during that period. With the current authorisation set to lapse on 31 January 2004, this bill simply addresses a change of the date of currency for the authorisation. Given that the Commonwealth's attempts to create an alternative single-desk export process have failed, to do anything else would be highly irresponsible. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.36 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing) Bill. This bill will extend, from 31 January 2004 to 31 January 2009, the authorisation under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 of certain things for the purposes of section 51 of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Competition Code of New South Wales. We congratulate the Government on fulfilling its election promise, and particularly for assisting rice farmers at this time. If the Government were not to extend the date from 2004 to 2009 that would have a very negative impact upon the rice industry. The rice industry, with sales now of $793 million and exports of up to $436 million, is totally owned by its 1,834 growers, who are spread across the Riverina. As honourable members know, they have been very successful, to the point where Australia grows and sells rice to Japan. That is a credit to our rice farmers.

The five-year extension of vesting for the New South Wales rice industry is estimated to be worth approximately $50 million per year in premiums. My only concern relates to the fact that the briefing note indicates that the Government expressed concern about the future competition policy review, and said that if the Commonwealth Government made "any further serious threats to deduct millions of dollars in any tranche payments owed to New South Wales under the National Competition Principles Agreement, the Government will have to further consider the length of time for which this vesting arrangement can be sustained."

The national competition policy seems to be all-powerful. It seems that its will is able to be impressed upon State governments even if sometimes that appears to be against the public interest. That is a dilemma we now have between the Federal and State governments. Does the New South Wales Government have any concern that the Commonwealth might make some move in opposition to the legislation? Has the Commonwealth given this legislation its tacit agreement, or is New South Wales simply going ahead with this legislation in the hope that the Commonwealth will accept it? This is an important bill. The five-year extension of vesting for the New South Wales rice industry will impact beneficially on the economy of the Riverina region, particularly milling towns. We support the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.39 p.m.]: The bill extends the vesting of the ownership of the New South Wales rice crop in the Rice Marketing Board past its expiry date of 31 January. The Rice Marketing Board was the first marketing board constituted under the original Marketing of Primary Products Act 1927, which was officially constituted by proclamation on 9 November 1928. By any comparison the Rice Marketing Board has proved itself to be one of the most successful, if not the most successful, statutory marketing authorities, as was most clearly demonstrated in the late 1995 review of the board conducted under the then recently introduced competition policy guidelines. The review concluded that the board was generating significant, yet net, public benefits, which were expected to grow.

Although the Rice Marketing Board has vesting power over rice grown in New South Wales, under a formal agreement with the Ricegrowers' Co-operative Ltd it has appointed the co-operative as the board's agent under section 50 (1) of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983. Therefore the purchase and marketing of rice is carried out by the Ricegrowers' Co-operative Ltd. As a result the Australian rice industry is vertically integrated. Except for a small amount of rice grown outside New South Wales, all Australian rice is milled and marketed by the Ricegrowers' Co-operative Ltd, which is wholly owned by the growers who are involved in the whole production process, from paddy to plate.

The Greens support co-operative joint marketing strategies and endeavours, and therefore do not oppose the bill. However, we must point out that Australia is a dry country with limited water resources. Although the major water resources are in northern Australia and Tasmania, most of our agriculture and people are in the south-eastern mainland area of Australia. As a result, many crops are grown in dry areas where up to half of the available water evaporates from the soil surface or seeps down too low into the ground for the plant roots to reach it. Often irrigation water is delivered through spring systems that allow evaporation before the water reaches the soil.

With increasing demands on Australia's limited water resources we must become more aware of how we use water. The agricultural sector is the most intensive user of water. Irrigation now accounts for more than 75 per cent of water used in Australia. We must strike a balance between the need for economic productivity and sustainable use of our water resources. We must consider what foods to produce based on how much water they use. Although the largest consumers of water are meat and wool, some of our crops use a lot of water. For example, one kilo of wheat uses 715 to 750 litres of water, and one kilo of maize uses 540 to 630 litres of water.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: As interesting as the honourable member's contribution is, it is entirely outside the leave of the bill. The bill is purely mechanical and deals with vesting. It has absolutely nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the use of water to grow rice and/or other crops.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: It is interesting that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has objected at this point and not when I talked about the quality of the co-operatives—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's why I didn't stop you there.

Mr IAN COHEN: —or when I spoke positively about the Rice Marketing Board. The honourable member obviously chose to complain at a point when he might disagree with my perspective. We are constantly debating the triple bottom line of social, environment and economic impacts—although the honourable member may not be a part of that. When discussing a bill of this type it is vital to consider all the costs to produce a product such as rice. It is not appropriate that I should be stopped from expanding what are, to the Greens, extremely important aspects of the overall economic production of rice.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Further to the point of order: The reason I did not stop the honourable member earlier when he spoke about co-operatives is that his comments were appropriate to the bill. The only reason I am suggesting that he be stopped now is that his comments are not appropriate to the bill. They are self-indulgent.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind Mr Ian Cohen that his comments must be relevant to the bill. However, I note that his comments included general references to rice growing, which is integrally linked to rice marketing. I ask the member to bear relevance in mind. He may proceed.

Mr IAN COHEN: I appreciate that. The overall structure of the industry, its economic benefits and environmental costs are part of this debate. I have had many discussions with those in the rice industry who recognise that, in terms of good business, the 1,550 to 2,000 litres per kilo of water used in rice production must be reduced. Ricegrowers and the Greens support the co-operative nature of the industry. It is therefore not appropriate that other members of this House should rail against it. One way to reduce the amount of water used would be to remove government subsidies on irrigation water.

Such a move would encourage farmers to use more efficient methods of water delivery—I am convinced that significant attempts are being made to do that as I speak—and choose crops that are economically viable and efficient in their water use. Global economic pressures and unwanted environmental consequences mean that we simply cannot afford to use water inappropriately. Ultimately we must move towards more sustainable agriculture. For example, the vegetable and fruit industries return the highest gross value per megalitre of water used for irrigated agriculture—$1,760 per megalitre and $1,460 per megalitre respectively.

The water-intensive activity of rice growing has the lowest ratio of gross value per megalitre of water used at $189 per megalitre. During a recent inquiry I was surprised to learn that in a climate that is not appropriate for many strains of rice, water is used as a blanketing agent to maintain the temperature so that the rice can grow properly and develop into a successful harvest. I understand that scientists are working on different varieties of rice to develop a strain that will not need a blanket of water. I am sure that all members of this House, like the Greens, would support that. That is the type of thing we should actively promote and support.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I agree with you, but it is still outside the leave of the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN: That type of development is essential. It seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is less than interested in the long-term viability of these industries on a global scale.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The honourable member just sledged me. I indicated to the House that I agreed with him, but that it was outside the leave of the bill. He then went on to say that I did not agree with him. He cannot have it both ways.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There is no point of order. Mr Ian Cohen may proceed.

Mr IAN COHEN: I was imploring the honourable member to look at these industries in the long term.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No you weren't. You were misleading the House.

Mr IAN COHEN: It is absolutely inappropriate to suggest that I was misleading the House. Time and again I have heard the honourable member rail against propositions put by the Greens in this House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I have ruled already that there is no point of order. The member will confine his comments to the legislation and to rice marketing.

Mr IAN COHEN: On behalf of the Greens, I state that we look forward to the continuing success of the industry as a co-operative, and to continuing breakthroughs that will allow the successful production of rice without the detrimental use of massive volumes of water in the process.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [3.49 p.m.], in reply: I will respond very briefly to the points made by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. If the Government is concerned about the possible impact on transplanters as a result of the passage of this bill, we are pretty sure it will not happen until after the election. It is incumbent upon us all to support this bill and this industry and to lobby the Federal Government not to impose any penalties. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and Mr Ian Cohen expressed concern about the environment. I point out that over the past 15 years there has been a massive improvement in the use of water in the industry.

Since 1985 the output of rice per megalitre of water has nearly doubled. It increased from 5 tonnes of rice to 9 tonnes of rice in the year 2000 and at the same time the average yield increased from approximately 5.5 tonnes per hectare to 10 tonnes per hectare. NSW Agriculture and the Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production are working very energetically to develop more water-efficient strains of rice. I believe that magnificent research work is being done, including laser levelling and the reuse of water, resulting in significant improvements in the efficient use of water.

It should be remembered that rice produces large returns that virtually guarantee international markets. Rice is mainly an export-oriented crop and 85 per cent is sent overseas. It underpins much of the standard of living in rural areas of Australia. Because new rice products have been developed, returns of between $990 per megalitre consumed and up to $7,836 per megalitre consumed are being received, particularly with consumers welcoming packaged products featuring fast preparation. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that, on average, 44 per cent of the retail price of rice is returned to the growers—the highest return to growers of any product in New South Wales. Rice production must be considered from many different aspects. I agree that more work must be done to resolve the environmental issues, and I believe that is happening. The industry must be developed by people whose views are not jaundiced. I commend the bill to the House. Honourable members may rest assured that the Government will defend this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.56 p.m.]: I move Liberal Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Pages 3 and 4, schedule 1 [3]-[5], line 10 on page 3 to line 10 on page 4. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment has the effect of omitting items [3], [4] and [5] from pages 3 and 4 of schedule 1 to the bill. The amendment goes to the core of the Opposition's concern about the proposed amendments to the Coroners Act. Honourable members will recall that during debate on the bill it was pointed out that the principal alteration effected by the bill will be to limit the scope of the Coroner when inquiring into fires in New South Wales, and the Opposition is concerned about that. The Coroner previously had a right or an obligation to inquire into the circumstances of fires, and that obligation is important particularly in relation to bushfires. The amendment has been moved as a result of concerns expressed by many people in the community about the manner in which the National Parks and Wildlife Service and other agencies have conducted the maintenance and care of some of our national parks. The bill leaves the Coroner with a discretion to conduct a limited inquiry but, generally speaking, it limits the type of inquiry that a coroner may undertake to the cause and origin of a fire, particularly bushfires. This amendment seeks to remove the limitation that would effectively restrict the Coroner to a narrow reference.

The other grave concern of the Opposition regarding the provisions of the bill is that from all indications its amendments are not driven by any desire to improve the efficacy of coroners' reports or to address the concerns about bushfires; rather, they are principally driven by the fact that the Government is not providing appropriate resources to the Coroner to conduct inquiries that, admittedly, are quite wide ranging. Of course they should be. Naturally, a bushfire will concern the community as a whole, not just those who are unfortunate to lose property, or worse, to have life and limb threatened. The proposed change to Coroner's inquiries indicates that the bill is effectively a response to the lack of resources provided by the Government to the Coroner and NSW Police. We know that because the Government has indicated that in early 2003 it convened a roundtable, the Bushfires Investigations and Procedures Roundtable.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister give an unconditional undertaking that holders of the New South Wales Seniors Card will retain their eligibility to the pensioner excursion tickets for train, bus and ferry travel in metropolitan areas when extended to areas serviced by private buses. Further, that it will not be restricted to pensioners, war widows or war widowers, as recommended by the interim report of the Unsworth review of bus services?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition are so predictable. Over the past couple of months, since the Parry report came out, he has asked me to rule out item after item. I refused to do that, because after commissioning a report for public consultation and discussion one would not seek to rule out measures at the whim of a question by the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly, I would not do that. I will adopt the same approach to the Unsworth report.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are refusing to rule it out.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Leader of the Opposition has made a fool of himself by constantly putting out press releases stating, "Costa refuses to rule out" this and that. On that basis, he might as well say that I rule out the proposition that he is very foolish in the way he asks questions. He has not asked me that directly, but I have not ruled out the possibility. Anyone, including me, could put out a press release stating that he is very foolish in the way he is handling matters of public importance. These are matters of public importance. I note, once again, that the Opposition did not avail itself of an opportunity to express an opinion on policy. It failed with Parry, and the Leader of the Opposition used the pathetic excuse that he did not have information. I remind him that 300 people managed to put in a submission with publicly available information, but the Leader of the Opposition could not do that.

The Hon. Michael Egan: No policy from the Opposition.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No policy. In relation to Unsworth, it was precisely the same—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: The question that the Minister was asked related specifically to the New South Wales Seniors Card. I fail to see how the issue referred to by the Minister relates in any way, shape or form to the question he was asked. I ask you to bring him to order in answering the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! While general statements relating to the subject matter of the question are in order, I remind the Minister, again, not to stray into an area not relevant to the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: In relation to the question that was asked in respect of an Unsworth interim proposal, I make the point again that the Opposition failed, once again, to put in a submission.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister is reflecting on a vote of the House. The Opposition asked the Government for access to information, so we could put in a detailed response, and the Minister voted against the Opposition having access to the detailed information we would require. That was the very same information that Vince Graham was asked in the estimates hearing last week. He was asked whether he had access to detailed internal information regarding his department's submission. The Minister should realise that Vince Graham said yes, he did have access to detailed information that the Opposition was denied.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: That is such an abuse of the forms of the House. The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know what a point of order is. His point of order was so blatant an abuse, the only option left open to you, Madam President, is to suspend the honourable member from the service of the House for the rest of the afternoon.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may, in responding in a general way to the subject matter of the question, have to make some reference to previous decisions of the House. The Minister was not reflecting on a decision of the House; he was responding in a general way to the question.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What action is the Department of Community Services taking to assist vulnerable Aboriginal children, young people, and families?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for her important and timely question, because as all members of this House are aware Aboriginal children are, unfortunately, overrepresented in both the child protection system and amongst children and young people in out-of-home care. The question is timely also because today is the first day of a three-day conference for the Department of Community Services [DOCS] Aboriginal staff at Penrith. The conference is addressing a range of issues about how to better provide support services to Aboriginal children, young people, and their families. One of the most crucial roles for DOCS is to provide early intervention and prevention services that act to strengthen families and communities. The Government's commitment in that area is reflected in a range of ways, in particular with the allocation of $14 million over four years to implement the Aboriginal Child, Youth and Family Strategy.

That strategy focuses on the needs of Aboriginal children, young people, and families. It will also work at using existing resources more efficiently and building closer relationships with Aboriginal community-based organisations. The strategy will build on the Families First and Better Futures frameworks. DOCS has also provided service development grants for Aboriginal organisations, school holiday programs, communication strategies, training programs, support for indigenous staff, and an indigenous parenting strategy. I draw particular attention to recent funding programs directed at assisting Aboriginal children, young people, and families—for example, our Intensive Family Preservation Services, which aim to divert children and young people from the child protection and care system and provide intensive support for families who need particular assistance.

Earlier this year I announced that $5.9 million would be made available over five years to establish new intensive family support services at Bourke and Wollongong, for Aboriginal families. The services were based on a very successful service already running at Casino and were developed to help reduce the number of Aboriginal children being placed in out-of-home care. The service is addressing safety and welfare concerns reported to DOCS, and improving parenting practices to reduce the rate of child protection reports and of children coming into care. The key roles of these services include improving family skills and maintaining and strengthening family bonds, helping families to access culturally appropriate services and re-establishing family and community ties.

Children's services are an important way of providing support to vulnerable children. The Department of Community Services, which is working with Penrith City Council, will allocate $65,000 to Aboriginal families in the Penrith area to enable them to access children's services. I am advised that the project has achieved excellent results, and that it has encouraged indigenous children and their families to use preschool and other early childhood services. Part of the project involves providing training and resources to preschool staff in the area so that they develop an awareness of Aboriginal culture and learning styles. That knowledge can be used to enrich preschool programs and ensure that they are appropriate and stimulating for all children.

The Government's increasingly successful Families First initiative also includes funded positions and programs that are designed specifically to support Aboriginal children and their families. Those services, developed in consultation with local communities, are culturally appropriate. The Families First initiative is progressively being implemented across New South Wales. The Department of Community Services has an ongoing commitment to address issues facing Aboriginal children, young people and their families. We will continue to work towards better outcomes for all indigenous children through programs that are designed to build strong families and communities.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. How can he justify his announcement this morning that he referred a proposal to the Boundaries Commission to amalgamate local councils around the Australian Capital Territory into two mega councils based in Queanbeyan and Goulburn, despite widespread community opposition to that proposed reform? What guarantees can the Minister provide to people in those local government areas that he will conduct a full public consultation process on any proposed amalgamations, as required by sections 263 and 218F of the Local Government Act? Will he now confirm that elections in those areas will be deferred until that issue is resolved? Given his opposition to mega councils, as reported before the election in the Goulburn Post, how could the Minister tell the Premier that he has opted to go that way?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have said previously in this House that the Government is committed to consulting widely with ratepayers in New South Wales on how their councils should serve them. Honourable members would be aware that on 17 September I announced that Professor Maurice Daly would conduct a regional review of the area around the Australian Capital Territory. During that process Professor Daly held 12 public meetings with councils and took written submissions. His report recommends that two councils be formed—the matter referred to earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The first, the southern region council, will affect the current boundaries of Crookwell shire, Goulburn city, Gunning shire, Mulwaree shire and Yass shire.

The second, the capital city region council, will affect the current boundaries of Cooma-Monaro, Gunning shire, Mulwaree shire, Queanbeyan city, Tallaganda shire, Tumut shire, Yarrowlumla shire and Yass shire. Those proposals will now go through the commission's public consultation process, along with all other proposals affecting that area. The Government does not have a preferred position on any of these proposals. This review was held in addition to the public consultation process that was set out in the Local Government Act. Ten proposals involving this region are now before the Boundaries Commission.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why did you name only one?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have named three.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why did you not name all of them?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Under the current Act the only way in which they can go before the Boundaries Commission is through a referral by the council or by me. They will not go before the Boundaries Commission as a result of the regional review process; they have to come through me. Under the law all those proposals will go through the commission's public consultation process. Despite submissions made by the Opposition, these reviews are all about ensuring that we know what the community thinks about this local government reform program. The Government makes no apologies for investing an additional $2 million in this process. After all, it involves the community.

At the recent Local Government Association meeting I said that this process was about ensuring that local government survives in New South Wales. The Government has a great deal of respect for the work done by councils across this State. The majority of the State's 1,800 councils do a great job for the community but we think that they can do better, particularly when we consider that last year 116 councils spent more than they earned. Many councils are not keeping up with infrastructure expenditure. As a result of proposed changes to the way in which Federal Government assistance grants will be delivered, local government in New South Wales must be strong enough to survive. The ratepayers of New South Wales would not expect me to stand by and watch local government in New South Wales wither and die. We will pursue this process of local government reform.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Charlie Lynn to order.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank all those communities and councils involved in this process for their hard work. We expect council elections to go ahead as scheduled.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question, in light of the Minister's answer that he has already taken on board the views of the community. Given that none of the councils put in a submission for a mega council and there was widespread community disquiet over these proposals with meetings of up to 1,000 people expressing concern, how did the Minister arrive at this proposal for two mega councils?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: This proposal arose as a result of the regional review process and after Professor Daly had consulted with over 12 groups. I thank the Leader of the Opposition in the other place for the comments he made about me at the Local Government Association meeting last week. I will wear as a badge of honour his comments that I should be named Ned Kelly and not Tony Kelly.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Treasurer. What is the financial exposure of New South Wales taxpayers arising from the court ruling that has thrown into doubt the concept of a mega waste-handling transfer station at Clyde? Is the Government ramming through legislation because of the massive contingent liabilities in a 30-year $20 billion contract that was signed with Collex before the Government negotiated necessary planning consents?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As Ms Sylvia Hale indicated, the Government will be introducing legislation in relation to that matter. When that legislation is before the House the honourable Ms Sylvia Hale can make any number of silly points she likes.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the potential liability arising from the contract amounts to billions of dollars, how much money does the Government have to lose in a contract with the private sector?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: Under the standing orders supplementary questions should be asked of a Minister to enable him to elucidate his answer. The honourable member did not mention anything about those issues in her supplementary question. I ask you to rule her question out of order.

