Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 3 March 2005, Corrected Copy)

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That This House:

(a) warmly welcomes Anwar Ibrahim to New South Wales,

(b) congratulates Anwar Ibrahim and his wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wam Ismail, on their work for human rights and their work in support of the people of Malaysia and Burma,

(c) further congratulates Anwar Ibrahim on his release from gaol.

[During notices of motions]

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members who wish to engage in private conversations should leave the Chamber. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the first time.

Private Members' Business item No. 9 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Catanzariti.

Private Members' Business tem No. 8 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale.

Motion by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that that Private Members' Business item No. 148 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to wood product extraction operations, be called on forthwith.

Motion by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 148 outside the Order of Precedence, be called on forthwith.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.12 a.m.]: I move the following motion, as amended by leave:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the the date of passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Primary Industries, the Department of Primaries Industries, Forests NSW, the Department of Environment and Conservation, or the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources relating to wood product extraction operations in all State forests and Crown timber lands within or up to 10km adjacent to the Brigalow Belt South bioregion of New South Wales:

(a) any reported or known breaches since 1 January 2005 of the requirements under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 or the Forestry Act 1916;

(b) any correspondence regarding any decision or action by departmental staff in relation to breaches or alleged breaches;

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [11.14 a.m.]: I will speak briefly to the motion. The matters that are the subject of the amended motion moved by Mr Ian Cohen are the subject of investigation by the Department of Environment and Conservation. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, the matters will be dealt with properly and in a non-political environment. They will be dealt with by the regulator, which is the Department of Environment and Conservation, by reference to the facts. I point out that forestry in New South Wales is strictly regulated to help maintain soil and water quality and to protect native fauna and flora from the potentially damaging effects of timber harvesting and associated road and bridge construction. Forestry operations by Forests NSW are regulated by the integrated forestry operations approvals or, in the case of the western and Riverina regions, the threatened species licence.

Citizens may report suspected breaches to the principal regulator, the Department of Environment and Conservation. Allegations of offences in State forests are thoroughly investigated by reference to the rules and proven offenders are fined or prosecuted by the regulators. Honourable members should advise their constituents to approach the Department of Environment and Conservation if they have any concerns about possible offences under timber harvesting regulations. A process is in place, and allegations will be dealt with according to proper process.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 24 February.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [11.16 a.m.]: When this bill was last debated in this House I said that people in New South Wales are selling and buying illegal pornographic material on such a scale that the market for unclassified material in New South Wales is now completely unregulated. I recall that when the film, Baise-Moi, was originally banned by the film censor, Premier Carr was one of the outspoken critics of the decision. He said that people should be able to watch whatever they please. That reminded me of the Peter Sellers film Being There, and the famous line "I like to watch", which seems to have become the theme for film classification censorship in New South Wales. It seems to me that the Premier has achieved his desired outcome because the people of New South Wales watch whatever they please. The market in illegal DVDs and videos is open slather. One could not successfully prosecute for selling or buying illegal pornographic films in this State for love or money.

I am reliably informed that everybody in New South Wales who has pleaded not guilty to a charge of selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic film in the past four years has been acquitted. In other words, not one successful prosecution has occurred in New South Wales over the past four years for selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic video or DVD. According to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, just 14 people have pleaded guilty to a charge of selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic film in the past four years, and the average fine has been approximately $300.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Shame!

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile says "shame", and I agree with him, particularly given the fact that the maximum penalty for selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic video or DVD is $11,000 or imprisonment for 12 months. In terms of a range of penalties, one would have to say that a fine of $300 is at the very bottom of the scale.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is almost decriminalisation.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: It means that people can sell or publicly exhibit an illegal pornographic video or DVD with impunity. There is no attempt by the Government to enforce the law, so the law is brought into disrepute. If a corporation publicly exhibited or sold an illegal DVD or video, the fine under the legislation would be $27,500 whereas the average penalty imposed is $300. It is a disgrace. I mentioned the film Baise-Moi and the furore it caused when the censors first banned it and then changed their minds. What actually happened was that the Office of Film and Literature Classification banned the film and that decision was overturned by the Classification Review Board. The film depicts sexualised violence in the name of art. I was so appalled by the film that I had to leave the cinema. One would never find that level of sexualised violence in an X-rated video or DVD because the censor would not allow it. So it is quite incongruous that a film containing sexualised violence, in the name of art, is allowed to be publicly exhibited whereas material watched by people in their own home depicting erotic sex between consenting adults—no violence, no fetishes, no exploitation, no under-age people—is somehow illegal. I will not be surprised to see the arguments being rerun, because another film that is currently before the censor called Nine Songs, like Baise-Moi, contains sexualised violence—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It has real sex.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I again have to defer to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on these matters. Someone told me that he has his own private collection of these things.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No, that is a lie.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: It is a good story. It is part of the urban mythology on the censorship of films and videos.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You can visit my home—

The Hon. PETER BREEN: In fact, someone said to me yesterday that he has a wall of videos. If he has, I would really like to see it because I get very confused about how these films are classified.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: My Fair Lady and all those films.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I think that is on the same shelf as Debbie Does Dallas. I know nothing about the film Nine Songs except that there is almost certain to be sexualised violence, exploitation of teenagers and some kind of sexual fetish. That is the genre. That is how it works. That is what the art filmmakers include in order to promote their work. It may be artistic but the point I want to make is that these films are much worse, much further beyond the pale and much more damaging—certainly more demeaning—than X-rated films. The guidelines are very strict as to what can be shown in an X-rated film. I have explained them before. I will not explain them again, particularly with children in the gallery.

The author Helen Vnuk wrote a very good book in 2003 about film classification and censorship in Australia. Published by Random House, the book is titled Snatched: Sex and Censorship in Australia. Writing about the book in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 July 2003, Helen Vnuk said that Premier Carr wants to lobby for changes to Federal legislation to allow banned films to be shown at film festivals. But on the subject of introducing legislation to permit the sale of X-rated videos and DVDs the Premier is notably silent. Not one X-rated DVD or video would hold a candle to the graphic depiction of nasty sex exhibited in the art films. Yet the Premier would prefer to leave sleeping dogs lie. As I said earlier in the debate, the people who exploit the Government's inaction by profiting from the black market in pornographic DVDs and videos may be dogs but they are not sleeping.
I understand that approximately 10,000 pornographic videos were produced around the world last year, and about 600 of them were classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The remainder, approximately 94 per cent, do not go unsold but, rather, end up in retail shops with forged classifications on the covers, or indeed no classification. The industry is now so bold that no-one bothers to put a classification on the binder of pirated videos and DVDs since nobody is policing the industry. I will not terrify honourable members again by repeating the titles of the videos I attempted to table but I make the point that the material included under-age material. Since the laws were changed last year relating to child pornography I believe that material would qualify as child pornography.

