Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 28 June 2004, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Monday 28 June 2004
______

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: I acknowledge we are meeting on Eora land.

OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE

The PRESIDENT: At a joint sitting held on 24 June 2004 Eric Michael Roozendaal was elected to fill the vacancy in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Anthony Stephen Burke.

The Hon. Eric Michael Roozendaal took and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance and signed the roll.

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE ROY FREDERICK TURNER, AM, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is with regret that I have to announce to the House the death on 15 June of the Hon. Roy Frederick Turner, AM, aged 81 years, a former member of this House. On behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Council in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARIAN

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have to inform the House of the retirement of the Parliamentary Librarian, Mr Robert Francis Brian, as from 30 June 2004. Mr Brian was appointed Parliamentary Librarian on 6 January 1992. On behalf of all members I extend to Mr Brian thanks for his services and best wishes for a long and healthy retirement.

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

STATE WATER CORPORATION BILL

Messages received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.

COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Report

The Hon. Christine Robertson, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 14, entitled "History and Roles of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission: 1994-2004", dated 24 June 2004.

Ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS

Freedom of Religion

Petitions 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. David Clarke, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Breast Screening Funding

Petition requesting effective breast screening for women and maintenance of funding to BreastScreen NSW, received from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

Pensioner Excursion Ticket

Petition requesting extension to private buses and removal of restrictions on use of the pensioner excursion fare, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Casino to Murwillumbah Rail Services

Petition requesting reinstatement of rail services from Casino to Murwillumbah, received from the Hon. Catherine Cusack.

The Domain Fig Trees

Petition requesting conservation of historic fig trees in The Domain, Sydney, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECRUITMENT

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

(a) all documents regarding the advertisements for all of the positions of Administrator, Acting General Manager or General Manager of newly proclaimed local government areas,

(b) the job descriptions and minimum qualification requirements for all of the positions of Administrator, Acting General Manager or General Manager of newly proclaimed local government areas,

(c) the details of salaries and terms of conditions of employment for all of the positions of Administrator, Acting General Manager or General Manager of newly proclaimed local government areas,

(d) all correspondence and communication between applicants for Administrator, Acting General Manager or General Manager positions of newly proclaimed local government areas, the Minister for Local Government and the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, and
(e) all correspondence and communication between the successful applicants for Administrator, Acting General Manager or General Manager positions of newly proclaimed local government areas, the Minister for Local Government and the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, and

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr IAN COHEN [11.20 a.m.]: I move:

I move this motion to deal with a matter of extreme urgency. The bill is a matter of urgent public importance. It is about transparency and accountability. It is about the Government not making a mockery of parliamentary process. It is urgent to debate the bill because it would address the proposed fire sale of Crown lands. The bill is urgent because it will put some constraints on the sale of high conservation lands determined by key government agencies. It is urgent that the bill be considered today, before the Government rams through its fire sale of Crown land pursuant to a Government bill that was not the subject of one word of debate in the other place. This is the only chance this Parliament will get to consider an alternative.

The Government should support debate and passage of my bill because Labor, while in opposition in 1993, put exactly this bill before the House. The Government clearly has been hypocritical in this matter. My bill is urgent because the Government is a fair-weather conservationist. It recognised the urgency of debate on a Crown Land (Prevention of Sale) Bill in 1993, but now goes in absolutely the opposite direction. I quote:

That statement, made by Bob Carr, was recorded in the Canberra Times of 8 May 1993. In the Telegraph-Mirror of 8 May 1993 Opposition leader Bob Carr said the Premier had "caved in" to National Party pressure and lifted a three-year moratorium on the sale of public bushland. The urgency of the bill is clearly demonstrated by the fact that on 19 May 1993 Pam Allan said:

In that debate—relating to exactly the same bill that I seek to introduce—Mr Bob Martin of the Australian Labor Party said, as is recorded in Hansard of 19 May 1993:

On this serious and urgent matter, where is the opposition to this fire sale proposal from Australian Labor Party members who, in opposition, were so strident in their indignation at the flogging off of our valuable Crown leasehold lands? In opposition we could rely on them; in government we cannot. In this proposal we are subject to Eganomics. Debate of my bill is urgent because the Government put through a budget bill, without debate, that would see the wholesale flogging off of leasehold land. What about the hue and cry raised by Labor when in opposition in 1993? This bill is urgent because a million acres of Crown land will be sold for possibly $30 million, which is just 3 per cent of the probable market value of $1 billion. This is not grazing land, which is of concern to The Nationals. This is land of conservation importance.

The Carr Government announced in its mini-budget of 6 April that it would seek to encourage the conversion to freehold status of approximate 11,000 Crown leases. This would have to be one of the biggest privatisation exercises in 50 years. The Greens seek that this bill be debated as a matter of urgency so that we can debate Labor's 1993 Crown lands bill—the bill now to be introduced by the Greens. This is a chance for Labor to explain its about-face on Crown lands. Will it be willing to pass the bill that it prepared? The Carr Government has some explaining to do. The Greens seek the opportunity to expose the Government's hypocrisy on this issue and give it the opportunity to come up with some credible answers. It is important that this issue be discussed in this budget sitting of Parliament, before we discuss the budget bills. The 1993 debate on this bill was won by the Australian Labor Party, with the help of Independents, 48 votes to 45 votes. Back then, the Australian Labor Party was able to prevent this asset stripping, a proposal that the then Fahey Government put forward and the previous Greiner Government had attempted. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.25 a.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that the Coalition will support the introduction and progression of the bill to its second reading. But, beyond that, our support will be zilch. As Mr Ian Cohen indicated, this is what the Coalition wanted when it was in government and there were real reasons for that proposal then. Currently, we believe the Carr Labor Government proposes the sale for the same reasons as the Coalition did when we were in government.

The reason that the Coalition will allow this bill to progress to its second reading is to highlight Labor's hypocrisy—no more, no less. Good government is not about being flaky over issues but it is about demonstrating consistency to the people of this State. People of a persuasion similar to members of the current Government opposed this bill when the Coalition was in office, moved an alternative bill and organised themselves against the Coalition Government's proposal. The Coalition accepts the Labor Government's argument that its proposal is not to flog off land but to change its title from perpetual lease—which is 99.9 per cent of freehold lands anyway—to freehold land. For that, the Government will get 3 per cent of the value of the land. That money will go to the Government, and there will be further savings in administration fees. So the Government will get money upfront and it will save costs in the long term. Those who pay the 3 per cent will get a 0.1 per cent difference in security. It is a little bit like converting a unit from company title to strata title.

People own this Crown land now. It is not as if the Government is flogging off land to which no-one has title. The owners have continuing perpetual leases. We support the Government in its proposal. But we also support Mr Ian Cohen being given the opportunity to highlight that this Government proposal is rank hypocrisy of the very worst kind. It is the same sort of hypocrisy that comes from Mark Latham and the so-called green Labor Party. They will do absolutely anything to get votes. Therefore it is proper to give Mr Ian Cohen this opportunity to highlight the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party in putting forward its proposal. The Coalition will support the progression of the bill to its second reading so that the honourable member may highlight that hypocrisy, but the bill will not have our support beyond that point. We will support the Government, because it proposes to do what the Coalition wanted to do when it was in office. I was a member of the Government and supported this proposal, and I support it now.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.28 p.m.]: The Government will not oppose the motion to bring on debate on the bill. The reforms the Government is implementing, as has been highlighted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, are all about ensuring sustainable management of our publicly owned lands. In the case of perpetual leases, it is clear that the public interest is not best served by retaining them in public ownership.

We need to move beyond an out-of-date model of land management where land is managed and controlled by title. By encouraging the conversion of perpetual leases we will be able to free up precious resources to address genuine stewardship on public land, such as weed and pest control. The honourable member's bill does not reflect the modern realities of Crown land management. As pointed out by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, perpetual leases are, to all intents and purposes, treated as freehold and are bought and sold on the market at near-market value. A report we commissioned on perpetual leases found that the Government had a remaining equity of about 3 per cent in them. Perpetual leases command very low rents or administration fees. The cost to Government is more than those fees.

We will convert only those leases that do not currently command a market return. Although we are encouraging the conversion of these leases with an automatic right to convert, we will sit down with other government agencies and stakeholders to discuss the perpetual leases that are currently affected by a moratorium on the conversion. Besides the raft of government legislation introduced by the Carr Government providing greater control over the use of a freehold, the Government will investigate the imposition of restrictions on converted leases, such as covenants and restrictions on subdivision. The honourable member's bill does not recognise the modern realities of land management. Consequently, the Government will not support it, but will not object to the motion of the honourable member.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order of Business

Motion by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

CROWN LANDS (PREVENTION OF SALE) BILL

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

Second Reading

Mr IAN COHEN [11.33 a.m.]: I move:

I thank members who have allowed what, I am sure, will be a short debate. The bill deals with the rank hypocrisy of the Government. I respect the Opposition's contribution to suspending standing orders to allow debate on the bill. They have been consistent. However, I disagree with them. Areas of high conservation land should be treated far differently, and I have grave concerns about the amount of such land that is sold off. If it is only grazing land, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke to me about earlier today and about which I am not so much concerned, it may not be in dispute. But many areas contain sensitive environmental lands that will be recategorised and sold off at 3 per cent of the market rate. I refer to the second reading speech in 1993 of Mr Martin, the then honourable member for Port Stephens, on the Crown Lands (Prevention of Sale) Bill, which is exactly the same bill I introduced. He said:

Where are we today with these assessment reports? We are seeing wholesale conversion, yet in 1993 the importance of these checks and balances and the impact of the changeover of leasehold land on areas of conservation significance were clearly laid out. Mr Martin continued:

Evans

Forestry Commission of New South Wales

In response, in July 1990 the then Premier placed a moratorium on conversions of leasehold Crown land. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and the then Department of Lands were given time to work out long-term solutions, something neither agency has done. It must be said that from 1970 to 1990 a massive amount of pressure has been borne by the Crown lands of this State. It is only right that we care for the land, which belongs not only to our children but also to their children.

Mr Martin, who later became a Minister of the Crown, clearly indicated Labor's opposition to the Coalition's plan. In an interesting debate on 19 May 1993 Ms Pam Allan, a Labor Opposition member who later became Minister for the Environment, said:

It is interesting that that tradition has carried on in certain portfolios under this Government. Ms Allan continued:

Unfortunately, not only did the former Premier suffer personal and political demise, but the new bunch that took over—the current Premier, John Fahey, the Minister for Conservation and Land Management and the pathetic, wimpish Minister for the Environment—failed to act on the promise made by the former Premier to put in place a system which would make the various stakeholders—the farming community, the conservation community, the Opposition, Government backbenchers and Independents—feel confident that these lands would be protected. As my colleagues the honourable member for Port Stephens and the honourable member for Cessnock have already pointed out, many pieces of land that could be quite appropriately disposed of in the way proposed by the Government, and other land is environmentally sensitive.

That is what Pam Allen said during debate on a matter for urgent consideration, Crown land leasehold conversion. It is quite clear that this matter needs to be debated urgently—the former Labor Opposition was so clearly strident with indignation at the flogging off of our valuable Crown leasehold lands. Now the Labor Government has introduced a budget bill that provides for the wholesale flogging off of leasehold land and it has been passed without debate. The Labor Opposition raised a hue and cry about the Coalition's introduction of the Crown land leasehold conversion legislation in May 1993, but now this Labor Government has done the very same thing.

The Government has done an absolute backflip and has introduced a bill in line with the Coalition Government's bill that it opposed in 1993. Effectively it is offering $30 million worth of land at 3 per cent of the market value; that is, one million acres with a potential value of $1 billion being sold off at 3 per cent. I understand the arguments for that, but it is absolutely important that we recognise that Bob Carr said this in 1993 about the proposed fire sale of Crown lands:

I wish we had today the leader that Bob Carr was in 1993, sticking to his principles and maintaining the rage against the privatisation of Crown land. Instead, the bill went through the lower House with no debate in the blink of an eye on a wink by the Treasurer. He is doing as bad as any Coalition government has done. The current Coalition is at least maintaining a degree of consistency. My argument is about the hypocrisy of the Carr Labor Government announcement in the mini-budget of 6 April that it would seek to encourage the conversion of freehold status of approximately 11,000 Crown leases, one of the biggest privatisation exercises in the past 50 years. Yet nothing has been said apart from what I have said today.

If I had not raised this matter, this major and significant change in the landscape of New South Wales would have gone by unnoticed, with a paltry profit for the Treasury. The sale of that one million hectares, about 2,500 Crown leases, requires the approval of the Minister for the conversion to proceed. Almost all the lands have outstanding conservation value and should be protected at all costs. Many are the last remnants of vegetation on which the very survival of plants and animals in the region will depend. Converting them to freehold will see the Government lose control and the conservation value lost for ever. I have no argument with the Hon. Rick Colless, who said that these areas may only be farm land. However, much of this land has been the subject of debate over the past 10 years, and will continue to be debated. It is those areas about which I have grave concerns.

The Government is now proceeding with its plan through the Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Budget) Bill, which was introduced last Tuesday as a cognate bill to the Appropriation Bill, The Greens want the Government to finish the job ably commenced by Labor in 1989 and continued in 1993. The Greens want to see passed the bill that Labor introduced in 1993, because that will ensure that the same restrictions are placed on Labor that Labor wanted to impose on the Coalition. I commend the Crown Lands (Prevention of Sale) Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCTS) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [11.47 a.m.]: I move:

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

Leave granted.

• This Bill may be short, but it has a very significant purpose and will permanently alter the shape of liquor service at Parliament House.

• This Government has been committed to improving the harm minimisation measures related to the sale and service of alcohol.

• One important aspect of this commitment is applying the same rules to ourselves, that apply to the community at large.

• This bill embodies the Government's commitment to applying the New South Wales liquor laws to Parliament House.

• It might surprise many to learn that the Parliamentary precincts are exempt from the operation of the liquor laws.

• Not just in this State, but across all the States of Australia.

• The exemption dates back to at least the early 1900s.

• Regardless of its long-standing nature, the time has come to remove this archaic exemption, and bring the New South Wales Parliament into line with current harm minimisation practices.

• In place of the exemption, the Bill will enable the Governor to issue a licence authorising the sale of liquor within the Parliamentary precincts.

• This type of licence is commonly known as a Governor's licence.

• It is the type of liquor licence granted to unique Crown facilities like the Sydney Opera House, the Art Gallery of New South Wales, and the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain.

• The Governor will be authorised to impose conditions on the Governor's licence granted in respect of Parliament House.

• As with all Governor's licences, the licence conditions will delineate the boundary of the licensed premises, identifying areas in which liquor may be served.
• The licence will also name the person, or licensee, who is the holder of the licence.

• These licence conditions will be formulated through discussions between Government Officers, and Parliamentary Officers, nominated by the Presiding Officers.

• Some time will be required for the officials to finalise appropriate licence conditions.

• The Government expects that this process will be carried out and completed during the winter recess.

• This is why it is proposed that the Bill commence on a day appointed by proclamation.

• All attempts will be made to ensure that the Governor's licence will be place prior to the Spring sitting session of the Parliament.

• This Bill ensures the principal object of the Liquor Act - harm minimisation - and responsible service of alcohol requirements will apply to Parliament House.

• Many of these requirements are already evident within the Parliamentary precincts.

• for example, food and beverage staff have been trained in the responsible service of alcohol,

• and relevant regulatory signage has been posted in bar areas.

• In these situations, the Bill will endorse what has already been a common practice here for some time.

• The Bill will make one other important amendment.

• It will insert a provision into the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1997 that will enable the Presiding Officers to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Director of Liquor and Gaming.

• The Director of Liquor and Gaming is the chief regulatory officer in the Department of Gaming and Racing.

• This provision is similar to existing section 27, which allows the Presiding Officers and the Commissioner of Police to enter into a memorandum of understanding regarding the exercise of police powers within and around the Parliamentary precincts.

• The Director of Liquor and Gaming has similar functions and responsibilities to the Police Commissioner, for enforcement of the liquor laws.

• The Government's liquor law inspectors undertake a range of compliance-related functions under the Director's delegation.

• As part of this role, liquor law inspectors have entry powers to all licensed venues.

• It is important that inspectors, along with police, have appropriate access to Parliament House for the purpose of the liquor laws.

• The proposed power enabling a memorandum of understanding will provide certainty for Members of Parliament, Parliamentary officials, and liquor law inspectors.

• As with the conditions which will apply to the Governor's licence, Government officers will develop the memorandum of understanding in consultation with the Presiding Officers or their nominees.

• None of the measures in the Bill raise any issues relevant to the Legislation Review Committee's "scrutiny of Bills" function. I am satisfied that the Bill:

• Will not trespass unduly on personal rights or liberties;

• Will not make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers or upon non-renewable decisions; and

• Will not delegate legislative powers.

• I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [11.49 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Peter Black bill, as my leader the Deputy Leader of the Opposition calls it, otherwise known as the Liquor Amendment (Parliamentary Precincts) Bill. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the bill, but it is frustrated that the reason for its introduction and the manner in which it has been forced to be introduced was because a member of Parliament took liberties and had an attitude that was completely unacceptable to the elected representatives of both the lower House and the upper House and brought shame upon the work and efforts of all of us.
The bill is in direct response to the disgraceful performance by the honourable member for Murray-Darling when he entered the other Chamber earlier this year allegedly in an inebriated state and insulted a female member of Parliament. Following that incident the Greens in this Chamber suggested the introduction of breath analysis for members of both Houses of this Parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly gave notice of a private member's bill to bring Parliament House into line with current harm minimisation practices that exist in the real world. In light of that, the Government introduced this bill and Barry O'Farrell has withdrawn his.

The bill will remove the exception applying to liquor sales at Parliament House, thereby requiring a liquor licence to be held for liquor sold at Parliament House. It will also introduce a new class of Governor's licence specifically for Parliament House. It provides for a memorandum of understanding between the Presiding Officers and the Director of Liquor and Gaming. As liquor sales at Parliament House have always been exempt from the Liquor Act, the bill is designed to bring Parliament House within the ambit of the State's liquor laws, albeit that the parliamentary dining rooms and bars are supposed to comply with responsible service of alcohol protocols.

The Opposition has expressed concerns regarding the scope of areas of Parliament House that the bill applies to. During debate in the other place the Government assured the Opposition that the Governor's licence to be issued will allow for selective application of the liquor laws. It is the Government's intention that the bill will not apply to this Chamber or the other place; rather, the licence will cover the bar areas, the parliamentary dining rooms, function areas, and the bottle shop. The Government will develop the licence conditions in consultation with the Presiding Officers and the Clerks. Consistent with the memorandum currently in place between the police and Parliament, the memorandum of understanding will be established to provide protocols for the purpose of liquor law enforcement.

I am satisfied that it is the Government's intent that the bill will not apply to the Chambers, and that members' offices will not form part of the licensed area. The Opposition will not oppose the bill but I note our concern about the manner in which the member for Murray-Darling behaved in the other place. Since the original incident I have seen him in a state that is probably not proper for a member of Parliament to be in. I hope members of his side can control him, because he brings shame upon us when he acts in such a way.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.52 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party has reservations about the Liquor Amendment (Parliamentary Precincts) Bill. Although the Parliament is the place in which laws are made, over the years it has often been exempt from the law. There was a similar debate on my bill to prohibit smoking in public places. I believe that laws passed by Parliament should also apply to the Parliament, its precincts, and its members. This Parliament has been exempt from operation of the Liquor Act 1982. The laws we have passed about the responsible service of liquor in hotels, about not serving liquor to someone who is intoxicated, have not had to be followed in this Parliament.

I am sure that the staff of Parliament House always exercise their duty carefully and respectfully when serving alcohol to members of Parliament, but they are in a difficult position in that they are normally expected to meet the requests of members and to follow their instructions. I urge the dining room, bar, and bottle shop staff not to serve members more alcohol if they have already consumed too much. This could create tension between the staff member and members of Parliament. I imagine some members would stand on their dignity and be quite angry about such action by staff members and probably call for their sacking. The President and the Speaker may need to prepare protocols clearly outlining the responsibility of staff members in the service of alcohol to members so that their rights are protected in performing their role under the Liquor Act and any other laws.

I proposed a motion seeking that the Speaker and the President examine the whole question of whether liquor should be sold in Parliament at all. The House has passed laws on industrial relations and WorkCover. We have introduced rules and regulations to protect workers from injuring themselves, their workmates, or members of the public. We have provided for strict rules concerning alcohol testing of bus drivers and train drivers and random testing of police officers. I fully support all the procedures that have been put in place, because these people are carrying out an important role in their workplace.

We also carry out an important role in our workplace. As the precincts of Parliament House are our workplace, the Speaker and the President should refer this whole matter to WorkCover with a view to recommendations about the consumption of alcohol in Parliament House. WorkCover could argue, as I would, that if under the occupational health and safety laws Parliament House is a workplace, there should be no sale or consumption of alcohol in this place. Members and staff work here. Restrictions to make this the only dry Parliament in the world would probably be historic and unique, as it seems that all other Parliaments have the same facilities as the New South Wales Parliament.

In view of recent events we have now reached the point when this issue must be examined. Tough decisions about smoking have been made on health grounds. If 10 or 100 years ago we had debated the consumption of alcohol in Parliament House members would have had a nervous breakdown, but now there is far more knowledge and care about health and the ability of people to carry out their duties safely. Members of Parliament affected by alcohol may not cause an accident, although they could stumble and cause another member to trip going down stairs, so there is not the same danger as with a bus driver or train driver. However, as this is a workplace I would urge the President and the Speaker to give serious consideration to the protocols for alcohol sale and consumption in Parliament House and its precincts.

We support this technical bill to overcome a loophole. Hopefully, all the rules and regulations concerning the consumption of alcohol will now apply to Parliament, our bar, the dining rooms, and even members' rooms, where alcohol is consumed. From my observations over the years I know that some members—I would not say the majority—have a well-stocked refrigerator in their room with a range of wines, beers and so on. That would be another question to be examined: If we did close down the bar, to be consistent we would have to have some method of ensuring that there was no liquor in members' rooms. The alternative is non-alcoholic wines, which are now of high quality. The effect of this bill will not prevent people in Parliament House from enjoying their meals with a high-quality, non-alcoholic wine and enjoying camaraderie and fellowship around the meal table. I am not in any way trying to be a wet blanket, but we should seriously consider the impact of alcohol consumption in our Parliament House.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.59 a.m.]: I support the Liquor Amendment (Parliamentary Precincts) Bill, which is a by-product of a very public performance by a member in the lower House, the honourable member for Murray-Darling. The fuss made about that incident stands in marked contrast to the attention given to an incident involving an Australian Democrats senator in Canberra. Indeed, a former President of this Chamber was shown on television to appear to have consumed too much alcohol and resigned out of embarrassment, so the link between bad behaviour and alcohol in Parliament has certainly been made.

A couple of years ago on the night of the media Christmas party I was fortunate to have an amendment to a worker's compensation bill accepted. I was very proud of that because I thought it was a very important amendment. A member who had promised to support me was not in the Chamber at the critical time. The Government found the member to be severely inebriated and persuaded him to change his vote. After that, the bill was recommitted and my amendment was negatived. Alcohol contributed to the loss of a very significant amendment to the operation of workers compensation legislation in New South Wales.

It goes without saying that people charged with the responsibility of making decisions that will have long-term implications for this State need their full faculties. I suggest as a minimum requirement that alcohol testing be carried out to ensure that the blood alcohol level of members is below the limit for driving. If members do not meet that requirement, they should be restrained from voting and their party should decide what to do about members who are unreliable. One could argue that members of major parties do not have an opinion anyway; they merely make up the numbers, and on many occasions I have expressed regret that that appears to be the case.

I believe this is an important bill because, as I stated previously, the negativing of one of my amendments through the inebriation of a member significantly altered the outcome of a bill. Although he was not the first member of this House to change his vote, his state of intoxication at the time he changed his vote has had significant ramifications. It may be argued that we are all fine chaps and nothing untoward happens as a result of alcohol consumption, but we may not all be fine and we are certainly not all chaps. Laws that are passed by this House and apply to the whole State should apply equally to members of Parliament.

If the Parliament legislates to ensure that truck drivers, train drivers and other people who make decisions have to stay sober, members of this House ought to remain sober. If Parliament legislates for good workplace practices in this State, the same principles should apply to members of this Parliament, including during sitting hours. On occasions members are so exhausted that they are unable to make sensible decisions because the Government pushes legislation through the Parliament. The idea of the Parliament being the master of its own destiny is merely a cop-out. A significant alcohol problem exists in Parliament House. I believe that alcohol was a significant contributor to the death of a former member of this House, who was a very nice person, but I will not elaborate.
I support the bill and suggest that the responsible service of alcohol should be a minimum standard, with perhaps a restriction on the hours during which alcohol is served, although I am not sure that is the major problem. Since the occurrence of a very unfortunate episode when a member of the Australian Democrats was allegedly assaulted by another member of this Parliament, my office has been alcohol-free. This is to ensure that people associated with my office are not vulnerable, through the consumption of alcohol, to the conduct of others who are perhaps also inebriated. Unfortunately, that action has become necessary because we must acknowledge the adverse impact that alcohol has on the behaviour of some people.

Members of Parliament have an obligation to set an example for the people of this State. We are responsible for making decisions that have widespread ramifications and we should support the bill. Indeed, I suggest that similar legislation should be introduced to ensure that members of Parliament and staff of Parliament House are covered by the terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.05 p.m.]: As many other members have mentioned, this bill derived impetus from an eventful few days in March 2004, but its origin occurred much earlier than that. The Greens welcomed the Alcohol Summit that was initiated by the Premier, Bob Carr, and took place last year. The Summit brought together experts and citizens throughout New South Wales who are concerned about the impact of the consumption of alcohol on the fabric of our society. The Summit was the forum for many moving stories and excellent recommendations. The findings of the Summit underline the serious problem of alcohol in our society and highlight society's remarkable tolerance of alcohol compared to its attitude to other drugs. It is relevant to keep that point in mind during this and other debates in this House. It is pleasing to note that the Government is acting upon some of the many recommendations arising from the Alcohol Summit.

The Greens believe it is only responsible that we, as members of Parliament, practise what we preach. The impact of the Alcohol Summit and the recommendations underlying the legislation may be weakened if we do not abide by appropriate standards. If the community must take a more vigilant line against the use and abuse of alcohol, surely politicians should do likewise. How can we legislate and regulate for others if we are not prepared to toe the line ourselves? That is a very reasonable question and I hope the Minister will respond to it during his reply. The leniency that politicians afford themselves when it comes to the consumption of alcoholic beverages in their workplace is lowering their standing in society. The problem is as plain as that. If teachers, nurses, railway workers and airline pilots are not allowed to drink on the job, why should members of Parliament be allowed to? That question really needs to be answered.

The failure of parliamentarians to show leadership and set an example is reducing the impact of the decisions we take and the laws we make. I believe it is very important for members to make that connection. The Greens believe that that is equally as true of alcohol use as it is of pay restraint and ethical conduct. In the very building in which the Alcohol Summit was held, alcohol use is unregulated and alcohol is readily available. That is why in March 2004—the day before an incident occurred in the lower House—the Greens moved to tighten the rules. The Greens certainly do not profess to know all the answers, but it is very important to address the consumption of alcohol. When I introduced a motion to restrict the ability of inebriated members to take part in legislative activity, I was greeted with howls of outrage. It was an unfortunate reaction. Members from both major parties immediately scrambled to find ways to avoid the motion's restrictions.

Although most workplaces do not allow excessive drinking on the job, it is tolerated in Parliament and, to date, both sides of Parliament have been unwilling to change their views. In a debate in this House in March with respect to members of Parliament drinking on the job, the Whips argued that they have "a gentleman's agreement", a system whereby drunken members are discreetly kept from public view or, in milder cases, are quietly told to keep a low profile and stay out of the Chamber. They are the only interpretations that can be applied to the term that was used by both Whips during the debate.

But we must remember that this is not a nineteenth century gentlemen's club; it is a modern Parliament, and the Legislative Council is a House of review. If legislation affecting the lives of millions of people is to be amended and improved, it will happen in this place, on this floor, and we simply cannot do that to the best of our ability if we are drinking on the job. I am not talking about being drunk; even the consumption of a few glasses of alcohol has an effect on one's ability. If it is totally unacceptable for nurses and teachers to drink on the job—indeed, they lose their job if they are found drinking on the job—it is beyond me how members of Parliament can tolerate such behaviour for themselves.

We have serious work to do, whether it is late at night or first thing in the morning, and there is no reason why the consumption of alcohol should be tolerated on days when the Parliament sits. We are not talking about many days—we know that the Parliament does not sit on very many days of the year—so what we propose is not a huge restriction on members. But the Greens will continue to argue that it is a matter we have to come to grips with. As we know, my motion was defeated, and the major parties were clearly pleased about the success of their little arrangement in which they backed up each other's arguments with the term "gentlemen's agreement". I can even remember one of the Whips turning to the crossbench and suggesting that perhaps the crossbenchers would like to have such an arrangement for themselves.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Shame!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, it was very shameful. It was a very poor reflection. I thought the Whips were being rather patronising in suggesting that. But it came back to haunt them the next day, because on that day the failings of that arrangement were all too apparent. A Legislative Assembly member was caught on camera, clearly drunk and unfit to be on the floor of the House, let alone participating in a debate. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Barry O'Farrell, bravely sought to highlight this but in doing so was caught out, because his own party was not prepared to fully back him on the matter. What could the Liberal Party do? It wanted to make mileage out of the abject display of the member for Murray-Darling, but Liberal Party members had already shown, in voting against the Greens motion, that they had no real appetite for tightening the rules.

The ruse the Liberals came up with was to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser. It was a tricky way of taking the heat out of the issue. The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser would take months to figure out a position, and by then politics would have rolled on. One would have to think that that was simply an Opposition ploy. In fact, the Opposition would surely have known all along that the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser is not able to comment on the alcohol issue and would have received advice that the role of the ethics adviser is to help individual members to adhere to the code of conduct. All members had been sent the material as to how the ethics adviser operates, so surely that would have been known.

The guidelines make it very clear: the ethics adviser can advise members on their entitlements and on conflicts of interest. He can base his advice on the Remuneration Tribunal and the code of conduct. However, he cannot offer general advice to members on questions falling outside the tribunal's rulings on entitlements and the specific rules of the code of conduct relating to parliamentary duties and resources. This issue, on the other hand, is a broad question about how to introduce standard workplace guidelines to prevent alcohol abuse on the job. It is completely outside the remit of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser, as the ethics adviser will no doubt tell the Parliament very soon.

We could say it was a nice try by the Coalition, but it cannot dodge the issue. Indeed, no member in this place can dodge the issue. This Parliament is out of touch with community standards on alcohol in the workplace—and we do not need an ethics adviser to tell us that. We have a clear responsibility here; it is time we grappled with it and worked out what regime we should bring in to ensure we have the highest standards under which to operate. While the Coalition came up with its tactics, the Government also tried to dodge the issue, and the result is this bill. The Greens will certainly support the bill, but let us remember what a small step it is to clearing up this matter. Parliament is now to become licensed for the first time. As we know, it is not a regular licence but a special Governor's licence. Once again, ordinary standards are not good enough for politicians. As I said, this is a welcome step, and of course the Greens will support the bill, but it is merely the Government's attempt to look like it is doing something.

Unfortunately, the Government is still just tinkering around the edges. The legislation was only brought in to appease the media storm that erupted after the member for Murray-Darling, Peter Black, was accused of being drunk in the lower House and his behaviour was broadcast time and again on the television channels across this country. As we know, this bill will not stop late-night incidents such as that involving the member for Murray-Darling. I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that in reply. Surely the Government needs to come to grips with this issue. It is nothing to be embarrassed about; all workplaces have had to come to grips with this issue.

Ensuring that Parliament covered by the Liquor Act is the absolute bare minimum; indeed it is something the public would have expected to be in place long ago. This Parliament still does not have a code governing alcohol and drug abuse in the workplace. The Premier's web site clearly shows that the code is supposed to be in place for all workplaces, so it seems that the Parliament is out of step with the rules that we ourselves have established. The Parliament is still failing to provide leadership to the community at large on this issue. Yet it would seem that most members of Parliament are dragging their heels on making Parliament a drug-free and alcohol-free workplace. Politicians are still making a huge exception for themselves. Neither of the major parties is prepared to entertain a change to the standing orders to prevent inebriated members of Parliament entering the Chamber. I believe we could come up with a solution to this problem if all parties were willing to discuss the issue with a view to working out appropriate changes to the standing orders to address the culture of this place.

Neither of the major parties is prepared to challenge the archaic and unacceptable culture of this place. I believe that eventually things will change, but at the moment we know that we are stuck in this time warp. It is left to the Greens and a few other crossbenchers to try to enforce ordinary community standards. The challenge of making Parliament a drug-free and alcohol-free workplace faces one huge obstacle: the majority of members go quiet or guffaw when other members raise this issue. Given the way this debate is currently proceeding, one could be forgiven for thinking the instruction has been "No interjections, remain quiet, it will all be over and we will return to the good old ways under which we have always operated." That may be so, but the community is aware of the enormous double standards.