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: Ms Sylvia Hale clearly referred to those aspects in her supplementary question. The Hon. Amanda Fazio is incorrect.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I make it clear again that for a supplementary question to be in order it must seek to elucidate the answer, not the previous question. Ms Sylvia Hale's question made no reference to anything contained in the Minister's answer. Accordingly, the question is not a supplementary question and is out of order.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister update the House on the assistance measures available to farmers as a result of a series of October storms?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Honourable members will be interested to hear that nearly 400 horticulture growers in New South Wales can now apply for disaster relief assistance following five separate October storms.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It was on the radio yesterday, Macca.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes. I do well on the radio. These storms caused crop and infrastructure damage to the tune of $46 million. On 2 October a severe windstorm caused major damage to banana plantations and intensive agricultural businesses in the Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Woolgoolga and Yamba areas. Twenty growers reported major damage and another 20 suffered minor to moderate damage. Total damage is estimated at $1 million. On 10 October a severe hailstorm hit Port Macquarie, Stuarts Point and Fishermans Reach, causing damage to fruit, native flower and vegetable crops. Some 40 properties reported damage to crops, poly tunnel houses and glasshouses totalling $1.5 million. On 18 October winter, hail and heavy rain caused $160,000 damage to stone fruit crops in the Goulburn and Bowral areas.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What sort of fruit—peaches, apricots, cherries?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am sure that the Hon. Melinda Pavey can guess which sort of stone fruit it was. On 25 October the Sydney Basin was hit by a series of severe hailstorms regarded as the worst in nearly 20 years. More than 200 market gardeners saw their beetroot and radish crops stripped. Irrigation infrastructure and greenhouses were also damaged. Crop losses alone are estimated at $4 million, with infrastructure damage expected to cost another $30 million. Just one day later, Nambucca shire and south-east Bellingen shire were hit with a hailstorm that racked up between $8 million and $10 million in damages. Under the State Government's natural disaster relief arrangements, growers hit hard by these storms can apply for loans of up to $130,000 at 2.5 per cent interest. These loans come with a two-year interest-free and repayment-free period. This disaster relief assistance will provide essential capital to help with repairs and with the replacement of property and infrastructure. This is yet another example of the Carr Government's commitment to looking after farmers affected by volatile weather patterns.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Rural Affairs, representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). Is the Minister aware that major world authorities on tobacco control have agreed that smoke-free pubs, clubs and other closed venues are central to any comprehensive quit smoking campaign? Given the lack of significant business losses following the introduction of such bans overseas, can the Minister supply a good reason why a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs in New South Wales cannot be achieved by 2004?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the question is detailed I will refer it to the Minister concerned and obtain an appropriate answer.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Did the Minister promise the House three weeks ago to obtain information about what action the Government had taken to implement the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Social Issues that the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care should adopt a growth target of 200 additional permanent supported accommodation places for people with a disability for five years from the date of the report, which was tabled in December 2000? Has the Minister now received that information and can she elucidate the answer she gave on 28 October 2003 by telling the House exactly how many additional permanent accommodation beds the Government has provided since December 2000 and whether she plans to implement this specific recommendation?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am tremendously concerned that Opposition members are getting so short on questions that they must recycle old ones. As I said at the time, the Government has provided a response to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. That response was tabled in the House. It is on the public record. I told the Hon. John Ryan that I would undertake to obtain more information, and I will do that within the appropriate time frame. Nonetheless, I make it clear that this Government is strongly committed to providing accommodation for people with a disability in New South Wales. Accommodation support is not the only form of services required by people with a disability in this State. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and non-government organisations provide a range of supports to people with a disability to help them remain in the community. This sometimes involves the provision of permanent accommodation and it sometimes involves a range of other support services.

Since 1995 this Government has expanded investment in accommodation services for people with a disability by more than $232 million, and will supplement this investment further in 2003-04 as relocation and support programs continue. On a typical day it is estimated that more than 4,700 people with a disability access these accommodation services. The department is introducing a range of reforms designed to improve the targeting and responsiveness of accommodation services for current residents and new clients seeking to access the system. If the Hon. John Ryan is so concerned about issues to do with providing accommodation for people with a disability, I suggest that he also direct his concerns to the Federal Government, particularly the new Federal Minister. The Commonwealth has a clear responsibility to provide support for people with a disability that we believe it has not met adequately. All States applied a lot of pressure in negotiating the last Commonwealth-State and Territory Disability Agreement to persuade the Federal Government to make more of a commitment regarding unmet need. However, the Commonwealth did not do that. That is on the public record. I appreciate that the Hon. John Ryan has a particular interest in these matters, and I suggest that he might like to direct his attention also to the Commonwealth.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. Given that Parliament will recess before the expiry of the 35-day period in which the Minister is required to provide an answer to my question of 28 October, is the Minister telling the House that she has no intention of informing honourable members whether she has provided any additional permanent supported accommodation places or of informing us before the end of the year whether the Government intends to fulfil the specific recommendation of the social issues committee? I refer the Minister to her answers to date, which do not indicate that the Government has any response to that specific recommendation. Is the Minister prepared to confirm before Parliament recesses whether 200 beds a year will be provided?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: When the Hon. John Ryan asked this question initially I indicated that I would provide additional information if I could do so in the form in which the honourable member sought it. Opposition members often ask questions targeted at particular interests that reflect non-government organisations that send material their way. That is absolutely appropriate: it is the role of Opposition members and others in this House to raise those issues. I have already given details about the funding that the Government provides and the increases in that funding. The Hon. John Ryan is simply trying to recycle an old question.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister update the House on wages recovered by the Office of Industrial Relations?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Honourable members are no doubt aware that the Office of Industrial Relations conducts proactive work in relation to inspections. Inspectors undertake a series of visits to workplaces across New South Wales as well as conducting seminars for small business owners. The seminars, which are designed and conducted by the Office of Industrial Relations, provide employers with a wide range of information on important employment issues. Employers understand that a better understanding of industrial relations laws can be the key to hiring and retaining the right staff, improving productivity and successfully developing a business. Feedback from the seminars is overwhelmingly positive. Inspectors from the Office of Industrial Relations also visit workplaces across the State. These visits are part of an ongoing campaign aimed at taking advice and assistance to workplaces in a range of industries, occupations and regions across the State.

The intention of the visits is to ensure that employers understand their rights and obligations under the industrial laws in New South Wales. In the first phase of a campaign, inspectors deliver information kits on awards and industrial laws, as well as provide advice on workplace health and safety. Inspectors then follow up the initial visits with a series of random inspections to assess compliance. I inform honourable members that a recent compliance campaign in the retail and hospitality industries has recovered more than $142,000. This is money that has been rightfully returned to workers and their families as a result of action on their behalf by the Office of Industrial Relations.

The $142,000 was recovered from visits conducted in Albury, the Central Coast, Dubbo, the Illawarra, the South Coast and Wagga Wagga. Some notable recent examples include: more than $30,000 in wages, overtime and various penalties to employees of an Illawarra fruit and vegetable shop; $10,000 to an apprentice electrician from Dubbo; almost $4,000 for an Erina salesperson; and more than $10,000 for employees at a Eurobodalla holiday resort. Many of the breaches identified during the recent campaign were the result of honest mistakes, and employers were happy to do the right thing when they were made aware of the problem. Our intention is to ensure that employers and employees understand their industrial rights and obligations. We will continue our proactive education campaigns to ensure fairness for workers, and a level playing field for all employers in New South Wales.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police. Will the Minister inform the House whether he intends releasing the report on the Innocence Panel, presented to the Minister by the Hon. Mervyn Finlay, QC, on 19 December 2003? Does the report of Justice Finlay include recommendations for an independent and separately funded Institute of Forensic Science to take responsibility for the custody and testing of forensic evidence? Will the Minister inform the House what steps will be taken to facilitate application to the Innocence Panel by prisoners seeking to use DNA technology to prove their innocence? Will those prisoners have access to an independent and separately funded Institute of Forensic Science to protect forensic evidence?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I anticipate that the Minister for Police will be making an announcement regarding this matter shortly.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Is the Minister aware that the North Coast sleeper project was cancelled in late October? Was this multimillion-dollar project cancelled because of the AusLink proposal to take control of this section of the State's rail network, and the desire of the Minister's department to save money rather than fix rail lines?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thought this was going to be a serious question. Again, the research done by the Opposition leaves a lot to be desired. There is no Auslink proposal. I think the honourable member is referring to the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] proposal, which I will refer to from this point on as the proposal. It is an important proposal. This gives me an opportunity to update the House on this stage of the proposal. In relation to the sleeper program, the chief executive of the State Rail Authority issued a press release, which I suggest researchers of the Opposition obtain. I will not refer to matters that are on the public record; I will not do their research for them. The ARTC proposal—the proposal—is important. Recently I had discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, for whom I have a great respect in relation to these matters.

The Hon. Michael Egan: So do I.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Treasurer was also at that meeting.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Not a bad bloke for a Nat.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: He is not bad.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: He likes you too.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That's good. He's sensible. He should reflect that policy at the State level with his colleagues. I am optimistic that we can finalise arrangements between the Commonwealth and State governments. We have not entered agreements as yet, but there have been negotiations. Those negotiations have laid the basis of some in-principle understandings that will form, as we go forward, the basis of an intergovernmental agreement. The principles effectively relate to a 60-year lease of the track by the Commonwealth. The key performance indicators are set by New South Wales, and our new regulator—the one that the Opposition opposed as the bill was going through the Parliament—will be accepted by the Commonwealth to regulate safety.

It is strange to have this schizophrenic approach to policy between John Anderson, who is obviously enlightened on these particular matters, and the Opposition, which seeks to oppose critical elements of a combined proposal. But we will leave that aside in the interest of getting these matters up. It is an important proposal. There are still some items to be finalised in terms of labour relations that are important to everybody because they relate to jobs in the bush.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They're gone.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: If they are gone, they are gone because the Commonwealth is insisting that efficient costs be the basis of any agreement. If the Leader of the Opposition understood anything about the ARTC proposal, he would understand that for it to work it requires that efficient costs be the basis of any funding arrangements the Commonwealth enters into.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So we can get the trucks off the Pacific Highway.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We all want to do that. That is why we are co-operating. But the problem is that one element of the Coalition is quite advanced on this proposal, in terms of its support of it, and the other element makes silly interjections that are undermining a very serious public policy issue. I wish that the Liberal Party would desist from doing that. It might be the cause of part of the tension that exists in the Federal Coalition with the Liberal Party. As I understand it the Treasurer, Peter Costello, is not too supportive of the AITC proposal—that is, in comparison with John Anderson, whose vision I share—which is important for everybody living on the North Coast. In the long run this matter is much more important than scheduling sleeper replacements, a matter that has already been explained and is on the public record.

The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister outline to the House the role of the Violent Offenders Therapeutic Program in treating and correcting the behaviour of violent offenders in our correctional centres?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This is an important question. It is critical that violent offenders are provided with appropriate rehabilitative programs to ensure that they are not discharged into the community without appropriate treatment. Not to do so does not only pose a threat to the community; it poses a threat also to other inmates and staff who handle them. On 5 November I attended the Metropolitan Special Programs Centre in Long Bay and saw first hand the new program to treat violent offenders. The Violent Offenders Therapeutic Program is designed to correct the behaviour of some of the State's most violent inmates. The design and delivery of the nine-month program follows evidence-based best practice for programs that work in the correctional setting. Three primary principles have been established from international research. They are the risk of reoffence, treatment needs and responsibility.

The risk of reoffence principle is based on research that strongly suggests that higher risk offenders show greater reduction in reoffending when they receive more intensive interventions. The program targets those offenders that have been assessed as being at higher risk of reoffending. Comprehensive assessment allows the targeting of relevant behaviour and attitudes. It is highly intensive, requiring offenders to participate in-group work, and their general behaviour is closely monitored. The treatment needs principle has come from the fact that treatment services have been shown to reduce reoffending when they target those factors that are relevant to the risk of offending and that are amenable to change.

The Violent Offenders Program is solidly based on delivering such interventions. These three principles, together with a new focus on treatment readiness by the inmates, emphasise the importance of maximising therapeutic gains. A team of professionals deliver the program. A total of 36 specialised full-time staff and four part-time staff are in the unit, including psychologists, alcohol and other drug workers, welfare officers, and education and custodial staff. Offenders taking part in the program are subjected firstly to a six-week assessment period, including a battery of psychometric tests, as well as welfare, education and alcohol and other drug assessments. The treatment phase consists of modules, including disclosure, aggression management, non-criminal thinking, victim empathy-perspective taking, criminal lifestyle-offence cycle, moral reasoning-lifestyle changes, and relapse prevention.

We have an obligation to address the offending behaviour of these violent individuals. As I indicated before, not to do so poses a threat not only to the community by also to staff and other inmates. We cannot ignore the fact that these offenders may one day be released, and reducing the incidence of violence in custody may also reduce reoffending in the community. The Government is committed to reducing crime in our community. This entails correcting the behaviour of and rehabilitating the State's most violent offenders. This program is an important one. Its expansion to other correctional centres is in line with the Government's Targeting Repeat Offenders policy, released during the last election. An additional $11 million has been committed by the Government for targeted rehabilitation programs in prisons to help inmates change their offending behaviour. These commitments will have a positive effect on offenders—

The Hon. John Ryan: What gaol did this one happen in?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: —and are a positive step towards making our community safer. Listen to the answer, stupid!

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. Can the Minister inform the House why the Fox Studio facilities, including craft shops and workshops, are exempt from the requirement to have an environmental protection licence? Can the Minister explain why this was allowed to happen, given that so many dangerous chemicals are used in those facilities, turning it into what is in effect an industrial precinct?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for the Environment, obtain an answer and inform the House in due course.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Is the Minister aware of concerns from Smiths Lake commercial prawn trawling fishermen regarding the increased pressure placed on the natural habitat and fishing resources of the lake due to an increased number of fishermen in the area following the closure of Lake Macquarie? What action has the Minister taken to ensure the sustainability of the valuable commercial prawn trawling industry in Smiths Lake?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have a big folder, but not an answer to this question?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have all sorts of answers in my head. I can handle this one off the top of my head; that is no problem. I refer to the enhanced effort in certain areas of the State relating to various fisheries. We are conducting ongoing surveys. I have been having meetings with the various fishers who have been affected. I have made it clear that if there is consensus in certain areas we may be able to adjust the boundaries for recreational fishing areas [RFAs] and for open fisheries. By consensus I mean consensus between the various parties, whether they represent commercial, recreational or council interests. To date, I have not seen an example of that consensus. It appears that a partisan attitude develops as soon as propositions are put forward. We are conducting ongoing studies. We are carrying out a study, through the recreational fishing trusts, into fish stocks in the recreational fishing areas of the State and we are monitoring prawning activity. So we are closely looking at the situation in Wallis Lake. I will give the honourable member a more detailed answer in due course.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House about the success of the Australian Technology Showcase company Armacel?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Armacel Technology Group is an innovative technology company with an award-winning process for transforming simple materials such as foams, corrugated cardboard or timber into high-strength composites with an impervious surface.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: How do they do that?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Wait for it. Armacel's composite technology has just recently won the 2003 Innovator of the Year Award at the North American Association of Independent Corrugated Converters meeting in San Francisco. That, I will have honourable members know, is a very important meeting. I mean, it takes a lot of things to make this world go round, and that meeting in San Francisco is one of those important things. This technology has wide potential for the building materials, refrigeration, materials handling, signage and furniture industries. The potential of that marketplace is quite huge. There are more than 1,500 corrugated packaging plants in the United States of America and Canada alone, producing 400 billion square feet in packaging materials. Global cardboard manufacturers produced 132 billion square metres of material, valued at almost $95 billion, in 2002.

In the Armacel process a thin, light and tough layer of plastic is applied to a core material such as polystyrene, cardboard, timber and certain metals under a vacuum. The two materials are bonded together and quickly cooled, and the finished product has exceptionally high strength. Materials such as paper, polystyrene, timber and lightweight concrete panels benefit from this treatment. It is possible to apply a hard surface ranging from 0.15 millimetres to more than 5 millimetres in thickness, which can be customised to suit the application. The plastic surface that results from the Armacel treatment is easy to clean, abrasion and chemical resistant, and waterproof, and can include a fire retardant. It is also extremely durable, with properties such as insulation and shock absorption enhanced to the point where the treated material can be used in applications such as refrigeration and structural walls and beams. Armacel's main benefits include its low cost, light weight and durability as a replacement for steel, aluminium, timber and fibreglass. The Armacel product can be manufactured from recycled material such as paper and plastic, and can itself be recycled, which is an important environmental factor. Armacel technology was employed in architectural panels and lightweight environmentally friendly refrigerators in the Olympic Village at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Madam President, I hesitate to interrupt the Treasurer in giving this important answer, but once again a Minister is transgressing your ruling that acronyms should not be used. I ask you to direct the Treasure not to use the acronym RSL.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would ask the Minister not to use acronyms—if in fact he has.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I did not use any acronyms.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: I thought you did.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I did not. I would like a withdrawal and an apology.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: If the honourable member is referring to the RSL—I think that is what I heard him say—my recollection is that that organisation officially changed its name to RSL. It used to be called the RSSAILA and it found that very old-fashioned and exclusive of women.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call. However, his time has expired.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister consider elucidating his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would be delighted to. The Armacel technology was used in architectural panels and lightweight environmentally friendly material for the refrigerators in the Olympic Village at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. Armacel is yet another example of an innovative—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Not RSL.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I did not say RSL; I said Armacel. It is a proper name—spelt A-R-M-A-C-E-L. Armacel is yet another example of an innovative New South Wales company that has achieved international recognition and has the potential to revolutionise the manufacturing industry with its technology. I commend the company and its products.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister consider banning the use of outdated shark nets off Sydney's beaches? Will he publish the by-catch caught in these nets, including the number of protected and endangered species? Will he inform the House of any potential legal liability to local councils or the New South Wales Government in the event of a swimmer, diver or surfer being attacked by a shark on a beach that is currently netted?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Obviously, the honourable member realised that the Premier and I were at Nielsen Park on Saturday morning extolling the virtues of the new pingers, which emit a high frequency sound heard by marine cetaceans, that are hanging off all the shark nets along the coast.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The pingers that were placed—

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: —on these nets have been proven in the United States and Canada to greatly reduce the death rate of cetaceans in nets. The Government does not propose to remove the nets from the 51 beaches at which they are installed. In the first 35 or 36 years of the last century one person died each year while swimming at beaches from Newcastle to Wollongong. Since the implementation of these nets in 1937, only one fatal shark attack has occurred on a netted beach in New South Wales—and that was in 1951. The nets are very effective in virtually eliminating human death as a result of shark attacks. The nets have proven very effective, and the Government does not intend to remove them. They reduce the ability of sharks to create territory and, as a consequence, reduce the number of sharks inside the nets. The pingers warn cetaceans, such as dolphins and whales, about the existence of the nets. During the winter, which is when whales migrate along our coast, the nets are taken down. The nets have been very effective in saving lives. They will remain in place. However, we will research other ways to prevent any by-catch of sharks or other marine life.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. Why has he failed to respond to correspondence addressed to him dated 1 July this year from Mr and Mrs Moffat of Swan Bay relating to aircraft noise and Port Stephens Council? Has he been advised that when Mr and Mrs Moffat repeatedly telephone his office to follow up the matter they are told each time that someone would contact them but that no one has returned their calls? Will he give an undertaking to direct his office to contact the Moffats today?

The Hon. Michael Egan: That is really a silly question. How do you know that is true?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Indeed, how do I know it is true?

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Ask your staff.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Obviously, I will find out.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I wish to ask a supplementary question—

The Hon. TONY KELLY: In anticipation of the member's question, my answer is no, I will not give that undertaking.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I ask Minister for Transport Services a question without notice. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the Unsworth review into bus services in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yesterday I released the interim report of the Unsworth review of the New South Wales bus system.

The Hon. John Ryan: Here is another ministerial statement.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This is not a ministerial statement. The member ought to know the difference by now, but he obviously does not. This is the first complete stocktake of services since buses replaced trams in New South Wales in 1961. The report explores options for integrating the current mess that is our bus system. There are more than 350 exclusive contracts—

[Interruption]

I hear the interjection "Who is responsible for that?" It is actually Bruce Baird's fault and the fault of his former Chief of Staff, Barry O'Farrell, who still happens to be in the Parliament and who sometimes deputises as shadow transport Minister.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the second time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is important for us to get better value for the $600 million we currently spend on our bus system. I refer to the School Student Transport Scheme, which will be referred to hereafter as the scheme. In 2002-03 the scheme cost us $400 million plus. The report points out that part of the problem with the scheme is that the Government, based on a formula developed by Bruce Baird and Barry O'Farrell, pays 78 per cent of passes issued. Currently, the Ministry of Transport advises that just over 50 per cent of kids are using these passes. That is over $100 million worth of phantom trips. It makes no sense at all, and some members of the Opposition have recognised that. The shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Epping, in his capacity as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, advocated a co-payment of $10 per term for these passes. As all honourable members know we have four terms, which would mean $40 as opposed to the Unsworth recommendation of $30.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister seems to be a little confused. About half an hour ago he said he would not rule out anything to do with the Unsworth inquiry. Now he is commentating on the Unsworth inquiry as he sees fit. He can either resign himself to not commenting at all or commenting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The honourable member appears to be making a fairly significant attack on the shadow Attorney General.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, I am not. I am only stating what he said.