Most of the erotic and pornographic material sold in New South Wales each year has not been approved by the censor. The stringent guidelines of the Commonwealth are being ignored, and reasonable material is being sold alongside hardcore, offensive, violent and illegal films that do not comply with any guidelines or legislation. If films classified X 18+ by the censor were sold legally the policing of illegal pornography would be made much simpler. The existing law is adequate to enforce film classification legislation but only minimal or no action is taken and, as I said, the fines are minuscule. If it were legal to sell as well as buy legitimate X-rated videos in New South Wales that would enable more effective policing of the illegal industry.

Movies that have received an X 18+ classification from the censor could then be sold legally in sex shops or adult shops and it would be illegal for them to be sold in video shops or the so-called adult bookshops that are so abundant about town. It would dramatically reduce market access for the illegal pornography. All that is required is a label classification on the jacket by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Any item that did not have an authentic label would be illegal to sell or buy from any outlet. It would be a very simple matter to police and would become a source of revenue for the State.

The argument that legalising the sale of X18+ material will lead to a plethora of erotic material suddenly being made available in the State is flawed. The fact is that there is an overwhelming amount of illegal and highly offensive material currently being sold from a variety of unrestricted premises, with very little policing of the industry. The only way to reduce this black market is to make a clear distinction between what is legal and what is illegal, and in that way provide for greater enforcement than currently exists. Items [2], [5], [8] to [10], [12] and [17] of scheduled increase the penalties for offences relating to allowing minors access to the material and provide for up to two years imprisonment.

Schedule 1 [3] ensures that the legal material must only be displayed in a restricted publications area, only delivered to a person who has made a direct request, and only published if the film displays the determined markings and classification number allocated to the film by the board. Schedule 1 [6] prohibits delivery to a minor and schedule 1 [13] prohibits privately exhibiting the material in the presence of a minor. The bill incorporates the amendments of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendments (Uniform Classification) Bill 2004 passed by the Parliament last year. I supported the amendments to the uniform classification bill because they were aimed at standardising the separate and inconsistent classification systems that exist among the Commonwealth and the States.

The amendments in this bill have a similar purpose. Schedule 1 [1] removes the current prohibition on selling or publicly exhibiting a film classified X 18+. In New South Wales a sharp contradiction still exists in relation to X 18+ films: while it is illegal to sell an X 18+ film in this State, it is not illegal to buy one. Even though they have been the subject of a legal classification by the Commonwealth censor, the sale of these films warrants a penalty of approximately $11,000 or up to 12 months in gaol. In the case of corporations the penalty is $27,500. Under Commonwealth law, and in the Territories, it is legal to buy and sell material classified by the censor as X 18+. Schedule 1 [1] will bring New South Wales into line with Commonwealth law and, by enabling more efficient policing of the industry, will reduce the amount of illegal and highly offensive material currently being sold throughout the State. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [11.30 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(a) recognises the strong evidence that co-located general practice (GP) clinics help to reduce pressure on busy public hospital emergency departments,
(b) condemns the Federal Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, for refusing to adequately fund such clinics despite many attempts by the New South Wales Minister for Health to convince the Federal Minister these clinics will be strongly welcomed in the New South Wales community, and

(c) calls on the Federal Minister for Health to provide funding for a co-located GP clinic at Canterbury Hospital, where it would be strongly welcomed by the local community.

Health care is expensive. With the decline of Medicare and bulk-billing it is often difficult to find affordable general practitioners. Finding one after hours or late at night is almost impossible. So we are now faced with public hospital emergency departments bursting at the seams, with people seeking affordable health care in non-emergency situations. The New South Wales Government is persisting with its work to establish general practice after-hours clinics co-located with emergency departments at busy public hospitals. I am more optimistic about making progress on these clinics now than I was when I first gave notice of this motion last year. Since then there have been new developments to which I will refer later. However, they do not make having a co-located after-hours general practice clinic at Canterbury Hospital any less vital.

Up to 40 per cent of presentations at emergency departments can be treated by a general practitioner. It is imperative that we take the pressure off emergency departments so that they can do their job administering emergency medicine to traumatically injured or acutely ill people. Co-located general practice clinics help to ease this pressure on our emergency departments, and the Federal Government knows this. In order for an after-hours general practice clinic to be established State and Federal governments must work co-operatively to secure joint funding and access to Medicare for these clinics. The idea of co-located general practice clinics in New South Wales would see purpose-built clinics staffed by local general practitioners who would be invited to share a roster with other colleagues treating patients with less acute conditions. There are wins here for general practitioners, families, individuals, and busy emergency department doctors and nurses. People who present at emergency departments could go through the normal triage process or be referred to the rostered general practitioner, as appropriate.

Before I refer to a co-located general practice clinic at Canterbury Hospital and the specific needs of the Canterbury area, I wish to speak briefly about the successful Hunter trial. The value of these services has been proven. The general practice after-hours service has already been a great success in the Hunter region. The results have been outstanding. The service was piloted in 1999 and, after a four-year assessment period, it is still operating successfully. These clinics in the Hunter treated more than 40,000 patients in the first 12 months of operation. As part of this trial, five of these after-hours general practice clinics were established in the Hunter region—at Maitland Hospital, John Hunter Hospital, Belmont hospital, Toronto polyclinic and Newcastle Community Health Centre. The objectives of this trial included the operation of a subregional network of general practice after-hours clinics, the provision of a region-wide telephone triage and an advice service call centre, as well as the provision of home visits and funded transport of patients where necessary. I seek leave to table a brief summary of the Hunter results for the information and interest of honourable members.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

Honourable members will find that these results speak for themselves. The following are some of the successful outcomes of the trial in the Hunter region. The telephone triage call centre took close to 45,000 calls for assistance and bookings to attend the clinics in the first 12 months. Forty-seven per cent of patients were seen at or before their appointment times and 92 per cent of patients were seen within 30 minutes of their scheduled appointment time. In the first year more than 500 home visits were undertaken and more than 300 funded journeys to and from care were provided. In the first 12 months of the service operating, 346 people living in a nursing home received care through home visits under the program. In normal circumstances all over the State many of these elderly people would have required ambulance transport to an emergency department for treatment for an illness or ailment that required general practitioner attention only.

These home visits took the place of patients having to access an emergency department when a general practitioner could have more readily assisted them. These clinics regularly ease the pressure on congested emergency departments to enable them to treat more urgent cases quickly. A significant indicator of the program's initial success in the Hunter region is the number of general practitioners who signed up to work under the trial program. By the end of its first year of operation more than 200 general practitioners had been recruited to work in the service and, what is more, all this was performed within budget. An article from the Northern Rivers Division of General Practitioners quotes Dr Mark Foster, Service Director of General Practitioner Access After Hours, Hunter Urban Division of General Practice, as stating:

It's been a huge success here, with the numbers of GPs involved in the roster continuing to increase, and many saying it's the best thing in their working life, especially those who would otherwise be on-call one night in every three.