The Greens will continue to push for real reform, whether it is through the Standing Orders Committee or further restrictions on the sale of alcohol in Parliament while the House is sitting. We are not prepared to settle for the cheap window-dressing offered by Labor's bill and the Coalition's letter to the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser. The issue is clearly on the table, and it is in the public mind. It will not go away. No-one can run away from it. It will confront members many times in their public work.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Do you want us to ban alcohol being sold here?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Minister for Primary Industries asked whether I want to ban the sale of alcohol in this place. If the Minister had listened to my contribution he would know that I have not suggested that alcohol should be banned in this place. I have said that members should not drink when the Parliament sits. But I have also acknowledged that we need to come up with the right regime to ensure that that happens.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: So alcohol should not be sold to members on days when the Parliament sits—is that what you want?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. That would seem more than reasonable.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: What about journalists?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I used to be in the Australian Journalists Association [AJA] a long time ago, but I am not in it any longer.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: It's no longer the AJA—

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It used to be the AJA. I was referring to when I was a member of it. You don't have to get smart on that one. Obviously I know it has changed its name; I was talking about when I was a member of it. We are not talking about journalists here. They have their job to do.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: They have a workplace here, though, on level six, so is it a ban for Parliament House as well?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is a very good question. The issue of how we ensure a regime under which members are not allowed to drink on the job is complex. Do we have to carry that over to other people who work in the Parliament? The Government should carry forward the very good work—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: It is a simple question: Should journalists not drink here?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members are reminded that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not suggesting that this should apply to journalists. I am simply talking about members of Parliament. If the Minister for Primary Industries wants to ban drinking by journalists, I am sure they would be very keen to talk to him about it.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you going to allow sniffer dogs into your office?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I am happy to have them. I am very fond of sniffer dogs, and dogs in general. I just believe that the harassment of people is rather out of hand.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times and that the member with the call should direct his or her remarks through the Chair and not engage in private conversations with other members. I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to confine her remarks to her contribution and not respond to interjections.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: So we can't go to the press party?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Minister is worried that he may not be able to go to the press party. Of course he can. I go to the press party and I do not drink, so I do not see why he should be worried about that. Maybe the Minister needs an alcoholic prop to be able to walk into the press party. It is all getting very interesting, Minister.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: It would be unusual if I attended and did not have a can of beer in my hand.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is good that the Minister has acknowledged that. But still, I think it is good that members have come to life now. It is an issue that is clearly of concern to many members; it is one that we need to address, and surely it is time the Standing Orders Committee or some other appropriate venue worked out how to have a drug and alcohol-free workplace.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [12.20 p.m.]: I support this important bill. I believe that any legislation that promotes responsible alcohol consumption and minimises alcohol abuse ought to be supported. I also support some, though not all, of the arguments of Ms Lee Rhiannon. I believe the Parliament should have in place guidelines on responsible drinking, particularly for members of Parliament.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [12.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The licensing arrangements of this House have come under close scrutiny in recent months and the measures contained in this bill will bring Parliament House within the scope of the State's responsible serving laws. This will be achieved through a Governor's licence allowing liquor to be sold at Parliament House. The bill will also establish clear protocols that must be observed by the Director of Liquor and Gaming should inspectors be required to undertake liquor law compliance operations within Parliament House.

I will now address some of the comments made by honourable members during the debate, especially those of Ms Lee Rhiannon, who should acknowledge that alcohol is a legal product. Parliamentarians are responsible citizens and are well placed to make their own assessment of their drinking and behaviour. For these reasons it is not proposed or considered necessary to impose limitations on alcohol at Parliament House on sitting days. The Governor's licence proposed by the bill is not a special licence; there are many such licences for venues on Crown land. It is the most appropriate licence for Parliament House, it being situated on Crown land.

While the bill will preserve existing liquor trading rights at Parliament House, members will be bound by the responsible serving provisions of the liquor laws that apply to all licensed venues. Those provisions prohibit liquor being served to an intoxicated person. It must be remembered that staff have been trained in the responsible service of alcohol for some time—in fact, since the laws relating to responsible serving of alcohol were introduced in 1996.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: So what happened with the Blackie incident?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not going to explain what happened with a member of another House. I think that was amply covered at the time. The issue has been well canvassed in the media, and I am sure the electors of Murray-Darling, given the chance at the appropriate time, will consider the merit of their member.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He is not running again.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am sure that if he did he would have no difficulty winning that seat again. These provisions also impose responsibilities on patrons of licensed venues in that—
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: So that makes what he did okay, does it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not going to say that what he did was bad or good. I was not there.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It wasn't good, it was bad.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not going to say whether it was bad or good. I am not standing here in judgment.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I have cautioned members before in this debate about interjections. If members persist in interjecting, I will call them to order by name.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: I point out that the Minister would need to move a substantive motion if he wished to comment on another member of this House; otherwise his conduct would be disorderly. Accordingly, the Minister has acted appropriately.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I uphold the point of order, and ask members to bear that point in mind when they realise they should not be interjecting.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: These provisions also impose responsibilities on patrons of licensed venues. Drunk or disorderly persons who are asked to leave licensed premises must do so, or they commit an offence. It is expected that members and others will adopt a responsible and sensible approach to the licensing regime in Parliament House, and not put staff in a position where they may have to refuse liquor service. Members who are unsure about the rules should consult the code of conduct that has applied to members of both Houses since May 1999. I believe that the responsible serving of alcohol in this place should remain indefinitely.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) AMENDMENT (LICENCE SUSPENSION) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [12.26 p.m.]: I move:

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [12.27 p.m.]: I speak on the Road Transport (General) Amendment (Licence Suspension) Bill. Of course, road safety is clearly an important issue and one that The Nationals and the Opposition take very seriously indeed. Generally speaking, we support the bill, but there are a number of aspects about which we have some concerns. The purpose of the bill is to provide for the immediate suspension of the licence of drivers who are detected exceeding the speed limit by more than 45 kilometres per hour or who are charged with serious driving offences, such as causing death or grievous bodily harm.

Currently, drivers who are charged with serious driving offences causing death or grievous bodily harm are generally able to retain their driver's licence until a court determines the matter. It may be a considerable period of time before the matter gets to court. Meanwhile, drivers who have allegedly been involved in such serious matters may well be construed as dangerous to others using the road system, yet they are allowed to continue to drive vehicles without forfeiting their licence. Similarly, those caught driving in excess of 45 kilometres per hour above the speed limit do not have licence sanctions applied until after a court has decided the matter. Again, this can be a significant period of time after the offence was committed.

In order to address that irregularity the bill will enable NSW Police to issue a notice of immediate licence suspension after a driver has been charged with a serious driving offence and death or grievous bodily harm has been occasioned, or if the driver has been assessed as having travelled in excess of 45 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. The bill will expand the range of offences that are contained in section 34 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999, which provides police with the power to immediately suspend a driver's licence but only in those cases where motorists are charged with a serious alcohol offence, such as mid-range or high-range alcohol offences. If a motorist refuses or fails to submit to a breath analysis, engages in wilful alteration of the concentration of alcohol in a blood sample, or engages in behaviour that hinders or obstructs a medical practitioner or a nurse attempting to take a blood sample, he or she would be caught by those provisions.

Section 33 of the Act provides that the Commissioner of Police may suspend, for a period not exceeding 14 days, the licence of driver who is considered to be incompetent, reckless or careless. From 1 August 2003 the Commissioner of Police delegated his authority to a limited class of operational police. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] can then apply a follow-on suspension or cancellation of a licence on the basis of a report from those operational police. So section 33 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 provides for immediate licence suspension, but the original intent was for it to be used only in special circumstances. The licence suspension amendment defines the circumstances in which it is presumed that a licence will be suspended.

A particular priority of The Nationals and the Opposition generally is to ensure that our roads are safe for the community. The Nationals are committed to measures that will help to stem the number of accidents on our roads, particularly country roads. We are acutely aware that speed is a major cause of fatalities. We were reminded of that fact at the recent Country Roads Summit at Port Macquarie. The most stark piece of evidence that was given to that summit was that road trauma on country roads resulted from a number of behavioural factors such as speed, alcohol consumption, fatigue and the failure in this day and age by people to wear seatbelts. Those important but unfortunate factors cause road trauma and death.

I refer now to the concerns that have been expressed about this bill. It will not ensure that drivers who have had their licences suspended and who are awaiting a court hearing will remain off the roads. During discussions surrounding the introduction of this legislation it was suggested that vehicles should be confiscated in cases where drivers continue to drive after they have been detected speeding over the 45-kilometre barrier, or drivers have been involved in an accident and they have been charged with grievous bodily harm or death. Opposition members are concerned about these confiscation proposals because in many instances vehicles are shared between family members. If a recalcitrant or offending driver breaks the laws by speeding or for other reasons, the rest of the family—the people who rely on that breadwinner—might be adversely affected as they might not have access to other vehicles that can get them to their places of work or enable them to do all those things for which families need vehicles.

Opposition members are also concerned about the confusion that surrounds the different sorts of speed zones on roads. Speed zones in New South Wales can vary from 10 kilometres an hour up to 110 kilometres an hour. Speed zones can change quite frequently along certain sections of the same road. A recent article in Open Road—a magazine published by the NRMA—suggested that the Roads and Traffic Authority should update its guidelines on speed zoning to reflect the latest developments and good practice, and that it should do that in consultation with the NRMA and other key road safety stakeholders. The NRMA suggested that there should be a comprehensive review of all speed limits across the State in accordance with such revised guidelines and explanatory signs should be installed in all those areas where the reason for an unusually low speed was not obvious to the driver.

To give the RTA its due, as a frequent long-distance traveller I have noted in many instances what I would call preparatory signs that alert me to the fact that, for safety reasons, something up ahead will result in a change to the road speed. I appreciate those advance warnings. Unfortunately, speed is the cause of many fatal and other accidents. Motorists must be aware of the speed zones in which they are travelling. However, what if a speed zone differs from the expectation of a driver? The NRMA has suggested that the reason for speed zones differing from a driver's reasonable expectation should be expressly communicated. Problems could occur if a driver were penalised for not adhering to a speed zone when sufficient advisory information was not clearly available for the benefit of that driver.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Could we have a minimum number of changes per 100 kilometres, so we spend less time looking for signs and more time concentrating on our driving?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a good point. On many of the roads on which I travel I am conscious of the fact that variable speed zones are enforceable. The surfaces on many segments of our roads are inadequate, and that results in people concentrating on variable road signs rather than on safe driving and watching out for other vehicles, which is a reflection of the state of our roads. Recently when I was travelling on the New England Highway I noticed a sign that alerted me to the fact that variable speed limits were enforceable.

I am used to the signs that alert me to the fact that speed limits are enforceable, but this sign alerted me to the fact that variable speed limits were enforceable. I suppose that was a brief way of informing drivers they could expect to come across different speed restrictions on various sections of the New England Highway. The NRMA claims that 50 per cent of the roads that it surveyed in metropolitan New South Wales did not comply, or were inconsistent, with the RTA's speed limit guidelines.

It appears to the Opposition that a comprehensive audit is required to ensure that areas are zoned appropriately; otherwise motorists will be at risk of losing their licences in circumstances where the speed zone is inappropriate for a particular stretch of road. It has been put to the RTA that 40-kilometre zones be introduced in high pedestrian traffic areas. One of the criteria for doing so is to have roads that service a business or commercial area. However, in country towns many roads service business or commercial areas that would not necessarily be classified as having high pedestrian traffic—in fact, there might not be any pedestrians at all. It would be cause for concern if sensible motorists had their licences suspended under such circumstances. The Opposition suggests that that proposal should be considered carefully.

An issue of great importance is school zones, which operate from 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and from 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m., and within which traffic conditions are changed to benefit children. Motorists must be particularly aware of the fact that they are entering a school zone that requires them to slow down to 40 kilometres per hour and be mindful of exactly when they are leaving the zone so they do not increase their speed too quickly. The zones must be signposted clearly. Some think installing flashing warning lights on approaches to 40 kilometre per hour school zones will slow down motorists. A trial of flashing warning lights has been conducted, with inconclusive results. However, the trial will be expanded to include an additional 30 schools and extended until 2005, with a possible evaluation in the middle of next year. The Opposition looks forward to studying the results of that trial.

The suspension notice provisions in the bill are not mandatory. A police officer who charges a person may exercise discretion having regard to the circumstances of the alleged offence. But the legislation does not make clear any of the guidelines for using discretionary powers. This problem is also a feature of other roads legislation that has come before the House in the past year or so. The Opposition feels that in certain circumstances—such as when people are not speeding, when road conditions in the area in which the alleged offence was committed should be taken into account or when the signage and speed zone can be demonstrated to be inappropriate—some leniency should be afforded to the driver. As I have said before, a drivers licence is often essential to a person's livelihood and to feeding his or her family.

During debate about this bill it was suggested that when a person faces a quite serious charge, such as reckless driving causing death, the matter might take significantly longer to come before the court. Therefore, if a driver has his or her licence suspended for a period that falls short of the impending court date the Opposition believes provision should be made for the case to be brought before the court to allow the driver's case to be heard within a reasonable amount of time. The Opposition feels very strongly about road safety measures. It supports the general thrust of the bill, which is designed to remove dangerous drivers from the roads and to deal quickly with people who cause grievous bodily harm and death.

Ultimately the court will decide whether a licence should be cancelled but it is imperative that concerns about the suspension process are raised in order to protect sensible drivers who do not drive dangerously on New South Roads but who sometimes in certain circumstances—perhaps due to particular road conditions—come within the ambit of these new provisions. Apart from the reservations I have outlined, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [12.45 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not oppose the Road Transport (General) Amendment (Licence Suspension) Bill, the objects of which are to expand the range of driving-related offences in relation to which a police officer is able to suspend a person's drivers licence to certain major offences involving death or grievous bodily harm, to enable a police officer to suspend a person's drivers licence if the person is caught exceeding the applicable speed limit by more than 45 kilometres per hour, and to make provision with respect to statutory declarations for ascertaining the driver of a vehicle involved in a parking offence or camera-recorded offences.
While the Christian Democratic Party generally supports the bill, we have a particular concern. A purpose of the bill is to enable the immediate suspension of a drivers licence when police believe a driver should be charged with serious driving offences causing death or grievous bodily harm. We can all remember some of the tragic deaths that have occurred on our roads, including a recent triple fatality when the person to be charged with a driving offence got back into his car and was preparing to drive away until the police confiscated his keys.

At present, drivers charged with serious driving offences causing death or grievous bodily harm are generally able to retain their drivers licence until a court determines the matter. This period could extend for several months. In like fashion, drivers caught speeding by more than 45 kilometres an hour over the speed limit do not have licence sanctions applied until after a court has decided the matter. We object to this provision. In this situation the licence sanctions applied remain until the court has decided the matter or, if there is a penalty involved, until the penalty is paid to the Infringement Processing Bureau or the State Debt Recovery Office. That could take many months.

While the Christian Democratic Party wants to see dangerous and drunk drivers off our roads—particularly those who have been involved in prior accidents—we are concerned that some people will suffer a penalty who may later be proved innocent in court. We recognise that those who exceed the speed limit by more than 45 kilometres an hour are doing the community a disservice—in fact, speeding is a causative factor in 44 per cent of all fatal road accidents. That statistic alone is enough to warrant the suspension of the licences of speeding drivers. However, I note this concern of the Law Society of New South Wales:

Road Transport (General) Amendment (Licence Suspension) Bill 2004

I would like to suggest a way in which this problem could be overcome that I feel sure the Government should consider. The Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of New South Wales notes:

Road Transport (General) Act

The Christian Democratic Party does not have a problem with that. However, the committee continues:

The effect of the Bill will be to inappropriately punish drivers who are innocent of the charges by suspending their driver's licences until the court determines the matter or the charge is withdrawn.

This may take some time, given that the majority of the offences to be incorporated into section 34 are strictly indictable offences, which are dealt with in the Supreme Court or District Court.

As we all know, it usually takes some time for cases to come before the Supreme Court or the District Court. This creates an anomaly where we want to get certain persons off the road if they are guilty, but if we get them off the road and they are innocent, as the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner said, that may impinge upon their capacity to earn an income and support their family. If a drivers licence is suspended by the Roads and Traffic Authority pursuant to section 33 of the Road Transport (Drivers Licensing) Act, the driver has a right of appeal to the Local Court and the suspension is stayed, pending determination of the appeal. The appeal is determined on, among other things, the objective circumstances of the driver. But under section 34 of the Road Transport (General) Act in its current and proposed form, the suspension notice is issued immediately, or within 48 hours of the person being charged with the alleged offence.

The driver may seek a review in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal but that takes an abnormal amount of time. The suspension remains in force, obviously, until the determination of the review. This right of review cannot be equated with the right of appeal to a Local Court. The review can succeed only if the driver can satisfy the tribunal that there are exceptional circumstances, and it is extremely hard to provide evidence of that. As a result, applicants asking the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to review a drivers licence suspension have, in fact, little prospect of success. The Christian Democratic Party believes that it takes longer for a matter to go to trial in the District Court or Supreme Court than it does in a Local Court and the imposition of a lengthy licence suspension on people who may well be acquitted and found innocent is inappropriate and should not be contemplated in the absence of proper appeal rights. We suggest that instead of the current proposal people should be able to appeal to the Local Court. Otherwise, we support this bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [12.52 p.m.]: I note that the Road Transport (General) Amendment (Licence Suspension) Bill will extend the current powers to amend sections 34 and 35 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 to provide NSW Police with the power to immediately suspend the licence of a motorist charged with a serious driving offence under the Crimes Act 1900 and death or grievous bodily harm has been occasioned, or if the motorist was detected travelling in excess of 45 kilometres an hour above the speed limit. This good legislation will strengthen our road safety regulations to protect the community and perhaps somehow save the lives of the offenders. I note also that a police officer can exercise discretion on these issues. A driver, for example, could inadvertently travel at 85 kilometres per hour in a school zone of 40 kilometres per hour on a highway because of a failure to notice the traffic signs, as referred to by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. I support the legislation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.54 p.m.]: The Greens support this bill, which increases penalties for dangerous driving. Speeding is a major killer in our society, and only deterrence seems to work. That is why the Greens support this bill. We note the concerns of the Legislation Review Committee, which stated that the immediate suspension of a licence would, in fact, penalise a person who had not been convicted of an offence. As the committee noted, however, the circumstances for a suspension are fairly straightforward and give a reasonable basis for police to take action. The offences involved are speeding and/or driving offences involving death or grievous bodily harm. These offences are not complex—the offender is generally caught red-handed, as it were. The committee had legitimate questions as to what guidelines police will use in deciding whether to suspend a licence. Without these guidelines police have a discretionary power, and that may be a cause for concern. When police exercise discretion it is often the more disadvantaged members of the community who cop the punishment, while white middle-class people get let off with a caution.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: How can you back up the statement that white middle-class people get let off?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I will give you one example, which the driving figures show. Recently students from Waverley College rioted at Bondi Beach and destroyed property, including cars, but that was accepted as simply boys being boys, and no charges were laid. But if that had happened with young men at Lakemba engaging in behaviour—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are talking about driving.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not just talking about driving. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that across the board there is an inconsistency in the way the laws are enforced. The Greens urge the Government to produce guidelines that will not allow these penalties to be administered in an unfair and inconsistent way. The committee also questioned what rights of review and appeal people may have against a licence suspension. The committee's main concern is that people in this situation would be caused considerable hardship, and should be able to appeal the decision.

Although appeals can be made to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, the tribunal can overturn the decision only in exceptional circumstances. It is unclear what the exceptional circumstances might be, as they cannot relate to the actual offence or the question of the person's guilt or innocence. Presumably they would be based on the needs of the person to continue driving a vehicle, for example, if that person was a carer or if his or her livelihood depended upon the ability to drive. We would appreciate the Minister's thoughts on that issue.

Now that the Government has addressed this issue of speeding, the Greens hope it will turn to other dangers on our roads. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald this week, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has found that during the nine years to 1998 the number of fatal four-wheel-drive crashes rose by 85 percent. With this as the backdrop, the Commonwealth Parliament's Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services tabled its report on road safety on Monday 21 June. The report found that owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles should have a special licence and should be made to sit for off-road driving skills tests. The members of Parliament on that committee found that four-wheel-drive vehicles pose particular challenges, and drivers need extra training to ensure they can meet those challenges. Even the Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council supported the concept of additional training. The Greens also support that concept and, likewise, support the calls for special licences for all four-wheel-drive vehicles over two tonnes, or higher registration charges for those vehicles. Ninety per cent of these vehicles never go off road and are a greater danger to other road users than ordinary cars.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What about those that are needed in the country, in rural and regional areas?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: We do not deny that they are needed. We are just talking about a way to save lives.
The Hon. Rick Colless: And the people who really need them have to pay extra charges?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Because there is clearly a problem: more people are dying because of the increased use of four-wheel drive vehicles.

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey is reminded that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The NRMA Used Car Safety Rating data has found that when a non-four-wheel drive vehicle collides with a four-wheel-drive vehicle, the driver of the smaller car is at much greater risk of injury than in a collision not involving a four-wheel drive vehicle. Pedestrians also suffer greater injuries when hit by a four-wheel-drive vehicle than when hit by an ordinary car.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They hit kangaroos; that's what you're on about.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I am concerned about kangaroos.

The Hon. Jon Jenkins: Point of order: This is clearly outside the leave of the bill, which is very succinct and closely related to the issue of speeding fines and suspension of licences. This is completely outside anything whatsoever to do with the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: Clearly, my comments are outside the leave of the bill, but they are relevant to the issues addressed in the bill and by other members in relation to saving lives. That is the context in which I was addressing those matters.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! When contributing to debate on the Road Transport (General) Amendment (Licence Suspension) Bill members may refer to road safety issues that relate to the licence suspension provisions in the bill. It is not in order, however, for members to refer to road safety matters in general. I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to bear that ruling in mind when she resumes her speech.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The four-wheel drive lobby argues that we should not believe the statistics from the United States of America which prove that sports utility vehicles are more dangerous than ordinary cars and that the figures are skewed because the Bridgestone Firestone tyre recall most affected the Ford Explorer. I know that this is an embarrassment to the four-wheel drive lobby but it is certainly relevant because I was asked about statistics.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I have ruled that the only road safety issues members may refer to in this debate are those that relate to the licence suspension provisions in the bill. Whilst the material being referred to by Ms Lee Rhiannon is most interesting, it is not relevant to the bill before us.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Greens have consistently called at a Federal and State level for action to remedy the largesse offered to the four-wheel drive lobby. The Roads and Traffic Authority claims that this issue is too difficult, but what is lacking is a will, not ability. We hope that the Government will come to see the light on four-wheel drives—it is a way to ensure greater safety on our roads—and we can do that by increasing registration charges. This will help pay for the health bills and environmental damage these cars are racking up.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [1.01 p.m.]: In view of the point of order I raised, I will not say anything about four-wheel drives and statistics. However, I am happy to provide, at any time and to any person, the statistics that completely refute everything Ms Lee Rhiannon said. I support the comment by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes that situations may arise in which somebody's livelihood depends on his or her licence. I can envisage a situation whereby a person could possibly make a mistake under this licence scheme and his or her licence may be suspended. I urge the Government perhaps to consider the scheme whereby a person whose licence is suspended under the Act could immediately appeal to the District Court for a review of that decision, and perhaps may be granted a restricted licence for working purposes only or something of an essential nature. Perhaps the court could reinstate the person's licence under specific conditions until the full court has heard the case.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [1.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for supporting the Road Transport (General) Amendment (Licence Suspension) Bill, which provides additional powers for the police to suspend the licences of drivers who commit serious driving offences causing death or grievous bodily harm, or who drive at more than 45 kilometres per hour over the relevant speed limit. I note the comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who always reminds me about something that the Government has committed to do. Mr Craig Moran of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] will be reminded about the honourable member's passing comment about the bus light in Cleveland Street near the intersection with South Dowling Street. Mr John Harrell of the RTA, who is present, will reminded Mr Moran of the honourable member's concern, and the problem will be fixed. I hope that it happens this time.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and the Hon. Jon Jenkins asked whether drivers will have a right to appeal the police decision to immediately suspend a licence to the Local Court. It is proposed to allow appeals to the Local Court, which are more accessible and cheaper than any suggested avenue of appeal to the District Court. In proposed sections 34 (2) (c) and 35 (1) a right of appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal or an alternative appeal right is provided. The Government proposes that a regulation will be made for this legislation so that there will be a right of appeal to the Local Court. I hope that satisfies the points raised.

On the whole, the bill supports the Government's strong commitment to road safety. It will provide police was an opportunity to take a dangerous or irresponsible driver off New South Wales roads with a real degree of urgency, thereby minimising the chances of the person reoffending. There is an undeniable community expectation that prompt action be taken against speeding and reckless drivers, as highlighted by recent cases in the media after drivers charged with serious driving offences were allowed to continue driving. The time is right to implement tougher measures to address this antisocial behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Report

The Deputy-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) announced the receipt, pursuant to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, of a report entitled "Operation Florida, Volumes 1 and 2", dated June 2004.

The Deputy-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) announced further that it had been authorised that the report be made public.

Ordered to be printed.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) left the chair at 1.07 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.30 p.m.]: I move:

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [2.30 p.m.]: Regional development is an area in which government can, and must, be involved. Regional Australia defines and underpins the Australian image. Regional Australia has done much to create our national wealth. At the outset I should say that many parts of regional Australia do very well; they have a positive image and, with or without government assistance, will survive and thrive. However, some parts of New South Wales benefit from a proactive approach by government and local communities. I will speak to the Regional Development Bill from a number of aspects. First, I would comment on what the Minister said in his second reading speech; second, I will compare what the New South Wales Government is doing compared with what is being done in other States, Victoria in particular; and, third, I will address briefly what regional development really works.

It is my view that the Carr Government lacks vision when it comes to regional development and has been singularly lacking in taking appropriate action to underpin the work of regional communities. Though New South Wales has some outstanding communities, the Government has not afforded regional development any priority. The bill, though on paper reading well, in fact does not do regional New South Wales a service. I refer to the overview of the bill:

In my view, the bill does not have at its heart the provision of financial assistance to regions. The objectives reveal it is about financial assistance to individual firms—although, as the Minister said in his second read speech—the capacity is already provided through other programs to support local communities, for example, the Main Street Program. Though the overview states the aim of the bill is the provision of financial assistance to regions, other than creating a trust—most of the funding for which, it would seem, is meant to come from appropriation—it is not about supporting regions; it is about supporting individual firms. It will do that in a number of ways, but in particular by a firm or business making application to the Minister for financial assistance. In turn, that can be granted in a number of ways, all of which are broadly defined by the bill. But, as clause 6 makes clear:

I note that provision because I wish to return a little later to deal with the nature of assistance that can be provided to support regions. In essence, as the bill states, it provides a framework. But there is little evidence of monetary support. We know from the budget and otherwise that in reality the Carr Government is cutting support to regional New South Wales. Nowhere is that better illustrated than by the correspondence and frantic calls I have received from persons in regional New South Wales protesting the Government's focus on business enterprise centres and its decision to axe funding for 50 business enterprise centres in New South Wales and replace them with regional structures. In reality, that is not about strengthening regions; it is about cutting funding. While the Government is talking up regional development, the reality is, as my colleagues will no doubt show, its record on regions is not about strengthening regions but about cutting services.

Regional development is not about providing support for individual industries that will make a difference in regions; it is about providing, as governments should provide, infrastructure and a broad framework in which business can thrive. The Carr Government in fact has cut back its support for infrastructure. That is best exemplified by debates in this Chamber in recent days about country rail services. Later, I will explain why that is so important. So, while this measure purports to be about regional development, the Carr Government's actions speak louder than words. Its actions—whether in cutting business enterprise centres or cutting rail services—rather than strengthening regional centres, demonstrate that it is a Government intent on weakening regions through the provision of inadequate infrastructure investment and adopting a policy on business enterprise centres that flies in the face of all that we know about regional development and what works for regional development. What works more than anything else is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach. The bill has as its core a top-down approach.

I turn to some of the comments made by the Minister in his second reading speech. The Minister began by saying that he had been "bombarded by a myriad of theories, ideas and opinions about what regional development is and how we can achieve positive results". The Minister may have been bombarded by such theories, and ideas and opinions, but nothing in his speech or in the bill suggests that the Minister has learnt from any of those theories, ideas and opinions.

The Minister, as a result of the introduction of the bill, is doing exactly the opposite to what people who have a genuine interest in regional development for New South Wales would advocate. At its heart the bill is not about decisions taken at central government that will result in growth; it is about strong, local leadership. But if the Government is intent on developing strong regions, as the bill suggests, then it must adopt a strategic approach to growing such regions. Somewhere in the Minister's speech he suggested that the Government is committing future governments to the principle of strategic intervention. I have no idea what the Minister means.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It sounds fantastic!

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: It does sound fantastic, but I have no idea what the Minister means. An analysis of his second reading speech, which underpins the legislation, revealed no understanding or example of the nature of this so-called strategic intervention. The Minister suggested that a free market approach would not work in isolation. As a matter of principle, that is rubbish. But what does work is the Government underpinning regional development through, in particular, a positive approach to infrastructure. If the aim is to grow regions then we must look at what the impediments might be, and later I will refer to what business suggests some of those impediments might be. We know that communication and transport can be impediments. The Minister stated that some areas lack good Internet services or mobile phone coverage but, even though they fall under Federal Government policies, he did not suggest how the State Government might enhance those services. The legislation is not about strategic intervention.

The Government cannot talk about adopting a strategic approach when, in other legislation and through the budget process, it is destroying programs that have worked successfully to grow regional New South Wales, particularly through business enterprise centres. The Minister talks about theories, ideas and opinions, but gives us absolutely no indication of what is appropriate, other than saying that new investment and jobs growth count. That may be so, but if the Government is considering new investment and jobs growth it need look no further than the budget to realise the impediments it is putting in the path of new investment and jobs growth. This week we will debate the vendor tax yet again. Businesses deciding whether they will locate in New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland—Queensland seems to be top of the line with this Government—will take into account taxes in place in one State versus another. The Government must consider impediments such as taxes and red tape that it is putting in the way of free market—which it says will not, on its own, ensure that benefits are distributed—surviving and thriving.

The Minister has not adopted any of the theories, ideas or opinions that he claims to understand. There is no doubt that regional development is not a precise science, but we know that some things work well. We do not want the cargo cult mentality of someone coming in from the centre and distributing the goods, although it has its place. The most important thing government can do to strengthen regions is to spend on infrastructure and provide the framework in which local communities with local leadership and local businesses work together to achieve the best results. We certainly need new investment, which comes back to the role of government in developing infrastructure. I would have thought that strategic intervention would be achieved through a strategic approach to infrastructure. This morning I was looking at my travel arrangements and I noted that the cost of a return air ticket from Sydney to Wagga Wagga, a trip I hope to take when the House gets up, is about half the price of a ticket to fly overseas.

One also has to consider travel timetables and the fact that there are no plane services to many parts of rural and New South Wales. They are the sorts of barriers to growing our regions to which the Government should turn its attention. Two weeks ago marked the beginning of the ski season in southern New South Wales. However, not one airline operates a single air service to Cooma to enable skiers to link up with the ski fields. We lack the basic infrastructure to attract tourist dollars and grow that region. Contrast that to Victoria, which is running a positive campaign by giving skiers the opportunity to fly to the Victorian ski fields. They are the kinds of barriers we are up against in growing and strengthening our regions. I see no sense of urgency from the Government to deal with such an anomaly.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That's right, there is no sense of urgency from John Anderson to improve regional airlines.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: No, the New South Wales Government is responsible for this. On the one hand, the Government talks about the importance of framework legislation but, on the other hand, it has taken no proactive steps to counter such advertising or the tax disincentives imposed on business in this State. The legislation is backed up in the budget by very little money. Contrast that with Victoria: For the first three years of the Bracks Government Victoria had a three-year, $180 million Regional Infrastructure Development Fund to support new industry development, to link transport infrastructure and to improve tourist facilities. That program has been renewed. The Victorian Industry Participation Policy, a procurement policy using local suppliers and backed up by policy built around infrastructure, ensured that local suppliers, who would seek to offer the best value for the dollar, were used wherever possible. A Small Towns Development Fund of $20 million, which focused on towns with a population of less than 10,000, was established to assist towns to create new opportunities for economic development and economic social infrastructure. The fund offered dollar-for-dollar grants to a maximum of $200,000 per project. In addition, a regional industries group was aimed at strengthening and extending the industry base of regional Victoria as a desirable location for investment.

The proof of all that is evident when one looks at the successes in Victoria, which has set aside significantly more money than the New South Wales Government has set aside, or is likely to set aside as a consequence of this bill. The bill shows a complete lack of understanding of what is needed if we are to grow our regions. Many of our coastal and inland regions have enormous advantages built around lifestyle. If we are to grow the regions we must look at the barriers, which often relate to a skilled work force. If the Government is to take a strategic approach it needs to look at the TAFE or community college courses that can strengthen the work force in a particular area. It must also look at the advantages of one area and how they can be built on.

In some communities people of retirement age have undergone a sea change. As a consequence many coastal and country communities have a significant elderly and retired population. To assist them the Government should develop expertise in gerontology. The Government should provide clusters around the aged community, targeting retirement and aged care facilities, and provide a skilled work force. Many coastal communities have high levels of unemployment. That need not be the case, because there is a capacity to grow the services to those communities based on the reason many people go to the areas in the first place—that is, they are great places in which to retire. A strategic approach would provide health and allied health services—that is, gerontology.

However, the Government is not working towards developing a framework around the clustering of industries, or on providing the infrastructure as a priority. The operation of small businesses is certainly one source of help to those industries. Simply throwing dollars at the establishment of a business is not what is needed. We know that a type of industry is provided in any one place. Most communities are able to cater to certain industries because they have local people to sustain them. That is the same in any community. Those industries provide for the needs of the local community. In part those ubiquitous services revolve around the retail, building and health industries.

The second type of industry that is often part of a regional economy is the resource-dependent industry. I am grateful to the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at the Harvard Business School for its research into the competitiveness of rural regions in the United States of America. That research identified regional resource-dependent industries that are the same as those in a number of parts of New South Wales. Those industries exist because of natural resources in a particular area, for example timber, fishing and coal. Those industries attract a work force with particular skills. It is the responsibility of government to make sure that the infrastructure and skilled work force are available to service the industries.

The third type of industry, which is not resource dependent, is often referred to as a traded industry. Traded industries will locate in a particular area because of broad competitive considerations. That group becomes important when consideration is given to growing a region, because it may be able to attract other industries to a region that has certain competitive advantages. Attracting industries to a region by artificially propping them up does not work if they have no place there. That is the reason that the Greiner Government decided that the broadly based payroll tax subsidy had no place in growing regions. That is why there has been a setback in that sort of approach.

The bill gives a broader focus and will allow a business, on application to the Minister, to receive a variety of forms of assistance. There is a place for that sort of assistance, and it is important. However, we do not know what strategy the Government will implement to underpin that assistance. Giving a business money to locate in a particular place may not be the best or most efficient use of our resources, and it may not be in the best interests of growing our regions. We do not know what strategic advantage the Government would want to advocate. Many parts of country New South Wales have particular advantages. I spend considerable time travelling through the southern and south-western parts of New South Wales. As I drive through some communities I know that they have the magic formula, they have what it takes to grow. They have the right balance of industries and would benefit from the support that the Government has in mind.