The Hon. John Ryan: He ought to know by now—or perhaps he has not been a member long enough—that any attack on a member of another place has to be by way of substantive motion. The Minister is not allowed to make that attack other than by the procedure of raising a substantive motion, which ensures an appropriate opportunity to respond.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: Could the Minister tell us what part of this century or last century he was referring to when he made his attack? He is referring to previous Ministers and he has quoted everything except the ZigZag Railway.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I warn the Minister not to make imputations against members of this Chamber or the other place. The Minister's time for speaking has expired.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question. As I was saying—and this was not an attack; it was a statement of fact—the shadow Attorney General, Andrew Tink, advocated $10 per term, and that amounts to $40.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What year was this?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: When he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, supported a co-payment. The Leader of the Opposition in this House, Mike Gallacher, who by the way is the shadow Minister for Transport Services, earlier in the morning had ruled it out, yet yesterday afternoon that was overruled by the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden. Not very good, Michael! It shows not only that the Opposition is in confusion but certainly that the position of the shadow Minister for Transport Services must be in jeopardy. He is directly in conflict with his own leader on the question of a co-payment. The Opposition is in policy disarray.

Is it any wonder that members opposite are in policy disarray? They cannot take the time to examine issues and put forward proper submissions. Instead we have Mike Gallacher getting up in the morning and responding in the media, shooting his mouth off and saying that there will be no co-payment. By the afternoon, John Brogden is ruling in a co-payment and the Opposition is on the record supporting a co-payment of $40 a year. This is clearly an important issue that Barrie Unsworth raised. The Government's position is clear on these matters. As I said, we will not be responding to the latest report—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: Madam President, the Minister states allegedly what people in other places have said without any material to quote from or any substantiation. He is making imputations about other members, which is quite distinctly against the ruling you made a moment ago. I ask you to call the member to order.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: Could the Hon. John Ryan inform us what the imputation is that he is complaining about? There has been no imputation made against anybody, as far as I know.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I need to remind members that the requirement that statements of fact cannot be used unless they are authenticated applies only to questions; it does not apply to answers. I did not detect in the Minister's answer any imputation about any member of this House or the other place. Accordingly, the Minister is in order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not think I have had a question from the Opposition today, and for that reason I will call an end to question time. Honourable members can wait until tomorrow if they have anything else they want to ask.

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

On 15 October the Hon. Catherine Cusack asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning the State's detention centres The Minister for Juvenile Justice has provided the following response:

When a new detention centre is built an audit of the construction work is carried out in the same way as, say, the construction of a new school is audited to ensure it meets specifications and standards.
This was the case with Frank Baxter and Acmena Juvenile Justice Centres.

As this Government is concerned that juvenile justice centres are as safe and secure as possible for staff, detainees and the community, maintenance work is carried out as needed.

Doors and doorjambs Shading has been installed over the pool and perimeter lighting is being improved. The total cost over the 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04 financial years is $611,000

At Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre, the buildings have also been strengthened and high security doors and jambs installed. The airconditioning has also been improved, pool shading installed and electronic security improved The total cost over the 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04 financial years is $1,960,000.

There is no link at all between the timetable for the construction of a new juvenile justice centre for girls and young women and the refurbishment work carried out at those other two centres In fact Yasmar Juvenile Justice Centre is not to be rebuilt, as the question suggests. A new centre is being built at Lidcombe on the site of the former Minda Juvenile Justice Centre.

Demolition of the old centre and preparation of the site ground works was completed last year. Following an exhaustive consultation process about the design of the centre, the tendering process for the construction is nearing completion.

On 16 October Mr Ian Cohen asked the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries a question without notice regarding Pindimar abalone farm. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has provided the following response:

The proposal is a matter to be assessed as part of the development approval process In this case, The Great Lakes Shire Council is the determining authority. NSW Fisheries has a consent role. I am advised the proposal is for a land based aquaculture facility at Pindimar on the northern side of Port Stephens. It would involve juvenile abalone produced from broodstock being grown to a marketable size in land based holding tanks. This type of land-based aquaculture is commonplace in other Australian States and overseas

I am advised the proponent is a NSW Fisheries employee. The person is not currently, nor has he in the past been involved in any NSW Fisheries aquaculture projects, nor does he have any links to NSW Fisheries' consideration of the Pindimar abalone proposal. The employee advised of their involvement in the proposal to demonstrate there was no conflict of interest.

On 14 October Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Treasurer, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding Surf Life Saving Australia public liability insurance. The Premier has provided the following response:

In 2003/04 Surf Life Saving NSW will receive $1,802,500 from the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation under the Safety and Rescue Service Program and Water Safety Education Program Of this funding, $150,000 has been identified for the purchase of vital life saving equipment The remaining funds will be allocated by the Board of Surf Life Saving NSW.

On 14 October the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice concerning Operation Fruitgrower. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

NSW Police has advised me that Operation Fruitgrower targeted stock theft in the Darling River Local Area Command. Part of this operation sought to check the identification, origin and ownership of cattle under control of a drover, following reports of irregularities in the stock's identification.

I am advised that under the Operation approximately 1,400 head were inspected of which 32 cows and three calves were seized by police and held on agistment while further inquiries on the origin and ownership of the cattle were undertaken.

With the appointment of 33 police dedicated to rural crime investigation, New South Wales is seeing an increase in the investigation and prosecution of rural crime

On 14 October Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, a question regarding alcoholic milk products. The Minister for Gaming and Racing has provided the following response:

It must be noted that the New South Wales Government has no legislative role in controlling the retail prices of alcohol. Price setting remains essentially a function of the market, with only the Federal Government, through excise duties and alcohol taxing policies, having any ability to influence the setting of retail prices.

As Minister, I have announced a review into alcohol products of this nature, with specific focus on their attraction to young drinkers.

If indeed Dr Moyes has evidence of sales of vodka-based pre-mixed drinks at a very low price in New South Wales, I would encourage him to provide the details to my department This will allow the matter to be raised with the Liquor Industry Consultative Council, a body established in 1995 to allow for consultation between the Minister, the Department of Gaming and Racing and key liquor industry groups on a range of legislative and policy matters.

On 14 October the Hon. Melinda Pavey asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries a question without notice relating to the Temora women's gathering. The Minister has provided the following answer:

NSW Agriculture advises that Paterson's curse is one of over 1,500 weeds that occur in New South Wales. It is an annual plant which germinates from residual seed in the soil in autumn, grows through winter, flowers and sets seed in spring and dies in early summer.

The weed is already very widespread throughout New South Wales. It is declared a noxious weed in many districts but some local authorities have determined that it is now so widespread that it is no longer feasible to impose mandatory controls through declaring it noxious.

The prolific growth of Paterson's curse this spring is an expected result of the drought and very dry conditions last summer.

While Paterson's curse is very obvious with its purple flowers, it has minimal impact on crops Paterson's curse is at times quite toxic to grazing animals, especially to horses. Fortunately selective grazers, such as cattle, avoid it

NSW Agriculture, along with CSIRO and the CRC for Australian Weed Management, have introduced six insects that attack this weed. These insects include a leaf-miner, crown weevil, root weevil, flea beetle, stem borer and pollen beetle. NSW Agriculture officers, are helping local council weed officers breed and spread these insects throughout the State.

The NSW Government spends over $7 million each year in grants to help control noxious weeds such as Paterson's curse

I have already advised the House of my activities at the time of the Gathering.

I am advised that the Director-General of NSW Agriculture, Dr Richard Sheldrake, was fulfilling a prior commitment

I was particularly grateful that Mrs Marie Russell, the co-chair with Dr Sheldrake of the Rural Women's Network State Advisory Committee, agreed to open the Women's Gathering on our behalf.

I was also grateful that, in her opening speech, Mrs Russell expressed her appreciation for the support provided by myself and Dr Sheldrake, for rural women generally and Women's Gatherings in particular.

I would like to place on record my appreciation to Mrs Marie Russell, not only for opening the Temora Gathering on my behalf, but for the outstanding service she has provided to rural women over many years.

On 15 October Mr Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding North Head—Quarantine Station. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response:

I am advised that Mr Campbell is not a party to the current negotiations for the lease of the Quarantine Station.

I understand that Mr Campbell is currently the lessee at Murramarang and Myall Shores where he operates accommodation facilities which are available to the general public.

See answer to question one.

On 15 October Ms Sylvia Hale asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding North Head Quarantine Station lease proposal. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response:

I am advised it is normal practice for a lease to be assignable with the lessor’s consent.

I am advised that there has been no sale of a majority interest.

The terms of the lease for this proposal have not yet been finalised and the intention to lease has not yet been advertised.

On 15 October Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice regarding unborn child protection legislation. The Attorney General has provided the following response:

In October 2002 retired Supreme Court Justice, the Honourable M D Finlay QC, was appointed to conduct a review of the law of manslaughter. The terms of reference included the question of whether the law should be amended to respond to the circumstances relating to the death of Renee Shields’ unborn child.

The recommendations of the review were released in a Report entitled Review of the Law of Manslaughter in New South Wales in June 2003. One of the recommendations was the introduction of an offence of "killing in unborn child".

As honourable members would appreciate, this is a complex and highly sensitive area of the law. The Government wants to make sure we consider the drafting of this offence thoroughly and carefully. The legislation will be introduced as soon as that drafting process is complete.

MAWLAND GROUP LEASES

On 29 October the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked the Minister for Transport, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, a question without notice relating to Mawland Group leases. The following response was provided:

In June this year I approved a proposal for the conservation and adaptive re-use of the North Head Quarantine Station, which will require leasing of the site to Mawland Hotel Management. Details of these leasing arrangements are a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following papers:

1 Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985 report of Environment Protection Authority for the year ended 30 June 2003

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

Environmental Trust
Lord Howe Island Board
Office of the Protective Commissioner
Sydney Catchment Authority.

3 Legal Profession Act 1987—for the year ended 30 June 2003:

Committees of the Law Society of New South Wales
Law Society of New South Wales.

Ordered to be printed.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.06 p.m.]: Before consideration was interrupted for question time I was speaking to Liberal Party amendment No. 1. The effect of the bill will be to remove the basis upon which the Coroner currently inquires into fires and the circumstances of fires, and replace that provision with legislation that will set up an inquiry into the causes and origin of a fire only. I was making the point that I made during the second reading stage—and the point that was made by the honourable member for Epping, Andrew Tink, in the other place—that the bill appears to be driven by a lack of resources that affects not just the Coroner but also the police. In the Minister's reply he responded in part to the issue by noting that some of the inquiries can be very complex and protracted, with dozens of witnesses, and there can be delays. With respect to the Minister, I think that is one of the fundamental reasons for the Opposition's suggestion that the Coroner should conduct proper inquiries into fires. I commend the Opposition's amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.07 p.m.]: The Government is unable to support Liberal Party amendments Nos 1 to 3. The reasons I am about to state apply to all of the amendments foreshadowed by the Liberal Party, and I will not restate them. The proposals that the Government has put forward were recommended by a group which includes the State Coroner, the police, courts administration and the Office of Emergency Services. The group found that it was necessary in the interests of everyone to improve the procedures of the court, streamline police investigations and refine reporting protocols. The bill does not represent amendments that have been imposed upon the Coroner, either because of a lack of resources or because of political purposes. The State Coroner has made this clear to the Opposition and to other members of the House.

The State Coroner has been, and will continue to be, well resourced by this Government. The State Coroner and the two Deputy State Coroners all support the amendments. The State Coroner was the one who recommended the changes. It is vitally important for these reforms to be in place before the summer bushfire season commences so that people who will be affected by fires this year will be assured that their cases will be dealt with consistently and efficiently.

In the meantime, there is no reason to delay the current proposals that will deliver clear benefits to those who use the Coroner's Court. At present, the wide breadth of coronial inquiry means that every reported fire is investigated to an extent well beyond what is required by the Coroner to determine what happened, where and why: that is, the cause and origin of a fire. This has contributed to significant delays in finalising fire inquiries, making victims wait for answers and closure. The major cause for this delay is the amount of time it takes police investigators to prepare the brief of evidence for the Coroner, because they have to cover such a wide range of issues; issues that would not normally be considered relevant to the inquiry if it were not for the broad interpretation of the concept of "circumstances".

During the 2002-03 summer, more than 1,000 fires required reporting to the Coroner. A large task force, called Tronto 2, was assembled by the police to produce briefs of evidence on every reportable fire. By mid-year the Coroner had received 895 briefs; of those only 13 involved criminality, death, arson or large property damage, only 5 potentially required an inquiry. In the vast majority, 882, an inquiry was dispensed with because the circumstances of the fire were sufficiently disclosed. It was clear how and where the fires had started. However, by requiring the police to investigate the circumstances, rather than the cause and origin, a full brief of evidence covering all the peripheral issues needed to be prepared. This unnecessarily increased the complexity of the brief, leading to the inclusion of thousands of pages of statements, which took nearly 12 months to collect and collate.

By clarifying that the Coroner is interested in determining the cause and origin of the fire, simpler, clear cases could be presented and completed much more quickly. The State Coroner, an independent judicial officer, would retain the discretion to direct a broader inquiry. It is clear it could not be used for political cover-ups. Surely it is most appropriate to dedicate resources to those cases that demand it. This also means that greater resources will be available for cases requiring more detailed investigation, such as ones proceeding to an inquiry that involved suspected criminality, arson, injury or death. That will lead to improved investigations for matters where a thorough investigation is warranted. The legislation also allows the Attorney General, the New South Wales Fire Brigades or the Commissioner for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service to request a broader, general inquiry where a fire or explosion has destroyed or damaged property.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.12 p.m.]: My amendment relates to the Opposition amendment. If that amendment is carried my amendment would lapse; if it is not carried, my amendment would need to be moved. Therefore, I move:

Page 3, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 15B (1). Insert at the end of line 28:

, or

(d) the Commissioner of Police.

This amendment inserts an additional paragraph in proposed section 15B (1), which refers to the persons who may request the Coroner to hold a general inquiry, that is the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service or the Minister. It occurred to me that the Commissioner of Police may have sourced information about criminal activity related to a fire, which may not be known by the New South Wales Fire Brigades or the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service. I do not see any problem in having an extra person who could call for a general inquiry. I understand the background to the amendments moved by the Opposition, but I am concerned that, according to the briefing we received, a large task force called Tronto 2 was assembled by the police to produce briefs of evidence on every reportable fire. That involved 895 briefs.

I am concerned about the number of police officers who were taken away from their other police duties and tied up in that work to carry out a great deal of paperwork. Would the Minister indicate how many police officers were tied up in assisting that task force? Maybe even more officers were involved, given that the task force was able to ask other officers stationed in a country town or other place to provide further information. If the Opposition amendments mean that police will not be able to go about their duties but will be involved in a pointless exercise, we cannot support them. We understand also that the words "general inquiry", at line 20 on page 3 of the bill, have been expressed vaguely. In a general inquiry the Coroner would have flexibility to take the inquiry wherever it leads.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.15 p.m.]: The Greens will not support the Opposition amendments. I understand we are not dealing with them seriatim, but we will not support any of them. We do not believe that wide-ranging coronial inquests are necessary in the aftermath of fires. When fires occur coronial inquests will still examine the cause and origin. In the case of a major fire, a wider review of the circumstances may be required. In such cases, a broader review can be ordered by the Minister or the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service or the New South Wales Fire Brigades. The Greens support such reviews and recent history shows that they tend to occur when the public demands them.

Furthermore, a coronial inquiry may not be the most appropriate vehicle for such reviews. In the 1994 fires, I understand that the coronial inquiry did not start until six months after the event and took a further eight or nine months to report its findings. By that time it was too late for the inquiry's findings to be implemented for the subsequent bushfire season. That matter is of concern and that is why we do not think it is the best track to go down. Extensive coronial inquiries are not always the best way to ensure bushfire prevention and management and, thus, the Greens do not see a need to support the amendments.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.17 p.m.]: When I first saw these amendments I was disposed to support them, but I thought it might be a good thing to find out what the Coroner felt about them. There had been some suggestion that the Coroner had succumbed to pressure or that maybe he was not, as the Government said, in support of the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The Opposition said that.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: There was some suggestion—I am not saying who said it—that the Coroner might not be in support of the bill. My office spoke to Mr Abernathy on Friday morning and he said that he was totally happy with the bill. He said his words had been taken out of context and he objected to the suggestion that he would bow to political pressure on a matter such as this. He said that the changes proposed in the bill came about from recommendations by a working party committee, of which he was a member, and will actually allow resources to be used more efficiently and effectively with a fail-safe mechanism that, if deemed necessary, a wider or broader inquiry could be held. He said that he would appreciate the bill being supported. Under the circumstances, I cannot support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.20 p.m.]: With regard to my amendments, the Commissioner of Police might have information that is not known by other persons who can order or request a general inquiry. This amendment might assist the Government by providing that option.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.21 p.m.]: The Government is unable to support this amendment, even though it is well-intentioned. It is important to remember that a coroner's inquest is an inquiry and that the role of police is to assist the Coroner. The provisions in this bill will enable all coroners—and not just the State Coroner—to direct police in their investigations. If an issue arises during the course of a coronial inquest, the Coroner or the Deputy State Coroner can direct police to pursue that line of inquiry.

It would be inappropriate in those circumstances to have the reverse occur, that is, the police requesting the Coroner to do something, bearing in mind the nature of the inquiry that is taking place. The role of the police is to assist the Coroner and they should not refrain from providing to him any information that they have. The Coroner has the right to pursue whatever course he believes is appropriate in directing police down those avenues. As I said earlier, the Government believes that the amendment is well intentioned but unnecessary. The Government is unable to support the amendment.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.22 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support this amendment, which was delivered to us only a few minutes ago. Even though it is well intentioned the Minister has explained the way in which the process works.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.22 p.m.]: It is obvious that the police would be involved in any inquiry. They would then provide any information they had to the Coroner. However, they might be in possession of information that the Coroner, the New South Wales Fire Brigades or the Rural Fire Service are not aware of—information that provides the basis for the holding of such an inquiry. The commissioner could then request the Coroner to hold an inquiry and information that the police had would be provided to the Coroner. The Minister said that information in the possession of the police should automatically be given to the Coroner but that an inquiry might not be held. There might be information in the possession of only the Commissioner of Police.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.23 p.m.]: The Commissioner of Police provides information that he has in his possession to the police and the police then assist the Coroner. We are going around in circles. If Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile reads schedule 1 he will see that it covers the point that I am making. This bill will extend the power of all coroners to be able to direct police in their inquiries. I think the honourable member's question is fully covered in what I have already said.

Amendment No. 1 negatived.

Christian Democratic Party amendment negatived.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.24 p.m.], by leave: I move Liberal Party amendments Nos 2 and 3 in globo:

No. 2 Page 7, schedule 1 [19], heading, line 1. Omit "clauses 13 and 14". Insert instead "clause 13".

No. 3 Page 7, schedule 1 [19], proposed clause 14, lines 9-14. Omit all words on those lines.

These amendments flow from the Opposition's first amendment. We are dealing with these amendments separately as I wanted to see how debate ensued on the first amendment. We have now been given an opportunity to deal with the amendment of the Christian Democratic Party. I commend the amendments to honourable members.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.25 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments moved by the Hon. Greg Pearce for the reasons I have previously indicated.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The Hon MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.27 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In presenting further Appropriation Bills, the Government has sought as far as possible to ensure that the Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise anticipated additional funding requirements prior to expenditures being incurred. On 5 October this year the Government announced that the budget result for the 2002-03 financial year was a surplus $619 million. This gave us a result of $420 million higher than expected at the June 2003 budget time. Although tabled in 2003, the budget is predicated on forecasts and estimates established some time before that.

As a result, the budget projections were framed in an environment when investment returns were lower and the property market appeared to be cooling. The Government has announced that the additional $420 million will be invested and the interest earned will be spent on urgent health capital works through the Health Super-Growth Fund. Given the recent increase in interest rates, Treasury has upgraded the forecast earnings of the Health Super-Growth Fund to $92.4 million over the next four years.

This extra spending will see the health capital works program increase to more than $2 billion between now and mid 2007. Our greatest funding challenge will always be to meet the day-to-day costs of running our hospitals. Health costs rise 8 per cent every year. They are an unremitting demand on the public purse, driven, as we all know, by the ageing population and the advent of new medical technologies. A responsible government makes sure that it finds the revenue to meet those costs, keeping our hospitals world class into the future. With an eye on the poker machine profits of the richer clubs, we have done just that.

Poker machine taxes will increase from September 2004 and are expected to raise an extra $46 million in the first year. Every cent of the increased poker machine taxes will be spent on public health services. The introduction of the Appropriation (Health Super-Growth Fund) Bill 2003 in this session enables the Government, first, to seek appropriation of $420 million for investment with the New South Wales Treasury Corporation; secondly, to deposit the income from the investment into a newly established special deposits account called the Health Super-Growth Fund, which will then be spent on public health capital works and services; and, thirdly, to formalise its intention to appropriate in future annual appropriation Acts the increase from the poker machine tax effected by the 2003-04 budget to the Minister for Health for public health recurrent services.