These clinics help in breaking down inefficiencies in care delivery in Australia. They allow for more co-ordinated and comprehensive care for those who need general practice services but who turn to emergency departments for treatment either because no after-hours service is available in their area or because they do not have a regular general practitioner. We do not need to set up competing businesses with local general practitioners in a location where a medical clinic is already established. Furthermore, the co-located general practice clinics will operate under the same rules of medical benefit schedule payments that exist for all other general practitioners in the community.

A key feature of these clinics is to refer people back to their general practitioners so that there can be continuity of care and, where possible, an avoidance of hospitalisation. The benefits of co-located general practice clinics in hospitals are not just applicable to patients—general practitioners also benefit. General practitioners are given greater certainty in their work schedule. Through suitable rostering they do not have to be on call to their patients around the clock seven days a week. Practitioners are working in a safer environment, especially when working late at night. They have ready access to diagnostic services such as X-ray and pathology, with immediate access to a hospital if the patient's situation is worse than it was first thought.

General practitioners do not have to pay from their own pockets for locums or after-hours deputising services. As a result, there is more consistency in the level of service and greater quality control. Patients who access the service can feel secure that they have immediate access to a general practitioner rather than face the task of attending a busy and congested emergency department or paying exorbitant fees at a private medical centre. Any follow-up care that is required can then be pursued through the local doctor. The same results can be achieved in many locations throughout New South Wales and, in particular, Canterbury. The list of benefits is long and compelling. I hope that it is compelling enough to convince the Federal Government to help the New South Wales Government fund a co-located general practitioner clinic at Canterbury Hospital.

After a false start and early disappointment last year a more satisfactory agreement over co-located general practice clinics was reached with the Federal Government after the election in October 2004. During the Federal election campaign the Federal Labor Party announced a funding program for after-hours general practice clinics that was followed by similar commitment from the Coalition. Prior to this, despite a number of meetings initiated by the New South Wales Minister for Health, Morris Iemma, with his Federal counterpart, Minister Abbott, the Commonwealth offered a low level of funding and a small number of clinics in New South Wales two months before the election. That has now changed and there is good co-operation between Federal and State government agencies, which are working to establish more co-located general practice clinics.

I refer now to Canterbury Hospital. Canterbury Hospital is one of the busiest in Sydney, servicing a diverse local population of more than 135,000 people. It offers public hospital services that include emergency, general medicine, surgery, obstetrics, gynaecology, paediatrics, aged care, rehabilitation and palliative care. Years ago in the Canterbury area there were a series of 24-hour medical centres. With the decline in bulk-billing these medical centres are opening shorter hours. People who cannot find a general practitioner or a bulk-billing general practitioner go to the hospital emergency department looking for assistance. This means that late at night, when people frequently fall ill—especially children, babies and the elderly—the only medical care option is to head for the emergency department of Canterbury Hospital. A significant percentage of these patients do not require hospital treatment; they need to be treated by a general practitioner.

The Canterbury area would benefit greatly from a co-located after-hours general practice clinic. Various factors affect Canterbury residents' access to appropriate after-hours general practitioner services. The high culturally and linguistically diverse population of Canterbury is a prime example of the obstacles that Canterbury residents face in trying to access affordable health care outside traditional hours. The Canterbury City Demographic Profile 2004 found that 44.3 per cent of Canterbury residents were born in a non-English speaking country. This is almost double the percentage of residents from a non-English speaking background in the Sydney region as a whole. In the 2001 census the main countries of birth of Canterbury residents from non-English speaking backgrounds included China, Lebanon, Greece, Vietnam, Korea and Italy. The immediate surrounds of Canterbury Hospital take in two of the three suburbs with the highest percentage of overseas-born residents in the Canterbury area. More than 60 per cent of residents of Campsie were born overseas and more than 57 per cent of residents of Lakemba were born overseas.

Canterbury city has consistently higher percentages of people with profound, severe and moderate disabilities compared with the inner west. In fact, 33.6 per cent of those in the inner west with moderate, profound or severe disabilities reside in the Canterbury city area. Accessible and affordable health care is of paramount importance to people with disabilities and their carers. Many elderly people live in the Canterbury area, and many of them live alone. Canterbury city also has a greater percentage of female lone parents—11.9 per cent—than the Sydney region as a whole. The level of single-occupancy residences or single-parent families is rising, and many people—the elderly, young mothers and single parents—do not necessarily have a good support network available to them. For example, they do not always have someone to drive them long distances late at night in search of a bulk-billing general practitioner.

The 2004 Canterbury City Demographic Profile found that more than 59 per cent of Canterbury residents have access to only one motor vehicle or have no access to any motor vehicle at all. This is a substantial proportion of residents who do not necessarily have the option of using a car to access a GP late at night or in the early hours of the morning, when public transport is not always operating. Demographically, the Canterbury area is one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged local government areas in the State. As at last year, about 30 per cent of Canterbury households earned less than $25,949 per annum. Across the whole Sydney region only 14 per cent of households earn less than this amount.

The Canterbury area has the highest density of 0 to 4-year-olds and the highest density of young people aged 12 to 24 years per square kilometre compared with similar-sized local government areas. The large number of children and young people in the Canterbury area becomes an issue when looking to provide affordable health care for children and their families and carers. Many families do not have the luxury of being able to afford to pay a fee to attend a doctor's surgery. A high percentage of Canterbury residents rent their homes. In the 2001 census the nature of occupancy in almost two-thirds of apartments in Canterbury city was rental and there are more than 3,000 public housing tenant households in the Canterbury city area.

By and large, it is the people who rent, welfare recipients and public housing tenants who can least afford to be selective with their health care. This is a substantial proportion of Canterbury residents who rely on bulk-billing for their health care. These are people who do not speak English as a first language, single parents, pensioners and low-income families. These are people who, in the present circumstances, have no option but to attend the emergency department of Canterbury Hospital when they fall ill, in search of affordable health care. The Canterbury area is crying out for affordable health care outside traditional hours. An after-hours clinic at Canterbury Hospital would provide essential health care, help take the pressure off the hospital's busy emergency department and reduce waiting times.

