Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 12 May 2004, Corrected Copy)

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Follow-up of Performance Audit: Controlling and Reducing Pollution from Industry (2001)", dated May 2004.

Ordered to be printed.

Petitions opposing national competition policy amending legislation that will lead to the deregulation of the alcohol industry and failure to control liquor licences, received from the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, the Hon. Duncan Gay and the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

Petition opposing the replacement of CountryLink rail services with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, and calling on the Government to reverse the decision to close the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Petition calling for disallowance of the application by Blue Circle Southern Cement to burn alternative fuels, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, as Chair, informed the House that on 11 May 2004 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 resolved to adopt the following terms of reference:

That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 inquire into and report on:

(a) the decision by the State Government to replace the daily Casino to Murwillumbah XPT service with a coach service, including the accuracy of the Government's claims it will save $5 million per year,

(b) the economic and social impact on North Coast communities of the loss of the daily XPT service between Casino and Murwillumbah, in particular the impact of the loss of jobs within CountryLink and other State government departments and agencies and the closure of local train stations and travel centres,
(c) the future of the rail line between Casino and Murwillumbah, including, but not limited to, the present condition of the line, recent and future maintenance programs, options for and the financial impact of future development of the line and the possible extension of the line to the Queensland border, and

(d) any other matters arising from the Government's decision to terminate the rail services.

Ms Sylvia Hale, on behalf of the Chair, informed the House that on 11 May 2004 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 resolved to adopt the following terms of reference:

That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 inquire into and report on the environmental assessment process associated with the Tomalpin woodlands and the Hunter Economic Zone industrial development, in particular:

(a) the actions of the Director General and other senior officers of the New South Wales Premier's Department with particular reference to correspondence and interaction between the Premier's Department and the Parks Services Division of the Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly the National Parks and Wildlife Service) in the process, and

(b) the role of the Parks Services Division of the Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly the National Parks and Wildlife Service) in the process.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.16 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am very pleased to introduce this significant Government initiative, which was announced by the Premier in March 2003. The bill provides a comprehensive legal basis for Australia's first compulsory drug treatment correctional centre, which the Government plans to establish by the end of 2005. The Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre will target a hard-core group of offenders with long-term drug addiction and an associated life of crime and constant imprisonment. It is for offenders who have failed to enter or complete other voluntary or court-based treatment programs.

The program sits at the end of the continuum of drug diversion programs in New South Wales aimed at breaking the drug-crime cycle. Eligible offenders to the program will be sent to a special correctional facility dedicated to abstinence-based treatment, rehabilitation and education. There will be intensive judicial case management of these offenders, in close partnership with the correctional authorities as well as health and other service providers. The compulsory drug treatment program will build on the productive justice and health system linkages already established for programs such as the Drug Court program. Offenders will be gradually reintegrated back into the community and targeted with support after completion of their program and even beyond parole. The aim is to achieve better outcomes for the State's most desperately entrenched criminal addicts by assisting them to become drug free and crime free, to take personal responsibility, and to achieve a more productive lifestyle.

Earlier this year the Premier released the bill as draft exposure legislation for a period of public consultation. The bill was advertised in the press and on the Internet and was sent to 48 targeted individuals and organisations. I am pleased to advise the House that the consultation process indicated general support for the bill. Fifteen submissions were received, including many constructive comments from the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court, the NSW Ombudsman, the Legal Aid Commission, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Acting Privacy Commissioner. A number of refinements were made to the bill in response to the submissions.

The Chief Magistrate advised that he supports the introduction of the legislation as an important crime prevention measure that will supplement rehabilitation initiatives already introduced, that is, the Cannabis QUIT program, the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment program and the present Drug Court regime. The Chief Executive Officer of the Enough is Enough Anti-Violence Movement advised that members of his organisation "totally support this forward thinking approach". The Network of Alcohol and other Drugs Agencies also indicated its support for the bill.

The Government has been pleased to draw on the experience and expertise of the Drug Court during the drafting of the bill. There has been strong personal involvement from senior Drug Court Judge Neil Milson, who travelled to the United States of America last year and looked at similar programs operating there. I also acknowledge the contribution of Emeritus Professor Ian Webster, chair of the New South Wales Expert Advisory Group on Drugs, who has given significant advice on the proposals. Professor Webster is participating on the interagency Compulsory Treatment Task Force, which was formed to undertake detailed planning for the New South Wales program.

Initially, the New South Wales compulsory drug treatment program will deal with one hundred adult male offenders. After two years, if successful, the program will be extended to female offenders. The proposal is being modelled on similar programs in America and the Netherlands. Overseas experience suggests that compulsory treatment is an effective way to deal with repeat drug offenders. The Government has committed $6 million in funding over two years for the initial operation of the compulsory drug treatment program. The new correctional centre will be established by modifying an existing stand-alone secure wing at the Parklea Correctional Centre. Capital funding of $1.5 million has been set aside for this purpose. Offenders in the program will be kept separate from other inmates in the correctional system. I will now outline the key features of the bill.

Schedule 1 amends the Drug Court Act to provide for certain eligible convicted offenders to be referred to the Drug Court of New South Wales for assessment for the compulsory drug treatment program. To be eligible for the program, an offender must appear to have a long-term drug dependency, must have been convicted of and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence related to the offender's drug dependency and lifestyle, and must have been convicted of at least three other offences in the previous five years. The offender's sentence must be long enough for an eighteen month to three-year compulsory drug treatment detention program.

Serious offenders convicted, at any time, of offences such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, firearms-related offences or commercial drug trafficking will be excluded from the program. Offenders with a serious or violent mental condition, illness or disorder which could prevent or restrict the person's active participation in the program will also be excluded. Offenders with mental disorders or illnesses co-existing with drug dependency problems may, however, be included in the program if they do not come within this exclusion. Their mental health needs will be addressed as part of the program. The Drug Court will have the power to order an offender who is assessed as eligible and suitable to serve his or her sentence on the compulsory drug treatment program, or the Drug Court may decline to make such an order in view of the circumstances of a particular case.

Schedule 2 amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to include compulsory drug treatment detention as a new form of custodial sentence that may be imposed on an offender. Schedule 3 amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act. The objects of compulsory drug treatment detention are specified and focus on effectively treating offenders' drug dependency, reintegrating offenders into the community, and preventing and reducing crime.

The bill provides for compulsory drug treatment detention to consist of three stages: stage one, closed detention, where inmates will be incarcerated in the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre for intensive drug treatment and rehabilitation; stage two, semi-open detention, where offenders will live at the centre but spend time outside in employment, training or other approved programs; and stage three, community custody, which is similar to home detention. During this stage, the offender will move to semi-open independent living but remain under intensive supervision, including electronic monitoring.

Under the bill, a compulsory drug treatment personal plan will be drawn up to provide the basis of each offender's treatment and rehabilitation program. In addition to drug treatment, inmates will be taught, inter alia, social skills, preparation for the job market, management of debt, and management of leisure time. The Drug Court will order an offender's progression to the next stage of the program after a minimum of six months if they have complied with their personal plan; or they may be ordered back to an earlier stage if they fail to comply.

The Drug Court will be responsible for the approval of leave for offenders from the centre during stage two, semi-open detention, and stage three, community custody, and will make orders for their intensive community supervision during those stages. The Commissioner for Corrective Services will have the power to order the removal of an offender from the program or their return to earlier stages if any security or other concerns arise that need to be addressed quickly. The Drug Court will be required to review those orders within 21 days, or such further time as the Drug Court considers appropriate. In doing so, the Drug Court must give substantial weight to any recommendations of the commissioner.

There is a scheme of rewards for compliance with the program, and tough sanctions for breaches of it. Serious breaches could see the offender returned to the regular prison system, and this may be taken into account by the Parole Board when the offender comes up for parole. Persons involved in administering the program, for example health professionals, will have certain obligations and protections in respect of providing information about offenders to the Drug Court and others.

The bill provides the basis for a drug-free program through its power to make regulations which will cover stringent search procedures, random and periodic drug testing, and restrictions on physical contact visits during stage one. It also provides the power to make regulations about providing offenders with post-release case management services and other services upon their release from the compulsory drug treatment program. This will include ongoing mentoring and linkages to housing and employment. Overseas experience suggests that this type of post-release support is extremely important for offenders to prevent them returning to drugs and crime. The bill requires a review of the program to be conducted during its first four years of operation, consistent with the Government's evidence-based approach to drug policy.

The enactment of this legislation is a high priority this year to help facilitate planning for the new centre, as well as for the comprehensive program of treatment and rehabilitation which will be provided to offenders. The development of regulations providing the basis for the administration of the program will be part of this planning process. There will be another public consultation process with regard to the regulations before they are made. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 67 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre at Grafton, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 67 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [11.28 a.m.]: I move the following motion, as amended by leave:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of passing of this resolution all documents in the possession, custody or control of the Department of Juvenile Justice or the office of the Minister for Juvenile Justice in relation to the disturbance at Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre at Grafton on 28 December 2003, including:

(a) all reports to the Minister and/or her office regarding the incident at Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre (including attachments),

(b) progress reports to the Department by Public Works during the construction phase and rectification work undertaken following the twelve month warranty review,

(c) the capital works audit report conducted following the completion of the building works, the twelve month warranty report or any similar document, and any other reports on the physical condition and maintenance needs of Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre, including costs of rectification work,
(d) all briefing notes prepared for the Premier and the Minister for Juvenile Justice for the official opening of Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre,

(e) all other security reviews and briefings on physical security issues at Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre since its opening in 1998,

(f) submission by Department of Juvenile Justice to Treasury for additional funds for detention centres following the incident at Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre on 28 December 2003,

(g) copies of insurance claims made by Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre arising from incidents since the centre opened, and

(h) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of this House,

Sadly, we are living at a time when security is the highest priority of government policy. Our troops have been at war and many are still stationed overseas, while at home huge sums are being spent by Federal and State governments to secure our infrastructure and to enhance our ability to predict and prevent unauthorised access to and destruction of public assets and to protect public safety. New South Wales has a Premier who carries around a football, modelled on the legendary briefcase carried by the American President, to be used in the event of an emergency. Even though the Premier's football is rumoured to contain nothing more than a street directory and a mobile phone, I am sure that he uses it symbolically to demonstrate that he is as concerned as John Howard about our security. We know that the Government is securing our power stations and iconic buildings, such as the Opera House, and we support that. However, it is baffling that—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The point of order relates to relevance. The motion calls for papers relating to Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre, but the Hon. Catherine Cusack is speaking at length about issues of national security, which have no relationship to juvenile justice centres in New South Wales. Madam President, I ask you to direct her to confine her comments to the motion and not speak about other issues that are irrelevant to the debate.

The Hon. Rick Colless: To the point of order: It strikes me that the Hon. Catherine Cusack is simply introducing her topic. To say that she is speaking at length about an issue is ridiculous. She is merely introducing her topic and has not spoken at length about anything as yet.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It has certainly been the convention in this House that some general discussion is allowed in debate. However, members are reminded of their obligation, when contributing to debate, to ensure that their comments are relevant at all times to the question before the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: What is utterly baffling is how, with all this focus on threats to safety, a group of teenage boys were able to easily and opportunistically gain complete control of one of the State's most secure facilities, Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre, on 28 December last year. How is it that a group of boys mucking around inside the centre on a hot afternoon in Grafton could ever be in a position to choose to take over the buildings and land, get hold of the keys and drugs inside the centre, take charge of the security room where they could monitor police and media relegated to areas outside the buildings, and cause the withdrawal of staff such that responsibility for the welfare of detainees left behind was able to be forcibly taken from the Minister and passed to them?

It is difficult to imagine a more extraordinary and worrying event. Indeed, when I was first informed of what had happened I did not believe it. It has only been through seeing with my own eyes and through first-hand discussions that the full extent of the Carr Government's humiliation at the hands of a group of boys has become clear. Based on news reports, the Minister's short statement in another place, and inspections of the facility, it seems that about half the detainees grouped together, ignored instructions from staff, and forcibly obtained access to the woodwork room. There they obtained tools, which gave them the means to force their way into other areas of the centre, where they roamed at will for a number of hours.

The incident was serious not only because of the extensive damage caused to the centre but also due to the unacceptable risk posed to staff and other detainees who chose not to riot and who were locked down for their own protection. By that I mean they were locked in their units so they could not be assaulted or otherwise injured by the inmates involved in the disturbance. As the afternoon progressed, police arrived from around the region and I understand the equivalent of the tactical response group was flown from Sydney. The centre was virtually surrounded by police and media while young people inside destroyed property, accessed drugs in the medical unit—as a result of which one young man overdosed—taunted staff, the media and the neighbours, and generally revelled in their control of the centre.

Eventually police ordered the remaining staff inside the centre to leave for their own safety. This was done in the belief that the locked-down detainees were not at immediate risk. I imagine this was a very painful decision for those involved in the management of the centre. I also imagine the detainees who were left locked inside must have experienced considerable fear when they learned that the facility was being abandoned by authorities with them still locked inside. I understand that soon after staff left, one of the rioters attempted to set fire to the unit containing the locked-down detainees. Thankfully, the fire did not take off. I have no doubt that detainees who had access to the entire centre also had access to accelerants that could have caused a greater fire hazard. However, the attempt appears to have been reasonably half-hearted and disaster was averted as a result.

The danger from the fire was not the incineration of the facility—all our correctional buildings are fireproof—but the smoke that entered the ventilation system. It was also fortunate—and I say this with a sense of irony—that the detainees had obtained keys to the centre and were in a position to rescue the locked-down boys who were experiencing influxes of smoke through the ventilation system. I am sure I speak for all members when I say it is extremely fortunate that this extraordinary incident did not result in tragedy either to staff or detainees. It is completely unacceptable to the State Opposition that the interests of the young people locked down were left in the lap of good fortune and they were not able to be protected by the State, which had complete responsibility for their welfare.

When police were able to negotiate the surrender of the rioting youths, Acmena was returned to the control of the department. However, due to damage inside the buildings the facility had to be closed for nearly two months. It appears that the detainees had exposed numerous security flaws not previously known to the Government, including the ability to pop out the bullet-proof windows and virtually access any room or area they wanted. This necessitated not only extensive repairs to the centre but also an urgent security upgrade to replace all the windows in Acmena and other affected centres. In addition to having to replace windows, strengthen doors and locks, install a secure storage method for keys and drugs, and undertake a range of physical improvements, the Government has had to deal with the fact that the young people responsible for the riot seemed destined to get off almost scot-free because of a lack of knowledge or evidence as to what happened inside the centre. Why? Because there are no internal security cameras in the group areas.

The security cameras monitor outside the centre, not inside the centre. If it were not so serious, it would seem comical. The entire layout of Acmena—which was built on top of a hill so detainees could see over the fence—has proved to be a security nightmare. The design of the buildings—which were built in the shape of an Aboriginal totem of the Clarence River eel—might be appropriate for a tourism centre, but it is simply hopeless for a detention centre where staff need the ability to manage detainees in small groups. The buildings are arrayed in such a way that it is now impossible to segment space without turning the facility into a type of Long Bay prison.

During the riot it was noted that the staff's method of communication—by walkie-talkies clipped to their belts—contributed to the problems. By simply standing next to a youth worker, detainees could listen to information about activities and movements in every part of the centre. They may well have put the security arrangements over a loudspeaker throughout the centre. This problem has been rectified, but it should be noted that a vital part of the staff communication system includes red panic buttons in staff radios. These panic buttons are designed to immediately alert centre management to a dangerous incident or risk to the welfare of staff or a detainee—an extremely worthy piece of equipment, one would have thought. However, when staff press the panic button nothing happens because it is not connected to anything.

Honourable members can perhaps imagine how unimpressive it was that the Minister, in the wake of the riot at Acmena, gave an initial response in which she blamed staff and management at the centre for the riot. If the incident at Acmena verges on the unbelievable, surely the Minister's remarks absolutely take the cake. The Opposition has been trying for some years now to draw the Government's attention to the security flaws in the three campus-style detention centres built at Grafton, Dubbo and Kariong. We have tried in vain, because the Government has rebuffed our questions with patronising assurances that our concerns are exaggerated, that the centre is a cutting-edge facility, and that all the "teething problems" have been addressed. Last October when I asked about flaws in the centre I was gently reminded that I am a new member and the question was "a bit of an antique".

The problem for the Government is that rebuffing the Opposition in Parliament with glib debating techniques does nothing to fix the dangerously inadequate security systems at centres such as Acmena. I make the point that this applies not only to Acmena but to all the facilities being designed and built by this Government using inexperienced and idealistic designers who seem to be in a state of denial about the purpose of detention centres and the nature of the detainees they must contain and control. The call for papers today comes at the end of a long campaign by the Opposition to persuade the Carr Government to be forthright about its past mistakes, to come clean on the true extent of the problems and the cost of solutions, and to give both staff and detainees a credible and safe environment in which to live and work.

As I have said, there is a default position of denial and obfuscation on the part of the Government. In December last year the Government's media spin had a shocking collision with reality when it totally lost control of a secure facility. This naive and foolish attitude has persisted even in the wake of such dramatic evidence of failure. Staff were blamed, and a shotgun series of damages estimates were given—$300,000, $400,000, over $500,000, and back to $250,000—but there was never any indication about what this includes. Does it include repairs? If so, what have been the consequential security upgrade costs?

I note that I was initially banned from visiting the centre even though it was closed in the sense that there were no detainees inside. Eventually the Minister came to the centre, and only after that was I permitted to enter. This does nothing to boost confidence in the Government's management of the problems. The Minister has to date refused to release any of the reports into the riot, demonstrating yet another management failure to recognise the extent of anxiety, particularly in the good town of Grafton, about what is going on. The Government's secrecy and cover-up have fuelled fear and anger in the community. The Premier is renowned for his love of American political history, but his Government has yet to learn the message from Watergate that in some cases the cover-up makes matters far worse than the event. For juvenile justice the lack of recognition of and contrition for bad policy under previous Ministers and directors-general means that the guilt is passing up the line to the current administration, who must now be held to public account for what is going on.

This call for papers is an effort to get the facts and a better understanding as to why Acmena is such a fiasco; and why, after so many audits and security reviews, a secure facility was so easily captured by a relatively small number of teenage boys who opportunistically took control and made a mockery of this Government. What happened? How could it have happened, and what is being done to prevent recurrences in the future? The events at Acmena last December were incredibly serious, but, as I have shown, they were also marked by the extreme good fortune that nobody was killed. We must not permit staff or children to ever be placed in such a high risk, explosive situation again.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.40 a.m.]: On previous occasions the Hon. Catherine Cusack has requested information relating to an incident that took place at Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre in December last year. After introducing the motion this morning the honourable member spoke at length to it. By virtue of clause 4 of schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 the Minister for Juvenile Justice was unable to provide the Hon. Catherine Cusack with the report she requested. The report contained information that had the potential to affect both the law enforcement capabilities of the Department of Juvenile Justice and public safety.

Put simply, the release of the report would have jeopardised the existing security arrangements. I can assure the House that, in relation to the order for papers that is currently the subject of this debate, both the Minister for Juvenile Justice and the department will put forward all available information. Should any of the papers requested be legally restricted for public release, advice to that effect will be provided accordingly. Given the number of papers called for and the amount of time it may take to physically gather these documents, I request that the time to lay the papers upon the table be extended to 14 days. I note that the Hon. Catherine Cusack's resolution calls for that.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.41 a.m.]: I support the call for papers. I think the point needs to be made that the collecting of papers would not be such a problem if we had a more open government system where papers are routinely available and applications are made to keep sensitive papers secret, rather than having all papers secret and then having a huge space in Parliament filled up with papers that we have had to request and then wade through. The idea that this is an issue of national security and that security would be compromised seems suspiciously like a nonsense in what should be a well-run juvenile justice centre—as are the comments by the Hon. Catherine Cusack that the obsession with security by the Premier has any relation to the failings of a juvenile justice centre. Perhaps John Howard could be asked to protect the centre as the last iconic site, in view of his stupid foreign policy.

Motion agreed to.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.42 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 98 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to CountryLink, be called on forthwith.

There could be no more timely moment to debate this motion than today. This matter is urgent because less than a week remains for the Murwillumbah to Casino CountryLink service. This motion represents our final chance to register our opposition to the closure of this much-valued line. This motion is very urgent because it represents a chance to draw a line in the sand, as there are other CountryLink services still under threat. People in places such as Moree, Tamworth, Armidale, Grafton and Goulburn are looking on with concern about what will happen to their rail services. What will be the future of CountryLink rail services in these and other areas? This motion is urgent because the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah service is surely the thin end of the wedge.

The motion is urgent because many rail industry insiders say we will be hearing more announcements from the Minister for Transport in the coming month, and that his promise of a 12-month reprieve does not mean anything. The New England, Canberra and Grafton services have only been given a 12-month reprieve; they may not even last that long under this Minister. It is a matter of urgency because the House has the opportunity to debate the need to save the last vestige of passenger rail services in rural and regional New South Wales and then start the long process of rebuilding. It is also a matter of urgency that we have the opportunity to discuss what is happening to rural branch lines that are being left to rot.

An Act of Parliament is required to formally close and tear up a branch line. We have never debated such a bill, but this is happening. It is a matter of urgency that the House is made aware of this matter and deals with it. It is a matter of urgency that the House consider why communities fear for the safety of their roads, the viability of their towns and the future of their young students. It is a matter of urgency that the House consider how local councils are going to be able to afford to upgrade and maintain country roads that were never meant to take hundreds of B-doubles a day. The amount of money required to save these lines is negligible, less than 10 per cent of the cost of airconditioning CityRail carriages for the purposes of saving marginal seats in western Sydney. Yet the Carr Government is prepared to let rail rot away in regional and rural New South Wales.

This motion is perhaps one of the most important and urgent we will debate this year. We are losing a century-old legacy, a rail system built and maintained by our forebears. It is indeed the responsibility of the House to give this motion the urgency that it requires. The Labor Government is dismantling services in rural and regional New South Wales while spending a fortune on trains in the city. Yes, we need upgraded services in the city, but that should not be at the expense of country services. That is not acceptable. The anger and frustration in rural and regional communities is palpable. I urge members to support my call for urgency and to take part in the debate on this vital issue.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

[In division]

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I seek leave for the division to be called off.

Leave not granted.

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

Ms Hale Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon

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

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

Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Ms Robertson Ms Tebbutt

Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Obeid

Miss Gardiner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

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

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.54 a.m.]: I move the following motion, as amended by leave:

1. That this House acknowledges:

(a) that CountryLink rail is a vital public service for the people of rural and regional New South Wales,

(b) that CountryLink rail has been under-resourced and undervalued by government in recent years,

(c) that according to figures in the final Parry report, the cost of upgrading the CountryLink fleet may be less than half of the cost of the mini-budget's plan to purchase 498 airconditioned CityRail carriages,

(d) that the Government has a duty to fund and maintain rail and rural infrastructure in New South Wales for passenger rail transport.

2. That this House further acknowledges:

(a) that rural branch lines are a vital piece of infrastructure serving primary industry—and potentially tourism and passenger movements—in rural and regional New South Wales,

(b) that rural branch lines have been under-resourced and undervalued by government in recent years,

(c) the major impact on road safety and road standards caused by greatly increased semitrailer traffic if these rail branch lines are not maintained and upgraded,

(d) that council ratepayers will be forced to undertake massive expenditure on road upgrades to accommodate semitrailer traffic if the Government shirks its duty to maintain branch lines,

(e) that, according to estimates from the New South Wales Farmers Association, retaining and upgrading 15 branch lines would mean up to 79,000 fewer trucks on the road per year and eight million fewer truck tyres in landfill per year,

(f) that, according to estimates from the New South Wales Farmers Association, the cost of upgrading 15 key branch lines may be as little as 10 per cent of the cost of the mini-budget's plan to purchase 498 airconditioned CityRail carriages,

(g) that the Government has a duty to fund and maintain regional and rural freight rail infrastructure in New South Wales.

3. That this House notes that the combined effect of CountryLink service closures and funding cutbacks, branch line neglect and closure, outsourced and downsized arrangements for maintaining rail infrastructure and privatisation of freight rail services amounts to a full-scale dismantling and downgrading of rural and regional rail infrastructure, with disastrous long-term consequences for those areas.

4. That this House calls on the Government to:
(a) reverse the dismantling of rail services in rural and regional New South Wales, and

(b) renew and fulfil the commitments made in Action for Public Transport 2010, including:

(i) maintaining rural branch lines "at their current levels of service",

(ii) providing more than $2 billion for rail line maintenance in rural New South Wales over 10 years,

(iii) carrying out a feasibility study into the reopening of disused lines,

(iv) committing funding to maintain and refit CountryLink rolling stock, and

(v) the implied commitment not to close lines or reduce services.

I move the motion on behalf of the Greens to highlight the depth of the Government's betrayal of the people of New South Wales. Quality public transport is the right of all people in this State, but under the Carr Government that service is being wound down. Rural rail passenger services are being closed, rail branch lines are being allowed to run down, and rail jobs are being slashed. The impact on rural communities in particular is immense. In many towns across western New South Wales the first building was the railway station. The Minister for Transport Services and the Premier must know that closure of a rail line to a country town makes the lives of all residents much harder.

Just over a year ago Labor was re-elected. At no time during that 2003 election campaign did the Premier disclose the degree to which rail services would be wound down in this State. Mr Richard Torbay, the Independent member for the Northern Tablelands, speaking in the Legislative Assembly about rail services, noted that when the Labor candidate in his electorate was asked whether the CountryLink train service was there for the long term she replied, "Yes." She gave a commitment that the CountryLink rail service would remain. Mr Torbay reminded members also that the Government made a promise at the last election to protect rail services, and that this was detailed at the time on its web site. I congratulate the Independent members of Parliament in the Legislative Assembly—Mr Torbay, Mr Draper and Mr McGrane—on their strong campaigning to retain rural rail services. They have had some success. Their work stands in strong contrast to Country Labor. While a number of individual Labor members have been outspoken in criticising their Leader's bankrupt policy on rail services, Country Labor members of Parliament have remained silent.

Again, I remind Labor members that they cannot be expelled from their party for taking a stand for rail services in this State. If one publicly calls for the retention of rail services in this State one is doing the right thing by the people of New South Wales. Indeed, Labor members are standing up for their party's policy and for the now discarded Government policy "Action for Public Transport 2010". Many people are concerned about the silence of Labor members on this policy reversal that is proving to be so damaging to rural communities. The Labor member for Tweed, Neville Newell, is one member of Parliament whom we could have expected to take a stand to protect CountryLink services. After all, it is the Casino to Murwillumbah—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. What action has the Minister taken to address safety concerns raised by CityRail staff about the closed circuit television centre not being adequately staffed, resulting in surveillance cameras on station platforms not being monitored, given that a young man was reportedly stabbed at Punchbowl railway station last night during a scuffle? Will the Minister assure the House and commuters that if they are attacked in view of a CityRail security camera CityRail staff will be watching and immediately call the police, rather than simply providing historical video footage to the police the day after an attack?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not intend to discuss what occurred on Punchbowl station. That is a matter for the police to investigate. I am happy to come back to the House with a report from the Chief Executive Officer of RailCorp, Vince Graham, about closed circuit television coverage strategies. I think that is the best thing to do in these circumstances.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What action is the Government taking to improve the quality of out-of-home care services for children and young people in New South Wales?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Services for children who are in out-of-home care and children who cannot live with their families and often have had a reasonably tough time before they moved into out-of-home care are important. The Government has shown how seriously it takes its responsibility to look out for children in care through the establishment of the Office of the Children's Guardian. This is the first such office in Australia, set up primarily to focus on raising the overall standard of care provided to children and young people in out-of-home care. A key means of achieving this objective is through the quality improvement and accreditation program administered by the Children's Guardian. Organisations that already provided out-of-home care services before July 2003 received interim accreditation.

These organisations need to either engage in a quality improvement process or apply for accreditation by July 2005. New entrants to the system—that is, those who have sought to establish services since July 2003—can only apply for accreditation. Agencies seeking accreditation to provide out-of-home care services for children and young people need to show how they can meet a wide range of standards aimed at improving the overall standard of care for kids in this State. These standards focus on the needs of these children and young people, such as their care environment, health, education, identity and family relationships, emotional and social development, and their rights. The standards also cover important aspects of care such as casework practice, care records and how agencies support their carers to provide the best possible care that these children and young people deserve.

The standards encourage agencies to focus on quality improvement and how they can strive to create an even better service for children in care. I am pleased to inform the House that Barnardos Australia recently had the honour of being the first agency in New South Wales to achieve accreditation for providing out-of-home care for children and young people. The agency has achieved the highest level of accreditation, which is for a period of five years. Barnardos Australia has been one of the largest providers of out-of-home care in this State for many years, beginning with the first migration of children from the United Kingdom in 1921. It has built a strong reputation on meeting the needs of some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Barnardos Australia provides care and support to children and young people who cannot live with their parents because of abuse, neglect or family breakdown.

Barnardos Australia is one of 73 agencies in New South Wales participating in the accreditation and quality improvement program run by the Office of the Children's Guardian. I should add that Barnardos Australia, as an existing agency, could have chosen to go down the path of deemed accreditation and quality improvement, but thought that it was important, and was so confident of its services, that it sought accreditation in its own right. So it deserves congratulations both for that decision and for gaining accreditation. Thirteen of the 73 agencies that are participating in the accreditation and quality improvement program provide out-of-home care to children and young people with a disability, and 20 other organisations have shown interest in providing out-of-home care in New South Wales and have inquired about accreditation. The Office of the Children's Guardian has made more than 175 visits to agencies to ensure that they are fully aware of accreditation and monitoring requirements. Four hundred and sixty people, including foster carers and caseworkers, have received training from the office this financial year.

As Barnardos Australia would say, providing evidence on how an agency meets the standards is not always an easy task but it does provide a clear picture of what it is doing well. It also helps to show where it needs to focus attention and to improve its performance. The Office of the Children's Guardian is working with all agencies to assist them to develop quality improvement plans. These plans are required to demonstrate progress achieved each year in meeting standards. Barnardos Australia deserves recognition for stepping forward to be one of the first agencies to take part in the program. I congratulate Barnardos Australia on showing such strong commitment to providing the best quality care it can to children and young people who cannot live with their families.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister plan on cutting the $657,350 New South Wales ovine Johne's disease [OJD] abattoir surveillance program back to the generic animal disease management program budget of $30,000 after the new New South Wales OJD management program begins on 1 July 2004? Is the Minister aware of industry concerns that, should funding under the national OJD program for abattoir monitoring in New South Wales be cut, this will undermine the efficiency of moving to a risk-based trading system under the new OJD management program? What action will the Minister take to ensure that funding for this important program is not lost?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The ovine Johne's disease [OJD] management system in New South Wales has exercised my mind probably more than any other issue, other than the drought, over the past year. Fortunately, through the good work by the OJD industry committee and the report done by the Hon. Richard Bull, we have advanced ovine Johnes disease management in New South Wales. The particular item referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is clearly subject to budget discussions, and in due course—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So that is a yes, you will cut it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Just say yes or no. It is a simple answer.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will not say yes or no. Clearly, funding for the OJD program will be discussed within the context of budget discussions about all sorts of areas.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the Minister for Transport Services, in his zealous pursuit of cost savings to the rail budget, has a fix-when-fail maintenance policy for rail branch lines? Is he further aware that if the 50 branch lines that haul millions of tonnes of grain each year close because of a lack of maintenance, up to 80,000 additional B-double truck movements will be required to move this grain to storage silos? Will the Government allocate money in the coming budget to assist rural councils with road upgrades and maintenance if grain is to be transported on these roads?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: What is in the budget will be in the budget. I assure the House there will be record funding for rail in New South Wales. I have made that clear in the mini-budget speech. As to other matters concerning the transport portfolio, the Minister for Transport Services is in the House and honourable members can direct those questions to him.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You read the Federal budget too, didn't you?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I have read the Federal budget. Would you like me to tell you something about it? I think it is appalling that people on my income will get a $40 a week tax cut but the cleaners, the attendants and the catering staff in this Parliament will get nothing, not one brass razoo. We benefit by $40 a week, Peter Costello will benefit by $40 dollars a week, John Howard will benefit by $40 a week, and the cleaners, attendants and catering staff get nothing.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister inform the House how the Government is assisting small business owners with their workplace health and safety responsibilities?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Small businesses are a vital part of the New South Wales economy. When new groundbreaking occupational health and safety legislation was introduced in this Parliament in September 2001 a two-year transitional period was put in place for small business to implement risk management requirements. During the first year of the transitional period, small businesses were not required to comply with the new requirements. Rather, WorkCover used this time to work closely with small businesses to inform and educate about risk management and the important role it plays in improving workplace safety. Since the end of the transitional period, WorkCover inspectors have continued to work with small businesses, providing information and advice.

Honourable members will recall that in February 2003 I launched the Government's small business assistance strategy. The strategy provides assistance to small business employers to help them understand their responsibilities for keeping a safe and healthy workplace, making sure they have the right workers compensation insurance policy for their businesses, and ensuring there is prompt treatment and support for an employee who is injured at work. In 2003 the strategy included over 150 one-on-one interviews between small business operators and WorkCover inspectors; a pilot program providing 54 small businesses with up to three hours of free health and safety advice; the establishment of a small business link on WorkCover's web site to provide a central location for information on rights and obligations as well as copies of all relevant WorkCover publications and guidelines; and 39 seminars in rural, regional and metropolitan centres across New South Wales to assist small businesses to understand how the risk of assessment process can be introduced to their workplace and not only make them safer but more profitable.

The seminars were very well-received, with more than 4,000 people attending. More importantly, survey results showed that small business owners were confident that they would comply with their occupational health and safety requirements following their attendance. To build on the success of the 2003 program, new initiatives are already planned for this year. These include a new series of free seminars for small business operators, the first of which commenced on Monday of this week at Cowra. This series of 13 seminars will be held everywhere from Tamworth to Condobolin to Yass, and will conclude on 8 July at Manly. The free seminar program will include information on health and safety responsibilities; practical advice on complying; and advice on workers compensation matters.