I should point out that the second reading speech on this bill in the Legislative Assembly contained a minor error. The increase in poker machine tax will be appropriated directly to the Minister for Health and will not—as indicated in the Legislative Assembly—pass through the Health Super-Growth Fund. The additional funding on health capital made possible by the earnings on the $420 million deposit will bring forward 15 major projects. They are a further $10 million this year for the redevelopment of Gosford and Wyong hospitals; new linear accelerators for Wollongong and Liverpool; new rural hospitals at Dunedoo, Portland, Guyra, Walcha, Tullamore and Tottenham; the redevelopment of Bathurst, Orange and Bloomfield hospitals; a new primary health centre at Menindee; an upgrade of mental health facilities in Broken Hill; and construction of Queanbeyan Hospital.

The practice of introducing further appropriation bills has enhanced accountability for the expenditure of public moneys from the Consolidated Fund. It is further evidence of the Government's commitment to transparent and full financial reporting to Parliament and the community. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.32 p.m.]: Some years ago my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition coined the term "Eganomics" to describe the Treasurer's approach to economics and Treasury matters. The Appropriation (Health Super-Growth Fund) Bill is classic Eganomics. It is such a good term that I hope the Macquarie Dictionary takes an interest in the expression.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Could you suggest it to them?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I am tempted to.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: "Eganomics" means that it does not add up—like you!

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I have a better definition. "Eganomics" means "spin over substance". In speaking in the budget appropriations debate earlier this year I referred to the Treasurer's "Michael the magician" approach and said that he is always about smoke and mirrors. In this case, spin over substance is the best description. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is $15 million to buy a headline. Why is this bill about spin over substance? The Appropriation (Health Super-Growth Fund) Bill sounds fantastic. Who could argue with it? However, the devil is in the detail. As my colleagues in the other place said, the bill embodies the tax-and-waste approach that we have come to know from this Government.

The basis of this fund—the $420 million budget surplus additional to that which was anticipated originally—is the result of taxation and the property boom in New South Wales. New South Wales and this Treasurer have reaped the benefits—in the form of stamp duty—of the good economic conditions engineered by the Howard-Costello Government. A $619 million surplus has been the result, which is $420 million more than expected at the time of the Budget Speech. Judging from the Treasurer's comments in past years, one might have expected the Government to do what it had done in the past: adopt the prudent economic approach and pay off some of the State's debt. The Treasurer said that this year's budget was "a Labor Budget every inch of the way". In his Budget Speech, he said:

It's a budget that will help New South Wales get steadily further ahead—step-by-step, year-by-year.

We have heard those words before—in every other Budget Speech that the Treasurer has delivered. What is the Treasurer's rationale for his "every inch a Labor budget" comment? He continued:

And in this Budget we are getting on with the job of reducing net debt further, down by $2.4 billion by 2007.

Cutting general government debt has helped reduce our interest payments by $1 billion a year since 1995, a saving that we have ploughed back into better hospitals, schools and other services.

Until now, that is how the Treasurer has justified his ministerial decisions. He has claimed to be a prudent Treasurer, who has managed the economy appropriately by using the budget surpluses to pay off debt. We have never argued about paying off debt—

The Hon. Michael Egan: Yes, you have.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: When faced with a significantly enhanced budget surplus the Treasurer has never before shifted that money sideways into a fund rather than paid off debt. The current yield on the New South Wales Treasury Corporation's 10-year bonds is 5.55 per cent. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out in the other place, this State would have been better off by an extra $15.2 million if the Treasurer had used those funds to pay off debt instead of shifting them into a super-growth fund that requires an investment based on an assumed return of 4.64 per cent. That $420 million would have yielded $15 million for New South Wales in the long term. But the Treasurer has chosen the wasteful option of spin: He has chased the headline rather than taken the prudent economic approach.

This bill is built on risk. It is about getting an appropriate return, which the Treasurer highlighted, as the basis for $78 million in interest payments earned over four years that will be spent on capital works and services. The Opposition believes that money should have been used to retire debt in New South Wales. But the Treasurer has opted for the big headline approach. The Government appears magnanimous by trying to deliver health services using the revenue raised from the poker machine tax. I was pleased to hear the Treasurer correct the error in the second reading speech delivered in the other place. Registered clubs have always been a significant source of funding for medical research. Last week medical research organisations expressed strong concerns that clubs have been banned from making donations to medical research under category 1 of the Community Development and Support Expenditure Program.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Since when?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Those concerns were expressed to the Opposition. Ted Atkinson from the Microsearch Foundation said:

… decision on the CDSE will have significant long-term implications for NSW medical research organisations.

I am surprised that the Treasurer questions what I say. If he does not know what the Government is doing I suggest that he—
The Hon. Michael Egan: No. I suggest the Opposition gets its facts right.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Organisations such as Care Flight, North Shore Heart Research, the Prostate Cancer Institute of Australia, and Cure Cancer Australia Foundation, amongst others, have highlighted their concerns about not getting funding from registered clubs under the Community Development Support Expenditure Program. They believe that the Government is going to make it difficult for clubs to continue to provide that support. One must assume that the Government wants to put the money into the fund so that it can claim credit for the Health expenditure. Registered clubs have assisted the community for a long time by using much of their profits from poker machines to support significant health services in New South Wales, but they will now be required to direct those profits into the fund.

The Treasurer referred in his second reading speech to the great challenge of funding hospitals and health care. Those words were used by the former Minister for Health, the Hon. Craig Knowles, when he delivered his second reading speech in the other place. As a former Minister for Health he would know—and the Opposition does not disagree—that health funding is the greatest challenge for governments. Both the Treasurer and the former Minister for Health said that keeping our hospitals world-class into the future is an important issue for a responsible government. One need only talk to doctors and nurses to understand the concerns about day-to-day issues in regard to health. Sheree Martin, one of the nurses who was involved with the Macarthur Health Service, expressed her concerns to the former Minister for Health about the management of hospitals. In a statutory declaration she said:

We spoke to Mr Knowles about poor medical and nursing practices, failure to resuscitate patients, poor medical cover through the hospitals, especially in the intensive care unit in Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals.

We spoke to Mr Knowles about management's knowledge of these things and their corrupt behaviour in attempting to cover these things up and bully staff who raised these types of concerns.

When speaking about another nurse involved, she said:

When Ms Fraser mentioned Jennifer Collins [the] CEO [of] MHS [Macarthur Health Service] Mr Knowles became angry, he pushed back his chair and made the following comments to Ms Fraser, some while pointing at her and others while banging his hand on the desk.

"Jennifer Collins is a friend of mine. She's a nice lady and she's done a lot for Macarthur Health Service."

Ms Fraser said that "It certainly would appear that way on paper."

Mr Knowles said that "Ms Fraser can't go around talking about people like that, it was slander and she could lose her home or career."

Ms Fraser said she wasn't "going around" talking about these concerns, she was bringing them to her local member and Minister for Health as all other avenues were exhausted to her.

Mr Knowles said he would launch an investigation. When I left however, I felt very worried about his relationship to Jennifer Collins.

We share the concerns of the former Minister for Health about the enormous challenge of running hospitals and meeting the needs of health services, and we support the concerns expressed by nurses in the service. This is a difficult issue. The Opposition believes that the Treasurer should have taken the prudent approach of retiring debt and having available an additional $15 million rather than investing in this Health Super-Growth Fund. We share the desire to see medical facilities enhanced in New South Wales.

Last week the Treasurer issued a press release criticising my colleagues in the other place who spoke in debate on this legislation. He suggested that because they said they would not oppose this legislation they were being hypocritical about the poker machine tax. That is typical of the spin: We were damned whatever we did. The Opposition believes that the people of New South Wales are entitled to world-class health services, which they do not have under this Government, and that view is reinforced by that of the nurses. We do not agree with the level of poker machine tax proposed by the Treasurer. The Government should not take away the ability of clubs to direct their funds to medical research, through their community service obligation. At the end of the day we will not stand in the way of this legislation going through the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.47 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Appropriation (Health Super-Growth Fund) Bill. This bill will provide for the appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of $420 million for investment, and for the income from the investment to be applied to capital works and services for public health purposes. The bill establishes the Health Super-Growth Fund. The money from poker machine tax increases will go directly to the Minister for Health for recurrent services for public health purposes. On 5 October the Government announced a budget surplus for the 2002-03 financial year of $619 million, which gave the Government an extra $420 million. What will the Government do with the $420 million? It will put it into a fund and use the interest earned—some $78 million over four years. The Opposition's approach would be to use that money to pay off debt. What the Minister said seems to have been overlooked. He said:

Our greatest funding challenge will always be to meet the day-to-day costs of running our hospitals. Health costs rise 8 per cent every year…

One of the biggest issues in this State is the financial disaster in the hospital system; it is like a football being kicked backwards and forwards between the Federal and the State governments. But the State Government is basically responsible for the hospital system, which is breaking down. People are not getting the care they expect. We hear allegations of patients dying in hospitals through lack of care or misadventure because hospitals do not have the necessary funds, staff, buildings or equipment.

If I were Treasurer I would put the $425 million straight into the health budget as an emergency grant to improve the hospital system now—not fund improvements piecemeal, a little bit this year and a little bit next year, when the hospital system is facing an emergency now. I understand the Government's approach, and I am not Treasurer, so I accept the Government's approach on this matter. But, if I were Treasurer or Premier I would—from even a political point of view—put the $425 million straight into the hospital system, giving it a money transfusion to bring about some rapid improvements.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.50 p.m.]: This legislation sums up so much about this Government. It reflects a Government that is determined to starve in a sea of plenty; that is so ideologically blinded that it cannot see what is right under its nose. In brief, this legislation is the Government's proposal for the allegedly unexpected surplus it has generated over the past year. Instead of spending the money on much-needed public infrastructure, the Government proposes putting it away, as an investment, and spending only the interest. I will speak in more detail on that proposal. But the most urgent question to answer is: What is really going on here?

I believe that this legislation speaks to both this Government's strength and its overwhelming weakness. The strength demonstrated by this legislation is the economic canniness of the Government, defined in the narrowest of terms as the "generation of a surplus". Mind you, it cannot all be attributed to skill on the Government's part. It has been very, very lucky. It has been lucky to oversee a beautiful and desirable city dominated by financial institutions—which is one of the few globalisation winners benefiting from the economic processes that are impoverishing much of our planet. The Government is also lucky to have had many years of ineffective Opposition, which has let the Government get away with its pet projects while shamelessly running down many of our essential services.

And, most importantly, this Government has been lucky to inherit a huge amount of infrastructure, physical and social, which has been carefully built up by preceding generations for our benefit. This infrastructure, including our health system, might be teetering on the brink of collapse, but let us not forget that it is here only because all those who came before were prepared to do their part to create it. That brings me to the other side of this coin: the Government's weakness. The overwhelming and fundamental failure of this Government is that it has forgotten why it is here in the first place.

I remind all honourable members that economic management is not the primary and central role of government. It is only a tool to achieve the real goal, which is the protection and enhancement of the life, security and environment of the people of New South Wales. This is an indisputable truth that this Government, and many in this Parliament—the Treasurer included—have forgotten. Instead, the two major parties have fallen into the same right-wing ideological trap that sees rich countries around the world with increasing social divisions and ever-increasing health and environmental problems. Here in New South Wales, as the economic indicators of our wealth increase, more and more working people are unable to make ends meet, and homeless people are living on our streets.

I see this Government as the mad millionaire hoarding gold under his bed while the rain comes in through the roof. It has simply forgotten that money is a means, not an end. As parliamentarians, not a day goes by that we do not hear some terrible statistic or personal story about how our social infrastructure is being run down. This applies to almost every part of society, from environmental protection to transport services. Our health system is at the forefront of this process of decay. I will not list here the litany of ills facing our health infrastructure. But we all know that the needs of our health system are almost unlimited and the funds to provide for them are all too scarce. Except, what is all this extra money that the Government has produced like a rabbit out of a hat? Why can we not use it to fix some of the problems with our health infrastructure?

The Greens believe that this money must be spent now on the broader health system. As well as hospital infrastructure, it should be spent on capital works in key areas, including community-based mental health services, public dental services, community-based care and health-related transport. Without provision for these health support services there is little point in shortening waiting lists or increasing hospital capacity. It is time to invest in our public health system as a whole. This Government wants us to accept that that is not possible; we could not possibly spend this money where it is most needed, because neo-liberal economists say so!

The provisions of this bill assume, to use an analogy, that the Government is like an ordinary citizen. In the future, there may be a period without income—through retirement, childbearing, choice or misadventure. One sensible thing for an individual to do is to save from day to day for the rainy day tomorrow. Either put money aside and let the magic of compound interest grow the asset or, if the sum is large enough, live off the interest. Yet the Government is not the same as an ordinary citizen. For starters, it does not have to live without income. The amount may vary, but there will always be a pool of citizens contributing to the common good through taxation. We should not run away from the concept of taxation. We do not have to believe that it is a terrible evil that destroys societies. All we have to do is open our eyes to see the benefits our society has gained by ensuring that everyone contributes, according to their means, for the benefit of all. Governments have other special responsibilities, including taking consideration of intergenerational equity.

The Hon. Michael Egan: That's right.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: This means that the generation that has the benefit of an asset should ensure that future generations have the opportunity for the same benefit.

The Hon. Michael Egan: That's right.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: The current generation has had the enormous benefit of the investment by our forebears in public assets, yet this Government is increasingly reluctant to pay for their upkeep. And that is right too! We must ensure that we pass on a system at least as well endowed as the one we inherited. Yet, now that we have the funds to make a contribution—both for ourselves and for the future—we are shirking that obligation. Instead, we are putting aside the money specifically to reduce our future taxation obligations further. Even if the Government were the same as an individual, this decision still makes no sense. Very few of us would be like the mad millionaire, and hoard away a lump sum while our house was falling to pieces. Yet that is nothing less than what the Government is proposing. The needs in our health system are urgent. An injection of capital at this point will not only make an enormous contribution to the health and wellbeing of millions of New South Wales residents, but also save us even more money in the long run, money which will otherwise be wasted in maintenance and delayed work.

The Government must catch up on good old-fashioned commonsense, which tells us that a stitch in time saves nine. Let us remember that, even if you do not have a lump sum, as an individual you can still do something about it if your house is falling down: you can get a loan right now more easily than ever before. Unprecedented numbers of our citizens are resorting to debt not only to invest in assets but also to fund lifestyles they cannot currently afford. The Government encourages debt for individuals: it rewards it through mechanisms such as negative gearing. The Government has overseen an economy based on unprecedented levels of personal debt. But for the Government we are told that debt is terrible and unthinkable.

The Government has gone so far as to legislate a target of zero debt by 2020, despite the fact that we already have one of the lowest public debt levels of any comparable country, despite the fact that such well-known left-wing forces as the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council of Australia advocate publicly for the Government to increase its debt to fund infrastructure, and despite the fact that any person in the street can see that it is fair for government to spread the cost of major infrastructure across generations of taxpayers rather than slug one generation and simply stash the money away as this Government is doing. The Greens call for a change in priorities and policies. We do not advocate an irresponsible program of government borrowing to fund recurrent costs.

However, we believe it is time to reject the major parties' slavish adherence to balanced, or surplus, budgets and zero public debt. Public investment in social and economic infrastructure, such as public schools and transport, should not be abandoned to satisfy an ideological whim, nor should investment in the quality of our environment be abandoned. Collectively investing in our future makes good sense socially, environmentally and economically. The zero debt ideology leads governments to terrible lengths such as the latest we have seen inflicted on the people of New South Wales in yet another round of the failed experiment in so-called public-private partnerships [PPP]—the general phrase that refers to part or whole privatisation of public services. There is a range of different models in the spectrum from relatively innocuous contracting out of construction—

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: I am loath to take a point of order, but Ms Sylvia Hale has strayed so far from the subject matter of the bill that her remarks have nothing to do with it. This has nothing to do with public-private partnerships.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: To the point of order: The bill deals with the financial means of contributing to the provision of health services. I am canvassing those different methods. The Government has pursued a number of methods and is continuing to do so. This is particularly relevant. We are talking about financing the public health system. The remarks I am making are relevant and to the point.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! New Standing Order 92 refers to relevance. I remind Ms Sylvia Hale that merely because we are dealing with a bill that deals with finance does not permit members to refer in their contributions to every single possible financial option. I ask her to restrict her remarks to the content of the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I wish to talk about options to finance the health system, specifically options that have been used for hospitals, one of which has been public-private partnerships. To talk about them intelligently one has to explain what they are. The Government has used public-private partnerships, and they may be an alternative means for funding the system. The remarks I am about to make are relevant because they deal with ways in which the money could be allocated.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: The point of order has been ruled on.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: That is why I will continue with what I am saying in the way I think is appropriate.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! If the member wishes to disagree with my ruling, certain procedures will have to be followed. I would ask her to keep her remarks consistent with the ruling I gave earlier.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I will curtail what I was about to say about public-private partnerships. The Greens believe it is time to move beyond accepting the market and globalisations as defining characteristics that shape government. Governments should be fashioned by and for the people, not by and for markets. The abrogation of government has resulted in a shift away from the provision of services for the public good and towards actions for the benefit of private capital. We have seen this most adversely in the provision of transport infrastructure, education and financial services. Now it is the turn of sensitive social services, such as health and housing. Most recently we have seen this process at work at the Mater Hospital in Newcastle. Four years ago the Mater was saved from privatisation. In 1999 a powerful public and union campaign to save Newcastle hospital resulted in the Government backing down from its plans to privatise it. Some $80 million was pledged for a much-needed redevelopment.

Recently, Hunter Health gave back to the Government the $80 million without asking the community. It is now backing a new plan to redevelop the hospital under a public-private partnership. As a sweetener it is promising that the redevelopment will be expanded to include the relocation of the James Fletcher Psychiatric Hospital and the addition of two linear accelerators to treat cancer. The hospital's argument is that it is forced into this situation by a shortfall of $32 million for a full redevelopment, an assertion that would be laughable if it were not so tragic in light of the $619 million we are debating in the bill. It is not really a matter of financial need. The attack on the Mater is part of this Government's policy of facilitating public-private partnerships, of selling off public assets to the private market. Port Macquarie Base Hospital was an early New South Wales experiment in such partnerships. Its history is unhappy, characterised by reduced services, extended waiting times and massive cost blow-outs. On 9 April 2002 the Premier told the Parliament:

On the privatisation of Port Macquarie hospital, the Auditor-General, in his 1996 report, said it all: 'the Government is in effect paying for the hospital twice and giving it away.' By the way, on my last visit to Port Macquarie the local member demanded that I nationalise the hospital; that I take it back into public ownership. I had to explain to the local media and to the local member that, given what the Auditor-General said, that would be the equivalent of the public sector paying for the hospital three times.

The argument generally offered by governments to justify the privatisation of health is that it is the only way to finance the level of health care the community expects. But the evidence and experience from overseas paints a very different picture. Public-private partnerships in health have been an unmitigated disaster in Europe, Canada, the United States of America and Latin America. In April 2000, the Blair Labour Government trumpeted the virtues of private funding and management of public facilities, such as hospitals and schools. The first cab off the rank in April 2001 was the £87 million Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle. Less than two years later, in February 2003, government health inspectors issued a damning report on its performance and stated:

We observed facilities, originally designated as patient areas, being used as storage areas... shower areas had been converted into storage spaces.

Patients were obliged to wait up to 15 months for scans, wards were frequently closed because of gastrointestinal infections, and staff shortages attributable to unreasonable workloads were acute. The Guardian newspaper's account of 27 February 2003 noted that staff complaints included "doors hanging off and sewage bubbling out of theatre sinks". In the United States of America and Canada, an analysis of the costs of health care provided by the private sector show, not surprisingly, that services are heavily skewed towards the most profitable areas, such as plastic surgery, while millions of poor children go wanting for the most basic services such as inoculations. One internal Canadian report stated:

Virtually every credible study ever done has shown that private, for-profit health care is more expensive, less efficient and of lower quality than public health care.

In Latin America, the World Bank and the Inter-American Bank have been behind the recent privatisation of hospitals in Chile, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela. Private American multinationals have flooded in, targeting the young, healthy middle class. In Brazil, it is estimated that 120,000 doctors serve the wealthiest 25 per cent of the nation while 70,000 doctors serve the bottom 75 per cent. The move to private for-profit providers of health undermines the public sector. In addition to claims for funding, competition leads to competition for patients, with private sector services focused on the rich. The public sector is left as a poor cousin looking after the bottom tier of society.