At present the medical centre nearest to Canterbury that is open late at night is located in Bankstown. This centre is difficult to access for many Canterbury residents due to its location and the difficulties in obtaining transport very late at night. An after-hours general practice clinic in Canterbury Hospital would greatly assist local residents. The clinic would be centrally located and accessible, and staff would have access to hospital facilities in serious cases, as well as interpreting services to help break down some of the cultural and language barriers that patients from a non-English speaking background often experience when seeking treatment or when trying to communicate the nature of their symptoms. During the Federal election campaign, the member for Watson, Tony Burke, distributed petitions entitled "Fighting for an After-Hours Clinic at Canterbury Hospital". Local residents flocked to sign these petitions to urge the Federal Government to agree to the funding. There was then, and is now, enormous support from locals for this project to be extended to Canterbury Hospital.

The Canterbury Division of General Practice supports the clinic—indeed, it has general practitioners prepared to staff it. The facilities are in place and the floor space needed for the clinic is available at the hospital. I urge the Federal Government to join the New South Wales State Government and commit to a jointly funded clinic at Canterbury Hospital. The people of Canterbury are waiting for the Federal Government to give them a major boost in health care and fairer access to health care in their community. The New South Wales Government is ready and willing to make its contribution now. There are no obstacles to establishing more after-hours general practice clinics in this State except for the need for an assurance from the Federal Government that patients at the clinics will have access to Medicare. General practitioners in many areas are ready to be involved in co-located after-hours general practice clinics statewide. The Prime Minister said that he wanted genuine health care reform after the recent election. Here is his chance. The New South Wales Government, together with the Canterbury community, wants this to happen and happen quickly.

As I have said before, health care is expensive for everyone and, with private health fund premiums set to rise in April this year, many Australians will again be feeling the pinch when it comes to paying for their health care. We must make access to affordable, quality health care as fair as possible, and that means access to general practitioner services around the clock. I know the Canterbury area needs a co-located after-hours general practice clinic and I will be actively seeking to have Canterbury Hospital earmarked as a site for one in the near future. The New South Wales Government and community strongly believe in the benefits of these clinics and want them to be up and running as soon as possible. I ask John Howard and Tony Abbott to recognise and acknowledge the benefits of an after-hours general practice clinic at Canterbury Hospital. I urge them to help us move towards establishing one in the near future and to help us extend this important health service to other communities in New South Wales.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.45 a.m.]: I speak on this motion on behalf of the Coalition. It is a pity that the school students from my local area who were in the Chamber earlier are not present for this debate because I think they, like everyone else in New South Wales, would understand what this motion is about. They might understand this motion more than they understood the matter under discussion when they were in the Chamber. This motion is about the State Government doing what it always does when it is in trouble. This Government is in trouble on health and cannot manage the State's finances. So what does it do? It looks for someone else to blame. In this case, Labor is blaming the Federal Government. It is that easy. Instead of working out how to use the State's massive goods and services tax revenues to provide proper health care for the people of New South Wales, this Government, like a small child, is pointing the finger of blame at the Federal Government. But we know where the blame should lie. The blame should rest with the Carr Government and its mismanagement of health.

This motion seeks to politicise health care. But the facts tell a different story. In the 2001 budget the Federal Government committed $43.4 million over four years to trial a range of different models of after-hours service provision through the After-Hours Primary Medical Care Program. Since then, it has funded four trials of different after-hours models. The Hon. Kayee Griffin mentioned the trial in the Hunter, which has worked very well. There was also one in Western Sydney. Trials were conducted in other States. In addition, the Federal Coalition Government has fostered better after-hours services by providing practice incentives to general practitioners. General practitioners receive $50 million a year. Under the agreement general practitioners agree to provide after-hours services and to link with an after-hours service provider.

In the 2004 Federal budget the Coalition Government provided $6.9 million to support four after-hours clinics co-located in public hospitals. After the budget it offered to fund a further three clinics in New South Wales. Guess what? The New South Wales Government is yet to take up the offer and has left it on the table. Today the Hon. Kayee Griffin has bleated about the Federal Government, but her motion is all about playing politics with the New South Wales health system. Instead of working with the Federal Government and providing better health care for the people of New South Wales, the Carr Government has chosen to leave the offer of after-hours clinics on the table. Why? Because it sees co-located general practice clinics as the only opinion. Why? It is clear to most people—I am sure it would have been clear to the schoolchildren who were in the gallery earlier—that it is about cost shifting and shifting the blame. Who pays? Medicare. Who funds Medicare? The Federal Government.

The motion has not been moved because the Australian Labor Party sees this as the best way to provide the people of New South Wales with better after-hours health care; it is trying to ease the political pressure on its under-performing public hospitals. The Government is trying to hide how badly it manages its public hospitals and it is shifting the cost from the State Government to the Federal Government through the Medicare subsidy that would be available at a co-located clinic. That is no way to service the needs of the community. Health services should be based on the needs of the community, not on the financial penny pinching of an irresponsible Government that cannot manage the public health system. It is absolute dire straits. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment that points out the Government's failure to provide public health care for the people of New South Wales.

If we had co-located after-hours clinics there would be an absorption of available general practitioners willing to provide after-hours services. There would be a one-size-fits-all arrangement geared to the political priorities of the State Government, not the needs of local communities. It would dictate to doctors how they would be involved, if they were persuaded to be involved at all. Co-located clinics rely on telephone triage—patients being referred to hospitals and other providers through central call centres staffed mainly by nurses. I am advised that the Federal Government does not reject call centres as an option. However, it believes that the first priority should building up the after-hours general practitioner infrastructure to which patients can be referred, which is the central point of around-the-clock medicine. The Federal Government believes that general practitioner services should be well located and at sites where communities gain the maximum benefit, whether or not they are linked to the public hospital.
The Federal Government is providing recurrent operating subsidies to a maximum of $200,000 a year to 30 new recently establish general practitioner clinics—New South Wales has the option to take up the offer of 3 in 2005-06, 15 in 2006-07 and 5 in 2007-08. They may be established standard-hours clinics that want to set their operating deputising services or new dedicated after-hours services. This Government has failed to take up the subsidies for three clinics. The approach that the Labor Party touts today focuses on clinics located only in public emergency departments. We know who would absorb the cost. It should not be the only option, and we certainly should not be condemning the Federal Minister for Health for seeing other options. We should condemn the short-sightedness and selfishness of this Labor Government, which is looking after its pockets and its political standing rather than looking at the best possible health services for the people of New South Wales.

There is no reason why public hospital emergency facilities cannot be linked to an after-hours general practitioners service, contrary to the Labor approach in the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin. The Coalition believes that the Federal Government is looking out for the needs of people in New South Wales. I will move an amendment to the motion. The real issue is not what the Hon. Kayee Griffin presented in her motion; the real issue is since 1995 the Carr Government has closed 4,750 hospital beds, which has put incredible pressure on public hospitals. Contrary to the claims of the Carr Government, Department of Health statistics show that triage level 5 presentations have declined since 1995. The Carr Government should stop blaming others for health failures, re-open closed beds and start to support the hardworking doctors and nurses in the public hospital system.