Also scheduled for this year are 24 small business workshops that will be run as part of the Safer Towns and Cities Program in Orange and Bathurst in June; the commencement of a six-month trial e-newsletter to 800 participants who registered an interest in receiving additional information from WorkCover during the 2003 seminar series; and the release of a series of new, small business fact sheets covering topics including consultation, manual handling, workers compensation and chemical safety. I assure the House that the government is continuing in its commitment to assist small businesses to improve workplace health and safety in this important sector of the State's economy and to improve productivity and profitability.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. In view of the current drought being one of the worst on record and the effect this will have on the coming bushfire season, will the Minister inform the House of the following: How much of the national park and wilderness estates have been hazard reduced this year? What is the estimated average maximum and minimum fuel loads in national parks and wilderness areas? What is the New South Wales Government doing to reduce the danger posed by the coming bushfire season? What is the total investment in hazard reduction or fuel load reduction programs by the National Parks and Wildlife Service?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: There are a number of components to the question. I will refer it to the Minister for the Environment, obtain an answer and inform the House in due course.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services. Why has the Minister not provided an answer to my question on notice that I asked dated 5 May relating to the number of backlog faxes being retained at the child abuse helpline for the months of January, February and March? Can she provide the figures to the House now or by tomorrow at least if this was some sort of oversight?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I think the honourable member meant to say that he asked his question on 5 March.

The Hon. John Ryan: Sorry, March.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am getting somewhat confused. I am not sure whether he is alleging no answer was provided or he is just not satisfied with the answer he was given. Therefore, I will have to wait and see what the honourable member comes forward with in that regard. I am very pleased to provide some information to the House currently about the performance of the helpline. I can advise the House it is good news. The helpline is an area of the department's operations that has, over a significant period, come in for some criticism both because of wait times and because of fax backlogs. It is true that the helpline performance has had some dips and I have often had to explain to the House the reasons for that, particularly when we saw the introduction of the new client information system at the end of last year.
I quite clearly said before the introduction of the new system that there would be an impact on wait times at the helpline. I made that very clear and I also acknowledged that after the introduction of the client information system there was an impact on the wait times as I had predicted to the House. The helpline is now operating with more caseworkers than at any other time since it commenced operations in December 2000. Since the start of the 2003-04 financial year three rounds of recruitment have been completed, and 24 new caseworkers completed their entry-level training in the first week of January and 18 new caseworkers completed their entry-level training on 16 April.

I go now to the issue of call wait times because it is an issue that has been subject to quite a lot of scrutiny. I have previously advised the House of the new system the department implemented to establish queue management and call back teams to be able to better manage wait times. I am pleased to advise the House that for the week of Friday 16 April to Thursday 22 April the average time callers waited was four minutes and 31 seconds. I think everyone would acknowledge that is a significant achievement. We measure the wait times every week. I would be happy to provide the House with the monthly wait time for April because it will also show there has been a significant reduction in call wait times.

The helpline does not stop there. It is hoping to get its wait times down even lower because the wait times obviously have an impact on fax backlogs and call abandonment rates. I turn now to call abandonment rates. For the week of Friday 16 April to Thursday 22 April the average call abandonment rate was 9.63 per cent, again a significant reduction. I turn now to fax backlogs. It is certainly the case that when there are longer wait times we see an increase in faxes because mandatory reporters are unable to get straight through on the phone. The ability to fax has significantly improved the operations of the helpline. Nonetheless, at the end of last year, when we saw difficulties with the introduction of the client information system, there was an increase in the number of faxes and the fax backlog. Notwithstanding these issues, I am advised there has been an encouraging shift in backlog numbers and the backlog now stands at 238 faxes. I need to make very clear that faxes that require urgent attention are dealt with urgently. Faxes in the backlog are faxes that need to be input on the system to build a fuller picture of a child at risk but they are obviously not urgent faxes. [Time expired.]
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House on developments relating to the integration of NSW Agriculture, NSW Fisheries, State Forests of New South Wales and the Department of Mineral Resources into a new Department of Primary Industries?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The integration of NSW Agriculture, NSW Fisheries, State Forests of New South Wales and the Department of Mineral Resources into the Department of Primary Industries is about giving rural New South Wales a stronger voice in State Government. It is also about integrating appropriate services, achieving results, and injecting new energy into our primary production areas. Let it be clear: we will not take our eye off front-line services. This will continue to be the main game.

Today, I announced two developments that will add certainty to the integration. Mr Barry Buffier has been named Director-General of the new Department of Primary Industries and will assume the position as of 1 July 2004. Mr Buffier has a proven track record in agribusiness and finance, both in the private and public sectors. He has served on several national and state bodies, including the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the National Rural Advisory Committee, and as Chairman of the New South Wales Poultry Meat Industry Committee. Mr Buffier was Deputy Director-General of NSW Agriculture until 1992, and then became the national and regional agribusiness manager for Westpac. He will resign from all positions that have the potential to give rise to any conflict of interest with his new position.

I can also report that Mr Buffier is a beef producer, with a property in Gloucester. His previous involvement with regional stakeholder organisations gives him a deep appreciation for issues facing regional and rural New South Wales. Having been born and raised in the Hunter Valley—the driving force of the coal industry in New South Wales—Mr Buffier has also seen firsthand the powerful influence that mineral resources has on the regional and State economy. Mr Buffier will work with the interim board, which consists of the directors-general of NSW Agriculture, NSW Fisheries, State Forests of New South Wales and the Department of Mineral Resources, to see the integration process through. The interim board and its respective staff are working hard to develop detailed delivery strategies and structural reforms so that clear directions can be announced at the end of June.

In addition to Mr Buffier's position, I can also inform the House that the head office of the Department of Primary Industries will be based in Orange. The Government has a very strong presence in the central west, and this decision will allow us to continue building on that history. It will also further solidify the region's importance as a key business centre in New South Wales. Of course, the Department of Primary Industries will also have strong representation in several other key areas across the State. I am advised by the Minister for Mineral Resources that the department's move to Maitland is progressing on time and on budget. I am also advised that this move is expected to bring a significant number of jobs into the Hunter region.

As honourable members would well know, consultation with stakeholders and unions will be very important during this integration process. We will continue to take an active role in engaging with stakeholder groups and unions. It must be remembered that any change of this magnitude will involve a number of challenges. The Government realises that there will be a degree of uncertainty until the Department of Primary Industries structure is clearly identified. Measures announced today will help ease some of these concerns. They also show that the Government is committed to implementing necessary changes as soon as possible.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask my question of the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. When will the Minister quell the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Newcastle rail line and make a decision on it? Is the delay caused by problems with the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group reports? Is the delay because the Minister has discovered that the working group misinterpreted and misused data about passenger numbers on the rail line and exaggerated the potential of the alternatives to rail?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am still trying to work out how to quell something. I assume there are many methods one could refer to in history.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Remember when you used to crush the lefties down at the Labor Council?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is right, I could send in the Red Army or the People's Army to quell, like they did at Tianneman Square to quell dissent and disputes. It is interesting to see how they quell protests in North Korea.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: I ask that the Minister be reminded about the issue of relevance. The question was very clear. I ask that the Minister give an answer that is relevant to the question, which is in keeping with his responsibilities.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: Since the Hon. Lee Rhiannon is now sitting on the Christian Democratic Party bench, perhaps she should make an announcement to the House!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: To the point of order: My answer was completely relevant to the question. I was asked when I would quell certain actions. I have to make reference to the meaning of "quell" to understand what the honourable member is asking me to do. I suggest that in future she rephrase the question rather than criticise me for being irrelevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister for Transport Services that the standing orders refer to only two requirements relating to answers to questions without notice. While the Minister's answer may have been relevant, he transgressed the requirement not to debate the question. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank my colleague the Minister for Commerce for pointing out to me that "quell" means "vanquish, suppress, extinguish, quiet, allay". I like "vanquish". I do not understand the aim of the honourable member's question. If she is seeking information about the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group, I have said on the public record that a process is going on where we are looking at planning and other related issues in relation to the heavy rail line. As to quelling, it is a difficult thing to do because it implies a sense of intensity and degree that is not reflected in the opposition.

I would not "quell" the opposition to the removal of a rail line. I would pick another term, maybe, "hit them with a feather duster". I would hardly quell. To quell is of such great historical moment that it does not really refer to the sort of issues that the honourable member is talking about. As to the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group, a meeting will be held this Friday and it is progressing in its assessment of the best public transport solution for the Newcastle area. As to the assertions and ill-informed criticisms of some aspects of the report, that is typical of the Greens and I will not comment any further.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in the context of when he will announce his intentions about the future of the Newcastle rail line and whether he is confident in the work of the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am very happy to elucidate my answer. My first experience with the notion of quelling was, I think, at Kronstadt during the Russian Revolution when Trotsky took a brigade of the Red Army and crushed the anarchists. In my previous manifestation as a young Trotskyite I supported his decision in an historical sense. I have had time to reflect on the mistake of supporting that decision, but every time Ms Lee Rhiannon speaks I tend to think that Trotsky may have been right about suppressing anarchists because they do not add to the parliamentary process or the complexities of managing government. I certainly would advocate it for the Greens. Ms Lee Rhiannon can take some comfort in the fact that she had the ultimate victory when Stalin managed to get a pickaxe in the back of Trotsky's head.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Madam President, I ask you to request that the Minister withdraw those comments. I found them insulting. Again he is not being relevant to the question asked.

The PRESIDENT: Order! While we all accept fair political comment, intimations and inferences made by one member against another member are unparliamentary.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I withdraw that comment. I do not know whether the honourable member took any pleasure in that event, but some of the people of a particular political persuasion who associate with her may have taken some pleasure in it. This Government does not quell; it engages in sensible debate. If an argument is valid, we take it on board; if it is not, we do not.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House on 30 March that his department had a glowing report card from the Productivity Commission and his 6 May comments in support of the report? Can he explain to the House how he concluded that the report is glowing when it disclosed that New South Wales prisons are still the most violent prisons in Australia with the highest incidence of assaults in 2002-03 by prisoners on other prisoners? There were nearly 1,400 reported assaults, which is 215 per cent higher than the number in Victoria and 258 per cent higher than the number in Queensland. Can he also explain how he concluded that the Productivity Commission report is glowing when the Auditor-General's conclusion in the same report is that the department is not performing as well as most other States with regard to prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, recidivism and average inmate costs?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: I think that question is grossly out of order. It is not seeking information; it is mounting an argument and seeking opinions from the Minister.

The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: The member was seeking elucidation of an answer given on a previous day in light of additional information he has brought to the House. It is an entirely orderly question and I see absolutely no reason that the Minister should not be required to answer it.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: The so-called question engaged in argument about a previous answer given to the House. Question time is for the seeking of information, not for the mounting of an argument. A member is not entitled to seek an opinion from a Minister—which is what the Hon. Greg Pearce was doing.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: I did not seek an opinion: I sought elucidation. I asked the Minister to explain to the House how he reached the political conclusion that he stated in the House on both 30 March and 6 May.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There are 13 separate requirements in the standing orders relating to the form of questions. Most members transgress most of those requirements most of the time. However, when a point of order is taken drawing attention to such a transgression, I am bound to point it out to the member who has asked the question. The question of the Hon. Greg Pearce contained argument and sought an expression of opinion and is clearly out of order. If the member wishes to ask the question in a different form, he may do so when he is next give the call.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I direct my question to the Minister for State Development. Will the Minister advise the House about Government support for creative technologies in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The honourable member has shown the Opposition how to ask a question. Her question sought information and is within the standing orders. Given the length of time some honourable members opposite have been in this place they should have learnt those rules. More questions like that—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: Notwithstanding that the Minister's question was asked by an honourable member on his own side of the House, he seems now to want to engage in debating it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that there are only two requirements for answers and one of them is that Ministers cannot debate the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As all honourable members are aware, the Carr Labor Government—

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Is on the way out.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The honourable member said that before 2003, and she said it before 1999. We all know she said Labor had no chance in 1995. Well, it is a case of three strikes and you're out! As I said, this Government has a long record of supporting creative industries.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: This is your last budget. The big day is coming soon.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Leader of the Opposition has been saying that for a long time.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: This is it.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Leader of the Opposition is simply trying to give unwarranted hope to my colleague the Minister for Transport Services. I assure the House that he has a very long wait ahead.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: If the Left has anything to do with it.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: They don't have much to do with anything!

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: I take offence at that last comment and ask the Minister to withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I refer to my previous ruling. There is a tradition that members of Parliament should not take offence at political statements, only at personal references. There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: My response to my esteemed colleague is, "On your bike, sunshine!" While it is a matter of great happiness that the Left has no influence within the Australian Labor Party, it is a matter of some concern that the Left of the Liberal Party is losing its influence. It is being run over by the faction known as the Uglies, which is led in this place by the Hon. David Clarke and the Hon. Charlie Lynn. They are after not only the Hon. Michael Gallacher but also the intelligent small L liberal members such as the Hon. Don Harwin, the Hon. John Ryan and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I do not know whether I should take issue with the reference to the term "ugly". However, although it was some time ago that I heard the question, I am sure that what the Minister is saying has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It does; it was about creative technology. My answer was entirely relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was making general political comments, which certainly are not relevant to the question. I ask him to return to the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: You are quite right, Madam President. However, I apologise to the Hon. John Ryan if he misunderstood what I was staying. I was not referring to him as one of the Uglies—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Madam President, the Minister is flouting your ruling. On a day when we have heard about a terrific Federal budget and we have been talking about an awful State mini-budget, all he wants to do is to play politics. I ask you to draw him back to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will return to the question. However, his time for speaking has expired.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Even though I found some of the comments of the Minister offensive, I ask him whether he wishes to elucidate his answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Not today, not today.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: I direct my question to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister advise the House what the Government is proposing for the future of Port Macquarie Base Hospital? Given the hospital's ongoing difficulties with funding, including funding for elective surgery, and the uncertainties facing the medical staff and surgeons, can the Minister offer any reassurance about the Government's commitment to maintaining this outstanding centre of excellence? Is the Government in favour of assuming management of any sector of the hospital's operations given the Auditor-General's expressed opinion that if the Government were to buy the hospital from its private operators it would, in effect, be paying for it for the third time? Can the Minister rule out any likelihood of the Government buying Port Macquarie Base Hospital?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I agree with the portion of the question of the Hon. John Tingle that asserts that Port Macquarie Base Hospital is indeed an outstanding facility. However, the balance of the question falls squarely within the prerogative of the Minister for Health to make announcements about. I will draw the question to the attention of the Minister for Health and ask him to provide an answer for the honourable member as soon as possible.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does he recall that the mini-budget requires savings by NSW Agriculture of $37 million per annum? Is the Minister, having just announced the appointment of the new Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries, Barry Buffier, able to say what front-line staff and services will be axed to fund Mr Buffier's salary and make the required savings? Will the Minister provide to the House details of Mr Buffier's salary package and advise whether his main office will be located in Sydney or Orange?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. Melinda Pavey's question is based on a false premise. Therefore she should recast the question and get it right next time.
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. What is the latest information on the management of fruit fly in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The management of Queensland fruit fly in New South Wales is a critical issue for the future profitability of horticulture in New South Wales. As my colleague in this place the Hon. Tony Catanzariti would well know, horticulture is the backbone of many communities in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the mid-Murray and Sunraysia districts of New South Wales.

The industry generates an estimated $900 million in through-chain economic value and also supports lucrative export markets. For example, the citrus industry alone currently exports an estimated $50 million to $60 million worth of fruit to the United States of America each year. Unfortunately fruit fly poses a major threat to the citrus industry, as well as to stone fruit, pome fruit, and some vegetables such as tomatoes and capsicums. The existing fruit fly exclusion zone has allowed growers from these areas to market their fresh produce domestically and internationally, securing total estimated benefits of $15 million.

Recently I was privileged to visit the Agricultural Institute at Dareton, in western New South Wales, and on the same visit to meet with irrigators and others in Griffith. During the visit I received direct representations from industry experts, including the Murray Valley Citrus Marketing Board and the Murray Valley Vine Improvement Association, on the status of the fruit fly exclusion zone. During the meetings it was again emphasised that the management of fruit fly is one of the most critical issues for the region, which depends on its vital export markets. In addition, a recent research from NSW Agriculture suggests that the Queensland fruit fly is becoming acclimatised to cooler southern conditions. This makes it even more imperative that we have a robust fruit fly control program in place.

That is why I was pleased to announce today the appointment of a former member of this House, the Hon. Richard Bull, to review funding arrangements for fruit fly control in this State. Mr Bull will start work on the independent review in the very near future, with the specific aim of ensuring strong industry involvement in the process. The review will be another step towards ensuring we take a sustainable approach to this serious issue and help to protect a valuable agricultural industry. It will help to ensure that our approach to future funding of fruit fly control in the fruit fly exclusion zone is effective but also, most importantly, industry-driven. This focus on industry involvement will be paramount not just to the review but also to a united, productive future for horticulture in New South Wales in general.

Mr Bull has already proven his ability to work closely with industry groups during the recent review of the management of ovine Johne's disease in New South Wales. He will also consider the views of the Victorian and South Australian governments during the course of this fruit fly funding review, which will begin shortly. Mr Bull will report back to the State Government later this year, and I look forward to reporting to the House the progress of the issue.
Mr IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Given the Minister's glowing report on his latest appointment, Mr Barry Buffier, is he aware of Mr Buffier's press release dated 24 March 2004 headed "Eucalypt fired power stations", in which Mr Buffier extols the virtue of burning native timber for power generation? Will the Minister confirm the Carr Government's policy of no native forest fuel for biomass power stations? Will the Minister guarantee that he will not permit Mr Buffier to proceed with his pet projects, which are against New South Wales Labor policy?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not aware of the press release to which Mr Ian Cohen refers, but I assure him that the Government sets all policy.
The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House of the latest success of the NSW Fire Brigades road rescue team?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: New South Wales fire brigades are among the best-trained and best-equipped urban fire brigades in the world, as well as being the fifth-largest urban fire brigades in the world. Time and again they show their bravery and dedication to the community they serve, going way beyond the call of duty in the most difficult circumstances. We see them weekly on television performing their great feats. They are highly skilled professionals. Recently the skills of New South Wales fire brigades have been put to the test against the best in the world, with great success.

A NSW Fire Brigades team, consisting of members from the Burwood D platoon, claimed second place at the recent Australasian Road Rescue Organisation Challenge in Melbourne. While New Zealand claimed first place overall, consistently impressive performances from the Burwood team across the three events delivered it the title of the best rescue team in Australia. Burwood Station Officer Clayton Allison was awarded best team leader for the competition. I particularly commend Station Officer Allison, who has led the team to victory for almost 10 years. Of the three disciplines tested in the competition, the team achieved third place in the rapid extrication event, second place in the unlimited equipment event, and second place in the overall competition—a combination of points scored over the three events.

The team has now gained automatic entry into the International Road Rescue Challenge based on the strong results at this year's competition. Next year's international challenge will be held in Hamilton in New Zealand, in conjunction with the Australasian Road Rescue Organisation's challenge and its annual general meeting. Teams from the NSW Fire Brigades, particularly the Burwood team, have been hugely successful in winning a number of titles at previous events, including first place in the limited rescue event at the World Motor Vehicle Rescue Championships held in Canada last year. The same team also took away the World Motor Vehicle Rescue Championships in 2002, earning commendations for meritorious service for its achievements.

Perhaps the greatest success is the fantastic learning tools the teams take away from the competition. The firefighters spend countless hours in training, research and development before they compete. These competitions allow firefighters to continually improve and develop new techniques and skills in rescue. The community can rest assured that if they are in the unfortunate situation of needing the assistance of the fire brigades, one of the best firefighting teams in the world is on its way. I take this opportunity to convey the wishes of the House in congratulating the members of the Burwood D platoon on their great success.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth. In light of the May 2004 Ombudsman's report into the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program [SAAP], which outlined widespread buck-passing whereby dismissed workers refused to assist people with problems relating to other departments, such as behavioural or health issues, and given that many homeless people suffer from these problems, what changes has the Minister made in her department to ensure that homeless people will be able to access SAAP services regardless of the difficulties and complexities in their lives? Did the Minister approve the agency policy, as quoted in the report, of "no pregnant women" being granted assistance? Has the Minister sought to overturn this policy? Given that the report identifies many issues of a systemic nature, when will the Minister be able to assure the public that the department does not discriminate against the most needy?

The Hon. John Ryan: That was the same question I asked yesterday.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. John Ryan did beat Ms Sylvia Hale to this issue by one day. I indicated in my response yesterday that there is a range of issues that the Ombudsman has identified in his report, for which I thank the Ombudsman. I think Ms Sylvia Hale has, perhaps conveniently—or perhaps she has not understood the distinctions—in some way transposed issues from the Ombudsman's report to the Department of Community Services. These were actually issues that the Ombudsman raised about individual service providers that provide supported accommodation that is funded through the joint Commonwealth-State supported assistance program and administered by the Department of Community Services. I know the Ombudsman alluded to the fact that some services were operating with a policy that they did not provide a service to women who were pregnant. I want to make it very clear that that is not a policy of my department, and I think if the honourable member were to read the report closely, she would clearly see that.

I am on record as saying that Supported Accommodation Assistance Program [SAAP] services should operate in a non-discriminatory manner and, of course, they should operate in accordance with legislation. I have asked my department to provide me with advice in response to some of the matters raised in the Ombudsman's report. However, I think we should be fair to the report because, while it does flag that issue, clearly it is more about a far more complex matter, that is, how SAAP services respond to the needs of a group of people who, on the whole, have very complex and challenging behaviour. That requires far more careful consideration, and the Ombudsman has obviously recognised that in his report and his reference to the Department of Community Services having three months to provide a response. The department will take those three months because it needs to.

Clearly there needs to be consultation between the Office of Community Housing and the individual SAAP service providers. As I indicated yesterday, I will be referring the Ombudsman's report to and requesting advice from the Supported Accommodation Advisory Council, because that body represents a range of stakeholders. I believe that through that process I can most fairly get an indication of the views of service providers on the issues that have been raised in the Ombudsman's report. The Department of Community Services will respond within the three months, as the Ombudsman has suggested.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. Could the Minister table in the House before it rises today any documents that support the Minister's claims in the House yesterday, and in his media release yesterday, that the Opposition had again rejected offers of a bipartisan approach to review future road and rail infrastructure needs for grain transport? If the Minister cannot produce such documentary evidence, will he immediately withdraw his statements and issue an apology to members on this side of the House?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's a challenge. You continue to put this stuff out, loose lips.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I welcome the offer, if this is an offer from the Opposition, to sit down—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It has already been offered.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's a challenge.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would be worried about challenges coming from the Opposition. A poll is being conducted on the web site of The Nationals asking its members who would be better at managing public transport. One would expect on a poll on the web site of The Nationals that its members would say, "The Nationals". But 21 per cent said, "The Labor Party"! What an indictment of The Nationals' approach to transport. What a joke! What an absolute joke! That is almost as good as the report of the Liberal Party's branch meeting that was conducted last weekend, but I will not talk about that.

I did issue a press release yesterday. I am pleased the honourable member brought up that matter, because, as members are aware, in question time yesterday I was picked up for saying "rail line" instead of "branch rail line". I acknowledge that I was picked up for saying that, but I had to inform the Opposition about the location of the "super sites" so I attached a map to the press release. What struck me when I went back to the issue—and I am glad the question has been raised with me—is that no member from the Opposition, and more specifically from The Nationals, actually put in a submission on the grain service. Not one.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There was a submission from The Nationals yesterday.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not put in a submission, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner did not put in a submission, and the Opposition transport spokesperson did not put in a submission.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's not my portfolio. Why are you answering the question and not Macdonald if it's my portfolio?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: And the Opposition members purport to be supporters of restricted branch lines! There is a major report, and a major process is being undertaken by the Grain Infrastructure Advisory Committee into restricted branch lines. This was an opportunity for the Opposition to put in submissions and for the Opposition members to make clear their positions, but they have done nothing.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question clearly asked whether the Minister can table documents to substantiate his claims. It is clear that once again the Minister has issued a press release without any supporting documents. He cannot support his claims and he has gone off on a tangent.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: How can the Minister table an Opposition submission if there is none? We know that The Nationals have not put in a submission and that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says it is not his portfolio. I have just discovered that the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow transport Minister and he has not made a submission either!

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was talking about the issue in a general sense. He may continue.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would welcome that co-operation of the Opposition.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You said that you've knocked it back.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would welcome it.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Show us the documents! You haven't got any, have you?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Leader of the Opposition is the shadow transport spokesperson.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this is all about rural branch lines. He stands up in this Chamber day after day saying, "When is the Government going to do this? When is the Government going to do that?", but he has not put in a submission. He has absolutely been caught out! The Hon. Duncan Gay is the Leader of the Nationals and he has not put in a submission either. He asked me a question on it and he has not put in a submission! [Time expired.]
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. What is being done at Emu Plains Correctional Centre to address the health needs and rehabilitation of Aboriginal inmates?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I have pleasure outlining to the House a new program targeting Aboriginal women that was recently piloted at the Emu Plains Correctional Centre. The driving force behind the new Aboriginal health program is Elizabeth McEntyre, who is the manager of the Aboriginal Health Unit. The program is a result of NSW Health and the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services working together to implement alternative approaches that address the health concerns of Aboriginal people in New South Wales prisons. A new service, Indigenous Identities, was contracted to facilitate the program. The program was delivered as a pilot between 17 and 20 February this year.

Elizabeth McEntyre's vision encompasses a holistic approach to Aboriginal health. All aspects of physical and mental health are seen as interconnected, hence the corresponding treatment bears this connection in mind. A major catalyst that adversely affects the health of Aboriginal people is their identity or, more specifically, the confusion and angst felt by many Aboriginal inmates when they become disassociated from their cultural consciousness. A lack of identifying knowledge that endows a person with a sense of belonging can generate stress and other symptoms associated with poor health. According to Ms McEntyre one of the main issues facing Aboriginal people has been, and continues to be, dislocation from kin, country and culture.

The program works by empowering Aboriginal inmates with the skills and knowledge required to embark on a project of family history research. It teaches inmates self-reliance and confidence by allowing them to independently unearth aspects of their family's past and their culture's history. Many methods of research are introduced to the inmates within the course of the program. The training includes lectures on a range of topics, beginning with an historic overview, and it also has a decidedly hands-on component. Participants are given the opportunity to research books and indexes, browse computer databases, and use printers and photocopiers. The training program was delivered by Kim Katon, trainer and consultant from Indigenous Identities; Kristen Thorpe, archivist and Aboriginal liaison officer at NSW State Records; and Melissa Jackson, Indigenous Services Librarian from the New South Wales State Library. Several photographic collections from these three institutes were provided during the program, which allowed many participants to find photos of their family members.

Although the State Library has previously provided information sessions for New South Wales offenders, this new program was the first time we engaged NSW State Records. I am also advised that this may well be the first time in Australian history that any State archival authority has entered a correctional facility to provide information sessions and training. The feedback from participants in the program has been nothing but positive. Twenty-six women participated in the program, which was run over four days, consisting of two intensive two-day programs, each catering for 12 participants. One woman stated:

At first I wasn't sure if I'd find anything about my family, but once I started finding information, I didn't want to stop.

Another woman said:

It was one of the best feelings knowing about your people.

The Aboriginal Health Program is a remarkably modern approach to rehabilitation that addresses a person's wellbeing from multiple angles. Governor Judy Leyshon was supportive of the program, treating all participants with respect and presenting them with achievement awards. I commend her efforts and the enthusiasm of the participants and the partners. I am told they were so engrossed in the program that they were actually prepared to miss out on lunch on the days in question. It is envisaged that following the program's success at Emu Plains it will gradually be extended and become available at other correctional centres.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Earlier I was asked when did I extend a hand of co-operation to The Nationals in relation to country restricted branch lines. I refer The Nationals and the Opposition to Hansard of 30 March, which clearly states that I did extend that hand of co-operation.

Questions without notice concluded.
Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

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

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

[The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 5 May.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.30 p.m.]: I was approached by a couple who came to this country from Yugoslavia some years ago under the migrant scheme for skills development and who had been involved in pharmaceutical research at a high level. They were Yugoslavian medical doctors who had worked in Sweden and then obtained a masters degree in London. The husband, Dragan Cvetkovic, had undertaken a couple of years of paediatrics study but had then gone into pharmaceutical research. His wife had completed a one-year internship in Yugoslavia in 1987 before entering the research field. On the completion of animal testing, their role was to develop protocols for the pilot testing of drugs in humans. This is the essence of commercialisation of drugs—taking drugs from the laboratory and then developing an Australian drug industry. The international drug industry has reached the point of rationalisation, with many large companies buying out smaller companies because of the enormous power they wield.

Agencies in Bangladesh have told me that some drug companies stipulate which company may manufacture contraceptives and which may manufacture antibiotics—effectively segmenting the market at the national level and setting prices. Bangladesh pharmacists have had great difficulty in finding manufacturers. If they manufactured generics, they were told they would be black-banned and would have to pay higher wages. Some of the techniques used by the pharmaceutical industry were reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry. Some years ago a father took his sick child to a doctor, who prescribed five medications. The father told the chemist he could not afford to pay for five and asked the chemist's advice on which medications he should buy. The chemist suggested two drugs, which incidentally had the highest mark-up. The father accepted the advice, and subsequently the child died. Penicillin was one of the medications not suggested by the chemist, although it was the one the child needed the most.

On hearing this, a group of Bangladesh doctors recommended that a list of drugs be promoted. The Bangladesh Government produced the list but the pharmaceutical companies would not accept it as an approved drugs list and placed pressure on the Government to withdraw it. The Bangladesh Government would not withdraw it, but decided not to publicise it, stating that it was up to the doctors to publicise the list. That was regarded as a partial victory. This type of pressure is exerted by drug companies, particularly Pfizer, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and resulted in a number of amendments at the Federal level. Indeed, the pharmaceutical industry has a representative on the assessment committee. In negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry governments may agree only to buy a certain drug if the price is lower. The new drug may be only 10 per cent or 20 per cent more effective than its predecessor, so governments negotiate by agreeing to pay only 20 per cent more than the cost of the predecessor.

Australia, with the assistance of Professor David Henry of the University of Newcastle, is a world leader in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs. The lobbying by Pfizer resulted in changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Drug lobby groups will say anything. These powerful groups will proclaim the excellence of a particular drug, and later it is found to be unsafe and is withdrawn from the market. It would be extremely valuable to have the protocols examined. The couple I mentioned have not been given contracts to undertake research, even though they have the requisite skills, because we are not willing to provide the necessary funding. They were unable to gain employment so they set up their own small consulting group and received some small grants.

Australia is squandering the talents of many people because it is not prepared to take a stand. This couple had some dealings with Amrad, an Australian development company. We are misleading our skilled migrants because of our lack of innovation in developing the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the greatest inventions have come from the work of individuals. If the Government were serious about supporting innovation in New South Wales it would consider using this couple.

State development is all about large companies receiving enormous sums of money without taking a risk instead of evaluation of smaller groups, which comprise people who work hard, and understand the market and procedures. I believe they have received a raw deal. The Yugoslavian couple thought that the medical board might assist them to become medical practitioners, but their real vocation is pharmaceutical research. Despite those comments, I welcome the report. I believe, however, that governments tend to deal with companies and bureaucracies, instead of adopting more innovative approaches, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, which has immense scope. Australia must also stop lying to its business migrants, but that is another issue.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.37 p.m.]: As a member of the Standing Committee on State Development I am pleased to speak briefly on this report, which was handed down under the chairmanship of the Hon. Tony Burke. The inquiry was extremely effective and all members co-operated. I wish to thank the director, Mr Bayne McKissock; the project officer, Ms Madeleine Foley; the acting project officer, Ms Cathy Nunn; and the committee officer, Ms Jill Galvin. It was a daunting task to take on the suggestion of the Minister for Science and Medical Research, the Hon. Frank Sartor, to examine these significant areas of interest to the State Government and the people of New South Wales.

I learnt a great deal from participating in this inquiry, particularly looking at and understanding the balance between pure research, research in public sector organisations and the Government's efforts to promote that research, and research in the commercial private sector and being able to market that invaluable research. The committee has significantly moved along the debate about strengthening ties between scientists and the New South Wales Government and recognising that science is one of the most competitive markets in the world.

In its report the committee calls for the creation of an office of chief scientist of New South Wales, a review of the science education curriculum and training for teachers, direct government assistance in protecting intellectual property and commercial brokerage, the creation of direct incentives for public sector scientists whose work is commercialised, and the establishment of a New South Wales Science in Parliament day. Most of the committee's recommendations are worthwhile, and will assist in moving forward pure research, which in many instances is occurring with great success in New South Wales.

However, in terms of going beyond simple research and development and considering the commercialisation of that research, in some instances effective research does not get to the market in New South Wales. One big issue that was discussed is the flight of intellectual property offshore. The committee travelled to a number of areas and held public hearings. The Australian Technology Park in Sydney, which I have visited a number of times for various inquiries, is interesting. When the Hon. Johno Johnson was on the committee he always strongly supported the biotechnology park; indeed, he was a champion of it. Of particular interest to the committee at that time was the newly established biotechnology precinct at the Australian Technology Park, which is funded by the Government's BioFirst strategy. The committee undertook a number of site visits, including one at Leeton.

During the visit I learnt a great deal about research into rice production—a major agricultural crop in New South Wales—and basic issues in that industry. The scientists talked about their work in attempting to save water in the rice industry. Of course, there is laser levelling and the technical expertise that lends to greater efficiencies in the industry. It was perhaps obvious to some, but it was new to me, that rice uses water as a blanket to maintain temperature. Scientists are looking for varieties of rice that can withstand the temperature changes in western New South Wales, which has much more seasonal variation than one would imagine in many traditional rice-growing areas, particularly in South-East Asia.

The scientists are looking at ways of providing rice with greater tolerance to temperature changes and, therefore, potentially doing away with the need to flood rice fields during cultivation of the crop. That in itself could prove to be a significant step forward in an area in which I am extremely interested, that is, environmental issues such as the conservation of water. At least the rice industry is moving forward and investigating possibilities, and that is an extremely important aspect of this type of research for the agriculture sector and the environment in western New South Wales. Recently we have heard much about western New South Wales being under the hammer in terms of the extreme and prolonged drought which is affecting the farming community and, therefore, the environment and the New South Wales economy.