All of these examples explain why the public-private partnerships acronym, PPP, has been said by some to stand for profligate, perilous and profiteering. This is the failed model that this Government is determined to foist upon the people of New South Wales, after using the residents of the Hunter Valley as guinea pigs. The cynical abuse that the Australian Labor Party is heaping upon its heartland is only an early taste of the agenda for privatisation of health for the whole of the State. The Greens believe that the Government is missing an historic opportunity to put our public services in order. The money should be spent on health infrastructure, and it should be spent now. The ongoing, long-term benefit for the people of New South Wales will not be a pitiful interest payment, at the whim of the finance markets, but better services and reduced maintenance costs.

Most importantly, it will be an asset for the future—our contribution to maintaining the system we inherited. The Greens call upon the Treasurer to reconsider this legislation and to break his blind commitment to economic ideology that is delivering nothing but misery for the most needy among us. I believe I cite the Hon. Patricia Forsythe accurately who said that this is bill builds on risk because "it is based upon interest return on investment". The Greens agree. The health of the community is too important to be gambled on the vagaries of the stock market and company profits, but we disagree that the retirement of debt is the outcome to which the money should be directed. The Greens assert that it is only by direct investment in the provision of publicly funded health services and community welfare that the interests of the community of New South Wales will be truly served.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [6.14 p.m.]: I do not object to the Appropriation (Health Super-Growth Fund) Bill, but I wish to make some important points in relation to it. I support the sentiments expressed by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Ms Sylvia Hale that indeed the Government should be spending more on health services and could use this money to achieve a very good purpose. I also make the point that this bill is obviously a political ploy by the Government to shift the blame for the increased taxes imposed on New South Wales clubs by using the rationale that the revenue will be used to ensure the future of the health system.

During the second reading stage the Government indicated that it has benefited significantly from stamp duty revenue and, consequently, has benefited from Australia's successful migration program. It is ironic that the Premier forever complains that New South Wales has too many migrants but does not acknowledge the contribution made by migrants to the State's revenue. This bill is a cynical political exercise by the Treasurer to hide money for future use. If there is a need for a significant sum of money in an emergency, will the Government and the Treasurer be able to use this money during elections? Paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 7, "Payments into and out of the Fund", states:

(2) There is to be paid out of the Fund:

(a) such amounts as are determined from time to time by the Treasurer for the purpose of public health capital works and services, and—

and I emphasise "from time to time". Paragraph (b) states:

(b) all other payments required or authorised by or under this or any other Act to be paid from the Fund.

As I see it, this legislation is nothing but a political exercise for the future benefit of this Government.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.17 p.m.]: I support the bill, albeit with a number of caveats. The New South Wales health system is not being well managed and has a number of problems. This bill suggests a certain philosophy. Some years ago the Government would have borrowed money in order to deliver a good service. One might have expected that if the Government did not have to borrow money, it would spend the money it has on delivering a good service. We have now reached the stage at which the only money that is being spent is interest that is earned on the money the State has. We have moved from the position of having $5 and spending $100 to having $100 and spending $5. There is insufficient money to deliver services that are needed, and this is obviously a very big problem. The figure mentioned over four years was $78 million and, assuming that the interest rate is maintained at approximately 4.5 per cent, the interest payment on the fund will amount to approximately $2 million.

Not content with that, the Opposition wants to retire debt because the interest rate would be 5.5 per cent saved, as opposed to 4.55 per cent spent. How is that supposed to fix the health system? It is interesting that the Government wants to spend the money on some good things, such as the provision of mental health services in Broken Hill, the improvement of Bloomfield Hospital and a number of other country hospitals, and the purchase of a linear accelerator. Some of the money will be spent on technology, some of it will be spent on buildings and some of it will be spent on services. My view is that there is nothing wrong with debt, if it is backed by equity. In a normal domestic arrangement, if there is debt but no assets, there will be a debt-servicing problem that is usually accompanied by increases in interest rates and concomitant rises in anxiety among borrowers.

Had there been sensible borrowing to fund infrastructure, if necessary the infrastructure could be sold. Of course, people in the world capital markets would be far less frightened. My view is that if we need services, or if we can be given a return even vaguely commensurate with the interest rate—a per cent here and there is not critical—or if the value of the asset is climbing, it is reasonable to borrow. The aversion of the Opposition to total debt is foolish. It will mean that effectively we will not get the services we need and could have with responsible economic management.

I notice that the receipts from poker machines are $46 million and that they will go into the fund. That is commendable, although one cannot help noticing—as pointed out by the Opposition—that the Government is in some difficulty as a consequence of the Parliament receiving many petitions each day about the poker machine tax. My view is that poker machines do a lot of harm and the Government should use that tax for good works. The Government should scale back that tax, so the human misery created by the machines would be mitigated—and less money would be gambled.

The Hon. Rick Colless: People will bet on two flies crawling up a wall.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: In response to the fatuous interjection, the suggestion that people would bet the same amount of money on two flies crawling up a wall as they would spend in poker machines is not borne out in any way. It is true that people can bet on flies crawling up a wall, but is it not strange that they actually do not? It is a shame that a consequence of all this will not be good preventative services, because that is what we really need. It is estimated that it would cost about $50 million to run an effective Quit campaign that would pay for itself in reduced health problems and costs. That investment in health is never mentioned in the same breath as investment in technology, for example. The health system is in dire crisis at various levels, including its personnel level. Members would be aware of the fuss that has resulted from the allegations concerning Campbelltown hospital made on the television program 60 Minutes by three nurses, Sheree Martin, Nola Fraser and Vanessa Bragg.

Those three nurses, as well as Val Owen and Yvonne Quinn, who were effectively forced out of their jobs, and two other nurses still working for the Department of Health, whom I will not name, and a high-ranking union official, are concerned about the way that the union colluded to obtain deeds of release rather than resignations for the nurses. It is claimed that an amount of $3,000—what might loosely be called hush money—was paid when people were resigning. Effectively, over-award money was used to buy their silence about Macarthur health services. That grave matter must be investigated. It has been suggested that an inquiry beyond that being conducted by the Health Care Complaints Commission should be held. The commission is inquiring into 117 cases referred to it by nurses who have either resigned or been forced out—depending on which way one looks at the matter. A year ago, some nurses were in the same position, with no income. Among those 117 cases, there were 17 deaths.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: My point of order is on a basis similar to that raised earlier, and that is relevance to the leave of the bill. I seek guidance as to whether the matters currently being canvassed come within the leave of the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: To the point of order: I am talking about the need for funding in the health system. I am expanding the point that there is a problem, and I will lead to how money could be used to alleviate the problem. I was talking about the manner in which money was spent. I spoke about country hospitals and preventions as alternatives to the spending of the money. I will now give another option for the use of the money. I believe that I had to establish that there is something wrong with the Department of Health and then state how to fix it. That is exactly what I am doing. I have talked about money for health and how it is spent.

The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: To the point of order: May I suggest that there is no point of order. In his second reading speech, Minister Knowles said:

The additional funding on health capital will bring forward 14 major projects.

He mentioned every project in detail. Therefore, I argue that it is quite relevant.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Further to the point of order: It may be relevant to discuss health funding in relation to this matter, but to dredge through the entrails of a particular matter being considered at the moment by the Health Care Complaints Commission seems inappropriate. As the Treasurer indicated earlier, because the words " expenditure" or "budget" are mentioned in relation to a bill does not entitle a member to discuss the whole breadth of global economics. Because health was mentioned in relation to this bill, that does not entitle the member to dredge through all matters that may be related to health.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Further to the point of order: We are talking about problems in the health system. I have not dredged through all matters of the Health Care Complaints Commission, although, I must confess, that with 117 cases available to dredge my way through there is quite a lot I could say. It may or may not be the case that world economics are not relevant to the bill. However, if they involve health financing, they may be relevant in a globalised finance. I am not in any way talking about globalised finance. I am talking about people dying because of the mismanagement of hospitals in New South Wales. If that is not about health and health funding, I do not know what is. The purpose of this Parliament is to raise issues that are of importance for the good governance of New South Wales. As such, I believe that I am on absolutely rock solid ground.

The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: Further to the point of order: If the Government can argue why there is a need for 14 major projects, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans can argue why money should not be spent on the Macarthur and Campbelltown health systems. His argument is quite valid.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! Questions relating to the health system as they were being discussed are within the leave of the bill. However, issues that are currently on the Notice Paper relating to alternatives to inquiries are well beyond the leave of the bill. I ask the member to be mindful of that advice for the remainder of his contribution.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The cases in which there are errors suggest that the people involved in making those errors need to have them clearly identified. The errors must be managed correctly and those involved need to be counselled, trained or referred to a mentor who can ensure that they do the right thing in future. That renewal process will require some funding. If, as has been alleged, matters are covered up and incident reports are lost and so on, a great deal of management attention is required. The matter must be examined extremely thoroughly. If there are cases of incompetence—and the interim reports from the Health Care Complaints Commission state that there are many, well-documented cases of fundamental incompetence by medical staff and other staff—it may be that there are not sufficient competent staff to do particular jobs.

If it is difficult to recruit a doctor to work a night shift at a hospital because the pay that doctor would receive for that shift is less than an incompetent general practitioner could make in daylight hours, clearly the system will get worse than hiring an incompetent general practitioner to do the night shift. It is a question of resources, because basically all jobs compete in a job market. If a job does not have prospects, or if it is unpleasant, it may be difficult to fill it. Perhaps extra payment is needed to encourage competent people to take on the work.

These suggestions have already been made. Management has hidden the fact that some employees have bad track records—an extremely serious matter that must be examined and corrected by the Government by allocating additional resources to the health area. Hospitals must implement better quality control systems—another important aspect. Generally, teaching hospitals have a high standard of care and they employ large numbers of competent people. If there is one incompetent person in the system that factor will be picked up by someone else. Reasonable and credible peer review processes will establish whether some people have done less well or whether they have stayed in hospital longer than required, which is good.

At the other end of the spectrum, some hospitals that are difficult to staff might be employing less competent people, thus making it difficult for them to update procedures. On the weekend I spoke to someone who came from a hospital that was not in the Sydney central business district. He said that the hospital had to declare its position as an area of need and that it advertised internationally to obtain people to staff it. It did that reasonably successfully, although it had to discipline and get rid of one person who was not competent and who had slipped through the scheme. Management is relying on foreign graduates to staff that hospital. The health system must be examined thoroughly, in particular in the Macarthur area, which is experiencing a significant number of difficulties. Money should be spent on prevention and in areas of need. Simply throwing money at this problem will not resolve it. We must determine what is needed in NSW Health, in particular in the quality control area.

The Hon MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.31 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contribution to debate on this bill, which I commend to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Tony Burke) left the chair at 6.33 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.16 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave not granted.

I refer honourable members to the second reading speech that was delivered by the Minister in the other place on 12 November.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [8.18 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill, which will amend the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998—the principal Act—to clarify the discretion of the court to order the use of audiovisual links in certain criminal proceedings where serious security concerns have been identified. It will also amend the Evidence Legislation Amendment (Accused Child Detainees) Act 2003, which made uncommenced amendments to the principal Act. The Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 provides that if an accused detainee is appearing to give evidence in a substantive criminal matter such as a trial, committal or appeal, he or she will be entitled to make a physical appearance in court unless the court orders otherwise. The court may make an order requiring appearance by audiovisual link only if it considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so.

As I said earlier, the Opposition does not oppose this bill. It is important to note the scandalous way in which this bill was introduced by the Government and debated in the other place. The Government introduced the bill in the Legislative Assembly at approximately 10.22 p.m. on 12 November and debate on the bill was resumed at 10.00 the next morning. The shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Epping, quite rightly complained about the fact that the Government had taken that course without allowing proper and appropriate time for the Opposition to consult the Law Society or the Bar Association on the implications of the bill. Members were also deprived of the good work done recently by the Legislation Review Committee. Many honourable members recognise the useful work that is done by that committee. However, the report of that committee was not available when the Government rammed the bill through the lower House.

There is no reason why the Government should have rammed this bill through the lower House. It reflects an arrogance and a spin doctoring by the Government—issues on which Opposition members have commented on many occasions—and it does no justice to a Government in a State as important as New South Wales. We now have the report of the Legislation Review Committee on this bill—a report dated 18 November 2003. I refer honourable members to that report, which gives useful background to the bill and describes its purpose. It also discusses in detail the amendments to the bill. The bill will preserve the right of an accused detainee to make a physical appearance in substantive criminal proceedings by retaining the presumption in favour of physical appearance as the default position in most cases.

The amendments in the bill will make sure that the court is equipped to meet community expectations that court proceedings will be conducted in a secure environment that will ensure the physical safety of all court users. That appears to be the major issue in this bill. I refer honourable members to paragraph 9 of the Legislation Review Committee report, which lists a number of factors that a court must take into account in determining whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to direct an accused detainee, other than an accused child detainee, to appear in criminal proceedings. It mentions in particular personal security, the risk of an accused detainee escaping or attempting to escape, the behaviour of the accused detainee and the conduct of the accused detainee while in custody.

The bill is not particularly controversial so it is very difficult to understand why the Government rammed it through the lower House without giving the Opposition and other interested parties the usual opportunities for consultation. The bill involves issues of procedural fairness that are important to the health and safety of the legal system as we know it. The Opposition does not understand the reason for the Government's appalling behaviour in the other place in relation to this bill but we do not oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [8.24 p.m.]: I support the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill, which amends the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998. I think this is very good legislation that enhances court security.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.25 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill. The bill requires an accused who is in custody in a correctional centre, a detention centre, a police station or another place of detention to appear physically before a court unless the court directs otherwise if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the accused detainee appear by audiovisual link before the court. I am sure that we have all read stories about how violent or deranged detainees in American courts have managed to get hold of weapons and attacked the judiciary, court officials and others. The judicial process is constantly threatened by people who believe violence is the way to get their own back on the community.

This bill will clarify the discretion of the court to order that an accused person appear in court by audiovisual link in a criminal hearing when serious security concerns have been identified. The usual process involves a person appearing physically in court unless there is an apprehension that his or her physical presence may lead to violence. The bill makes a number of other minor technical amendments to the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 and consequential amendments to the Evidence Legislation Amendment (Accused Child Detainees) Act 2003. The 1998 Act facilitates the use of audio and audiovisual technology in the courts and allows New South Wales to participate in a substantially uniform interstate scheme. Honourable members may be aware that in a recent case before the court it was claimed that a person had fled to Dubai in order to avoid incriminating himself. However, the court ordered that his evidence be given by an audiovisual link from Dubai and then accepted that evidence. A number of recent high-profile criminal matters have put at risk the security of some officers of the court so we commend the Government for introducing this bill. The bill retains the presumption that a person will appear in court physically but that an audio or audiovisual link may be established if necessary. We commend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.28 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill. We recently supported a bill that regulated how child detainees can give evidence via audio and audiovisual links but this bill goes a step too far in dictating evidence procedures to the courts. The Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 has already trampled on the common law and the traditional practices of the court. The common law says that accused people have a right to appear in court to face charges against them, but that was changed by the 1998 Act. Because of that Act, there is now no automatic right to appear in court in preliminary proceedings. In fact, in those cases there is a presumption in favour of using an audiovisual link.

With substantial criminal matters the presumption is still in favour of physical appearance, that is, accused people have the right to appear in court. But the bill makes further changes. The new rules would allow the court to use audiovisual links for an accused person if that person's physical attendance might threaten the security of the courtroom. This provision might sound reasonable to many members, but it is unnecessary. The courts are capable of making a decision whether an accused would threaten security, and there is no need for a law to spell that out. The courts are capable of assessing security threats and taking steps to deal with them, including the use of audiovisual links, and they have the authority and power to do so.

The bill is not just unnecessary it also creates new problems. Under proposed subsection 5BB (5) (d), one of the factors that might cause the judge to order the use of an audiovisual link is the accused's behaviour in custody. But the accused's behaviour in custody may be no guide to how they will behave in court. And it is not clear who will decide whether that behaviour might recur in court, or might threaten the court. Who will give a judge or a court the evidence about the accused's behaviour in detention and what it means for the courtroom's security? Will it be the Department of Corrective Services? If so, what will the procedures be for this? The Greens are concerned that the bill gives to the Department of Corrective Services considerable power over the rights of accused people to appear in court.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is a great thing.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The interjection of the Minister shows that he is one more Minister for Corrective Services who has gone the Woodham way. We urge the Government to remove this provision from the bill. The courts are the best arbiter of when and how audiovisual links should be used, and the matter should remain in their hands. It should not be in legislation, in regulations that we have not seen yet, or in the hands of the Department of Corrective Services.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions in this debate. The bill contains amendments to the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act. The primary purpose of those amendments is to clarify the existing discretion of the court to require an accused detainee to appear in court by audiovisual link in proceedings where serious and credible security concerns have been identified. If the Hon. Lee Rhiannon read the bill she would find that the answers to many of the speculative questions she posed in her speech are responded to.

Under these amendments there is, in fact, no change to the presumption that accused persons should physically attend court for all substantive criminal matters. The amendments simply refine the discretion of the court by making it clear that there is an option to order appearance by audiovisual link where there are security concerns identified, and such an order is considered to be in the interests of the administration of justice. However, in practice it will only be in unusual and extreme circumstances that courts will make such an order.

The bill reflects the Government's continuing commitment to improving court security to ensure that we have a justice system that is safe and accessible to all users. I believe that the current proposals achieve an appropriate balance between the right of accused persons to be present at trial, and the need to ensure that the physical security of individuals involved in the judicial process is an overriding priority in the rare circumstances where such an approach is warranted. I have had occasion at many correctional centres to speak to inmates who have accessed this material. The satisfaction rate has been extremely high. They are able to follow the procedures extremely well. Many of them, in fact, have commented to me that they prefer to be able to access an audiovisual link in preliminary proceedings, in particular, rather than have to be taken to court, with all the security and other arrangements that that involves.

The proposals in the bill reflect this Government's ongoing commitment to enhancing court security and meeting community expectations concerning the physical safety of all court users. The Hon. Greg Pearce raised a number of these issues relating to the way the bill was handled. To some extent the answer was contained in his own speech when he indicated that the bill was not particularly controversial and, therefore, did not require the level of attention that perhaps other bills might require. In any event, I point out that there was extensive consultation. The matter was canvassed with the courts, the professional associations—the Law Society and the Bar Association—the Legal Aid Commission and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, all of whom have had input and made responses to the proposals in the bill. The bill very much reflects the outcome of those consultative processes. I think that is an adequate response to the concerns raised by the Hon. Greg Pearce. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.36 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.

Our police need and deserve the community's full support in tackling crime and making the community safe.

They need to know that in carrying out their challenging duties—in a fair and impartial manner—they would not be subject to spurious claims that will put them and their families at risk.

They need to know that if a criminal tries to abuse the system to escape justice, that the system will back them up.

That is why today's bill is so important.

It will provide protection against legal claims for police and swing the balance back in their favour.

The bill continues the reforms brought forward under the Civil Liability Act 2002 and Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002.

It strikes the necessary balance—it protects police from personal legal claims while still ensuring officers who have engaged in serious and wilful misconduct can be held accountable.

The bill is governed by a fundamental principle—no police officer should ever fear their home or other personal assets are at risk simply because they have done their job.

In November last year, the Australasian Centre for Policing Research published a paper, Issues in Civil Litigation Against Police.

It found the incidence and nature of civil litigation by members of the public against police is a growing issue of concern.

Although New South Wales has laws to prevent individual police and other public officers from being personally liable for damages arising from their acts or omissions, the Government believes these additional measures are needed.

There is no organisation with greater responsibility for the protection of persons or property than New South Wales Police.

In 2002-03, 44 of the 186 police tort claims involved claims against individual officers as well as the Crown, with a total of 82 officers being individually sued.
Clearly some of these claims against individual officers are lodged as revenge for the entirely appropriate apprehension of criminals.

Although individual officers may not be personally liable to pay damages at the end of civil proceedings, joining them as a defendant is a significant cause of stress—often over an extended period of time.

That is why the New South Wales Police Family Alliance has had serious concerns as this stress extends to officers' families and to the community at large.

I turn to the detail of the bill.

The most significant provisions are in schedule 2 of the bill, which amends the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act.

Schedules 2[1]-[4] are machinery provisions that make that Act easier to read and interpret.

Schedule 2[5] inserts a new Part 4 of the Act to deal with legal proceedings for the torts of police officers. A new section 9B is the central provision of the bill. Sub-section 9B(1) provides that, subject to specified exceptions, a person cannot directly sue a police officer for a police tort claim.

Sub-section 9B(2) provides that in such cases the plaintiff can only sue the Crown.

Sub-section 9E(f) makes it clear that this restriction does not apply where the plaintiff is suing the police officer for something they did in a personal capacity.

The practical effect of sub-sections 9B(1)-(3) is to prevent an individual officer from being directly sued, unless the vicarious liability of the Crown is ultimately an issue in dispute.