Earlier students from Jewells Primary School were in the public gallery. Since 1995-96 there has been a reduction of 567 hospital beds in the Hunter—my area—which has put incredible pressure on hospitals. We have seen bed blocks. Many stories have appeared in newspapers. For example, on 23 December the Newcastle Herald reported that a pregnant woman was being driven around New South Wales looking for a bed. How many similar headlines and stories of bed blocks and people not being able to get into hospitals have we seen in New South Wales? During the past few years we have seen story after story of mismanagement by this Government of public hospitals. We have seen hospitals on code red and ambulances unable to access hospitals. We have seen headline after headline showing that this Government cannot manage health, as is demonstrated in the way it is operating public hospitals.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Eight per cent yesterday!

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection. It is yet another example of the Carr Government using any opportunity it can to blame the Federal Government. The Government forgets its property taxes, its failure to manage the goods and services tax in relation to hospitals and its failures with respect to health. New South Wales is the highest taxing State in this country. In spite of that and the huge goods and services tax revenues that have come to the State, our hospital system is falling apart. What does this Government do? It points the finger and blames the Federal Government—like children who blame someone else—for its own mismanagement. Newspapers in the Hunter region constantly have headlines about ambulance officers preparing to go on strike because they cannot cope with the crisis in emergency departments in hospitals. Nurse retention is an issue in such an environment. We have seen how bullies treat nurses who complain or blow the whistle. Why would nurses want to work in a public hospital system where they are not valued? My Coalition colleagues have story after story about the way in which—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: I ask that the gaggling Government members be directed to keep quite so that the Hon. Robyn Parker has a fair opportunity to deliver her speech.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: To the point of order: I am unable to hear what is being said by the Hon. Robyn Parker because Dubbo Duncan keeps yelling out something about the result of the Dubbo by-election. I ask that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be directed to remain silent.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Assistant Treasurer. Did WorkCover last year spend almost $13 million in legal fees to recover $13.3 million in fines—a net gain of $300,000? Does the Minister know whether any other department has a similar record?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for asking the question and turning attention to the issue of workers compensation and WorkCover—a subject in which he is interested but still does not know anything about. WorkCover, of course, is not a government department; it is an independent statutory authority. Its compliance campaigns—as the Hon. Michael Cost suggested during the asking of the question—are about just that, compliance, not revenue raising. I do not think anyone could apply either a public test or a test of administrative quality—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The figures are right, though.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will come to whether or not the figures are right. First, I want to engage the general tenor of the question, which infers that the WorkCover compliance campaigns should somehow be tested on the basis of the revenue they raise. I refute and reject that suggestion. Most business people in New South Wales and most people interested in occupational health and safety and workers compensation also would refute his suggestion. Honourable members would be aware that fines imposed by the Local Court, Chief Magistrate and the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session are collected by the courts or the State Debt Recovery Office.

Between July 1995 and June 2004 WorkCover undertook more than 3,800 successful prosecutions for breaches of occupational health and safety legislation in New South Wales courts. During this period New South Wales courts awarded $57.1 million in fines for those breaches. I am not sure which figures the Leader of the Opposition quoted and to which particular compliance campaign he refers, but clearly his numbers are wrong. He must be referring to one particular compliance campaign. I would be interested to know which one that is. I refute the suggestion about WorkCover's compliance campaigns, or indeed those of any vigilance authority like WorkCover. The success of their compliance campaigns cannot be measured by the net proceeds of those campaigns, but rather by the effectiveness of the regulatory framework that they support.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What action is the Government taking to increase the number of people entering apprenticeships and to address skill shortages across New South Wales?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: All honourable members would be aware of the increasing importance of the issue of skill shortages. This is not a new issue, but it is becoming increasingly urgent and important for the nation's economy. Recently, the Reserve Bank Governor, Ian Macfarlane, called for national policy changes to increase the number of skilled workers across the economy. There are entrenched shortages in a range of areas: engineering, vehicle, electrical, construction and food trades. There are also significant shortages in health and community services. Recent research by the Australian Council of Trade Unions shows that in the next five years 170,000 trades people will leave the industry, but only 40,000 will enter it. While the Commonwealth Government only discovered the skill shortages prior to the last election, the New South Wales Government has strong plans to address the issue and is getting significant results. In the past 12 months 19,288 people have started apprenticeships in New South Wales—a record. This is a 26 per cent increase from 2003. It brings the total number of people doing apprenticeships to 45,000.

These apprentices are across the board—but it is pleasing that they are particularly in areas of shortage: engineering, construction, automotive and electro-technology. Strong industry performers include utilities and electro-technology, which has had a 42 per cent increase; automotive, which has had a 22 per cent increase; and manufacturing engineering, which has had a 20 per cent increase. This impressive growth has been achieved despite Commonwealth Government funding constraints. The New South Wales Government has worked hard to put in place training funding priorities that clearly target existing and emerging skill shortages through the Contracted Training Program. Last year $13.1 million was spent purchasing training for 7,700 people through the program. This year at least $19.1 million is being committed to New South Wales Government priorities in industry.

The Government has also put in place funding for pre-vocational courses. Pre-apprenticeships are usually short courses that operate over 6 to 8 weeks. They provide early skills training for potential apprentices and trainees in trade and non-trade skill shortage areas. Pre-apprenticeships are popular with students because the courses give them a head start in their chosen field. They are very popular for trades employers because they provide job-ready employees and give them a sense of what they will experience in the work force. In 2004, $3.8 million was spent on pre-vocational courses that provided training that feeds directly into relevant apprenticeships and traineeships. This funding assisted 2,600 people to access pre-apprenticeship training—and it works. At Granville TAFE, for example, pre-apprenticeship training has increased the number of metals industry apprentices from 20 to more than 100 in two years. That commitment continues.