It is reasonable to say that the committee produced an excellent report, which was completed by the staff I referred to earlier, who were under a lot of pressure. The report was well done in a very short time. I was pleased to be part of the inquiry into science and its commercialisation in New South Wales. I hope we can proceed with significant Government and public sector input into this type of research.

Another issue raised during the inquiry was the difference in the style of research and the relationship between the public sector, academic institutions, and the private or commercial sector. For example, we saw the difference between the Australian experience, with greater public sector input, and the American experience, which shows a much closer relationship between researchers in academic institutions and in private industry. That relationship can be seen as a driver for the commercial realisation of various innovative activities and experiments that can occur in all sorts of areas.

The debate about the pros and cons of the Australian experience generally, as opposed to the experience in North America, was interesting. Certainly there are cultural differences in the way governments, academic institutions and scientists on the one hand and commerce and industry on the other hand operate and co-operate. I hope the committee's findings will significantly advance the opportunity for New South Wales research in all these areas without losing the focus on public institutions. The fact is that the general community gains maximum benefit from the spin-off of this endeavour, which is often driven by the Government. Hopefully, the Government and the people of New South Wales can reap the benefits from the New South Wales experience, rather than see much of this innovation go offshore to commercial enterprises. It is an interesting balance. The committee's recommendations will serve to focus on these issues so we achieve a balance and move forward in terms of commercialising science in New South Wales. Once again, I thank the committee chair and all those who were involved in this educational experience.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 11 March.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.48 p.m.]: Report No. 20 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 on the 2003-04 budget estimates covers last year's estimates. I am the chair of the committee, and I hope to continue in that position. The committee held meetings between Monday 1 September and Thursday 4 September and again on 20 February and 26 February 2004 to review the budget papers for the portfolios of Rural Affairs, Local Government, Emergency Services, Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries, Regional Development, the Illawarra, Small Business and Mineral Resources. In addition, further supplementary hearings were held outside the initial week on important issues. I thank the departmental staff who made themselves available for the further supplementary hearings.

At the outset I thank the committee members and the secretariat staff for the efficient conduct of the hearings, the preparation of questions, and the constructive conduct of the inquiry. In addition to the committee members who attended hearings, other members who attended included the Hon. Tony Burke, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Robyn Parker, the Hon. Melinda Pavey, the Hon. Greg Pearce and the Hon. Christine Robertson. This report summarises the main issues heard at each hearing. Literally hundreds of questions were asked by committee members—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Not many were answered.

Mr IAN COHEN: That is an interesting interjection, but literally hundreds of questions were asked by the committee of the relevant Minister and departmental representatives. Sometimes the answers were illuminating; at other times I would agree with the Hon. Rick Colless that they were not. The report notes that all questions that were taken on notice during the hearings or subsequently through the House were answered. That is to be appreciated.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: An answer was received; they were not answered.

Mr IAN COHEN: That is also an interesting interjection. They were answered, but I suppose that is something for people who read the report to judge. It is all on the record. Certainly there were some unsatisfactory answers, but all questions were answered and it is reasonable to thank the Minister's office and departmental staff for that. Budget estimates hearings are a very important public review of the budget papers, but it is important that Ministers and departmental staff are prepared to answer questions.

Taking questions on notice should not be an automatic response in these public hearings; that should happen only when further detailed information is to be provided. Nevertheless, a number of people who appeared before the committee made direct responses to committee members. I particularly acknowledge Commissioner Phil Koperberg on questions dealing with the Rural Fire Service; Ms Lisa Corbyn, now of the Department of Environment and Conservation, on salinity issues; Mr Alan Coutts, Director-General of Mineral Resources; Dr R. Sheldrake, Director-General of Agriculture; and Dr L. Harris of the Department of Regional Development. The report minutes the conduct of the hearings, correspondence received, and decisions on the conduct of the hearings of the committee.

While I commend the report to the House, we did have some hearings at which there was a significant concern that questions had not been fully answered. It is of note that certain members of the committee, particularly members of the Opposition, sought to have further hearings and to have people come back to give further evidence. The Director-General of Local Government travelled far and appeared before the committee at a later stage. It is important to recognise that we were able to go through the full process by recalling the committee, and that is something that will continue to happen if we do not get the answers that are required the first time around. It is a fairly time-consuming activity but it highlights the potential of upper House committees such as the estimates committees and it shows that the upper House—despite what is often stated in the media and by a government that is critical of the activities of these committees—is very much a part of the fabric of democracy, having the opportunity to adequately question both Ministers and their staff on matters of economic importance subsequent to significant ministerial decisions being made.

I was pleased to be the chair of this committee for the first time and I look forward to the next estimates committee hearings. I think we will be just that much more enthusiastic and skilled to deal with the occasionally evasive answers by Ministers and staff. I commend to the House report No. 20 of the estimates committee, dealing with the 2003-04 budget papers.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.54 p.m.]: I wish to speak briefly on this report. I echo some of the comments made by Mr Ian Cohen as chairman. The chair did a very good job on this committee. My role was fairly limited in that I took a major role only in the Mineral Resources portfolio hearings. I was really quite annoyed and disgusted that the Minister for Mineral Resources took an inordinate number of questions on notice. He took them on notice simply because he did not know the answers. He is a new Minister so I suppose we have to allow him some slack, but the degree to which he was not across his own department was quite embarrassing. I think Government members of the committee were just as embarrassed as we were to see this Minister floundering and continually resorting to taking questions on notice. As the chair indicated, it has become an unsatisfactory characteristic of these estimates committees that not only Ministers but also senior public servants prevaricate, obfuscate, and directly mislead the committee by not properly answering questions and by taking every course of action they can to escape the proper scrutiny that the upper House committees apply to government departments in relation to the important issue of expenditure of taxpayers' money.

This year a number of committees held supplementary hearings. I took part in them, though not in this committee. The supplementary hearings were much more useful. There were times when it became apparent that the senior public servants who came back for the supplementary hearings had decided they would not prevaricate, obfuscate, and try to delay and mislead any longer, but would answer questions. In large part the written answers to questions taken on notice were completely unsatisfactory. We were given reams and reams of written answers that either referred to Premier's Department circulars or referred to guidelines or all sorts of other pieces of paper but did not address the questions asked. That was a very frustrating experience, as it has been for a number of years on some of these committees.

As I said, it was quite embarrassing to see the Minister for Mineral Resources before the committee. The fact that he took so many questions on notice and then did not provide answers to them is quite an indictment of the quality of his ministry. The transcript will make interesting reading for anyone who is interested in the quality of that ministry.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Do you want Eddie to come back?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not think we want Eddie back in the ministry, but he at least made a pretence of been properly advised. This fellow does not have a clue when it comes to the Mineral Resources portfolio. I enjoyed my part in the committee's work and I commend its report to the House. Of course, I thank the other members of the committee and the secretariat, who do a wonderful job, as does Hansard.

The Hon. IAN WEST [2.59 p.m.]: In relation to the report and in response to the previous speaker, the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Minister was answering every question that he possibly could. The only problem was that he was being asked questions about the wrong portfolio. The poor Minister said if the questions related to the correct portfolio he could answer them. I remember sitting in that seat asking the Hon. Melinda Pavey whether she would like to take a 10-minute break to get some advice about the questions because they related to the wrong portfolio. The Hon. Greg Pearce should not blame the Minister for not answering questions that did not relate to his portfolio.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 31 March.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.01 p.m.]: General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 has conducted extensive hearings on the budget estimates for 2003-04, with initial hearings involving all of the Ministers and departments relevant to the portfolios for which the committee is responsible, namely, Infrastructure and Planning and Natural Resources, Roads and Housing, Transport Services and the Hunter, Energy and Utilities, and Science and Medical Research. At the outset, I thank the members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 for their work in the lengthy and detailed process of examining the estimates. I thank deputy chair Ms Sylvia Hale, my colleague the Hon. David Clarke, the Hon. David Oldfield, Government members the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, the Hon. Kayee Griffin and the Hon. Tony Catanzariti, and all the other participating members who assisted from time to time during the many months of work. Thanks must also go to the committee secretariat staff, particularly Mr Steven Reynolds and Mr John Young, as well as Mr Warren Cahill, who offers invaluable advice from time to time.

As to the Roads and Housing portfolios, the committee conducted supplementary hearings, as it did with Transport Services and Energy and Utilities. As members have noted in earlier debates on general purpose standing committee reports, it was considered that supplementary hearings were necessary because the answers to many of the questions asked of Ministers and departments in the first round of hearings left a great deal to be desired. In many cases the questions, which we asked on behalf of our constituents, had been put on notice. So it was not as though the Ministers and departments did not have an opportunity to do their homework and come up with some meaningful answers. Many of the answers were standardised, bureaucratic verbiage—in fact, I would say they were garbage—which cast no light on information, which the electors of this State are entitled to, about the way money is being expended by the Government.

In other instances issues were raised in the first round of hearings which warranted further probing by the committee. Therefore, we conducted a program of extensive supplementary hearings. Accordingly, the House agreed to several extensions of time for reporting upon the hearings and deliberations. I take this opportunity to thank the House for acceding to those requests for extension of time. Last November the committee conducted supplementary hearings on Transport Services, Energy and Utilities, and Roads and Housing. In February the committee again conducted supplementary hearings on Energy and Utilities, Transport Services and Roads and Housing, and in March we had another two rounds of public hearings focusing on the increasingly chaotic Transport Services portfolio.

At supplementary hearings on Transport Services, the committee devoted much of its energy to exposing issues of concern. At one stage the Minister for Transport Services seemed a bit miffed that he had not been invited to appear at a supplementary hearing. The committee wanted to concentrate upon getting facts from the agencies for which he is responsible. The Minister told the House that he would attend anyway, as he is entitled to, as a member of the House. However, on the day of the hearing he decided better of it and did not attend.

Given the high profile of the future of CountryLink services, it is interesting to look back on our discussions with the chief executive officer of the Rail Corporation about the possibility of closures or the viability of CountryLink services. Tragically, as we have seen with the imminent closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line, the undertakings given to the committee seem to have been empty promises. As to the Infrastructure and Planning and Natural Resources portfolios, Minister Knowles and his officers were questioned about, among other things, the new structure of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR]. I have no doubt that in the next round of budget estimates this topic will give rise to further questioning, as a number of members have concerns about the number of jobs in country and coastal New South Wales that may be affected by the restructure. The impact of loss of jobs was not immediately apparent, but now it is starting to be talked about across country and coastal New South Wales.

As to the Roads and Housing portfolios, the committee covered many issues in the questioning of Minister Scully and officers from both departments for which he is responsible. The committee was interested in a range of topics, but cost blow-outs on metropolitan roads and various road projects, not the least of which was the Pacific Highway, were of particular concern for a number of members at the hearing. At the supplementary hearings for the portfolios of Transport Services and the Hunter many questions were asked about rail safety; the Waterfall inquiry report; the amalgamation of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation and StateRail into RailCorp; the future of country services in various parts of the State, including Sydney to Canberra and Tamworth to Armidale; the infamous Millennium train project; the life expectancy of the XPTs; train driver numbers and recruitment; and the seemingly endless number of ferry accidents around Sydney.

Some committee members were interested in the minutiae of procedures and appointments relating to the handling of freedom of information requests in the ministries. The committee exposed the fact that the Labor mates syndrome is alive and well in the Transport Services area of the Carr Labor Government and unravelled the recruitment procedures for a number of positions, including director of community transport. Because of the number of mishaps occurring with Sydney ferries—as I said, they seem to be constant and recurring—the committee requested that Mr Watson, general manager of Sydney Ferries, appear at a public hearing on 26 March. Interestingly, Mr Watson was "formally removed from his position" on 25 March, the day before he was due to appear before the committee. As Mr Watson was no longer a public servant or a public officer, the committee's capacity to question Mr Watson was also removed. The timing of his removal was an interesting development. The committee members are very sceptical about the department's protestations that the imminent opportunity for the committee to question Mr Watson had nothing to do with his sudden and total eradication from the public service.

The committee had lengthy discussions with, and interrogated witnesses from, Sydney Water. One of the subtle ironies in the committee's report of its hearings is embedded in the summary of the topics covered during the examination of Sydney Water's operations. The report indicates that the committee asked for information about leak reduction strategies. To the chagrin of the Carr Labor Government, at this stage of the political cycle—the Government has been in office for a decade—Sydney Water, like a number of other agencies, is starting to leak like a sieve. On the basis of claims made by some disaffected employees, Opposition members asked a number of questions about allegations of conflict of interest at the top of Sydney Water and involving its managing director, Mr Greg Robinson. During the hearing the committee learnt of an Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] inquiry into those matters and an inquiry and report undertaken by the internal audit bureau.

The committee called the chair of the Sydney Water board, Ms Gabrielle Kibble, to a supplementary hearing to give evidence. She was to provide a copy of the internal audit bureau's report on a confidential basis. Ms Kibble declined, stating that the document had been referred to the ICAC for investigation. As the committee's report states, Ms Kibble agreed to contact the ICAC to establish whether the document could be made available to the committee and to provide the advice from the ICAC for consideration at the committee's next meeting. In subsequent correspondence to me as the committee chair, Ms Kibble advised that the ICAC was of the view that it had no property in the internal audit bureau report and held no view about preventing production of the report to the committee. Notwithstanding that advice from the ICAC, Ms Kibble declined to disclose the report to the committee on a voluntary basis. Interestingly, prior to the committee's being able to convene to determine any action it might take, the Hon. Michael Egan gave notice of a motion relating to an order for papers, which included the internal audit bureau report into Mr Robinson. That motion was passed on 25 February last and the documents were tabled on the following day but on the basis that they were available only to honourable members of this House.

When we debated the motion I told the House that it was very suspicious that the Leader of the Government was using a motion to call for the tabling of documents held by the Government itself. That was possibly unprecedented. Since when has a Government called for the tabling of its own documents in the House? I spoke to Minister Sartor and he said that there was nothing in the internal audit bureau report upon which he had to act.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Was it a civil conversation?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes. I think he was on the back foot at that time. Interestingly, just after the documents were tabled in the House by the Clerk and inspected by the Hon. Greg Pearce and me, the Sydney Water board met and dismissed Mr Robinson. The suspicions I raised in this House about what the Government was up to, at least—

The Hon. Henry Tsang: You were causing more trouble.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I am always causing trouble; that is my job. My suspicions were vindicated by Sydney Water's dramatic action that same day. As noted in the report, only eight days before that I asked Ms Kibble, the chair of the Sydney Water board:

Can you confirm today your absolute confidence in Mr Robinson's performance as Managing Director of Sydney Water Corporation?

Of course, she replied that she could. The Government had tried to create the impression that there was nothing much in the issue, but the board sacked the managing director. Whatever else is wrong with the corporation, its leak reduction strategy did not work on that occasion. It must have been distressing for the chair of the Sydney Water board to have to acknowledge to the committee that Mr Robinson had breached Sydney Water's policy on dealing with conflicts of interest. Until then she had claimed that Mr Robinson had consistently declared to the board any circumstances in which there was a conflict of interest. It was not declared in the case of an architect undertaking domestic work for Mr Robinson and then being contracted to undertake work for Sydney Water.

When first asked about the allegations, Mr Robinson told the committee that they were the product of aggrieved staff members who were being mischievous. The corporate secretary of the corporation was requested to appear before the committee. She did so, but only to tell honourable members that just one hour previously she had resigned from the board and had been made general manager, corporate services. The reason cited was that it would make for good corporate governance. Interestingly, good corporate governance was a board priority in this high profile matter during the estimates hearings and supplementary hearings. Again, I am not sure whether that was another of the extraordinary coincidences that occurred during the course of the hearings.

As the chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 said a short time ago, this round of estimates hearings has demonstrated that the committees will recall Ministers, agencies and departmental officers for supplementary hearings if answers first given are meaningless and/or arrogant and demonstrate contempt for the House and the taxpayers of this State. It remains to be seen during the budget estimates hearings for 2004-05 whether the Carr Labor Government, its Ministers and its public officers have learnt that the upper House committees will not be trifled with, that they will beaver away to get meaningful answers and will keep working on behalf of the taxpayers of New South Wales until answers are obtained about the way the Government has used tax revenue. Because of the politically sensitive topics General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 dealt with during its extensive inquiries, some issues were high profile. Therefore, from time to time the committee's deliberations became heated. However, I again thank all honourable members for ensuring that the task was completed and the committee was able to present this report. It was work well done and is to the benefit of the taxpayers of New South Wales.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.16 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, who does a very good job as the chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No 4. I participated in the estimates hearings dealing with the Roads portfolio, and particularly the 2003-04 budget allocation for the Princes Highway. I asked some questions and put some questions on notice, and I will deal with them today. I managed to get the Minister to detail further projects beyond those mentioned in the budget papers, and I am grateful for that. However, I am disappointed that the Minister has been much less than forthcoming about his so-called $380 million development of the Princes Highway. We have been hearing about that project from Minister Carl Scully for more than five years. He appears to be a slow learner. His position on the highway did nothing to save Wayne Smith, the former member for South Coast. He seems determined, with the able assistance of the Minister for Transport Services, the Hon. Michael Costa, to revisit it now on Matt Brown, the honourable member for Kiama.

In particular, the Minister failed to answer a specific question about what projects fell within the parameters of the $380 million development and the total anticipated cost of each project, major or minor. The Minister's reticence is not to his credit he conceded that the $380 million development program was initially part of the 1998-99 budget, and for the past four years or so he has spoken about a 10-year program being in place. During the lead-up to the last State election we got rather suspicious, because all reference to a 10-year program disappeared from the Australian Labor Party plan for the Illawarra and the South Coast; it simply remained a $380 million program. In debate in the other place the honourable member for Wollongong, Noreen Hay, spoke about the same $380 million redevelopment stretching to 2010. It now seems to have blown out to a 12-year program. However, still we have not been provided with details of that program, even during debate in the other place.

The Minister's answers to the committee speak volumes. He spoke about the projects we already know about—for example, the work that is taking place on the north Kiama bypass; the work between Yellowpinch and Millingandi, on the far South Coast; the widening of the highway between Mogo and Moruya, and the construction of an overtaking lane between Milton and Ulladulla. But still no other details have been provided. Despite specific requests from the committee, the Minister has not provided that information. Clearly, there is a deliberate strategy in ensuring that the community on the South Coast cannot keep the Minister accountable, because he will not tell us the details of the projects in that $380 million program. The projects are a complete mystery and the Minister is constantly moving the goalposts.

This is a very serious matter for the people of the South Coast. It is worth placing on record that between 1990 and 2000 the volume of traffic on the Pacific Highway increased by 25 per cent. Certainly the funding for the highway did not increase by that proportion over that period. By way of comparison, according to the NRMA between Wollongong and Nowra there are more than 10,000 vehicle movements per day. Interestingly, exactly the same number of vehicle movements per day occur between Hexham and Coffs Harbour. At Ulladulla there are more than 10,000 vehicle movements per day, and at Ballina there are more than 10,000 vehicle movements per day.

As I have said on other occasions, I do not begrudge the people of the North Coast one cent. Indeed, they need every cent they get from the State Government for upgrading the Pacific Highway, and arguably much more, and I fully support that. But the people of the South Coast are absolutely sick of the deal they are getting from the State Government regarding funding for the Princes Highway. The Government spends five times as much on the Pacific Highway annually as it spends on the Princes Highway. The figures on vehicle movements clearly show that there is a need to look at an upgraded funding program for the Princes Highway.

I also place on record the dangers on the Princes Highway. For honourable members who are interested in looking into that further, I direct them to the excellent route performance report on the Princes Highway that was prepared by the NRMA two years ago. The Roads and Traffic Authority's April bulletin, which outlines preliminary traffic accident data, particularly the portion on dealing with fatal accidents, clearly shows, tragically, that the highway with the most fatalities in April 2004 was the Princes Highway. Five fatalities occurred on the Princes Highway, compared with one fatality on the Hume Highway and one on the Newell Highway. Thankfully, there were no fatalities on the Pacific Highway during April 2004, which I am sure all members would be pleased about. The statistics outline the problems on the Princes Highway and the need for the Government to be more honest about what it is doing.

There is plenty of scope for work on the Princes Highway. Prior to the last State election I carried out research to identify the projects between Kiama and Eden that were a priority for the Government. Those projects included the need for an upgrade at South Nowra to widen the highway to four lanes; the need for a divided carriageway from South Nowra to Jervis Bay; the need to realign and widen the route between Tomerong and Wandandian; the need to fix black spots such as Heggo's Corner and Jerrawangala; the need for a route deviation at Conjola; the need to strengthen the Clyde River bridge; the need to realign the northern approaches to the Wagonga Inlet bridge at Narooma; the need to realign the route south of Narooma at Victoria Creek; the need to widen the narrow road between Bermagui Road and Dignams Creek, north of Cobargo; the need to strengthen the Brogo River bridge; the need for a Bega bypass; the need for the construction of a new bridge at Pambula River—an issue that could be the subject of a separate speech in terms of the duplicity of the Minister —and the need to widen the narrow road from Harts Creek to Bellbird Creek, north of Eden.

In the lead-up to the 2003 State election the Liberal and National parties promised to spend an additional $200 million to upgrade the Princes Highway and complete those projects. The Opposition was up-front about what it was prepared to do, but during estimates committee hearings the Minister will not tell us the details of the projects he proposes to fund as part of his so-called $380 million plan. It is a matter that the House and the committee must continue to focus on, and I certainly propose to pursue it further during the next estimates committee hearing process.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.26 p.m.]: I congratulate the members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 who took part in the estimates committee process for 2003-04. I was impressed by the willingness of the committee to recall witnesses several times, particularly this year when three separate supplementary hearings were held to probe the Government's performance on transport issues. I believe this created a new important benchmark. The estimates committee process is a great example of how Parliament can ensure accountability and transparency in government, particularly in the Legislative Council. Were it not for the Legislative Council and its committees—which are sometimes attacked by the tabloid press and Government members—the opportunity to subject the Government and the public service to full and democratic scrutiny would be almost zero.

No area of government activity deserves more scrutiny at the moment than the transport portfolio. Since the Minister for Transport Services, Michael Costa, took over, a slash-and-burn mentality has prevailed in the transport sector. The Minister's management of this vital area of government stands in extraordinary contrast to the promises of massive investment in the Action for Public Transport 2010 program of 1998. That document promised new projects, new funding, and better services and infrastructure. However, the reality has been cancelled projects, withdrawn funding, and poorer services and infrastructure.

How disappointing from a Labor government. Instead of investing in public transport, it has followed in the footsteps of its Coalition predecessors. This was clearly and consistently revealed during General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 estimates committee hearings. During those hearings my colleague Sylvia Hale and I asked many times about the funding and future of CountryLink rail. On 20 February Mr Vince Graham, the chief executive of RailCorp, told us that all CountryLink rail routes would be maintained.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: He suggested they put buses on instead of trains.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, he forgot that he used the word "rail", otherwise he might have got away with it for a moment. Just a month later we learnt that the Casino to Murwillumbah service would be lost. Ominously, Mr Graham also told us that:

We are focusing our attention on what needs to be done to improve revenue yield and reduce overheads associated with operating the business.

The Greens are not opposed to finding sensible ways to reduce overheads, but that is an entirely different matter from cutting back services and shedding jobs. The Greens reject outright the idea that CountryLink should be run like a private company, where the focus is always on costs. That is the bottom line. CountryLink is not a profit machine, or a cash cow, it is a public service. Nobody denies that it costs money to provide rail services in rural areas, but governments have obligations to provide services. They have an obligation to make that investment and to offer a subsidy.

On the subject of the subsidy, we were amazed to learn at one of our hearings that Vince Graham appeared unaware that CountryLink takes a smaller subsidy, relative to its size, than that taken by CityRail. On 5 March Ms Sylvia Hale asked Mr Graham why he was so focused on cutting CountryLink services, given that the public subsidy to CountryLink is 14¢ per passenger kilometre and the public subsidy to CityRail is 20¢ per passenger kilometre. Mr Graham said:

I do not know whose numbers they are. I have never used them.

Although they came from the Parry report—a report commissioned by the Government—Mr Graham says he knows nothing about them. His answer even suggests that he is trying to belittle the figures. It seems that if facts stand in the way of the anti-CountryLink agenda, they will be ignored. On 26 March, just a few days before the mini-budget, Mr Graham again replied to a question put by Ms Sylvia Hale that there were no proposed cuts to CountryLink rail services on the cards. He said that very clearly: no cuts to CountryLink rail services. Just over a week later we learnt in the mini-budget that the Casino to Murwillumbah service would be cut. Did Mr Graham mislead the committee? Or did Minister Costa not tell him what the Minister was planning? Or did they decide to axe the CountryLink service only a few days before the mini-budget? The contradictions between Mr Graham's statements and the Government's actions are disturbing. Perhaps we cannot trust Mr Graham. Or perhaps Mr Costa does not trust him or cannot even communicate with his own public servants. Or perhaps policy is being made on the run, as has been made apparent in other parts of the mini-budget. Perhaps Treasurer Egan went round and knocked on each Minister's door a few days before the mini-budget and said, "Find me one major cost saving in your portfolio."

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: I have sat here for some time and listened to the honourable member speak about various matters that are before committees of this House. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 is conducting an inquiry into the mini-budget, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 is conducting an inquiry into the Murwillumbah rail link, and so on. Indeed, with regard to some of the matters there are motions before this House. In addition, the member is saying things about a particular public servant when she knows full well that if she wishes to attack a public servant in this way, she should obey the standing order and seek to do so by way of substantive motion. Take-note debates on committee reports should stick to the content of the committee report and the process of the estimates committees and not trespass on other matters that are currently before the House. I would ask that you urge the Hon. Lee Rhiannon to abide by the standing orders.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: To the point of order—

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Madam Deputy-President, I draw attention to the fact that time for debate has expired.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The time for debate may well have expired, but I will deal with the point of order.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: The points raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon are valid, and I would like to confirm for the benefit of the Chair that much of what the member has been talking about is referred to in the transcripts and the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 that is before the Chair at the moment. No doubt she will be able to continue to refer to those same transcripts on the next occasion.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! There is no point of order. The member was speaking to matters relative to portfolios that were the subject of examination by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4. As has been pointed out, the time for the take-note debate on this report has expired. However, I am sure the member will continue her contribution when debate on this report is resumed.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Costa agreed to:

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

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

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 98 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to CountryLink, be called on forthwith.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

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

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.37 p.m.]: Prior to lunch I detailed how Labor members of Parliament are not standing up for New South Wales rail services in the face of Minister Costa's rundown and wind-back position on rail services. Mr Neville Newell, the Labor member for Tweed, is one member of Parliament we could have expected to take a stand to protect CountryLink. After all, it is the Casino to Murwillumbah line, which runs largely through his electorate, that the Government plans to close on 17 May. But Mr Newell has not made one comment in the Legislative Assembly about this closure. Even when that House debated a motion on CountryLink rail services on 6 May, not a word was uttered by Mr Newell. He did not contribute to the debate.

While we welcome the Coalition parties' awakening about the importance of rural rail services, we need to remember that it was the Liberals and The Nationals in the 1980s and early 1990s that axed rural rail services while Bob Carr's Opposition at that time protested. So despite the angry words of the Opposition today against the Government's plans for CountryLink, we still cannot be confident that rail services would fare any better under a Coalition government. Questioned recently about his plans for the future of country rail services, Mr Gallacher, the Opposition spokesperson on transport, did not instil in us any hope that the Coalition would change its own wind-back rail policy if elected to government. The Armidale Express reported that in response to the question about what the Coalition would do if the Government removed the Armidale train, Mr Gallacher stated:

The problem I have is that we do not see a State election for another three and a half years. I can give you a commitment today but if in two years or 12 months time this railway station is closed down and we're looking at a cafe and the railway lines are in such a deplorable condition because of maintenance neglect over the next three and a half years, then where do I go from there?

Those comments are not surprising as the policy of the Coalition parties when in office are indistinguishable from Labor's present policy. The last time the Conservatives occupied the Treasury benches they closed 22 lines, and their arguments for why they took such heartless action has a ring of similarity to the comments of the current transport Minister, Mr Costa. In response to a number of constituents Wal Murray, a former Deputy Premier, stated:

Thank you for your letter … concerning your dissatisfaction with the Government's changes to rail services. I believe that the changes which we have made to the State's rail services must be viewed within the context of the State Rail Authority's huge operating losses … During our term in office, we have had to make a number of hard decisions such as cutting rail services in order to combat the massive $46 billion debt …

That certainly sounds familiar. Last week when the House was debating the Australian Rail Track Corporation legislation, the Treasurer boasted that this year the Government would put another $300 million into passenger rail services on top of the $2.5 billion that had been made available for capital works. The Minister for Transport Services interjected that the Government provides $1.6 billion in subsidies for rail. The people of New South Wales have a right to expect money to be spent on public services. Funding is needed to maintain and upgrade rail services across New South Wales, but it is not happening to the degree that the public has the right to expect. Much of this money is being spent on CityRail services. As I outlined in another debate, the Parry report found that CityRail services are subsidised at 20¢ per passenger kilometre travelled while country rail services receive only a 14¢ subsidy.

If this Labor Government had honoured its own public transport policy outlined in Action for Public Transport 2010, there would not be this inequity. When the document was released in 1998 the Government promised $210 million for rural rail services. Six years later most of the Government's promises on road funding have been honoured, but the promises to maintain and upgrade rail services are languishing. Rural New South Wales urgently needs more money to be spent on its rail services. We should remember that significant maintenance is necessary because for decades successive governments, both Labor and Coalition, cut corners.

Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to see first-hand a number of rail branch lines that are in a state of considerable disrepair. On the Greenethorpe line I saw warped track running over splintered and broken sleepers. Local farmers, who depend on this line to move their grain, told me that the train on that line travels at a maximum of 10 kilometres per hour because a faster speed would be unsafe. Also, trains on some branch lines run only of an evening because accidents are more likely during the day, when the tracks have been heated by the sun and can buckle. Closure of the Greenethorpe branch line will impact on local employment.

The Shamrock Hotel, which is run by Gil and Irene Carroll, employs six people. The peak period for the hotel is December, when dozens of contractors stay there for the duration of the harvest season. Gil believes that the hotel will not be viable if the Government abandons the railway, which will have a flow-on effect for the small township of Greenethorpe and surrounding areas. The Minister may dismiss community concerns as mere collateral damage on his journey to prove that his cost-cutting efforts demonstrate his prowess to be Treasurer, but closure of the line will have a real and unnecessary adverse effect. The Minister should fulfil his obligations by providing rail services for all people in New South Wales.

Our ancestors had the foresight to build the rail system in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and we have no right to dismantle this essential public service. This generation has a responsibility to maintain and expand this asset, but it is a job for the Government. Greenethorpe is only one of 15 branch lines that the Government seems hell-bent on running down. On behalf of the Greens I congratulate the New South Wales Farmers Association and the many communities across western New South Wales that are fighting to save their branch lines. They understand what the Government refuses to acknowledge: the removal of rail services from communities will damage greatly their social fabric, economy and environment. It is unacceptable and it is unnecessary.

Even if freight rail operations are not fully commercially viable, they keep trucks off our roads, and that is a very good thing. Grain on rail means fewer trucks on our roads, and that results in less noise and air pollution, fewer road accidents, less deterioration in road quality and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The Greens argue that although there may be short-term savings—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There are not even short-term savings.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, I accept that interjection. When one considers the overall economics, the only way to go is to keep grain on rail. Many country communities have expressed concern about the potential for more accidents when thousands of giant B-doubles trundle down narrow country roads. If the Government's madness becomes a reality and the branch line closes, trucks will be forced to carry grain 100 kilometres from Greenethorpe to Stockinbingal. If B-doubles travel along that road, they will encounter eight school buses.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: B-doubles travel only on dedicated roads with council approval. If you are going to speak on this subject, you should get your facts right!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: This information has come directly from the community and from what I saw of the narrow roads. The Nationals need to become involved in this campaign because it is already happening.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We were there long before the Greens were.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: And you need to stay there and not desert the people.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You want to close down the industries that supply these trains.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Leader of The Nationals is wrong. Any B-doubles travelling along that road will encounter eight school buses. The two Greenethorpe school buses carry 28 children in total; the Grenfell school bus carries 16 children; the Milvale school bus carries 27 children; the Wallendbeen school bus carries 13 children, the Wombat school bus carries 17 children, the Greenethorpe to Young school bus carries 29 children; and the Stockinbingal school bus carries 14 children. It would be extremely dangerous if B-doubles were to travel along those routes. It was certainly the most worrying aspect of my trip to western New South Wales. Parents and farmers expressed considerable concern about school buses travelling along narrow roads that will be used by B-doubles—and the number will skyrocket if grain is forced off rail.

In an average year 40,000 tonnes of grain will have to be carted by road from Greenethorpe to Stockinbingal, with a total of 1,126 B-double legal loads. In a high-yielding year school buses will have to combat 2,428 B-doubles because potentially 85,000 tonnes of grain will be transported by road. The bottom line is that 144 schoolchildren face the risk of being 2,428 times more likely to be involved in a life-threatening accident with a B-double on this single carriageway, which is suitable for light traffic only. Obviously, Greenethorpe is just one example. The problem will escalate in the north of the State, where isolation is a greater factor and schoolchildren travel greater distances. I thank the community of Greenethorpe for supplying me with that data.

It is tragic that because the Government has allowed the rail system to become rundown, communities focus more on retaining existing lines. That is natural because rural people value their rail services, rail workers and unions. The Greens are working tirelessly to prevent the Government from allowing existing rail services to further erode. We must strive also to restore those rail lines that have been discontinued. The Tumut to Cootamundra line is one of many lines that should be reopened. It was closed in 1982 when a bridge was washed out, but it should now be restored. I accept that there will be a cost involved in that restoration. I understand from Chris Adams, General Manager, Tumut Shire Council, that it will cost approximately $40 million to bring the line up to the appropriate standard. The community and local businesses need that rail line. I understand that stage two of the Visy mill will not go ahead until this line is built. The Visy mill is supported widely by the community and is seen as providing a great opportunity for job expansion in that area.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Do you support the plantations down there?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. The Greens' concern is that the Government intends to privatise the plantations. At the moment the Government is hell-bent on doing that. This is yet another matter about which the Minister should come clean.