Sub-section 9B(4) provides important safeguards for plaintiffs. If the Crown files a defence that makes vicarious liability an issue, then the plaintiff will be able to amend their statement of claim.

Section 9C requires the court, where practicable, to make an initial determination on the issue of vicarious liability where the Crown contends it would not be vicariously liable in the event of the tort being established.

Section 9D requires the court, subject to the exceptions at section 9E, to strike out the claim against any individual officer where the Crown concedes it would be vicariously liable if the tort were established, or where the court makes an initial determination that the Crown would be so liable.

As sections 9C and 9D apply to cases brought against individual officers in their personal capacity, where the issue of vicarious liability is subsequently raised, section 9 makes it clear that the new Part 4 of the Act extends to all claims made against police officers, whether or not acting in a personal or official capacity.

New guidelines and educational material will be developed to support the efficient and transparent management of police tort claims, with officers being made aware of the circumstances in which they may claim privilege and the circumstances in which their admissions can be used in other proceedings.

The Police Association will be fully consulted in developing this material.

Schedule 1 of the bill also amends the Employees Liability Act 1991 to make it clear that police are employees for the purposes of that Act.

Section 9G applies the new provisions to torts committed before the commencement of the section.

As plaintiffs' rights of recovery are not affected by the bill, and the provisions are of benefit to all parties, this retrospective application is appropriate. We do not want a situation where these beneficial reforms do not apply to claims for past events that may be made years in the future.

Section 9A makes it clear that the provisions apply to persons who were police officers at the time of the alleged tort, as civil claims may be made well after the event and an officer has ceased service.

Section 213 limits the personal liability of New South Wales Police for good faith acts or omissions in their exercise of a function conferred or imposed by any Act or law with respect to the protection of persons from injury or death or property from damage.

I would like to take the opportunity today to thank the Police Association for their efforts in drawing these problems to my attention and working with the government and the force to progress these reforms.

I would like to pay special tribute to President Ball, Secretary, Peter Remfrey, and former President Phil Tunchon, for their work to bring the bill to this stage.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [8.37 p.m.]: The Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill is certainly long overdue and the Opposition will not be opposing its passage. The purpose behind the bill is to give additional support to police in the performance of their duties by increasing their protection from civil claims where the Crown would be vicariously liable, whilst maintaining the rights of people to claim against the Crown. People with genuine grievances against members of the Police Force, including those who wish to pursue civil action, will still have appropriate and ample avenues open to them for legal redress. The bill does not extinguish such avenues, so complainants can still turn to civil actions for such redress. However, the bill will assist the police to effectively carry out their duties without the fear that legal procedures will be wrongly directed against them personally.

As I said, the bill is long overdue. The Minister for Police, in a recent briefing paper in support of the bill, admitted that civil claims against police officers have been increasing for some years now. He noted that the police are the only public sector group in which this trend is significant. Clearly, this is a matter that needs to be addressed. The overview of the bill states the objects to be:

to amend the Employees Liability Act 1991 to confirm that police officers are employees of the Crown for the purposes of the Act, and

to amend the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 to require persons seeking damages for torts committed by police officers in the performance or purported performance of their functions as police officers generally to sue the Crown instead of the police officers concerned, and

to amend the Police Act 1900 to exclude any member of NSW Police from personal liability for any injury or damage caused by any act or omission of the member in the exercise by the member in good faith of a function conferred or imposed by or under that Act or any other Act or law (whether written or unwritten).

Police are out there to protect the community, to protect our families, to protect our property. They are there to promote and maintain the peace of our society. Day after day police are putting their safety and their lives on the line. They certainly earn their money, and they have earned the respect and gratitude of all law-abiding citizens. They do not need to have their lawful duties and their effectiveness restricted or subverted by civil actions, or threats of legal actions, which are frivolous, or intimidatory, or which may be designed to gag the police in the proper conduct of their duties. Many will recall an article in the Daily Telegraph of 11 July this year headlined "Arrest me and I'll sue: the $100m problem paralysing our police". The article went on to say:

Police officers are not making arrests for fear they will be sued.

The police force is facing lawsuits demanding almost $100 million compensation for wrongful arrest, assault and malicious prosecution.

Officers fear they will become personally liable for legal action if they make arrests, the Police Association told The Daily Telegraph yesterday.

"It's fair to say that a lot of cops who have been subject to litigation are taking the approach of absolute hands off and not making arrests, because they're not going to be put in a position where their personal assets are put at risk," association president Ian Ball said.

In the past four years, the amount of legal claims against the police force has quadrupled. …

There has been a massive rise in cases of the force being sued by the public and serving and former officers.

The article went on to say:

In some cases, the Crown prosecutors who represent the force are deciding not to represent individual officers, meaning they must find their own legal representation.

Opposition police spokesman Peter Debnam said the Government was not offering the legal support to frontline police that would be offered automatically to the Police Minister if he was sued.

In July this year in a press release the shadow Minister, Peter Debnam, had this to say:

The rapid growth in legal action and contingent liabilities also reflects an increasing dissatisfaction with the Government's treatment of many serving and former police officers.

Frontline policing is already under pressure and the explosion in litigation threatens to further undermine the police budget.

The shadow Minister certainly hit the nail on the head when he made that point. The truth of the matter is that this problem has been growing—it has been growing for some years—and the Government has been well aware of this. In November of last year, for example, the Australasian Centre for Policing Research published a comprehensive paper on this issue entitled "Civil litigation against police". That paper confirmed the proliferation of cases of civil litigation against members of the Police Force. That paper demonstrated, very clearly, that additional measures were required to stop abuse in this area, and to provide reasonable legal protection to the police as individuals. That paper was published 12 months ago! Why has it taken so long for this bill to be conceived and brought before us? Why, for so long, have police officers had the worry, indeed fear, of vexatious and frivolous civil actions being instituted against them personally for merely performing their duties? Why was this fear and burden not lifted from the shoulders of our police long before now?

According to the Minister for Police, in the year 2002-03, 44 of the 186 police tort claims involved claims against officers as well as the Crown, with a total of 82 officers being individually sued. How many police curtailed their crime-preventing activities because of this constant threat hanging over them? According to the President of the Police Association, Mr Ian Ball, in his public statement on 11 July in the Daily Telegraph, police have been placed in that position. This bill, late as it is, will help to produce an environment conducive to the police carrying out their duties and, accordingly, the Opposition does not oppose it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.44 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose this bill. We note that police officers are already protected from personal liability for damages, and that the Minister for Police has indicated that the intention of the bill is not to protect officers from liability but to save them the stress of being a defendant in court proceedings. Presumably, however, they will still be involved as key witnesses and participants in civil cases against the Crown. That is, no doubt, also a stressful experience—although being a witness, rather than a defendant, is undoubtedly less time consuming and less expensive for the police officer involved.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: They don't have that problem in the Soviet Union!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: An old joke! He is hard up for a joke, isn't he?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That was a good one! It slowed the delivery.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: And it has the support of the Leader of the Opposition. Come on! Preferences from this side and a bit of leftist beat-up? Is that the best you can do? The Greens accept the views of the Government and the Police Association that being involved in a case against the Crown as a key witness or participant is less stressful than actually being joined in proceedings as a defendant. Some honourable members who spoke earlier on this bill seem to have made the assumption that almost all tort claims against police are malicious. I do not know how many tort claims against individual police officers are successful, but surely some of those claims are made in good faith.

While acknowledging that police perform difficult and stressful work, we need to guard against any assumption that the police are always in the right. The Greens hope that this bill will not in any way diminish the accountability of police officers, and will not diminish transparency by shielding police officers from public grievances. If there has been misconduct on the part of a police officer, there is no reason to protect that officer from the stress of a civil trial. To some extent the bill allows for this, because the Crown can make claims against police officers to recover damages from an officer who has engaged in serious and wilful misconduct. We hope the Government has the balance right in this bill, and we will monitor the effect it has in practice.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [8.46 p.m.]: I support the Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill, despite the reservations put earlier by Ms Lee Rhiannon, which I share. I note that the Minister's second reading speech delivered in the other House stated that in 2003-04, 44 of the 186 police tort claims involved claims against individual police officers. I also received the letter sent to many crossbenchers by the Police Association of New South Wales. That letter said that this bill affords police officers "long overdue protection from vexatious litigation brought against them personally, when they have undertaken their duty in protecting the community of the State in good faith." The Police Association also advised:

The bill ensures that litigants are still able to pursue damages against the NSW Police Force and that their rights to do so are not impinged. Further, it provides that Officers acting in a private capacity or where they are engaged in serious or wilful misconduct can still be subject to civil litigation.

Therefore, I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.48 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I indicate that we support the Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill. The main purpose of the bill is to increase protection for individual police officers from civil claims. There are times when people become very vexatious against those who may arrest them, sometimes for trivial offences. We know of instances of police being shot simply because they pulled up someone who was speeding in a car, and so on. This bill does not remove the rights of people to take the Crown to court, but it highlights the importance of the increase, in the past decade or so, of civil law claims against individual officers. I am informed that in 2002-03 186 police tort claims were made, 44 involving claims against individual officers, with 82 officers individually sued in those 44 claims.

We acknowledge the important work of the police. We acknowledge also the desire of the Police Association that we support the bill, which we are happy to do. Police officers, who so frequently put their lives on the line, need increased protection, particularly in such a litigious community where vexatious claims are designed to impede police investigations. We support the bill.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.49 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their comments and support for the bill. It is important to note that the bill does not in any way diminish police accountability, contrary to suggestions made by Ms Lee Rhiannon. Police are accountable every day for their work, which is assessed by courts that adjudicate on the merits or otherwise of their actions. Police are also accountable to a whole range of other bodies, such as the Police Integrity Commission and various other statutory bodies. To suggest that police are unaccountable is an insult to the fine work they perform daily as they put themselves at risk to protect the community. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.53 p.m.]: This is certainly shabby legislation. The Minister is in fine form tonight. We have had one bill after the other, although we had a little relief with the last one because there was agreement.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: So far there have been two police bills that you have supported.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I thank the honourable member. I know he has difficulty with scrutiny; we have seen that today. He was subject to a little scrutiny, but we will give him more. We have two principal concerns with the legislation: the abolition of community representation and the extension of the review of the code from every two years to every four years. The legislation is a wonderful example of the current state of the Labor Government—it is getting rid of one of the very few mechanisms through which the general community has a formal say. The code of conduct for politicians should reflect community values, and the only way to ensure that they are reflected is to include the community. Labor members of Parliament have no idea, and the Opposition is no better. Community representation is such a good idea that the Greens say we should bring the Houses into alignment by introducing it in this place rather than eliminating it in the other place. The Government is being inconsistent. It could have taken another direction if it sought to achieve consistency.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the rather sad comment from the Minister. Again, he is rather hard up for anything original to say. It is a good idea to have a legislative committee that can consider matters of privilege, but surely this does not have to occur at the expense of community representation. It would not be difficult to set up two different committees to handle the two different functions. The Greens oppose extension of the review from every two years to every four years. Circumstances can change and weaknesses can be exposed.

It would be silly to have to wait up to four years before the code could be improved to reflect the lessons learned. A two-year review is hardly onerous. If there is no pressing need or demand for change, presumably the review can be relatively brief. It is time for the Government to lift its game. It had an opportunity, but that opportunity has been lost. The Government takes us down its path of secrecy and avoidance of scrutiny whenever it can. It takes opportunities in this House to use conservative members to pass this type of legislation. We need more accountability, not less.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The principal purpose of the bill is to provide for the reconstitution of the Standing Ethics Committee in another place as the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, and allow the committee to take a broader role in matters of privilege. Currently the other place has no committee to which matters of privilege can be referred for consideration. By contrast, the Legislative Council has such a committee, and honourable members will no doubt be aware of its important role in contributing to debate on, and understanding, privilege.

It was suggested in debate that the bill would reduce accountability, but it is difficult to see how that could be so when the draft resolution to establish the new privilege and ethics committee would give it exactly the same functions as the current committee, with an additional role in relation to parliamentary privilege. The expanded role in relation to privilege will mean that such matters can be considered in a bipartisan manner. Further, it will bring the committee in the other place broadly into line with a committee in this House. It cannot be suggested seriously that procedures for dealing with matters of privilege in this House have resulted in less accountability.

The bill clearly recognises the importance of community representatives in contributing to the development of the code of conduct. The committee will be able to co-opt members when reviewing the code to ensure that it reflects community standards. Therefore the Government does not support the view that this will lessen accountability. Concerns were also raised about permanent community members. As I stated previously, with the reconstitution of the committee with a privilege role it is no longer appropriate to have permanent community members.

The Legislative Council does not require the appointment of community members to its committee. However, there is a provision for co-opting. The history of this committee, which is enshrined in legislation, flows from amendments to a bill presented to this House some years ago when the Legislative Council elected to establish its own committee under the standing orders rather than have a joint committee with the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly, having agreed to the amendments made by the Legislative Council, has the odd situation of its committee being enshrined in legislation, unlike the analogous committee of the Legislative Council. The Legislative Assembly has taken a view on the way its committee is to be conducted, and that ought to be respected. I note that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe reflected on that in her comments. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan Ms Fazio Ms Griffin

Mr Hatzistergos Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Robertson

Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

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

Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Hale Mr Lynn Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [9.08 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.08 p.m.]: I urge honourable members to vote against this bill. I believe that the model established in the upper House is flawed. The Standing Ethics Committee was established in 1994 under amendments to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act to draft a code of conduct for members of the Legislative Assembly. The code was produced and was first adopted by the Legislative Assembly in May 1998. There is currently no coverage of privilege matters by the committee. On 9 November 1998 the Legislative Council established a Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: In effect, the honourable member is making a second reading speech instead of indicating whether the bill should proceed from the second reading to the third reading. I ask you, Madam Deputy-President, to rule that he should direct his remarks to that central question: Should the bill proceed to the third reading?

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: I find it incredible that the Minister would take that point of order. It is a very rare occasion indeed that we would want to hear the Australian Democrat speak, especially on the third reading of a bill. However, we heard only a few words from the member, and it is certainly contrary to the practice of this House to attempt to stop a member from speaking on the third reading of a bill when the member has something he or she wants to say. In this case we have not heard more than introductory words from the member, and it would be quite outrageous and contrary to the normal procedures and courtesies of the House to stop him from speaking.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order: Today there has been considerable discussion about members being gagged. Members on the Government benches have attempted to do that a number of times. I am concerned that this is happening again when there is a clear opportunity under standing orders to debate the third reading of a bill. I would hope that in the spirit of openness, and to enable the House to fully debate matters, the member will be allowed to continue his speech.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: To the point of order: I recognise that obviously I must confine my remarks to stating why this bill should not go to the third reading. I have completed my introductory remarks and would be more than happy to stick to that point.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! It is obviously not the intention of the Government to gag a member at the third reading stage of the bill. It is clear also that at the third reading stage of a bill a member has a last opportunity to state why the bill should not be read a third time. Provided the member stays within the clear guidelines set down by past Presidents, I will allow him to proceed. I remind him that this is not an opportunity to speak because he may have missed the call at the second reading stage; it is a last opportunity for him to explain why the bill should not be read a third time.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The upper House committee model that is to be the template for the lower House was a huge problem for the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. She stayed within the ethical boundaries, often in tears because of pressures she was put under as the Chair of a committee that was said to be above the influence of Parliament. There is lack of public input to this committee; it comprises only members of Parliament. The Government tried to give itself a majority; so the committee would be a rubber stamp for the Government of the day. How can we possibly have separation of powers in that situation? I urge honourable members not to agree to let the bill go to the third reading, because the committee model in this House is flawed. We need some input from people beyond members of the House to examine our privileges and ethics. The lower House should not disregard input from non-parliamentary members. There is no reason why the Assembly should follow such a model, and I urge that the bill be rejected at the third reading.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.13 p.m.]: We should proceed to the third reading vote. This House should not interfere with the procedures of the other place. The lower House has put forward its proposals and we are simply agreeing to them. Under the parliamentary model followed by this Parliament, each House governs itself. Imagine if the other place directed this House as to how it should organise and conduct its privileges committee. We would not like that. For those reasons we should proceed to the third reading and pass the bill at the third reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read third time.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.14 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill 2003 proposes to make a number of amendments to legislation governing the New South Wales judicial, parliamentary and public sector employees' superannuation schemes. Most of the proposed amendments stem from Commonwealth reforms that provide for the division of superannuation on marriage breakdown under the Family Law Act 1975. In general terms, the new Commonwealth laws make superannuation part of the marital property and prescribe a range of processes to facilitate superannuation splitting where that is appropriate.

First, the legislation prescribes the information that trustees must give to the parties on request to help them make decisions. Second, it sets down detailed methods for the court to value superannuation interests. In some cases, the Federal Attorney-General is able to approve other methods for valuing entitlements where this is appropriate. Third, the legislation sets out the processes for the couple or the court to either defer the decision about the split by using a payment flag, or to allocate all, or part, of a future benefit entitlement to the member's spouse. Fourth, the legislation provides the rules which will bind the trustee to pay out the spouse's entitlement in certain ways when the member's benefit becomes payable.

The Commonwealth has been able to rely on its constitutional powers to achieve the immediate physical splitting of certain classes of benefits. These are accumulation interests in superannuation funds which are regulated under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. If an order or agreement provides a member's spouse with an entitlement in a regulated accumulation scheme, that person can request the trustee to create a separate benefit in the plan or move the benefit to a different plan. Even if the member's spouse has not made such a request, the scheme's governing rules may empower the trustee to set up a separate account or transfer the spouse's entitlement elsewhere.

The New South Wales First State Superannuation Act 1992 governs the accumulation scheme covering New South Wales public sector employees. It was amended during the spring sitting of Parliament last year, as honourable members would recall, to replicate the framework set out by the Commonwealth for family law entitlements in accumulation schemes. The bill proposes to enable the creation of separate interests in all the public sector defined benefit schemes, wherever this is appropriate. The amendments proposed will also facilitate compliance with the requirements of family law. The Acts to be amended are the First State Superannuation Act 1992, the Judges' Pensions Act 1953, the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, the Police Association Employees (Superannuation) Act 1969, the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, the State Authorities Non-contributory Superannuation Act 1987, the State Authorities Contributory Superannuation Act 1987, and the Superannuation Act 1916.

As might be expected, the legislative amendments are more substantial for defined benefit schemes. This is largely because the design and structure of each of these schemes is unique and the accrual of interests is more complicated to quantify. The impact of the proposed amendments will be to pay the family law superannuation entitlement to the spouse or transfer it to another superannuation fund as soon as possible. At the same time as the entitlement is paid from the fund, there will be a corresponding reduction of the member's superannuation entitlements. The amendments include regulation-making powers to deal with matters of detail. These will include making elections, the composition of payments, periods of payment, calculation of entitlements, calculation of the value of superannuation interests, additional circumstances for payment and the reduction of benefits.

Members of the House will be aware that amendments can be made to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971 only after the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal has first certified that the amendments are warranted. I am pleased to advise the House that the Hon. Roger Boland, constituting the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal, has issued a certificate approving the proposed amendments in accordance with the requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989. The tribunal's determination was gazetted on Friday 7 November 2003. In summary, the proposed amendments will complement the Commonwealth's family law superannuation splitting framework and implement the creation of separate interests wherever possible in the New South Wales public sector defined benefit schemes.

The bill includes also miscellaneous amendments to deal with three issues of a minor nature. These amendments will enable some superannuation changes previously made to be applied consistently across all New South Wales public sector schemes. The first set of amendments will allow pensions paid under the Transport Employees Retirement Benefits Act 1967 and the New South Wales Retirement Benefits Act 1972 to be adjusted in line with the consumer price index in years when the index is less than 1 per cent but more than 0 per cent. The same changes were made to the State Superannuation Scheme, the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme and the Police Superannuation Scheme in late 2000. The changes will mean that all New South Wales public sector pensions can be adjusted to reflect small increases in the index in the year in which they occur.

The second set of miscellaneous amendments extends the definition of "spouse" in the Local Government and Other Authorities (Superannuation) Act 1927, the Transport Employees Retirement Benefits Act 1967, the New South Wales Retirement Benefits Act 1972 and the Public Authorities Superannuation Act 1985 to include de facto partners and same-sex partners. De facto partners were included in the definition of spouse in most New South Wales superannuation schemes in 1993, while same-sex partners were included in the definition of "spouse" in 2000. The proposed amendments will mean that heterosexual and same-sex de facto partners of pensioners will be eligible for a spouse pension in the same circumstances as married spouses. This will bring the definition of "spouse" in these schemes into line with other New South Wales public sector schemes.