The Department of Education and Training is working closely with industrial parties to provide more flexibility in traditional trade training. With an ageing population, the challenge is to increase the pool of people who will take up trades training. That is why we have cut the apprenticeship term for adults with demonstrated industry experience in mechanical engineering and fabrication engineering from four years to two years. As a result of these types of initiatives, adult apprenticeships have increased by 40 per cent between 1998 and 2003. TAFE plays a critical role in supporting the State's continued economic growth. In 2004-05, the Government is providing over $1.4 billion in recurrent and capital funding. The percentage change in expenditure over the past five years represents an 18.4 per cent increase. This funding will support more than 500,000 enrolments across more than 130 campuses. The skill shortages issue is real. It is having an impact on our economic situation and the opportunity for growth, but the New South Wales Government has strong and detailed plans to address the skill shortages. We would like to see the Commonwealth come on board.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister recall his comments in this House on 18 November 2004 that "the Government will not be imposing a new levy" on landholders for locust control? Is it not a fact that the Minister went back on his word and increased the levy on landholders for locust control in January 2005? Is the Minister now not only mean, but mean or a liar, or mean and a liar?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: What a silly and almost offensive comment by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Well, if you lie to the Parliament—

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I did not lie to the Parliament.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You said there would be no increase in the levy.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I did not.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, you did.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. This is where the honourable member gets it wrong. What I in fact said was that there would be no new levy. I did not say that there would be no increase in the levy. I said there would be no new levy—and there is no new levy.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is addressed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Premier. Given that the Government's response to the one night of rioting in Redfern last year was to conduct a parliamentary inquiry and create a special authority directing $5 billion into the economic and residential redevelopment of the area, what does the Government propose to do in response to the four days of rioting in Macquarie Fields? Given that both Waterloo and Macquarie Fields rate very low on the Australian Bureau of Statistic's Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage, what is the Government's long-term plan to solve economic disadvantage, which is conducive to crime?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I note that the honourable member's question, which deals with the events of the past few days at Macquarie Fields after an unfortunate event that resulted in a fatal accident, is directed to the Premier. I am happy to convey the honourable member's question to the Premier and seek his earliest practicable response.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics [ABARE] released its outlook for Australia's dairy industry. One of the key elements of the information presented at the ABARE conference was the need for applied research. What steps is New South Wales taking to help deliver the innovations that our dairy producers need?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is well known that Australia's dairy producers have faced a decade of trials and tribulations. First, the Coalition Government forced deregulation upon Australia's dairy farmers. Deregulation and Coalition Government go together. This was followed by drought, high feed costs and unfavourable exchange rates. The Carr Labor Government has done what it could to support the State's dairy farmers, including vital drought support measures such as transport subsidies, management and education programs, and ongoing research to help producers improve their productivity and profitability.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You've just taken $500,000 of their money for the NLIS and claimed it was yours. How dishonest is that?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I did not. I said it was industry funds. Although the recent ABARE report provides some bright spots for our hardworking dairy farmers, long-term production is expected to remain relatively flat unless we can create breakthroughs in applied research and technology. I inform the House that New South Wales will now head a new $10.5 million, three-year research and extension project designed to do just that. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Dairy Australia, the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne and the Victorian Department of Primary Industries have teamed up on the three-year project called Future Dairy, which will have its headquarters at the Department of Primary Industries Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute [EMAI] at Camden. New South Wales will contribute $5.75 million, which represents half the resources needed for the project. It will also provide 15 of the more than 25 researchers, technicians and extension officers.

The Future Dairy project is designed to deliver a major boost to dairy farmers by delivering new technologies and new management systems that fit those technologies. Specifically, researchers will examine ways to increase milk production of individual animals, and work to improve feed management options. Feed accounts for more than 50 per cent of the direct cost of a dairy farm. If we can develop ways to maximise forage crops and improve feed management systems we can help deliver better returns. Through Future Dairy, researchers will develop a range of management models focused on feed, fodder and innovation. The models will then be trialled on five partner farms in New South Wales and Victoria to gauge their effectiveness in real world situations. A cost benefit analysis of the different models will be conducted to help producers determine the mix that will best meet their business goals.

Researchers and extension officers will work also with individual farmers to take results to a second tier of case study farms so that new technologies can be tailored to particular environments and dairy businesses. One of the innovation components planned in Future Dairy projects is automatic milking, which has great potential to improve per cow production. The Department of Primary Industries currently is in final negotiations with commercial partners to secure a robotic dairy at the EMAI site. I look forward to updating the House on this matter in the near future. The Future Dairy research project clearly has strong support from a range of industry groups. The industry is injecting nearly $3 million in direct funds to this important program. The EMAI is recognised as one of Australia's leading research centres consistently delivering world-class results. The fact that the new national project will be headed by EMAI is yet another feather in its cap. As honourable members are aware the State Government's dairy research is concentrated largely at EMAI. Concentrating our dairy research at this site will help deliver better results for all dairy producers, including those in the North Coast, Sydney Basin, Hunter Valley, Riverina, where the Hon. Tony Catanzariti comes from, and the Lachlan Valley.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you tell the dairy farmers you took their money and claimed it was yours?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I did not claim it was ours. The honourable member should read the documents. It is very much an industry fund. Our teams at EMAI will continue to be supported by feed nutrition work at the Department of Primary Industries Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute. Pasture nutrition, climate forecasting and feed management will be carried out at our Wollongbar Agricultural Institute with the help of commercial farms.

[Interruption]

The dairy industry wanted it. New South Wales is Australia's second-largest dairy State, and it employs more than 6,000 people. The Future Dairy project is another example of the State Government's strong and detailed plan to introduce world-class, cutting-edge technology for our primary production sectors.
Mr IAN COHEN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industries. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the economic and social value of agricultural land in the Sydney Basin is maintained, and that Sydney continues to receive the same level of quality supply of food under the Government's metropolitan strategy? Will he confirm that 90 per cent of Sydney's fresh leafy vegetables are grown in the Sydney Basin and that produce from the small holdings and market gardens of the Sydney Basin is worth more than $1 billion a year? Does he concede that the Government's plans to redevelop large tracts of Sydney farmland will greatly restrict fresh produce being available to Sydneysiders and that a significant increases in fresh food prices will result? Does he further concede that the focus of Primary Industries—and the Opposition—on the west of the sandstone curtain abrogates the department's responsibilities to a vast number of New South Wales agricultural producers who may disappear under the Government's urban expansion plans?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have been a strong advocate, as the New South Wales Farmers Association would know, of the protection of the Sydney Basin and its $1 billion worth of agricultural production. Many people do not realise how important agricultural production is in the Sydney Basin. Late last year, under the auspices of New South Wales Farmers, and particularly Ms Francis Vella, I was able to visit a number of key industries in the Sydney Basin along the Hawkesbury-Nepean rivers. Later this month, in company with New South Wales Farmers, I will tour various agricultural areas in the Sydney Basin starting at Gosford and moving through into the Hawkesbury area. I have made it clear that we need a diverse Sydney Basin with a strong agricultural base and that we must protect that $1 billion agricultural output from the basin. On several occasions I have used the expression that the last thing we need is concrete and cement from the mountains to the sea.

We have a large number of programs, including working with various ethnic communities involved in the vegetable industry in the area, to help improve water management and food safety through the food production chain. We have been solid in supporting the involvement of primary industries in the basin and before the metropolitan strategy meetings. Our aim is to protect agricultural land wherever we possibly can. There is no question that we will continue to do that because we agree with Mr Ian Cohen that the Sydney Basin is an important part of agricultural production in the New South Wales. It is booming, particularly the horticultural side. Recently we opened a new greenhouse just outside Liverpool, which is one of the most advanced in Australia, to produce vegetables for the export market. It is a wonderful initiative. I agree wholeheartedly with the honourable member that we must protect agricultural land and industries within the Sydney basin.