The Hon. Michael Costa: So you are supporting the softwood plantations?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I did not say softwood plantations. There is a difference.

The Hon. Michael Costa: How will the Visy mill work without the softwood plantations?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There is a difference. The softwood plantations—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! It may be better for the member if she were to ignore the interjections.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The softwood plantations are there and clearly the wood needs to be dealt with. It is time the Minister honoured the commitment of his predecessor, Carl Scully. In 1998 the former Minister said:

We are currently investigating the feasibility of reopening disused rail lines in rural New South Wales.

Let us hope the Minister participates in the debate and comments on the commitments given by his predecessor, Mr Scully. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. Under this Labor Government we are witnessing the massive dismantling of a vital public service. Public rail services are vital to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of this State. However, Minister Costa, the rail vandal, is intent on changing CountryLink into a coach-based service. Time and again in this House the Minister berates us with his argument that the service must be cost effective. That is simply a smokescreen for his goal of reducing the rail budget by pushing commuters onto coaches and therefore saving his department maintenance costs.

The Minister has put forward 17 May as the final date for the Casino to Murwillumbah line. That is disgraceful. If the service were properly resourced, patronage would rise and car use in the area would fall. The Greens believe that when it comes to public services, such as a comprehensive rail network, the needs of communities come before the need to make a profit. We need investment and long-term planning in New South Wales rail services, not the arrogance of a Minister obsessed with saving money so that he can demonstrate his prowess as a financial manager. Perhaps the Minister's actions impress the Treasurer and the Premier, but he is certainly selling the people of New South Wales short. I commend the motion to the House and look forward to debate on it.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [3.52 p.m.]: I oppose the motion, but not because there are not some reasonable comments in some sections of it. Indeed, it would be impossible for any member to disagree with some of the comments, including the comment that viable CountryLink services provide a vital public service. The Government recognises that that is the case.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That is the Broken Hill service, is it?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will come to the record of The Nationals and the Liberal Party in terms of country rail lines—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Are you referring to the Broken Hill line?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Will the Hon. Catherine Cusack stop interjecting? She will have an opportunity to speak in the debate, and we will not interject. This motion is a waste of time. The Treasurer has indicated that he wishes to introduce a major bill because he needs to fund the health services, transport services and disability services that the people of New South Wales want. As I said, there are many comments in the motion that honourable members could not disagree with. However, as usual, the Greens have convoluted, with a clear ideology and economic nonsense, a number of arguments that may make some sense. That is the problem with this motion. The Government wants to adopt a set of strategies that leads to the maximum protection of CountryLink services. That is why we took the opportunity during the inquiry into CountryLink to look at precisely how to make the services sustainable. A finding of that inquiry was that we currently spend in the order of $30 million in ticketing costs and reservation overheads to receive revenue of $45 million.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That is mismanagement. Fix it!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Obviously the Hon. Catherine Cusack knows nothing about many topics. If she continues to interject, this will take longer than necessary. I ask the honourable member not to interject until I have finished. She will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. The fact is that we undertook an inquiry, which clearly showed the practices put in place by the Coalition Government, such as private booking agents receiving fees for tickets that have absolutely no revenue attached. That was a clear case of mismanagement. I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Catherine Cusack. That practice was put in place by the Coalition Government.

Mr Ian Cohen: So you are better at it than the other mob, is that your only argument?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I certainly hope that we are better than the other mob at managing the State's economy. I would want to be better than the other mob at managing the State's economy.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: So you are going to cut the services.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Once again the Hon. Catherine Cusack has not even used the short time she has been here to get a grip—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You are so arrogant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is right, but I am more intelligent than you and more dedicated to doing the work that is required to understand what I am talking about. Unfortunately, the honourable member does not do the work. She does not realise that some of the measures she is talking about were introduced by the last Coalition Government, and we have had to correct them.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You've had nine years to fix them.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, I have not had nine years. Let me go through the argument, then members opposite will have an opportunity to respond.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Qantas uses parliamentary booking agents.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, but they do not give away tickets.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: We do?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, to your staff.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You have been doing that for nine years.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What do you think frequent flyer points are? They are free tickets.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am glad the Hon. Rick Colless is not running the economy. They are built into the price of the fares.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Minister would do well to ignore the interjections.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: What a joke! I hope members opposite never get their hands on government with that philosophy. The State would go broke even quicker than if the Greens got hold of it. The Government conducted an inquiry that clearly showed that there were significant problems with the operations of CountryLink in terms of costs and with declining patronage and declining revenues relating to that patronage. The Greens have a killer fact, as usual. The fact is that on three or four occasions they have quoted a reference in the Parry report to a 14¢ a kilometre subsidy in relation to CountryLink and a 20¢ a kilometre subsidy in relation to CityRail. That killer fact is supposed to destroy the Government's arguments in relation to these services.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What about the $3 million a year?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Can I finish this point? That is the Greens' killer fact—14¢ versus 20¢. However, the Greens do not quote the next paragraph of the Parry report, which clearly states:

Whether this level of subsidy is justified depends on the value of avoided external costs other than social costs that are met by targeted concessions. These avoided external costs are likely to be lower for CountryLink services than for CityRail services as the latter resulted in much higher levels of unavoidable road congestion.

Let us put that argument to bed. It is put to bed in the very document that the Greens distorted to make their usual populist, grandstanding political point. Ms Lee Rhiannon should acknowledge that she distorted the document. I was flabbergasted to hear that the Greens support the Visy paper mill. They are complete hypocrites. They want to support every cause—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Peter Garrett helped open it.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is right.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Will he stand for Labor at the next election?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, I do not think so. He is standing for The Nationals, is he not? The Nationals are merging with the Greens, or they are heading that way. Certainly, it is breathtaking hypocrisy for Ms Lee Rhiannon to say, "We support the poor workers of Tumut. We want to open the railway line because Visy needs it to survive and there are jobs in the country to be defended." Ms Lee Rhiannon's party is opposed to the input source of the mill that makes it. Indeed, she admitted that.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Where?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Greens are opposed to softwood plantations. They are absolutely opposed—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Where?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Ms Lee Rhiannon just said it. The Greens are complete hypocrites. I do not want to spend a lot of time on the Government's record because it is on the public record.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What about the $3 million a day in the city?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is right, we spend $3 million a day—

The Hon. Rick Colless: No, you lose $3 million a day.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: So we should make a profit? Does the honourable member want the Government to increase fares by roughly 600 per cent? I will put out a press release, as he would do, saying, "The Nationals call for a 600 per cent increase in CityRail fares." That is crazy. The essence of this motion is to get the Government to increase expenditure. The Government is very proud of its record on public transport. Its spending has increased by more than 81 per cent since it has been in office. When this Government came into office public transport funding was $2.6 billion; it is now $4.6 billion. We recently announced in the mini-budget the most significant amount of capital expenditure on our rail system since the Second World War.

The Hon. Rick Colless: CityRail.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, let me go through it. We announced expenditure of $1 billion for rail clearways and $1.5 billion for new rolling stock. Let us get over this nonsense that we are not spending on public transport. We certainly are spending on public transport.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: How about in the bush?

Ms Lee Rhiannon: What about west of the Great Dividing Range?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: So, the Greens are supporting jobs west of the divide—that is good to see—in the coal, forestry, agriculture and tourist industries. It is good to see the Greens supporting jobs west of the divide. I would like to know whom they talk to.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: New South Wales Farmers.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I doubt they would talk to New South Wales Farmers.

The Hon. Jon Jenkins: They try to.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Do they? I thought it was the basket weavers in those little craft shops. They are more likely to be members of the Greens branches in those areas. That explains a lot. This motion is typical.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Country Labor is walking out of the Chamber. Its members are disgusted with you.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It will not be the first or the last time. This is typical of the Greens. It is another stunt. They raise any issue, be divisive, do not look at the factual arguments that underpin the proposition, and say anything that is popular, hoping to claw back that little vote to get them over the line in whatever election is perceived to be the target for their, in many ways, insensitive political strategies. The Greens have probably destroyed more rural jobs through the way they have carried on than any other group.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is your legislation that has done that.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We will see about that. They have the hide to talk about country towns. The substantive issue in the motion will be examined by an upper House committee in another waste of public funds, but that seems to be the pattern of this upper House. It ought to be abolished. I agree with the Treasurer about that. We should abolish this place, because it adds nothing to public discourse on important issues. It might make us safer by keeping some people off the streets, because they could be dangerous to the public of New South Wales with some of their crazy views, but it does nothing to enhance the political process. They hijack the House to debate or inquire into absurd little issues and in many cases spend more money on the process than the outcome will achieve. That is the function of the upper House. I will not be able to change it but I wish it could be changed.

We now have more levels of government accountability in New South Wales than ever. That does not include the silly committees that are hijacked by members with agendas that have nothing to do with the public process. Rail bureaucrats were dragged in to appear before the estimates committees time and again to answer silly questions when the information could have been obtained from the public record. Unfortunately the Commonwealth Government took what I think was a very imprudent decision not to overturn the Grants Commission's decision to take $376 million out of the State budget every year for five years. We would not have had a mini-budget if that had not happened. The Government was forced to look at its expenditure and, unfortunately, the Casino to Murwillumbah line is the only line—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Nobody believes that.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is your agenda, to spin things for the Federal election. I am telling the House the facts. Every year for five years $376 million will be taken out of the State budget, so we had to review our expenditure. The beauty of the Government's decision to close the Casino to Murwillumbah line is that it will be able to use the savings to enhance public transport by adding additional services to towns that have not had services in the past. We have been able to do that in a more cost-effective way. It is unfortunate the Federal Government took the decision it did, but this is a consequence of that decision.

I find it staggering that the Opposition is prepared to support a process to examine the Casino to Murwillumbah line but will not support the same process for the northern mail overnight service to Moree, Tamworth, Armidale and Tenterfield. Why does it not examine that service? Why not examine the western mail service to Dubbo or the North Coast overnight express to Grafton, and what about the Canberra-Monara express? What about the Orange to Lithgow day service? The Coalition cut many services. In 1990 it cancelled the Werris Creek to Moree diesel railcar train, the Gold Coast motor rail, the Grafton XPT, and the Canberra express diesel. To service after service the Coalition applied precisely the same logic that a government must apply in managing a budget. Fortunately the Greens do not have to manage a budget and, hopefully, never will. If they do I will have to leave the country.

Mr Ian Cohen: Where would you go?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I certainly would not stay here if the Greens ever got into government. Very quickly we would degenerate into a banana republic. There is nothing wrong with bananas, but when people think the Australian dollar grows the same way as bananas, on trees, we get into trouble. That is the trouble with the Greens—they think money grows on trees. They can make all sorts of promises to everybody without displaying any fiscal responsibility. We are not going to follow that path.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Who wrote this rubbish for you?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Nobody wrote it. Nobody needs to write it for me. It is a revelation compared to how the honourable member operates. Somebody has to write things for him. He ought to check who writes things for him because I think they are being fed on those bananas. The Government must manage the State in difficult economic circumstances. It has to make sure it provides services on the most cost-effective basis. The case for the Casino to Murwillumbah line closure is overwhelming: on average, 194 passengers travel between Casino and Murwillumbah, and then half of them get on a coach and travel to the Gold Coast. Therefore it is very hard to justify the expenditure of approximately $5 million and ongoing capital expenditure of $188 million. Today I met with a number of North Coast members, including Neville Newell. I take exception to what the Greens are saying but they can dream on, they will never win that seat.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What did Neville say?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not going to tell the Hon. Rick Colless the detail of what was said at that meeting, but I will say that one of the issues raised with me at that meeting was the prospect of building a rail corridor between Casino and the Gold Coast. I said that was a very persuasive proposition.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Catherine Cusack will get her chance to put her ill-informed, ignorant views in a moment. At the meeting they made great play of the need to keep this corridor open and to preserve the connection. I logically asked what the local councils had done in their local environmental plans [LEPs] to preserve the corridor between Murwillumbah and Coolangatta. What had they done? Absolutely nothing.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: There is a corridor there.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: There is no corridor. I suggest the Hon. Catherine Cusack go back to local government where she is probably very well suited and do the planning that is required, because her interjections do not help. Nothing has been done in the planning stages. A feasibility study undertaken a number of years ago has been referred to, but no work has been done on actual planning, such as LEPs, by the local councils. I challenge those councils if they are serious about the long-term vision of a connection between Murwillumbah and Coolangatta or the Gold Coast, to put the required effort into the planning. In return, I will look at the transport corridor.

I do not say that these decisions are not difficult. Decisions are easy for people who have no prospect of being in government. I am not referring to the Coalition; they may eventually get there in 2027 when the Treasurer goes. I am talking about the Greens, who are making the loudest noise. It is easy to make judgments about spending money here and there, but unless they apply the banana strategy—that money grows on trees—it is hard to suggest where the money will come from. I like to look at the Greens web site. Probably many honourable members do not know, as I do, that they have a policy of imposing a capital gains tax on the family home. That is probably how they would pay for this rail line.

I will certainly make that point explicit. The only way they would pay for these policies is with the receipts from their capital gains tax on the family home. They should tell the people of Casino and Murwillumbah, "We will keep your train but we are going to tax your home. That is how we will pay for all of our policies. We will whack a massive capital gains tax on your family home." They do not talk about revenue in relation to expenditure. They are trying to fool everyone, which is what they constantly do. As to the real concerns of the community on the North Coast, I am open-minded about whether the corridor should be preserved. The Government has not lifted rail lines, as some people have claimed for political purposes.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: I saw them. They were disappearing.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not believe it. Ms Lee Rhiannon cannot even read the second paragraph in the report to put it in context, yet she claims she has seen something. I do not believe a word of it. I am happy to talk about the Greens' capital gains tax on the family home that will be used to pay for all of this. The Greens should put it to a referendum. They control Byron Bay council. They can tell the council to hold a referendum telling everyone in the council area that they will impose a capital gains tax on the family home. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.12 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I move the following minor amendments:

That the question be amended as follows:

No. 1 Paragraph 4 (b) insert "it" after "commitments".

No. 2 Omit paragraph 4 (b) (ii).

It is always interesting to listen to the hysterical Minister for Transport Services. It was interesting to hear him refer to silly little inquiries into silly little issues. I do not know how he can describe the imminent closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah railway line as a silly little issue. That is not what the people on the North Coast of New south Wales think. His remarks and the Government's pathetic excuses demean the seriousness of the Government's decision. The more that people know abut what the Minister thinks of them, the better. Only a few days ago he attacked the population of the Southern Highlands. Now he says that the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah line is an absurd little issue.

He objects to what he describes as silly questions being asked by members of the upper House about whether particular CountryLink services will be maintained. Earlier in the House we had a discussion on questions and answers at public budget estimates hearings about whether CountryLink services would be maintained. Assurances were given, but they have been broken. In the debate in the other House, the honourable member for Tweed claimed that the idea of closing the Casino to Murwillumbah railway line was a beat-up by The Nationals. Incidentally, I claim authorship of the "napping Neville" epithet.

Mr Ian Cohen: It is all over the North Coast.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: They caught on very well. He fell asleep during the Governor's Speech in this House. He was caught napping. Now the people on the far North Coast ask: Is Neville Newell the last sleeper on the North Coast line? That has been put on posters and displayed on the far North Coast of New South Wales. It is true that CountryLink rail services are a vital public service for the people of rural and regional New South Wales. Over many months I, and other members, have talked to people on railway stations such as Tamworth and the little station at Walcha Road. I have talked to people who use the rail service to attend doctors' appointments and to visit their family further down the line. When I ask them what the alternative to the rail service is for them they say, with tears in their eyes, "There is no alternative for me." It is an incredibly vital service.

As all honourable members know, to transfer older people from the rail service onto buses is totally unsatisfactory. It is not appropriate public transport for people with a disability or limited mobility. The Nationals are fundamentally opposed to the closure of CountryLink services and branch lines. We are committed to the services as a public right for people in rural and regional New South Wales. We believe that the Premier and the Minister for Transport Services are unfairly targeting CountryLink services for the axe. The Carr Labor Government seems intent on ripping the guts out of CountryLink services, shutting down travel centres, closing rail lines, and raising fares, despite taxpayers subsidising CountryLink services to a far lesser extent than they subsidise CityRail services.

According to the Minister's own ministerial inquiry into sustainable transport in New South Wales, CountryLink collects 38 per cent of its revenue from fares and other revenue, and CityRail collects 23 per cent. If there is any argument based on sustainability, why does not Sydney Labor cut CityRail services, instead of having a disproportionate load falling on country services? The Treasurer announced in the mini-budget the axing of the service between Casino and Murwillumbah.

We again heard the Minister for Transport Services raving on about the closure being the result of Federal Government policies. I do not think anyone in New South Wales believes that line, and hopefully the Government will abandon it before too long. By contrast, the Sydney Labor Government announced an allocation of $2.5 billion for CityRail in the mini-budget, including $1.5 billion to buy 498 new airconditioned carriages for CityRail's fleet. The news about country rail services got worse when a memorandum was leaked from the Rail Infrastructure Corporation indicating that the Government plans to close four major grain lines at Gwabegar, Willbriggie, Rankin Springs and Burcher. Of course, those closures are in addition to the closure of the Murwillumbah to Casino line. That exacerbates the suspicion that non-metropolitan areas are being unfairly targeted.

Evidence from farmers groups, the Australian Wheat Board and others indicates that the closure of those branch lines will affect regional economies and push thousands more trucks onto country roads. It will also shift a greater burden to council ratepayers. While it is always good to have the support of the Greens for country issues, we hope they will extend that support by not attacking the industries that sustain some of those lines, such as broadacre farming and timber production, which are vital to rural economies. They will not be viable if they do not have access to railways, and the railways will not survive without those industries as customers.

The Nationals believe that the Sydney Labor Government treats country people as second-class citizens. This Government may well go down in history as the most Sydney-centric Government in the history of this State. The Government has underresourced and undervalued country rail services in recent years. Damage to roads and road safety issues are self-evident. The Nationals believe that the Government has a duty to fund and maintain rural freight lines and rail infrastructure throughout the State. The Nationals will continue to fight any Government moves to cut CountryLink rail services, which are vital for country residents. Any attempt by the Government to demean the importance of those services will demonstrate the Minister for Transport Services's arrogant treatment of the people who use them. The Opposition will continue to fight the Carr Labor Government's moves to cut country rail services. Honourable members on this side of the House will play a constructive role in the debate and will continue to ask questions that might get up the Minister's nose but will serve our constituents in the way they expect to be served.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [4.25 p.m.]: I support the motion and I am grateful for the opportunity to express my concern that the Carr Government has allowed CountryLink's rail infrastructure to fall into disrepair. I will focus my remarks on the Casino to Murwillumbah line. New South Wales can expect to soon have third-world rail services at the rate this Government is going. As the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner said, Sydney's population continues to grow at an alarming rate and the city continues to draw valuable resources away from country areas.

The Carr Government has a policy of allowing the State's regional population to remain as it is or to decline while it pours money and resources into Sydney. That approach is further polluting the Sydney basin, damaging the city's natural environment, and placing greater pressure and stress on its citizens. In the five years to 2001 the population of New South Wales declined by 66,500. Most of them went to Queensland looking for what we on the North Coast could offer if only the Government would stop undermining our local industries and infrastructure. Of course, capital works and development money is all going into Sydney at the expense of country New South Wales. The Government is marginalising country people by starving them of resources.

Instead of allowing the decline of CountryLink rail services to continue, the Government should be learning from history and recognising that in high-growth areas, such as the North Coast, the development of the rail infrastructure inevitably promotes industry and expands the population base. I am particularly interested in the 15 key branch lines identified by the New South Wales Farmers Association and referred to in the motion. The cost of upgrading those important arteries to rural New South Wales may be as little as 10 per cent of the cost of purchasing the 498 airconditioned rail carriages for the Sydney network identified in the mini-budget. Starving rural New South Wales of essential infrastructure funding is tantamount to declaring war on the bush. That war is completely unnecessary. History has shown that expansion follows the development of rail services, and northern New South Wales, in particular, could offer wonderful opportunities for the Government if it were a bit more enterprising.

I was interested to hear Minister Costa suggest that a rail corridor from Murwillumbah to the Gold Coast was not out of the question. He attempted to shift the responsibility to local government, but that would be unfair because that sort of development needs to be initiated at the State level. He at least indicated that he was amenable to the idea, and that gives some hope to those of us who see the potential of the area. The Casino to Murwillumbah line is one of the branch lines identified for closure next week, despite a firm promise by the Government that it would allow the service to continue until the end of the year so that other options could be considered.

The Federal Government has committed $50,000 for a feasibility study that will be available in a few weeks. That money will have been wasted if the service has already been closed by the State Government. It is unfortunate that the feasibility study was not identified earlier. I understand that the funding has been earmarked for some time, but an apparent lack of communication between the State and Federal governments has led to this detrimental situation for the people of the North Coast.

The Government is closing a rail line serving the fastest population growth area in the State outside Sydney. The local population growth rate is approximately three times the national average. The area attracts two million visitors each year and the Government wants to close the rail service. That is the kind of insanity one would expect to find in a diagnostic and statistical manual. The madness is not confined to the decision to close the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service. Just two weeks before the fateful decision, two trainloads of sleepers were delivered for planned upgrading and maintenance of the track. However, the upgrade and maintenance section of the State Rail Authority had not been informed by the slash-and-burn section that the line would not carry trains after 17 May. That is an extraordinary bureaucratic mix-up. I am not talking about a few sleepers. The two trains delivered 2,073 sleepers between Casino and Lismore, 2,460 sleepers between Lismore and Byron Bay, and 3,060 sleepers between Burringbar and Murwillumbah.

I understand from the Federal Minister for Social Services, Mr Larry Anthony, that the sleepers were date stamped in April. For one section of State Rail, the upgrade and maintenance section, to be operating to the extent of delivering sleepers to the line would suggest that, certainly up until the $376 million was taken out of the State budget, the Government had intended to carry out upgrade and maintenance work on the line. To suddenly close the line on the basis of that intervention by the Federal Government is unreasonable, particularly given the $1.1 billion additional surplus in the State budget, which has now been identified. Even at this stage, given that extra money which has now been identified, there is no reason why the Government could not revisit the situation and determine that the North Coast is one area in which the train service has enormous future potential for both business and the local community.

It would be appallingly short-sighted of the Government if it were to close the line. Once rail lines are closed it is very difficult to open them again. That is the critical point. One of the problems is that there are many bridges between Casino and Murwillumbah. But if the Government were to maintain the bridges, even for the next 20 years, and allow the natural development in the area to continue, there would be a booming industry there as well as a booming trade for the train service, particularly if the line is eventually extended to the Gold Coast. It is short-sighted of the Government to exclude all these options.

The Minister said something about the upper House which I feel compelled to respond to. He said that the upper House is a waste of time and that if the Hon. Michael Egan was not here it could be closed down. I am not aware of the connection with the Hon. Michael Egan. The Minister also said, "They are silly committees with nothing to do with the public process." For people who are disaffected by government decisions, the public process is to come to this House. Any community group in New South Wales that is involved in an issue at a significant level would come to this House to articulate their concerns, either to members of the Opposition or to crossbench members.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: There's no point in going to the lower House member for Tweed, for example.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner makes the important point that the lower House member for Tweed has not been actively involved in this issue; he is literally asleep on the job. Indeed, I like the description of him as "the last sleeper". In New South Wales, when the community is adversely affected by a government decision it has to come to the place where its concerns can be articulated, and that place is this House, in terms of both its committee structure and its general business. Committees have the power to summons witnesses and hear evidence about the issues to get to the truth about what is happening, to ensure that we are not entirely bamboozled by government spin. Through the committee system we have the opportunity to interview witnesses and find out what is really going on. I challenge the Minister for Transport Services to monitor the committee process. However, the committee that has been convened to inquire into this issue will be able to demonstrate the importance of the rail service from Casino to Murwillumbah.

Ultimately, I am sure the decision of the committee will cause the Government to look at the issue again. The Casino-Murwillumbah area is an important part of the State with a high growth rate that is three times the national average. It would be short-sighted of the Government if it were to close the rail service. I hope that as a result of what happens in this House this becomes the focal point for concerns about the area. I hope that the House will be able to demonstrate, through this motion and the committee process, that there is an important community need and that we, as representatives of the community, have an obligation to respond.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [4.34 p.m.]: Murwillumbah is the closest major town to where I live. Although I perceive the Greens to be mostly opportunistic and often hypocritical, it does not mean that everything they do is without some merit. I am very disappointed with the performance of my local member, Mr Neville Newell, on this and many other issues, not the least of which are local medical facilities, the Tugun bypass, and a host of other issues that have been neglected in that area. I attended the protest in Grafton, together with Mr Steve Cansdell, the honourable member for Clarence, and I was pleased to see the many people who turned up that day to protest the closure of the line. I was also pleased to join the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Hon. Melinda Pavey at the protest train that left Murwillumbah. A protest was also held in Murwillumbah on 5 May. In all three of those community events Mr Newell was nowhere to be seen.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It's a shame for this Government.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: It is a shame, because it is Mr Newell's local community. Regardless of what flak he was going to cop, he should have been there to support his community. I am disappointed that he was not there. I wish to read onto the record a letter I wrote to Warren Polglase, the Mayor of Tweed, on 28 April. Headed "An open letter of support for the Murwillumbah rail link", it reads:

Dear Mayor

I cannot be at the Protest at Murwillumbah on Wednesday May 5 as Parliament is sitting.

My father is a returned veteran with some substantial disability and lives at Kingscliff. All of his immediate family live in Sydney. He cannot use the bus services nor can he even travel any great distance with me in a motor vehicle. He has used the trains as his main method of getting to Sydney. I know of other disabled people who also have no other alternative travel facility to Sydney: in particular those in wheelchairs will be severely affected.

However this is not just about my family rather it is about the further loss of another vital regional service:

Inadequate medical facilities
Inadequate major highways
Council amalgamations

and now no trains! This is just ripping the heart out of regional New South Wales!

I support the protests and would implore Mr Carr and Mr Costa to re-examine this issue and not to close the rail link.

Regards

Jon Jenkins

The Minister for Transport Services referred to the falling patronage of the service. That falling patronage has been caused by reduced services.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It's not a falling patronage.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: I recall that it used to take about 11 hours to get to Sydney, and now the journey takes about 13 or 14 hours. The condition of the rail line, the bridges, and the line itself have degraded to the point where travelling times have been extended. In other words, the services have been reduced. I remind the Minister that the Queensland Government recently spent billions of dollars restoring rail services to the Gold Coast, which is only about 30 kilometres, as the crow flies, from Murwillumbah railway station. In this growth area perhaps we need more investment, rather than less investment. Finally, I remind the Minister that the removal of the service will place thousands of extra buses and vehicles on both the highway and the road to Casino, which are already dangerous. Heaven forbid that it should happen again, but the vision of terrible bus crashes on the highway around Grafton still haunts many local people. The cost of cutting the service could actually turn out to be greater than the cost of maintaining it.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.37 p.m.]: Firstly, I congratulate the Greens on moving the motion. In the Northern Rivers region all political parties, including the Greens, have been working in close co-operation. Hard and co-operative work was done on the protest train. Some of Ms Lee Rhiannon's comments demonstrated, however, that sometimes it is tough to work with the Greens.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: But you did close branch lines when you were in government.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: No, we did not. We altered the service to Sydney; we changed it to the XPT. It is not fair to compare the policies of the Carr Government with the policies of the Coalition Government. I believe the more significant point is the Government's dishonesty in dealing with this issue, and I absolutely deny that any Coalition government would behave in the way this Government has behaved on this issue. The general point I wish to make is that the cross-partisanship in our area has been remarkable; indeed, it is unprecedented. People like Sue Dakin of Country Labor have been very much involved, there is a real unity of purpose, and the North Coast community has bonded in a way that few people can remember having occurred in the past. I do not think even floods and famine have generated the sense of spirit that this issue has generated in the area. I will not deal with all the remarks of the Minister, but I remind members of his constant claim of low patronage of the service. The comment is enormously frustrating for people who know the service, as well as for the staff who every night load onto the train 100 or 200 passengers at just one railway station, Murwillumbah.

I emphasise that the branch line is not just Casino to Murwillumbah: it passes through a number of stations, including those at Lismore, Byron Bay, Mullumbimby and Murwillumbah. All of those stations effectively will be closed by the loss of their only passenger service. For a population of over 400,000 in that region, this is their local rail service. I note that tomorrow three mayors representing that population will have the innovative opportunity of meeting the Minister for Transport Services. The Minister says there has been a $5 million loss. I question that figure, but hopefully the upper House inquiry will get to the bottom of that. However, notwithstanding the $5 million loss—if one assumes that is the correct figure—the train service carries 333,000 passengers a year. According to the passenger service timetable, the train leaves at 9.50 p.m., gets to Casino after midnight, and arrives in Sydney in the morning. The service picks up passengers along the branch line, but very few people—maybe five or six¯get on the train between Casino and Sydney in the early hours of the morning. Why should they not have that service?

This is our local service. Why should we not have access to a train service? The repeated statement that the service is underutilised is absolute rubbish. It is difficult to get on the train in peak hour as it is extensively used by backpackers travelling to Byron Bay. The area has a large retired population who want to keep in touch with their families in Sydney and elsewhere, and there are sea change people whose families in Sydney want to keep in touch with them. People have to travel to medical appointments and the like. The $5 million loss, spread across 333,000 passenger trips per year, works out at $35 per passenger. That figure can be compared with the $2,500 per capita subsidy that is about to be invested in Sydney's rail system.

I do not begrudge the need for a proper rail system in Sydney, but I ask why we, residents of the largest, strongest and fastest-growing region of the State, cannot have our rail service too. I totally reject statements about low passenger numbers and about per capita cost, and I cannot get my head around the Minister's constant claim that it is the least viable service. Compared with the Broken Hill service, which carries perhaps 7,000 passengers a year at a loss of $2 million, I would back a service carrying 333,000 passengers a year at a loss of $5 million. It just does not add up. I hope the inquiry will get to the bottom of it, because there is no other process, contrary to what the Minister said, whereby the community can get the information that it wants in order to understand and have confidence in the decision. That is why it is so important to have an upper House inquiry that can ask questions and expect answers.

The process everyone was relying on was the moratorium that was promised by the Government last December. Look at how unreliable that commitment proved to be. The upper House inquiry is an act of desperation by our community, and it has been very well supported and is very much looked forward to by the community. People are trying to get information and answers about why this has happened. Nobody believes this is just, and nobody believes the figures and that the information the Government is giving us are accurate. The Hon. Peter Breen referred to 8,000 steel sleepers that have been delivered up and down our line for long-awaited and much-needed maintenance. My understanding is that those sleepers are valued at approximately $40 each because they have been specially heat sealed. That $320,000 worth of equipment was delivered after the announcement was made to close the branch line, and it is now just lying around up and down the line. And that does not include the cost of the items that fit it all together, which I believe are referred to as jewellery.

The maintenance crews who were on standby to lay those steel sleepers found that their work was cancelled, and they had to sit idly and do nothing. Their time was wasted, and the sleepers now lie around, rusting. A full steel bridge that was delivered for erection now lies in the grass of a paddock at Woodlawn. Added to the mind-boggling waste and mismanagement of CountryLink services is the sense of injustice that such mismanagement is a major cause of the closure of our branch line. Honourable members have referred to the protest train. I congratulate Sue Dakin, Thomas George, Don Page and Melinda Pavey, and also Jan Barham from the Greens, the Hon. Peter Breen, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and numerous people from other parties who participated in riding on the protest train. It was quite an event, and I think it became a real focus for the community. Most of all I acknowledge the role of Russell Eldridge, the editor of the Northern Star. Russell is a very laid-back country bloke; he is intelligent but he is not aggressive in any way, and I think the way he feels about the treatment of our community I think is a pretty fair gauge for the Government. We have had disputes in the past about a number of issues—not to mention his reporting of the war in Iraq—but I can say that Russell is a very fair-minded man who feels that our community has been sold a dummy by the Government. I appreciate his commitment to our community and the role that he is playing to assist with all of this.

The thrust of my remarks and my complaint against the Government is that I believe the decision to close the branch line is a fraud by the Carr Government against our community at many levels. The first is the deceit of the Government in promising over a long period to save, retain and enhance the Murwillumbah service. This began in 1990 when, as Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier rode a protest train to Murwillumbah to support retention of the sleeper service. His shadow Minister, Mr Brian Langton, led a protest in Murwillumbah on that very issue. Labor did very well out of its campaign on North Coast rail services, reaping tens of thousands of extra votes for the upper House, but also during Federal campaigns for Richmond and Page and in the 1996 by-election for Clarence. Victory in that seat was a watershed event for Mr Carr and his Government, and a great deal of goodwill in the area has been built up as a result of numerous promises made to our community on the rail issue over many years. It is incomprehensible to me that any person with a shred of honour could, with that record, subsequently close altogether both freight and passenger rail services on that branch line.

The second fraud was perpetrated in December last year when the Government pledged there would be a 12-month moratorium on CountryLink service cuts. In my view, the breaking of this clear-cut commitment by the Government has stunned even the most hardened and cynical of constituents in the Northern Rivers. The sense of duplicity that people from the region feel is at the heart of the anger. It is the reason all parties, including our local Labor Party members, have banded together to fight for our service in a way nobody can recall ever happening. The breach of promise by the Carr Government brings disgrace on our profession as parliamentarians, and it has damaged public confidence in the democratic process in a way I have not seen before.

Indeed, I stood on the platform last Saturday to farewell the Northern Rivers railway carriages, which were evicted from our branch line on the weekend. The owner, Mr Warren Judd, was told to move his train by Saturday or else he would have to get the carriages out with semitrailers. As I surveyed the departing carriages my sense of disbelief that the Government was breaking its moratorium commitment really sank in. I have been quite naive for the past few months because I could not believe that a breach of promise of this magnitude was going to be followed through. In more than 20 years of working in New South Wales politics I have never seen such cynicism and dishonour. I believe that the Government needs to think very carefully about this as it is on an altogether different level to anything we have experienced before.