A few weeks ago I drove through the city of Young and, merely by looking at the local community, I was reminded of how vibrant it was. We know it is the world's centre for the growing of cherries, which of itself gives it a significant reason for being where it is. Young has not rested on its laurels; it has done a number of things. Recently I represented the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, at a dinner for representatives of steel industry firms. I was pleased to meet Ken Wilson, the Managing Director of National Engineering Pty Ltd, a Young-based firm. Mr Wilson reminded me of the success that the firm had in winning contracts prior to the Olympic Games for the construction of some of the steel framework that is part of Telstra Stadium, the stadium used for the Olympics. Young's capacity to attract and hold a steel firm is significant. That steel firm has operated in the area for the best part of 100 years. Obviously there are much more than cherries at stake in Young. Young has done well in communication, and as a result it has been able to grow its work force. However, it has not rested on its laurels. Recently, while thinking about this bill, I searched the Internet to see what I could find out about Young. One gets a positive impression from www.visityoung.com.au, which is supported by the local council. The web site states:

• In excess of 250 new jobs created in the town since October 2002 …

• In excess of 370 development applications received in 2002/03 financial year, valued in excess of $25 million

The web site lists all the achievements in Young in the past year, including marketing, and states what it has to offer. If one was looking for somewhere to locate a business and came across that web site, one would get a positive impression about a city and community that are doing well—and that is the basis of a decision one might make about locating. I was enormously impressed by what I read about the local community. The key is that the local community is promoting itself. I also visited West Wyalong. It is looking towards calling itself the future capital of intensive livestock production. The local community is looking to its inherent regional advantages and can build on them. That reminded me of a document that I quoted in this House last year from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation on small town renewal. Under the heading "Australian Small Town Renewal Case Studies" were dot points of what works and what does not work. All the case studies appear to have in common:

• Right timing—timing and circumstances appear important in the process for many towns including:

- local people coming together ... community planning processes …

• Enthusiastic local champion(s) and leadership—having at least one influential and skilled local person or group actively and enthusiastically promoting the concept of renewal and providing the leadership for action

• Positive attitude ... Local entrepreneurism ... Local investment ... Smart use of outside resources ... New community networks—that actively support new ideas, new thinking and new ways of working together.

• Youth focus—

That is the heart of the recipe to make things work. But in all of this is a commitment to a local strategy. I say to the Government that it is well and good to have a framework document, but it is not about throwing money at any business at any time that wants to set up in a particular community. It is about looking at what works and building on that. I think in particular of something that I looked at when I was overseas last year. I know that the media like to suggest that every time we travel overseas we could save ourselves the trouble and read about things on the Internet but unless you talk to people involved in some of these projects you do not get a first-hand, inside knowledge. Last year I looked at what was being done in regional development in Italy. Industries in regional Italy have been grown very well. I was reminded of that when I was reading a newsletter from the organisation Cluster Navigators Australia, which is doing much to promote the concept of clusters. People who know my interest in this subject will know that I have been advocating that the Government should give priority to developing a clusters policy as part of a regional industry policy. Why? Because clusters work. The newsletter reinforces something I noted when I was in Italy:

Evidence of the tight link between clusters and firm profitability comes from a substantive Bank of Italy study that looked at the financial performance of Italian textile companies over a decade. The most consistently profitable firms were amongst the 9000 textile firms based in Prato, Italy's largest textile cluster. The 2000 textile companies based in Biella ranked second. Finally, the poorest financial performance amongst Italy's textile firms were those scattered over other regions in Italy.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: There are no railway lines.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I do not know whether there is a railway line there—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: There is.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: One would imagine that tomatoes are almost ubiquitous in Italy because they are ubiquitous in Italian food, but the Italians have done very well in marketing them in particular areas. Groups of people in an area who have a like interest work together, work off each other's knowledge and attract a skilled work force. At certain times of the year a number of people will be needed to pick tomatoes. The more farms growing them in a region the more likely casual labour will be attracted to the area because of the jobs available. It is that theory that underpins much of what we know about clusters. Networks develop across companies.

Recently I talked to the manager of the Queanbeyan Business Enterprise Centre about growing firms in the region. We talked about the regional advantages that the area would offer and the absolute importance of having a network of companies. This may all be possible from the Government's legislation, but none of it has been spelt out in the Minister's second reading speech, which was a perfect opportunity to put a vision on the table about what the Government would stand for and about going forward. If we are to address some of the inherent problems in New South Wales, including the fact that Sydney is growing by about 50,000 people per annum, and if we are to provide some options and alternatives, growing the whole of New South Wales by growing and strengthening our regional areas is absolutely fundamental. We have to do that with a strong regional industry policy. It is not about throwing a little money here or there to a few firms but looking at what works: what infrastructure we are lacking, whether it is railways or roads or other forms of communication; where there is a skilled work force and where we lack the skilled work force; where we have advantages with natural resources and how we can take the advantages and make them work for the whole of the area.

The Hunter region has an enormous advantage with coal and we are lucky to have high coal prices at the moment. But how efficient is it to have 50 ships sitting off the coast at any time because we have not worked through the efficiencies of the rail link and the whole coal chain? To strengthen the region we have to address the coal chain, the transport infrastructure. We have to apply this policy right across New South Wales. We also have to address impediments to growing country New South Wales. Back in 1993-94 the Standing Committee on State Development, in its review of regional New South Wales, went back to the 1991 report on payroll tax concessions to state what business said was the added cost of doing business in New South Wales, the impediments to being in country New South Wales compared with some of the advantages of being in a major city. The report referred to the added costs documented by one firm—this is particularly important in relation to regional development—as follows:

_ freight inwards (raw materials);

_ freight outwards (finished products);

_ telecommunications;

_ travel and travel time;

_ the lack of competition between local suppliers, resulting in higher prices;

_ downtime due to delays waiting for servicing of failed equipment;

_ lack of local training available;

_ lack of local expert professional advisers;

_ lack of local specialised skills;

_ remoteness of supplies;

_ cost of installation of technology;

_ key personnel being away for extended periods;

_ increased marketing costs;

_ lack of real estate value and return on capital invested in real estate;

_ higher building costs; and

_ equipment hire costs...

According to another company, the additional costs of country location are measurable, as follows;

_ 100% more materials come from Sydney;

_ 100% of production is sent to capital cities;

_ 30% vehicle expenses due to travel outside location;

_ 10% of marketing due to distance from customers;

_ 50% of telephone calls long distance;

_ 10 percent of travel costs to Sydney;

_ 75% equipment hire caused by time taken to and from Sydney;

_ 10% extra building costs; and

_ buildings only 50% of value of equivalent in Sydney...

I take issue with some of those figures because country New South Wales has enormous advantages that must be identified. Since 1991 a great deal of effort has been put into addressing some of those issues, but we still have a long way to go. Regional communities should be strengthened by support for clusters and strategic development of TAFE courses instead of institutionalising cutbacks, the casualisation of teaching positions, the uncertainty about continuation of courses from one year to the next, and the diminution in the number of skilled workers by reduction of the number of colleges and small TAFE centres in country New South Wales. Increased statewide prosperity requires a strong marketing program that talks up the advantages of country and regional New South Wales, picks up on the strengths identified by communities such as Young and West Wyalong and plans for the future by taking those strengths into account.

At the end of the day regional development is all about giving local communities the opportunity to succeed by underpinning the strengths of their communities, providing strong local leadership, addressing impediments such as government red tape, loss of infrastructure, failure to recognise the strengths of local communities, and addressing delays in development applications, as well as a general denial of State government support. The Government should adopt a stronger strategic approach to regional development instead of just providing lip-service from the Minister for Regional Development. More particularly, action that rests on strong financial support and programs that work are required. The Government should not stifle regional development by taking funding away from business enterprise centres, which have been a great success story in regional communities. They have worked well because they have relied upon local knowledge that has allowed local businesses and local networks to flourish.

The Government intends to adopt a much broader regional focus than has been the case previously, and that will result in small towns missing out. Without a proactive approach to business development, that will amount to a net loss to small towns across New South Wales. The framework of this legislation appears to be appropriate, but the bill lacks substance, vision and a strategic approach. Although the Coalition supports the sentiment of the legislation, our concern is that it does not go anywhere near far enough towards realising potential and increasing development and prosperity in regional New South Wales. This legislation presents a great opportunity for the Government to make progress in regional New South Wales, but $1 million here and there will not constitute adequate financial support. I urge the Minister to consider the strategic approach and vision for regional development that have been adopted in Victoria and Queensland. That is what is needed in New South Wales, but that is not what the people of this State are getting from the Carr Government.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.12 p.m.]: Regional development is a pivotal issue for The Nationals and for the New South Wales Opposition in general. We support the Government's initiatives to build strong local and regional economies in country and coastal New South Wales. The Coalition parties are certainly committed to opening up long-term investment opportunities to increase employment and stimulate economic activity throughout this State. It is the view of the Coalition that businesses should be given the tools and environment in which to flourish to enable them to create severely needed jobs and desperately needed growth. The performance of the Carr Labor Government stands in stark contrast to the policy and direction of the Federal Government that is being spearheaded by the Nationals Federal leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson. The Federal Government provides communities and country businesses with the tools they need to flourish.

There is a great deal of potential in rural and regional New South Wales that is just waiting to be unleashed, particularly given the dramatically improved information technology pathways which have been and are being rolled out across the State. Given the appropriate framework, there is a great deal of opportunity for new businesses and for increased activity by existing businesses in non-metropolitan New South Wales. Regional development is an incredibly important topic not only for country New South Wales but also for this State's metropolitan capital city, which is bursting at the seams and struggling to cope with the inward migration of 1,000 people each week, water shortages, housing shortages, traffic congestion and pollution.

I am happy to say that metropolitan conditions, featuring an overburdened Sydney infrastructure, contrast with opportunities that exist in country and coastal New South Wales, and this contrast will be highlighted during Country Week, which will be held at Olympic Park in August this year. That project is supported by many New South Wales local government councils, businesses and the Sustainable Regions Program for which the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, is responsible. For its part, over the past nine years the New South Wales Government has not provided an appropriate framework for regional development either because it does not understand country and coastal New South Wales communities or because it chooses to devote most of its time and resources to Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. As I have stated in this House previously, if ever there was a State government that governs for NSW—that is, Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong—it is the Carr Labor Government. Labor lacks any vision for the future development of the whole of New South Wales, and this bill does nothing towards painting such a vision, let alone delivering on it.
The bill has five main aims. It seeks to enshrine in legislation economic development and employment growth principles for regional New South Wales. It will link financial assistance for regional industry to jobs and investment targets and allow the Department of State and Regional Development to recover money from businesses that default on agreements. It will establish a Regional Development Trust which has been designed as a repository for funds that will be obtained from businesses by applying so-called moral pressure when they close or reduce operations in a rural regional town. The bill will give statutory recognition to the Regional Development Advisory Council and it will repeal the Country Industries Payroll Tax Rebate Scheme.

The object of the bill is to provide a framework for strategic intervention in the economies of regional New South Wales for specified purposes, including the filling of gaps left by the market system, the promotion of economic and employment growth in regions, assisting regional communities to capitalise on their regional strengths, broadening and repositioning the industry base of their regions, developing new products and new markets, and developing regional or local solutions to business problems. It is interesting to note that this bill was introduced after the retirement of the Labor member for Clarence, the Hon. Harry Woods, who used to go by the title Minister for Regional Development. He did not seem to be particularly interested in regional development—not even in the electorate of Clarence, where plenty of opportunity existed for him to undertake some developmental projects. He did not seem to carry much weight in Cabinet. Now New South Wales has a Minister for Regional Development based in the Illawarra, who, during the year he has held that office, has demonstrated little or no influence on Cabinet outcomes or in ameliorating the anticountry and anticoastal policies of the current Labor Government in caucus.

Have we heard the Minister for Regional Development put up a fight on the many issues that are causing outrage across country and coastal New South Wales communities, such as Sydney Labor's decision to close the Murrumbidgee college at Yanco; the policy of amalgamating non-metropolitan area health services, particularly in New England in the northern part of the State, by the Minister for Health; the forced amalgamation of local councils and the consequential loss of jobs across the State; the closure of rail lines such as the Casino to Murwillumbah line and other rail lines that have the dark cloud of uncertainty hanging over them while this Government deliberates; and the merger of agriculture, fisheries, forestry and mining into the Department of Primary Industries, which alone has caused great alarm throughout country New South Wales? The Premier promised the provision of rural impact statements before government decisions affecting non-metropolitan areas were implemented. Such rural impact statements either do not exist or, if they do exist, are kept secret and/or ignored.

In preparing for the introduction of the bill, unfortunately the Government has not formulated or made publicly available any benchmarks against which to measure the success of its regional development policies and programs. The relative success or failure of the policies is therefore left to guesswork. The Government apparently fails to monitor business activity, meaning there are no publicly available short-term, medium-term and long-term trends to indicate, for example, the extent of the departure of businesses from New South Wales to Queensland and Victoria, whose financial tax regimes offer a more attractive investment climate. The Labor Government has from time to time decided to move government offices or agencies to country centres. It has a record of then starving such offices or agencies of resources. A classic example of this is the Firearms Registry, which is located in the Tweed but is bursting at the seams and is underresourced in trying to do the best it can in that important area.

The closure of the railway lines and the dark cloud hanging over the entire country rail system under the Carr Labor Government leaves many people wondering which rail line will be next. The Nationals got hold of a memo from RailCorp which revealed that the Government will shut down at least four grain rail lines across the State. We believe that the Government had, in effect, decided the fate of those lines long before this. In addition, 14 rail jobs at Narrandera are being cut. Coming on top of the decision in relation to the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture, that is a massive blow to the Riverina and the southern area of the State.

The club poker machine tax will cost country and coastal communities millions of dollars a year and cause many job losses in the years to come. It is estimated that 39 jobs will be lost in Bathurst, 40 in Tamworth, 206 in Monaro, 48 in Dubbo, 12 in the Northern Tablelands, 159 in Port Macquarie, 275 in Murray-Darling, and a massive 827 in the Tweed. One can read out those figures rather quickly, but when one adds the impact upon those communities right across the State it is rather devastating. As well, there is Labor's mini-budget brought down a few weeks ago. Again country communities seem to have been hit hard by the large volume of tax increases and budget cuts as a result.

What the Carr Labor Government fails to realise is that not only do regional communities remember an assault of this type but such measures will vastly impact upon regional development, country businesses and jobs. I appreciate that the New South Wales Labor Government is banking on one of the supposed benefits of fixed four-year parliamentary terms that apply to the Parliament of New South Wales: you can offend vast numbers of country and coastal communities and electors in the first year or so of a fixed four-year term, and then hope to goodness that by the time the Scully Government faces the electorate—with Carl Scully, a fresh-faced Premier with some inevitable speeches, distancing himself and his reshuffled ministry from the drift from favour of the Carr Labor Government—electors will be in a better frame of mind approaching the 2007 election and will let the Labor Government sneak back in for a fourth term, saying, "We can do better than Carr did." The Nationals will not let non-metropolitan New South Wales forget what the Labor Government has done.

The mini-budget included the abolition of the land tax threshold, and a new tax on country businesses and property investors. This is a major disincentive for small businesses looking to set up or relocate to country areas. The mini-budget also included a 2.25 per cent stamp duty on the sale of investment properties. This encourages investors to do business in Queensland, affecting jobs in the housing and construction industry, especially in regions like the Tweed. In addition, a slashing of the Roads budget over the next few years will add to the backlog of maintenance work and push the already suffering road network into further decline.

The Minister highlighted the need for private sector contributions to regional development through the Regional Development Trust Fund. Given the Carr Labor Government's slugging of businesses, it will be interesting to see whether businesses are willing to cough up for that fund. The new slug on coal companies, which will net the Government $44 million this year, will hit the competitiveness of the New South Wales coal industry and cost jobs in mining communities. As I said, The Nationals are also concerned about flow-on effects from the merger into a super department of the departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, Mineral Resources and State Forests. The Nationals do not believe that such a major reshaping of a raft of ministries and departments can be done without cutting front-line services and essential research support.

We understand that the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources is cutting approximately 500 jobs, that 600 jobs are going from the new so-called super department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Mineral Resources and State Forests, and that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is also slashing dozens of jobs in country areas. For example, 15 National Parks and Wildlife Service jobs have been cut from Grafton. This is estimated to cost the Grafton community well over $1 million a year. Labor is also planning to sell off the State's forestry assets. The question must be asked: How many jobs will this cost?

Labor's policies are responsible for removing thousands of jobs in country communities, and this has a major downstream effect on local economies. Country people shop locally, engage local tradespeople, and visit the local doctor, thereby making the whole community viable. This certainly stands in stark contrast to the objects of the bill. There needs to be a change in the Government's attitude if the legislation is to be a facilitator of improvements in the Government's performance in relation to regional development, rather than merely a framework for that.

Clause 5 gives the Minister the power to grant financial assistance in the form of a grant of money, a subsidy, or a payroll tax rebate to a person conducting or proposing to establish an industry or other business in the region, or a person or group of persons for the purposes of carrying out an undertaking that is likely to assist the economic development of a region or the object of the Act. The Minister, when making such a decision, may consider the likely impact on the region concerned of granting assistance. Clause 6 provides that the financial assistance granted under the proposed Act may consist of all or any of a grant of money, a subsidy or a payroll tax rebate.

This seems to be inconsistent with the Labor Government slashing business assistance grants and other programs run by the Department of State and Regional Development to the tune of $2.5 million next year, increasing to $6 million in the following years. It also seems inconsistent with the cutting out of business enterprise centres in a number of areas across the State. Under clause 9 a person may be required to repay financial assistance if that was a condition of the assistance in the first place, or if a condition to which the assistance was subject has not been complied with. The Nationals and the Opposition believe that there should be some latitude in the event of a severe general economic downturn or a local economic shock that causes a business to renege on one or more of its conditions. It would be most unfortunate if the Government were to contribute to the demise of a country business by moving in to strictly enforce the agreement when a business is grappling with a major problem that is not of its own making.

Clause 12 of the bill gives statutory recognition to the Regional Development Advisory Council, which is to be made up of the chairs of 13 regional development boards. The council will advise the Minister on any matter he refers to it and will advise also on any other matter it considers relevant to the object of the proposed Act. As it is an advisory body, the Minister may not take note of the recommendations of the council. We support the establishment of a forum for regions to share and learn from each other's experiences; we believe that is a move forward.

Regional Business Development Scheme businesses in Newcastle and Wollongong are eligible for assistance by dilution of the scheme to country areas. In other words, the metropolitan-based Minister for Regional Development is making a significant decision on this issue. The Labor Government is, effectively, redefining country industries by taking that definition from the previous legislation and including metropolitan businesses. Frankly, I think that change reflects the motive of the New South Wales Labor Government, led by Bob Carr and soon to be led by Carl Scully, to redefine "country" to mean Newcastle, Wollongong and Sydney. It further emphasises the Government's Newcastle-Wollongong-Sydney focus.

In his second reading speech the Minister said the Regional Business Development Scheme has an annual $8 million allocation, but in the estimates hearings we will be asking, in light of the mini-budget and the State budget, whether that $8 million a year is guaranteed. We look forward to asking similar questions at that time. Country and coastal communities have not forgotten that in 2000 Labor voted against our private member's bill to give country businesses payroll tax breaks. That bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Ian Armstrong, the member for Lachlan, would have provided an exemption from payroll tax for rural businesses that engage in value-adding primary industries or employ additional workers aged 25 or under. Many country areas in this State have unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment, and that bill would have gone some way to helping ease that situation.

The State Government's performance stands in stark contrast to the Federal Government's performance in regional development. Only recently the Minister for Regional Services, the Hon. John Anderson, released his Regional Partnerships for Growth and Security Statement 2004-2005, which stated that since being elected to office in 1996 the Australian Government—the Howard-Fischer Government and then the Howard-Anderson Government—has focused on building up Australia's competitiveness and prosperity and, as a result, Australia has taken its place as one of the strongest growing economies in the world. Whole-of-government initiatives, such as John Anderson's sustainable regions and regional partnerships programs, continue to provide local leaders and communities with the essential tools to secure the long-term economic future of the regions through decision-making at the local level. In its 2004-2005 budget the Federal Government continued to build on its success with the introduction of major initiatives that will further strengthen Australia's ability to meet future challenges.

Economic stability has been no less important and has been buoyed by low interest rates and the Government's effective trade policy, including bilateral trade agreements with Singapore, Thailand and the United States. I note the division in the Labor Party over the free trade agreement with the United States, and I suppose that sums up the comparison between one side of politics and the other. Of course, the Federal budget reaffirmed the landmark $200 million for a basin-wide strategic approach to water overallocation in the Murray-Darling basin and, following that, the historic water agreement was finalised at the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting last Friday. That was an historic day not only for Australia but also for John Anderson and The Nationals in securing property rights for country people. The agreement will have a tremendous impact, not only for primary producers and their families but also for the communities which service them. The national water initiative, which John Anderson has envisioned and has now delivered, is the pathway forward for the sustainable use of our most precious resource: water.

Another focus of the Federal budget was education, and one of the issues of concern to The Nationals is that primary and secondary students in country schools are falling behind in mathematics and science. The Federal Leader of The Nationals, John Anderson, has announced that $4.5 million of funding over three years will be allocated to the establishment of a national centre for mathematics, science and information technology teaching at the University of New England in Armidale to enhance the professional development of rural and regional-based teachers of mathematics, science and information technology. That, in turn, will have a positive flow-on for rural and regional students. That is a fantastically important regional development initiative because it will improve the teaching of mathematics, science and information technology for country students. It will allow them to catch up and take advantage of the better information technology that is provided to non-metropolitan areas and, therefore, give them even greater chances to stay in country areas, to set up their own businesses and to grow our country and coastal communities.

Over the past several days I and my Nationals colleagues have been in Dubbo attending the 2004 annual State conference of the party. I can assure the House that, notwithstanding the bill, which we endorse, we can see all the gaps in the performance of the Labor Government in the past nine years and we would ask that the Government pick up its act and learn from the delivery of regional development programs by The Nationals federally. Certainly they have given us the lead. John Anderson has been following the latest regional science advances in his capacity as Minister for Regional Services, and I do not think there could be any greater contrast than a comparison of the Federal Minister's performance with the poor performances of Harry Woods and the current Minister in New South Wales.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.36 p.m.]: The Northern Rivers is a region of incredible natural beauty containing some of the most fertile agricultural assets in Australia. Our closest capital city is Brisbane, which is barely one hour's drive from the Tweed. With a population of 262,000 we have 30,000 small businesses—a staggering number. Most of our telephone book is made up of Yellow Pages: 97 per cent of those businesses have less than 20 employees, and 70 per cent are home-based. Without small business the unemployment problem in our region would be absolutely horrendous. Our economy and society is heavily dependent on small business, so it defies belief that the Carr Government would have defunded the business enterprise centres in Lismore and Grafton. Their work has been highly valued, especially by younger people moving into our area, whose only means of finding work is to start up their own businesses.

It is fair to say that the announcements last week were greeted with a fair measure of disbelief in our local community. The reason so many people are self-employed will become clear when I tell the House that the three largest employers in the Lismore area, for example, are the area health service, the university and the council. The largest private employer in the region is the meat co-operative in Casino, and then there are the mega clubs in Tweed, which employ several thousand people directly or indirectly. With the exception of the Casino co-operative, the biggest employers are taxpayer-funded services and the clubs.

The State Government's approach to regional development in the Northern Rivers in recent months has been to axe the Lismore and Lower Clarence business enterprise centres, to abandon the WorkCover office in Tweed and to run all WorkCover activities in the region with a single, jack-of-all-trades officer based in Lismore. The Government has sliced hundreds of jobs out of national parks and agriculture, axed our only rail service and abandoned our 110-year-old railway line, leaving it to die of neglect, in order to fund a $2 billion investment in Sydney's rail system. It has ripped tens of millions of dollars out of our clubs and, as a consequence, from community groups, in order to fund major projects in Sydney and Newcastle, and it has imposed new land taxes on thousands of self-funded retirees who have moved to our area as part of the sea change, in order to fund tax breaks for big developers building towers and blocks of units in Sydney.

The State Government has also permanently delayed road construction projects such as the Ballina bypass in order to fund losses on mega freeway developments in Sydney. It has overlooked other infrastructure needs such as Murwillumbah police station, which is infested with termites and in dire need of repair. What State development strategies has this Government put in place for tourism and business travel? Our local airports are in a state of chaos. Casino airport has been closed permanently, Grafton airport is barely functioning, and Macair Airline is yet another airline that has gone into liquidation. Ballina airport is now starting to recover, but it is still functioning at a fraction of its capacity during the Ansett era. Lismore airport has the excellent services of Regional Express Airlines.

We are still suffering greatly as a result of fact that Tourism New South Wales is only promoting the Gold Cost airport. This Government has written off all the local New South Wales airports. Last year's Tourism New South Wales map of the Northern Rivers area showed the Gold Coast airport as the only airport that was being promoted. Grafton city is not even on the map. Perhaps it was a paper cutting error. If another three millimetres had been permitted on the southern part of the New South Wales map, thus reducing the Queensland map by three millimetres, Grafton could have been included in its rightful place at the southern end of our region.

In the last mini-budget the Carr Government canned funding for sewerage programs—a huge blow to Evans Head and Byron Bay councils who are trying to upgrade their systems. Byron shire, which has 1.7 million visitors per annum, urgently needs a $22 million upgrade of its west Byron sewerage plant. In recent months those are the State and regional development initiatives that this Government has presented to our region. How will the bill provide the basic services that are being cut out of this area and the rest of the region? What will the bill do to reverse all the damage that this Government has inflicted on us in only a few months? I quote from a letter to the editor written by Neville Jennings of Kingscliff and published in the Daily News on 4 April 2004. The letter states:

The cowardly Carr Government likes to cut and run. It issued missive after missive from Sydney increasing taxes and cutting services, but I do not believe that it has the guts to come to the Northern Rivers region and face the victims of its heartless mismanagement. In the past Premier Bob Carr has been a frequent visitor to Byron Bay. Apparently he discovered a masseur there that he likes. The last time we saw him was on 4 March, standing on the famous Byron Bay beach known as The Pass. He cut a curious picture on the sand, standing in front of a powered lectern with his suit pants rolled up to the knees. I suppose that he felt silly with his pants rolled up and his shoes still on, so he took them off. I was worried because although he had launched a five-year Slip Slop Slap campaign he had forgotten to wear his hat.

The Carr Government's Slip Slop Slap campaign is well understood by people in the Northern Rivers region as being a campaign that has little to do with sunshine. The Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, was also present at The Pass, but he was more sensibly attired in shorts, a stripy Lacoste-style T-shirt and a baseball hat. Everyone was wearing shoes except the Premier and the Minister, who presumably loyally removed his footwear to keep the Premier company. The Premier stood on that beach at Byron Bay, made an announcement that New South Wales would become a world leader in shark conservation, and then he was off.

The Premier offered no help to alleviate the town's sewerage problems or its traffic congestion. Indeed, we saw the opposite: a few days later rail services were axed. The Premier was not concerned about the housing and justice issues that plague the town. People who live in Byron Bay with their kids—they are not tourists—want a fair go like everybody else. Where is this Government's regional development strategy? Where are its country Cabinet meetings? Where is Labor in the bush? The Premier has not been back to Byron Bay, and we do not expect him back. He wagged Country Labor's conference in Bathurst, but at least Bathurst still has its train. People on the North Coast have no hope of getting him back to face the music. No wonder they have no respect for this Government.

The sheer hollowness of the bill is a metaphor for the Carr Government's tokenism and failings and its arrogance and heartlessness towards the bush. It has no vision and it has no understanding of what is occurring outside marginal Sydney seats. This legislation is printed as though it is a bill. It has a crest and large, official font on its cover page, but its provisions are empty. Half of the 10 or so provisions are administrative; they do no more than reformat little-used regulations into legislative provisions. In fewer than half a dozen clauses the bill will establish a fund for businesses that want to cut jobs and ease their withdrawal from the economy by dipping into a new charity called rural and regional New South Wales. That is the Government's grand plan for non-metropolitan New South Wales.

During recent rail inquiries a witness commented that, so far as he could see, under the Carr Government, NSW stood for nepotism, stupidity and waste. Needless to say, that statement was greeted with instant applause from the 100 members in the public gallery, who listened to the evidence with such intensity that one could have heard a pin drop. The bill angers me. It is dressed up to look like a Rolls-Royce initiative, but it has no motor or steering wheel. Anyone who tries to enter the vehicle finds that the doors are locked to prevent entry. It is a cruel hoax on rural and regional New South Wales.

There are many definitions of regional New South Wales. I note that the bill defines "regional New South Wales" as including places such as Wollongong and Western Sydney, which is interesting. My definition is simple. We have two populations. One population is served by electric rail and can access education, jobs and services in Sydney. The second population, the rest of us, are invisible on the Government's political radar. The budget has been totally politicised and the Government has dropped its priorities for equitable funding and with it our impossible dream of equitable access to services. It seems as though we are near invisible on Sydney's media radar. If the Sydney media does not address an issue the State Government simply will not consider it.

Our infrastructure—particularly water, transport and health—is breaking under the strain. The Carr Government does not care. We receive below per capita funding in every area. The Government's solution is to abolish per capita funding measures. When our businesses are compared with businesses in Queensland we find that our businesses are loaded with huge costs. CountryLink, having abandoned all rail jobs in the area and infrastructure that has been the backbone of our region, has rubbed salt into the wound by awarding a $1.5 million bus contract to a Queensland bus company. The Carr Government's policies are making our businesses uncompetitive.

The Government has awarded to Queensland businesses tens of millions of dollars worth of tenders and contracts for buildings and services. Hardly any of our tax dollars are coming to us; they are flying north to a gloating and appreciative Queensland. The Minister for Commerce, when replying to my questions on this issue, shrugged his shoulders and endorsed the Carr Government's deliberate failure to support local business. Where is the Government's regional development strategy and local procurement policy? Where is the fairness for New South Wales? Why is the Government pouring millions of tax dollars into Queensland?

If we all did that, not a single private job would be left in the entire Northern Rivers region. This bill does not help real people with the real problems that they confront on a daily basis. After nine years of promises and spin it is not good enough that it all comes down to a few recycled regulations that expand the definition of "regional" to include the greater Sydney area, presumably to make the record look better than it is or deserves to be. This insipid, limp, wishy-washy, one-dimensional, pitiful excuse for a regional development strategy reflects to a tee the attitude of the Government to regional Australia. It is not good enough, Mr Carr; it is not good enough, Mr Egan. The Opposition does not oppose the bill for the simple reason that there is nothing in it for us to oppose.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.50 p.m.]: The Hon. Catherine Cusack certainly hit the nail on the head. Reading the Regional Development Bill is a bit like passing through a small country town: one blink and you will miss it. The member's speech prompted me to have another look at the bill. I flicked through the pages but can now remember nothing about them. Although the motivation of the Minister for Regional Development is admirable, as previous Coalition speakers in this debate have said, the bill does not achieve its stated aim. It is yet more smoke and mirrors from the New South Wales Government.

The Greens certainly support regional development. We want rural and regional New South Wales to thrive. As I have said many times in this place, I come from northern New South Wales, which has the sort of balanced development that we support. Some fantastic business initiatives in my local region—from tea tree oil production to the Rainbow Power Company's alternative energy options—have rejuvenated the area. They generate small-scale but significant export business. They employ local people and really go for it. The Thursday Island Plantation at Ballina, for example, has a tourist spin-off. Tourists visit the plantation to look and to buy and it is the venue for painting and sculpture exhibitions. It is just one example of the sort of rejuvenation that has occurred in a once-declining rural community.

When I first went to the area in 1970 it was a time of downturn in the dairy industry, and the rural community was suffering. Byron Bay was a whaling town, then an abattoir town and it is now the icon tourist area of New South Wales. Yet Tourism New South Wales continues to insist on spending money on advertising Byron Bay, the lighthouse and Byron shire—money that could be spent in other regional areas that need a tourism boost. Byron Bay does not need it but many other towns in the region do. I have repeatedly asked representatives of Tourism New South Wales and the office of the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation why they insist on calling the region "tropical New South Wales" when it is subtropical. It is false advertising, but they like the sound of it. Why do they continue to promote Byron shire when local services are at breaking point and cannot cope with current tourist numbers? As the Hon. Catherine Cusack said, 1.7 million tourists visit Byron shire every year. That is a major issue.

While the Government has reaped significant benefits from tourism and land tax payments from rapidly escalating property prices, it has given little back to the infrastructure of local towns. Byron Shire Council is emerging only now from deep debt—it has been in debt since about 1991—and many other regional councils are also having great difficulty coping financially. People want to make a sea change and move to regional New South Wales but the Government's actions prevent many from relocating. It is difficult for people to find employment in the region. Much of our agriculture has become agribusiness and those who worked on the thousands of small holdings that are now huge corporate holdings have lost their jobs. There have been massive job losses in the local community.

There seems to be a lack of focus on successful local enterprises that have the capacity to rejuvenate rural communities. I may have spoken before in the House about a farmer from Wellington—the Hon. Tony Kelly knows him—who gave evidence to the State Development Committee about sustainable agriculture. He told us how his son returned from agricultural college and suggested that the family explore biodynamic and organic farming. His organic and biodynamic beef farming venture proved so successful that he began exporting beef to Japan by the container load. His daughter returned to the farm to run a guesthouse for Japanese and other Asian businessmen who wanted to see where the wonderful food was produced. So the whole family was employed once again on the farm. The Greens certainly support that type of activity, which can offer people an exceptional quality of life.

I live in a growing, but nevertheless relatively small, coastal community but I also spend time in the big city. I know where I prefer to be and where many of my friends like to spend time: in the country. The Greens believe our only chance of breathing life back into the rural and regional areas of Australia lies in trying to heal our life-support systems: the land and the water. It goes without saying that legislation passed recently by Parliament will have a detrimental effect, particularly on fragile western areas, water supplies and the health of our river systems. That, in turn, will make it difficult to build trust and provide security, support and a reasonable lifestyle for people in rural areas.

Several weeks ago in Parliament House I hosted a forum on water. One of the speakers at the forum was Michael Anderson, a facilitator of the Kamilaroi and Uralarai people. Michael moved many in the audience when he talked about the connection between Aboriginal people and country. They see their bodies as being part of the land. The land is totemic and they believe there is a relationship between the sickness afflicting so many Aboriginal people and the sickness afflicting the land. Aboriginal communities in country areas do it extremely tough. The Government would be well advised to explore education, health and employment opportunities for Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people argue—and I have made this point in the House—that when we have healthy river systems we have lower crime rates. Aborigines have had their basic rights and their natural environment stripped away, which creates an imbalance in the community.