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister lobby other Ministers to zone agricultural land for protection to stop the urban sprawl?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Department of Primary Industries and I clearly are putting forward a strong case for the protection of agricultural land in the Sydney basin. We will continue to do that. We will have an input into that metropolitan strategy to do precisely what the honourable member is talking about, to ensure that we have a sustainable and profitable agricultural and Primary Industries base in the Sydney basin.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I direct my question to the Minister for Disability Services. Does he recall my asking him a question last Thursday about the refusal of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care to act in response to complaints from the parents of four clients housed in a group home in Hurstville who have not been able to enter the group home to see their children since last December? Has he or his department taken action to contact these parents and obtain more details about their complaints since last Thursday? Why has it been necessary for these parents to come to Parliament today and sit in the gallery to get his attention on this very serious matter? When will he instruct his department to implement its policy that family relationships will be kept intact while funded or direct services are provided to people with disabilities, unless the person with the disability says or indicates otherwise?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I acknowledge his advice that the families of the clients are in the gallery. I have taken steps to ascertain some of the issues involved in the particular matter he has pointed out in his question. In response to the general elements of his question I make the point that in addition to direct services, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care funds a large number of organisations that deliver supported accommodation services to people with a disability. These services, whether delivered directly through the department or contracted through service providers, are required to meet the principles and the application of principles under the Disability Services Act. As I understand the essence of the matters under discussion, in simple terms there is a conflict between the interpretations that might be placed upon the Act and other relevant pieces of government legislation. Some of the implications of that are being worked through.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I was alluding to the fact that there are a number of matters in relation to occupational health and safety. I do not think I need to dignify the honourable member's interjections or his question with any further answer.

[Interruption]

With respect to the Hon. John Ryan's histrionics, let me just say that clearly there is a problem. My officers will get to the bottom of the problem and I expect a resolution of it. I have said previously that I was not aware that the families of the clients involved were seeking to see them.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: What have you done since you have been aware?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I have just told the Hon. Catherine Cusack. Why does she not listen to the answer?

The Hon. John Ryan: Isn't this a serious problem?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, it is.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Economic Reform. Will he outline the impact of yesterday's economic developments on the New South Wales economy?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the honourable member for this very important question. Yesterday the people of this State witnessed the Howard Government in record-breaking form. Yesterday, record after record fell in the Howard Government's management of the economy. The results of those broken records are reflected in today's headlines. They were certainly headline-grabbing achievements. Today's Australian Financial Review has the headline, "Goldilocks economy: Howard and Costello's porridge goes cold". The Daily Telegraph put it another way but the implication is exactly the same, "Double trouble—Families feel the pinch as home loan rates and health premiums rise." The Sydney Morning Herald provided this short and sharp description of the state of our economy, "The day Australia hit a speed bump". These beg the question: What does this mean for the hardworking families of New South Wales?

New South Wales families will be slugged by a further impost because of the completely incompetent management of the national economy by the Howard Government. Yesterday the Howard Government delivered the highest current account deficit in half a century. The nation's current account deficit is $15.2 billion—a staggering amount. I note that an Opposition member cited achievements of the Hawke-Keating Government in a notice of motion earlier today. I make the point that in 1986 when Paul Keating declared that Australia was heading for banana republic status, the current account deficit was only 6.2 per cent of gross domestic product [GDP] and currently it is 7.1 per cent of GDP.

It is obvious that members of the Opposition are so ashamed about it that they are adopting a deliberate strategy of avoiding the question and the answer. I accept that it is a very embarrassing situation for members opposite to see the economic incompetence of the Howard Government's management of the economy hitting home. Members opposite are embarrassed, as they ought to be. I recall that when Paul Keating declared that Australia was heading for banana republic status, the current account deficit was 6.2 per cent but it is currently running at 7.1 per cent. Clearly the Howard Government has eaten the banana and is about to slip on the skin, and we are about to face the consequences. If only we could get back the banana, we would be in a better position. The Howard Government has driven the economy to low growth rates, an increase in interest rates, an increase in the current account deficit, a slug in mortgages and a slug in health care costs. The Howard Government is completely incompetent. It is a government that takes enormous amounts of money.
The Howard Government is incompetent and has taken enormous amounts out of taxpayers' pockets in New South Wales. It has mismanaged the finances. The record of its mismanagement is to be seen in the current account deficit, the increase in interest rates and the additional slug in medical costs to families. The Howard Government really should be ashamed of itself for lying to the Australian people.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government. When he dismissed the need for an inquiry into attempts by the former general manager of the Orange City Council, Allen Dwyer, to influence how council staff voted at the 2003 council elections, did he assess any evidence other than that in the tape he referred to in this House? Is he aware that two days before the elections, the Central Western Daily printed allegations by the current mayor of improper activity by Allen Dwyer? Is he aware that the current acting general manager warned Allen Dwyer not to attempt to influence how council staff voted? Has the acting general manager or the mayor been interviewed about their comments?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have already addressed this issue. The Director General of the Department of Local Government has advised me that based on the Crown Solicitor's advice he does not intend to pursue the matter further. I am aware however that Councillor Jeremy Buckingham yesterday made a number of passionate claims on the radio. His allegation that the general manager tried to influence staff is serious indeed. Councillor Buckingham is spinning a very colourful tale of rumour and innuendo. This tale seems to have got him into a spot of trouble. From recent media speculation it appears that defamation action may be on the cards. I understand that Councillor Buckingham has not been in public office very long and perhaps is unaware that his actions may lead to the potential for defamation suits.