The final issue to be addressed is the provision of spouse benefits in the Transport Employees Retirement Benefits Act 1967. The proposed amendments extend the circumstances under which a spouse benefit is payable. This new benefit can be paid when a relationship commences after the member's retirement and there is, or has been, a dependent child of the relationship. The full benefit is available if the relationship existed for three years prior to the member's death. Benefits are reduced on a pro rata basis when the relationship existed for less than three years. The proposed amendments reflect amendments made to the other New South Wales public sector pension schemes in the spring sitting of Parliament last year. Unfortunately, these were unintentionally omitted from the Transport Employees Retirement Benefits Act 1967. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [9.15 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill, which I indicate at the outset the Opposition will not oppose. The bill, which is rather lengthy and amends quite a number of Acts and superannuation schemes that are relevant in this State, was introduced in the lower House on 12 November and is yet another bill that has come to this House in a relatively short time after its introduction in the other place. No explanation has been offered for the urgent need to proceed with the bill and its detailed amendments. The purpose of the bill is to amend various public sector superannuation schemes to bring them into line with private superannuation schemes—so we have been told by the Government—particularly relating to orders made under the Federal Family Law Act concerning spouse entitlements to superannuation in property settlements. That sounds a reasonably simple intention. But the bill comprises 59 pages of quite complex amendments to a great many Acts. While I am reasonably familiar with this type of legislation, for those not familiar with its complexities and technicalities it is a tall order for them to have to deal with the bill on such short notice.

By way of background, the Commonwealth law governs superannuation schemes for private sector employees, with which many of us have been involved and with which some members will continue to be involved. The law in New South Wales refers to various categories of State employees. A number of New South Wales Acts cover different public sector superannuation schemes which, in many cases, have different bases and which were developed at a time when Commonwealth superannuation scheme legislation might have been different from what it is now. In New South Wales the various schemes and legislative arrangements reflect not only variations in time that occurred as Federal legislation and superannuation schemes changed; they reflect also the different employment arrangements and categories of State employees that have been and are covered in superannuation arrangements.

What schemes will be covered by this legislation? I will refer honourable members to a number of provisions in the bill. However, before doing so, I will refer to a number of Acts that will be amended by this bill to give some idea of the complexity of the superannuation schemes that are being run by the State, the broad spread of those schemes and the complexities with which we are faced in dealing with such a large number of different schemes. I refer, first, to the amendments to the First State Superannuation Act 1992. The explanatory notes to the bill state:

Under the amendments made to other public sector superannuation Acts by the proposed Act, a person to whom payment is made under those Acts of an entitlement under the family law superannuation legislation may nominate a superannuation fund or retirement savings account... into which the payment is to be made. If no nomination is made, the amendments provide for transfer of the payment to the First State Superannuation Fund.

That is one of the machinery provisions in this bill. The amendments include machinery provisions that provide for the receipt of payments that deal with the person on whose behalf the payments are made, in the first case, to the First State Superannuation Fund. They also have to provide for machinery matters such as the establishment of accounts, the crediting of payments to those accounts and all the other administrative processes that must occur to enable a payment to be made. The amendments incorporate new provisions that will allow for the levying of charges relating to administration and other costs arising out of family law superannuation legislation and the payment of those costs by a fund.

As I said earlier, I am attempting to help members understand the breadth of necessary changes that have to take place if we are to give effect to the purpose of this bill. A number of different superannuation schemes will be amended and affected by this legislation. I will refer to them in the order in which they appear in the bill. The bill will amend, first, the Judges' Pensions Act 1953. The bill will insert provisions relating to family law superannuation legislation into the Judges' Pensions Act, including various provisions relating to former judges and persons entitled to receive superannuation benefits. In the case of the Judges' Pensions Act, the Minister has to determine entitlements for the splitting of payments among more than one beneficiary, if that is the case.

There are also provisions relating to machinery matters, such as the setting up of accounts, rollover arrangements, transfer arrangements and—an important aspect of this legislation to which I will refer in a moment—the valuing of entitlements or payments that are still to be determined under regulations to the principal Act. I said that I would refer to that issue later as it is important when splitting and transferring benefits, which is what this legislation is all about. One of the technical issues concerning amendments to the Judges' Pensions Act relates to future benefits. The explanatory notes to the bill state:

Proposed section 15D enables the Minister to reduce a future benefit (including a deferred or preserved benefit) payable to or in respect of a member spouse whose superannuation entitlements are affected by a splitting order or splitting agreement if an amount is paid or payable...

We have to get used to the terminology used in Federal family law superannuation legislation. That provision will also enable the Minister to reduce a benefit payable to or in respect of a spouse or de facto partner of a member spouse. The amendments also specify the accrued benefit multiple for the calculation of superannuation entitlements and other financial aspects of superannuation. As we go through each of the funds we find that various provisions have been inserted to deal with those aspects of the law. There are also technical and machinery provisions that relate to elections, the composition of payments, the periods of payment, the calculation of entitlements, the valuation of superannuation interest and additional circumstances for payment and reduction of benefits to those who continue to receive superannuation benefits.

The bill will amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, which applies to members of Parliament. Without going through all the provisions relating to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme, I note that the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place when referring to the parliamentary scheme indicated that a certificate was required from the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal approving the proposed amendments in accordance with the requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989.

The certificate was issued by the Hon. Roger Boland, constituting the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal. That tribunal's determination that the proposed amendments are in accordance with the Parliamentary Remuneration Act was gazetted on Friday 7 November 2003. In summary, the proposed amendments are designed to complement the Commonwealth's family law superannuation-splitting framework and implement the creation of separate interests wherever possible in the New South Wales public sector defined benefits schemes.

This bill is another of those passed by the lower House before the Legislation Review Committee had the opportunity to review them. Today we received the committee's report on the bill, and I commend to honourable members its useful summary and discussion of the bill. The report gives the background to the bill and discusses the amendments in two groups. Group one amendments are intended to set out the rules and procedures by which the administrator, usually a trustee, of a superannuation scheme may pay out a family law superannuation entitlement. The object of these amendments is to facilitate arrangements for payment of splits under the family law superannuation legislation and to provide for family law superannuation payments to or in respect of non-member spouses. The effect of these amendments is that the payment of benefits to member spouses is no longer liable to be split for the purposes of the family law superannuation legislation. I do not think it is necessary to outline the committee's report in detail as it is available to honourable members to read and to use when examining the bill.

The second group of amendments relates to certain closed superannuation schemes under which deceased members received a pension. The report points out that these amendments extend the right to a spouse pension under the relevant superannuation scheme to a de facto spouse of a pensioner under that scheme. I refer honourable members to paragraph 15 of the Legislation Review Committee's report as I know that several of them will be interested in the bill's definition of "de facto spouse". The amendments in this bill come at a time when we ought to be a little concerned about the management of superannuation liabilities in this State. It is necessary in this bill to deal with a raft of New South Wales employee superannuation funds. As I said earlier, that is partly because over time different superannuation funds were put in place that conformed with different State Government policies and different Federal superannuation regimes. That is one reason for the relative complexity in this area. A second reason is that over time different superannuation schemes were put in place for different categories of State employees.

The bill amends the Police Association Employees (Superannuation) Act 1969 to apply family law superannuation legislation provisions to officers of the Police Association of New South Wales who contribute to the Police Superannuation Scheme and other persons who are beneficiaries of that scheme. It also inserts similar provisions in the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, and sets out various machinery and other provisions that are quite complex if one is not experienced in dealing with the language and the technicalities of superannuation. I think many honourable members will take some time to understand the purpose of the splitting arrangements and their impact on the roll-over provisions and technical matters such as elections, the composition of payments, payment periods, the calculation of benefits, the value of superannuation interests and the reduction of benefits.

This broad fruit salad of bills to be amended includes the State Authorities Non-contributory Superannuation Act 1987, into which family law provisions are inserted. The bill also amends the State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987, the Superannuation Act 1916, the Local Government and Other Authorities (Superannuation) Act 1927 and the Transport Employees Retirement Benefits Act 1967. There is some concern about the commencement date of the bill, and that is highlighted by the Legislation Review Committee. The principal reason for this concern is delegating power to arrive at valuation mechanisms. I note that the New South Wales Government and other State and Territory governments are currently awaiting the Federal Attorney's advice for approved methods to be dealt with in the Federal context, so that does not seem to be a great issue.

As I indicated earlier, there should be some concern in relation to the management of the superannuation liabilities in this State. The most recent Auditor-General's Report, Financial Audits, Volume Four, Total State Sector Accounts, has noted that the liability for unfunded superannuation has increased from 1997-98 to 2002-03. The increase in unfunded superannuation for New South Wales rose from $4.1 billion in 1998 to $15.5 billion in 2003. Whilst there is no great urgency, it should be noted that the unfunded superannuation liabilities have to be met by the State as the employer if there is a shortfall. Given the way that the State is being managed, the fact that this Government has been collecting record revenues but not spending on important infrastructure and on maintenance obligations, and the fact that this Government has had such a record of wasting money, one should be concerned about the State's unfunded superannuation liabilities. As I mentioned at the outset, the Opposition does not oppose this complex and lengthy technical legislation, which is designed to implement effectively the Federal family law superannuation arrangements, and other matters.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.42 p.m.]: Superannuation is a frightening and frustrating prospect for most people. Our very survival when we are 85 and sucking our gums might depend on superannuation, but that fact does not make the subject any more comprehensible. Understanding superannuation requires immense effort. It is like reading for hours and hours the worst novel one could ever read. Fortunately my staff researched the topic, and I read the Government's briefing paper, but the clearest elucidation was found in the Legislation Review Digest. The Legislation Review Committee offered a good summary of the options.

I must confess that when the Legislation Review Committee was created by the Government I thought it was a half-baked option. I wanted more evidence for and against Government legislation. That, I wanted evidence-based legislation. I wanted a committee that would review the origin of legislation and the evidence on which it was based. The Legislation Review Committee does not do that but merely defines legislation and measures it against various selected indices, one of which is the delegation power. That power is the only one that is questionable. There are three aspects to the legislation. The first is in relation to the rules for splitting benefits if the member who is the beneficiary of the scheme separates from their partner. The second is who may benefit—the de facto or the same-sex partner, who is now included—if the scheme member dies. That is Australian Democrats policy. We are keen to see same-sex partners included. I congratulate the Government on introducing the legislation without fuss.

The Hon. Don Harwin: It is nothing new unfortunately. We did it last term.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, we did it last term. There is no issue, and it is included in the legislation. That is the way it ought to be.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Let me make it quite clear. It is not new. We did it last term.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That is true, it is a matter of routine, which is how it should be. I say that is a good thing. The third aspect is that the valuation of the super-backed scheme relies on Federal methodologies. Obviously consistency is necessary between Federal schemes State schemes. As the Hon. Greg Pearce said, the legislation incorporates many other bills. Obviously this was a complicated but worthwhile drafting exercise, and I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.44 p.m.]: The Christian Democrats support in general the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the various Acts and a regulation regarding public sector superannuation schemes. There are some amazing anomalies to which I will refer. A number of amendments to legislation governing the New South Wales judicial, parliamentary and public sector employees superannuation schemes are proposed. It has been said to us that the proposed amendment stems from Commonwealth reforms. I should point out that in a couple of areas it does exactly the opposite to what the Commonwealth intended. The Minister's incorporated second reading speech states:

The bill also includes miscellaneous amendments to deal with three issues of a minor nature.

It is to one of these minor matters to which I want to refer, and I believe it is no minor matter. In fact, the Government is out of step with public opinion. The speech mentions that in 2000 de facto partners were included in the definition of a "spouse" in most of the New South Wales superannuation schemes dating back to 1993, while same-sex partners were included in the definition of a spouse in 2000. It is interesting that in the bill something quite different is mentioned. Some of these schemes, of course, restricts "spouse" to a widow or widower, including opposite sex de facto partners when there is no widow or widower. Somehow or other the Government indicates that the bill includes same-sex partners retrospectively, indicating the bill that was passed in 2000.

Without referring to the passing of that bill, which is a matter of history, I make the point that the inclusion of same-sex partners devalues marriage and the commitment of married couples. The Government, in seeking justice for a few, denies the commitment of the many. People may live together but that does not make them spouses. In fact, the definition of "spouse" in each of the bills mentioned means a legally married spouse or someone who was. There is no reference anywhere in any of the bills to "same-sex". Each of the bills or Acts previously before us, under the definition, mentions "spouse". For example, amendment to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, into which we all pay money, says that a spouse means "a person who is or was married to that person".

The definition under the amendment to the Police Association (Employees) Superannuation Act says that the "spouse of a person means a person who is or was married to that person". It is not possible in Australia for a same-sex person to be married as that is against the law. The amendment to the State Authorities Non-contributory Superannuation Act 1987 again states that the "spouse of a person means a person who was married to that person". One cannot be married in a same-sex relationship. Two people can live together, as a couple of pigeon breeders might decide to live together, but they are not married. It is against the law for people of the same-sex to be married, and the various Acts point this out. If one goes through the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill, where does it say that this will also involve same-sex couples? The fact is it does not. It only refers to spouses.

The Commonwealth Government's changes to the Family Law Act have been mentioned as the main reason for the changes proposed by this bill. In fact, the Commonwealth Government did not agree to include same-sex couples in the definitions it provided for in those legislative changes. Although that definition was inserted in the Senate, it was removed when the bill again came before the House of Representatives. In any of the acknowledged dictionaries—including those used here in Parliament, either the Macquarie or Oxford—"spouse" means a wife or a husband, but it does not mean two people of the same sex. No dictionary includes as "spouse" a person who merely cohabits with another. In fact, the Oxford dictionary goes into the Latin origin of the word "spouse", and gives the definition of a person of the opposite sex.

The Labor Party has not accepted same-sex marriages—I give emphasis to the term because there is no such thing—elsewhere in Australia. The measure in the bill is a move by stealth to provide more support for same-sex relationships. I believe this was part of a sleight of hand by a former Attorney General. The proposed change does not represent public opinion. It is bad law. As I said, the definitions rule out same-sex partners as spouses. We do not want to hold up the entire bill because of this matter, but we make the point that the Government is quite wrong in regarding persons in same-sex relationships as spouses who should share superannuation entitlements.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.51 p.m.]: The Greens support the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill and particularly welcome some of its provisions. We certainly believe it is about time the remaining superannuation schemes were altered to recognise same-sex relationships. I have spoken on this matter on a number of occasions in this House, and it is something that we will continue to work for. This is an overdue reform, and the Greens strongly support it. We are also pleased to see reform that will allow the payment of benefits to spouses to satisfy property settlement agreements and orders made under the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975. This is an important issue of social justice, particularly for women, in our society.

In the great majority of cases the male partner in a marriage or a de facto relationship is the higher wage earner over the period of their working lives, and therefore ends up with most of the superannuation entitlements. We would all have heard of cases of considerable injustice following the separation of couples because fair distribution of entitlements is not provided for under the law. This disparity in income is caused by a number of factors: unequal pay rates, discrimination, lack of services such as child care, and the fact that in most cases it is women who stay at home with children—work which, in our society, is undervalued in a financial sense, therefore reducing women's earning capacity.

It has been an accepted principle of family law for many years that a spouse who has contributed to a relationship by raising children and maintaining a household should be entitled to an equal share of the assets of both partners. It is a very important principle, and one that I hope all honourable members support. This bill effectively extends that principle to superannuation, which has been protected from property settlement orders. There is absolutely no reason why superannuation should be treated differently from any other form of property. With regard to the sections of the bill that extend the definition of "spouse" to include de facto partners and same-sex partners in six Acts, those reforms are long overdue. It is outrageously discriminatory to exclude de facto or same-sex relationships. To do so would be simply to ignore reality and to devalue the lives of many people. I acknowledge that similar legislative provisions have been passed before. The Greens were pleased to be able to support that legislation, and are pleased to support this all-encompassing bill.

Given that Labor has been in power for 8½ years, one has to wonder why Labor has allowed such discrimination to continue for so long. I must put on record that it is a disgrace that Labor took that amount of time to make these reforms. Yes, it is good that they are now before us, but it is disturbing that they took so long. Nevertheless, today is a positive day for those in same-sex relationships in New South Wales, and that is something to be celebrated. This bill will recognise, legally, many relationships that have previously been denied that recognition. The Greens welcome these changes, and we call on the Government to continue this process by removing discriminatory provisions from the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Adoption Act, amongst others.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.54 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party, as Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes said earlier, supports the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill, but wants to put on record our opposition to the promotion of the same-sex spouse concept. The bill appears to be quite confused. In fact, from our study, the bill itself makes no reference at all to same-sex spouses. In fact, everywhere one looks at the definitions in the bill the same meaning is given. For instance, on page 18, where the bill deals with amendment of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, the definition states that, for the purpose of this legislation, "spouse of a person means a person who is or was married to that person". Legally, that excludes same-sex partners, because legally they cannot be married. The same comment applies to the amendments to the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, in respect of which the definition is contained at page 26. There it says "spouse of a person means a person who is or was married to that person". Each page of the bill repeats that definition; that is so because it is dealing with the same category of persons who are in a superannuation scheme, including State employees. At page 36 the definition is again that "spouse of a person means a person who is or was married to that person".

However, as has been pointed out already, the second reading speech that has been supplied to members of this Chamber says that same-sex partners were included in the definition of a spouse in 2000. Further, according to item 15 on page 46 of the Legislation Review Committee's Legislation Review Digest No. 6 of 2003, "de facto spouse" is defined to include same-sex partners. In the second reading speech delivered in the other place the Parliamentary Secretary said that the term spouse includes same-sex partners. However, that definition is not included in the bill. We are not unhappy about that, because I intended to move an amendment to remove such same-sex provisions from the bill. But we cannot find any reference to same-sex partners in the bill.

Also, to show how time changes, when I picked up the dictionary in this Chamber to look up the definition of "spouse" I found my notes from 2000 still in that very page of the dictionary! It says that "spouse" means husband or wife; and the Latin origin is the word sponsus, which literally means "betrothed, married". So the Labor Government may want to hold back the waves at the beach, or turn night into day, but it cannot change the meaning of words—even if it tries to do so in legislation. Interestingly, the Federal Coalition Government, led by Prime Minister John Howard—who is a very strong supporter of the traditional family and traditional marriage—will not accept any same-sex amendments. Up until now, in spite of every effort by the Greens and the Australian Democrats in the Senate to move such amendments and to make amendments to bills to move them in the same direction, and despite those amendments being passed in the Senate, when the bills go back to the House of Representatives the Coalition Government rejects them.

In the past few weeks amendments about same-sex relationships were passed only because for the first time in the Federal Parliament the Labor Party voted for them. What has happened at the Federal Labor level to bring about a major change in Labor Party policy? At the State level I know that the Labor Party has a different view. The Federal Labor Party has always adopted a more conservative position than the Labor Party in New South Wales and the other States—it is more pro marriage and more pro family. Other speakers have referred to discrimination, but we object because it is nonsense to suggest that one can have a same-sex spouse. It is simply illogical because it is impossible. We object also because to give same-sex relationships the same recognition as marriage would undermine the importance of marriage in our society. We do not oppose the bill because we cannot find any reference to same-sex in it. We support the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [10.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the bill, which I commend to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House, documents on the ventilation of the M5 East and other road tunnels, the subject of a disputed claim of privilege by Ms Lee Rhiannon, and identified in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter Sir Laurence Street, dated 4 November 2003, as not privileged.

The Clerk informed the House that additional documents had been returned to the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Roads and Traffic Authority according to the recommendations in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter requesting that certain portions be masked before being made public.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [10.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [10.03 p.m.]: The Carr Government's tax grab has reached such mammoth proportions that the residents of New South Wales are being taxed every time they step out their front door. Tax is being paid on everything from video hire to garbage disposal, proving that the Government is addicted to high taxation. The people of New South Wales are the highest-taxed citizens in Australia. They are entitled to ask Bob Carr where all their tax money has gone. I raise this particularly in view of the most recent report of the Auditor-General on the total State sector accounts—volume 4 of 2003. The report of the Auditor-General gives the lie to the frequent claims by the Treasurer that he has produced surplus budgets each year he has been the Treasurer. The report makes it quite plain that, although we have had surplus results for most of the time, that was not the case for the 2000-01 financial year.

We now have many sneaky, little-known taxes such as the hire of goods duty that is applied to rental items such as videos, DVDs, cars, televisions, fridges and even dinner suits. For every $7.50 charged to hire a new release DVD renters are paying the Government 11¢. If they are not returned on time the late fee also attracts a tax. I do not intend to refer to the clubs tax. Last year the hire of goods duty raised $75 million for the Government. By 2006-07 that tax is expected to jump to $92 million. We know that every man, woman and child in New South Wales pays an average of $1,990 per year in State taxes compared, for example, with the average tax of $1,229 paid in Queensland. Each year the Government reaps in billions of dollars from taxation, yet it continues to cry poor.