Interestingly, in his second reading speech in the other place the Minister did not mention the environment. He is keen to support all kinds of developments but does not think the environment in which these developments occur is worth a mention. The Minister boasts that the New South Wales Government is "not afraid to intervene in the market system where it has failed". That claim contrasts starkly to the slavish adherence to competition policy that apparently drives other processes, such as supposed water reform, where the market rules at the expense of the environment. I foreshadow that I will move in Committee an amendment on behalf of the Greens. It will seek to amend the objects of the legislation and it will place no legislative requirement on the Minister or the department. However, it will put the environment in the picture and require development to be promoted in such a way as to maintain and enhance the natural value of regions in accordance with environmentally sustainable development principles.

The Greens have consistently called for appropriate development that will enhance the local community in regional New South Wales. We do not want to sacrifice the very environment that is so fragile in order to pave the way for a development that is not necessarily supported by the majority of the community. With regional development we want to attract more settlers to the many areas throughout New South Wales. There is an opportunity to encourage people to enjoy a certain quality of life in communities that are suffering today but will develop with an influx of new settlers and residents. I am reminded of some Afghan refugees who are working and integrating very well in communities in the western areas of the State. They are finding peace in their new lifestyle with the hope of bringing to Australia other members of their families from war-torn homelands. They inject new blood into the local communities and are prepared to work hard for farmers in those local communities. The Greens are concerned about the communities who have been suffering for quite some time because of the drought. Water is such a scarce commodity—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

RAIL SERVICES

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Does the Minister recall a press statement dated 26 February 1997 that was issued by his predecessor Brian Langton which stated:

Why does the Minister ignore that pledge by his Government and walk away from the very same people of rural and regional New South Wales?

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I notice you have one friend here now. Don't lose him.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My new what?

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: A new friend. You've got one friend here now—don't lose him.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He doesn't have any friends anywhere. He wants to abolish the upper House, but he couldn't win a seat in the lower House.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am happy to abolish the upper House. The Treasurer and I support the abolition of the upper House. It would be a very sensible move. It would save taxpayers a lot of money and it would get rid of a lot of dead wood.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Resign!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Madam President, do you know why they want us to resign? Because they know as well as I do that a vote is required to abolish the upper House, and I tell them that I will be here to vote on that question. The Opposition cannot get away with that one. I will be here to vote against them. I know that we have had to extend the sittings of Parliament for a week, and that probably accounts for the Leader of the Opposition running out of good questions to ask me—it may be that the Daily Telegraph has not provided him with some information, as it usually does, for his questions—but this is the most absurd question the Leader of the Opposition has ever asked me. How a Coalition member would quote a former Labor transport Minister talking about the restitution of rail services after a Coalition Government decimated country rail services in this State is beyond me!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that in that press release Brian Langton was referring to all of the cuts to rail services made by the Coalition. The Coalition Government was responsible for cutting the Northern Mail, the Western Mail, the North Coast overnight express, the Canberra express, the express day service to Canberra and Monaro, the Orange and Lithgow day service and the day return services from Sydney to Bathurst. The Coalition also cut trains on the Werris Creek line, the Gold Coast motor rail, the Grafton XPT, the daily Canberra XPT and the Canberra express diesel train. I am astounded that a member of the Opposition would ask me a question relating to what a former Labor transport Minister said about rail cuts made by a Coalition Government. I find it particularly staggering at a time when the Government is investing $2.5 billion in rail—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: In the city!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: —and, as the Opposition should know, the Government is also enhancing the rail operating budget to the tune of about an additional $350 million. In addition, we negotiated the Australian Rail Track Corporation deal that is leading to approximately $1.3 billion being invested in the country rail network.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: That's Federal money.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is taxpayers' money.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It's Federal money, thanks to John Anderson.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is the money of New South Wales taxpayers. Where does the Opposition think that revenue comes from? Does the Howard Government run the printing press and issue the dollars? No, it does not. It taxes people in New South Wales—and, as the Treasurer has pointed out on many occasions, the taxpayers of New South Wales pay well and truly more than their fair share of the tax, and they do not get much of that back. That is the reason for the problems we are facing in terms of the provision of services under a fiscal arrangement that is clearly inadequate and iniquitous for New South Wales. I am very happy to have been asked this question because it has given me the opportunity to again point out that the Coalition when in government cut more rail services in New South Wales than any other government.

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL INQUIRY

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. What is the Government's response to the second report of the public inquiry into Liverpool council?

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: This question is out of order, given that the Government's response to the development has been to introduce new policy. Clearly the question asks the Minister to announce a new policy. I know that because this new policy has been referred to in the media. The Minister ought to be making a ministerial statement, not setting up an opportunity in response to a question to announce a new policy. I ask that the question be ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is true that questions may not ask for a statement or announcement of government policy. The question should be reworded.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AGENCIES RESTRUCTURE

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that a spokesperson from his office was quoted in the Australian Financial Review last Friday as saying that I pulled the figure of 325 job losses from the Department of Primary Industries merger out of thin air? Is the Minister further aware that the 2004-05 Budget Paper No. 3, volume 2, clearly states that there will be 310 fewer agriculture jobs and 15 fewer fisheries jobs than there were last year, totalling 325 job losses, as I stated, for this financial year? Why is the Minister misleading the media and the public about job losses when the Government has spelt them out in black and white in its budget papers?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member is quite correct when he said that Budget Paper No. 3 mentions approximately 310 to 325 job losses, but we have to remember that there is considerable distance between cup and lip in terms of the proposal.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So the budget papers are not right; is that what you are saying?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I am not saying that. The Treasurer made it clear that there was a series of steps to be taken to meet the savings cuts proposed in the budget. They include some revenue-raising propositions that, of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is missing entirely. But I have something even more interesting than the question asked by the Hon. Duncan Gay about which I will comment.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: On the subject of relevance—

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I haven't even said what it is.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Minister did not need to. He led with his chin; he said, "I have something more interesting than the question asked by the Hon. Duncan Gay". Clearly, that indicates that what he is about to say is out of order in terms of relevance to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I need to hear what the Minister has to say before I can rule whether it is in order.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Last Thursday Mr Piccoli in the other Chamber made the mistake of contributing to debate on the budget based on what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in this House on Thursday night—rather prematurely—in the adjournment debate.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is clearly out of order. He is talking about a so-called secret meeting when the question was specifically about the Minister and the Minister's spokeswoman misleading the House and the public on 325 job losses. On more than one occasion I have indicated to the Minister that if he wants to make a ministerial statement on any of this material I am more than willing to pin my ears back and take him on.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: What I am going to read out is clearly relevant to the budget. As a consequence I should be given the opportunity provided by this Chamber of informing not only members of this House but also, through Hansard, the staff across the whole of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Although, traditionally, members are allowed some latitude with regard to general comment when answering questions, I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It's about misleading the media.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no misleading the media involved in this. The plain fact is that the proposal put forward by the department last Thursday is being discussed with the unions and staff.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about you saying that I pulled the number out of the air? Answer that!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I never said the honourable member pulled a number out of the air.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, you did.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Your office did.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. Rick Colless said my office did. That is another issue. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying I said it. The plain fact is that the final figure to be determined will be made after we have considerable negotiations—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, the budget is quite specific.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The budget does not set the exact number.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes it does.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It does not set an exact number. It is an indicative figure suggested by Treasury. It may be more or less. That situation is dependent upon negotiations with the unions and the staff.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. In light of that answer, is the Minister aware that during his watch the budget papers indicate that there has been a total loss of 450 staff in the two years that he has been Minister. Does the Minister and his spokeswoman need remedial attention in learning how to read the budget papers?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, we certainly do not. The plain fact is that it is an indicative figure in the budget papers. But there is a long way to go in terms of negotiations in relation to the restructure. We cannot put any figure on it at this stage. The honourable member is jumping up and down, scaring staff, about an indicative figure. The final figure will be determined after a process of negotiation—totally and utterly!

BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRES

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Local Government, representing the Minister for Small Business. What is the reason for the decision to withdraw contracts from 32 building enterprise centres in regional New South Wales and to concentrate all building enterprise centre [BEC] activities in just 18 super centres? In particular, why is the contract of the Hastings BEC at Port Macquarie not being renewed and why is that BECs activities being transferred to Coffs Harbour? Is the Minister aware that Port Macquarie has one of the highest growth rates in the State, and is he concerned that the accompanying expansion of business will be seriously hampered if people must make a five-hour round trip to Coffs Harbour to seek advice and assistance from the new super BEC? Given that Hastings, with a rapidly growing population of more than 72,000 already, is on the way to becoming the largest regional centre between Newcastle and the Queensland border, will the Minister reconsider the withdrawal of support from the Port Macquarie BEC?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the question is detailed and requires a detailed answer, I will refer the question to the Minister responsible and obtain an answer as soon as practicable.

POULTRY MEAT INDUSTRY

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. What is the latest information on the status of the poultry meat industry in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: On several occasions recently in this House I have highlighted the plight of the New South Wales poultry meat industry, which has come under attack from a range of fronts in recent years. Most recently, honourable members will recall the decision by the National Competition Council [NCC] to penalise the State Government over protection measures for growers contained in the Poultry Meat Industry Act.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That was because of your ineptitude. You did not do the job properly.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is nonsense. Coming on top of the drought and rising grain prices, this was one more burden that poultry meat producers did not need. As I said at the time, the New South Wales poultry meat industry showed extraordinary unity and determination in the face of this very serious threat. As opposed to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who blundered his way through Parliament and estimates committee hearings, not realising that it is the department that is charged with reviewing the Act, I have been very active on this issue. Indeed, the honourable member's questioning suggests that he did not understand or was ignorant—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You didn't do a thing. You wrote half a page. I organised the meetings.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member did not organise the meetings. We organised the meetings. We had meetings with them.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We organised the meetings that saved your tail. You are hopeless.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member said nothing. At the time this issue was raised he said nothing, as usual. Any time anything happens with the Federal Government, the honourable member supports the Federal Government. We did the work.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are hopeless! You get the pay, we do the work.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You did nothing. In fact, it was the New South Wales farmers who did the work with us. The honourable member did nothing.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's why New South Wales farmers congratulated me, not you.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is not right. Indeed, the honourable member's questioning suggests that he did not understand or was ignorant of the fact that there were separate processes at the State and Federal levels, one being a State-level national competition policy review and the other being an assessment by the NCC. It is ridiculous to suggest or expect that NSW Agriculture would have made submissions to its own reviews. It had representatives on the respective review groups and its staff provided secretariat services to the reviews.

It is nonsense for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to jump in and suggest that he has done anything significant in relation to this issue. The honourable member can talk to all of the poultry producers, because they believe he is hopeless. He said nothing at the time and he has said nothing since, except to try to claim credit for something he did not do. Fortunately, as a result of the initiatives I took, with the support of the New South Wales Farmers Association, I was able to get the National Competition Council to suspend any further penalties on the State until a further independent review could be conducted.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you table its press release?

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased to say that this review is now well under way and is being conducted in consultation with all affected parties, including the NCC. I look forward to updating honourable members as to its results in due course. Growers hope that this review will once again offer them the opportunity to plan for their future. However, the real key here is that they have a right to expect Federal agriculture Minister Warren Truss and his colleagues to nurture the poultry meat industry in New South Wales, rather than try to destroy it. Instead, the Federal Government appears to be drawing battle lines along an entirely new front and rolling out its dangerous weapons of mass agricultural destruction. It is with great regret that I again utter the words "Biosecurity Australia" and "import risk assessments" [IRAs]. And it is coming.

Those are five little words but already they have caused so much anguish for thousands of growers in the pig meat, apple, pear and banana industries. The writing is on the wall for 815 pork producers after the Federal Government accepted Biosecurity Australia's import risk assessments for pig meat. Apple and pear growers are now anxiously waiting for news after submissions into IRAs closed last week.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was clearly about the poultry meat industry. The Minister is now talking about the apple, pear and any other industry except the poultry industry. Clearly he is not being relevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the answer must be relevant to the question asked.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I draw this to the attention of the House to put the Federal Government on notice that if this IRA does surface—and the industry believes it will—we will join with growers in waging another strong protest campaign. This would be the first time that raw chicken meat has been imported into this country in at least the last 50 years. Indeed, our stringent quarantine laws have even prevented cooked chicken meat from being imported, because of the high risk of disease. There is good, scientific reason for this, and it is related to the findings of a report released by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service in August 1998, which is the basis of the official protocol for the importation of cooked chicken meat into Australia. The report identified a range of stringent protocols as being necessary to prevent cooked chicken meat from bringing disease into Australia.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How much cooked chicken is coming from Thailand?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Very little, if any.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Actually, none.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Well, close to it. These protocols included recommending that chicken meat should be cooked for 125 minutes at 80 degrees to kill infectious bursal disease. The report has never been challenged internationally, for example, through the World Trade Organisation. The final AQIS protocols reflect research carried out by Dr Dennis Alexander, an expert at the central veterinarian laboratory at Weighbridge in the United Kingdom. Nor have any countries been able to meet those protocols in order to gain access to our market. The fear is now that a draft IRA could lead to the broad-scale importation of raw chicken meat from all potential exporting countries, including the United States of America, Brazil, the European Union and Thailand. Will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sit back and say nothing—as he did with all of the previous IRAs that have been released? He said absolutely nothing about any of those IRAs. He has not been helping the banana, pork or apple and pear industries. He sits back and does nothing about any of those matters. That is why The Nationals, at a conference last week, were seen as the most irrelevant mob in this city. [Time expired.]

OVERSEAS-QUALFIED DOCTORS RETRAINING

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister advise the House of the number of non-practising overseas-qualified doctors currently residing in New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that a significant proportion of those doctors are willing to be retrained and up-skilled in order to qualify to practise in New South Wales? Is the Minister also aware that some of those doctors are said to be suitable for practice in hospital settings, under supervision, in regional New South Wales? What educational or retraining programs and recruitment initiatives is the New South Wales Government providing to utilise this untapped resource in our areas of need, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The question deals with a specific set of issues, and I will refer it to the Minister for Health and obtain an answer as soon as practicable.

SOUTH-WESTERN SYDNEY ADOLESCENT RESPITE CARE SERVICES

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Why has the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care announced that its respite centre in Gibbs Street, Bradbury, will close for clients aged 12 to 18 years from 1 July 2004? If, as is widely expected, the nearby Wesley Mission facility at Bow Bowing adopts a similar policy, will the only available option for families in south-western Sydney seeking centre based respite care for young people be at Georges Hall, about 30 kilometres away? As the Bradbury centre is the second respite centre for young people that the Minister's department has closed this month, does the Minister plan to open any such centres? Will the Minister act on the promise made to the honourable member for Campbelltown and to me by the former Minister for Community Services to open a purpose-built respite centre for adolescents in south-western Sydney?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member has raised an important issue about respite services. However, with regard to the particular facility that he mentioned, I will have to seek more information and come back to the honourable member, because at this point I am not completely familiar with the circumstances of that centre. Nonetheless, this Government has certainly recognised that respite services are a priority, both by way of improved funding and the way the services are delivered, because many parents are now saying that what they really want is the flexibility to use respite funding in a range of ways that suits their own needs and the needs and goals of their children or young people.

This Government has significantly increased respite funding since it came to office. As recently as the budget before that handed down last week, the Government announced another increase in respite funds, particularly targeted at young people who need respite services. That was $3.2 million recurrent to provide additional respite, with the full-year effect to take place in the 2004-05 financial year. That funding will provide an additional 400 flexible respite places for young people with a disability and their carers, and that will be delivered each year. The Government has doubled respite funding since 1996, and there is a total investment of over $132 million in 2003-04. Nonetheless, the honourable member has raised a particular matter, and I undertake to obtain some further advice about that centre and come back to him with more information.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. The Minister referred to flexible respite. Does that mean it is now the policy of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care to substitute flexible respite places for centre-based respite care?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Not at all. That is not what I said. I made the point that in the most recent enhancement of funding for respite services $3.2 million was allocated to provide 400 additional flexible respite options. We focused on flexible respite, because that is what we are hearing parents want. The reality is that parents need a range of services. Sometimes centre-based respite will suit, and sometimes flexible respite will suit. It will depend on the needs of the individual child. For a child with autism, for example, in-home respite may well be far more appropriate than going to a different environment each time. For other needs that children have, centre-based respite might be more appropriate, because those centres will have qualified staff who can deal with the high support needs that a child might have.

I do not think it could be in any way inferred from my answer that we were replacing centre-based respite with flexible-based respite. I simply make the point that we need both options, and the most recent Government enhancement was focused on flexible respite. As I have already indicated, the Government has significantly increased funding for respite services, and there has been a significant reduction in blocked respite beds since the Government made this a priority commitment on coming to office in 1995.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House about Sydney's position as the leading State in information and communications technology?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Sydney continues to act as a magnet for international information and communications technology companies and their investment. A recent article in the Business Review Weekly highlighted the top 20 foreign information technology companies operating in Australia. I am pleased to inform the House that 18 of those 20 companies have their Australian bases in Sydney. Another recent report by KPMG ranked Australia as the best place in the developed world to base software development operations. The New South Wales information and communications technology industry generates more than $31 billion a year in turnover and employs around 100,000 people. That is about 43 per cent of Australia's total information and communications technology work force.

In recent times Sydney has secured a number of very significant information and communications technology investment projects, including: multinational company RedDot Solutions, which will open a new office in Sydney to better serve Australian and New Zealand customers; Japanese technology firm MetaBit, which will establish a regional headquarters in Sydney—an investment worth $2.1 million and involving some 10 to 20 jobs; Coca-Cola Amatil having selected Avaya Australia, whose head office is at North Ryde, to provide technology valued at $1.5 million for a national contact centre that has been constructed at St Leonards; a leading anti-spam company, Brightmail of San Francisco, which also has announced multimillion dollar plans for an Asia Pacific regional headquarters in Sydney; and the British telecommunications firm Marconi, which has opened a research and development and customer laboratory in Sydney, where it hopes to employ 100 engineers within five years. It is pleasing that Sydney is at the forefront of the nation in this important sector.

DIVISION OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES DNA TESTING

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General and the Minister for Police. Is the Treasurer aware that DNA testing at the Division of Analytical Laboratories at Lidcombe is delaying the investigation of certain crimes because of the backlog of forensic material to be tested? Is the Treasurer aware that the techniques used by the Division of Analytical Laboratories to identify DNA profiles is not state of the art, and that better technologies are available elsewhere? Will the Treasurer indicate to the House whether the Cold Case Review Squad, comprising nine Homicide Squad detectives and recently set up by Commissioner Moroney, will be given access to DNA testing services provided by the Division of Analytical Laboratories, or will additional services be made available?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In relation to the first question, I am not aware of the matter he raised. In relation to the second question, I am also not aware of it. In relation to the third question, no, I cannot give him the information he seeks. In fact, in relation to all four parts of the question, I will try to ascertain an answer from the Minister and provide it to the House in due course.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ADOLESCENT SERVICES

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What role, if any, is the Department of Community Services [DOCS] playing in the Department of Education and Training's $17 million program to establish 35 behaviour schools, 40 tutorial centres and 20 suspension centres? Is it a fact that many of the children who will attend these centres are aged 8 to 16, exhibit serious behaviour disorders, and are highly likely to be already known to her department? Is the program really a desperate response by the Department of Education and Training to address problems it faces resulting from the withdrawal by DOCS of services for adolescent children to address family and behaviour problems?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I find the question extraordinary. I am not sure whether the Hon. Catherine Cusack realises it, but the Department of Community Services has never had responsibility for the education of children in its care. The honourable member might not feel that those children are entitled to the same sort of educational opportunities as every other child in the State, but other people in this House would find that reprehensible. As the honourable member well knows, often children in care have been through horrific circumstances; that is why they come into care. One thing that can make a substantial difference to the outcomes of a child in care is keeping a connection to education, just like any other kid. In fact, more so for children in care—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is not a children in care question.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The children for whom the Department of Community Services has responsibility are, in large part, children in care. If the Hon. Catherine Cusack is not talking about children in care, I am not quite sure whom she is talking about. Nonetheless, I will go back to what I was saying. Education services for children in care are particularly important because they can provide an opportunity for stability in a child's life, they can provide the obvious opportunity for a child to develop self-esteem and confidence and, of course, can give the child the opportunity to develop the skills needed to make a success of his or her life. Educational opportunities for children in care are critical. No doubt, any number of children who have had contact with the Department of Community Services will be in the new centres that the Department of Education and Training has announced, as will other kids who are outside the responsibility of the Department of Community Services.

We should not assume that every child in care is going to need extra support. Some kids in care will make it through the education system like any other kid and will not need extra support. But many children in care experience disrupted schooling plus a range of issues that stem from their experiences and the reasons they are in care. For those kids some extra support will be needed, and they may be some of the children who will be in these new centres. If the honourable member is talking about children who come into contact with the Department of Community Services but who are not in care, the issue remains the same: the education of those children is still the responsibility of the Department of Education and Training. DOCS and the Department of Education and Training work closely on a whole range of initiatives and will continue to do so. Obviously, that is critical to get the best outcomes for children and young people in New South Wales. Certainly that relationship needs to be close, for children in care. The Department of Community Services and the Department of Education and Training are exploring the development of a memorandum of understanding so that they can further improve their outcomes for children in care.

I fail to see the point of the honourable member's question because, quite clearly, the Department of Education and Training has acknowledged that some children will struggle in the mainstream school system for a period of time. They have set up an alternative process. I am only going by what I saw in media reports, but they made it very clear that they regarded this as a transition phase and that the children would then move back into the mainstream school system. I applaud that. That is what we want to achieve. The Department of Community Services will work closely with them in whatever way it can, as we do on a range of other initiatives that bring our two agencies together, such as Schools As Community Centres.

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL INQUIRY

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. Has the inquiry into Liverpool City Council issued its second report? If so, what are the results?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is mark II.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is mark II. Today the second report of the public inquiry into Liverpool City Council has been released. The Commissioner, Professor Maurie Daly, found that it was primarily the council's inability to deal with a public-private partnership [PPP] the size of the Woodward Park precinct that led to its errors. We want to ensure that, in future, councils do not make the same mistakes. The report outlines a range of measures for improving the way in which major projects are formulated, developed and set up. In response to the report of the Government we will seek to amend the Local Government Act to regulate the involvement of councils in public-private partnerships.

The changes will affect those worth more than $30 million, or 25 per cent of the total annual revenue of the council, whichever is less. For any project of this size the following steps will be required: establishing the need for the infrastructure or services related to the overall objectives of councils, establishing whether the proposal is in the public interest, providing checks and balances to ensure that public interest is protected, ensuring that the public-private partnership provides value for money, establishing a business case, undertaking risk analysis, developing a profit plan to ensure transparency and accountability at all stages, informing and involving the local community, providing a competitive neutrality by councils in selecting private sector partners, ensuring that contractual arrangements are fair to both public and private partners, and having adequate reporting and appraisal mechanisms.

An independent committee will be created to assess the viability of the project and the capacity of the council to enter into such public-private partnerships. This assessment is necessary to protect the public interest. It would focus solely on the capacity of council to make a proposal viable and not on the merit of the concept itself. These measures are similar to those used for major public-private partnership projects with the State Government. In New South Wales large infrastructure proposals to be developed by State agencies in association with private sector parties have to be considered by the budget committee of Cabinet. Professor Daly's report also states that to be successful the council must have a range of skills to deal with the complexity of partnerships with the private sector. In general, councils do not possess these skills at the level of either councillors or staff.

Public-private partnerships have a proper place. Our changes relate only to the processes that councils adopt in developing and managing these proposals. Councils in general do not have the commercial background or experience to assess the detail of such a complex arrangement. This was certainly the case with Liverpool City Council, as Professor Maurie Daly's investigation found. Support in the form of training would be put in place to assist councillors to better understand the potential of PPPs. The sheer size of these projects means that the interests of ratepayers and residents must be the top priority.

TEMORA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ADVISORY STATION

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that the Temora Agricultural Research and Advisory Station has a world-wide reputation for breeding some of the best wheat Australia has produced as well as helping farmers in this time of drought? Is the station scheduled for closure in November? If so, why?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Temora is not a centre for plant-breeding research in its own right, but is a support centre for the Wagga Wagga based breeding programs and is largely used for seed production. For many years rural industries have not supported ongoing breeding programs in Temora. While the department has continued to negotiate industry support, particularly for cereal-breeding programs at Temora, that appears to be a very low-priority investment for the grains industry. Industry preferences are for on-farm precipitative research. Much of the work undertaken at Temora can be conducted on farm or relocated to Wagga Wagga—hence, the proposal by the department that the station be relocated to Wagga Wagga. The facility is a 649-hectare grazing and broadacre farming property, with 12 staff and three temporary staff currently working at the station. The proposition by the department is that the activities would be better conducted at Wagga Wagga, and that has been put to the unions and staff for consideration.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that Wagga Wagga is 100 kilometres away and thus involves a two-hour return trip? Is the Minister aware that many farmers cannot afford commercial rates to obtain advice about their crops from Wagga Wagga?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Hold on a second! There is a big assumption that no extension service would stay; I think that is what the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is talking about. The department is in discussion and negotiation with the unions and staff in relation to the proposal for the research facility.

TWEED HEADS WORKCOVER OFFICE CLOSURE

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister confirm that the Tweed Heads WorkCover office has closed? If so, will the Minister detail any consultation with Tweed Valley businesses or residents about such closure? Is the closest WorkCover office now about 120 kilometres away at Lismore? Have there been any job losses and/or relocations of staff resulting from the closure? If so, how many? Are there any plans to reopen a WorkCover office in the Tweed? If not, why not?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is probably aware, there has been a number of—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Job cuts.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, not job cuts. There has been a reorientation of WorkCover offices around the State. Most recently there have been a number of changes to the field arrangements on the North Coast. Therefore, the honourable member is well and truly ahead of herself in relation to Tweed Heads. I will get back to her before the end of question time today with a full answer.

HANDLE WITH CARE

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister inform the House how young people from rural and regional communities are being encouraged to express their views through the arts?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Young people telling their stories through the arts are becoming a powerful tool in community development. Last Thursday I was honoured to have been asked to launch the Sydney performance of Handle with Care—a show by young people, particularly indigenous young people, from rural New South Wales—which expresses the effects that drugs and alcohol have had upon their lives. Handle with Care incorporates film, music, circus, dance and photography to tell those stories. Handle with Care is about many things, but one important aspect is that it gives young people the opportunity to express themselves in their own way and, hopefully, get others to listen. In March I had the privilege of viewing the Handle with Care performance when I travelled to Moree to launch the New England Arts North West Regional Drugs Misuse Prevention Strategy.

The Hon. John Ryan: You are not up to date.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It opened just last Thursday.

The Hon. John Ryan: You said in March.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I saw it first in March, and I launched the Sydney performance on Thursday of last week. I am not exaggerating when I say I was deeply affected by what I saw. My second viewing last week was no different. It is a moving and powerful piece of work—I described it when I first saw it as a masterpiece. It is also a masterpiece of community collaboration and partnership. At the Sydney performance last week, more than 60 young people from 13 communities, from Nimbin to Nyngan, participated in the performance. In total, some 250 or so young people have been involved, accompanied by 30 supporters, including artists and youth workers.

Sponsorship and support has come from a variety of sources, including NSW Police, Arts North West, Big hART, Outback Arts, TAFE, the Premier's Department Community Drug Action Program, local governments around the State, parents and community members. Communities have rallied in support and have provided buses, staff and funds. As I said at the outset, young people telling their stories through the arts are becoming a powerful tool in community development. Through our Community Drug Action Teams, which continue to amaze me with the variety and scope of their activities, we have seen the production of innovative and highly creative television and radio ads from Moree and Bourke.

The Moree Rap and Radio project, No Shame, No Blame, involved 25 young people who produced five rap songs and a series of eight radio ads which were aired on radio in Moree late last year. The ads conveyed a strong message about the effects of alcohol and drugs on their lives and families. The "He ain't drinkin he's driving" ads produced by young people from Bourke, whom I had the pleasure of meeting recently, have been shown nationally on Imparja TV and promote a positive message to combat risk-taking behaviour around drink driving. In Mudgee last week, a new video entitled Crash Course in Communications was launched, produced by young people. It attempts, through role play and humour, to talk about breaking down the barriers to communication that exist between generations so that young people feel they can talk to their parents or adults about their problems.

I am extremely proud that Community Drug Action Teams, which were a direct by-product of the Drug Summit, have been closely involved in these projects. Community Drug Action Teams are a key element of the Government's drug strategy in working on local drug and alcohol related issues. I congratulate everyone involved with Handle with Care, and particularly acknowledge the work of Kim McConville from Big hART whose dedication to the young people and the project is inspiring. Of course, I again thank and congratulate the young people who tell their very personal stories to help others understand the effects of drug and alcohol abuse. The show is to be performed throughout 2004 in northern and western New South Wales. I highly recommend the show to honourable members who may visit Armidale, Cobar, Coonamble, Gunnedah, Inverell, Nimbin, Moree, Narrabri, Nyngan, Tamworth and Walgett.

TRAVELLING STOCK RESERVES

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask the Minister for Rural Affairs a question without notice. Why are rural lands protection boards advertising three-year leases for travelling stock reserves [TSRs]? Does that not defeat the purpose of TSRs? Will the Government give a commitment that it will not sell or enter into long-term leases for TSRs?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industries, whose portfolio covers that area.

CAMPBELLTOWN CITY COUNCIL RATE INCREASE

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. Given the considerable public outcry by the residents of the Campbelltown local government area against a large rate rise, will the Minister approve the rate increase proposed by Campbelltown City Council of 6.5 per cent, some 3 per cent above the approved consumer price index increase?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I approved that rate rise last week.

AUSTRALIAN BIOTECH ALLIANCE

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House about the expansion of the Australian Biotech Alliance?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Australian Biotech Alliance was formed on 13 June last year when a memorandum of understanding was signed between New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria. The tri-State agreement kick-started a co-operative effort between the States to jointly promote Australia's biotechnology industry internationally. In March this year the Premiers of the three States wrote jointly to all other Australian States and Territories and New Zealand formally inviting them to join the alliance. I am pleased to inform the House that the expanded membership of the alliance was formalised at Bio2004, which was held in San Francisco earlier this month. The alliance now includes South Australia, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, and New Zealand. It means that the Australian States, the Australian Capital Territory and New Zealand are united in their efforts to promote and develop this exciting industry, thereby providing the region with a stronger voice in the international marketplace. Now known as the Australia-New Zealand Biotech Alliance, the expanded body has won endorsement from the Chief of Policy for the United States Biotechnology Industry Organization, Michael Werner. Mr Werner says that the Australian and New Zealand region is "one of the most exciting growth areas in the world for the biotechnology industry".

In an important and related aside I note that New Zealand has signed a separate bilateral agreement with New South Wales to forge a stronger regional relationship in biotechnology. The New South Wales Premier and the New Zealand Minister for Science also signed a separate memorandum of understanding at Bio2004. The aim will be to secure mutual benefits and joint commercial advantages for New Zealand and New South Wales firms and research institutes through closer collaboration. The New Zealand-New South Wales biotechnology collaboration agreement also opens the door for joint activity in significant research projects such as bovine genomics. There is also the possibility of a partnership in the medical field of proteomics, which would be bolstered by first-rate research centres at Macquarie University, the Australian Proteome Analysis Facility, and private biotechnology companies such as Proteome Systems and Minomic.

New Zealand's world-class expertise in primary industries and the strength of Biotech research and development in New South Wales could lead to outstanding shared advances in scientific study. Both New South Wales and New Zealand share strong bilateral interests in an expanded bovine genome project centred on the Armidale Beef Industry Centre and the associated Cooperative Research Centre for Cattle and Beef Quality. I welcome the latest developments in the biotechnology industry and look forward to hearing about the progress of the new Australia-New Zealand Biotech Alliance.

FOSTER CARERS ALLOWANCES

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth. Given that the base rate that the Department of Community Services pays to foster carers to help cover the cost of out-of-home care has not increased since the current rate of $175 a week was introduced in July 2000 and that over this period the consumer price index [CPI] has increased by 10.9 per cent, will the department increase the base rate by 10.9 per cent? How can foster carers afford anything more than essentials to ensure that fostered children are not discriminated against if the department will not recognise the increased cost of living? Why is the base rate foster carer payment not indexed to the CPI?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: What the Ms Sylvia Hale failed to acknowledge in her question was that when the foster care rate was introduced it was the highest rate provided for foster carers in Australia, and I believe it is still the highest, although we have to take into account that foster carers allowances operate differently State by State: some States roll in costs for other needs and some States pay for them separately. Nonetheless, foster carers allowances in New South Wales are well on par with allowances provided in other States.

Foster carers do the most fantastic job in the world. It is not an easy task to take in a child, provide love and care, stability and support, always knowing that at a point in time the child may be lost to that carer. It is hoped that they will be restored to their parents, go back to their family unit, but that is not always the case. Foster carers live with that possibility every day. They know that is the drill: it is what they sign up for. But it does not make it any easier in individual circumstances when they give love and care to a child and then the child may leave their care. Having said that, I think it is also acknowledged that in New South Wales we have made very clear our commitment to improvements in out-of-home care, including to better support foster carers. It is a matter of public record that the Government announced $1.2 billion in December 2002 to improve child protection and out-of-home care. A substantial part of that funding, some $613 million, will go to improve foster care and out-of-home circumstances. That means we will be able to provide support for foster carers. The issues that really matter for foster carers are not necessarily the rate of allowance, although I would not—

The Hon. John Ryan: Prompt payment.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It is all very well for the Hon. John Ryan to seek to interject. We know what the Coalition's policy was on this issue. It did not increase the payments, so I do not think Coalition members should speak too loudly on this issue. Of course the allowance is important to foster carers, but what matters far more is that they get responsive service from the Department of Community Services, and that they have a caseworker they can link with should they need extra support. We have acknowledged that we need to do better in that area. The Department of Community Services has acknowledged that more support is needed for foster carers. That is why we are recruiting an extra 875 caseworkers over five years, 150 dedicated entirely for out-of-home care. The extra support from caseworkers will be available.

But foster carers also need to have access to the support services their foster children need—therapeutic services, counselling services—and a good deal from the education department as well. All those things matter to foster carers. That is what we are focusing our attention on. We are undertaking a review of the allowances. But what will make a difference for foster carers and, importantly, children in care is providing the types of services that foster carers need in order to undo some of the harm done to the children in their care and provide them with a secure base to go forward and make a success of their lives.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the department do anything to relieve the excessive financial burden on foster carers so that they may maintain their children in adequate circumstances? Will there be an increase in the foster carer payment and, if so, how much will that increase be?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I have already answered that question. I indicated clearly that as part of a range of projects that are being undertaken in out-of-home care we are looking at allowances for foster carers. But far more important is the range of support services we provide for children in foster care, as I said in my primary answer.