The biggest fraud¯the root cause of all of our country rail problems¯is in the rundown in maintenance of our rail infrastructure, so graphically recorded by the Premier in his diary. In that diary, which was published last year in Marilyn Dodkin's book Bob Carr: The Reluctant Leader, the Premier said that Carl Scully had complained to him that the rail system was being "sweated" of any maintenance funding to such an extent that our railways would "choke up in a multidimensional systems failure". I suppose that is what many people feel is happening today. As much as the Minister wants to go on and on about Commonwealth funding, I think everybody in New South Wales knows that the real heart of the problem is in this underfunding of maintenance. The Casino to Murwillumbah branch line is not quite in the disgraceful state that some members may have been conned into believing. The rail line between Casino and Lismore is fine. I am not able to understand why the Government is stopping the train at Casino and not stopping it at Lismore, given so many people from Lismore use it.

That is a mystery I will explore in the inquiry. The main problem is that a number of old, wooden bridges need to be replaced. That will be an expensive exercise, but other parts of the line are in outstanding condition. The line carries an XPT train, which is the equivalent of a jumbo jet landing at Sydney airport. The line is substantially of very high quality. I accept that it requires maintenance and it is heartbreaking to see steel sleepers and bridges lying in paddocks up and down the line, while maintenance crews drink tea instead of undertaking that work. However, it is not in a diabolical, irretrievable state, by any means.

On 24 August 2001 the Treasurer gave a commitment to the New South Wales Farmers Association that the sale of FreightCorp would assist the funding of a $6 billion upgrade for a four-year program of rail maintenance and new capital expenditure. Last year I asked the Treasurer a question—one that is being asked by all communities throughout New South Wales—about the proceeds from the sale of FreightCorp. I asked, "Where has the money gone?" The Treasurer gave me a partial answer and later told me that the Government received $804 million plus 18.9 per cent of National Rail in exchange for the sale of FreightCorp. In cash terms the Government received only $365 million in cash, after transaction costs had been taken into account and retiring $245 million of debt. That $365 million in cash is vastly different from $6 billion! The Treasurer said:

The proceeds of the sale of FreightCorp were to help the Government provide significant subsidies to the NSW rail sector—

I note that he is now talking about New South Wales, not country rail, which is a slight change in the language—

planned for the period 2001-02 to 2004-05 (the $6 billion plan). These included funding related to new capital investments and a range of operating subsidies including CSOs of $206 million a year to the Rail Infrastructure Corporation for the country rail network.

In summary $532 million was provided under the plan for the country network.

That was over a two-year period, way short of $6 billion. I am even unsure where the $532 million has gone. The only explanation is that the $6 billion commitment to infrastructure upgrades has been substituted for spending on community service obligations. "Six billion dollar plan" rhymes with Six Million Dollar Man, and it is just as fictional. I class this as a type of fraud, perpetrated on the community as justification for the sale of FreightCorp, which provided major revenue for the track. With respect to the sustainability of the track into the future, the Government's decision to sell FreightCorp has come home to roost against North Coast residents, and that is extremely unjust.

The final area of deception is the Country Labor rubbish that the people of New South Wales have had to put up with in recent years. It ranks with the Labor Listens campaigns, which Mr Carr ran in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. They, too, turned out to be a paddock full of bullfrogs. I feel genuinely sorry for Country Labor members in my region. Their sense of dismay and betrayal is even more acute and painful than that experienced by the rest of us—and that is pretty intense. Many have given a life of work, thought and support to the Labor Party. They have stood, proudly bearing Labor colours, and fought for the principles they believed Labor stood for. Not only have they been betrayed, the Minister's office has treated them like lepers and pests. They initiated the protest train and were told, in a most disgraceful way by the Minister's office, to cancel the train. That was a shocking way for the Government to treat its own party members and demonstrates its inability to understand the issue.

The Government's inability to treat its own members courteously and respectfully highlights the extent of the betrayal. If Labor treats its own members in this way, what will it do to the rest of us? Last week I moved a motion to remind the Government of its record and its promises. I drew attention to the betrayal of people from whom Labor has been happy to reap money, votes and other support. However, at the first whiff of grapeshot, the Government has stepped on them like unwanted insects. I know that some of my remarks have upset honourable members opposite. Indeed, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods even resorted to taking vexatious points of order. She claimed incorrectly that I had made certain statements to prevent me from completing my five-minute contribution to the adjournment debate. I note that the Hon. Amanda Fazio was reported in the local paper as saying, "It is unreasonable to accept that the CountryLink trains be replaced by coaches." Labor's duty Legislative Council member for Ballina wrote the Country Labor submission about saving country rail services and lulled us all into the false sense of security that Labor would keep its word on the moratorium. Yesterday the Hon. Amanda Fazio stood up in this House and, as part of a political payback to my motion, read parts of a letter I wrote to my priest. I am not sure that it gets much lower than that. Nevertheless, I can say to the Labor Party that I have got the message.

However, I want the Labor Party to get the message too. The decision to close our rail line is completely off the political dial. Indeed, the Government thoroughly deserves the punishment it is receiving from the community and local media. Labor will never be forgiven for this. It is my job to ram that message home as hard as I can, and I will continue to do so. I make no apology for being passionate in my condemnation of this Government's actions. Whatever the Government's tactics may be in response, they will only strengthen, not weaken, our community's resolve to fight this appalling decision.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.56 p.m.]: We will shortly debate in this House a bill on regional development. On that occasion the Government will try to convince honourable members that the introduction of that bill will strengthen regional New South Wales. Nothing will undermine more the strength of regions than denying them basic services and removing fundamental infrastructure. I do not wish to speak at length in this debate, but I wish to state what this action will mean for the individual.

About five weeks ago a pensioner in Cooma contacted me about access to dental services. He was in such pain that his general practitioner prescribed morphine for him. Unfortunately, Cooma has only two dentists so he could not arrange a dental appointment in Cooma for many months. The first dental appointment he could make anywhere in the region was in Canberra approximately six weeks later, during which time he may have to resort to taking morphine. As a result, he contacted me about dental services. The significance of those comments to this debate is that since then we have seen an amendment to the Canberra to Sydney CountryLink rail service, a service that travels through Queanbeyan. Two coach services form part of that link. One coach service runs from Cooma to Bombala and the second coach travels from Cooma to Nimmitabel, Bega, Merimbula and Eden. For that pensioner to get to Canberra for his dental appointment, he would have to travel on one of those coaches.

The consequence of changes to the CountryLink rail services means that coach services to Canberra will be on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. I understand that the pensioner's dental appointment will be in Canberra on Friday 17 May at midday and he may be able to take the coach from Cooma. His other option would be to travel the night before, which would mean finding and paying for accommodation. In other words, there is a cumulative effect when the Government starts to trifle with train services. It is not only about commuters getting to work; it is about all those who interact with the service in many different ways.

The irony is that the honourable member for Monaro was taking credit for the restoration of train services on the Sydney to Canberra line. I noted a comment in the local paper that the honourable member needed to consider whether he was the member for Queanbeyan or the member for Monaro, because in fact Monaro stretched through the region to take in such areas as Bombala and Eden and for the people in those areas access by coach services was just as significant. The important message for the Government is that it cannot talk about what it is doing for regions and then not explain its strategy, its priorities, for supporting regions through good infrastructure and the delivery of transport and communications links.

People in southern New South Wales are concerned about the future of the rail service linking Sydney to Canberra and the links with coach services, and about the Government's agenda. Honourable members may well recall that some weeks ago, I presented, over a number of days, petitions from the people of Bungendore. Some 650 signatures on a petition represents almost every adult in Bungendore. That sends a clear message to the Government: Trifle with CountryLink and you will take on the community of Bungendore. The significance is that while Bungendore is a community of about 1,300, it is earmarked to grow significantly within the next few years because of a Federal Government announcement recently of a proposal to establish the new military headquarters, the Joint Operations Command, at Bungendore. On completion, that command will have approximately 1,200 employees. There has been some debate in the local paper about where those employees will live. Indeed, it is estimated that many of them will live in Canberra and commute. There has been some discussion, and concern expressed, that that could mean up to 850 extra cars on the Kings Highway every day and night.

Indeed, the Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Eden-Monaro has been scaremongering on this matter and the Government's priorities. I suggest that, instead of scaremongering about the Federal Government's proposals, the Labor candidate, Cal Watt, should turn his attention to the Carr Government's agenda. The Carr Government is likely to put transport in the area at risk if the train service from Bungendore to Canberra is put at risk by the slash-and-burn Minister for Transport Services, from whom we heard today. We must be concerned about the Minister's agenda, not the agenda of the Federal Government, which is committed to growing the region around Bungendore. The Federal Government is committed to a $300-million project, which is dependent on being able to grow that region and for people to access the region not only by road but also by a functioning rail service. So we support the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. It was disappointing that she took the opportunity to refer to the previous Coalition Government. Today we are talking about the Carr Government's record—its promises, commitments, direction or, rather, lack of direction, and lack of a strategic approach to growing regional and country New South Wales.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.04 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. I have listened with interest to the various levels of debate, which has had some significant input and some low points. The contribution of the Minister for Transport Services was interesting. It is probably not worth responding to his comments, except to say that they proved to me that Labor has lost its way and that the thugs and bullyboys have taken over in terms of ministerial positions. The Minister presumed that what other honourable members said was utter rubbish. His behaviour was reminiscent of that of a schoolyard bully. The intellectual property of the Minister's speech was astounding. It was funny to listen to the Minister talk about his Trotskyist past and his rendition of history; of Trotsky being assassinated by an ice pick. My only comment is that the Minister was probably hit by a similar ice pick but did not even notice!

Labour needs to look at what has been said in the past. As for the Minister's lament over what he would do if the Greens somehow won government, I concede that we do not have the same responsibility in terms of making decisions while in power. We are but a small group newly arrived in the Parliament—not quite as newly arrived as the Minister—but we show more respect for the institution than the Minister does. The Minister's attacks on the role of the upper House, on debate in this place and on democracy in New South Wales make me shudder. I must agree with the frequent interjections of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about Greens preferences. With this Minister at the helm in any significant way, it is time to seriously rethink support for the Labor Party in New South Wales. That is only a personal comment. I must look at what is being done, or undone, in this case. We are receiving extremely poor leadership from the Government, particularly Labor members of this House, who benefit from their presence in the House. They benefit from a job in the House and their privileged position and all they do is knock it! All I can do is simply suggest that the Minister run for election to the lower House, where he would have to face the community. I doubt that he would have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting elected to the lower House.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: His interpersonal skills are not great.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Minister needs some form of private tuition on the matter.

The Hon. Rick Colless: He should run in the Tweed.

Mr IAN COHEN: I think the Tweed electorate would be invigorated by having the Minister because napping Neville, who can hardly string a sentence together, has a history of absolute non-action for the entire time he has represented that electorate. The thought of Neville Newell going to the Premier and eliciting a change of heart or policy beggars the imagination. I believe that Labor members of this House, who possibly want to retire, are regarded as expendable by the Labor Party, in its arrogance. Certainly, the people in the Tweed electorate, and indeed the people of New South Wales, are not being effectively served by the current member. This issue will be significant to the people of northern New South Wales at the forthcoming Federal election and the next State election. The Labor Party is ignoring the people of northern New South Wales.

There has been much debate on this motion. I commend Ms Lee Rhiannon for moving this motion. For a long time she has been seriously and passionately involved in public transport and the maintenance of rail in New South Wales. In comparison with the Minister's superficial verbal gyrations on this matter, Ms Lee Rhiannon has clearly shown that when people are committed to an issue the truth comes out and issues are debated in a succinct manner.

That is something of which the Greens, and in this case many other crossbenchers and members of the Opposition, should be proud. We are servicing the community. We are making representations about what the community wants and, more importantly, what it needs—properly maintained CountryLink services and an ongoing opportunity for people to commute in country areas. There has been a fantastic show of support for the continuation of rail transport, for travel both in the local area—from Casino to Murwillumbah—and to more distant destinations, such as Sydney.

I joined the protest train when it arrived at Central station and was pleased to speak on the same podium as that used by Coalition members and other crossbench members. It was amazing to meet and talk with so many people involved in the protest. Many were pensioners, and their stories were quite moving. People who had two knee replacements or hip replacements told me quite simply that they could not possibly travel on buses; they cannot physically board a bus. People are not allowed to eat on the buses, and that causes a problem for diabetics. People can walk around when travelling on a train, so that deep-vein thrombosis is not a problem for train passengers. Single mothers told me that because train travel allowed their children to move about they were able to deal with long trips with a minimum of inconvenience. These are some of the attractions of train travel. Story after story was told of people with severe disabilities desperately needing these train services.

I agree with members who said they have never seen a government so city-oriented and as ignorant of the country community as this Government. The northern New South Wales area is a growth area. Its population is increasing at three times the national average. Yet, this community is by and large still being ignored. The Hon. Jon Jenkins raised a valid point. He has a disabled father. We should not forget the bus crashes that occurred not so long ago near Grafton. Such accidents can be avoided if masses of people are transported by train. More people would be attracted to trains if maintenance is kept up to ensure the delivery of a more efficient service, if extra services are put on so that people have a choice between night and day services, and if a schedule that worked is implemented.

The Opposition and its role have been attacked. Surely we can learn from history. The Minister for Transport Services is an admitted greenhouse sceptic. He does not believe in these issues but the rest of the world is moving along and recognises the increasing importance of rail transport as an ecologically and socially efficient people mover. It is true that a small group like the Greens in Parliament has the luxury of being able to attack both Labor and the Coalition for what is happening and what happened in the past, but people must realise that we can all learn from what has happened in the past, judged by the evidence that is available today.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why does your colleague not understand that?

Mr IAN COHEN: If the honourable member would care to listen, he would realise that I am acknowledging an historical perspective, hoping that he might acknowledge with a degree of openness that I am accepting there is room for change. All groups and people in this Parliament can learn from information that is given to us, particularly in the light of circumstances these days that make train travel much more important. It is not just The Nationals and certain sections of the community that support country rail. On the North Coast the whole community supports country rail services—members of The Nationals, Labor and Country Labor, and local people and unionists. I understand that Nick Lewocki has announced that his union—the Rail, Tram and Bus Union—has put a ban on the removal of any infrastructure on the rail line until after the upper House committee inquiry is completed. So, even stalwarts of the Labor Party are making significant public statements in support of the rail system and the people of northern New South Wales.

Sue Dakin, who is a former Labor Party candidate for Ballina and is very active in Country Labor, was on the protest train. She spoke in support of people from the North Coast. I find such an attitude quite invigorating and one of the reasons I live in a country area. I agree that I am so often on the other side of the fence from that occupied by The Nationals, but in regard to issues such as this the sense of community that exists in country areas crosses all political lines. When the community gets together its voice is all powerful. I commend Sue Dakin and the many other people who travelled on that protest train recently.

People from conservative areas in Lismore—and these are not a bunch of rabid greenies; they are people on Lismore Shire Council—are talking about blockading the last XPT service to pass through the region. The Northern Star has printed a number of personal stories on the issue. Sarah McGuiness, 7, of Caniaba, and Brianna Taylor, 10, of McKees Hill, have written to the Premier to save their dads' jobs. Sarah's dad has been a senior customer attendant at Lismore railway station for about 30 years. This is all part of the fabric of the community. A lot more is at stake than the job of just one person. We are looking at the breakdown of a that community.

Despite the firm promise given by the Government, I believe that Minister Costa does not have the political stature to enable him to reconsider the situation. He is fighting a losing battle, and he is losing the support and hearts of the people of northern New South Wales. He is arrogantly denying the obvious: that this situation needs and deserves a rethink. Tourism is also growing at an alarming rate in that area of the State. Trains are extensively used by backpackers. One of the Labor luminaries of the area, Tom Mooney, owns the Railway Hotel at Byron Bay. When the train arrives at Byron Bay railway station people pile out of the pub to board the train and off they go. That is something to be encouraged.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am not sure it is. I am sure, however, that Tom would encourage it.

Mr IAN COHEN: Tom may. I am not saying that people are getting drunk. I am saying it is part of the culture and entertainment value for people departing from or arriving in Byron Bay. It is very much used and adds to the ambience of the area. The high-growth area of Byron Bay has been a cash cow for the New South Wales Government. Tourism NSW extols Byron Bay as a tourist destination to the point where we can hardly cope with the tourist numbers. It is ripping the guts out of the fabric of the local community in many instances, but the Government will not provide adequate public transport options. There is no local rail and a lousy bus service. The Government has let down the people in this area and has been extremely short-sighted in its lack of support of rail for people in and visitors to the area. There has already been plenty of talk about the potential to link up to Brisbane. If the Government allows rail infrastructure to break down at the rate it deteriorated has in recent times, it will be difficult to reconstitute.

The motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon is timely and is a reflection on the people who are not getting a fair go in the north of New South Wales. The attitude of the Minister for Transport Services in looking after city services and ignoring country areas reminds me of Joe Bjelke-Petersen's attitude to the issue of contaminated peanuts. He said "That's all right, because they're just being sold to the people of New South Wales." The Minister has the same mentality. It is a poor state of affairs when he is not big enough to recognise that we can revisit this situation, get together and work out solutions. I believe that the Minister has his figures wrong.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The difference is that people actually like Joe.

Mr IAN COHEN: Some people. I acknowledge and give credit to all the politicians from The Nationals, the Labor Party on the North Coast and the Greens who have been passionate about an issue that involves more than just transport. Rail is part of our culture and it should be maintained. It could be made into an effective, worthwhile, world-class system that will benefit the people on the North Coast, particularly those who are less well off, those with disabilities and the aged. I ask the Labor Government to seriously reconsider this issue.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.22 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. As has already been said, CountryLink is a vital public service for the people of rural and regional New South Wales, and it has been for over 100 years. When the Tenterfield district in the Northern Tablelands electorate was first settled in the early 1800s, people could only travel to Tenterfield by horse and buggy or, as most people did, by foot. They walked. Many people walked from Sydney to Tenterfield and to many other parts of New South Wales in those days before there was any form of formalised transport system.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: They could go by coach.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: They could go by horse and buggy or horse and coach, but many people could not afford it. So they walked. Many people walked all around New South Wales. Walking was a main method of transport. There is an interesting story of a young child who walked from Sydney to Tenterfield with her family to take up land in the Tenterfield district. Around that time many people walked all over New South Wales to settle this great land. The young lady grew up and eventually had a family of her own. In the early 1900s she was still alive when the Tenterfield rail line was completed and the first steam engine rolled into Tenterfield. I ask honourable members to think about the magnitude of that technological development in a person's lifetime. We talk about the huge technological advances today, but this person walked to Tenterfield—and I could only guess as to how long that took, obviously many months—and before the end of her life she could travel to Sydney by train in just over a day. That rail line constituted a magnificent advance in technology and transport facilities. Just imagine: Tenterfield is about 800 kilometres from Sydney, and the people of that area had the facility to get them to Sydney in a little over a day.

At about that time the proliferation of rail lines throughout New South Wales was instrumental in opening up passenger and freight routes. It also facilitated the development of agricultural land, the wealth-creating industries and the social and community fabric of New South Wales towns as we now know them. Ms Lee Rhiannon unfortunately took the opportunity to attack the previous Coalition Government on some decisions that may or may not have been taken over 10 years ago. If we want to improve rail infrastructure in New South Wales, we should be looking to the future and not focusing on decisions that a government may or may not have taken many years ago. I am not sure that she has the story absolutely correct because neither she nor I was a member of this place at that time. I certainly was not privy to the decisions that were made at that time and the reasons they were made. There would be very few present members who were members of this Chamber at that time.

It is ironic that the honourable member has taken on this issue with such gusto, as these facilities were provided to settle areas remote from Sydney infrastructure and have resulted in the development of the wool, beef, cattle, grain and mining industries, which have provided the vast majority of Australia's export earnings for the majority of the last century. Ms Lee Rhiannon is taking this opportunity to score cheap political points; she has not real concern for those who live in communities in rural and regional New South Wales. This fact was made no more obvious than the day she performed a media stunt in Tamworth and Armidale a few weeks ago.

The member travelled by air from Sydney to Tamworth and, as the plane approached Tamworth, the member was heard discussing with her travelling companion the dry and desolate nature of the country around Tamworth. She was heard by quite a few people on the flight to say, "How on earth do people live out here?" That comment was heard by a member of The Nationals who happened to be on the plane. The member has to be very careful what she says and to whom she speaks when she goes into the bush. She will more than likely find herself talking to a member of The Nationals; they are everywhere and they report back to us comments made by people like Ms Lee Rhiannon when they go out into the bush. The honourable member and her entourage held a press conference saying how they support country rail, jumped on the train to Armidale, did some media interviews in Armidale, and then caught a plane back to Sydney. So much for their support for rail services!

I fully support the references in the motion to rural branch lines. A closer look at the motion reveals that Ms Lee Rhiannon is supporting the Binnaway-Coonabarabran-Baradine-Gwabegar line. This branch line, which runs through some of the finest grain-growing, wool-producing, beef cattle and native forestry land in New South Wales, currently terminates at Gwabegar. Honourable members should understand that Gwabegar lies in the middle of the Pilliga Scrub, a native forest that has developed since about 1800. This area now produces some of the finest building timber in the world in the form of white cypress pine. The branch line has carried timber, wool, cattle and grain over the years, although in recent years it has carried mainly grain.

Honourable members should be aware that the Greens have been instrumental in attempting to turn the Pilliga Scrub into a national park. It is the Greens who are the greatest threat to the communities of Gwabegar and Baradine and the survival of the rail service. Should the Greens be successful in their efforts to have the Pilliga proclaimed a national park, Baradine and Gwabegar will become ghost towns overnight. The Greens have the gall to claim that they support the very same communities they will shut down. That shows the hypocrisy and modus operandi of Ms Lee Rhiannon. She does not care for local communities. She has conned New South Wales farmers into supporting the Greens and has created an alliance with them. However, the Greens stand for crucifying small communities and shutting down small towns like Gwabegar and Baradine and allowing rural and regional settlements to become ghost towns.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: With the support of the Labor Party.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes. I support the motion, but for very different reasons from those presented by the Greens. I support it because I support small communities and the wool, beef, grain, cotton, timber and mining industries of New South Wales, none of which the Greens support. I support the concept of moving rural produce on rail. I also support the motion because I believe that people in places such as Murwillumbah, Armidale, Moree and Broken Hill should have access to passenger rail services so that the aged and less mobile can travel in comfort. I do not support the honourable member's cynical and hypocritical tactics in attempting to gain the political confidence of people in regional and rural New South Wales.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.31 p.m.]: I wholeheartedly support the comments of my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless. During his diatribe today, the Minister for Transport Services highlighted some of the Greens' policy initiatives, including a capital gains tax on the family home to fund the Utopia they pretend to be able to achieve.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Stop quoting Michael Costa. At least present an original argument.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The Greens do not release their policies.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: We do; ours is the only party that releases its policies. The member should at least be accurate. We put our policies on the web and provide them in hard copy. Where are your policies? Where are The Nationals' and the Liberal Party's policies?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: They are on our web site, along with the policy documents that we release prior to elections. The point remains that the Greens offer their preferences to the Labor Party and it is closing down country rail services, which hurts country industries. The point the Hon. Rick Colless made is very valid.

The foreshadowed closure of the CountryLink rail service between Murwillumbah and Casino has generated much passion in this Chamber. The Nationals, the Liberal Party, the Australian Democrats, the Greens, the Hon. John Jenkins and the local Labor community on the North Coast are working hard to ensure that the line is not closed. I have just had a meeting with the honourable member for Ballina, Don Page, who, along with the honourable member for Lismore, Thomas George, met today with the Minister for Transport Services in an attempt to get some commonsense. Surprise, surprise, no commonsense was forthcoming from the Minister!

Honourable members opposite hang their heads in shame and acknowledge that there will not be much commonsense from that quarter. The Minister has made a commitment to investigate the possibility of a rail corridor from Murwillumbah to the Gold Coast. Let us hope he gives those communities the support they require for an extension of that line. However, it is one thing to make a commitment in a meeting, and it is another thing to ensure it happens. I acknowledge the work of Don Page and Thomas George in arranging a meeting between the Minister for Transport Services and the mayors from the Northern Rivers area. However, the outcome will be another story.

The Minister for Transport Services has a responsibility to deliver proper fiscal management and to ensure that train services run efficiently and on time while preventing congestion on roads. That is why the decision to close the line between Murwillumbah and Casino is even more hypocritical. The Minister says that only 180 people use the service each day. In fact, the correct figure is more like 365 passengers. The Minister uses only the northward journey figure to demonstrate that the line is not utilised, but that is only half the story. He is flippant about putting all the facts on the table. Don Page and Thomas George left today's meeting with the Minister noting that he was intransigent. The line will be closed and that will result in another 3,650 coach journeys a year on the road between Murwillumbah and Casino. Anyone travelling the Pacific Highway from Murwillumbah to Byron Bay, to Mullumbimby, to Lismore and then to Casino knows it is a busy road and that it cannot cope with the extra 3,650 coach journeys a year that will be required to move those passengers.

People who use the train service are not as comfortable using a coach service. I caught the protest train from Murwillumbah a week or so ago and I was amazed at the number of people on board. The train was two-thirds full at Murwillumbah. There were many mothers with young children and elderly people, obviously travelling to Sydney to attend medical appointments or to catch up with family. Those passengers are more comfortable travelling on a train because they can walk around and use the dining car and buy something to drink. The Minister for Transport Services is saying that 400,000 people in that pocket of New South Wales do not count and do not deserve a rail service.

They do deserve a rail service. The Minister's charter requires him not only to be fiscally responsible but also to achieve a balance between fiscal and social responsibility. The 400,000 people in that part of New South Wales deserve to be able to travel by train. The population includes many retirees, people who have made a sea change, and young families. That broad cross-section of the community should be able to travel by train.

The Minister for Transport Services has not mentioned that the historic legislation we debated in this House last week dealing with the formation of the Australian Rail Track Corporation will free up approximately $200 million a year for him to spend on other regional network services. Signing away the management rights of the interstate track and the Hunter Valley coal area tracks will result in an estimated $200 million being available for the maintenance of the Murwillumbah to Casino branch line and other branch lines across New South Wales.

With one stroke of a pen the State Government will be free of the burden of managing large sections of the freight corridor across New South Wales, but it is not prepared to re-invest the money saved in other regional services. The Minister bragged today about the $2.35 billion that the Government intends to invest in CityRail. It is clear that that $200 million saving will not be re-invested in the regions; it will be used to provide airconditioning on city trains. That sums up this Government's attitude to people living outside Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.

In addition to the $870 million that the Federal Government will spend on the interstate corridor between Melbourne and Brisbane, another $430 million has been allocated to improve that infrastructure. It is a stark contrast in reality, management, and performance that on the day after the presentation of the Federal budget—which allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to improve rail and road infrastructure across New South Wales, gives tax relief to the aspirational people of this State who are working hard to maintain a fair and equitable standard of living, and provides enormous tax relief for families—this House is debating the New South Wales mini-budget, which increases taxes and cuts services such as the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line.

There is no starker contrast in terms of public administration, public good, and good governance than what the Liberal-National Federal Government has been able to achieve at a national level compared with the disgraceful mismanagement of this State over the past nine years by the Carr Government that has resulted in terrible decisions such as the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah branch line.

I urge the Minister for Transport Services to put back into regional New South Wales some of the $200 million the Government is saving on the interstate rail lines as a result of the Federal Government taking over responsibility of the interstate and Hunter Valley lines. I urge the Minister to take from that money the $5 million he claims it costs to run the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line, and to put the lion's share of that money into maintaining branch lines, so that cotton, wheat, and other products can be transported from country areas by rail. With those comments I support the motion. I hope it receives the support of all members, especially those who live in regional areas of the State.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.43 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats have consistently been critical of the Government's attempt to downgrade the State's public transport system. Minister Costa rants about the fact that the Liberals were worse. What a low ambition! The Minister says, "We are better than the Liberals." Is that all he aspires to in running this State? It is as though he is saying to the voters, "You've got the choice between them and us." It is the duopolistic mentality we get from the Government. It suggests there are only two possibilities. It says, "We will not set our bar by world's best practice or what could be done. We will set our bar at being better than the Liberals."

The Liberal and Labor parties have a gerrymander that makes them the only possible governments in New South Wales, or indeed Australia. Minister Costa criticised the upper House as a complete waste but one must acknowledge that in the lower House the vote is entirely predictable, the Government wins every vote. One might ask: What is the use of a House of Parliament in which the result of the vote is known even before it is taken? The lower House is, in fact, a rubberstamp.

I have said to the Treasurer and Minister Costa, as I have said on numerous occasions in this House, that I would be happy to vote for the abolition of the upper House if the Government offered proportional representation in the lower House so that a party's vote determines the number of seats it wins, as opposed to a gerrymander that favours a duopoly. However, we hear the pathetic rant across this Chamber, "You were worse than us," or "We are a little bit better than you."

We now have below-standard maintenance levels, three major bus-only transitways compared with one new rail line in the Sydney metropolitan area, and a delay in the roll-out of rolling stock that necessitated changing the name "Olympian train" to "Millennium train". The Government sold the old rolling stock to New Zealand on the assumption that the Olympian trains were coming on line. The resultant lack of rolling stock meant that there were no carriages for the Parramatta to Macarthur line, everyone had to travel by car, and there was a huge demand on the Western Sydney Orbital route. People in Western Sydney who might have travelled by rail were forced to consider travel by car, and huge traffic jams caused by the lack of train services necessitated the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital.

Did the Government learn from this and construct a rail easement for the Western Sydney Orbital? No, it did not. Indeed, it excised part of a national park to construct the easement for the Western Sydney Orbital. The Government knocked back my amendment and insisted on no rail easement for the Western Sydney Orbital, despite the fact that Western Australia, in particular, has rail easements along the middle of freeways.

The Government's neglect of infrastructure resulted in the Waterfall disaster, the Menindee bridge disaster, the Glenbrook disaster, and many other disasters. The fundamental problem is that the Government refuses to borrow money. Its obsession with paying off debt is convenient for the credit agencies, but everyone knows that the only way to make money is to borrow money and invest it wisely in long-term projects that make more money than is paid in interest. For some reason, the Government is too terrified to issue bonds or borrow on the world capital markets, which are more transparent than they have ever been.

The World Bank does not mind a country having debt as long as it has an asset to support that debt. If you ask a bank for a large unsecured loan, the bank will say no. If you say, "Although I have some liabilities, I have these assets and I am managing them competently," the bank will lend you money. The Government's obsession with paying off debt, which occurs at both a Federal and State level, has meant that when it is asked to construct projects like the north-west sector rail line, it refuses. Instead of continuing the Chatswood line to Carlingford, about which I made strong representations to the Minister—which would allow trains from Western Sydney to travel along the Penrith and Parramatta lines, through Granville, along the Carlingford line and across to Chatswood, or, alternatively, along the Campbelltown line to Liverpool, then to Granville, then along the Carlingford line and across to Chatswood—it says there is not much demand for such services. Of course there is not much demand for a route that is totally impractical at present.

Sensible rail planning that enables people to travel from anywhere to anywhere by rail is the essence of a good rail network. It gives rail credibility, encourages people to buy property near rail, encourages higher development along rail corridors, reduces air pollution, and reduces people's dependency on car travel. That is the way public transport should be managed. But the Government, being borrowing adverse, hunkered down paying off debt and relying on private-public partnerships, which are all about guaranteeing somebody else's profit and the State never having any assets at the end of the process.

That is what the Government is about. It is basically about bad planning. That is why it is a high-taxing Government. It has received windfalls from stamp duty over many years but it is still not able to maintain infrastructure at even a reasonable level. For reasons that escape me, perhaps the Opposition is also badgered by the same big end of town to stop the sensible financial planning that has been undertaken ever since this State was formed, including originally building infrastructure according to some sort of forward-looking plan, as opposed to the "let's balance the budget now and look good" approach.

Volume 5 of the 2003 report of the Auditor-General states that the Rail Infrastructure Corporation has a maintenance backlog of just under $500 million and no plan from the Government for how to fix it. Nineteen Tangara trains were found to have high-speed ball bearing failures. And the Government has now decided to close passenger rail services between Casino and Murwillumbah. Other lines are sure to follow, and the R. M. Williams faction of the ALP, Country Labor, should be very wary as it will pay dearly for this—although, it must be admitted, for all its hype Country Labor does not have many seats to lose.

The Lismore Democrats have been working with the Northern Rivers Trains for the Future Group in a broader community campaign against the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah CountryLink rail service and its replacement with a bus service. While I was in Lismore this year looking at a number of projects in the northern part of my duty electorate I attended a public meeting of the Northern Rivers Trains for the Future Group at the Bangalow Bowling Club. I was inspired by the group's commitment and passion to maintaining what it believes to be an essential service for people who live near the New South Wales-Queensland border, a part of the State that could very well, within the next 10 to 15 years, resemble the urban sprawl of Western Sydney.

Intelligent planning would make use of the rail line to attain a high density in select areas, rather than a Western Sydney-urban Los Angeles style of car-dependent sprawl that would remove all the natural features. That is likely to happen, because of economic drivers, if the rail line is not continued intelligently to Queensland. I travelled along small roads winding through small towns and had to adjust for the very limited and constantly changing speed limits, which, of course, buses will have to negotiate. I congratulate the citizens of Casino, Murwillumbah, Lismore and Grafton, the Combined Pensioners Association, and the Rail, Train and Bus Union for taking a stand against the State Government, and for their dedication in trying to maintain rail services in the Northern Rivers area.

I will remind the House of some of the questions I have asked the Government. On 18 September 2003 I asked the Minister for Transport, Mr Costa, to reaffirm the Carr Government's commitment to maintaining CountryLink rail services, including rolling stock, land assets, and access to railway lines in public hands. Instead of answering the question the Minister rambled on about Graincorp and the Federal Coalition, and merely referred back to the recent Parry report, refusing to answer my question. In September 2000 I asked the Treasurer whether he intended to privatise CountryLink rail services after the FreightCorp privatisation. In response the Treasurer said:

A Labor Government will never privatise CountryLink, nor any passenger rail service in New South Wales.

Heroically replacing it by a bus presumably means he has not told a fib, but it has had the same effect. While the interim report of the ministerial inquiry into sustainable public transport recommended that some CountryLink rail services should be replaced by CountryLink bus services, I merely seek a commitment from the Carr Government that this will not be the first step towards privatisation.