The Government is receiving billions of dollars from the stamp duty windfall, but it cannot say where the money is going. Again I refer to the Auditor-General's report in which he makes the point that the State's net liabilities are rising. He points out that the main cause is underfunded superannuation liabilities. Although the economy is strong, most recently the strong position of the Government has relied on very strong economic activity that is due primarily to the excellent policies of the Howard Federal Government and real estate activity in New South Wales, which is now starting to decline. We cannot see where the money has gone except, for example, waste on Millennium trains. Everywhere we look there is a lack of commitment of funds to infrastructure development and maintenance of infrastructure, which are the core fundamental areas of State responsibility. If we cannot see the Government allocating rivers of money to maintenance and infrastructure, we should be concerned about the future of our State.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [10.08 p.m.]: Yesterday, with the Mayor of Gulargambone, I had the incredibly exciting honour of going to Gulargambone to officially open its multipurpose centre. The Mayor of Coonamble represented the Federal Government and I represented the Minister for Health, Maurice Iemma. Under the Sinclair report and in the infancy of the rural health plan, Gulargambone was not defined as a place that needed a multipurpose centre. But the people of the town worked very hard to prove that they needed a health entity that included inpatient beds, and they did it! The people of Gulargambone have an excellent facility that has an in-patient holding area for people who perhaps need to stay overnight. They also have a wonderful dialysis unit, which certainly is not a facility for sick people needing dialysis but for those who have home dialysis and are not coping at home. The unit obviates the need for such people to travel to Dubbo for dialysis services. Honourable members would be aware that kidney disease is a major issue in country New South Wales.

The service also has a beautifully decorated palliative care unit, which has a comfortable bed, a lounge room and a full-size bathroom. The unit provides facilities for families to stay with a patient, if that is necessary. Staff who are trained in administering palliative care services are available within the centre. One of the major gains for country towns is to have their own home nursing services. The residence for those who live in the Gulargambone multipurpose service is excellent: it contains four hostel beds for people who are still able to look after themselves. It was a very proud day for Gulargambone because the local people had fought for and won a multipurpose centre.

The process for setting up a multipurpose centre is very complex. The area health service and representatives from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing negotiate with the community as to the type of health service that is appropriate for a particular town. It has to fit in with the area health plan and also the rural health plan. The people of Gulargambone will receive the level of service they require irrespective of where they enter the health service. If they need only a community health service, that service will be provided in Gulargambone by visiting practitioners. If they need a general practitioner, but not urgently, a regular service is provided during the week by a practitioner from Gilgandra.
If they need a specialty service or 24-hour admission with acute care and medical officers on call or close by, they are transferred to Dubbo. If patients need a tertiary service the centre will organise for them to go to a tertiary hospital, which would be in Sydney. It is wonderful for those people to know that they have the best services. The event was organised with Home and Community Care and the Ambulance Service as an integral component. Four ambulance officers were in attendance on the day to make sure that their stake in the place was well and truly recognised. The people were delighted that the Mayor of Coonamble and I opened the centre. The honourable member for Dubbo, Tony McGrane, also attended. He played a major part in having a multipurpose centre for Gulargambone put on the Minister's agenda.

The Hon. Rick Colless: The Mayor of Coonamble is a good bloke.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: The Hon. Rick Colless is quite right, the mayor is a good bloke. He is a National, but there are some good Nationals around.

The Hon. Rick Colless: We are all good blokes.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I repeat: there are some good Nationals around! All in all, everyone, in particular the people of Gulargambone, had a wonderful day. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [10.13 p.m.]: This evening I had the pleasure of sponsoring a new peak body on its first visit to the New South Wales Parliament. Child Care New South Wales represents approximately 650 private child care providers in New South Wales and aspires to have over 1,000 members by the middle of next year. This afternoon Child Care New South Wales met in the New South Wales Parliament for one of its regular meetings. I later had the pleasure of hosting the members of the group's executive at dinner in the Parliamentary Dining Room. Private child care providers give a wonderful service to the people of New South Wales, but too frequently the Government and the New South Wales public service underestimate their value.

As the group explained to me, child care services are part of the health system, the education system and the crime prevention system. In my opinion there are few more noble services that people could provide than services to children, particularly infants and vulnerable young children. Of the young people in Child Care New South Wales, 75 per cent are looked after by private child care providers. These providers touch the community in a very significant manner. For example, this evening the 15 members from the group's executive and staff with whom I met represented a dozen graduate and postgraduate degrees in education, early childhood studies and even engineering. Between them, the group's members have hundreds of years of experience in providing childhood education and preschool services and provide services to some 4,700 families.

As this organisation represents nearly 1,000 people, obviously a great many more people within the wider New South Wales community are involved in child care services. We have every reason to be proud of the private child care industry. We should be just as proud of them as the New South Wales Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan, is proud of the innovative industries that he showcases in his tedious _orothy dixers during question time. Like many industries, our private child care providers are capable of working at the cutting edge and of expanding their services into new and exciting frontiers. Take, for example, one woman whom I met this evening, Miss Joan Stone, who is the proprietor of The Hills before and after school child care service and the Cubby House child care service at Kellyville. Her popular before and after school care services are equipped with the latest electronic and other recreational games. Moreover, she offers the parents of the children in her care an extensive array of additional services to support what frequently are very busy lives.

Imagine a child care centre that offers not only high-quality child care services but additional add-on services, such as a laundry service, the opportunity for parents to have breakfast at the centre with their children before they go to work, or even the opportunity to pick up prepared meals after work that have been made by a chef from a major city hotel chain. In my view, these are groundbreaking achievements which deserve the ear of government and its respect. However, Child Care New South Wales and its members are concerned that the New South Wales Government does not have an adequate level of sympathetic appreciation for what the group does. The group is concerned that potentially the New South Wales Government is holding over the group's head a regulatory regime which threatens the very provision of child care services to children aged zero to two because it proposes to impose on them a higher child-teacher regime.

The group is also concerned that this potentially new regulatory regime could completely wipe out out-of-home school care because of a lack of flexibility. The group is also concerned that the new regulatory regime will abolish grandfathering provisions that are available in the current regime. That will mean that some child care providers will simply close their facilities—all because some of the facilities are centimetres smaller than modern facilities that have been established under more modern standards. Existing services have been allowed to be exempt from the new regulations relating to size because it was considered unfair to legislate retrospectively with more stringent size regulations than those that were originally enacted.

The group is concerned that even though today the group invited the Minister for Community Services to take the opportunity to meet them, she would not spend five minutes to come down to level 7, walk through the dining room and meet them or go to level 11 and meet them for 10 minutes while they held their meeting. That invitation was extended on a bipartisan basis. I was happy not to be present while the Minister met them confidentially. I am disappointed that this organisation is not getting the recognition it deserves. [Time expired.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [10.18 p.m.]: I congratulate Ms Orawan Taechaubol, the President of the Thai-Australian Chamber of Commerce, on the successful launch of that organisation. It was a great honour for me to officially launch this very important bilateral chamber on behalf of the Premier, Bob Carr. On behalf of the Treasurer, I also congratulate Mrs Taechaubol on her initiative and her service as a board member of the New South Wales-Asia Business Advisory Council. Thailand has a close tie with New South Wales. The Premier and I met and held business discussions with the Thai Prime Minister, Dr Shinawatra, and the Thai Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Sathirathai, on their visit to Sydney on 30 and 31 May 2002.

Thailand is important to New South Wales. It is the second-largest country in Asia, Indonesia being the largest, and in 2002 had a population of 63.5 million. Thailand is one of the best-performing economies in South-East Asia. In 2002 Thailand's economy experienced gross domestic product growth of 4.9 per cent. Goldman Sachs has raised Thailand's 2004 growth forecast to 8 per cent. Tourism and education are Australia's most important service exports to Thailand. The number of tourist and transit visas issued by the Australian Embassy in 2001 was more than 45,000. In 2002 Australia became the number one destination for Thai students seeking an education overseas, and the Australian Government has indicated that around 10,000 Thai students studied here in that year.

Many Australian universities are active in Thailand, co-operating with Thai education institutions. Thailand was Australia's twelfth largest export market in 2002-03, and its thirteenth largest source of imports. Australian merchandise exports to Thailand increased by 8 per cent in 2002-03. Bilateral merchandise trade was valued at $5.95 billion, with exports at $2.48 billion and imports at $3.47 billion. We can improve our trading relationships even further. The New South Wales Government is planning a trade mission to Thailand from 12 to 16 July 2004. The mission is being organised in conjunction with the Royal Thai Consulate General and the New South Wales-Asia Business Advisory Council, which I chair.

The Carr Government intends to co-operate with bilateral business organisations. Two months ago the Government and the New South Wales-Asia Business Advisory Council held its first forum with Asian bilateral business organisations. The Carr Government is committed to free trade, to encourage foreign investment, and to build a harmonious and multicultural society. At the last election the Government promised to find ways to work closely with the bilateral chambers of commerce. Bilateral business organisations, such as the Thai-Australian Chamber of Commerce, are important tools to build our State's trade and investment relations.

It is our ethnic business communities that know the practical steps needed to make the trade relationship work. I enjoyed hearing those ideas from the community. The chamber of commerce would like to continue to receive suggestions from the ethnic business communities about how the New South Wales Government and the bilateral chambers of commerce can work together. Together we can create wealth and jobs for Australians; in particular, our trade with Asia will help with exports from country New South Wales. I thank the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development, for his initiative in working with bilateral chambers.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.23 p.m.]: This morning on behalf of the Legislation Review Committee I gave notice of motion for disallowance of two regulations to preserve our jurisdiction. The effect of that is that we can continue to look into those regulations. A letter from the chairperson, Mr Barry Collier, the honourable member for Miranda, to the Minister outlined the position in full. It has the full support of the committee. I seek leave to incorporate Mr Collier's letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.
______

18 November 2003
Our Ref: LRC390
The Hon Reba Meagher MP
Minister for Fair Trading
Level 37, Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Minister

LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENTAL BONDS) REGULATION 2003 AND PAWNBROKERS AND SECOND HAND DEALERS REGULATION 2003


Thank you for your letters of 5 November 2003 regarding the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Regulation 2003 and the Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers Regulation 2003.

The Legislation Review Committee did not find that the letters fully addressed the concerns it had raised so has resolved to seek further details from you regarding these Regulations. I will write to you in the near future to set out the further information that the Committee is seeking. Depending on the information it receives from you, the Committee may wish to hold hearings on the Regulations to obtain further evidence.

The consideration of these regulations would be conducted under the Committees function in s 9(1) of the Legislation Review Act 1989. The Committee is conscious, however, that that function relates to regulations while they are subject to disallowance.

Advice received from the Crown Solicitor last year leads to doubts about the scope of the Committee's authority to continue to consider regulations after the disallowance period has passed. Consequently, to put the Committee's authority to continue to consider these regulations beyond doubt, and to preserve the House's capacity to take action on them should the Committee so recommend, the Committee has resolved that protective notices of motion to disallow the regulations should be given. As the disallowance period has already expired in the Legislative Assembly, such notices will only be given in the Legislative Council.

The protective notices of motion are required to prevent the disallowance period on the regulations from expiring. I note that the giving of the notice in no way reflects a view of the member giving the notice or the Committee as a whole that the regulations should be disallowed.

While the practice of giving protective notices of motion is relatively new to New South Wales, this device has long and often been used by the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee. As noted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice:

When [an instrument which may offend against the committee's principles] is identified, the usual practice is for the chair to give notice of a motion to disallow the instrument... Many notices to disallow instruments are protective notices in that they are given pending the receipt of a satisfactory explanation or undertaking from the relevant minister. (p 377)

Yours sincerely
BARRY COLLIER MP
CHAIRPERSON

______

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.28 p.m.]: The development at Fox Studios, which is frequently championed by our Treasurer, has ended up an industrial site, without proper controls from the Environment Protection Authority.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Treasurer knows that he will have an opportunity at the end of the debate to make any comments he wishes.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: There is always a problem of development creep. The showground was given to Fox Studios, part of which it is using for amusements and part as a film studio that manufactures sets. In occupational medicine, sets and the manufacture of artistic items require a large number of different materials that are used in different ways. It is very difficult to control the hazards in that environment because in each set different materials, different tactics and different designs are used. The craft shop in that development creep has open-plan ventilation. To build sets, epoxy resins and various other chemicals are used. That pollutes the environment and should be covered by the regulations that cover spray paint shops, because the agents used and the fumes given off are similar.

The studio is just across the road from Paddington residents, who have complained about this matter repeatedly, but without much success. One could argue that those conditions are not a problem, provided that the ventilation is adequate. Clearly, open-plan ventilation is not sufficient for a workshop that includes the making of sets involving a number of industrial processes, including welding, the use of fillers, and so on. The site was taken from the control of South Sydney Council; it should have been under the control of WorkCover and perhaps the Environment Protection Authority. It should have been given a push and been put under the control of the Treasurer, effectively. This studio has caused a great many problems to local residents, and they have not been given a fair go.

The list of chemicals that was requested was late in coming and its significance has not been recognised. I do not believe that manufacturers' safety data sheets were even thought of at the time. There were things like ethacure products containing xylene, various polyurethanes, silicon, foam, shellac, acrylic paints, etch primers, solvent paints, dyes, Silastic Thixo additives, fibreglass precursors and a number of allergenic and offensive urethanes. That list of chemicals has been brought to my attention. Correct processes for development applications and normal planning instruments were carefully avoided because of this cargo cult mentality. It was thought that a lot of money would be brought into New South Wales and that this process had to be facilitated.

In this case the correct procedures for various industrial processes were not followed. I could refer honourable members to the long timeline of chemicals, but that is not the point I am trying to make. The lesson to be learned from all this is that WorkCover must implement proper controls. There should be proper ventilation in this workshop—not craft shop—and the jobs that are carried out in it must be assessed. These sets that are built and dismantled are resulting in the pollution of a residential development that normally would not include industrial work—and all for the sake of making a quick buck. I would like recorded in Hansard the fact that throughout my speech I had to endure interjections from all honourable members. I say to them that money does not mean everything. [Time expired.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.33 p.m.] Tonight I wish to speak about the perils of public-private partnerships. Public-private partnerships, or triple-Ps, is the general phrase that is used when referring to the part privatisation or whole privatisation of public services. There are a number of different models along this spectrum, from relatively innocuous contracting out of construction to schemes in which private companies build, operate and own public infrastructure. The benefit of these agreements and the driving force behind them is that they allow the financing of projects without technically increasing public debt. Under public-private partnerships, rather than borrowing a lump sum to pay for infrastructure such as hospitals and schools, which would appear in the public accounts as debt, the Government enters into an operating lease with a private consortium that appears as a recurrent payment.

At the end of the agreement, which might operate for 30 years or more, the private contractor usually ends up owning the facility. Of course, this avoidance of debt is simply a bookkeeping illusion. Often the total liability of the public under the triple-P agreement is much higher, but that total never appears on the books. Only the annual payments are calculated and, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the public is not given the opportunity to honestly compare the figures until after the deal is done. Many arguments have been put forward in favour of public-private partnerships that are little more than myths. The transfer of risk from the public sector to the private sector is one such argument. That may be true in an ideal situation but in the process of negotiation of contracts governments are usually forced into giving guarantees that private companies would never dream of giving.

One of the reasons for that is the same blindness that leads governments to these arrangements in the first place. They are simply not willing to walk away from what are essentially political decisions. In addition, governments are in a difficult negotiating position. If the operator of a road goes broke, should that road simply close? If a rail link operator is threatening to pull out without a certain level of return, what is Government to do about its constituents who need access to the railway line? The fact is that most private-public partnership contracts contain limitations on contingent liability exposure for private operators. In other words, the public is in a position where it will have to bail out the private company if things go wrong. The Government is still bearing the risk. These calculations are, of course, left out of the assessment of triple-Ps from a public perspective, although we can be sure that one of the reasons that private operators are so keen for these contracts is that nowhere else can they get the kind of guarantees that they can force a government to give.

A number of concerns about triple-Ps are simply ignored by their proponents. For example, few companies are prepared to enter into contracts that limit their future ownership options, so there is no way to control who ends up operating a triple-P facility. The community might be reassured by a reputable local corporation building and running an important facility such as a hospital, but once the contract is in place it cannot stop that company selling out or being subject to a hostile takeover. On the other hand, the public has lost control of a significant asset for an extended period, often up to 30 years, if not forever.

One of the key planks justifying public-private partnerships is the Government's formula for calculating public versus private costs for projects. This formula, the public sector comparator, is simply rigged to make it look like private companies can compete with government on a cost basis. Basically, the public sector comparator uses a number of accounting tricks to magic away the advantages of government, including tax exemptions and a triple-A credit rating and, most significantly, the ability to borrow money cheaply. It is only by applying this formula that the Government can hide the fact that private companies have to pay more for financing the same project—up to double—as well as fund the extra price that the profit margin builds in. It is nothing short of a blatant public rip off and the results overseas have shown time and again that the outcome is fewer services costing more money.

It is also clear that public-private partnerships are nothing less than an open invitation to corruption. In this powerful cocktail, secrecy exerted by commercial in confidence provisions is mixed with the exercise of government preference and topped up with huge amounts of money—a recipe ripe for corruption. It is extremely difficult to find out the details of these shady deals, but the patterns of major contracts and donations to political parties are just the tip of the iceberg. In this context it is almost humorous that triple-P promoters like to imply that the private sector will remove political interference from the provision of services.

Australia has a longstanding and proud tradition of funding infrastructure through government borrowing. Until recently it was viewed by governments of all political persuasions as the economic meat that built a nation. Australia was built as much on government debt as it was on wheat and wool. Greg Ogle of the Centre for Labour Studies at the University of Adelaide suggested that what we are really witnessing is a downsizing of the State through contracting out and privatisation of government services. The real question is whether that is an effective mechanism to provide much-needed infrastructure and public services and whether it will genuinely promote the public good. The Greens believe that it is time to move beyond accepting the market and globalisation as the defining characteristics that shape government. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.38 p.m.]: I do know whether I should address my remarks first to the comments made by the Hon. Sylvia Hale or the equally ludicrous comments made by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, but I will take a minute or two to address both contributions. The Hon. Sylvia Hale—and I do not say this as any criticism, I just state this as a matter of fact—is one of the few capitalists in this House. Certainly, she is much more of a capitalist than I have ever been or ever aspire to be. I just do not understand why printing and publishing is okay for the private sector but other areas of economic activity are not acceptable to the private sector. She seems to think that public-private partnerships are disasters.

The Hon. Rick Colless: She does it for the love of it.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: She does it for the love of it, does she? That is good. On Saturday night I attended a great event in Sydney, an excellent example of a public-private partnership, namely, what we used to call Stadium Australia and we now call Telstra Stadium.

The Hon. John Ryan: You were there too.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I was there too, and I hope to be there again on Saturday night. That was a public-private partnership. On Saturday I drove to Galston to speak at a convention of the Christian Democratic Party. I drove through the Sydney Harbour Tunnel and then travelled on the M2.

The Hon. John Ryan: A wonderful public-private enterprise.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I happen to think so too, notwithstanding what some of my colleagues said in opposition. It is a great road; a great piece of engineering. To be quite honest, if that had had to be provided by the public sector it would have meant some hundreds of millions of dollars that would not have been available for things like schools or public hospitals.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who owns it in the end?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: We do, and the same applies to the stadium. The public own it in the end. That is about as much as I will say about public-private partnerships on this occasion, but I will come back to it when the opportunity arises down the track. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has been against filmmaking in New South Wales for as long as I can remember—or, should I say, as long as I can remember him. The Fox film studios at the old Moore Park showground site, by any measure, is one of the great success stories of Sydney in the last decade or so. Time and again, great films are being made at that studio. It is not only a set of film studios; it is the film industry from A to Z, because the film industry is not just about someone with a camera standing in front of a few actors. It is about people making film sets; it is about people who are expert in the audio aspects of films or the animation aspects of films. It is a very extensive industry. The Fox film studios have all of those skills on site, and that includes people making sets.

The Hon. John Ryan: And costumes.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: And making costumes. It even includes people occasionally driving around in cars. Good heavens! What damage that must do! I heard the Hon. Rick Colless suggest—and this was a point that excited my interest—that there are even people walking around the Fox film studios who have rubbed some sunscreen on their arms.

The Hon. Rick Colless: And at the cricket ground next-door.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Really? I have to say I object to that because I find those fumes carcinogenic. I object to having to swim in the great Pacific Ocean—which I do as often as I can at Bondi Beach or Maroubra Beach, and these days not as often as I would like at Cronulla Beach—and seeing the slick from all those people who have covered themselves with carcinogenic sunscreen. When the first generation of people who have been using sunscreen all their lives turn 60, we will find out the dangers of sunscreen. I am waiting for that day. I thought the point I just made was almost as silly as the point being made by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. In fact, I think it is possible that I might be even more right than he is.

Motion agreed to.