RAYMOND TERRACE POLICE STATION

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question is to the Treasurer, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Police. Why has the Government failed to provide funding to upgrade facilities at Raymond Terrace police station in light of the Government's initial budget allocation in 1996 of $2.6 million to upgrade the station, and the subsequent reallocation of that funding?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not the Minister assisting the Minister for Police, as the Hon. Robyn Parker indicated I was. However, I will be delighted to refer her question to the Minister for Police, and when I obtain a response I will provide it to the House.

STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUSES CARBON EMISSION STANDARDS

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister advise the House about the latest information on State Transit Authority buses?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the House will be aware—and I do not understand why we have done this—the New South Wales Premier has committed to meeting carbon emission standards set by the Kyoto protocol. For many years it was thought a good way to meet those carbon emission credits was through gas-powered buses. The Leader of the Opposition should be listening to this, given that he made some silly comment in the press on the weekend about this issue. However, since the introduction of a European emission standard—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Emission, not admission.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, emission. You admit things, like you admitted on the weekend that The Nationals should move their headquarters from Sydney to the bush. I thought that was a very interesting observation: that The Nationals have their headquarters in Sydney. Some interesting comments were made by Andrew Stoner. I particularly like this one: "It would probably make sense from a cost level to be located in Sydney."

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Minister for Primary Industries to order.

The Hon. Don Harwin: My point of order is that the Minister is clearly digressing to matters that have no relevance to the question asked. Under the standing orders I ask that you direct him back to the question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: The point of order was clearly a valid one but also the point being made by the Minister was an interesting one. I suggest you uphold the point of order with regret.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister's answer should be relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is important that we get the issue of the emission standards in perspective. This Government listens to the grassroots, as opposed to The Nationals. I note that one of the most interesting debates on the weekend concerned—

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: I do not care how amusing the Minister's comments are to the Treasurer, the Minister is clearly flouting your ruling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Government always listens to its grassroots. It understands that the only way it can keep members in the Australian Labor Party is to listen to the grassroots, as opposed to The Nationals, as admitted by one of its members, Jeanette Clifton, from the north of New South Wales—

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order. This is the second time that the Minister has clearly flouted your ruling and the third time I have had to take a point of order. What he is saying has nothing to do with the question he was asked and you should bring him back to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that he must not flout the President's ruling.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: North-western New South Wales branch put the—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order. The Minister is reading from the same document he was reading from when you brought him to order for the third time. Clearly the Minister cannot answer the question he was asked and he is embarrassed about the Country Labor conference, where the members abused him. If the Minister wants to go down that track, that is all right, but he is out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot possibly rule a matter out of order until I have heard it. The Minister's time for speaking has expired.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Jeanette Clifton, whose north-western New South Wales branch put the motion—

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: This serial offender should be named or sat down. You should do something to make sure he does not continue to flout your rulings.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: To the point of order: Quite frankly, we should not have to take four points of order on one answer. You know the Minister is simply flouting your ruling. You are allowing it to happen. You know as well as we do that this answer is nothing but a beat-up. It is a complete abuse of question time. If the Government were serious, it would be talking about how this Minister was so threatened and condemned by Country Labor at its conference.

The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: I appeal to you, Madam President, to make another of those wise rulings you made earlier in the session. Five times the Minister has been called to order. I appeal to you to rule him out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I was outlining, the European emission standards are very important and they are standards the ALP has taken into account from listening to its grassroots. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I suggest that if honourable members have further questions, they place them on notice.

TWEED HEADS WORKCOVER OFFICE CLOSURE

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Earlier in question time the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked me a question in relation to the Tweed Heads office of WorkCover. I congratulate the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner on her micro observations of WorkCover. I am pleased to advise that reports of the demise of the Tweed Heads office of WorkCover are premature. I can inform the House that WorkCover vacated the office space used by it at Tweed Heads at the end of the lease, which expired in March this year. WorkCover sought suitable alternative accommodation at Tweed Heads in the premises of other government departments. However, the space on offer was not suitable to WorkCover's requirements. WorkCover advises me that the office has been temporarily relocated to WorkCover's Lismore office. This will not reduce WorkCover services in the Tweed Heads area. WorkCover is currently investigating suitable alternative accommodation in the Tweed Heads area.

Questions without notice concluded.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES INQUIRY

Ministerial Statement

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [5.07 p.m.]: I wish to address the House today, after receiving legal advice about workplace fatalities and occupational health and safety laws. Honourable members will be well aware of an important community debate about the prevention of workplace deaths and the appropriate punishment and response when occupational health and safety measures fail. These are key matters—passionate concerns—for our community, for the courts, unions, employers, and for members of this House as responsible legislators.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 contributed to the debate some weeks ago. There has been universal agreement that any workplace deaths are too many, but consensus has not been reached on the best way to provide appropriate punishment, or to provide the right motivation and incentive to ensure that employers make effective changes to their workplace and to the safety culture of their business.

The New South Wales Government wants to ensure that the community has faith that justice is done. In November last year I appointed a panel of eminent legal experts to advise the Government on improvements to New South Wales laws as they relate to workplace fatalities. The four members of the panel are Professor Ron McCallum, the Dean of Law at Sydney University; Mr Peter Hall, QC; and Mr Adam Hatcher and Mr Adam Searle, barristers at law. They were selected because of their various perspectives and expertise in occupational health and safety and industrial law.

New South Wales has developed one of the best occupational health and safety frameworks in the world. We are one of the few places where employees have a statutory right to be consulted about the safety of their workplace, and where maximum flexibility exists for employers to arrange for a safe, effective, and productive workplace. However, there has been concern about workplace fatalities, and the Government wants to ensure that justice is done. We also need to have the right incentive and motivation in place to ensure that employers meet their duty of care. That is why the panel was asked to re-examine our occupational health and safety laws. They also considered industrial manslaughter legislation and the recent report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1.

The panel has recommended that New South Wales introduce an additional offence in the Occupational Health and Safety Act specifically relating to workplace fatalities, including higher penalties for first offenders. The panel unanimously ruled out an offence under the Crimes Act. The group said that such legislation would be unhelpful, a retrograde step, and only tokenistic in nature. The panel's advice is that it would not improve the occupational health and safety of workers in New South Wales. I am considering that advice and will consult with unions, my colleagues, and employers over the next few weeks. Following that discussion, I expect to take recommendations to Cabinet with a view to considering some legislative changes.

I believe that the basis of our occupational health and safety laws will be improved with the implementation of these recommendations. Today I have released the panel's report, and I commend it to members who want to study an authoritative, thoughtful, practical response to this difficult issue. We do not want employers devoting their efforts to constructing a legal defence, should something go wrong. We want them working hard with their employees on workplace safety. What we do not want are token gestures. The community demands laws to ensure that employers live up to their obligations and provide for the ongoing building of a productivity based, proactive safety culture in New South Wales workplaces. I place on record my thanks to and the Government's appreciation of Professor McCallum and Mr Hall, Mr Hatcher and Mr Searle for their work and the important advice they have given to this Parliament.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.11 p.m.]: I commence my response by thanking the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast and congratulating him on presenting this information as a ministerial statement, unlike a number of his colleagues.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Name them!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Ministers Kelly, Macdonald and Costa, who like to use question time as an opportunity to abuse the privilege of this House. The Coalition notes the report, which follows the report by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. The Coalition believes that there should be wide community consultation and notes the Minister's undertaking in his statements to consult with both unions and employers. The Coalition does not believe that criminal penalties are the simple answer. The Coalition believes instead that the positive attitude and co-operation of employers, employees and WorkCover are the best means of ensuring occupational health and safety in the workplace.

The Coalition also notes that the expert panel rejected an industrial manslaughter option, and the Coalition agrees with that recommendation. I might add that that recommendation is consistent with the minority report of the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Hon. David Clarke, who are the Coalition members of the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. Those Coalition members provided the minority report and concur with the panel of experts in what has been described by the Minister for Industrial Relations as an authoritative, thoughtful and practical response to this issue. I assume that the Minister is referring to the Coalition's minority report! Both Coalition members may feel vindicated by the findings of the panel of experts in the report that has been presented today. Those members are to be congratulated.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.12 p.m.], by leave: I realise that standing orders provide only for the Opposition to respond to a ministerial statement, but as chairman of the inquiry I would like to make a brief statement. The panel of experts that made the recommendation referred to by the Minister obviously did not have a great deal of time to discuss the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. Because the panel had but a very short period of time in which to consult our report, I urge the Minister to keep an open mind as he consults with the unions, employers, and others with regard to the best way of saving workers' lives in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: I seek leave to make a very brief statement.

Leave not granted.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.14 p.m.]: Earlier I was examining what the Government could do in a constructive and decisive way to assist regional development. Part of that assistance is bolstering the provision of transport in regional areas. Transport infrastructure has broken down. It is unnecessary for me to take the time of the House to provide examples because other honourable members have been loud and clear on a number of occasions when outlining the importance of rail infrastructure to New South Wales, particularly to people in the far northern parts of the State.

I am aware of the disappointment of constituents from Byron Bay, where I live, about the closure of the Murwillumbah to Casino branch railway line. The reinstatement and maintenance of that line would constructively assist regional development because it would provide intra-regional and local rail services. The provision of similar rail infrastructure in other regions throughout New South Wales would also materially assist development and prosperity.

At a local level, my interest peaked when I discovered that the previous CountryLink rail transport service had been replaced by a Queensland bus company's service. I am astounded that a Queensland company has replaced State Rail as the provider of transport in far northern New South Wales. When I am at home I sometimes go to a local pub, the Rails, where, in the middle of the night and sometimes in quite hazardous weather, a massive CountryLink bus reverses into a space near the railway station. This massive bus reverses where people who may be inebriated are walking to or from the hotel. Many older people no longer have a place in which to stand to keep out of the rain because of the space taken up by the bus.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They should be standing on the platform, catching the train.

Mr IAN COHEN: As the Hon. Rick Colless says, that is certainly where the passengers should be waiting, but the sight of this massive tourist bus reversing outside a hotel on a Friday night at a time when people could be expected to have consumed a few glasses of beer is extremely worrying. Hopefully those people do not drive, but as they are permitted to walk around the town, I am concerned about the extreme danger posed by the bus, especially bearing in mind that the Byron shire has 1.7 million visitors annually. It is a recipe for disaster, and that example is just one aspect of the failure of this Government to adopt a policy of balanced regional development.

Some time ago I was involved in an inquiry into chemical trespass in intensive agricultural production areas, particularly cotton-growing areas. There have been incredibly complex problems associated with chemical trespass. The prospect of dealing with the toxic chemical contamination of drinking water, farms, and soil traversed by children catching school buses is not an attractive feature that is likely to encourage people to settle in regional areas. In the past, people living in cotton-growing areas have packed up and left their small country communities because of the contamination.

The Minister for Regional Development would be well advised to undertake a proper assessment of flights throughout country areas. Because Sydney is the predominant hub of transport, it is very difficult for people to travel from one rural or regional area to another. I recall that some time ago as a member of the Standing Committee on State Development I flew from Grafton to Coffs Harbour or Port Macquarie on a small, local flight.

The committee was able to travel around the State from one regional area to another, but that is now almost impossible. These days I have to fly from my home town of Byron Bay to Sydney, from Sydney to another regional area, and then back to Sydney again. There is none of the previous interlinking between country areas, despite the need for tourists and business people to travel from one regional area to another. As a result, more people travel on the roads. The hubbing of flights through Sydney simply reflects poor forethought with regard to regional development and infrastructure. Indeed, I took part in an inquiry that looked into air transport through New South Wales, and hubbing was seen as one of the problems in terms of air transport being a public transport service.

As I said, tourism is the lifeblood of many communities in country areas, and an imbalance is occurring in terms of the type of regional development that is being promoted in many areas. The closure of the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture and veterinary colleges throughout New South Wales over the past few years has also reduced opportunities for country communities. Currently I am the Chair of the committee that is inquiring into the closure of the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture. Whilst I do not want to pre-empt the findings of that committee, many colleges throughout New South Wales should receive Government support and should be maintained. In the past colleges such as the Wollumbin college at Alstonville have been a great asset to regional areas and regional development, and these centres of excellence should be maintained, not closed.

Despite the Minister's passing reference to the bill being a light piece of legislation to foster regional development, the Greens support sensible, reasonable, environmentally and socially sustainable regional development. We would like to see a focus on rural and country areas. We would like to see development occur hand in glove with the appropriate restraints to ensure development that is of benefit to local communities, and of assistance to and protective of our local natural environments throughout regional New South Wales. I, for one, am very keen to see a promotion of successful lifestyles in regional New South Wales. From that perspective, whilst the legislation will be supported in principle, it falls far short of its potential to deliver services to regional New South Wales and small communities that often have high social capital and poor financial status. However, it is where people choose to live. They live a high standard of life, but they are prepared to give up many things that those who live in Sydney or other large cities take for granted. However, they gain a lot by living in small communities. The Greens look forward to real opportunities being developed in regional areas, and we hope that the Minister will deliver with more substance next time.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.23 p.m.]: I join with my Coalition colleagues in not opposing the Regional Development Bill. However, we oppose the inadequate attention that the Government continues to give to growing the mighty regions of this State, which have so much to offer. Every week 1,000 people come to live in Sydney. That means 1,000 people putting stresses and strains on the city of Sydney, which it can ill afford. Sydney is facing some of the highest water restrictions it has ever faced, with 50 per cent dam capacity. Under the Carr Labor Government, it has no plan or organisation to recycle that water and ensure the environmental flows of the Nepean River. The Government has no vision, aside from going $2 billion further into debt to fix up the railway lines, at the expense of country rail services.

This 10-page joke of a bill is a symbol of the Government's ineptitude in delivering outcomes for regional and country communities. I note that Minister Kelly is at the table. As the convener of Country Labor, he particularly stands condemned because the inland of this State is not receiving the necessary attention to reach its potential as an absolutely fantastic place in which to live. I cite the example of Armidale, in the seat of Northern Tablelands. Armidale has the lowest economic growth rate in the whole of New South Wales. It has a population of 25,000. It has a university, and wonderful schools at both private and public level. The town's water supply can meet the needs of 60,000 people, yet only 25,000 people live there. In addition, Armidale is only 2� hours from the coast. Yet we do not see any real attempt to encourage people or business to Armidale, which has so many cultural, educational and, most important, lifestyle advantages.

Over the past few years the Government has paid considerable attention to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and its funding priorities. The commission has defended many of its decisions on the basis that Queensland has far more regional development and many more people living outside its city of Brisbane. The formulas used to give Queensland supposedly an unfair advantage in terms of expenditure are based on regional development. Instead of the Government looking at why Queensland may get more than New South Wales on a per capita basis, it should look at the reasons for that. The reasons are very clear: Queensland is placing great focus on regional development. The Queensland Labor State Government followed the wonderful tradition set by Ron Borbidge and—dare I say it—Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in setting agendas and ideas for allowing the wealth creation to not simply concentrate in the south-east corner of the State but occur throughout the whole region. That is because Queensland, like New South Wales, has a very strong mining, agricultural and tourism base. There are many similarities between the two States, yet Queensland, unlike New South Wales, clearly supports the decentralisation of business and government departments outside its capital city area.

One example is Queensland's rail system. The rail system from Brisbane to Cairns is beyond par. Yet New South Wales cannot even run trains from Tweed Heads to Sydney. Tweed Heads is the highest growth region in the State. Its tourism potential is enormous, and a lot of aged people and families live there. But people cannot even catch a train from the north-east corner of our State to our capital city. Such are the priorities of the Carr Labor Government. Regional development is a crucial issue for our party. We cannot wait to get into government in 2007 and make a difference. We will support people in regional areas and those who decide to live outside the densely populated cities of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. We believe that people can have a much better life, albeit whilst perhaps earning a lot less money, by living in regional areas of New South Wales.

The Government should embrace regional development on the basis that it will solve many of the congestion and infrastructure problems faced by businesses in Sydney. But the Carr Labor Government has a mind-set about city-centric policies. The issue is especially relevant to me as a member of the Standing Committee on State Development. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe compared the success of Victoria in regional development with that of New South Wales. I wish to speak about the success of Queensland in regional development, which I am prone to do.

It is important to highlight what the Department of State and Regional Development is doing in Queensland not only to attract businesses to Brisbane but to other regions such as the Gold Coast, Toowoomba and the north of the State. The department's logo is "smart move smart State", and it is certainly leaving New South Wales behind. Over the next three years Australia's largest manufacturer of sheet metal components, Advance Metal Products, will invest $15 million in a new production facility that will be located in Brisbane and create 80 new jobs for Queensland.

AUSTAR communications, the new cable television provider, also has moved to Brisbane, and Australian Airlines, the new international leisure carrier and part of the Qantas group, has moved to Cairns, creating 300 new direct jobs. According to independent estimates, as many as 10,000 indirect jobs could be created. How I wish that I could be in this House congratulating the Carr Labor Government on getting Australian Airlines, the new division of Qantas to Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Armidale or Tamworth. But, no, New South Wales has got too many cost impediments for business and industry to want to invest in new jobs and new locations here. Australian Airlines will be located in Cairns, continuing Queensland Government's wonderful development program. Queensland beat New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania to be the home of the Asia-Pacific headquarters and call centre of Budget Direct Financial Services, one of the world's leading motor vehicle insurance companies. Its Asia-Pacific headquarters will employ 64 people and its Asia-Pacific call centre on the Sunshine Coast will employ 160 people.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: You will be on the other side on Wednesday week.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That is about football. This is about serious stuff—jobs and investment in this State; it is not about football. Clearly, New South Wales is the premier State when it comes to playing football, but it is not the premier State for attracting jobs and investment, which is what we should concentrate on. The Grants Commission appears to have given Queensland an unfair share because that State has much more sound regional development policies. Perhaps the Minister should learn from Queensland, instead of defending this Government's poor regional development policies. Boeing Australia Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of one of the world's pre-eminent aerospace companies, will relocate to Brisbane because it is far more efficient and cheaper to do business in Queensland. Over the past nine years New South Wales has become the most highly taxed, highly inefficient State in which to do business. Boeing Australia Ltd will employ 400 staff in Queensland. Queensland is actually being clever in creating clusters, and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred to that. Clusters are important in creating industries that can feed off each other for success. As we know, Virgin Blue has gone to Queensland because it is, in Brett Godfrey's words, "the can-do State".

Capral Australia has announced that it will spend $120 million to build Australia's largest aluminium extrusion plant near Ipswich, providing up to 330 jobs over four years: a huge investment and fillip to the Ipswich region. Another area where Queensland appears to beat New South Wales is in the development of relationships with overseas countries such as China. One of China's top 10 agribusiness companies, Hefei Huatai Food Corporation, has invested in Queensland through the purchase by its subsidiary, Huahai Investments Group, of a research farm near Toowoomba. Has the Minister for Primary Industries asked any Chinese investment corporations to become involved in the research stations that he is so merrily closing down as we speak? I suggest not, because this Government lacks the innovation and smartness to develop those sorts of ideas.

IBM is moving to the Gold Coast and will employ 65 extra software developers. This is one that really hurts: the north west of New South Wales has been the leading cotton grower in Australia and our major cotton exporter. Last year Australia's largest cotton producer, Namoi Cotton, announced that it would move its head office from Sydney and northern New South Wales to Toowoomba in Queensland. This will create 39 new jobs for Toowoomba and will provide supply opportunities for local businesses.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: That is where the water is.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I note the interjection of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who is probably against cotton production.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: He said Queensland is keeping all the water.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Well, it is not about that.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: That is where the cotton is and that is why it is there.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is about New South Wales being less efficient in business investment and business taxes. I can tell the Hon. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans one thing: the cotton industry is far more efficient than this Government in its water and pesticide use. Indeed, the financial investment and rewards to the State are worth investigating. Namoi Cotton, which processes more than 25 per cent of Australia's cotton crop, operates 15 cotton gins, three warehouses and four regional offices. Its headquarters are now located in Queensland because it is cheaper and smarter. If I were running a business I would probably do the same thing.

Salmat, Australia's leading customer communications company, has chosen Bundaberg to locate its world-class call centre facility, which will create up to 150 new jobs for regional Queensland. Again I ask: where are the announcements about job opportunities for regional New South Wales since Labor has been in government? There have not been any. I remember back in the late eighties the Hon. Wal Murray, the former Minister for State Development, announced that British Aerospace would relocate to Tamworth, but now the Singapore Flying College, a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, has chosen Maroochydore as the location for its advanced flight training operations facility. That training facility, which includes a Learjet simulator and a fleet of four Learjet L45s, is expected to train 140 cadet pilots and 36 first officers a year.

Under the Greiner-Murray administration New South Wales was leading the charge and attracted British Aerospace to Tamworth, but that is no longer the case, with Singapore Flying College going to Maroochydore. Snap Fresh, a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas, has established a new facility to produce fully prepared meals for Qantas. Sydney is probably strategically better located than Brisbane, being between the two major markets of Melbourne and Brisbane, but Snap Fresh chose Brisbane because of the substantially lower costs of doing business there. When fully operational the Snap Fresh plant will employ 230 staff.

Stellar, a call centre company, is taking advantage of Queensland's competitive tax and business arrangements. It is now located on the Gold Coast, and is operating at full capacity, employing quite a number of people. The list goes on. I will not list all the companies that Brisbane has been able to attract in the areas of biotechnology and research, and development in science because the upper House inquiry into science and commercialisation has been given the clear message that New South Wales is being left behind not only in terms of business investment but also in regard to science. Brisbane and Melbourne are leading the charge; New South Wales is slowly trying to catch up and will do so faster if the Government adopts many of the committee's recommendations, such as the appointment of a chief scientist.

New South Wales is being left behind in business and science investment, which is hurting regional areas. I state again that this 10-page excuse of a bill does not do enough. The Carr Government is not committed to development in rural and regional New South Wales. It appears determined to hurt country people, as can be witnessed from its recent axing of the Casino to Murwillumbah train service—a subject I touched on earlier. Clubs, another large employer in our regions, will see job losses in the Bathurst, Tamworth, Monaro, Dubbo, Northern Tablelands, Port Macquarie, the Tweed and Murray-Darling areas. The land tax threshold was abolished in the recent mini-budget affecting investors in New South Wales who are trying to provide for their retirement and look after themselves.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They have been fleeced.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: They have been fleeced. Let us not forget that New South Wales was the first State in Australia to impose stamp duty tax on the sale of investment properties, which is a disgrace. That tax put a brake on the property market not only in Sydney but also across the whole of regional New South Wales. Earlier the Deputy Leader of the Opposition released details of another cut to services in inland areas of New South Wales—the devastating loss of 500 jobs as a result of the establishment of the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

An additional 600 jobs will be cut from the new super department of agriculture, fisheries, mineral resources and State forests. Recently the Minister for Small Business announced the withdrawal of funding for 30 business enterprise centres [BECs] across regional New South Wales. That will impact on the electorates of Monaro and Port Macquarie because centres in Cooma and Port Macquarie will be closed. If this Government were serious about regional development it would repeal that decision, thus justifying the introduction of this bill. On 10 June Anthony Underwood wrote an editorial in the Queanbeyan Age in which he commented on the hardship of small business in Queanbeyan as follows:

This Government must increase rental prices to cover costs resulting from its recent imposition of landholders tax. The National-Liberal Coalition is committed to giving businesses the right tools and creating the right environment in which they can flourish. Contrast that with the tired old budget presented by the Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan, in the other Chamber, which reflects nine years of missed opportunity in New South Wales. The New South Wales economy has gone into deficit. Contrast that with the budget of the Howard-Anderson Government that was brought down earlier this year. Through proper financial management that Government gained an additional $5 billion a year to spend across the country on infrastructure and incentives for families and businesses. That stands in stark contrast to the record of this State Government.

Good financial management by the Federal Coalition under John Howard and John Anderson resulted in an additional $5 billion for infrastructure and other spending. The Federal Government would have been paying $5 billion in interest if it had continued the policies that were implemented by the former Labor Government. We are not paying that amount in interest because of good management at a Federal level. Despite nine years of economic sunshine and property boom in New South Wales—in particular, in Sydney—which resulted in an additional $8.5 billion in revenue, this State has gone into deficit. We are not spending money on important things such as infrastructure, which will make a difference in regional New South Wales. I applaud the commitment, vision and plans of John Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of The Nationals in Australia.

Despite the fact that this State Government is doing nothing in the area of regional development, John Anderson has put on the Cabinet table in Canberra the needs of country people in Australia. On Friday he introduced a most amazing water plan after being told that there was no way in which he could bring together all Australian States. On Friday John Anderson and the Prime Minister announced the Federal Government's water plan. I applaud him because that plan has given security to the towns that need it most—those that have been in doubt about their economic prosperity and future. Water is the future for many of those communities. It is the lifeblood that provides economic tools and investment through efficient farming practices, whether it be cotton in the north, grapes in Bourke and Menindee, rice in the Riverina, oranges and other exciting intensive crops, or our wine industry.

Casella Wines sends record amounts of red wine to the United States of America. The water-sharing plan that was introduced by John Anderson at a Federal level has given regional communities a fillip, a boost and a sense of security that no-one thought possible. I applaud his vision. Contrast that with what we are facing at a State level. A few weeks ago John Anderson announced the $11 billion Auslink plan, which will result in the handing over of interstate rail lines in New South Wales to the Australian Rail Track Corporation. That handover, which will be organised by the Federal Government, will result in massive investment in rail infrastructure in New South Wales, the Hunter and other areas. That initiative will reduce costs and get some of the heavy vehicles off our road system.

John Anderson also announced that $170 million a year would be spent upgrading the Pacific Highway. We are yet to hear from our Minister for Roads whether he is prepared to meet that funding commitment. If the State Labor Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, agrees to match that $170 million every year, within 10 years or so we will have a dual carriageway on the Pacific Highway from Brisbane to Sydney. That upgrading is desperately needed now, so it will not be a moment too soon. This Government must give infrastructure investment the same priority that it is given by the Federal Government. At a Federal level The Nationals have led the charge, with the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Mark Vaile, forging ahead with a free trade agreement with the United States of America, which will open up our markets to enormous benefits.

The Federal Labor Party is playing silly games in relation to that issue. I give credit where credit is due: Premier Bob Carr understands how important that free trade agreement is to the success of our primary industries. I congratulate Bob Carr on recognising that, but I urge him to get on the phone to Mark Latham, to make him see some sense and to ensure that the Senate passes that free trade agreement. I suspect that members of the Federal Labor Party are playing political games in relation to this issue, as they know it will generate benefits for Australia. Many on the Labor side of politics, such as Kim Beazley, support Mark Vaile's achievements. I plead with the Premier to make his former staffer Mark Latham see sense on that issue.

The Regional Development Bill does not even mention cross-border issues. One would think the State Government would want to encourage regional development, particularly in the State's border regions, such as the Monaro, which faces fierce competition with the Australian Capital Territory; and the Tweed, which loses out time and again to Queensland businesses, with their superior cost benefits. The Government's lack of interest has no better illustration than in State Rail's decision to award to a Queensland bus operator the contract to transport the poor people who can no longer travel by train between Tweed Heads and Casino. Relevant cross-border issues—such as the unfair advantages that accrue to businesses across the Queensland and Victorian borders—should have been explored in this bill.

Some regions are doing regional development well, and they must be applauded. One such region is Macksville, which is served by one of the best economic development officers in New South Wales. I implore the Government to talk to that officer and to use his achievements in Macksville as a case study for success to encourage small to light manufacturing businesses to relocate from Sydney to the mid North Coast. At this point it is appropriate to mention the Country Week expo, which will be held at Olympic Park in August. The expo is the brainchild of my friend Peter Bailey. I congratulate the State Government on picking up on that initiative, which aims to show the people of Sydney what a great life they can have in regional New South Wales. The Federal Government has also come to the table through John Anderson's Transport and Regional Services portfolio and contributed a substantial amount of money. The expo is a great idea. But the other States have similar great ideas designed to encourage regional development.

Victoria has funded a $2-million advertising campaign to highlight to the people of Melbourne the advantages of living in a regional area. We all know that living in Sydney is expensive. It would not take much of an advertising campaign to convince police officers, nurses and public servants in Sydney that they could have a much better quality of life—more money in the bank and a nicer house—if they moved to a regional area. I encourage the Government and the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Hon. Tony Kelly, to examine the Victorian example. The Government could commission a simple advertising campaign to highlight to a Sydney audience the benefits of living in regional areas. Not enough children in this city get to see the stars at night or are connected with their roots in the same way as children who live in the country. I urge the Government to consider that sensible initiative.

I regret that this is the best the Government can do with regional development. As I have said, the Government's disadvantageous activities in other areas far outweigh the supposed benefits of this bill. I remind honourable members of the pain being caused by the business enterprise centres closures, the agricultural and fishing cuts, the land tax, the stamp duty tax, the club tax and the axing of the Casino to Murwillumbah XPT service and the closure of other rail branch lines across country New South Wales. Those services matter and this Government could do something to improve them. The Government should also look hard at initiatives in Queensland and Victoria. But the State Government has done something right: it is supporting Country Week, together with the Federal Government. I praise the State Government for that initiative but it should be just one of a series of measures it could take to support regional New South Wales for the betterment of all communities in this State.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.55 p.m.]: If one travels around regional Australia as I do—I travel mainly in New South Wales—one finds a land of striking contrasts. Some cities and towns, such as Inverell, are prosperous, with lively main streets and beautifully maintained parks and gardens. But other regions are not doing quite so well, with paint flaking from once-busy shops, unkempt parks, barred shop windows and empty streets. Some regions will continue to grow and prosper and others will not. The latter should be the exception, not the rule. The Coalition is arguing not that communities should be propped up unsustainably but that every community should be supported in its plans to manage change and to seize the opportunities that change presents free from the barriers erected by Sydney Labor governments that impede business growth.

Thriving regional businesses are the lifeblood of Australia. People in metropolitan areas and in the halls of bureaucratic government must realise that regional business plays a fundamental role in producing our national wealth and supporting our standard of living. The income generated in the regions flows to our cities as well as back into our regions. The wealth upon which we all rely in this nation is created by three or four industries—for example, the mining, agricultural and forestry industries. Consider how mining creates wealth: We take a resource from the ground that is converted into the value-added products that we see in this Chamber. However, once that resource is exhausted all that remains is a hole in the ground.

So let us consider the primary industries—agriculture, forestry and fisheries—that are the sustainable wealth creators upon which our nation relies. Labor members such as the Hon. Tony Catanzariti and the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Hon. Tony Kelly, know that a little sunshine, a little soil, a little water and a little human ingenuity and creativity help our farming communities to create the nation's wealth. If the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries are managed properly they will remain sustainable forever. They allow the cities to create wealth. I challenge any honourable member to walk down any street in Sydney and into any office or home in Sydney and find something that is not derived from mining, forestry, fishing or agriculture.

Everything we see is sourced from one of those industries. This city and every urban community ultimately derive their wealth from those industries, which comprise regional businesses. That is why it is important to overcome the many challenges and obstacles that regional businesses face every day. Our city counterparts do not have to face such challenges as reduced access to finance, underdeveloped business skills, infrastructure issues and poor communications and transport connections that are holding back the growth of regional small and medium businesses. Rather than putting up obstacles, as this Labor Government is continually doing, we should be encouraging economic activity outside the cities.

The Nationals believe that regional towns are the basis for generating global competitiveness—that wealth creation to which I just referred—and they can be the effective incubators of new ideas. Diversity is something we must preserve and foster. A good example of a business initiative and a new idea is IQ Agriculture, which has just been established in Ashford, north of Inverell. Ashford is a small town on the Northern Tablelands area of New South Wales that was previously known for tobacco production. The town suffered badly when the tobacco industry collapsed. Mike McCosker and his wife, Helen, have established a blending and liquid fertiliser business on the site of the now defunct Ashford power station and coalmine. They also worked with the Ashford Business Council to set up an intensive agriculture operation with vegetables and stone fruit, using water formerly allocated to the power station, on land next door to the old power station. That is an example of what can be done in small communities to create employment and to rejuvenate and reinvigorate communities, with a bit of creative thinking and commitment to an ideal.

It is obvious that New South Wales Labor does not have a vision for regional New South Wales. It is totally hypocritical of the Government to be shutting down one service provider after another and then, after nine years, to introduce this bill. It is nothing more than political grandstanding. What could be more hypocritical than to introduce this bill and at the same time wipe business enterprise centres [BECs] off the face of New South Wales? The aim of the bill is stated to be to provide financial assistance to regions for economic development; and for other purposes. The role of BECs was to implement the provisions of this bill across New South Wales.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: They did it well.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: And they did it well, as my colleague points out, so why on earth would the Government introduce this bill and, at the same time, take BECs out of the local community and centralise them into major regional centres? The five main aims of this bill are to enshrine in legislation the economic development and employment growth principles in regional New South Wales; link financial assistance for regional industry to jobs and investment targets and allow the Department of State and Regional Development to recover money from businesses that default on agreements with it; establish a Regional Development Trust, which is designed to house money obtained from businesses by applying moral pressure when they close or reduce operations in a rural or regional town; give statutory recognition to the Regional Development Advisory Council; and repeal the Country Industries Payroll Tax Rebate Scheme.

That sounds good in theory, but the Government's treatment of the BECs demonstrates its hypocrisy. It has taken nine years for it to introduce legislation that deals with regional development. Does it have the will and the energy to back up its rhetoric? There are questions that come readily to mind, such as that regarding the status of the Minister for Regional Development. The fact that he is a junior Minister means that he does not have any clout in Cabinet. Why have we not heard a word from him about the latest closure—the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture at Yanco? What impact will that have on regional development prospects for that community?

What has happened to the Premier's promise that a rural impact study would be carried out before the Government introduced any legislation affecting rural communities? In fact, the complete opposite is happening. This Labor Government has adopted the approach of a dictator: there is no consultation whatsoever. Sydney Labor fails to monitor business activity, so there are no publicly available figures on short-term, medium-term and long-term trends, such as the flight of businesses to Queensland and Victoria, as the Hon. Melinda Pavey pointed out. Businesses have been encouraged to move to Queensland and Victoria by the New South Wales Government's payroll, land and exit investment taxes. For example, in recent years stamp duty on the average family home in Armidale has increased by 46 per cent, and in Inverell by 25 per cent.