Because I have been a strong advocate for the disabled I have been approached by people who are concerned that CountryLink buses or private sector services that may be contracted to provide bus services will not have wheelchair access. I have been informed that the State Government has told non-government organisations in the northern rivers area to ask volunteer drivers to drive wheelchair-bound people around instead. I would ask the Minister to respond to this. The Minister may be well aware that the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme is in difficulties because of the lack of money and co-ordination and because the volunteer drivers are getting older themselves, particularly in isolated areas of the State. If there is no rail service in areas to which people are retiring, there will be an even greater burden on those drivers.

The Treasury does not like to spend money, and in particular it does not want to spend the $2.5 billion that will be needed to improve rail freight infrastructure in New South Wales over the next 10 years. I make the point that a huge amount of money needs to be spent on rail upgrades because this area has been neglected for so long. A large amount of money has been spent on roads, of course, although on the North Coast the Pacific Highway is a particularly dangerous stretch of narrow, winding road. The wooden bridges on many rail lines were built more than 50 years ago; they are nearing the end of their lives and are quite unsafe. But simply because governments have done nothing and now an expensive upgrade is necessary, the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

In the lead-up to the last State election the New South Wales Democrats endorsed the demands of the New South Wales Farmers Association for country rail maintenance funding to be increased from $1.2 billion to $2.5 billion over the next 10 years, because of the necessity for commodities to be transported efficiently and quickly by rail to meet market demand. The advantage is that trucks can go to a rail head, heavy loads do not have to be transported by road, and roads are not damaged. The maintenance of country roads is a very great impost on councils that are responsible for relatively sparsely populated areas and therefore do not have many ratepayers. Heavier trucks do significantly more damage to roads than smaller trucks.

The sad state of our freight infrastructure is best demonstrated by the loss of what are called "restricted lines", which can only carry partly loaded trains and light-axle-load locomotives at a low speed. I was astonished to learn of what the Grains Infrastructure Advisory Committee termed the "fix when fail" strategy of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation when it came to maintaining restricted freight lines in New South Wales. What is needed is a long-term vision for infrastructure, and a plan for future demand and future developments in inter-modal technology. That has been lacking from this Government, despite the fact that the Australian Rail Transport Corporation, the Federal body, has made very sensible and progressive recommendations about what should happen on lines, including the cost of repairs and likely benefits. So it really is money for jam. Anyone can go to the web site and read it, yet this Government does not even seem to be able to do that.

Rail freight haulage has a comparative advantage over road freight haulage. The Australian Rail Transport Corporation's estimated cost of improving restricted rail lines to the branch line standard is about $199,550 per kilometre. The Rail Infrastructure Corporation's estimate is between $254,900 and $326,900. That compares with between $200,000 and $235,000 per kilometre to reconstruct regional roads to a standard to enable them to cater for loaded B-double trucks. If we can get B-double trucks off our roads we will save money, and that is perhaps the key to saving many rural roads. The cost of fixing the five restricted lines would greatly benefit growers and generate precious employment in country New South Wales.

The upgrade of rail has to be seen in the same way as the upgrade of railroads; it has to be seen as an immensely cheaper option. But the two are never actually compared. Lines are seen as mendicant, as some sort of welfare provision for pensioners, whereas roads are seen as absolutely vital. Fares are not payable on roads, so nobody costs their fare revenue value—the two are simply not compared.

The same lack of care in favouring developers and wrecking rail has been suggested in Newcastle, where there could easily be a line from Newcastle to Maitland, perhaps crossing at Broadmeadow. But rather than that, developers are favoured. They can buy land close to Broadmeadow Station basically dirt-cheap compared with land in the centre of Newcastle. Then they can build a bus interchange as part of a deal, which brings in customers and increases their land value immensely. And, of course, the rail corridor can be flogged off again for a profit. I wonder who is giving money to the Labor Party, as Bob Carr walks around in his toga, slugging it out in some sort of Roman pretension with his counterparts in Queensland or Victoria.

The Kiama to Nowra service is also under threat. It is time the Government gave some serious thought to rail freight haulage as an alternative to road freight haulage and actually put some money into rail. The Government should be determining development and lessening urban sprawl, thereby lessening the infrastructure cost of roads, and really making some commitment to giving people in country New South Wales a decent quality of life. The Democrats support public transport with more than merely lip service. We ask the Government to change its overall approach to infrastructure, its comparisons of road and rail, and its commitment to these things, and to not simply look at the cost of each individual item as if it were a mendicant service.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.59 p.m.]: This has been an excellent debate. Opposition and crossbench members have given me significant insight into the problem and I appreciate their assistance. The Christian Democratic Party calls upon the Government to reverse the dismantling of New South Wales rail services to rural and regional New South Wales in particular. We believe that it is the greatest act of public vandalism since Federation. At the time of Federation, New South Wales, under the tremendous engineering leadership of people like Bradfield and others, had infrastructure that caused our State to be outstanding in its movement of freight, particularly from rural areas.

The closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah service is more than just an inconvenience to passengers. Of course, it is a dreadful inconvenience to passengers, but there are other key issues. One matter of particular concern is that freight belongs on the rails, not on the roads, and we are utterly committed to seeking that. The 15 rural branch lines that have been highlighted for possible closure are essential to the welfare of this State. Back in the days of Henry Lawson and Andrew Banjo Paterson there was debate in the Bulletin and elsewhere about "Sydney or the bush". It seems incredible that 100 years later it is Sydney, and Sydney only. This is an incredible emphasis upon a Sydney-centric philosophy of transportation. For passengers, "railaxation", not buses, is important. Freight should be on the rails, not on the roads. We support the motion.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.01 p.m.]: I support the motion of my colleague Lee Rhiannon and I shall refute some of the objectionable and unsustainable claims made by Opposition members. The Greens are well known for their support of major infrastructure projects, public education, public health and public housing. It is ludicrous for the Opposition to suggest that our support for public transport is merely an attention-seeking tactic. Fundamental to all Greens' policies are concerns about social justice, environmental sustainability and grassroots democracy. If ever there was an issue that embodies those principles, it is the provision of public transport.

We support public transport because it is democratic; it is available to all, regardless of their means. In that sense it is much more socially equitable than private transport. We support it because it is more socially inclusive and less socially isolating than the private automobile. We support it because it is publicly funded for the public good, not just for the private benefit or private good. We also support it because it is a much more efficient means of transporting the community. It is far less damaging to our community as a whole.

I note the comments of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes that this is the greatest act of public vandalism since Federation. At the beginning of the last century the rail network in New South Wales was described as the greatest public work ever undertaken in this country. Yet now the Government's activities have been accurately described as representing the greatest act of public vandalism. It is ironic that although we have recently witnessed the opening of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail line—which people claim will promote growth, open up areas, promote commercial activity and connect the north and south of Australia—the New South Wales State Government is proposing to allow the country network to wither and die through neglect.

The whole purpose of government is to provide the public infrastructure that cannot be provided equitably by private means. The provision of railways falls fairly and squarely into that category. In the past few weeks I have toured country areas of the State. I went to Wagga Wagga, Albury, Tumut and Nowra. I was approached by people in each of those areas concerned at the possible closure of their rail networks. Only last night I spoke to Chris Adam, General Manager of Tumut Shire Council. He explained to me that the local rail line had been closed in the 1980s and that the community was desperate for the line to be reopened. One way to gauge the importance that the community attaches to its railway and the commercial enterprise associated with that is the fact that Visy deliberately built its wood processing plants next to the railway in the expectation that one day commonsense would prevail and the railway line would be reopened.

Everywhere I travelled people expressed concern about the impact that the closure of the line would have on their communities. For example, the people of Nowra expressed fear that the Kiama to Nowra line was scheduled for closure. We must consider the prospect of this line being closed in the context of the appalling safety record of the Princes Highway. On a number of occasions I have spoken about motor vehicle accidents that consistently occur on the Princes Highway and the fact that the situations are often not dealt with in a timely manner because of the absence of the appropriate medical facilities or emergency medical retrieval facilities. The South Coast, in particular Wollongong, Nowra and Kiama, has experienced tremendous population growth and any closure of the line would mean a significant increase in the number of cars that use that road, which will exacerbate the risk of motor vehicle accidents and increase pollution. Last Saturday I visited Bowral. Once again, those living in the Southern Highlands expressed concern about the loss of rail services, and those fears have a real basis.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you see Craig Knowles there?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: No, I did not see Craig Knowles.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He lives there.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I must say that I did not see Peta Seaton at the public meeting that I attended and I had hoped to see her there.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: She would have been attending another meeting and working very hard.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: That is another issue. The people of the Southern Highlands have real fears about what will happen if their rail services are cut and they are forced to rely on cars and buses for transport. In addition to problems of safety and pollution, an even greater factor is the social isolation that could result from closure of the rail link. Young people, elderly people and disabled people throughout communities rely on rail as a safe and reliable form of transport. The Government is targeting those sectors of the community that it believes will be least able to retaliate. I welcome the unanimity of support from crossbench and Opposition members for this motion. There may have been a variety of motives for that support, but it highlights the importance of rail services to the people of this State.

The motion outlines the many ways in which those communities will suffer irretrievable harm if rail services are allowed to deteriorate and eventually close. I have spoken to many local council representatives about the reduction in rail services. They are concerned that the Government's tactic is just another means of shifting costs from the Government and forcing them on to local communities. The cost of repairing roads that were never meant to bear the weight of B-doubles or semitrailers and the cost of attending accidents will bear heavily on communities that are already struggling with a loss of population. Of course, the loss of population will no doubt be augmented as reliable, safe means of travel are dispensed with.

Councils feel that the proposed impost on them by the State Government is extraordinary. One reason for the opposition to the amalgamation of councils is the belief that super councils will be less answerable to their residents, less able to respond to the demands of their residents, and much more amenable to pressure from the State Government. What was clear from the people who travelled from Casino and Murwillumbah and the people who travelled from the Southern Highlands and the South Coast is that there is widespread concern across the State about the Government's activities in this arena. As I said in my opening remarks, the Greens are absolutely committed to public transport, whether it is on the grounds of economic efficiency, social justice, inclusiveness or environmental sustainability. We believe that it is important to retain this greatest of public works, and that it be retained in public hands to continue to serve the public good.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who participated in debate on my motion about the state of rail services and rail infrastructure in this State. I was concerned to hear the contribution of Mr Michael Costa, when once again he belittled public concerns about the state of rail services in New South Wales and ridiculed members of this House engaging in this debate. Mr Costa made a number of outlandish and untrue statements about Greens policy. I will not go into the non-rail issues he canvassed. However, I challenge the Minister to debate taxes and jobs. Unlike Mr Costa's party, I am proud that the Greens publicly disclose all their policies. Let us see whether Mr Costa has the courage to step outside the House and engage in debate, rather than abuse.

It is not surprising that the Minister does not understand accountability and transparency as his party will not disclose its policies. I note that the Minister did not comment on the impact that his cutbacks are having on rail workers. For many rail workers, the impact is cruel on a personal level. Workers are losing their jobs. However, it is important for members to note that rail workers are not only fighting for their own jobs; they are fighting to retain a public rail service. They have a deep commitment to this service and they are working hard to retain it. The Greens congratulate rail workers, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and other unions on fighting back. Premier Carr and the Minister have used tabloid newspapers and talkback radio in an attempt to shift the blame on to rail workers when the Government's mismanagement of rail services has been exposed.

The Minister's performance makes me wonder how low this Government will sink to save its own political skin or how ordinary workers must feel watching a Labor government turn on them like this. I note the concern expressed by some Coalition members about my criticism of the last Coalition Government. I acknowledge that some Coalition members are working hard on the campaign to save the Casino to Murwillumbah line. Obviously, it is painful to be reminded that rail lines did close when one's colleagues were in power, but they did close. It is relevant to this debate to note how the position of the major parties changes depending on whether they are in government or in Opposition.

It must be pointed out to Coalition members that aspects of their contributions to the debate highlighted how close they are to Labor. In working hard to insult the Greens, what did we hear? We heard a regurgitation of the very arguments in which the Minister engages. The Greens policies were distorted, and that was played out by delivering the tax and job mantra. As I said, I am proud of the Greens policies. Just as I am happy to debate Michael Costa, I am happy to debate our policies with Coalition members. I hope that Rick Colless will be willing to take up that offer as he had many comments to make. His comments reminded me of why the Nationals are a fading force. He spoke about the Pilliga. The Greens policy on the Pilliga is to deliver not only environmental protection but also long-term job growth. I trust that Mr Rick Colless has the conviction of his words and is willing to take up my challenge.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We will challenge you to go up to the Pilliga and debate.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I hoped that I would get that interjection. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I accept that challenge. I look forward to taking up the offer and engaging in this debate. The dishonest presentation of the environment versus jobs and the environment versus farmers—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Hang on—this is a debate on the rail line.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I know, and that is why I will not—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Tell us how your policies will save the rail line.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Because we have got this motion up and we are fighting hard to keep a public rail service .

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But your policies will close this rail line.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: We are not talking about closing rail lines.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You have to talk about policies, not a motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I know. We will talk about policies, but at the moment we are debating a motion. Let us talk later to get a date for the debate. The need to retain the Casino to Murwillumbah line—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I will not give you a platform.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Have you just withdrawn the offer to debate the matter? I hope that is not the case.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is up to the Hon. Rick Colless; he was the one who did it. I will not have anything to do with you. You are just a political opportunist. You will close these lines at the first opportunity. Your policies will close these lines.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am happy to acknowledge everything that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying because he is so off the mark. Again, it reminds us of why the Nationals are going out the door backwards. The need to retain the Casino to Murwillumbah line has been clearly put by many members. On that and other points, I am disappointed that no ALP member, apart from the Minister, spoke on the motion. Labor members of the Legislative Council passed up the opportunity to put on the record their support for public rail services. I am disappointed that Labor members did not take the opportunity to speak up for public rail services. They did not take the opportunity to speak up for rail workers who are set to lose their jobs or to support the upgrading of branch lines.

We did not get a word from them. Even when the Minister insulted one of his own members, there was still not a word. It is a very sorry day for Country Labor and the Labor left. No wonder people are angry, but the fight back is on. I congratulate the people of northern New South Wales on their campaign to save the Casino to Murwillumbah link. The mayors of councils in northern New South Wales have played a critical role in this. I am pleased to share with the House that the Rail, Bus and Tram Union has placed a ban on the removal of rail infrastructure on the Casino to Murwillumbah line. The union has taken a very important stand. Its commitment is that it will not remove the infrastructure in the immediate future. I understand it will review that position at the conclusion of the Legislative Council's inquiry into this rail line.

So, angry New South Wales people are fighting for their rail lines. This is being done in very courageous ways in many communities. Today we have heard mainly about the communities in northern New South Wales, around the Casino and Murwillumbah areas. People are also fighting in the Southern Highlands, around Bowral and other areas between Canberra and Sydney. We have heard today about the battle by the people of Tumut. People are fighting so hard to retain their branch lines—communities around Greenethorpe, Gwabegar, Willbriggie, Burcher, Weemelah, Hillston, Lake Cargelligo, and Boree Creek. On behalf of the Greens I congratulate all these communities. Their fight is outstanding. Labor should listen to them. I am confident they will be able to preserve their very important rail services across New South Wales. I commend the motion to the House.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) left the chair at 6.23 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 12 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Egan.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.01 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill implements the revenue measures announced by the Government on 6 April 2004. These revenue measures are part of a larger package of measures that will enable New South Wales to deal responsibly with the financial pressures that have been imposed on us. These pressures arise from the reduction of $376 million per year in Commonwealth grants beginning in 2004-05 and flowing from the Commonwealth Grants Commission's 2004 review of the formula for allocating grants to the States and Territories; the need to fund almost $400 million per year in pay rises recently awarded to nurses and teachers; and the need to provide extra funding for front-line services in hospitals, transport and education.

The package includes measures to ensure that the Government provides more value for money in its spending with greater efficiency, less duplication and the focus firmly fixed on the fundamentals. The revenue side of the package has been shaped to raise additional revenue without taking back any of the $1.4 billion of tax cuts the Government has provided in the past five years through reductions to payroll tax, insurance, stamp duty, motor vehicle registration and other tax rates. The bill also provides a major tax cut for young people and families, eliminating transfer duty for nine out of ten first home buyers. The package of measures contained in the bill represents the most fundamental reform of property taxation for decades.

A reduction in Federal capital gains tax in 1999 saw investors plunge into the property market in preference to other kinds of investment. That has driven up the price of real estate, providing investors with big gains, but pushing housing beyond the reach of many first-time buyers. The latest housing finance figures show that investors accounted for 44 per cent of all credit, while first-time buyers took up only 8.5 per cent of approvals. The bill will tilt the balance back in favour of first-time buyers and away from investors. The Government is looking to property investors to help fund the loss of Federal funding and to assist young people to get into their first home.

The bill implements the changes to the First Home Plus scheme, abolishes the premium property tax, introduces the premium property duty, reforms land tax and introduces the vendor duty announced by the Government in my mini-budget on 6 April. The bill also implements a number of other minor changes to the Duties Act 1997 to deal with issues identified earlier by the Government. The bill makes major changes to First Home Plus, the State Government program to assist first-time home buyers. The Government proposes to lift the threshold below which first home buyers pay no transfer duty or mortgage duty and make the resulting benefits available to all eligible buyers, regardless of where in the State they purchase property.

First home buyers will pay no transfer duty or mortgage duty when they purchase a home worth up to $500,000 or vacant residential land worth up to $300,000. The benefits for first home buyers will be phased out between $500,000 and $600,000. The benefits for purchasers of vacant land will be phased out between $300,000 and $450,000. Honourable members may ask why the Government settled on a value of $500,000 for the full exemption. The reason is that 90 per cent of first home buyers purchase a home for a value of less than $500,000. But there is another important consideration: a quick back-of-the-envelope valuation of my own home showed that it was worth approximately $500,000. I believe that every first home buyer is entitled to live in a house worth at least as much as the Treasurer's. If it is more than that, then they should have to wait a while.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What about your unit?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The unit is worth a great deal more, but I do not have any equity in it. I am sorry, I do have equity in it because since I purchased the unit it has risen quite appreciably in value, and whilst it has risen appreciably in value I have also had the benefit of negative gearing and depreciation allowances. Out of my own pocket it has not cost me a lot of money, but I have benefited from capital appreciation.

The increases in thresholds will remove stamp duty completely for about 90 per cent of all first home buyers in New South Wales. As I indicated when the measures were announced, these new concessions apply to all contracts entered into after midnight on 3 April 2004. The change means a saving of up to $18,000 on stamp duty and a further saving on mortgage duty. The bill more closely aligns the eligibility for First Home Plus with the requirements of the Commonwealth-State First Home Owners Grant Scheme. From 1 July 2004, to be eligible for the new concessions neither the buyer nor his or her spouse or partner can have owned residential property in Australia, either solely or with another person.

There is one important exception to these changes. A person—for example, a parent—who has previously owned residential property and who acquires an interest in the property in order to help first home buyers to finance the acquisition will not disqualify the first home buyers from getting the concession. A residence test, similar to the requirement applying to recipients of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme, will be introduced from 1 July. The requirement to occupy a newly purchased property also mirrors the requirement of the First Home Owners Grant Scheme. The Government amended the bill in the lower House to ensure that buyers must be at least 16 years of age to be eligible for the new concessions.

The second measure implemented by the bill is the repeal of the Premium Property Tax Act. No further premium property tax liabilities will accrue on high-value principal places of residence. However, liabilities that have accrued up to and including the 2004 land tax year but remain unpaid, or have been deferred, will still have to be met. The third measure implemented by the bill is the introduction of premium property duty to replace premium property tax. Premium property duty of 7 per cent will apply to that part of the purchase price or value of a single residential property or a parcel of residential land that exceeds $3 million. This new marginal rate will apply only to premium residential property. It will not apply to any other transactions where the purchaser is liable to pay transfer duty, such as, the purchase of commercial buildings.

In the case of the purchase of very large parcels of land, premium property duty will apply to two hectares where the pro rata value of that land exceeds $3 million. Where a residence is located on land that is also used for another purpose, the premium property duty rate will apply only if the proportion of the purchase price or value relating to the residence exceeds $3 million. The bill also revamps land tax. The current system will be replaced with a fairer system with lower rates. As announced by the Government in my April mini-budget, from the 2005 land tax year the land tax threshold will be abolished. The current flat rate of 1.7 per cent will be replaced by three lower rates.

For owners of properties with an aggregate land value of less than $400,000, the new rate will be 0.4 per cent. For properties valued between $400,000 and $500,000, the tax payable will be $1,600 plus 0.6 per cent on the amount above $400,000. For owners of properties above $500,000, the tax payable will be $2,200 plus 1.4 per cent on the land value above $500,000. I point out that in the case of investors these land tax payments will be an income tax deduction. Special trusts and non-concessional companies will continue to pay a flat rate of land tax, but this will be reduced from 1.7 per cent to 1.4 per cent. These changes will provide most businesses and property owners currently paying land tax with a significant reduction in their land tax bills. Those taxpayers with land holdings of between $500,000 and $1 million will see their land tax cut by between 21 per cent and 31 per cent.

At the same time that it introduces the new land tax rates, the Government will introduce an important concession for landowners with low incomes. Under the new arrangements, low-income landowners who own taxable land with a land value of less than $400,000 that generates no income will be able to defer the payment of land tax on that property until they dispose of the land. This option will be available to landowners who, regardless of age, have an income that is of a level that meets the income test requirements of the Commonwealth for receipt of a part age pension. The deferred amount will be adjusted annually by the change in the Sydney consumer price index. Landowners will have to apply each year for this concession. If a landowner has received this concession for any period and his or her land value or income rises above the thresholds, any land tax outstanding will remain deferred until disposal of the property. Most small investors will face very small land tax bills. Someone who owns an average investment unit in Sydney would face a land tax bill of $7.70 a week—before any Federal tax deduction—based on the current average land value for strata units in Sydney of $101,000.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What is that, two hamburgers? You were critical of the Federal Government last year for providing similar tax cuts.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As the honourable member who is interjecting points out, that will pay for two hamburgers before the income tax deduction. After the deduction it will probably be enough to buy a couple of hamburgers and a sausage roll.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You are a hypocrite!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It was the honourable member's suggestion and I embraced it because it was accurate. The final measure implemented by this bill is the introduction of vendor duty. From 1 June vendor duty will apply to the sellers of property, other than farms, principal places of residence, new or substantially new buildings, or substantially improved vacant land. Vendor duty will apply at the rate of 2.25 per cent of the consideration received for, or the value of, the property. However, it will only begin to apply if the sale price is at least 12 per cent higher than the property’s acquisition price or value. Furthermore, where the sale price is between 12 per cent and 15 per cent higher than the acquisition price or value the duty will be phased in, so that vendor duty will only apply in full if the sale price is at least 15 per cent higher than the acquisition price or value. Where there is an agreement for sale or transfer of the land, vendor duty will be payable on settlement. In other cases, vendors will have three months in which to pay.

A home will be exempt from vendor duty if it has been the vendor’s principal place of residence for the two years prior to the sale. Alternatively, if that two-year test is not satisfied, a home will be exempt if it has been occupied as a principal place of residence by the vendor for a total of at least three out of the five years prior to sale. In addition, a person who is required to move away from their nominated principal place of residence without establishing another principal place of residence will be able to maintain exempt status for the property for vendor duty purposes for up to six years. This concession is similar to the concession provided in the Commonwealth’s capital gains tax legislation.

The Hon. Rick Colless: I have been in my unit for one year.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The honourable member has another principal place of residence. He can have only one.

The Hon. Rick Colless: I have one principal place of residence, but I live in my unit in Sydney when I am in town. Is that exempt?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. With the announcement in April of its intention to impose vendor duty, the Government indicated that new construction would be exempt. This bill provides that the first sale of newly constructed buildings, both residential and non-residential, will not be liable for vendor duty. Following discussions with the property industry about the development of vendor duty and its scope, the Government has decided that the exemption for the sale of newly constructed buildings will also apply to the sale of substantially new buildings. Furthermore, for the same reasons that it is exempting new construction from vendor duty, the Government will exempt the sale of vacant land where there has been a substantial improvement made to the land in preparation for the construction of new buildings. That is, vendor duty will not apply if the vendor adds significant value to vacant land by enhancements such as installing power and water, undertaking remediation works or road construction. Sales of land where no significant value is added will be subject to vendor duty.

The Government recognises that in some cases it may be necessary to put tenants into a newly constructed, or substantially new, building before it is sold. However, for the subsequent sale of the property to benefit from the concession for new construction, the bill provides that the sale must occur in a reasonably short time frame after construction otherwise the concession will lapse. The bill provides that the exemption will be available for the first sale of a newly constructed building that is rented after completion only if the sale is within 12 months of completion. Where a newly constructed building remains unoccupied prior to its first sale there is no time limit on the availability of the exemption from vendor duty. As a transitional measure for new, or substantially new, buildings constructed in the year prior to the commencement of this measure that are currently let, the bill provides that the concession will lapse one year after the commencement of the bill, not one year after completion of the building.

The Government recognises that there are a number of other circumstances in which vendor duty should not apply. One clear anomaly is adverse possession, where land is lost through someone else’s occupation of the land. If a landowner loses title to land as a result of a possessory application under the Real Property Act 1900, no duty will be imposed. The person taking possession of the land is liable to transfer duty on the acquisition. This will not change. There are a number of circumstances in which transfer duty is not imposed by the Duties Act 1997 on an acquirer. Generally speaking, the bill provides that, where no transfer duty is imposed on the acquirer, vendor duty is not imposed on that person if he or she is a seller. That means, for example, that a charity, which is not liable for transfer duty on the acquisition of land, is also not liable for vendor duty on the disposal of land. It does not mean, however, that a person selling land to a charity is exempt from vendor duty. Similarly, if the government acquires land under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, no vendor duty will be imposed. Gifts of land to acquirers exempt from transfer duty, such as charities, will generally be exempt from vendor duty. The only situation in which this will not apply is a gift of investment properties to a first home buyer.

There is also a range of transactions to which transfer duty does not apply because of the nature of the transaction rather than the identity of the acquirer. For example, transfer duty is not imposed on a spouse or partner where he or she acquires property from a spouse or partner as a result of the break-up of a marriage or de facto relationship. Vendor duty will not apply irrespective of whether or not the property being disposed of is the vendor’s principal place of residence. Again, the general rule applied by this bill is that where a transaction is exempt from vendor duty the person disposing of the property will not be liable for vendor duty. However, in relation to the break-up of a marriage or de facto relationship the bill will provide an additional concession to recognise the circumstances of those who come to arrangements outside the formal processes.

The Government recognises that a partner in a marriage or de facto relationship who is the sole owner of the couple’s home may elect to move out of the home and establish another home elsewhere while the other partner resides in the property for an extended period. This informal arrangement could make that person liable for vendor duty on the subsequent sale of the home. It is not the Government’s policy intention to impose vendor duty in that situation. The bill therefore provides that in such circumstances the partner who has moved out of his or her home and acquires another home may have both dwellings treated as a principal place of residence for the purposes of vendor duty. The former home will continue to be deemed a principal place of residence of the owner for as long as the other partner resides in the property. This will be an exception to the general rule that requires that each household may claim only one dwelling as a principal place of residence.

Another important class of transactions is the various types of disposal of property that can occur on the death of a property owner pursuant to a will or the laws of intestacy. If an executor of an estate is required to sell the property which was the deceased’s principal place of residence, no vendor duty is payable. Nor is vendor duty payable if the home passes to a beneficiary. The sale by an executor of property that was not the deceased's principal place of residence will attract vendor duty. However, if the property passes to a beneficiary, no vendor duty is payable. In other words, vendor duty is not payable by the estate if a beneficiary inherits any property.

A beneficiary who inherits the deceased's former principal place of residence and disposes of it within six months will not pay vendor duty. If the beneficiary chooses to live in the property as their principal place of residence and subsequently sells it, the normal rules for vendor duty apply. Likewise, if the beneficiary chooses to rent out the property, the normal vendor duty rules will apply. The acquisition value for the purposes of determining whether the property has increased in value by at least 12 per cent will be the value of the home at the time it was acquired by the beneficiary.

Where a beneficiary inherits property that was not the deceased's principal place of residence and chooses to use the property as his or her principal place of residence the normal vendor duty rules will apply. If, instead, the beneficiary chooses to sell the property or use it as an investment property, then vendor duty will apply to its disposal. The base for determining whether or not the dutiable value on disposal is at least 12 per cent higher than its value at acquisition will be the value of the property at the time it was acquired by the deceased, not its value at the time it was acquired by the beneficiary. This earlier date is applied because the character of the property has not changed. It was, and remains, an investment property. This is a similar rule to that used by the Commonwealth to calculate capital gains tax on the inheritance and subsequent disposal of investment properties.

The Government amended the bill in the lower House to provide a concession from vendor duty for vendors who are selling a property that is wholly or partly the subject of a conservation agreement entered into under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The primary purpose of the agreement is the maintenance of threatened species, populations or ecological communities within the meaning of the Act to assist their preservation. The concession reduces the dutiable value on a pro rata basis to reflect the proportion of the property covered by the agreement. Vendor duty will apply to the sale of land owned by businesses as well as residential investment property. Whereas transfer duty applies to the value of land and other assets acquired by the purchaser, vendor duty will only apply to the land component of the sale of a business's assets.

The other assets subject to transfer duty will be excluded. Furthermore, the disposal of land assets of a business will only be subject to vendor duty if the business is a land rich enterprise. That is, the business must own land in New South Wales that constitutes 60 per cent or more of the assets of the business. The Government recognises that the transfer of shares in companies or units in trusts that are land rich is generally regarded by business as similar to a transfer of the land itself. Accordingly, for almost 20 years transfer duty has applied to the acquisition of shares or units in land rich companies and trusts. As recently as November last year the Government and the Parliament amended the land rich provisions of the Duties Act to take account of modern business practices and protect the transfer duty revenue base. Those amendments were developed following consultation with the relevant industry participants.

The disposal of interests in land through the disposal of shares in land rich companies or units in land rich trusts should be subject to vendor duty. However, the application of vendor duty to land rich entities involves complex drafting issues. The Government will extend vendor duty to the disposal of shares in land rich companies and units in land rich trusts following consultation with the industry. The bill also contains a number of minor miscellaneous amendments that deal with issues that have previously been identified by the Government. The first is to make an exemption from transfer and mortgage duty granted to certain public housing tenants who purchase a home conditional on the fulfilment of a residential requirement. This aligns the concession currently available for public housing tenants who are first home buyers purchasing an interest in the property they are renting with the residential requirements on other first home buyers.

The second miscellaneous amendment is to ensure that transfer duty is payable on commercial leases with a substantial premium component. This amendment, previously foreshadowed by the Government, deals with the practice that had been occurring whereby businesses structured their occupation of a building as a lease with a premium, rather than an acquisition of a dutiable interest in the property, to enable them to pay the much lower lease duty instead of transfer duty. The third miscellaneous amendment clarifies the situations in which entities are linked entities for the purpose of determining liability for transfer duty on acquisitions in land rich entities. The fourth and final miscellaneous amendment makes provision for the re-assessment of a land rich acquisition statement in cases where an uncompleted agreement affecting a land-holder's liability for transfer duty is completed or rescinded after the acquisition in a company or trust is made. I proudly commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.25 p.m.]: There could be no greater contrast between the Howard Federal Government and the Carr State Government than last night's Federal budget and this State's mini-budget. The Federal Government is committed to reducing the tax burden for people, particularly families, whereas the New South Wales Government is intent on increasing that tax burden. It is as simple and stark as that. This bill will impact on the community of New South Wales, investment in New South Wales and the future of New South Wales. It will be a legacy of the Carr Government about which we will remind it at every opportunity between now and 2007. The Treasurer introduced the mini-budget in the other place on 6 April.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: As a stunt.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Yes, a stunt, indeed. It is now well into May and we are just being given the opportunity to debate legislation that fundamentally underpins that mini-budget. At the time he presented the mini-budget, the Treasurer, by the use of a phrase that we have come to know so well in this House, described it as "big and bold and as representing thinking outside the square". While that may well have been the view of the Treasurer, an analysis of the views of various organisations and interest groups about the mini-budget and the bills that accompany it, reveals a rather different interpretation. I read from volume 18, No. 8 of Property Australia, dated May 2004:

While the New South Wales Treasurer described the New South Wales mini budget delivered on 6 Apr 2004 as thinking outside the square, however, the introduction of a new vendor transfer duty might be viewed more as thinking in terms of a box, called a coffin, for the investment into New South Wales.

That is a fairly stark view of the property industry of New South Wales. It is not something about which we ought to be proud, despite the Treasurer's words tonight. It represents the death knell for investment in New South Wales. I will have more to say about that later in my contribution. When I studied economics at high school, my economics teacher had a rather novel approach to teaching the subject. It was rather less than orthodox, but it produced excellent results. His approach was to teach the course entirely by the Sydney Morning Herald. It was an applied economic approach. The Treasurer would benefit from such a lesson.

The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill must be seen against the background of the so-called mini-budget. We were treated to such a background by the Treasurer tonight in this House and when he had his little excursion into the other place to deliver his mini-budget speech. On that occasion the Treasurer made much of what he termed the annual subsidy by New South Wales to the "strong and wealthy States, like Queensland and Western Australia". I see the Treasurer, who is just outside the Chamber, shaking his head vigorously, acknowledging that they were indeed his words. Clearly, this bill, if passed, will add to the strength of Queensland, to help that State grow, because people will want to do business and invest in that State.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Will they say "Thanks"?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: They will indeed say "Thanks". They absolutely cannot believe their luck.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: He is the best Treasurer Queensland has ever had.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Yes, indeed. The comment of my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack is definitely worth putting on the record. She has just suggested that the Treasurer of New South Wales is the best Treasurer Queensland has ever had. There has been all this protesting, all this huffing and puffing about the impact of the Federal GST and the impact of the Grants Commission. Of course, we were all reminded by the Carr diaries of when the Premier thought it appropriate to take a different position on the Grants Commission and the role of the Commonwealth Government. On 9 April 1999 the Premier had just been re-elected, had been sworn in, and was off to Canberra with the Treasurer. They encountered some hostilities from, in particular and not surprisingly, the Victorians. The Premier is quoted as saying in his diary for that day:

Later the Victorian Treasurer cobbles together an alliance of other governments to urge that NSW be denied the increase—

That was an increase that had been resolved under a new formula—

and they divide it. We're one out. How will Howard and Costello react …? To my intense relief [Howard] says he won't—cannot—overturn a recommendation of the Grants Commission unless the States are unanimous. Strong. Fair. I won't hear ill of this man.