Businesses on the Northern Tablelands could employ hundreds of extra staff if the Carr Labor Government provided the right operating environment. Excessive payroll tax rates, crippling workers compensation premiums and high stamp duty rates are hobbling regional development. When the Carr Government came to office it promised to cut payroll tax to 5 per cent in 1999 and 4 per cent in 2000. By comparison, payroll tax in Queensland will drop to 4.8 per cent this year, with a higher threshold than New South Wales. This high-taxing regime of the Labor Government makes it particularly hard for new businesses to fight off their competitors in other States who are paying lower taxes.

This Government is going on an unprecedented job cutting spree in regional New South Wales. There have been cuts right across the board, and I will refer to some that occurred without any consultation with local communities. Despite public outcry the Minister closed full-time resident courses at the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture [MCA], forcing many students to either completely cease their studies or transfer to a Hunter Valley campus hundreds of kilometres away. In an attempt to justify his actions, the Minister announced that the affected students could relocate to Tocal in the Hunter Valley. In fact, I have been advised that just one of last year's first year students went to Tocal and 10 have gone to Dalby in Queensland—again it seems that everybody is leaving New South Wales to go to Queensland. Those students chose Dalby because the courses offered there were more applicable to the Murrumbidgee regions than those offered at Tocal.

The closure of BECs in regional towns will disfranchise smaller towns like Inverell and Glen Innes, and also Cobar in the electorate of Murray-Darling. Any small business person from not only Inverell and Glen Innes but also from Moree who is seeking advice and assistance will now have to travel to Armidale, where the Government will set up a super centre—it sounds more like a shopping centre than a business enterprise centre; in Sydney super centres are shopping centres. It is more than 1� hours drive to Armidale from Inverell, and about three hours drive from Moree. A person wanting to set up business in Armidale will have to travel three hours to visit a business enterprise centre in Armidale and three hours return, whereas previously it would have taken him 10 minutes. Employment opportunities are being taken away from towns as a result of the closure of local BECs.

Glen Innes has had a reprieve, thanks to the Federal Government. The Minister blamed the gutting of the BEC network on a loss of revenue from the Federal Government, but funding from the Federal Government will keep the Glen Innes facility open, albeit under a different name. Over the years the Inverell BEC has been very active in helping businesses in the surrounding regions. The mission statement of the Inverell BEC is to address the needs and demands of our community and in doing so to be the catalyst for business development and growth in the Inverell region through the provision of high-quality business support facilities, counselling and training services to existing and intending business operators and community organisations. The Inverell Business Enterprise Centre's vision statement states:

By 2004

• Our Centre will become the premier facilitator of Small Business support and services in the New England North West region of New South Wales.

• We will be recognised as the key contact for small business services and referrals within the Local Government Areas of Inverell, Bingara and Yallaroi.

• We will set and achieve high standards of competence and service, which are supported by professional mentors from a broad community base.

• We will demonstrate our effectiveness by adopting a performance measurement system that will enable us to qualify processes and outcomes and this factor along with the increased demand for our services will enable us to expand our client base.

• We will build strategic partnerships and affiliations with key government agencies, training providers, small business agencies and the broader community.

• We will become known, accepted and clearly identified as an essential, and integral part of our Community based upon our high standards and results.

And it has achieved that. As for programs, the Inverell BEC provides the business advisory service, which is a free business information and support service to new and existing businesses. It has a small business facilitation training and development program, which is business facilitation training, mentoring, planning, research and development on a fee-for-service basis. It has traineeships for new and existing employees, which provides management of trainees and delivery of training, again on a fee-for-service basis. It has a program called Worknet, which is the management of school-based vocational training programs and traineeships. It also provides secretarial and publishing services for community organisations, small businesses and the public, again on a fee-for-service basis.

The Inverell BEC has been very active over the years, and provides the businesses of Inverell with a tremendous service. Looking at the centre's achievements, in 2002-03 it saw 195 new clients, up from 78 the previous year; 17 new businesses started, up from 7 new businesses in the previous year; 67 existing businesses were assisted; and 1,525 total contacts, up from 618 the previous year. These are remarkable statistics for a business enterprise centre that is suddenly being closed under the Minister's latest developments. In the year ended June 2003, 18 new businesses were started, with an estimated average total turnover per business of $332,000 and an approximate economic value to the region of just under $6 million. Again, that is a remarkable achievement for a town the size of Inverell.

The Inverell BEC has provided 80 full-time equivalent jobs with an accepted economic value of $53,000 per job. The total activity generated by those full-time jobs is more than $4 million. And that is what the Minister is closing down! It is an absolute disgrace to see what is happening to the Inverell business enterprise centre. The closure of branch lines has been on the agenda in this House in recent weeks. Incidentally, the Minister for Transport Services denied closing branch lines. In the Parliament I challenged him about the Gwabegar line. I have photographic evidence which the Minister refused to look at. How many other branch lines is he planning on closing? Does he even know what is going on?

The Gwabegar branch line runs through some of the finest grain-growing, wool-producing, beef cattle and native forestry land in New South Wales—again, the land that creates the wealth on which this nation survives. Then we have the closure of CountryLink services from Casino to Murwillumbah. Other members have already spoken about this issue. How many other CountryLink services will be closed? We have CountryLink services closing, funding cutbacks, branch line neglect and closure, and outsourced and downsize arrangements for maintaining rail infrastructure, amounting to a full-scale dismantling and downgrading of rural and regional rail infrastructure.

The proposal to amalgamate the New England Area Health Service and the Hunter Area Health Service has created a climate of disbelief in the New England region, as was demonstrated by the 2,000 or so people who turned up to the rally in Tamworth last week. The Health Services Union has predicted that there could be a possible loss of 250 jobs. One would think that would be of some concern to members opposite. A Werris Creek Catholic priest, Father Ron Perrett, has described the proposed merger of the New England and Hunter area health services as a "social injustice". Quoting the Australian Catholic Bishops' 2001 Social Justice Statement on Rural and Regional Australia, Father Perrett said that one of the greatest concerns for country people was the diminishing of health services. He said:

Father Perrett's main concerns with the proposed merger are a lower quality of health care across an overly large geographical area; a loss of employment in the health sector that could lead to further job losses in the community; an undermining of the present strength of the New England Area Health Service; the rushed nature of the proposal, with a decision likely to be made on 22 June, and a lack of consultation; and the weakening of Aboriginal health services, given that the New England Area Health Service has a higher number of Aboriginal people than other health regions. Furthermore, the people of New England and the staff employed by the area health service heard the news on the local radio station. There was no consultation with the community or the staff; it was simply announced.

This Labor Government had the arrogance to deliver the recent mini-budget with all its anti regional development policies, such as the action to slash business assistance grants and other programs run by the Department of State and Regional Development to the tune of $2.5 million next year and increasing to $6 million in the following years. It then has the hide to introduce this bill, which establishes a trust to which the private sector is expected to contribute, as if businesses do not already pay enough tax in this State. The Nationals are deeply concerned about the effects flowing from the merger into a super department of the departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, Mineral Resources and State Forests. Some 600 jobs are being cut from the new super department, and dozens of jobs will be lost from State Forests and national parks.

The Treasurer has said that this will save $37 million next year, $37 million the following year and $58 million by 2007-08. How can this possibly be done without cutting front-line services and essential research support? What will happen to the activities of the local Department of Agriculture agronomists? Will they still be able to go out and give farmers advice, or have they already been told that there will be no face-to-face extension? There will be no face-to-face advisory services from the old Department of Agriculture agronomists. They have been told that they will only be able to run field days and do group support, rather than have direct contact with farmers. Labor's club tax is also going to cost country communities millions of dollars a year. For example, the direct and indirect job losses are estimated at 39 in the Bathurst electorate, 40 in Tamworth, 206 in Monaro, 48 in Dubbo, 12 in the Northern Tablelands, 159 in Port Macquarie, 827 in the Tweed—what has Napping Neville been doing in the Tweed—and 275 in Murray-Darling. One would think the member for Murray-Darling would want to support the club industry.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, he is a pub man.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: He might be a pub man, but I heard a story about him getting thrown out of the club in Bourke recently for the same reason that he has been thrown out of every pub in Murray-Darling.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: He fell straight into a pub door.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: He probably did. Of huge concern in New South Wales regional areas are the ludicrous workers compensation premiums and occupational health and safety red tape. Occupational health and safety regulations are an absolute pandora's box. The Nationals are also concerned about the delay in the commencement of 60 projects that were earmarked for funding under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage program, at a cost of $30 million. Recently I visited Glen Innes with my colleagues from The Nationals. Glen Innes council is deeply concerned as its sewerage scheme had been earmarked for an upgrade. It has been paying additional licensing fees because phosphorous and other nutrient levels are above the guidelines provided by the Environment Protection Authority.

The council is desperate to get this upgrade, which has been on the list for years. The Government has continually deferred the Glenn Innes council share of funding. The Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program has been reduced from $68 million last year to a meagre $36 million this year. What will happen in towns such as Barraba, which badly needs a water supply system? What will happen to the Glenn Innes water supply system? What will happen to the Broken Hill water supply system? Broken Hill people could not even drink their town water during the drought because it was of such poor quality, yet the very part of the budget that is meant to provide country towns with good quality water has been slashed by almost half, to $36 million.

As other honourable members have said, nothing is more important than the supply of good quality water to country communities if they are to attract regional development into those towns. As a consequence, Glenn Innes, Barraba, Broken Hill and many other small towns in country New South Wales are not in the hunt for a good water supply because the Government has cut funding to the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme. That sort of infrastructure enables decentralisation and assists country towns in the delivery of services. These towns must have good quality water and good sewerage schemes and other services that people in the cities take for granted. Yet the Government has cut funding.

As the Leader of The Nationals pointed out in his contribution to the second reading debate, as a result of Labor's major job-slashing exercise across country New South Wales, it will not be long before school numbers fall and schools close because they cannot meet their numbers. Doctors will leave because they will lose patient numbers. If one doctor leaves, another doctor would not be able to continue, and that results in a negative snowballing effect. I support the call of the Leader of The Nationals for the Government to compile job loss figures for all government departments across the State, and publicly release those figures.

Most of the clauses in the bill contain somewhat routine provisions. Clause 5 gives the Minister discretion to grant, withdraw or vary financial assistance to people proposing to establish an industry or other business that is likely to assist in developing a regional economy. Clause 6 provides that the financial assistance granted under the legislation may consist of all or any of a grant of money, subsidy or payroll tax rebate. That would be fine but, given that the department's budget is being cut, one must question whether the clause will have any clout at all. Clause 7 enables the Minister to make a grant of financial assistance subject to conditions such as meeting specified performance targets or outcomes, obtaining specified investment levels and repayment of assistance where targets, outcomes or investment levels are not met. Clause 8 specifies that an employer must pay all payroll tax for a year to entitle the employer to qualify for a rebate for that year.

Clause 9 enables the Minister to require financial assistance to be repaid if a condition of the assistance was that it be repaid or if a condition has not been complied with. Will there be any latitude in the event of a severe general economic downturn or a local economic shock that causes a business to renege on one or more of its conditions? The recent drought is an example of a situation in which country businesses, including those not directly involved in agriculture, experienced a major downturn. Drought causes a major negative flow-on. One in four jobs in agriculture has been lost in Australia as a result of the drought. That has an impact on any business in a country area, but obviously it has had a greater impact on those directly involved in agriculture. People do not have the money to spend at the local car dealership or coffee shop. So all suffer. It would be most unfortunate if the Government were to contribute to the demise of a country business by enforcing the agreement when a business is grappling with a major problem not of its own making.

Clause 11 provides for the establishment of a regional development trust fund into which money appropriated by Parliament and other money, including gifts and bequests, is to be paid for the purposes of this legislation. The fund is to be used for the payment of financial assistance under the legislation and to pay the costs of administering it. The Minister's second reading speech states that the trust will encourage private sector contributions to regional development across New South Wales. The Government believes that large businesses have a responsibility to the regions and towns in which they operate, and that if they close or reduce their operations in those towns they have a moral obligation to help the community find new investment and employment opportunities. Though that may be fine for large corporations, such as banks and so on, I would not like that principle imposed on small local businesses, which really underpin the rural community.

In his contribution to the second reading debate the Leader of The Nationals called on the Minister for several assurances and explanations. How will the trust encourage private sector contributions? How will the Government apply moral pressure to companies closing or reducing their operations in a town? What criteria will be applied to expected contributions? Will companies in serious financial trouble be expected to pay, and by doing so further endanger their capacity to survive? What consultation has taken place with New South Wales businesses or industry representatives about this fund? Will the fund act as a disincentive to businesses looking to set up in a regional area? The mechanisms for encouraging contributions and applying moral pressure are not spelt out in the legislation. The Minister has said that contributions to this fund will be held in the trust and reinvested in the local communities concerned. That statement is not supported by the legislation. There is no mention of the money being reinvested in the local area from which it came. And there is concern that the fund will become a Labor Party flush fund, distributing largesse at the Minister's whim.

Clause 12 gives statutory recognition to the Regional Development Advisory Council, which comprises the chairs of the 13 regional development boards. Clause 17 repeals the Country Industries (Pay-roll Tax Rebates) Act 1977. Its functions will be undertaken by the Regional Business Development Scheme. In conclusion, if Labor were truly and seriously committed to the principles contained in clause 3 of the bill, we would not be witnessing the major job-slashing exercise currently being carried out across country New South Wales. We would not be witnessing the slaughtering of business enterprise centres across this State. We would not be witnessing the expectation that proprietors of businesses in Moree drive to Armidale to get advice from a business enterprise centre. We would not be witnessing the closing of hundreds of business enterprise centres and their reconstitution as super centres. The Federal Government is in the process of lowering taxes and increasing the services available to people in rural and regional areas.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You could talk for hours about Federal Government initiatives.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My leader is correct: I could talk for hours about the successes of the Federal Government in regional areas. While the Federal Government is lowering taxes and increasing services, in contrast the New South Wales Government is increasing State taxes and reducing or closing services available to community centres.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You know why. It is all to do with the Grants Commission.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The honourable member provokes me by mentioning the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I am sure she would be fully aware of the composition of that commission. It consists of all State Labor Premiers and the Prime Minister. So it is the State Labor Premiers who decide how the cake will be cut. The honourable member does not want to hear this because it is State Labor Premiers who are responsible for the raw deal that New South Wales is getting. Bob Carr should sit down with Peter Beattie and Steve Bracks and work out a solution, because they are deciding how much New South Wales will cop. It is not John Howard's fault. It is the fault of Peter Beattie, Steve Bracks and Bob Carr. The Nationals and the Liberals will not oppose this bill. But, as the Leader of The Nationals reminded us recently, the actions of the New South Wales Labor Government speak much louder than its words. It would do much better if it got on with the job, rather than telling this Chamber that it is the Federal Government's fault.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe) left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.00 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Regional Development Bill, which will provide a framework for strategic intervention in the economies of regional New South Wales through the provision of financial assistance to regions. A number of speakers have already shared their concern about problems in the country areas of New South Wales. We certainly need the Government to show strong leadership in promoting decentralisation in New South Wales. On the surface, the bill is designed to do that. Those of us who travel regularly through country New South Wales have seen first hand the problems experienced by country towns in rural and regional areas. I travel regularly from Sydney out to Bourke and Broken Hill, up to the Tweed and down to Albury and Wagga Wagga, et cetera. During my travels I see prosperous towns such as Wagga Wagga, Albury, Tamworth and Lismore, but I also see many struggling towns that are losing their doctors, chemists, banks and even police stations.

We must promote and support growth in country New South Wales not only to improve the economy but also to provide jobs. If jobs are available families will stay in the smaller country towns and villages throughout New South Wales, and they will grow and become economically strong. On the other hand, all honourable members know that Sydney is being strangled by the rapid growth in population. The Government must plan skilfully to establish new industries in and encourage people to move into country areas, especially those who have taken up residence in this country under various migration schemes. All the figures I have seen indicate that almost 100 per cent of migrants stay in the Sydney area—they seem to gravitate to the cities.

Families from various cultural backgrounds reside in the suburbs of Sydney, whether it is South America, the Middle East or Asia. People from the same cultural background gravitate to those communities because they feel a relationship with those who have been here for some time. However, we are aware of previous mistakes in attempting to develop regional areas, for example, the Whitlam fiascos of Albury and Wodonga, and Bathurst and Orange. Regional development, which requires local involvement and the support of shire councils and regional businesspeople, must be handled carefully. To avoid creating a white elephant we must undertake a study of industries to determine what will fit in with the community before we expend a great deal of money.

When I read the bill I noticed that it contained a lot of code words. Even though the bill came from the Hon. David Campbell, the Minister for Regional Development, we know that the Hon. Michael Egan, the Minister for State Development, once had an interest in this area. I wonder what some of these code words will mean in practice when the legislation is implemented. For example, one of the major objects of the bill is to grant financial assistance to a person conducting or proposing to establish an industry or other business in a region, or to a person or group of persons for the purposes of carrying out an undertaking that is likely to assist the economic development of a region or the subject of the Act. The bill seems open ended. It says that the financial assistance may consist of a grant of money, a subsidy or a payroll tax rebate. What does the Government anticipate will be the total budget of the grants? How effective will these grants be? Are they substantial enough to help a new industry in a country centre get started? That part of the bill offers money, but it seems that another part of the bill will take it away.

The second aspect of the bill is to recover money from businesses that receive government financial assistance, but default on important conditions set out in the assistance agreement. If the Government takes back money from a business I can only assume that the business has failed. Why would a business be required to repay the money if it were operating successfully? Surely, such a business should be given every possible support. If a business has failed, I would be curious to know what money the Government would seek to recoup. Another set of code words is the Regional Development Trust, which will help to encourage private sector contributions to regional development. In other words, money from the private sector will go into the Regional Development Trust. On the one hand, the bill talks about grants but, on the other hand, two aspects of the bill refer to the Treasury, as supervising Government income and expenditure, encouraging the private sector to invest in assisting regional development. Will private sector money always be voluntary? Is there any possibility of levies, which would give the private sector no option but to contribute to the Regional Development Trust?

The bill does not set out whether the trust will have any government money. I hope it will. The Minister might explain whether the Government will contribute financially to the trust or whether all the money will come from the private sector. But the Government will control the allocation of money from the trust. I note that the bill gives statutory recognition to the important work of the Regional Development Advisory Council, which will be made up of the chairs of 11 regional development boards. At quick glance, the bill does not specifically make clear who will be the chairman of the 11 regional development boards. One part simply states, "members of the Advisory Council are to be appointed by the Minister". Perhaps that gives the Minister or the chairman the flexibility to not have 11 regional development boards, or some of them, or at some future date to have another plan to nominate other people.

The bill also consolidates the existing country industries payroll tax rebate scheme into the wider framework. The best plan to reduce payroll tax would be to scrap it. Along with other members of the House I have said that payroll tax is just a tax on jobs. Why do we have a tax on jobs? Why do employers have to pay a payroll tax, which is a disincentive to hire people? I encourage the Government to not talk about rebates but to talk about the abolition of payroll tax. The Minister reported that the Regional Business Development Scheme has been given an annual allocation of $8 million. In New South Wales $8 million does not sound very much money for the redevelopment of all the communities, suburbs, villages and towns if the Government is really serious about regional development. That is a symbolic or token amount, not a realistic amount. In one of my cynical moments I wondered whether the bill was designed to help Country Labor or even Federal Labor as we face an election. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [8.11 [p.m.]: I support the Regional Development Bill. In doing so I draw to the attention of the House the continued and further reinforced commitment of the Carr Government for regional development in New South Wales. Right across country New South Wales, in regional cities and small towns, we have seen the benefit of Labor's commitment.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Name one!

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I refer to the recent visit by the Hon. David Campbell, the Minister for Regional Development, to Tamworth to announce funding for Blue Stripe Meats, one of our more innovative companies in country New South Wales. The company is doing an excellent job at hitting a niche export market for processed meat. It is very exciting. The meat industry is important to Tamworth, and the Government is helping local companies in the meat industry to value add. That is what regional development is all about in country New South Wales: value adding and helping a company to innovate and expand its markets. That is an example of being strategic in an industry that is relevant to the Tamworth area: looking at the region's strengths and helping it to innovate and build on those strengths.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Well, you could have a Cabinet meeting in Tamworth, right now.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: We have had one. The Howard Government's withdrawal of support for regional development when it first came to power caused many major hiccups within the program.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Rubbish!

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner can say "Rubbish", but I will continue. Some very interesting organisations are competing with each other in regional New South Wales, and that has a lot to do with the Federal Government's belief that regional development is about promoting a political party.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: A political party of country people. It was genuine, as distinct from a fad.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: That is right: Country Labor. Thank you. For every dollar of tax that New South Wales collected, the Federal Government collected approximately $5 in tax. That is it yet another instance of the Howard Government ripping off New South Wales, and regional development is yet another area it should put more money and support into. I wish to refer to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and respond to something said by the Hon. Rick Colless, who was most confused. The Commonwealth Grants Commission is made up of people selected by the Howard Government. The commission's members make decisions about what grants will go to New South Wales.

The Commission has a precise formula that in the past many of us have fought hard to have changed. However, it has not changed because it is much easier to put dollars into States where there are fewer people; it gives more effect. In New South Wales, where we have more people, the formula makes no difference. The formula has nothing to do with the Council of Australian Governments, which attempts to change the results of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is incredibly important for honourable members to know the difference: the grants form no part of the New South Wales Premier's representations. I will respond to what our opponents have said about regional development in recent times. When elected as the Leader of The Nationals in June 2003, Andrew Stoner said:

He said it was good to get away from the traditional stereotypes of tweed jackets, jodhpurs, and a sprig of wheat between the teeth. What has he done in the past 12 months to promote regional development and make The Nationals more visible? Not much, if he is to be judged by his own words. On 25 June he was reported in the Dubbo Daily Liberal on the eve of The Nationals conference as having said:

How would he know that The Nationals became a bit complacent in Government? He was not elected until 1999, when the Coalition was again defeated by the people of New South Wales. I refer to The Nationals conference, which was held last weekend. The ABC reported:

During debate he vigorously argued against the proposal because Sydney was where everything happened—so much for supporting jobs for the bush! The media also reported that 200 people were expected to attend The Nationals conference, but only 150 turned up—less than half the number of people who attended the Country Labor conference that was held on the previous weekend. Several resolutions, including those concerning country rail lines and TAFE fees, were similar to those put up at last week's New South Wales Country Labor conference. Typical!

The Nationals are out of date, chasing Country Labor for ideas and policies. The standing orders for our conference were about the protection of the banana, apple, pear and pork industries. What were they at The Nationals conference? As at 1 June 2004 the National Party of Australia, New South Wales branch is still registered with the State Electoral Office. So much for the new name and new dynamic team of The Nationals!

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: It is not a branch; it is an independent political party. It is not a branch of anything. We are an independent, autonomous political party—the National Party of Australia, New South Wales.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: A branch, largely independent of everyone. There is really no point in The Nationals standing up to prove a point. During this debate I found it difficult to listen to The Nationals talking about how wonderful Queensland is. I have been to Queensland as a member of a Legislative Council committee. There is an incredible amount of glitz and glamour in Queensland. I have relatives who live in Queensland and they have the same difficulties as everyone living in country New South Wales, except that there are masses of glitz and glamour.

Where in the statistics are the jobs growth and business growth? They are in New South Wales. I am not saying that we do not have major regional development problems in certain geographic areas of country New South Wales. The Minister for Regional Development well knows that and he has spent a lot of time travelling across country New South Wales to look at the problem. However, I am not sucked in by the glitz and glamour of Queensland, as some are.

We should look at what is good about country New South Wales. Before today I had never heard of strategic requests for individual regional needs being knocked back. We heard a lot about the processes that are currently used by the Government to reinforce regional development in specific areas, but I have never heard of a company proving that assistance will bring strategic benefit to an area and not getting that assistance. I am sure that the supporters of some of the people who made this claim today would be surprised to hear that the funds they were given were not strategic. Regional development operates across the board; while Labor is in power, people do not have to be in a particular party to receive assistance.

The roads and transport programs of the New South Wales Government have been based on regional development strategies. Health services are based on regional development and regional needs. I take umbrage at the remarks about health services, particularly in relation to the New England and north-west region, where a lot has been spent on infrastructure to meet the needs of those places, their industrial base, and their present or potential populations. Funding for schools and TAFE is based on the same processes. There is enormous consultation with local industry about individual TAFE courses to ensure that the skill base relevant to the industries is available. The reduction of red tape has been a very effective strategy of the Carr Government but, unfortunately, the imposition of the goods and services tax coincided with the reduction of red tape.

[Interruption]

It is a red tape issue, and Federal Labor proposed a reduction of red tape for small businesses. I will refer briefly to Armidale and Uralla. It was claimed that the area has not been given priority for regional development. Large amounts of regional development funding have gone to the Armidale area, mostly in programs such as Country Week that will affect the whole of New South Wales. Armidale is a strange city. It is a university city.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: It is not strange; it is a wonderful city.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I think it is wonderful too, but it is a university city. It is atypical for the New England and north-west region.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: There is nothing strange about it.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: It is atypical.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You said it was strange.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: It is atypical. Armidale, with the shire of Uralla, is a rural area based on a university. That area has the lowest number of socio-economically disadvantaged people in the north of the State. The geography of the area is also a consideration in relation to industry development. It is in a valley and it is very difficult to extend. Why on earth would the Hon. Melinda Pavey use Armidale as an example for regional development comparisons in western New South Wales? I am not saying that Armidale should not have the advantage of regional development, which it has, but its geography is not conducive to siting a factory or an industrial base.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You can extend it, with mathematics and science and information technology for rural and regional education, as John Anderson did on Saturday.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I am really pleased to hear that John Anderson has extended the Armidale university. I would like that recorded in Hansard. The university has certainly been suffering considerably under the education policies of the Federal Government. The roads and transport programs of the New South Wales Government have been based on a regional development strategy. I have already dealt with health services and TAFE. The bill will further increase opportunities for regional development. I call on Opposition members to get their Federal counterparts to reinvest in country New South Wales and in regional development instead of just setting up regional organisations that compete with the very effective State regional development boards.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner to order.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.25 p.m.]: Although primary industries contribute an estimated $8 billion per annum to economic growth in New South Wales, people living in rural and regional areas of the State experience a significant disparity between the city and the country. According to the NSW Farmers magazine of May 2002—a little dated but still showing relativities—the average annual household income for someone in the city is $40,470, compared with $30,470 in the country, which is 33 per cent lower. The unemployment rate in the city at that time was 5 per cent and in the country it was 7.6 per cent, or 52 per cent higher. Greater Sydney had 63 per cent of the State's population and 80 per cent of all population growth in the State at 1.3 per cent per annum, compared with 37 per cent of the population living in rural New South Wales, with a growth rate of minus 0.1 per cent per annum.

People in Sydney had one general practitioner for every 820 patients whereas there was one general practitioner for every 1,075 patients in rural towns and for every 1,520 patients in remote rural areas. The situation with specialists is even worse, with one for every 900 city patients, one for every 2,200 in small rural centres, and one for every 8,550 in remote areas. Only 59 per cent of year 12 students in rural and regional areas complete the Higher School Certificate, compared with 60 per cent in Sydney, 9.2 per cent fewer. With those figures in mind it is essential that the Government should take the lead and ensure the economic, social and environmental sustainability of regional and country New South Wales.

With the national competition policy [NCP] and the removal of market and trade barriers on agricultural products, regional and country New South Wales have been hit hard and have had to adapt to survive in a globalised marketplace, where they are competing against a subsidised product. While farmers and small businesses in country New South Wales have shown great ingenuity and tenacity, it is difficult to compete against countries such as France, Japan and the United States, which have gross domestic products 10 times larger than Australia's and continue to subsidise their primary producers. In April 2002 I moved a motion condemning the United States Congress for passing the Farm Subsidies Bill. The Democrats are also opposed to the Australia-United States free trade agreement as the potential negative effects far outstrip the positives. It is Democrats policy to abolish the NCP as the NCP market and regulation reforms place the interests of economic theory over social and community concerns.

We have recently seen evidence of that in bills dealing with the deregulation of the liquor industry and some of the professions, particularly optometrists and dentists. As policymakers and legislators we need to examine the comparative advantages of a regional community and match them with appropriate investment and business. But all these changes must be transparent. As I have said many times—and I will say it again in the budget debate—New South Wales is extremely foolish in its refusal to borrow. Banks will lend to people who have assets. To pursue debt reduction as an end in itself is a foolish policy. No-one saves for a house; one buys a small house, pays it off, and then buys a larger house.

The aim of investing is to get a better return than the rate one borrows at. That is the only road to riches, yet we have a triple-A rating and we refuse to borrow. The Treasurer points out that few people have a triple-A credit rating. Basically, everyone has debts but they have assets to cover them and they can use their assets to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. New South Wales is unable to do that because of the foolish policy of the Government. If a total aversion to debt was not enough, the Government continues to sell assets to make up the deficit, which is even more foolish than its refusal to borrow. The Premier should be called Bob the seller rather than Bob the builder. Perhaps we could have a little rhyme, with apologies to Bob the builder:

Bob the seller, can we spin it?
Bob the seller, yes, we can.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Can't build, can spin!

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I acknowledge the interjection. The aim of this bill is to codify a strategic framework for economic development in regional and country New South Wales. Perhaps that language is a little grandiose. The aim of the bill is to codify existing practices. The framework, if one calls it that, is "the Minister may". It is discretionary; it does not have an inherent philosophy. The bill establishes a Regional Development Trust, which is intended to work with private sector businesses, investors, and regional communities to develop and establish new enterprises in country New South Wales. The Regional Development Advisory Council will now be a statutory authority and will have the task of advising the Minister on regional investment and development. Members will be appointed by the Minister in accordance with the regulations, which are yet to be drafted. Therefore we are taking it all on trust.

I am told the bill is a codification of existing practices of the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development. My understanding is that the department deals mainly with big businesses and that small businesses are served by the business enterprise centres [BECs], which mainly run education programs. In one North Coast town I spoke to a BEC manager who said the retailers were making so little money it was almost uneconomic for them to open their doors: they kept doing it out of habit. That BEC had a program of breeding rabbits for the Sydney restaurant market, but the project collapsed when the funding for the person doing the restaurant marketing was discontinued just as the program was getting going. I am not sure under what program the discontinued grants were made.

Today the Hon. John Tingle asked a question about the closure of the BEC at Port Macquarie, a rapidly growing town on the North Coast. It has an aging demographic because it is a retirement centre and obviously needs businesses and education facilities that will attract young people. A number of people involved with BECs have told me they receive only a small part of the Department of State and Regional Development's budget, despite the fact that because they are small businesses they create the most employment.

When I travel around the State, I often meet the heads of chambers of commerce. I always ask what they regard as the long-term driver of their towns' prosperity. I am amazed at how few answers I get. Perhaps many business people are conscious only of their own incomes, plans and expenditure and cannot conceptualise a town or region. Perhaps chambers of commerce tend towards being main street retailers. One exception is the council of Harden, which made sure it secured access to the fibre-optic cable that runs past the town so it could develop online industries. Many other towns cannot do so as they have slow Internet services. I congratulate Harden on that, although I am not sure if the strategy has yet shown results.

I asked a Department of State and Regional Development manager in a large country town who was about to retire what he thought was the main contribution he had made in his working life. He said he thought it was his contribution to the forest industry. I thought that was an interesting reply, because there are far fewer jobs in that industry than there formerly were. The forest industry had declined sharply during his lifetime and was closing down. There would no more value adding or furniture making that may have saved jobs in the region. I wondered whether the Department of State and Regional Development was funding a sunset industry. He seemed to have no insight beyond the closure of the industry.

I have reservations about the bill. Governments who try to pick winners are often wrong. It seems that the Government should simply build on infrastructure so there are good reasons for people to live in the country. The Brisbane to Melbourne inland rail line would have been a good start for New South Wales. That is now leased to the Commonwealth. We are paying a fortune for more car-dependent suburbs in the Sydney basin and building road tunnels rather than using the rail network. Surely it would be better to use the funding to ensure the survival of key regional towns, although we cannot have a subsidy-driven regional economy. Better infrastructure will encourage people to live in regional areas, but the areas to receive funding must be chosen by an open process and they must have a competitive advantage.

Recently I went to China with five mayors from the Central West to try to sell the regions they represent. The Chinese gave us beautifully presented material with detailed economic analyses showing why we should invest in their industrial growth areas. They were interested in buying our commodities but they did not want to invest in processing in rural New South Wales because they assumed—presumably correctly—that they could process primary products more cheaply than we could. They assumed that we would have country payroll tax exemptions and that we would have strategies for the regions represented by the mayors. The members of the delegation had not even met prior to the trip and there was no overall strategy to sell the Central West of New South Wales. I shudder to think what the Chinese thought.

Clause 14 of the bill is almost anti-transparency. It seems to be all based on the concept of commercial in confidence. The Government has said to me privately that it is necessary or people will not ask for funding. Transparency is necessary, especially in view of the lack of overall strategy for the regional development of New South Wales. The cynic in me would say this clause could be used to pork barrel and to give funds to industries that donate to the Government. I continually note how much money is given to the major political parties.

I remember the words of a man high in the Liberal Party when I was briefly a member in 1981 and 1982. I said, "We have to do something about the tobacco industry. I work in medicine. They are killing thousands." He said, "Sonny, they are very generous donors to our party. Do you know they gave us $30,000 last year?" I said, "Yes, but it is costing the country $2.5 billion a year." He said, "Yes, but the $30,000 is our money." I said, "Oh, $30,000 is the going price for the Liberal Party in New South Wales, is it?" He said, "You will never get anywhere with an attitude like that, Sonny."

I am not altogether sure that Labor is much different. It certainly has lots of expensive dinners. Smoke-free pubs and clubs are coming. We will certainly see who is buying whom. I am also concerned that the information relating to financial grants given to businesses will be protected under the Freedom of Information Act and will fall under the commercial in confidence exemption from disclosure. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment in Committee to try to remedy the situation. I regard the amendment as fairly moderate, as the Minister did, but the Minister's minders have assured him that the revelation of any financial details about the companies will cause the scheme to collapse.