That was a Grants Commission formula that at that time the Premier considered to be of benefit to New South Wales. But, the Federal Government said it could only be done if it was the unanimous view of the States, and even then only in discussion with the Commonwealth. So, for all the huffing and puffing we have had from the Premier and the Treasurer, sadly, in political terms not much has changed since 1999. In fact, all the States and Territories now have Labor governments, so the Government could have changed it. There could have been an appeal, but there was not. We have a Premier and a Treasurer who have spoken with forked tongues. When it suited them they were happy to have a grants formula that was in their favour and a Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer who backed up the New South Wales Government and said they would only entertain a change if all the States accepted a unanimous resolution.

It is not that many months ago that the Premier and the Treasurer, having had the opportunity at the latest round of the Grants Commission, would have been able to effect such a change. Of course, they did not, and although there has been all this huffing and puffing about their being poorly done by at the hands of the Federal Government and about less money going to the stronger and wealthier States, the reality is that had they come up with an appropriate formula, had they been able to get their Labor mates to agree, this whole notion that they have been done out of $376 million from the Grants Commission would not have been an issue.

As the Opposition revealed last night, these taxes are not necessary. This is not about the Grants Commission formula. New South Wales will gain more than $1 billion extra in GST revenue over the next four years. New South Wales will be GST positive next year. There are some particularly interesting figures in relation to this. It is interesting to note that there was some suggestion that we would get a response from the Treasurer, but we certainly did not in his second reading speech. It is quite clear, though, looking at the budget figures, that New South Wales will be in the black. Under the new tax system it will receive $113.7 million in the coming financial year, $89 million in the following year, and $320 million and $620 million in the two years after that. Let us be very clear about this: when the Government says this is all because it has been done out of $376 million by the Grants Commission, it is all wrong, it is just not the truth.

The Opposition will not support this grab for money. Indeed, over the next three years we will remind the people of New South Wales of the impact of this legislation. In fact, I suspect that we will not have to, because people who have never paid land tax before will be reminded every time they receive a land tax bill.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Every small business, every small investor.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Every small investor, every small business, people who own one house or unit, mums and dads, people who have been appropriately saving for their retirement, people who are on fixed incomes—they will all be reminded. They will know that, thanks to this Treasurer, the Government's hand is in their pocket day and night, 365 days a year. So, in 2007 they will know that the Carr Government was a mean regime that used the excuse of the Howard Government and the Grants Commission to increase taxes. They will know also that the Government with its Labor mates had the majority of votes on the Grants Commission and would have been able to effect an appropriate change. The Opposition has shown that the Government has blown its cover

I am not one to often draw attention to members not being in the Chamber, because we all have matters to attend to, but I note that the Treasurer is not in the Chamber now to defend his position, presumably because he knows as well as we do that—

The Hon. Rick Colless: He cannot defend it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: —he cannot defend the fact that New South Wales will gain $1 billion extra in GST revenue over the next four years. The Treasurer is already on record as saying that by not supporting the bill we will be denying first home buyers stamp duty relief. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Opposition will do absolutely all it can to support relief for first home buyers. It is our contention that stamp duty is absolutely inappropriate for young people. In using this line that somehow the Opposition is standing against tax relief for first home buyers, the Treasurer needs to consider that before most young people are able to save enough money for a deposit to purchase their first home they will be renters. By this bill the Government will make it harder for young people to even save their deposit, because, as a result of this legislation, they will now face a significant hike in their rent. It will be unavoidable.

I noticed a few weeks ago that, with the sort of bravado we see from him, the Treasurer made the observation that he was not about to put the rent up on his investment property. He said, "I've got good tenants." The fact is that he probably had a six-month or 12-month lease and was not in a position to immediately put the rent up. However, investors are not benevolent, and when the opportunity presents itself I am sure he will increase the rent to make up for this additional tax. So when the Treasurer talks about his benevolence in making sure that first home buyers are able to benefit from a tax relief—one the Opposition has advocated for years—that has to be considered against the background that people generally, but young people in particular, will find it more difficult to save for their first home, because the first thing they will have to do is pay more rent. Consequently, they will have to save for longer.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Patricia, the price will come down.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I am glad you said that because I will return to my economics lessons. I said that one of the ways in which I learned economics at school was that after every major economic event my teacher would discuss with us what the Sydney Morning Herald said about it and we would explore its impact. First, the mini-budget was presented and now we are debating the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill. My teacher would have asked all students to explore the consequences of the 2.25 per cent stamp duty on the sale of properties, excluding the principal place of residence, farms, new or substantially new buildings, and substantially improved vacant lots—in other words, subdivisions. The smart student would be well armed with expert commentary, because there is no shortage of commentary on what the vendor tax will mean for the people of New South Wales. Ken Morrison, the Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as stating that it is a double dip. Not to be outdone, the editorial in the Daily Telegraph of 7 April said, "Forget double dipping. This is triple dipping." The tax applies on purchase, during ownership, and on selling. That is an interesting concept. David Taneveski of the Urban Task Force is quoted in the Australian Financial Review of 29 April as saying:

We think it (the proposed vendor duty on investment real estate) is an unsophisticated tax that has not been thought through.

That is a significant point. One wonders whether this was thought through carefully or whether it was a back-of-the-envelope decision from the Treasurer over the weekend before the mini-budget. Some of the figures are similar to other rubbery figures given by the Treasurer in the past. The Government's spin was about the number of people to be affected by the tax. It is quite clear that the effect will be much greater. The figures he suggested with respect to land tax are extraordinarily different from those suggested at the time of the mini-budget. This bill has no justification other than as a revenue-raising exercise. If the Treasurer were smart—

The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: He used to be.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I am not sure when that was. A smart Treasurer would have reasoned that the new tax will have a number of consequences, the most obvious being that it will drive investment money from New South Wales.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: It will raise money for hospitals and transport.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Money will be raised because you are putting your hand into the pockets of the people of New South Wales. The bill will drive investment out of New South Wales. People will have to make the choice between investing in a property in New South Wales, on which they will have to pay stamp duty on its sale, and investing in Queensland or Victoria.

The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: Or New Zealand.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Or New Zealand, indeed. I am told that the Premier has already seen the light on that one. Given the choice, why would an investor choose New South Wales? People will not risk paying tax on the sale of their property when no other State has a similar tax.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: New South Wales is the premier State.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: On the contrary, it is quite clear that the effect of the legislation will be to drive investment out of New South Wales. Indeed, there are so many statements to this effect that I do not know where to begin quoting. The Illawarra Business Chamber is quoted in the Illawarra Mercury as having said:

We can't afford to just sit back and cop it on the chin … I mean, how much more do they seek to squeeze out of us?

Interestingly, the Queensland Treasurer stated:

It appears that the NSW government is now charging people to move to Queensland.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: The smart State.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: The bankrupt State.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Queensland is not a bankrupt State. Indeed, New South Wales has done Queensland a favour by underpinning its economy. People will not invest in New South Wales if they have to pay additional taxes. The Treasurer has stated that the basis of the tax is the fact that Queensland is a so-called wealthier State and is getting benefits that people in New South Wales are not receiving, yet this bill will make it easier for people to invest in Queensland. The real question is: Who are the investors? If one does an analysis of property owned in New South Wales, such as single dwellings and flats, a significant percentage of the owners have only one or two properties, and they have purchased them as superannuation.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: They are doing the right thing.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: They are doing the right thing. It is their income—in some cases it is their future income—something that will provide them with some security. Their investment portfolios do not consist merely of shares; they are diverse portfolios of responsible and sensible people who are taking care of their retirement. Why would people choose to invest in New South Wales? A significant number of people choose to purchase properties in coastal areas for their retirement because they like that lifestyle. They will obtain good rental returns from properties in coastal areas on the North Coast and the South Coast but they must make the choice between New South Wales and a coastal area in Queensland. It is no choice really.

Apparently, at one stage the Treasurer spoke about taking the heat off the property market in Sydney. The bill will effectively take the heat out of the property market in New South Wales. That is dumb economics. I know of no other Treasurer who wants to skew the market to such an extent. He talks about taking the heat off the Sydney market. The property market has upturns and downturns, so how will he revive the market if there is a downturn? This tax will weaken the market to such a point that when the market needs strengthening, people will not want to invest in New South Wales.

A smart Treasurer would understand that the effect of the bill will be to weaken the economy of New South Wales. People will not consider New South Wales as the first point of investment. This is particularly so for small investors, small business holders, people who want to own one or two investment properties for their retirement. I suspect that the Government will never get another vote from self-funded retirees. Who are self-funded retirees? What does that mean?

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Retirees want to know that they have good hospital and transport systems.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: No. Retirees may want to know that they have a good hospital but they want to know, first and foremost, that they made the right decision about investment. Honourable members should remember that retirees may have taken decisions about how to save and protect their retirement over a long period. They may have decided to purchase a property to give them a steady income. They are about to be hit by the land tax on, in many cases, a property valued at below the threshold. Look at many areas of New South Wales.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: You don't understand.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Earlier I told the Hon. Henry Tsang that this legislation looked like a back-of-an-envelope calculation using back-of-an-envelope figures that have turned out to be rubbery. At the time of the mini-budget the Government suggested that an additional 250,000 small investors who have never paid land tax may now have to do so.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Shame!

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Not only is it a shame but the figure is rubbery because, according to the Australian Taxation Office and the Valuer-General, more than 500,000 people will now have to pay land tax. So, as a result of what the Treasurer has done, 500,000 people who did not pay land tax previously will now have to pay it. As I said earlier, one might assume that the Opposition will spend the time between now and 2007 reminding the community about what the Government has done. We will not need to do that, because people will be reminded every time they receive their land tax bill. The Hon. Henry Tsang should have been in my economics class, to which I referred earlier. One must then ask: What will the effect of this measure be? The effect is clear: it will be felt in increased rents. It cannot do otherwise. It will also have an impact on property purchases.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Some rents will go up.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I am pleased that the Government is acknowledging that. A few days after the mini-budget I was in Bega, where I spoke to a land valuer. Bega would benefit from investment in its community. On the day of the mini-budget five property sales in Bega fell through because people were uncertain about the future and what the budget would mean for them.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: And that is less stamp duty for the Government.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: That may well be the case. Most importantly, the Bega community cannot afford to lose such investment opportunities. I turn now to first home buyers. We absolutely want first home buyers to have an opportunity to purchase property. We welcome the Government's decision.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It's a victory, an Opposition victory.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: It is an Opposition victory. We have argued about this for a long time. But at the same time the measure will have an impact, and quickly. I return to the old economics lesson about supply and demand. Because the threshold has been set at $500,000, and because of the demand for properties below $500,000, it will not be long before many properties are valued at $490,000. The simple fact of supply and demand will force up prices. I paid sufficient attention in my economics lessons to work that out.

This measure raises a number of issues. For all the Government's spin, the bill will have significant and long-term consequences. When I read the details of the legislation I was concerned about its potential impact on, for example, people in nursing homes or other care accommodation who rent out their properties while they are in that accommodation. In terms of the vendor duty, I understand that if a person has owned a property for at least two years and has not lived in it for six years, it is still that person's principal place of residence and he or she will not pay the land tax. That will include many people who go into care accommodation, nursing homes or hostels.

I put it on the record that, as a result of this legislation, many people who have never paid land tax will now pay it. Remember that the threshold of $317,000 has been abolished! I know of people who have rented out their property when they have gone into a nursing home, which is better than leaving a property vacant. I have gone back through the definitions and I am sure the Treasurer will give an assurance on this, but I understand that the property that is rented out is still the owner's principal place of residence, and they were exempted from land tax under the old rules. The Government has not changed the definition.

It has not been clearly defined, but many people who have relatives in nursing homes or hostels will be wondering whether the property that is being rented will now be subject to land tax. Many people rent out their property when they go into a nursing home or hostel. At present about 50,000 people are in residential care in New South Wales, and many of them would have rented out their principal place of residence. Many of those properties would be worth well below the threshold of $317,000. Provided the owner has not lived in the property for six years, he or she will not pay land tax.

It is important to place that on the record because this legislation has given rise to uncertainty. That is the basis of the concerns we have expressed. Before I conclude I want to detail the role and responsibility of this House, and I do not apologise for doing this. Do we have the capacity to amend or defeat legislation such as this bill? What is the role and position of the Legislative Council? Clearly, there has been media discussion and speculation about this. The Opposition took the opportunity to seek advice from the Clerk on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill. We do not often quote the Clerk, but I have sought his approval to do so tonight. In this House our powers have been evolving and our role in terms of committees and other things has been changing. The bill has provided us with an opportunity to look at what we as a House can do. I know that members of the crossbench have circulated many amendments. The Clerk's advice to the Leader of the Opposition, in a letter dated 11 May, states in part:

Before considering the powers of the Council in relation to the Bill it is perhaps useful to discuss the provisions of the Constitution Act 1902 in relation to money Bills, which can be broadly classified as:

• Bills appropriating public revenue
• Bills imposing a new rate, tax or impost (raising revenue).

Sections 5, 5A and 5B of Constitution Act 1902

Section 5 of the Act states that the Legislature, subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, has power to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever, provided that “all Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any new rate, tax or impost, shall originate in the Legislative Assembly.”

The prohibition in section 5 is that the above two types of money bills must originate (my emphasis) in the Assembly.

Sections 5A and 5B, inserted in the Act in 1933, contain provisions for the resolution of deadlocks between the two Houses over bills.

Section 5A provides the procedures for resolving disagreements between the two Houses on appropriation bills for annual services. Under section 5A (1) “any Bill appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government” which the Legislative Council “rejects or fails to pass it or returns the Bill to the Legislative Assembly with a message suggesting any amendments to which the Legislative Assembly does not agree” may be presented to the Governor for assent “notwithstanding that the Legislative Council has not consented to the Bill”.

The effect of section 5A on bills “appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government”, is twofold. Firstly, the Council may reject, fail to pass or return the bill to the Assembly suggesting amendments (my emphasis). Secondly, despite the actions of the Council the Assembly may direct that such bills, with or without any amendments suggested by the Council, be presented to the Governor for assent.

It should be noted that the section does not apply to section 5 bills “imposing any new rate tax or impost” and any amendment by the Council to bills of that class would fall within the provisions of section 5B. This is discussed further below.

Section 5A (2) provides that the Council is taken to have failed to pass any such bill if it is not returned to the Assembly within 1 month after transmission to the Council and the session continues. The effect of this provision is to prevent the Council, for example by delay or inactivity, frustrating the wishes of the Assembly in respect of appropriations for ordinary annual services of the Government. For this to occur, however, the session must continue during this period and must not be prorogued.

Under section 5A (3) if a bill becomes law under the section then any provision in the Act dealing with “any matter other than such appropriation shall be of no effect.” This provision is to prevent the Assembly from “tacking on” or including provisions alien to “ordinary annual services of the Government” in an appropriation bill.

Section 5A applies only to bills “appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.” With respect to all other bills, the Council may reject, fail to pass, or pass the bill with amendments, to which the Assembly may not agree. Where this occurs the mechanism for resolving deadlocks between the two Houses is laid down in section 5B of the Act.

Under section 5B (4) the Council is taken to have failed to pass a bill for the purposes of the section if the bill is not returned to the Assembly within 2 months after transmission to the Council and the session continues.

Apart from the restriction in section 5 that all bills “appropriating any part of the public revenue” or “imposing any new rate tax or impost” must originate in the Assembly and the limitations in section 5A (1) on the power of the Council regarding bills “appropriating revenue or monies for the ordinary annual services of the Government”, the Council has the same powers in relation to bills imposing any new rate, tax or impost as it possesses in relation to all other bills.

The limitation on the power of the Council contained in section 5A (1) of the Act is specific to appropriation bills for the ordinary annual services of the Government and does not apply to other types of bills appropriating money or bills imposing taxation. The latter bills may be amended by the Council and in the event of a deadlock between the Houses they must be dealt with under section 5B.

This view is supported by the debate on the Constitution Amendment (Legislative Council) Bill 1932 which inserted section 5A into the Constitution Act. During debate on the bill several members of the Council emphasised that section 5A (1) was intended to be limited to appropriation bills only and not to extend to other types of money bills (e.g. bills imposing taxation)

I refer to what the Hon. H. E. Manning, then the Attorney General and Vice-President of the Executive Council, said in debate in Committee on 28 September 1932. He said:

I should like to point out ... the essential difference between a bill appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government and a taxation measure ... An Appropriation Bill appropriates money for the ordinary services of the Crown, whereas a taxation bill does not appropriate money, but merely affirms that there shall be charged, levied, collected and paid a tax upon the incomes or whatever it may be of certain individuals. It may provide that incomes from personal exertion or incomes from property shall be subject to a tax. But it does not appropriate any money derived from such tax. That money is paid into consolidated revenue, and an Act of Parliament is required to appropriate it for the annual services of the Crown. [T]he language used in proposed new section 5A(1) has been employed for the express purpose of differentiating between those two things.

There then follows a long conclusion from the Clerk on the effect of sections 5, 5A and 5B of the Constitution Act. I should read it for completeness as it becomes relevant on a number of bills we will deal with. He said:

From the above discussion of the wording of sections 5, 5A and 5B of the Act it may be concluded as follows:

• section 5 of the Act requires that Bills appropriating any part of the public revenue or imposing any new rate tax or impost must originate in the Assembly
• the proviso to section 5 of the Act merely requires that appropriation and taxation Bills originate in the Assembly and does not inhibit any amendment by the Council
• section 5A Bills which “appropriate revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government” may be rejected by the Council, not passed or returned to the Assembly suggesting amendment
• the Council has 1 month to return section 5A Bills to the Assembly, otherwise the Assembly may direct asset
• the Assembly may direct that section 5A Bills be presented for assent, with or without any amendments suggested by the Council.
• where Bills for “ordinary annual services” assented to under section 5A contain appropriations other than for ordinary annual services, those provisions are of no effect
• section 5A applies only to “any Bill appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government” and not to other types of bills
• all Bills other than a section 5A Bill, including Bills “imposing any new rate, tax or impost” are caught by the provisions of section 5B
• for all other Bills , under section 5B the Council has 2 months to return these Bills to the Assembly, otherwise the Assembly may follow the procedures for resolving the disagreement
• the Council may reject, fail to pass or pass with amendment all Bills other than a section 5A Bill, including:

• Bills “imposing any new rate tax or impost”
• Bills appropriating revenue or moneys other than for “ordinary annual services of the Government”.

I think that is clear and it is appropriate for the House to dwell on those words. There are two other very relevant quotes that were not supplied at the time and which we should consider. The first is from the Hon. R. Downing, who was then Minister for Justice and Vice-President of the Executive Council, in debate on the 30 November 1943, when he was comparing the powers of the New South Wales Parliament with the powers of the House of Commons vis-a-vis the House of Lords. He said:

Yet here, in 1943, the Lower House has not this power. It has a mere power to apply the revenue, but to raise revenue it needs the concurrence of some outside authority, agreed by every constitutionalist as having no proper voice in the matter. Anyone who doubts that this was done deliberately has only to refer to the message which accompanied the Reform Bill when it left this Chamber. In New South Wales to-day taxation bills fall with ordinary policy legislation into the category of "other bills," governed by the provisions of section 5B. In this section, submerged beneath a lawyer's nightmare of snares, technicalities, pitfalls and complexities—each barb carrying illegality on its point—is a provision regulating the requirements in the event of disagreement between the two Houses on any bill other than an Appropriation Bill.

Because the Government will appreciate it, I quote finally from the Hon. W. J. McKell, a former Premier. In a second reading speech on 11 November 1943 he said:

In the constitutions of most countries which even claim to be democratic, the power of the Second Chamber in relation to bills imposing taxation are rigidly limited, but not so in New South Wales. Here there are two classifications only, an "appropriation bill" and "any other bill," and the Legislative Council's powers in relation to taxation bills, whether they fix a rate of tax or provide a method of assessment and collection, are the same as in the case of ordinary legislation; but all fall within the section 5B.

I put that on the record lest we have any debate as the night proceeds about the role and powers of the Legislative Council. I know that amendments will be moved at the Committee stage because crossbench members have approached us to consider them. The question rests on our capacity to support some aspects of the bill and not others. Let me state in no uncertain terms that section 5B applies and this House has powers in relation to the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [9.10 p.m.]: It gives me no pleasure at all to speak on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber tonight of the Treasurer. In a way I feel sorry for the Treasurer, because despite nine years of economic sunshine, created by his Federal counterpart Mr Costello, he is imposing new taxes on the people of this State. I feel sorry for him because he is surrounded by ministerial incompetence of the highest order, from the Premier down.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: It looks strange, the Treasurer sitting over there.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I feel like putting my arm around him, but he probably would not enjoy that very much. I want to share with the House tonight an extract from another book on the incredibly self-indulgent Premier. The extract, which is from a book called Bob Carr: A Self-Made Man, provides an explanation why the State is in dire economic consequences. I acknowledge that the book was written by Andrew West, a former Labor staffer, together with Rachel Morris, a journalist with the Daily Telegraph. Andrew West obviously had more to do with the book because his name is in big, bold writing on the cover. I encourage the Treasurer to listen to the quote; it may help him to explain to his colleagues around the country why the Government is in such trouble. At 34 the book states:

His old Maroubra Branch Secretary, Ron Greenstein, recalls an anxious phone call from Carr in the early eighties. Helena was overseas and he needed to draw a cheque.

Ron Greenstein says:

He asked if I could write him the cheque because he'd never written one in his life.

Ron Greenstein continues:

If Helena was out of town I had to pick up the slack. He's just been terribly fortunate that his wife is very competent.

Further to the story, the Premier's former chief of staff Bruce Hawker, of Hawker Britten infamy, recounted in the book that Carr, during a time in Opposition, like a monarch or United States of America president, did not even carry money because Helena managed the smallest details of his personal budget. Perhaps it would be more apt to compare him to a Roman Emperor. Such a comparison would be far more in keeping with the Premier's interest in history and acknowledged love of Roman history. If the Premier had given as much attention to the State's finances and the incompetence of his own ministry as he had to studying the works of Marcus Aurelius, he would have done this State a lot more favours in terms of good financial management.

In acknowledging the work of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Premier would have learnt that despite Marcus Aurelius needing extra funds to fight wars in eastern Europe to extend the vast Roman Empire, he refused to raise taxes to achieve that end. He found other more ingenious ways to do that. The Premier cannot walk in Marcus Aurelius's footsteps. In an earlier extract in Bob Carr: A Self-Made Man, Ron Greenstein made a startling confession. When Ron Greenstein was asked to take over the job as secretary-treasurer of the Maroubra branch, as the Premier made his run for preselection, Ron realised that the records of the branch needed some major work. Why? Because the Premier, who had been secretary-treasurer for the previous 10 years, could not keep the records. Ron Greenstein recounts of the Premier:

He had built the branch into one of the biggest and most active in the State with about 150 members. But in the secondary role as treasurer he was singularly unimpressive.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Who is this?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: This is the Premier. Ron Greenstein explains in the book Bob Carr: A Self-Made Man that when he was asked to take over the secretary-treasurer position of the Maroubra branch, because the Premier was on his way into State Parliament, he looked at the records that the Premier had kept for the previous 10 years and he was absolutely horrified, disgusted and disappointed.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You don't think I let him near the books, do you?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That is the point. But he is the boss, and he can overrule you despite what you think. He can overrule you because he is the Premier. You are only the Treasurer.

The Hon. Michael Egan: There are certain areas where he is not allowed to go.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I acknowledge the interjection of the Treasurer that there are some areas that the Premier is not allowed to go. The Treasury officials over there are looking horrified. The Premier is not allowed to go near the books. Perhaps that is a good thing, but I do not believe it because if there is media drama he will spend money. Ron Greenstein continues:

Bob has no concept of money or how to manage it. When I came in I found he has been an excellent secretary—

He got 150 members to join the branch, so he had to make sure that paperwork was right—

but a very questionable treasurer, in so much as the records had to be put together … Carr had simply stuffed several years worth of receipts and cheque butts into envelopes without properly reconciling them.

The Premier probably does not even know what the word "reconcile" means. The extract from the book continues:

In the end of course everything matched up but it took dozens, if not hundreds, of hours before Greenstein could present a coherent set of account books. Carr's honesty was never in doubt—

his incompetence was—

but he certainly exhibited a lack of interest in finance and balance sheets. Greenstein offered himself a wry smile a few years later when the Times on Sunday floated the idea of Carr becoming a federal treasurer in a Keating Government.

This revealing story may be humorous, but it is very sad for the people of New South Wales, especially for the mum and dad investors who are trying to make a future for themselves where they are not reliant on taxpayers for pensions and other benefits. Mum and dad investors who are doing the right thing will now be slugged by land tax. Despite the rivers of gold that have flowed into the Treasury coffers of New South Wales—$8.3 billion over the budget—the Government is having to slug more taxpayers for more money. The contrast could not be greater. I do feel sorry for the Treasurer because he is a half-decent fellow.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Which half, the left or the right half?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The right half is decent. The Treasurer of this country, Peter Costello, created the economic sunshine that this State has enjoyed, with triple the stamp duty revenues that we were expecting in New South Wales over the past nine years. This Treasurer has had to watch from the very distant shadows while Peter Costello, enjoying the sunshine of his good management, allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to important infrastructure improvements across the nation, tax relief for the people of Australia and an increase in family tax benefits. The Treasurer of this country has been able to provide tax relief, invest in infrastructure and provide family tax relief. In New South Wales all we get is more taxes.

The stamp duty relief available to first home buyers on properties valued up to $500,000 is excellent. However, it has been provided only because the Opposition has driven the subject for the past year. It has embarrassed the Government such that it has been forced to provide tax relief for first home buyers in this State. I acknowledge that people in regional New South Wales will probably be the greatest beneficiaries because many city properties do not fall within that threshold. First home buyers purchasing a property with a partner who has already owned a property are in a difficult situation. The Federal Government's first home buyers legislation provided that one person was entitled to some relief, but that is not the case with the New South Wales legislation.

The Hon. Michael Egan: That is not true. The eligibility provisions are the same as those in the Commonwealth's first home owners grant legislation.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I acknowledge the interjection. However, it is an issue if two people wish to buy a property and one has not bought a property in the past. Under this legislation that person will not be eligible for a stamp duty discount. That is an issue. Two of my regional constituents were not in a position to buy a home, but could afford an $80,000 unit as an investment. They are not eligible for the first home buyers relief.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: They will also have to pay land tax.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Yes, and if they make a profit they will have to pay 2.25 per cent in stamp duty. New South Wales is the first State in Australia to introduce such a prohibitive tax.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I missed out, too.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Many people in New South Wales would not think the Treasurer has missed out. They have missed out because of the way the State has been run for the past nine years.

I must raise the concerns of the mum and dad property investors. About 540,000 properties across New South Wales will now fall into the land tax net and 300,000 more people will be affected. This measure will raise an extra $640 million for the Government. The Treasurer claims that the tax will be revenue neutral this year. However, it will increase; the Government would not have introduced it if it were not going to provide more revenue in the long run. It will affect the people whom Government members would like to represent; that is, the many working class families in Western Sydney who have done well and bought an investment property so that they will have an income in their retirement. Decent people who are providing for themselves will be slugged. It will not be good for property investors generally in New South Wales.

As the Opposition has pointed out, many more people will move to Queensland and Victoria. Ken Morrison, the Executive Director of the Property Council of New South Wales, said that Victoria is cutting its taxes to create a more competitive business environment but the New South Wales Government is taxing businesses and families out of the State, and that Michael Egan said he does not care if the new stamp duty on property sales drives investors out of New South Wales. He went on to say that Steve Bracks understands that lower taxes are good for business and jobs and investment and that he wishes he would tell Bob Carr. The Premier cannot reconcile a chequebook and cannot even write a cheque.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Who said that?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Ron Greenstein, the president of the Maroubra branch. The Minister missed it. He will have to read Hansard tomorrow. It is on 35 of A Self-made Man, which contains a good explanation of the Premier's lack of economic prowess. There will be a windfall of $1.1 billion over the next four years from the new tax system created by the Federal Government. This State's tax system has also been overhauled and the result is an attack on those making provision for themselves by investing for their retirement. This legislation will hurt investment in New South Wales. The Treasury has said that the new land tax scales are not indexed and that they will raise in excess of $30 million in additional revenue. The abolition of the land-tax-free threshold will result in an extra 300,000 people being drawn into the tax net for the first time, with mum and dad investors paying more and more in coming years to satisfy this greedy tax grab.

In addition to the clubs tax grab, which will hurt local communities, the Government is imposing this new land tax and stamp duty on investment properties. These measures have already caused a flattening of the property market. The Treasurer said that Sydney's property market was a little hot. He has certainly put it on ice. An investor who buys a $300,000 investment property in the central business district and spends $30,000 or $40,000 on improvements might sell it for $350,000. At that price, the investor will not make any money when it is sold but he will still be slugged 2.25 per cent in stamp duty because the value of the property has increased. That is not good for investors in New South Wales, especially in the cooling property market.

This situation is the product of the Ministers' inability to manage the State's finances, their departments and their portfolios. We have seen the $800 million blow-out on the Parramatta rail link, the $876 million blow-out on the Pacific Highway—which can be slated home to the Hon. Carl Scully—the $117 million blow-out on the Liverpool to Parramatta bus transitway, and the $104 million blow-out on the Millennium train, again with the Hon. Carl Scully at the helm. New South Wales is facing an appalling transport scenario given the lack of investment in infrastructure and appropriate management. The best example of that is the Hon. Michael Costa's decision to close the Murwillumbah to Casino rail service. He claims that he is being fiscally responsible.

The Opposition believes that he is being fiscally and socially irresponsible in closing that line to save approximately $5 million a year. The taxpayers of this State are most affected by this Government's inappropriate decisions. The management of the health, education and transport systems of this State is woefully inadequate. That inadequacy comes from the top—that is, from Bob Carr. He does not understand management. He has never run a business or been interested in business. He has never had to reconcile a chequebook and he has never written a cheque. I speak on this bill with sadness and I will support my Coalition colleagues in opposing it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.29 p.m.]: The Greens have several concerns about this bill. First, it has emerged from the now infamous mini-budget. It was a political stunt dressed up as a budget statement. Its purpose was to embarrass the Federal Government and to conceal the Carr Government's financial mismanagement. Had Treasurer Egan not spent $8 billion in the past nine years on this Government's debt reduction fetish we would not be debating legislation such as this. A Government running a normal debt program might even have been able to fix the problems confronting our rural and rail infrastructure.

Without this debt obsession, the people of New South Wales would not need mini-budgets. But, thanks to Egan's mania for a triple-A rating, we have ad hoc policy, made on the run. As a logical consequence of this, the Government seeks to ram its legislation through the House at high speed, regardless of its complexity. This haste results in the Government arguing that amendments to the bill cannot be made.

The Government is attempting to justify this gag on the democratic process with a questionable legal argument that this is a "money bill". The Greens reject that argument, and we will seek to amend the bill. Our amendments will reflect our chief concern with the bill, which is that it offers big tax cuts to property owners at the top of the land tax ladder. The Greens are not opposed to land tax. Our economics spokesperson, Professor Frank Stillwell, has worked with the New South Wales Greens economics working group to produce an excellent discussion paper on land tax. In this paper Professor Stillwell demonstrates why such a tax is compatible with the Greens philosophy. He writes:

It is now a common tenet of the environment movement that the earth is not ours to own.

Rather, we are its temporary stewards, with responsibility to care for the earth and not compromise the needs of future generations whilst meeting our own.

Flowing from this logic is the principle that natural resources are a common gift to all who share the earth.

Those who alienate resources from the community for their exclusive use should be taxed for the privilege.

The revenue that this raises can fund the community's economic, social and environmental needs.

Professor Stillwell also explains why land tax is a justifiable way of capturing increases in wealth that accumulate to individuals. He notes that rising land values cause wealth to accrue to the private owners of the land. But this wealth is not typically the result of any action by landowners. In fact, rising land values are often the product of social processes. For example, land values might increase when new public works or amenities, such as a new rail link or a shopping centre, are built nearby.

Another reason for land value increases is gentrification, whereby a number of people in an area renovate their buildings and cause a collective increase in property values. In fact, values also rise due to the very process of urban growth, in which demand for urban land always outstrips supply. In light of this, Professor Stillwell concludes that if these social dividends to property owners are not taxed, the higher property prices resulting from the community's productive efforts are captured solely by the individual landowner.

At the same time, those who are unable to afford land are further excluded from the market. This increases social and economic inequality. Those who are fortunate enough to have owned land in desirable areas capture the economic surplus, while future generations are saddled with higher prices for urban land and housing. Clearly, there is a case for land tax, as long as it is efficient and equitable. The Greens support broadening the base of the land tax. After all, we are talking about people who own not one but two homes.

Land tax is a charge on people who, for the most part, are making capital gains and income from property. But our support for land tax is conditional upon it being equitable. Those on low incomes must be given opportunities to defer payment until sale of the property or death of the owner. The Government has proposed to allow this, and it will include it in the regulations that will follow the bill. But the Greens question the Government's definition of "low income". In the regulations that definition will be an income at or below that which qualifies someone for a part age pension. This may exclude some low-income property owners, particularly self-funded retirees living off property nest eggs.

We have asked the Government to consider raising the threshold so that people on average weekly earnings or below can apply to defer land tax payments. The Greens believe that this would make the tax more equitable and more palatable to the community. We seek the Treasurer's assurance that he will include this in the regulations that will accompany the bill. The Greens cannot understand why, when broadening the base, the Government has at the same time cut rates for those at the top end of the property market. We believe that the top marginal rate should remain as it is now, and we will move an amendment to that effect. People in that top bracket are used to paying land tax, and there is no reason why it should be cut back.

The Greens do not believe that land tax, either in its present form or the extended form provided in the bill, will cause rents to rise. Rents are not a function of land taxes and stamp duties but, rather, a function of supply and demand. Vacancy rates determine rental levels. If a landlord seeks to increase rents, a higher vacancy level will encourage the tenant to move. This creates competition between landlords. The current vacancy rate in Sydney is 3.7 per cent. This is below the 4.4 per cent vacancy rate that prevailed at this time last year, but it is still much higher than the long-term average of 2.4 per cent.

One reason for the vacancy rate being higher in recent years is the Federal Government's first home owners grant, which turned many renters into buyers. If the new stamp duty exemptions for first home buyers are as successful as the Treasurer claims they will be, we can expect a similar rise in vacancy rates. This will help prevent landlords from raising rents. The changes to the tax rates are not the only negative features of the bill. The Greens believe that the premium property tax was a worthwhile means of raising revenue. It only applied to the top 0.2 per cent of land by value, and only 26 of the 8,000 taxpayers involved have claimed hardship. Given that 7,774 taxpayers are able to meet this tax without difficulty, there is no reason to remove it. The Greens will move amendments to restore the premium property tax, a measure also recommended by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales.

I turn to rural and regional areas. The Greens are concerned that while farms receive an exemption from land tax and vendor duty, other legitimate uses of rural land are ignored. Land under voluntary conservation agreements or the Nature Conservation Trust should receive an equivalent exemption. In his speech the Treasurer indicated the Government's agreement with our views on this, and I understand that an amendment to this effect was moved in the Legislative Assembly. However, the Government's amendment did not fully resolve this problem.

We have now learnt that there is a residual problem, reflecting an ongoing issue in existing legislation such as the Land Tax Management Act and the Nature Conservation Act. The problem is that the exemption only applies to voluntary conservation agreements "primarily for the purpose of maintenance of threatened species, populations or ecological communities". At least 20 per cent of voluntary conservation agreements are primarily for purposes other than this, and they should also be covered by the exemption that the Government and the Greens have agreed to. I hope the Government will act to rectify this problem. It is merely a matter of getting it right, not changing the existing policy of voluntary conservation agreements being granted this exemption.

My colleague Mr Ian Cohen will move amendments in Committee to achieve this, and we look forward to the Government's support as it has indicated. If the Government sticks to its fallacy that the bill cannot be amended in this place, we hope it will not let this anomaly fester and that it moves quickly during this session to fix it. The vendor duty has been the subject of much predictable fury in the property industry. This fury has been channelled into a vigorous lobbying effort, which has yielded certain exemptions for developers but has left so-called mum and dad investors paying the duty in full. This is clearly unfair, and the Greens believe that everyone should be able to deduct their capital improvements, or, alternatively, everyone should pay the tax.

Granting large developers an exemption is typical of the Carr Government, which has accepted almost $5 million in developer donations over the past five years. The Greens want to remove those exemptions, and also tighten up the exemption for improvements to vacant land. We doubt that we will get the support of the Coalition for these amendments, given that the Liberal Party is also a beneficiary of developers' largesse in the form of political donations. On the subject of the Coalition, the Greens have been told that its members are proposing to support only the measures that support first home buyers. The Greens fully support the aspirations of first home buyers to purchase an affordable home.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: As long as they don't use timber.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, that is not true. We have just heard another ridiculous interjection, this time from Mr Charlie Lynn. It has been a sad day for the Opposition; it is slipping further and further into irrelevancy. The Greens are as equally concerned about those who are already locked out of the property market. It is a great pity that not one cent of the revenue that is being raised from the property market by this bill will go to public housing. With the property market bubbling over, the Government has a greater responsibility than ever to provide low-cost housing. The Greens urge the Treasurer to consider earmarking more funds for the public housing sector if this bill is passed.

According to the Liberals, the Treasurer has the luxury of having a vastly inflated kitty, thanks to increased GST revenue. Perhaps some of this windfall could also be put towards addressing the needs of those who, during the overheating of the property market, have been left out in the cold. All in all, the Greens believe this is a very strange bill. However, it is coming from the right place and the Greens support the principles involved in it. What concerns us is that it will clamp down on the property bubble, but it will offer tax cuts to developers. The bill ignores public housing and affordable housing. This is unfortunate. Had it not been for the Carr Government's need to create the political stunt that was the mini-budget, Labor and the Greens could have worked together to come up with a much better land tax system than this one.

We urge all members to support our amendments. There is still a chance for us to improve what the Government has created on the run. We also urge the Government to reaffirm its commitment to public housing and affordable housing and to take this opportunity to announce new policies and spending in this area. The Greens support land tax; we want this bill to ensure that land tax works as well as it can. We look forward to robust debate when the bill is considered in Committee.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [9.42 p.m.]: The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill introduces the tax changes that were announced several weeks ago in the mini-budget. The object of the bill is to amend certain State revenue legislation for the purposes of removing stamp duty for first home buyers on property up to the value of $500,000. I fully support that most-welcome and long-overdue provision. The bill will remove the tax-free threshold for land tax and will introduce new rates of land tax in respect to all land that is subject to the tax. I will detail my concerns about that provision a little later in my contribution. The bill will repeal the premium property tax and replace it with a premium property duty on purchases of residential land where the dutiable value of that land exceeds $3 million. It will also introduce a vendors stamp duty on all land, other than the principal place of residence and farming land. I have some concerns also about the veracity of that particular provision.

The stamp duty exemption for first home buyers will apply to property valued up to $500,000, with concessions applying for purchases exceeding $500,000 but less than $600,000. In the case of vacant land purchases, land valued at up to $300,000 will be duty exempt, with concessions applying for purchases exceeding $300,000 but less than $450,000. Those provisions are most welcome. Eligibility requirements have been tightened so that neither the buyer nor the buyer's spouse or partner can have previously owned residential property. The changes to the first home buyers' stamp duty is expected to cost the Government an additional $273 million in 2004-05 to an estimated total cost of $337 million.

With regard to land tax, the Government has abolished the threshold of $317,000 and has introduced a rate of 0.4 per cent for land valued up to $400,000, with a marginal rate of 0.6 per cent for land valued between $500,000 and $600,000, and a rate of 1.4 per cent for land valued in excess of $600,000. The current flat rate has been reduced from 1.7 per cent to the rates I have just referred to. The Government claims that a scheme that gives money back to the top end of the market by taking it from the poor end of the market is a fair tax scheme. Who was that famous bushranger who used to rob the rich to give to the poor? Well, this Treasurer is certainly no Robin Hood, as he is robbing the poor to pay the rich. He is taking it off the poor end of town and giving it to the top end of town—which I thought was against Labor Party principles.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Not new Labor.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: No, not Sydney Labor; not the Sydney-centric Labor Party that we see in New South Wales at the present time, that is for sure. Let me give honourable members some examples of how this legislation will work in practice. I refer to a business in my home town of Inverell, where there is no top end of town. Compared with businesses in the city, businesses in Inverell can be said to be at the poorer end of the market. The Inverell business operates in the main street of the town; the business owns the premises from which it operates, as many small businesses do in country towns; and the land on which the premises are built is valued at about $100,000 and is increasing in value at the rate of about 5 per cent per year. But that 5 per cent per year average has been calculated taking into account short, sharp increases in a short period of time and a dead flat period for the next 10 years—a common occurrence in country towns.

Typically, the business owner is having to constantly review his business practices to stay ahead of continually increasing costs and impositions. He will probably have a gross business income of less than $100,000 a year. Typically, the business owner will draw a wage of about $35,000 to $40,000 per annum, with the rest of the income being absorbed in the costs of running the business. Next year that small business will pay $400 in land tax. The Treasurer himself said tonight that that is not a big amount; it is $7.70 a week. When you say it quickly it is not a lot of money; it is about two hamburgers or three beers a week.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Or cappuccinos.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: In country towns people do not drink cappuccinos; they have a couple of beers a week if they can afford it, and maybe a hamburger or two occasionally.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: That's not true.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The Special Minister of State is acknowledging that he is a cappuccino man. I can see him having a cappuccino and a croissant for breakfast. We do not get to enjoy those sorts of things in country towns very often. Getting back to the business in Inverell, that payment is yet another $400 or $500 a year that the business has to find. It will have to come from money that the business does not have available to pay—from wages. In five years time, with an even appreciation rate of 5 per cent, this land will be valued at about $128,000, and it will incur land tax of $500 a year. The tax will increase as time goes on. It will increase in value over time.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: By stealth.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes, by stealth. I heard the Treasurer say on talkback radio that he was going to index the tax, but I have found nothing in the bill to indicate that. It will continue to rise and the Treasurer will continue to get a bigger and bigger payment from small business people and small investors in country towns. This will be an increasing rate of tax, which will have a severe impact on every small business in rural and regional towns in New South Wales. It will have an impact on every small investor, such as families that have saved for years to buy a second house to rent in a town like Inverell, or perhaps a small cottage on the coast where they can go for holidays—in other words, an investment property that is the family's superannuation. This tax will not take money from people who have money to burn; it will take money from those without money to give away.

The bill will reduce the land tax burden for big business and landowners in Sydney and, overwhelmingly, it will be small business and small investors in country towns who will pay the tax. For example, a family that has worked hard over the years and is now in a position to buy a modest investment property valued at around $300,000, with a land value of $150,000, from next year will pay $600 each year in land tax. Using the 5 per cent appreciation rate I referred to earlier, in 10 years time that property will be worth about $450,000 to $475,000, with a land value of about $250,000. By then the small investor will pay land tax of $930 a year. Over a 10-year period the investor will have paid $7,500 in land tax, and that is a lot of money to bleed out of small investors in country towns—the sector that can least afford to pay such horrific taxes. The Government claims that the changes to land tax will be revenue neutral. That may well be the case in 2004-05.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: In the first year only.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: In the first year, as Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes points out. The sting will come in future years when the bill for the small investor will jump from $600 per year to more than $900 per year—a 50 per cent increase in land tax. I am sure that the Treasurer will not stand up and say that he is going to increase taxes by 50 per cent over the next 10 years.

The Hon. Michael Egan: How do you know that the rate will be the same?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: How do you know that it will not be the same?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Because I have said that it will not be.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I will believe that when I see it. Even though the Treasurer has said that the land tax will be revenue neutral in 2004-05, in years to come it will be very much revenue positive for the Government. The Government will collect more tax from small investors in New South Wales. A new stamp duty is also to be introduced on the sale of investment properties at the rate of 2.25 per cent where the vendor profit is more than 12 per cent of the purchase price, with the full 2.25 per cent to be payable if the sale price has increased by more than 15 per cent. This tax rip-off will raise an extra $690 million.

I shall return to the example of the small investor. After 10 years the property is valued at approximately $475,000 and if the small investor decides to sell, as the value of the property will have increased by more than 15 per cent, exit stamp duty will be payable at 2.25 per cent of the sale price. The cost to the investor is $10,687, on top of the $7,500 already paid in land tax. That is a total of $18,187 for the pleasure of attempting to improve one's lot in life. So much for the $18,000 saving for first home buyers! The Government will get them further down the track; payment of the money is merely postponed. I am sure that the Treasurer's Federal colleagues will not be too impressed about this tax, given that a Federal election is looming. This tax will be a bonanza for the other States, in particular, Queensland. Indeed, many accountants in New South Wales are advising their clients not to invest in New South Wales but, rather, to invest in Queensland or Melbourne. When I was in Broken Hill recently I was advised that people in that electorate are not buying in Broken Hill or anywhere else in New South Wales; they are buying in Adelaide.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: The Premier himself has invested in New Zealand.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes. This morning on the radio Prime Minister John Howard stated:

These tax measures could not have come at a worse time and the Treasurer has done it primarily to raise money … The Treasurer should not be playing at being Governor of the Reserve Bank.

The premium property land tax has been abolished, but it will be replaced with a premium property duty on the purchase of residential properties with a value of more than $3 million. That duty is charged at a rate of 7 per cent on properties valued above $3 million and is expected to raise an additional $40 million per annum. The Coalition is concerned that the bill introduces two major imposts on investment property owners. The Government has abolished the threshold of $370,000 and has introduced a 0.4 per cent tax on properties up to $400,000. According to the Valuer-General, an additional 540,000 properties in New South Wales will now be subject to land tax. There is no telling how much money the Government will derive from that land tax.

New South Wales is the only State in Australia to charge vendor duty on sales as well as purchases—and that vendor duty will be retrospective! When investors bought their properties they did not know they would be liable to be taxed on the sale of those properties. The Coalition will support changes to First Home Plus, which will benefit 45,000 first home buyers, but opposes changes that will have a severe impact on 540,000 businesses and small investors.

I turn now to the effects of this tax on areas such as Port Macquarie, which has many self-funded retirees. Self-funded retirees on the North Coast generally will suffer greatly as result of the mini-budget. It will hurt those hardworking people who are trying to relieve pressure on the State by purchasing an investment property and seeking to become more self-sufficient in retirement. The impact on the property market will be substantial, extending the tax regime to thousands more landowners, particularly slugging renters and ordinary investors.

Rental prices in the greater Port Macquarie region will continue to increase as a result of the Carr Government's introduction of the 2.25 per cent stamp duty on the sale of investment properties. The mini-budget will place further strain on the rental market as private investors pass on to their tenants any extra costs they incur. The two components in the bill that are not welcome are the land tax and exit stamp duty, which will have a major impact on small business and small investors. These measures will continue to drive investors out of New South Wales to Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide in particular. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie could not conceal his glee when he heard about the new tax changes for New South Wales.

As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe stated, this is a triple-dipping tax. People will pay on the way in to the show, while they are at the show and when they leave the show. The real sting in the tail is that the Treasurer will collect stamp duty from both the vendor and the purchaser. It is the only transaction of which I am aware in relation to which stamp duty is payable at both ends. For example, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were to sell a pen of cattle, only he would pay agent's commission. If I buy the cattle from him I do not pay the agent's commission; he does.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And if we dealt direct there would be no agents.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: And no commission. However, the Treasurer would charge both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I commission for the pleasure of doing a transaction. What a rip off! It is a triple-dipping tax. I am of the view that governments should provide incentives for people to save for their retirement to take the burden off the public purse. However, the bill does not do that. It does not encourage people to save and invest to become self-sufficient in their retirement. It is a very mean bill. I say this to the Treasurer: If we lived in a different place at a different time, Mrs Kelly would not let young Ned play with you.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [10.03 p.m.]: I highlight the contribution being made to Australian society by the Australian Assyrian community. Sadly, I feel it is also necessary to highlight the persecution, intimidation and discrimination that Assyrians have faced over the years, and are still facing, in the Middle East and particularly in Iraq. We hear little about the Australian Assyrian community. It does not set out to draw attention to itself, but it is a community with many fine achievements. Not too long ago I had the honour of attending the official opening of the new Assyrian church community school at Fairfield. It is a magnificent school, and great credit is due to His Grace Bishop Ma Meelis Zaia of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Assyrian community generally for this achievement. This is a school in which Australian values and Christian virtues are taught, and where the ancient and culturally rich Assyrian language is preserved.

The Assyrian nation goes back to ancient times, and the Bible makes many references to the Assyrian empire, which at its height extended throughout Mesopotamia into modern day Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. The Assyrian cities of Nimrod and Nineveh were centres of civilisation and culture in ancient times. The ancient Assyrians are recognised as pioneers in medicine, astronomy, science and mathematics. Their achievements in agriculture and irrigation are well documented, and their contribution to art and music and their building of libraries stand as a testament to their lasting gifts to mankind. The theories of Job of Edessa rivalled those of Aristotle. The fourth century University of Nisibis was the prototype for future universities. Through the missionary efforts of the Apostle Thomas, the Assyrian nation was one of the first nations to convert to Christianity; in turn the Assyrians sent missionaries as far afield as China, India, Japan and Korea.

However, history records that by the fourteenth century the Assyrian people were facing perilous times. With the spread of Islam, Christian Assyrians were compelled to either convert to Islam or suffer persecution and added taxes. Further severe persecution was instigated by the Mongolian Timurlane. Over the next few centuries the Assyrians faced continuing cycles of persecution, pogroms and uprooting from region to region. The Assyrians have fared little better in the twentieth century. During the First World War the Assyrians sided with the Allies but their reward was further genocide, this time at the hands of the Turks, among others. More than two-thirds of their population perished. Despite promises of self-determination by the League of Nations, genocide against the Assyrians continued unabated. With the rise of Saddam Hussein, Assyrian Christians faced renewed dangers. Measures were imposed to destroy their cultural identity. Their families were divided and whole communities were displaced.

Hundreds of Assyrian villages were destroyed and history was rewritten to eliminate any reference to the Assyrians. Of four million Assyrians, more than half have been scattered outside Iraq, including tens of thousands now residing in Australia. The Australian Assyrian community rejoiced at the fall of Saddam Hussein. They support Australia's role in Iraq with great enthusiasm. It is their heartfelt wish that Assyrians in Iraq have restored to them their cultural identity and the right to practise unhindered their Christian faith, free from violence by extremist fundamentalist Islamists, which they currently face. They hope that Assyrians in Iraq will gain the political rights that all peoples are entitled to: the right to administer their own affairs, and the right to live their lives in freedom without intimidation and discrimination. I hope that the pleas of the Assyrians in Iraq are heeded. I wish the Australian Assyrian community well in its continuing record of positive achievement in our State and our nation.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.08 p.m.]: Two days ago I criticised the Howard Government's lack of action in responding to recent evidence of human rights abuses by American troops on Iraqi prisoners. As an Australian Democrat I am a true believer in liberal democracy and a member of the International Commission of Jurists, and I find any deprivation of human rights abhorrent. These disgraceful acts committed by American troops will unfortunately reflect badly on Australia as well. The West has claimed moral superiority—no torture, equality of men, democracy, and a lack of nepotism. Yet these qualities are exactly what has been displayed.
The Americans treat war as a video game, which depersonalises the enemy. Having won the military phase, they are surprised when people are willing to die as martyrs for their country—the only defence they have. They use suicide techniques, to which there are no easy answers. So suicide bombing is called indiscriminate terrorism, but sending missiles from planes is not. Weapons of mass destruction are not permitted for some countries, but they are naturally a part of the American weaponry. Chemical weapons are terrible, but depleted uranium, used for its mass in the short term in piercing tanks, remains radioactive, causing leukaemia for about a million years.

The moral advantage of the West is lost in all of this. We have no credibility, and we are creating a legacy of hatred that will put us and our children at risk. On 11 May 2004 the Australian reported on an agreement governing the transfer of Iraqi prisoners, signed by Australia, America and Britain, which stated that Australia has a legal obligation to appoint liaison officers to ensure the welfare of prisoners that Australian troops hand over to coalition partners. An article on the News Ltd web site on 11 May stated that Amnesty International had sent to the Federal Government a report on 18 March that outlined examples of a prisoner who was "beaten, given electric shocks, suspended by his legs, had his penis tied, and subjected to sleep deprivation". Yet the foreign Minister claims that Australia has no legal obligation to prisoners captured by highly professional Australian military personal.

How can the Howard Government continue to justify this military campaign as a liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship after our coalition partners now appear to be committing the same types of brutalities as the Baath regime once performed? Without the consent of the Federal Parliament, John Howard made Australia an active participant in the invasion of Iraq. The pictures of these human rights violations will only serve to stoke the fires of anti-western sentiment in the Middle East. John Howard's complete and unquestioning support of the Bush Administration has placed all Australians, particularly expatriots, at greater risk of terrorist attack, and has resulted in Australia being perceived as part of the "big bad west" in the eyes of extremists in the Arab world, whereas once we were treated as respected trading partners.

The Federal Democrats successfully passed a motion in the Senate last night calling on the Federal Government to, among other things, "immediately cease negotiations with the United States for an Article 98 Agreement under the Rome Statute, requiring Australia not to surrender US citizens suspected of crimes against humanity, to the International Criminal Court for prosecution".

It is bad that Australia, which I believe has signed the protocol for the International Criminal Court, does not wish to come under its jurisdiction or, at least, to have the Americans under its jurisdiction. An article in the Australian on 10 May 2004 by Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman entitled "The price we pay for paradise is torture" refers to Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, in which Alyosha Karamazov is approached by his brother, Ivan, with an unbearable proposition: in order to bring men eternal happiness, it was essential and inevitable to torture to death one tiny creature, one small child. What did he do? Of course, Alyosha refused to torture the child. I do not have time to read the article, but it goes on to talk about the notion that if we just torture people we can get the information about terrorists and we can all live in peace. But once one sees liberators as oppressors, people will fight with all means within their power, and then the torture becomes justified as a means to find the terrorists.

The Howard Government is calling for billions of taxpayers' dollars to help finance a rogue State. A missile defence shield will not protect us from a dirty bomb. It is absurd to spend $400 billion on a missile shield when one can be attacked by Stanley knives. If there is anything more absurd than this it is giving a blank cheque to pay for it, which is what Australia is doing. I shudder to think what Arab citizens of Australia must think. We need a sensible foreign policy; we cannot simply and blindly follow the United States of America.
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [10.13 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a very alarming matter which is now occurring in the Riverina and across New South Wales. I refer to the threat of franchising local Australia Post retail stores by Australia Post management. This matter was brought to my attention recently by two means. The first was by very concerned members of the community of Griffith, which is home to an Australia Post retail store, who had heard the rumours of what was about to happen. Of course, I treat rumours as just that—rumours. But I was worried, because if true, the impact on rural communities that may lose their post offices to franchisees could be devastating for the community.

So it was with interest that I listened as the honourable member for Parramatta, Mrs Tanya Gadiel, last week spoke in the other place on this very subject and outlined the 92 Australia Post retail stores that will be franchised. This information has come from a leaked list that the honourable member obtained and showed me. I am sure there is a possibility Australia Post would deny the existence of this list. If this is the case, and this is not a true document, I call on Australia Post to address the issue of franchised post office retail stores and give a definitive answer.

This list names 92 retail stores in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory that will be franchised. My immediate concern lies with the fact that the Australia Post shop in Griffith, the shop in Deniliquin, the shop in Albury, and the shop in Wagga Wagga are all on the list, meaning that they are all to be victims of Australia Post's franchising. There are many reasons why I am opposed to the franchising of our local shops. Every one of those reasons has to do with the people who depend on the jobs they have in the stores which are now under threat. In a retail store franchise, affected workers will have a 30 per cent wage cut if the store goes private.

It is obvious that members across the table do not care. They are carrying on a private conversation; it does not worry them. I have no doubt that no redundancies will be offered to the displaced workers who are not needed under the new franchisee management. As a specific example of the effect on the local rural community in which I live, 17 workers in Griffith will be affected by Australia Post's franchising. Never mind the damage to the families of the workers who have just lost almost a third of their weekly wage—it will take an immediate $250,000 out of the Griffith economy, and the impact will be felt by everyone in Griffith.

The impact will not just be on the economy: another issue will be the resulting decline in service at our shops. Australia Post retail stores will have fewer staff, and the ones lucky enough to retain their jobs will be paid considerably less. People expect a standard of service when they go to Australia Post shops. Post office employees do more than just frank letters. They work on the counter and they deliver mail. Now, with fewer jobs the result will be longer queues, delayed mail, and overworked staff because they will be trying to do the work of those who have lost their jobs. The impact will be immediately noticed by the community.

Tomorrow, Thursday 13 May, the Griffith delivery centre workers will strike to protest what will be the end of their job security. Every single member of the work force will be on strike, and I express my support for them. The issue is vitally important to them and to the community of Griffith. Another regional area to go is Wagga Wagga. Tomorrow, Wagga Wagga delivery centre is also striking, and the Wagga Wagga workers have my support as well. The issue here is job security for our workers, and the knowledge that if Australia Post franchises its stores, everyone will be worse off—except Australia Post.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.18 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to an article in the Northern Star of Monday 3 May headed "HIGH TIMES 8000 revellers at 'quiet' Mardi Grass". The article stated:

There is no direct link between cannabis use and mental illness, a spokesman for the Ted Noffs Foundation said at Nimbin's Mardi Grass at the weekend.

Speaking at the event's Pot Psychosium, Dr John Howard said that other factors contribute to a user's mental state.

But when combined with social problems, excessive use of the drug could lead to mental health problems.

In a spillover article headed "Pot, mental health link is questioned", the Northern Star continued:

One of Australia's leading mental health experts has dispelled the notion of a direct correlation between cannabis use and mental health.

Speaking at Nimbin Mardi Grass' first-ever pot psychosium, Dr John Howard from the Ted Noffs Foundation, said other contributing factors impacted on a user's mental state.

Dr Howard, who's major area of research includes adolescent substance use, depression and suicide in young people, said other factors such as one's social background could contribute to their state of mind when mixed with cannabis use.

"It's hard to figure out how much affect drug use has, given someone's particular situation," he said.

He said excessive use could increase the likelihood of developing mental health problems when combined with social problems.

"When we see the young people we do, they have severe personal difficulties," he said.

Mr Howard said substances could affect people in different ways.

"For some people that may mean not eating chocolate and for others it's marijuana," he said.

A subsequent correction or clarification was published in the Northern Star on 6 May. It read:

An article published by the Northern Star last Monday stating that Dr John Howard, who works for the Ted Noffs Foundation had dispelled a direct correlation between cannabis use and mental health problems. The Star wishes to clarify that Dr Howard believes cannabis does not cause mental illness but that there are links between drug usage and mental health problems.

That does not clarify very much. When the Northern Star described Dr Howard as one of Australia's leading mental health experts it thought he was a medical doctor. I understand this John Howard is an academic. I am not sure what Dr Howard's qualifications are as a national leader in mental health. I suggest that this should have been clarified also. I am very concerned that a person in Dr Howard's position would be putting forward a message to the community that there is no correlation between cannabis use and mental health issues. A study of 4,000 users conducted by the University of Maastricht on long-term effects of cannabis showed it causes serious psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia and paranoia. A book by Moffitt, Malouf and Thompson called Drug Precipice states:

It will not be possible to assess completely the damaging effects of chronic cannabis use for some years. However, as more research evidence emerges, the myth of its harmlessness is rapidly being destroyed. Much of the anecdotal evidence noted in the past has now been scientifically confirmed. Yet some people persistently ignore the warnings made by researchers, just as the tobacco industry has constantly decried and disputed the data linking tobacco to heart disease and cancer. Until the hundreds of research papers linking cannabis to many forms of disease are publicised and appropriate education warnings issued, we will continue to struggle with the problems described. In the meantime, playing down the scientific research on this drug places our society, and especially our youth, at great risk.

The book goes on to document the large and disturbing range of mental disorders associated with chronic cannabis abuse. The Ted Noffs Foundation has 30 years of proud service providing assistance to drug- and alcohol-affected youth. The views of Dr Howard and his attendance at the drug psychosium in Nimbin are not consistent with the Ted Noffs Foundation that we know and respect. Given that the foundation's programs for young people are research-based and that Dr Howard is the head of research, this is grave cause for concern. The Ted Noffs Foundation receives $1.7 million from the Department of Juvenile Justice to fund all of its residential and many other drug rehabilitation programs.

The foundation also runs programs for the Department of Education and Training in eastern and western Sydney and provides family support workers, which are also funded by the Department of Juvenile Justice. It is of grave concern that these research-based programs are under the control of a person who holds these views. I draw the attention of the Government to this situation and ask that the programs, which are being evaluated for participation rates and feedback from the participants, be evaluated for content also. We will contact the Ted Noffs Foundation to express our concern about these views.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.23 p.m.]: Last Saturday I addressed a public meeting in Bowral at the invitation of the Residents Against Dioxins group. After one of the biggest marches to ever make its way through Bowral, more than 300 people packed a local hall to hear Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, the convenor of the National Toxics Network, describe the residues from the so-called "alternative fuels" that Blue Circle Southern Cement proposes to incinerate at Berrima in its modified Kiln 6. This kiln has an interesting history. Its current role is to produce 1.35 million tonnes of cement clinker each year. The clinker is then ground up together with gypsum to produce cement. The incinerator is normally fuelled by coal. When in May 2003 Blue Circle was given permission to upgrade the kiln and increase its output by one-third, there was absolutely no suggestion that the company was considering the use of alternative fuels.

It is now clear, however, from Blue Circle's statement of environmental effects that from as early as 2000 the company has been conducting trials using various alternative fuels and materials. The community only learnt of the proposal when an alert resident noticed a tiny advertisement in a local newspaper. The company has now applied for permission to burn alternative fuels, justifying its actions on the ground that by doing so it will be able to replace 30 per cent of the coal currently burnt. These alternative fuels include car tyres, carbon black, and recovered oils, as well as "fats, stabilised sewage sludge, recycled PET, plastic blended fuel, shredded computer parts and shredded vehicle interiors". Burning these products will release heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and arsenic.

Used tyres contain not only 13 heavy metals but also chlorine, which, when burnt, helps to create dioxins, perhaps the most toxic compounds on earth. Even at billionths and trillionths of a gram, they can have disastrous health effects. According to the World Health Organisation, a piece of dioxin the size of a grain of rice is the "tolerable intake level" over an entire year for one million people. Dioxins do not break down. Incineration will simply emit them and other pollutants into the air, where prevailing winds will usually blow them across new Berrima and south Bowral. On the still nights typical of the area, they will then fall to the ground and accumulate in the food chain.

The highest concentration of dioxins is found in beef, milk, and breast milk. Dioxins affect tissues in the body, causing birth defects, miscarriage, developmental delay, immune disorders, cancers, infertility, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and diabetes. Pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly are particularly vulnerable. Blue Circle Southern Cement is the seventh highest emitter of dioxins in this State as a result of its burning low-grade coal at its Berrima plant. The proposal to burn alternative fuels, if approved, will lead to a three-fold increase in dioxin emissions.

The people of Moss Vale are obviously very concerned about the proposal and have supplied me with petitions containing more than 1,000 signatures. At the very least, they want a full and independent environmental impact statement, not simply a company-commissioned statement of environmental effect. They want the company to drop the pretence that this proposal is environmentally friendly simply because it will replace coal with alternative fuels. They want the Government to acknowledge that the proposal is flawed and will be detrimental to the community and its health. Most of all, they want the Minister not to approve the proposal put forward by Blue Circle Southern Cement to burn alternative fuels at its Berrima site.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.27 p.m.]: Since the demise of the last New South Wales Coalition Government there has been record public sector spending in New South Wales. Education funding has increased by 68 per cent since 1995. In 1994-95 it was $5.2 billion, and it is now $8.8 billion. Under the Carr Labor Government, New South Wales has achieved the best literacy results for 15-year-olds of any Australian State and, according to the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, our results are better than those in Britain, the United States of America, Sweden and Japan.

New South Wales' statewide literacy and numeracy strategy will cost $1.2 billion between 1997 and 2007. It has already delivered 925 reading recovery teachers in 830 schools, helping 7,500 students. Basic skills test and years 7 and 8 English language and literacy and assessment results are, of course, better than ever. The Government's $329 million class size reduction plan means 1,500 new teachers and more classrooms in New South Wales. Already kindergarten class sizes in the State's 426 priority primary schools have been reduced to an average of 20 students. New South Wales can now boast the highest paid teachers in Australia. Of course, the Carr Labor Government has built or rebuilt 234 schools.

Education is not the only area in which major gains have been achieved. Funding for police and crime prevention has increased by 79 per cent since 1995. In 1994-95 funding was $1.06 billion and it is now $1.9 billion. Under the Carr Labor Government there have been record police numbers, and the service now has more than 14,500 officers. Crime statistics released in April 2004 indicate that there was no increase in the incidence of any category of crime during 2002-03. In fact, the incidence of crime decreased. It is worthwhile detailing some of the figures. The incidence of non-firearm-related robbery has decreased by 19.3 per cent; motor vehicle fraud has decreased by 17.3 per cent; fraud has decreased by 15.2 per cent; stealing from a motor vehicle has decreased by 14.7 per cent; and breaking and entering a dwelling has decreased by 11.4 per cent.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That is excellent.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Yes, it is excellent. New antiterrorist equipment worth $9 million has been allocated and the State now has a world-leading bomb disposal unit and a specialist helicopter. New and upgraded police stations, new equipment and new police headquarters at Parramatta have been delivered since the demise of the New South Wales Coalition Government in 1995. Together that is worth $621 million.

Community services, disability and home care funding has been increased by 131 per cent since 1995. In fact, in 1994-95 funding was $986 million and it is now $2.3 billion. In 2004 the Department of Community Services [DOCS] is hiring 100 frontline child protection workers and 50 out-of-home care workers under the Carr Labor Government's $1 billion child protection plan. That is in addition to the 437 DOCS frontline child protection caseworkers hired since 1995. The Government is investing $35.9 million over four years in more services and research for people with spinal cord injuries and conditions, including an extra 100 attendant care places.

Of course, major gains have been achieved in the roads area. I am pleased that the Opposition has finally taken an interest in these figures. It is starting to sting. Major road projects completed since 1995 include the $700-million Eastern Distributor; the toll-free $794-million M5 East; the $107 million West Charlestown bypass for inner city Newcastle; the $47-million Woronora Bridge; the $31-million Moorebank Avenue interchange; the $57-million City West link stage three; and the $30-million Oak Flats interchange on the Princess Highway. I look forward to continuing to outline these great achievements in my next speech to this House.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [10.31 p.m.]: I belatedly congratulate and acknowledge some of the candidates in the local government elections in my area of the Hunter and Port Stephens. There were some outstanding results that will produce fantastic changes in local government in the area and I have great confidence in many of the new councillors. Dale Troy at Cessnock is an outstanding new councillor. He has enthusiasm and drive and enjoys strong local support. He is a fresh face for Cessnock. The Greens mounted a big campaign in the Tomalpin-Hunter economic zone, but the result was a neat one-for-one change and no net gain.

There was no local government election in the Dungog area, not because of forced amalgamations but because the number of candidates was the same as the number of vacancies. Not having to hold an election will have saved money. Under the stewardship of Mayor Steve Low Dungog Council will continue to move ahead. The Carr Government neglects the Dungog area, just as it neglects many other regional areas. The money spent in Sydney compared with the money spent in rural New South Wales is appalling. Dungog has outrageous road problems.

Motion agreed to.