The New South Wales branch of the Australian Democrats supports the policy of the New South Wales Farmers Association to establish a scheme under the direction of the Rural Assistance Authority whereby people who are under the age of 40 and who are not landowners and are not likely to inherit farming land will be able to receive low interest loans to help to purchase the necessary stock, equipment or land for a career in farming. The lack of capital and the large number of farmers' children who are not entering the industry have increased the median age of Australian farmers from 46 to 48 years. There is a need for more innovation in production, marketing and sustainable resource management, and young people entering the farming sector can bring about such innovation. But whatever scheme is devised, it must be transparent. We must know how much it will cost the taxpayers so that the scheme can be evaluated, and we must know what we are getting. We need evidence-based legislation.

The Democrats believe that regional development should be based on achieving the triple bottom line of sustainable economic, environmental and social development. The migration of people from rural and regional New South Wales to metropolitan Sydney must be stopped. Even Bob, the Seller, agrees with that proposition. To stop the population increase in the Sydney Basin, a real regional development plan is needed to provide good jobs, infrastructure, tertiary and ongoing education opportunities and health services because these elements are crucial to maintaining strong and healthy regional and rural communities. The Democrats support initiatives whereby the government, the business community, farming and education sectors and community service providers develop economic planning strategies to pursue investment and employment growth opportunities that are designed to meet specific regional needs.

I fear that this bill represents tokenism because it provides for a little money to be distributed to select groups that are favourably inclined towards regional development so that they are seen to be receiving financial assistance from the Government. However, the funding is not enough to provide significant infrastructure projects to give businesses an advantageous market position in the real world that will encourage investors to locate their enterprises in country areas. The success of economic development is dependent on the maintenance and development of the necessary economic and social infrastructure. The erosion of infrastructure and services in many regional communities and the cumulative effects on employment and economic sustainability are only some of the causes of economic decline in many rural communities.

I support the bill because it formalises an existing situation and provides for the establishment of the Regional Development Trust, which I hope will be a source of better advice than is currently available. However, I am concerned about the lack of a real strategy and that the Minister, in the absence of real transparency, is being given so much power. I reiterate my intention to move an amendment to provide transparency, in spite of the fact that the Government has indicated that it will not support it.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [8.42 p.m.]: The Regional Development Bill continues the narrow and simplistic approach that is at the core of failed regional development policy under almost 10 long years of the Carr Government. By all reasonable accounts, the Government's term of office has provided time enough for it to lay the groundwork for invigorated regional communities and competitive rural industries. We should be witnessing steady repopulation of regional areas, and regional centres should be seeing a better standard of living as well as the creation of educational and employment opportunities that are comparable to those of their urban counterparts. Moreover, regional areas should be experiencing strong socioeconomic confidence that is founded on adequate local investment in infrastructure and amenities. That this has not transpired makes it all the more ludicrous that the Government should refer to this legislation as paving the way for strategic intervention. If anything, the reverse is true. There has been minimal deliberation and foresight, and only a hotchpotch commitment to long-term support.

As mentioned by various honourable members, recent withdrawals of Government support include the closure of the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture, the contraction of TAFE facilities in Forbes, the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah train service and the amalgamation of business enterprise centres. The belief that the Carr Government is facilitating its own urban drift is further consolidated by the proposed amalgamation of area health services that will only magnify the existing pressures and shortages that are already plaguing regional New South Wales health services. Investment strategies in the regional sector also show many basic mismatches, such as a substantial capital works commitment for upgrading of existing health amenities and establishment of new facilities without any assurance that the facilities will not sit idle while the Government gets around to working on its recruitment and staffing crisis in the health sector. There is also little in the recent State budget to restore the lost confidence of regional New South Wales investors as more and more of them move northward to seek better returns.

Socioeconomic instability, declining jobs and training opportunities, the gradual deterioration and shrinking of local investment programs and basic amenities will serve only to hasten the urban drift and widen the rift between metropolitan and regional areas. That precarious state of affairs is little helped by the Carr Government's statewide program of cost cutting, which includes merging the departments of agriculture, fisheries and mineral resources with State Forests and placing in jeopardy the various assistance programs that are administered by those departments. The record of the Government and the rhetoric of its leader inspire no confidence at all that its commitments to regional and rural New South Wales will somehow change with this legislation. In the past, this State's political leader has put much of the blame for the woes of Sydney on migrants and has since extended this line of thought to attempt to reduce the migrant intake into New South Wales based on the claim of further woes, including sustainability problems. That extraordinary example of short-sightedness seems not to recognise the opportunity to reintroduce critical skills and investment to areas of New South Wales that are in need.

Reading between the lines, this bill is largely rhetoric with little substance or vision of a concrete development strategy. Its content is more emphatic about accounting details and securing returns while devolving financial responsibility from the Government than about regional development strategy. The bill gives no indication of the grants system being open to competitive tender or being weighted against businesses or skills that are of critical value to regional and rural development—factors that determine whether tradespeople, educators, entrepreneurs as well as medical and allied staff are attracted to rural areas. There is no reference to transparency or public consultation and examination. The extent of ministerial discretion also suggests that the substance of the yet-unexplained strategy and how it will operate to encourage investment is flimsy. It is a case of the emperor having no clothes.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [8.47 p.m.]: At the outset I concede that I am not an expert on economics, particularly regional economics, but I know when something is not right in the bush. People are hurting and towns are in trouble. I do not live in a truly rural area, although mine is certainly a regional area with a mixed economy and rural and regional activities. I live near the border between Queensland and New South Wales and that area is a good example of the difference in regional policy between the two States. There is no geographical difference between areas on either side of the border, but in the main street of Tweed and south Tweed there are rows of empty shops that stand as testament to the difference between regional development in New South Wales and Queensland.

In New South Wales, an overflow of residential estates from the Gold Coast was touted as a potential jobs bonanza. Although there are large residential areas in places such as Banora Point, there is no industry to support the work force. The morning traffic jams at Tugun are a large part of the reason why the Tugun bypass is necessary and they tell the story of the morning exodus of people to Queensland in pursuit of work. In the northern part of New South Wales, there is little industry or employment. Many of the local people in the area in which I live now commute daily to Brisbane for work. Most of our health services are provided by Gold Coast hospitals. The nearest major health facility is Lismore Base Hospital, but it is necessary for people to go to Coffs Harbour to receive large-scale health care.

Recently we lost our trains, which added to the local woes. The club industry, which has always been a large industry on the Tweed coast, is also being hit. My children grew up with the club system. When they were young, the mums went to the mothers groups, which were sponsored by the local clubs. The children played soccer on the fields provided and maintained by the Twin Towns club. They played tennis on facilities provided by the clubs. They have swum in the pools provided by the local clubs, and played golf for free on courses provided by the clubs. We are all members of the local surf club, which is sponsored by the local clubs. My children's grandfather, who is a veteran, is supplied with meals provided by the clubs. My children's schools are supported by the local clubs. The new taxes are taking money out of our economy that we desperately need.

The new land tax will see the local shop, post office and meeting place in our small coastal town sold off because the owner cannot afford the new taxes of several hundred dollars a week. The drought also adds to the woes of regional New South Wales. As others have said, the regional areas of the State need to be nurtured and not decimated, and I encourage the Government to invest in them.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [8.51 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner referred to the repayment of financial assistance. As honourable members would agree, the spending of taxpayers' money on government assistance must be accountable. For the contribution we make on behalf of New South Wales taxpayers, we want to be sure that we achieve certain outcomes. Any funding agreement made under this legislation may specify benchmarks that are linked to the assistance provided. Typically, funding arrangements have two types of benchmarks. A failure to meet critical benchmarks will require the repayment of the assistance. Funding agreements will also include benchmarks that will lead to further additional assistance if met. In the event that a company does not comply with a critical benchmark agreed to be part of the assistance agreement, I can assure honourable members that the Department of State and Regional Development will be sensible in making decisions about whether repayment is warranted. Any genuine circumstances that the company may provide will be considered.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked how much assistance the Government would provide under its regional development programs. The Government assesses each application for assistance on a case-by-case basis. The amount of assistance provided will depend on various factors, including the value of the investment and the number of additional jobs it will bring to a regional area. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe suggested that the Regional Development Bill is not backed by financial assistance to the regions. This clearly shows her lack of knowledge of regional development activity in New South Wales. The second reading speech outlines the range of the Government's regional development programs, but I will reiterate some of them for the benefit of the honourable member.

To assist regional businesses expand, we commit $8 million a year to the Regional Business Development Scheme. We also have the New Market Expansion Program to help regional businesses access new and overseas markets. The Government also provides assistance to regional communities to find new investment opportunities. Since July 1999 more than 150 communities have been assisted under the Government's Main Street/Small Towns Program. In May 2004 the Minister for Regional Development invited smaller country communities, that is, towns with fewer than 2,500 residents, to apply for funding under the Towns and Villages Program. In November 2003, under the Country Lifestyles Program, the Minister for Regional Development led a tour of building and construction investors to several regional towns. The investors were taken to Tumbarumba, Griffith and West Wyalong, regional communities that were experiencing economic growth and increasing demands for housing.

These are just some examples of the Government's programs that are available to regional businesses and regional communities to help attract investment and jobs to country New South Wales. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe said that she does not understand what is meant by "strategic intervention". I am happy to explain the concept. The Government does not want to prescribe to communities what is best for them; rather, we want to work with communities on projects that the community has developed with our assistance, unlike the old-fashioned notion of regional development. Strategic intervention is about a greater focus on local solutions to regional economic development problems. There is also a greater emphasis on growing existing regional businesses, and helping regional communities identify and build on the strengths of the area. The principle of strategic intervention encourages local leadership, and the Government assists regional communities to realise economic growth through locally developed solutions. The Government does this through the range of regional development programs I have referred to.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey referred to Queensland's ability to attract investment. New South Wales is Australia's economic powerhouse. As Australia's largest and most dynamic economy, this State offers interstate and international companies a stable and strong environment in which to grow their businesses. That is why New South Wales continues to attract major business investment. Throughout 2002-03 business investment in New South Wales rose by almost 10 per cent to $26 billion. But we are not complacent about the strength of our economy. The Government is not only supportive of companies wishing to relocate their business to New South Wales but also helps New South Wales businesses, especially regional businesses, grow and export.

I will cite a couple of examples of interstate companies taking advantage of a strong New South Wales economy. In March 2000 Black Watch Boats, a manufacturer of fibreglass game fishing cruisers and houseboats, closed its Queensland operations at Arundel, on the Gold Coast. The entire operation was relocated to Chinderah, south of Tweed Heads. Last year Kellogg's announced a $13 million expansion of its Charmhaven facility on the Central Coast and the closing down of its Queensland operation. The expansion will create 121 new jobs. There is no doubt that the Queensland economy is doing well. But it must be borne in mind that New South Wales also subsidises other States, such as Queensland, to the tune of $2.5 billion a year. New South Wales comprises 34 per cent of Australia's population. New South Wales taxpayers pay 37 per cent of the GST collected by the Federal Government, yet we get back just 28 per cent of the GST revenue.

The New South Wales Government continues to create an economic climate that encourages businesses to succeed and grow. The Government's microeconomic reforms continue to reduce the cost of doing business by delivering real reductions in Government charges. In the eight years to June 2003 businesses in New South Wales have seen average real reductions in electricity charges of up to 17 per cent, real reductions in port charges of 31 per cent, real reductions in water charges of 44 per cent, and real reductions in freight rail charges of 44 per cent. Tax rates have also fallen. When the Coalition was last in office, payroll tax hit 8 per cent. Today it is only 6 per cent.

The Hon. John Ryan: That is the rate, not the amount.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Of course it is the rate.

The Hon. John Ryan: On a bigger payroll, it is more money. That is because wages have gone up.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Are you suggesting that wages should not go up?

The Hon. John Ryan: Of course wages go up, but the Government is getting a bigger cut.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Hon. Rick Colless raised concern about the Regional Development Trust Fund. Perhaps the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans also will be interested in this. The trust fund will provide a transparent mechanism for the handling of voluntary contributions that industry may choose to make to help promote investment and jobs for a particular regional community. The trust fund will mean that companies who are thinking about making a contribution can feel confident that their contribution is spent in a transparent way. This transparency will encourage companies to make voluntary contributions.

Country communities can also feel confident that the money is being spent in a transparent way to help them attract investment and jobs growth. Over many years the Government has developed a range of programs and schemes to assist country communities to attract jobs. These programs include the Regional Business Development Scheme, the Regional Economic Transition Scheme, the New Market Expansion Program, the Country Lifestyles Program, the Main Street/Small Towns Program, the Developing Regional Resources Program, the Towns and Villages Futures Program, the Illawarra Advantage Fund and the Hunter Advantage Fund.

Underlying all these programs is a common principle in policy: promoting jobs growth and attracting investment for rural and regional New South Wales. That is what this bill does. It ties all these regional development assistance programs under one legislative framework. I am confident that all honourable members would agree that while ultimately private sector investment delivers sustainable jobs, the Government has a role to strategically intervene to ensure that country New South Wales gets a share of economic growth. The Regional Development Bill commits the Government to these goals now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.00 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3. Insert after line 18:

(e) to promote the development in regions of industries that contribute to maintaining and enhancing the natural values of regions in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (as described in section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991).

This amendment seeks to ensure that promotion of development of regional industries contributes, in part, to maintaining and enhancing the natural values of regions in accordance with the principle of ecologically sustainable development [ESD], as described in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. The Greens seek to amend the object of the Act to fall within the boundaries of ESD and believe that at one stage it was part of a consensus with the Government to involve ecologically sustainable development principles as part of such legislation. Certainly, in regard to regional development there are many issues that are assessed by the Greens at least to be worthy of environmental assessment when certain regional development is undertaken for the greater good. I commend the amendment to the House.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.02 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. Businesses in New South Wales are already required to comply with strong, effective and comprehensive environmental legislation. This includes the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the Water Management Act and the Native Vegetation Act, just to name a few. Under this amendment a regional business with all the necessary environmental approvals would have to go through a duplicate and additional environmental review before it could receive financial assistance under the Regional Development Act.

If somebody already complies with the requirements set out in environmental legislation then why should we provide an additional hurdle under this legislation? The Regional Development Bill is not an appropriate mechanism to set further environmental standards. It is self-evident that the Government would only provide assistance to projects that are within the law, including our environmental legislation. I am pleased to say that the Government's regional development assistance has helped many environmentally beneficial projects, including the CSIRO Energy Technology Centre and Steel River Technology Park at Mayfield, which will house the CSIRO's scientific effort into sustainable energy technologies and will also serve as a national and global showcase for the Australian energy industry's engagement in the latest technologies.

Quantum Energy in Adamstown has just been assisted to establish the initial manufacturing plant in Newcastle. The company manufactures solar-powered reverse heat pump hot water heaters and systems. Innovar Soil Technology at Callaghan was assisted to establish a soil decontamination plant, which was developed in conjunction with Newcastle University. The Government's Cleaner Production program helped small businesses to adopt cleaner production. A self-help toolkit has been developed and is available free of charge to promote ecologically sustainable production practices, and grants for businesses to develop and implement cleaner production methods are also available. Tamburlaine Wines has been supported by the Government to implement a total waste management system. The system includes a water recycling system, which has resulted in sustainable environmental performance, lower costs, higher production and increased profits. The New South Wales Government is providing $80,000 towards a study into zone forestry opportunities for native food production in the State's far west. The Government will continue to support businesses that bring investment and jobs to a region and also promote good environmental practices.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [9.04 p.m.]: The Nationals and the Liberals are not in a position to support the Greens amendment. The amendment seeks to insert into the objects of the Act an environmental clause in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development as described in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate for this particular bill.

This bill is about regional development. Whilst the Government has failed in regard to regional development delivery, as we have pointed out on many fronts, we have concerns about the slimness of the bill. We are not about to support an amendment that will make it even harder for businesses in rural and regional New South Wales. There is environmental legislation that deals appropriately with environmental matters and ensures that any development is appropriate from an environmental perspective. This amendment would provide an additional hurdle for businesses seeking regional development assistance from the New South Wales Government, and it might also open up the chance for vexatious litigants to frustrate grants for assistance.

We also note that the Department of State and Regional Development is not equipped to carry out environmental assessments. So when considering assistance the Department of State and Regional Development would look at whether or not a proposal has development approval, but the insertion of the Greens object into the bill would mean that the department might second-guess the Department of Environment and Conservation as well as the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. For those reasons we are unable to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 10 agreed to.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.07 p.m.]: I move:

Page 6. Insert after line 11:

10A Public information about grants of financial assistance

(1) The Minister must, within one month after granting any financial assistance under this Act, cause notice of the grant to be published on the Department of State and Regional Development's web page on the Internet.

(2) The notice must include the following information:

(a) the name of the person to whom the financial assistance was granted,

(b) the amount of financial assistance granted,

(3) A summary of the information so publicly notified under this section during a financial year is to be included in the annual report for the Department of State and Regional Development for that year under the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985.

(4) Failure to comply with this section does not affect the grant of the financial assistance.

This amendment basically seeks to create transparency to enable taxpayers' money to be traced and to prevent the bill�which gives huge power to the Minister rather than elucidating an overall strategy for the State�becoming a pork-barrelling exercise. The bill asks for only a minimal amount of information about grants of financial assistance. The amendment states:

Effectively, the cost of publicity is absolutely minimal; the details are just put on the Internet, which is the current medium of information flow. The amendment states, in part:

It worries me that no-one has compared the cost of run-down country infrastructure with the development cost of building new suburbs on the outskirts of Sydney and the related cost of poor air quality and so on. We need to know how this financial assistance will be granted, on what basis it will be granted, and whether there will be some sort of benchmark that will establish how the Government grants that assistance. That is the essence of planning. If we are to have evidence-based legislation and our programs are to be costed, we need to know what is going on. However, we do not need to have detailed information about a manufacturer's costings, as that might assist competing companies. All we need to know is the evaluation methods that are used; we do not need to know the nitty-gritty details relating to a company's costing structures. That is not the intention of this amendment.

Within one month after granting any financial assistance the Minister must cause notice of the grant to be published on the web site of the Department of State and Regional Development and a summary of that information is to be included in the annual reports. If the Government does not comply with these provisions—and this is possible—it will not affect the granting of financial assistance. However, that does not mean that the person who has a worthwhile project suffers. I commend the amendment to the Committee. It will implement a simple auditing and book-keeping process that will not cost anything as that information will already be available to the department and it will be published on the department's web site at almost no cost. I believe that these provisions are necessary for probity in New South Wales.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.11 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. All economic development agencies have commercial relationships with their clients that are of a confidential nature. An assurance of confidentiality is fundamentally important to investors. Anything less would compromise the Government's ability to work with the private sector to develop major projects. The Department of State and Regional Development provides financial assistance to some of the investment projects that it brings to the State. Before providing assistance the department carries out a comprehensive economic and financial analysis of the project to ensure that it will be viable and that assistance is warranted.

This analysis is carried out using data provided by the project proponent, particularly relating to the economic, financial and technical elements of the project. This data and the department's conclusions after reviewing the data are commercially sensitive. If this information were not held as commercial in confidence, the companies would not provide it and proper analysis of projects and financial assistance would not be able to be offered. Publication of individual financial assistance and the department's evaluation would give competitors commercially sensitive information about the operations of the business being assisted. If this amendment were adopted, it would significantly reduce the effectiveness of our regional development program. Businesses facing stiff competition would be reluctant to participate in the program because their competitive position would be hopelessly compromised.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [9.13 p.m.]: The Opposition cannot support this amendment for the same reasons outlined by the Minister. A number of competitive businesses might wish to take advantage of programs offered by the Department of State and Regional Development, but they will all want to jealously, and quite properly, guard that competitive basis. We support the idea of transparency and an equitable approach in allocating any resources—which are taxpayers' funds, after all—but we do not believe that the Australian Democrats amendment is the right way to go about achieving such transparency.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 20 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HOUSING) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [9.17 p.m.]: In general terms the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill will amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 to allow for a graduated range of responses to ensure that public housing tenants meet their obligations under tenancy agreements and are accountable for their behaviour as well as the behaviour of others living in their property. The Opposition believes that this public housing bill is a step in the right direction. Specifically, the bill makes five significant changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1987.

The bill will give statutory recognition to the renewable tenancies policy that was introduced in 2002, and it will enable the Department of Housing to nominate a further fixed term of three or more years upon the expiration of the current fixed one-year tenancy agreement. The bill will also introduce acceptable behaviour agreements, which are written agreements between a tenant and the department in which the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour. It will place the onus on tenants to demonstrate to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, if they refuse to sign or breach an acceptable behaviour agreement, why their tenancy agreement should not be terminated. It will give the tribunal the power to consider the history of a tenant's tenancy agreements when considering an application for termination, and it will instil greater protection for Department of Housing staff who from time to time unfortunately may be subjected to sustained and threatening abuse.

The Opposition supports the bill because antisocial behaviour in public housing is a significant issue for law-abiding public housing tenants who are on the receiving end of abuse. Law-abiding tenants are deserving of some peace of mind and body. We believe there have to be some stronger sanctions against a minority of public housing tenants who destroy public property and the quality of life of other public housing tenants. We believe that public housing is not an automatic right, and antisocial behaviour agreements should provide appropriate sanctions. Tenants in private tenancy agreements should be evicted for antisocial behaviour, contrary to the terms of their lease, and the same situation should apply to public housing tenants.

I repeat that the Opposition supports the bill in general. However, it has some concerns. It is concerned that there is a reversal of the onus of proof in the case where a tenant refuses to sign or is in breach of an acceptable behaviour agreement, that is, an agreement where the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour. In other words, the tenant has to provide proof as to why the tenancy should continue, rather than the Department of Housing provide proof as to why the tenancy should be terminated.

This is the opposite of normal tenancy arrangements, and that is a concern. An individual engaging in antisocial behaviour could punish other family members whose names appear on the lease by his or her behaviour or refusal to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement. In other words, one bad apple could have a terrible effect on the whole barrel—in this case, an entire family. The Opposition is also concerned that mentally ill and disabled people could be particularly disadvantaged by the termination of a tenancy agreement. However, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.20 p.m.]: As the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner said, the Opposition does not oppose the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. Indeed, the Opposition went to the last State election with a policy that called for the eviction of unruly and antisocial public housing tenants. However, this legislation as it stands is a blunt instrument. In considering this legislation we must focus on the nature of today's public housing tenants. They are very different from the public housing tenants of the early post-war years—the old Housing Commission tenants. In those days tenants of Housing Commission properties were often described as "the working poor", and that is a far cry from the public housing tenants of today.

At least since the early 1990s, tenants of public housing have been typically overwhelmingly dependent upon welfare. The statistics that I looked at from that period—they are probably still relevant—revealed that about 94 per cent of people in Department of Housing properties were welfare dependent and more than 50 per cent received either the age pension or a disability pension. As we consider this legislation we should keep in mind that shift in the make-up of public housing tenants in recent decades—certainly since the early 1980s. In the post-Richmond era we know that many public housing tenants, as well as being welfare dependent, will suffer from a mental illness that they will occasionally be unable to manage. Some of those tenants whom we describe as engaging in antisocial behaviour may be unable to control that behaviour.

While we acknowledge that those who behave in an antisocial manner make life unbearable for many other tenants, we must examine this problem in the context of an entire policy. This bill is a blunt instrument that provides for tenancies to be terminated. That is fine if there are other appropriate placement opportunities for such people. People who are evicted from Department of Housing accommodation because of antisocial behaviour that is beyond their control could be helped by programs geared specifically to those with a mental illness. In recent times public housing has comprised predominantly tenants with profound and complex needs. A fair amount of research has been conducted to establish the sorts of people who become public housing tenants. People with profound and complex needs will have a limited capacity to find accommodation alternatives to public housing.

Last month the Ombudsman released a special report entitled "Assisting Homeless People—The Need to Improve Their Access to Accommodation and Support Services". The report, which referred specifically to the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, found there is a great capacity for people to be marginalised and to remain outside that program and others administered by the Department of Housing. Where do such people go if they are evicted? We must have some means of dealing with people who engage consciously and deliberately in behaviour that makes it very difficult for other tenants to live comfortably in their homes. What programs are in place to assist them? Are we saying that tenants should be thrown onto the street and left to fend for themselves? That may be fine for people who have the capacity—

Ms Sylvia Hale: You surely can't suggest that anyone should be homeless under any circumstances?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: That is exactly what I am not suggesting.

Ms Sylvia Hale: You said it might be fine.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: No, I did not say it was fine; Ms Sylvia Hale interrupted me in the middle of a sentence. If we put those two ideas together, our conclusion may be that it is fine—if that is what the Government is saying. But what is the Government doing to provide other options for people who would otherwise be left homeless? It might be fine for people who are in control of their behaviour and who behave in an antisocial manner simply because they wish to be unruly and have no consideration for those around them. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech, many public housing tenants are welfare dependent, have profound and complex needs, and may be unable to manage their behaviour. While doorknocking during the last election campaign I talked to tenants of a particular public housing complex in which there live several people with schizophrenia.

This bill is a blunt instrument; we must have alternative programs in place to deal with tenants with behavioural problems. The Government's proposal lacks any clear insight as to how it will support people with a mental illness, in particular. We should be able to evict people who engage in antisocial behaviour—the bill contains some definitions of such behaviour—and who basically make life miserable for their neighbours. But those who have behavioural issues that are beyond their capacity to manage and who have no other housing choices should not be evicted if they cannot be placed in suitable programs. This bill contains no whole-of-government approach to that problem. The Department of Housing is the asset manager—it is interested in bricks and mortar—but another department is responsible for addressing some extraordinarily complex social needs. That is the problem with our management of housing at present—it is not peculiar to this Government; it is a problem Australia wide.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill. There is place for legislation such as this within a framework of managing public housing in the interests of the many good and valued tenants—of whom I have met many—who want to get on with their lives, undisturbed by people who engage in antisocial behaviour. But in addition to this legislation we need a proper policy for managing tenants who might otherwise be evicted from public housing. That is what is missing from this bill and from the Government's approach to this issue.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [9.30 p.m.]: The Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill is one of the most heinous pieces of legislation I have come across since being elected to this Parliament. There is no doubt that it will directly contribute to more people becoming homeless and living on the streets. It will result in some of the most vulnerable and needy people currently living in public housing—people with nowhere left to turn—being evicted and living on the streets. It will result in more people sleeping in Hyde Park, in Belmore Park, at Mrs Macquarie's chair, under the Woolloomooloo freeway bypass, at Circular Quay, at the Central railway overpass, around Taylor Square, in Green Park, Darlinghurst, at the Wayside Chapel, under the Kings Cross freeway underpass, in Rushcutters Bay Park, in Redfern Park, in Camperdown Memorial Park, behind the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, behind Woolworth's in Cabramatta, and in bus and beach shelters from Byron Bay to Eden.

Possibly hundreds more people will be rendered homeless by the bill. The Government makes grand statements about how no-one should be locked out of life's opportunities by social disadvantage, but there are few social disadvantages more profound than homelessness. There is not one of us who is not appalled by the revelations of human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or at Guant�namo Bay in Cuba. The Federal Government's defence, in this case, is that it did not know what was happening and, had it known, it would have taken immediate steps to make its objections known and to prevent the abuses recurring.

How then should we respond to a violation of human rights that has become an everyday occurrence in our society? Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states that every woman, man, and child is entitled to secure housing. Homelessness, and freedom from fear of being made homeless, are fundamental threats to living in dignity, to physical and mental health, and to overall quality of life.

The St Vincent de Paul Society estimates that more than 26,000 people are homeless in New South Wales, 36 per cent of whom are youths under the age of 24, and 10 per cent of whom are children under the age of 12. Yet the total amount of funds for housing in New South Wales, as a proportion of total revenue, has been falling for years. This year was no exception. The new budget announced only 220 extra public housing units for the coming year. Against a backdrop of 100,000 people on the waiting list, at this rate it will take 454 years to clear the backlog.

In the context of the ongoing violation of the human rights of so many of this State's citizens, a violation that takes place every night within 100 metres of this building, what has this Government done? As this bill makes only too clear, its response is to blame the victim, to further stigmatise public housing tenants and subject them to discriminatory, punitive legislation in an effort to deflect attention from its responsibility to provide adequate accommodation for those unable to afford it.

The problem that this legislation seeks to address is, after all, one largely of the Government's own making. The shortage of public housing is so great that it is now perceived as welfare housing, a residual form of housing for those with special needs—single mothers, poor families, people with complex needs—rather than as a tenure option in its own right. The result is often an entirely unsuitable mix of tenants—with discord, unhappiness and complaint the likely outcomes. When delivering the Minister's second reading speech in the lower House, Parliamentary Secretary Megarrity made various references to obligations, but always in the context of a tenant's obligation to the Department of Housing. What about the obligations the department has to its tenants? There was no mention in the second reading speech of them.

I remind the Premier, the Treasurer, and the Minister for Housing of their obligations to the people of New South Wales who pay taxes so that 26,000 people should not need to be homeless and living on the streets. The Greens do not dispute that there are serious and very real problems with anti-social behaviour on some public housing estates. Staff and other tenants should not be expected to live with physical and verbal threats or be forced to deal with disturbing behaviour on a daily basis. But I have spoken to a number of community development workers who work on these estates and they report a variety of contributing factors that cannot be overlooked. The vast majority of incidents relate to low-level vandalism perpetrated by bored kids, and/or everyday social tension related to a lack of respect and consequent frustration, which is exacerbated by poor maintenance of homes, inflexible and/or insensitive departmental policies, and a lack of respect shown by some departmental workers towards tenants.

Many excellent and highly professional people work for the Department of Housing, but insufficient funding and staffing levels, combined with inadequate staff training and support, has led to poor morale and at times substandard service. Despite their being excellent officers, a culture exists within the department—and dare I say within this Government—that public housing tenants should somehow be grateful for the service they receive. This is the distasteful truth. A culture exists within this Government that public housing tenants should be grateful for what they get, and that accordingly they should behave in a manner subservient to the wishes of the Government. This is the sentiment that underpins this bill.

It is generally held that respect is a fundamental ingredient of harmonious social dynamics. Treat others with respect, dignity and trust, and you will generally be accorded equal respect. Respect is not something that can be demanded, and it certainly is not something that is achieved by forcing a person into a subservient contractual agreement that threatens them with homelessness if they do not comply.

Community workers that I have spoken to tell me that, although some public housing tenants report problems with anti-social neighbours, that is usually a matter of much lower priority than the substandard maintenance of their homes and problems of respect and communication with departmental staff. In many cases, anti-social behaviour could be eliminated simply by moving people to accommodation more appropriate to their needs. I have also spoken to staff working in front-line service delivery positions with people living with HIV-AIDS. Many people living with AIDS, not to mention thousands more living with other illnesses, live in public housing. Some patients have AIDS-related dementia or associated mental health issues. Some of these people suffer serious discrimination that can, at times, lead to social tensions and behaviour problems.

Yet, in the vast majority of cases, the problem stems primarily from inappropriate housing placements. People are forced to live next to unsympathetic and sometimes aggressively hostile neighbours. Case workers I have spoken to report that in virtually all cases where the tenant is able to transfer to a location with sympathetic neighbours the tension and anti-social behaviour resolve themselves. Public housing communities do not differ from other communities with their tensions and disagreements, nor their amazing internal capacity and networks. It is this capacity that must be drawn on to fix social problems from within.

Public housing tenants are as keen as any other community to enter into honest and genuine dialogue and initiate problem-solving strategies that draw on strengths from within. Sadly, this Government has failed to recognise this. Instead, the bill underscores the negative. The Carr Government has given up on creative solutions and has instead created a big stick with which to threaten public housing tenants. In the process the Government has completely abdicated its social responsibility to provide housing. In the second reading speech the Parliamentary Secretary said;

The Government cannot, and will not, continue to house perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.

I ask this House: If the Government will not house them, who will? We are talking about people who clearly have significant behavioural problems—people who are already some of the most marginalised and needy in our community, people who are already living in welfare housing, in public housing that this Government has so deprived of funds and permitted to deteriorate that only the most desperate are even eligible to apply. If the Government does not have a role in ensuring that these people have a roof over their head, who does?

As sure as eggs, the private sector will not be interested. There is not much profit for Meriton or Lend Lease to make from former public housing tenants. The Greens insist that access to basic housing is a fundamental human right. No person should be homeless because they are too poor, because they are disabled, or because they exhibit antisocial behaviour. Just as no-one should starve, so no-one should be homeless. That is why just and equitable societies have a social safety net. It is about looking after people who, for whatever reason, need extra help, people who, when help is provided, are able to manage on their own. But not in Bob Carr's New South Wales. Under this Government, they will be evicted and made homeless.

The Greens concede that some tenants in public housing with problematic behaviour might be difficult to manage. However, for many of them, public housing is the last resort. If the Government evicts them they will end up on the streets. The Greens have consulted widely on this bill, and not a single organisation we spoke to disagrees that this bill will result in more homeless people. One last option for some people evicted or unable to access public housing is residential parks. But even there the Government has turned its back on the most needy. Residential parks provide an important part of the affordable housing jigsaw. Yet the Government has failed to provide park residents with the protections they require to guarantee housing security.

Plunging housing affordability, a chronic shortage of public housing and a crisis in accessibility to low-cost housing have seen people turning to residential parks as the only accessible form of affordable, secure housing. For thousands of people in low-paid jobs, retirees and people living on welfare payments, parks are the only housing option available. Yet the Government has dragged its heels and failed to introduce legislation to stop the sell-off of parks. The result has been a steady decline in residential park housing stock. Across Sydney and up and down the New South Wales coast, parks are being sold to make way for high-end housing developments beyond the reach of most people. In the past three years New South Wales has lost more than 3,000 sites in residential parks. In the Bankstown area alone approximately 1,000 sites have been lost. Rather than being a part-solution to the lack of affordable rental accommodation, the closure of the parks and the disposition and displacement of park residents are contributing to the problem.

The Greens have grave concerns that this bill is motivated in part by ongoing funding problems within the Department of Housing. The Government has progressively run down public housing since it took office in 1995. This year's budget was no different, with funding for only 220 additional housing units. In the context of 100,000 people waiting for public housing, as I said, it will take 454 years to clear the backlog. In the context of a chronic shortage of public housing stock, this bill gives the Government an additional mechanism to evict tenants who fall behind in their rent or those who have complex needs that constitute a financial drain on other areas of the department's support services and resources. This bill gives the Department of Housing a mechanism to throw these tenants onto the streets.

The Government insists that this bill is not aimed at mental health patients, people with disabilities, or those who are unable, for any reason, to enter into behaviour agreements. This issue is dealt with at length in the second reading speech, in which the Parliamentary Secretary said the Government intends to establish "specialist response teams" to support people and help bring about behaviour change. Unfortunately, there is no mention of these support teams in the bill. Indeed, in the department's own information sheet to stakeholders dated 6 May 2004, they are described as "pilot" response teams. In the Minister's own press release announcing the bill he too mentioned "pilot" specialist response teams.

When key stakeholders such as the Tenants Union, Shelter New South Wales, and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales asked about the details of these teams they were told that the teams have yet to be fully developed. Worse yet, there is no budget allocation to develop and provide ongoing support for such teams. The Minister is playing with words. If the Government were serious about developing a system of specialist response teams to genuinely give people the support they need to comply with acceptable behaviour agreements, funding would be allocated in the budget. There would not be conflicting information about whether these teams are pilot schemes, and they would be provided for in the bill, not just mentioned in the second reading speech. The sad tragedy is that the Minister is playing with more than words; he is playing with people's lives.

I now turn briefly to the specific concerns that the Greens have with this bill. The acceptable behaviour agreements are vague. The bill provides almost no definition as to what constitutes antisocial behaviour, other than in new section 35A (6), which states:

We need to look at the second reading speech for more details, and we find that antisocial behaviour includes noise nuisance, throwing of firecrackers or rocks on the roof and verbal abuse. God help the Government if it tried to implement such a system in America, where throwing a stone on the roof is a stock standard Halloween trick. The definition of "acceptable behaviour" is totally unacceptable. What other citizens of New South Wales would be threatened with eviction from their homes for littering? To protect tenants from the constant threat of an acceptable behaviour agreement being slapped on a family, for any legitimate for a legitimate reason, the details of what constitutes "unacceptable behaviour" must be made explicit.

To protect tenants, particularly those suffering from an intellectual or psychiatric impairment, there must also be an explicit provision that any unacceptable behaviour must be intentional, and evidence must be produced to show that repeated requests to modify unruly behaviour have been deliberately ignored. The manner in which acceptable behaviour agreements are drawn up must be equally transparent. The tenants must be given sufficient notice in writing, and be given an opportunity within a formal process to gather evidence and present information that could have a bearing on the validity and nature of the agreement. Tenants should not be forced to sign an agreement imposed against their will, and into whose development they have had no input.

It would be a perfectly reasonable and rational response for the mother of an unruly adolescent to refuse to sign an agreement that ensured her family's eviction if she knew she was incapable of reining in the adolescent's behaviour. This experience of unruly adolescent behaviour is not limited to mothers and families living in public housing. Every night in this city there are mothers in Vaucluse, or Mosman or West Pennant Hills who know full well that their teenagers are littering, dumping cars, creating noise or spraying a wall with graffiti, but those families do not have the threat of eviction and homelessness hanging over their heads. Only when a tenant intentionally and persistently refuses to enter into a process of negotiation towards an achievable working agreement should any form of disciplinary action be considered. In the first instance, this must not include the threat of eviction. Eviction should be considered only where serious and persistent breaches have occurred. It should be an avenue of last resort. This bill must not be a trigger to increase homelessness.

There should be an independent review and appeals process through which tenants who believe their circumstances have not been adequately taken into account, or whose circumstances have changed, can make their case. The acceptable behaviour agreement must relate directly to the specific unreasonable behaviour, and not be a device to impose indiscriminate and arbitrary requirements on some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Any breach and resultant disciplinary action must be reasonable and proportionate to the behaviour. It is clearly not reasonable to evict an entire family because a single teenager got drunk, left tinnies lying around or played loud music. Agreements, moreover, should expire within a reasonable period of time. This is the only way to ensure that behaviour agreements are not used in unreasonable, discriminatory or intimidatory ways.

The bill gives sweeping new powers to the Department of Housing and the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to evict tenants. Despite protestations that this is not the Government's intent, the decision as to whether to bring a tenant before the tribunal is totally at the discretion of the department. The onus of proof is then on tenants to demonstrate that they have not signed an agreement or that they have not breached an agreement. Once a breach has been shown, the tribunal has no alternative but to issue an order. Under proposed section 62 (2A) the tribunal will be required to issue an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant. Tenants have no right of appeal against the process. Despite claims by the Government that the department must still follow legal procedures and gather evidence before seeking an order, this requirement is simply not in the bill. The only evidentiary burden borne by the department is to demonstrate that the tenant either failed to sign an agreement or subsequently broke that agreement.

It is unconscionable to reverse the onus of proof in a context where the department has the resources of the State at its disposal and where the tenants, almost by definition, are severely or totally lacking in resources. The onus of proof should be on the department or, at the very least, shared between the tenant and the landlord. Finally, the tribunal must have discretion to refuse to issue a termination notice where to do so would be clearly unjust. The Government has argued, in its negotiations with stakeholders advocating for public housing tenants, that this bill provides safeguards to protect against unfair and unjust evictions. But these assurances by the Government are simply not reflected in the bill.

If the Government is so confident that mental health patients and other vulnerable tenants will not be evicted from their homes and thrown onto the streets, if whole families are not to be discriminated against on the basis of a single individual's behaviour, these protections must be in the bill, and not simply left to motherhood statements in the Minister's second reading speech. In Committee, the Greens will move amendments to address the plethora of inadequacies and deficiencies that I have mentioned. I trust that Opposition members, in view of the reservations they have expressed about the bill, will see fit to support those amendments.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [9.54 p.m.]: It is on behalf of the Christian Democrats that I speak to the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987—the principal Act—to make provision for the following four matters: firstly, to enable the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation to declare that a public housing tenancy agreement is subject to a specified fixed term; secondly, to enable the corporation to require a public housing tenant to give an undertaking not to engage in antisocial behaviour—contrary to what was said in this debate, particularly where this concerns destruction of property; thirdly, to provide for the termination of the tenant's public housing tenancy agreement if the tenant refused to enter into, or seriously or persistently breaches, an acceptable behaviour agreement; and, fourthly, to provide for the termination of a public housing tenancy agreement if the tenant severely or persistently threatens or abuses, or intimidates or harasses, any member of staff of the Department of Housing.

I would like to make the point that no-one who destroys the rights of other people to live as neighbours in public housing has a right to public housing. The Commonwealth-State housing agreements—which started in 1946 and 1948—were instituted in this country primarily to help house veterans returning from World War II, but over the years the typical tenants in public housing have changed quite dramatically, and by the 1990s well over 90 per cent of all tenants were people with welfare and dependency needs.

I want to talk for a moment about the fact that 129,000 people are already adequately housed in public housing in New South Wales. We have a 14-year waiting list for public housing. As other honourable members have said, in the 2004 budget provision was made for only 220 additional units. The bill is not aimed at housing all of the people in this State who cannot afford housing. It is aimed at people in public housing who are behaving badly. Behaving badly was defined by Ms Sylvia Hale. The bill enables the Land and Housing Corporation to request a public housing tenant to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement, under which the tenant undertakes not to engage in specific antisocial behaviour.

According to the Minister's second reading speech, the Government does not intend to require tenants who are unable to form an acceptable behaviour agreement due to mental illness, intellectual disability or for some other reason, to enter into such an agreement. This totally contradicts much of what has been said by Ms Sylvia Hale. An undertaking not to engage in antisocial behaviour extends to behaviour of other lawful occupiers of the premises to which the applicable public housing tenancy agreement relates. The effect is that if a lawful occupier of the premises other than the tenant engages in antisocial behaviour that is specified in the agreement, the tenant is taken to have engaged in that behaviour and breached the agreement.

I have been witness to circumstances in which whole groupings of families have taken over tenancy of public housing, which is quite contrary to the tenancy agreement, so that perhaps 20 or 30 persons live in a particular dwelling. I recall visiting some housing where doors had been ripped off to supply wood for fires that were part of some backyard celebration. The bill also provides that the corporation must give notice to the tenant of the consequences of refusing to enter into or breaching an acceptable behaviour agreement. That may include, as has been said by Ms Sylvia Hale, the termination of a lease.

Proposed new section 35A (6) provides that a reference to antisocial behaviour includes a reference to emissions of excessive noise, littering, dumping cars, vandalism and defacing property. Every charity is, and has been, involved with people in public housing who are troubled by their neighbours. We are constantly approached, and I would say I have been approached every week for 40 years. I have worked closely with the Department of Housing in Victoria and the Department of Housing in New South Wales, a department that is easy to attack because it makes a good target. However, I place on record my appreciation of senior departmental officials in Sydney with whom I have worked for the past 25 years for their responsible actions whenever we have referred persons with specific needs, some of whom I will mention in a moment. Although it has been said many times that the department will throw people out onto the streets and make them homeless victims, who fill up our parks, alleyways, back doors and so on, the Land and Housing Corporation will apply to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal for an order to terminate the agreement.

The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal is responsible for terminating a tenancy, not the Department of Housing. The decision to terminate has been removed from the Department of Housing, which is at arms-length from the tribunal. I am sure that the tribunal will act to protect the rights of individual tenants. I will give some examples of tenants whose behaviour, in my experience, has been totally unacceptable wherever they might be. I remember When I was leader of this type of work I remember going to look at a group of units in the Dubbo region being offered to Wesley Mission to develop centres for the homeless and, in particular, children with special needs. The houses were of a good, substantial nature, but they had been so wrecked that I did not believe it would be profitable to have them repaired. All the doors had been kicked in, the walls were full of holes where people had kicked and punched them, and every pane of glass had been smashed. This damage was caused, not by external vandals and delinquents but by those who lived within the property.

I remember also being offered by the Department Housing a group of 12 units at Cartwright, just near Liverpool. The units had been the centre of considerable drug dealing; drug abusers and drug dealers had occupied them. Likewise, these buildings were in such a poor state of repair that I doubted it was worthwhile repairing them. But the department indicated that all necessary repairs would be completed. The drug dealers and drug abusers who had lived in those units were shifted to other sites, where, I have no doubt, their poor standards of behaviour continued. Consequently, the Wesley Mission took a lead tenancy over the 12 units and placed in those units at Cartwright 12 young people who were at risk of becoming homeless and dropping out of the education system. A caretaker and an educator, who helped each young person with his or her TAFE or high school studies, occupied one of the units. All units were done up to an excellent condition. I commend the department for entering into a relationship with a non-government organisation to help provide better housing for people who were at risk of becoming homeless.

Last week a tenant at Leichhardt appealed to me to stop her eviction. I felt compassion for her and, upon listening to her story at some length, I wrote to the Department of Housing offering to help. Because I had been in a similar situation so many times, I also visited the unit at Leichhardt, where I discovered that the person with whom I was dealing certainly had a mental condition. She was a hoarder. The entire unit was stacked literally tightly to the roof with hundreds of thousands of newspaper pages. One had to walk through a space of only a few centimetres between the stacks of newspapers. The bath could not be accessed because it had been filled with plastic bags and other pieces of rubbish picked up along the road. The kitchen was full of hubcaps and other things she had collected as she journeyed through Sydney's streets. There was imminent danger from all kinds of vermin and rodents and the threat of fire. Because the unit was part of a series of units this posed a significant threat to her immediate neighbours. I immediately contacted the department and offered, on behalf of Wesley Mission, to get a dump bin and organise a group of men to clean out the house, and then provide a social worker who would regularly visit to try to help this woman.

The Wesley Mission also offered access to a psychologist and a psychiatrist to help her with her problems, if she could be helped. I was surprised when the Department of Housing indicated that would not be necessary because it had contract social workers who could provide her with ongoing support. Although we will continue to provide some support for the woman at Leichhardt, and although I doubt that any psychiatric treatment will cure her, the relationship with the Department of Housing and its response to my intervention on her behalf stands out in my mind as a good response from a public corporation. Wesley Mission currently oversights more than 300 public housing units, mainly in the inner-western suburbs of Sydney, for use by people who were formerly homeless and were living on the streets, in the Domain and other public places mentioned by a previous speaker. But in many instances those who were homeless and had lost contact with their families have been reunited with their family, they are now living in accommodation provided by the Department of Housing and they are employed.

Wesley Mission will provide oversight, and no further destruction of the property will occur. I have seen this for many years, and I appreciate the support of the Department of Housing in these matters. Some people say, and we have heard it said tonight, that we are violating their rights under the United Nations to have decent and proper accommodation, a right to housing. The United Nations agreement on housing and forced evictions indicates that the person should not be affected for reasons that are unreasonable. Nothing in the bill makes the reasons unreasonable. I note that the Legislation Review Committee stated quite strongly that the recommendations in the bill do not, in any way, destroy the fundamental right of a person to housing. We support the suggestion within the bill of multiagency specialist response teams. Although much has been said about multiagency response teams within government agencies, for many years the non-government sector has had a multiagency response team for people in real need.

There is intensive case management for people who are suffering from mental and other problems who are destroying the rights of people to live in good accommodation and to have a sound and enjoyable lifestyle. It is terrible for people to find their peace and security being wrecked by a neighbour who intimidates them, who frightens them, who stands over them and who does not allow them to have the confidence to go to the police or the department. We have to protect the rights of other people, not just the rights of those who would destroy the rights of other people. Most tenants and welfare-dependent people in public housing are very decent people who look after their property. As has been said earlier tonight, many of them are aged or frail. With a multiagency response, both government and non-government agencies, we could make a significant contribution to people who need all the support they can get for adequate housing. The only way to do that is to bring in an agreement to protect their rights from those who do not know how to behave.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [10.12 p.m.]: I move:

TRIBUTE TO SIR JOSEPH CARRUTHERS

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.12 p.m.]: The general election held just over 100 years ago, on 4 August 1904, was significant for three reasons: first, it was the first State election in which Labor did not come in third—afterwards Labor became the official Opposition. Second, it was the last hurrah for the old fiscal parties, which had dominated the colonial politics of the 1880s and 1890s. By then the Free Traders had remade themselves and in 1904 the incumbent Protectionist Government of Sir John See, backed by Labor, was defeated. Third, it was the first election at which a Liberal State Government was elected. I share the perspective of those historians who view the Liberal Party as an organisational continuum stretching beyond the events of the Canberra conference in October 1944. In fact, apart from the important work of reincorporating a few populist splinters, the main outcome of the Canberra conference was to re-establish the Federal layer of organisation for the six existing State-based parties of the political Right, such as the Liberal and Country League in South Australia and the Democratic Party in New South Wales.

In fact, today's New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party has its organisational antecedents in the Free Trade Party, which dominated New South Wales politics during the 1890s. The old fiscal parties had no permanent organisation, no members and no permanent staff. They were labels used by like-minded parliamentarians and their highest organisational form was a campaign committee convened by parliamentarians shortly before elections, disbanding soon after. This all changed in New South Wales in December 1902 because of the vision of Sir Joseph Carruthers. It was a time of critical strategic challenge, with conservative, temperance and Protestant organisations all threatening to split the anti-government vote, in an environment not unlike the difficult Joh-for-Canberra era in the mid-1980s.

Carruthers, as Leader of the Opposition, realised that a permanent political party organisation was vital to electoral viability. He established the Liberal and Reform Association in December 1902, serving as its first president. The Liberal and Reform Association had members, permanent staff, an office, a party constitution and a system of grassroots endorsement of candidates. Although there have been five name changes and countless other procedural changes since then, our New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party is Carruthers' creation.

Carruthers' contribution to public life in this State is sometimes forgotten. He served in both Houses for a combined period of almost 46 years, dying in office. He was Minister for Public Instruction under Parkes, instituting landmark reforms to technical education and teacher training, setting up Sydney Teachers College and initiating the development of the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, now the Powerhouse Museum. As Lands Secretary his Crown Lands Act in 1895 was tremendously significant for closer settlement of the State. He won the 1904 election after a superlative period as Opposition Leader, winning the confidence of the conservative, temperance and Protestant organisations that had threatened to derail him.

His brief, three-year Premiership has meant that his contribution has often been overlooked. His government had a sound economic record, having campaigned on reform and retrenchment in public finance. He abolished State income tax and various stamp duties, initiated Australia's first invalidity and accident pension and set in train the public works for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, including construction of the Burrinjuck Dam. He also initiated construction of the North Coast railway from Sydney, linking pre-existing lines from the port towns. He secured the Mitchell bequest and funded construction of the Mitchell Library. To mark 50 years of responsible government he funded the first purpose-built parliamentary library for this Parliament, which today is known as the Jubilee Room.

Prior to his 1906 Local Government Act most of the State was unincorporated. His legislation establishing the system of shires, municipalities and cities, which administered local affairs until the Greiner and Fahey Government reforms, was of great significance. He won a second election in September 1907 but had to resign a few days into his second term after suffering a severe heart attack. It was a great tragedy. He was a masterful tactician and some historians have suggested that the McGowan Labor Government would not have been elected in 1910 had he stayed at the helm. However, he did go on to serve for 24 years in this Chamber. He was Leader of the Government in Sir John Fuller's Cabinet and led the opposition to Lang's attempts to abolish this Chamber. The 100th anniversary of Carruthers' election to government falls during the winter recess and I am pleased to have had the opportunity this evening to record his contribution.

McKELL AWARDS

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.17 p.m.]: Tonight I inform the House of the McKell awards received by 13 Australian Labor Party members on 17 June 2004. The McKell awards are an initiative of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party to recognise and thank members who have excelled in their service to the party and to their local community. The first to receive an award at the McKell dinner this year was Gaylene Adamthwaite. Gaylene has been a member of the party since the early 1970s and has served as branch secretary, returning officer and delegate of both the Federal Executive Council [FEC] and the State Executive Council [SEC]. For many years she has been a member of Newcastle Sister City, Northern Parks and Playgrounds, the Newcastle Bicentennial Senior Citizens Committee and many other local groups. Gaylene was nominated by Merewether branch.

Patrick Brassil joined the party in 1967 and since then has served as president and in many of the other executive positions for the Wagga Wagga branch. He was elected to Wagga Wagga City Council in 1974 and served as a councillor until March 2004. During his time on council he served as deputy mayor and mayor. Pat has been a delegate to the Southern Riverina County Council and the Murrumbidgee Valley Water Users Association. Pat was nominated by the Wagga Wagga branch. Peter Brigdin joined the party in the mid-1970s and has been the president and treasurer of the Ku-ring-gai branch since 1984. He has also served the party as a delegate to the Bradfield FEC and Davidson SEC, and as secretary-treasurer of the Bradfield FEC since the mid-1980s. He was nominated by the Ku-ring-gai branch.

Claire Haigh, who is a friend of mine, has been a member of the party and the Ramsgate-Sans Souci branch since 1983. Claire has held a number of positions including delegate and alternate delegate to the SEC and FEC and has also served as the junior vice president. Claire has also been a delegate to the Labor Council since 1982. Claire was a union organiser from 1983 until 1992. During this time she was the women's officer for the Sydney Branch of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. Claire was nominated by Ramsgate-Sans Souci branch. Veronica Husted has been an active member of the party since 1981. She has been a candidate in both the former Federal seat of Dundas and the State seat of South Coast. Veronica has served as the secretary of the Nowra-Bomaderry branch and has also been a delegate to the FEC and SEC. She was nominated by Jervis Bay-St Georges Basin branch.

Margaret (Patricia) McNaughton was a former Lady Mayoress of Newcastle and helped her husband immensely while he was mayor. Margaret was nominated by the Merewether branch. Frank Mifsud has been a member of the party for 45 years and a member of the Kensington-Kingsford branch since 1970. Frank supported the party and its candidates at every election. He has been a booth captain, an Australian Workers' Union delegate and is a life member of the AWU. He was nominated by the Kensington-Kingsford branch. Warwick Doug Puxty has been a party member since the late sixties and has been a campaign director for local, State and Federal candidates. He established the local Labor dinner club, which involved a monthly dinner followed by a guest speaker. This has become the main fundraising arm of the party in the area. Doug was nominated by Cessnock evening branch.

Mick Simpson has held a number of positions, including vice-president, delegate to the SEC, FEC and local government committee while a member of the party. He works as a booth captain at all Federal, State and local government elections. He also helps elderly and disabled voters who want to vote Labor get to the polling booths. He was nominated by Sefton branch. Harry Bob Williams has been a member of the party for many years and has held many elected positions including vice-president and fund raising officer, delegate to the Lowe FEC, delegate to the Burwood-Strathfield SEC, delegate to the Burwood municipal committee and has been very active in the local community, holding positions on committees such as the Sandakan Community Education Committee and the World War II Veterans' Association. He was nominated by Enfield branch.

Hazel Wilson has been a member of the party for many years. Throughout this time she has been president of the Cook FEC, president of the Miranda branch, secretary of the Miranda SEC, president of the Gymea-Grays Point branch. She was nominated by the Gymea-Grays Point branch. Phil Yeo has been a member of the party since 1975. In this time he has held virtually all executive positions in the Southern Highlands branch, including president and vice-president, and has been a delegate to the SEC and the FEC. He served as a Labor councillor on the Wingecarribee Shire Council and was mayor from 2000 until 2004. Phil was nominated by the Southern Highlands branch. Margaret Koczberski received a posthumous McKell award. She had been a member of the party for almost 30 years and was elected to many positions including fundraising officer, delegate to Riverstone SEC and Greenway FEC. She was a keen debater at branch meetings. Her wit and humour will be missed by all.

Finally, I acknowledge that on to 21 May I represented the Premier at an investiture at Government House. I was pleased to be there that day with my uncle, Dr Victor W. Fazio, from the United States of America. He was awarded the Order of Australia for his services to surgery. He is a pioneer of techniques that allow patients who have had intestines removed not have to have colostomies. He has been named among America's top doctors. He has done a lot to foster relationships between Australian teaching hospitals and American teaching hospitals. He has also funded a number of scholarships for young Australian doctors to gain experience in America. It was a very proud day for my family when Uncle Vic was awarded the Order of Australia. He came out here with his wife, Carol, and his son and daughter, and he had a good reunion with our family. I am very proud of his achievements.

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [10.22 p.m.]: Earlier this month I had the unfortunate experience of requiring the help of emergency services and hospital staff. During the experience, what I was told by health care workers, combined with what I witnessed, adds weight to the Opposition's call for a royal commission into health care in New South Wales. The fact that there are significant breakdowns in our hospital system, in particular, is not news. However, I subscribe to the view that only an appropriate inquiry, such as a royal commission, will expose the true state of affairs. Closed beds, staff shortages and associated matters are giving the people of New South Wales what must be fairly accepted to be a crisis in public health care.

What I experienced was not a big deal, but I am extremely grateful to and impressed by the professionalism and expertise of Qantas staff, emergency medical teams, ambulance officers and even the New South Wales Fire Brigade for their various roles in the emergency of which I was the focus. I also appropriately note an unknown female doctor who just happened to be on my flight. I hope Qantas was able to find this mystery passenger and convey my letter of thanks to her. The staff at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital were also exceptional. Their commitment and capabilities shone even more brightly considering the clearly difficult and overcrowded situation in which they are forced to work.

My wife, Lisa, found it horribly ironic that she first met me at Sydney airport some years ago and now thought this would also be the place she would lose me. While my situation had all the appearances of something out of Airport '75, I was never of the view that I was in any great danger. Due to family history, I felt my worst-case scenario was a burst appendix—not a pleasant experience, but hardly a virtual death sentence, as was the case when this happened to my grandmother in 1922 and my mother in 1932. It would not have been as bad as it was for my sister in 1953 or even as complicated as it was when my niece also suffered a burst appendix some 20 years ago. One can appreciate there is a considerable family history of this ailment.

Regardless of appearances at the time, I recovered fairly quickly and was released from hospital on the same night as I was admitted. I did not suffer any ongoing problems; the ailment seems to have been induced by codeine—a substance I have avoided since and will continue to avoid. While what happened to me is a minor affair, questions about health care should be on the agenda every day because it is clear that there has been little, if any, improvement in access to, and delivery of, health services. It is necessary for me to make it clear that I do not in any way lay blame for our faltering health system on those who deal with patients on a daily basis. My recent experiences have supplied substantive evidence to me that emergency services and hospital staff are dedicated to their work, despite impediments imposed by overall management that is continually subjected to increasing costs and insufficient funds.

As I noted previously, there is nothing new in speaking about the poor state of our health system. It should not be construed that my recent experiences have suddenly opened my eyes to matters of which I was not previously aware. Rather, it is appropriate to publicly relate my personal experiences of these issues because they reasonably add to the many calls from others who are pushing to improve the state of public health. Some of those working in public health have come forward to expose the pitfalls and failings of the system, but whistleblowers risk incurring the wrath of this Government. It is unconscionable—I know that that word was used earlier, to my surprise—to seek to punish genuine people who are simply telling the truth. Inquiries that are pursued by members of Parliament should gain deeper access to hospitals and staff. It is imperative for health workers to have the opportunity to speak freely about problems that exist within the system. I reiterate my support for the Opposition's call for a royal commission into the health system.

ABORIGINAL ARMED FORCES SERVICE

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.27 p.m.]: Tomorrow at 11.00 a.m. in the Garden Court of the Macksville and District Ex-Servicemen's Club a very special and significant ceremony will take place. A local Aboriginal man, Uncle Terry Donovan, will be presented with his National Service Medal in recognition of his service in the Australian Infantry during the Vietnam War. The invitation that was issued by the Nambucca Valley Community Services Council begins with the words:

Everyone is Welcome. A Day of Remembrance and Medal Presentation... Come and help us celebrate this special occasion for Uncle Terry Donovan and other Goorie Soldiers who fought to defend this country. It will be a day to remember for young and old.

The event will feature a special welcome to country by Mr Reg Davis and a smoking ceremony by John Marshall. Mr Barry MacDonald, who is the vice-president of the sub-branch, will officiate. The Mayor of the Nambucca shire, Mr George Hicks, will present Uncle Terry with his medal. There will be a mention of war veterans, The Last Post will be played and there will be one minute's silence. Mr MacDonald will close the ceremony by reading The Ode while Mr Chris Welsh plays the didgeridoo in the background. Due to the sitting program of the House, I will be unable to attend this very special and unfortunately rare event in Macksville tomorrow. I have yet to meet Uncle Terry, but I assure the House that I look forward to the privilege of making his acquaintance. Uncle Terry is one of many Aboriginal soldiers whose war service, sadly, has gone unrecognised for too long. He only recently requested his medal.

Indigenous Australians have served in our armed forces in every war since Federation. It is estimated that during World War I and World War II some 4,000 Aboriginal men enlisted to fight for Australia. I remind honourable members that Aboriginal people in this country did not even have the right to vote until after the constitutional referendum that was held in May 1967. During Reconciliation Week in June 2000, Canberra's tallest building, the MLC Tower in Keltie Street, Woden, was officially renamed Lovett Tower at a ceremony presided over by the former Governor-General, Sir William Deane. Lovett Tower houses the Department of Veterans Affairs and the organisation formerly known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The building was renamed in honour of the Lovett family from western Victoria—an indigenous family—who bear the distinction of having 19 immediate family members who served Australia in both World Wars as well as in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and East Timor. The former Governor-General commented:

… until comparatively recent times, the approach of our nation's armed forces to Indigenous Australians was far from generous. Indeed, too often, it was grossly unfair and discriminatory.

Sir William Deane referred to periods of exclusion from enlisting and to low pay, or even at times no pay, or payment in tobacco. The initiative followed a 1999 nationwide search launched by the then Minister for Veterans Affairs, Bruce Scott, to locate Aboriginal veterans. The search was needed because Australian service men and women have never been required to divulge their ethnicity or cultural heritage on the official records. The Minister was concerned that Aboriginal veterans and their families may be missing out on entitlements.

An ex-service organisation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Veterans and Services Association of Australia, was also started in 1999 to encourage more veterans to come forward. Other initiatives I have learned of are also very recent. On Anzac Day 2002 the Cape Barren Island community, near Flinders Island in Tasmania, rededicated its memorial commemorating Aboriginal veterans. The original memorial was dedicated to 21 members of the island community who volunteered to serve during World War I, six of whom were killed in action. The rededication included a new honour roll of 23 World War II veterans. The island has a Vietnam veteran and two current serving members of the Armed Services.

I thank my dear friends Bette Boland and Pat Furbank of Macksville for alerting me to tomorrow's ceremony. Bette and Pat are both veterans of the Vietnam War, having served in the nursing service of the Australian Air Force. Both served two tours of duty and obtained the rank of squadron leader. Pat, who volunteered for Medivac service with the Americans based at Clark Field, flew missions into Vietnam field hospitals to recover wounded soldiers and return them to various home countries, including the United States of America, Japan, Alaska, Australia and New Zealand. Pat is president of the Macksville sub-branch of the RSL and is unable to attend tomorrow's ceremony as she is nursing her mother in Dapto. Bette, who is the sub-branch secretary, will fly the flag for both of them tomorrow, and I know how much she is looking forward to the event. We all owe a great debt of thanks to Carrol Maher of the Nambucca Valley Community Services Council, who initiated and organised this event.

I know it will be a proud day for the Aboriginal community in Macksville, but it will be an especially proud day for Uncle Terry, who, together with his fellow Aboriginal servicemen, served Australia, in many cases making the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our nationhood and freedoms. On behalf of the Parliament, we are truly humbled by their sacrifices and grateful to them. It will be a proud day tomorrow for Uncle Terry, his community and, indeed, all Australians. In conclusion, I seek the leave of the House to table a poem, and its description, which will be read by Carrol Maher at tomorrow's ceremony.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

[Time expired.]

MEDICARE SAFETY NET AND SAME-SEX COUPLES

PUBLICATION OF REGULATIONS IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.32 p.m.]: In 1999 this Parliament passed the Property Relationship Act, which amended the De Facto Relationship Act and its title. That was important in New South Wales because, as members will be aware, under the Australian Constitution the responsibility for issues relating to marriage, as per the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act 1975, is specifically attributed to the Federal Parliament. However, as the Constitution is silent on issues relating to de facto relationships, those matters are devolved to the States. In 1999, under the Property Relationship Act, and subsequently under the miscellaneous relationships legislation in 2002, this Parliament made de facto relationships gender neutral. That allowed couples in same-sex relationships to have access to a range of services that until that time only those in male and female de facto relationships had be able to access.

Recently we have been bombarded by a range of television and radio advertisements regarding the amendments to Medicare. Every family throughout the Commonwealth now must register for the Medicare safety net. I am sure most people are not aware of that requirement. On behalf of my family I downloaded from the Internet a copy of the Medicare safety net family registration form. Regarding spouse details the document states:

I am aware that there have been cases about this, so I am not arguing the matter as a legal issue but, rather, from an ethical and practical perspective. The Federal Government, which constitutionally has responsibility for marriage, has now taken upon itself to say that same-sex couples who live in what are legally recognised de facto relationships in New South Wales cannot register as a family under the Medicare safety net family registration. That significantly affects the access of same-sex couples to the resources of Medicare.

I call upon the Federal Government to look at this matter carefully and to reconsider. I am not objecting to the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Parliament to define marriage. That is a debate we will have in the near future. However, in relation to de facto relationships, which have been defined legally in New South Wales by this Parliament, people expect to have rights and responsibilities pursuant to New South Wales law. I believe they are entitled to have their relationships defined as legitimate de facto relationships. I simply call upon the Federal Government to reconsider excluding that class of person from registering under the Medicare safety net.

The other matter I would briefly allude to is our famous "Legislation Review Digest", which I have referred to a number of times. I draw the attention of members not only to the various matters relating to legislation and regulations that appear in digest no. 9, but also to the correspondence that appears in it. The committee sought advice from the Premier relating to people from non-English-speaking backgrounds having access to regulations published in languages other than English. The committee was pleased to receive from the Acting Premier, Andrew Refshauge, a comprehensive two-page response on what I believe, having spoken on this matter a number of times in this House, to be an important issue. I will return to this matter in the near future when I have the opportunity to do so.

MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.37 p.m.]: Tonight I speak on the subject of the sanctity of the institution of marriage. As members know, the Federal Government under John Howard recently introduced a bill to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to secure the definition of marriage as "The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". That was done deliberately because of threatened legal challenges. Three Australian same-sex couples, including one couple from Western Australia, had been to Canada to get marriage licences. They returned to Australia and announced their intention to seek legal recognition of their Canadian marriages from the Family Court of Australia.

Under the law if heterosexual couples are married in England or America and come to Australia their marriages are normally recognised by our Federal laws. A loophole has been created under which a man can marry another man in Canada and they can come back to Australia and ask for the marriage to be legally recognised. No-one knows what the Family Court's decision may be on this matter, but to prevent the court making a mistake and recognising those marriages, the Howard Government has introduced the bill to which I referred, which I strongly support, as do about 80 per cent of Australian people. The leader of the Labor Party, Mr Latham, announced that he supported that part of the bill. Initially a second part had been included in the bill, which prohibited the adoption of children by same-sex couples. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but the Senate referred it to a committee for inquiry to report in October by 7 October.

If that occurs there is a good chance the Federal election will be held before that date and the bill to amend the Marriage Act will lapse and be of no effect. On Thursday 24 June Mr Ruddock, on behalf of the Howard Government, introduced this new Marriage Amendment Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1961. That bill was introduced to assist members of the Labor Party who said that they would agree to the Government's proposal and pass the bill. At about 10.15 a.m. on Thursday the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, in spite of amendments that were moved by the Greens to change the wording in the bill to recognise same-sex marriages. Those amendments were defeated.

The bill was sent to the Senate and, sadly, the Senate voted 28 to 25 to reject the new bill. There was obviously a shortage of time in which to debate the legislation as both the House of Representatives and the Senate were expected to rise on Thursday for the winter recess. Both Houses returned on Saturday and, so far as I can ascertain, the Marriage Amendment Bill was not debated. The bill that was defeated on Thursday night was urgent. Obviously the Government would not have sent the bill to the Senate if it had been aware that members of the Australian Labor Party would break their word to Australian voters.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Latham, and members of the Australian Labor Party stated publicly that they supported the bill and the insertion of this definition. However, when pressure was put on them to back up their words with deeds they failed the test. They failed Australian Labor Party voters and, in particular, they failed Catholic voters who were pleased that Mr Latham announced his decision to support the inclusion of that definition in the bill. Sadly, their deeds do not support their words. Is Mr Latham a wimp? Has he given in to the gay lobby and broken his publicly stated word? It is probably too late to do anything about it now, as both the Senate and the House of Representatives have adjourned. However, I hope there is some way in which the Australian Parliament is able to pass this bill. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.42 p.m. until Tuesday 29 June 2004 at 11.00 a.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:33:51 : Update this page