Others who might be more experienced in these matters know that the legal experts should examine the evidence before anyone starts slinging mud. For example, when I received the tape I forwarded it to the Crown Solicitor who thoroughly investigated the content of the tape and, as I informed the House yesterday, cleared Mr Dwyer of any criminal conduct. I can only assume that, unfortunately, Councillor Buckingham's inexperience has got him into trouble. Now with a potential defamation suit lurking he has pulled the proverbial rabbit out of the hat and is claiming—

The Hon. Michael Costa: Is he a Green?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, he is a Green. He is claiming that others in Orange may have other evidence. The problem is that not one of these other people has come forward—despite my pleas for many weeks that if anyone had any evidence, or copies of the tape at that stage as well concerning Orange City Council, he or she should come forward. Ultimately, about a week after I made the request, we received a copy of the tape. As I said, we passed it on to the Crown Solicitor, who reviewed it in relation to a number of Acts and reported that no criminal activity had taken place. My advice to Councillor Buckingham would be that before he starts getting himself into more trouble and making passionate, ill-advised allegations in the media he should spend some quality time with a solicitor. That said, I would urge Councillor Buckingham to focus his attention on the needs of the citizens of Orange.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. My question was specifically directed to whether interviews had been conducted with either the acting general manager or the mayor, who are both reported to have made allegations about improper activity by Mr Allen Dwyer. What I am asking is whether the department has made any inquiries other than about the tape to which the Minister referred earlier.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I refer to my previous answer. We asked people to come forward with any evidence they had and the department investigated the matter.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Does the Minister for Industrial Relations recall his answer to my question on 11 March last year regarding Labor's 1995 promise that by the year 2000, 40 per cent of the New South Wales industrial relations commissioners would be women? Does the Minister recall telling the House, "I will provide details once I have established whether a commitment along those lines was made during the 1995 election campaign"? Has the Minister confirmed that despite the appointment of Trish Kavanagh, wife of Laurie Brereton, and Jan McLeay, wife of Leo McLeay, only 29 per cent of the commissioners were female by 2000? Why did the figure fall to 25 per cent last year? Given that the Minister had a whole year to confirm the promise, does he now know why the Government failed to fulfil it?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for her question but not for its construction. She of all people should not attempt such posturing in this Chamber. Her references to the spouses of commissioners are both churlish and inappropriate.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It is a cheap shot and it denigrates women.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is worse than a cheap shot; it is basically denigrating women to refer to those individuals in such a discriminatory way. I am personally embarrassed for the honourable member that she has phrased the question in that way. I assume that it was phrased by some bigot on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, and the Hon. Catherine Cusack, because of her lack of experience, has been foolish enough to ask the question in that form. I do not recall giving the answer in the terms stated in the question. I will ascertain whether I did give that answer and provide the honourable member with the facts she has asked for.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Could the Minister for Industrial Relations please update the House on initiatives to improve safety in the long haul trucking industry?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Some honourable members would be aware that today the Government released a new draft regulation for long haul trucking. It deals with a number of important general issues that reach beyond the industry. The proposed changes give effect to a commitment made by the Premier to amend occupational health and safety law to allow the investigation of unrealistic or dangerous delivery schedules and timetables and the extent to which they may contribute to accidents or incidents involving long haul trucks. The proposals are outlined in a consultation paper. The proposed amendments will allow WorkCover to investigate whether driving rosters and inadequate training for drivers on fatigue issues or loading schedules contributed to trucking incidents.

Further, in recognition of the influence consigners and consignees have on driving timetables, those with more than 200 employees in industries such as retailing, wholesaling and transport services will have a responsibility to ensure they do not impose unreasonable deadlines for freight deliveries. The consultation process on the draft changes will be supported by a series of information sessions held throughout the State. The memorandum included in the plan will help drive a series of practical initiatives to improve safety in the road freight industry, including making sure workers in the industry have access to induction training, developing strategies to improve the effectiveness of occupational health and safety consultation mechanisms, training for managers and supervisors on effective risk management, and ensuring safe design principles are utilised in the design of trucks, equipment and warehousing facilities.

WorkCover has also facilitated the development of interagency guidelines for the key New South Wales government agencies involved in the long haul trucking industry. The guidelines, which were signed by relevant Ministers last year, set the basis for agencies working in partnership, and with non-government organisations, to enhance the safety of all road users, and of long haul truck drivers in particular. There is no doubt that an integrated approach is essential for better road safety in the long haul trucking industry. The Government recognises that agencies and industry must work in partnership to improve the safety of all road users. The public consultation process for the draft regulation is an example of the Government's commitment to this partnership. I again make the point that long haul trucks share the roads with the rest of the motoring public. Therefore, enhancing occupational health and safety for long haul truck drivers is good news for all motorists as it improves general road safety.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask a question of the Special Minister of State, representing the Premier and the Treasurer. Does the New South Wales Treasurer believe that the Government should be accountable for State spending of the Federal goods and services tax [GST] payments as stated by the Federal Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello? Does the Treasurer believe that the Government has financed and efficiently managed all areas pertaining to health, transport, housing, education and infrastructure in New South Wales? Does the Premier agree with Queensland Premier Chris Beattie that a Federal call for a public review of State spending on health, education and infrastructure is mere "bunkum"? Will the New South Wales Government support the Federal Treasurer's call for a public review of the way that all State governments spend the Federal GST payments of $60.2 billion for 2004-05, with New South Wales receiving $17.6 billion?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I note that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked me the question in my capacity as representing the Premier and the Treasurer. I am happy to forward the substance of his question on to the Premier and Treasurer for their comments. I am sure they will be happy to make detailed replies to it. But I would make a couple of observations in relation to the points raised by the honourable member in my own capacity as Leader of the House and Assistant Treasurer. I endorse wholeheartedly the remarks by the Premier of Queensland that the Costello outburst the other day is simple bunkum, an attempt to distract public attention from the massive competency failures that are now becoming evident in the Commonwealth Government. Let me point out the other big lie that stands behind the question, not that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is ever known for deceitful behaviour. The campaign being run by Mr Costello is a deceitful campaign, particularly in the context of New South Wales. As used to be pointed out very regularly by our former colleague the Hon. Michael Egan, after the last lot of general purpose grants New South Wales is not GST positive. In other words, all the taxes that we have given up—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You have got that wrong.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, I have not.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Did you take a look at the half yearly reports?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, because he has moved the goalposts. We get $370 million less in Commonwealth grants. We are still not net positive in GST terms.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: I suggest you look at your own half yearly report.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This is a furphy.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You ought to get your facts right.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order for the first time.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Even if the interjections of the Hon. Greg Pearce were correct, he and Opposition members ought to know—Peter Costello knows—that the GST agreement substitutes for a wide range of State taxes that existed before, which used to give us revenue to perform all these services. The problem with the current Commonwealth Government is that it cannot do its job properly, so it is trying to find fault with the State Government.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order for the second time.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Regardless of one's views about the original Constitution and the rights of sovereign States—I do not want to get into that argument; it is an issue about which Opposition members used to have a lot of concerns—we are elected as a democratic Parliament by the people of New South Wales, who also pay Commonwealth taxes. We will always be accountable for the way in which we spend their money, whether it is in the form of Commonwealth remittances or the moneys that we collect directly from them.

This Government is open and transparent, it has the strongest budget and it has a net positive value. The Commonwealth Government has a net negative value, it has a disastrous current account and it is worried only about fifth and sixth order issues. Governments that do that and then try to shovel blame onto other organisations and other governments instead of endeavouring to solve major problems on their own plates are on the "trickety-track" path to their own destruction.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Is he aware that the creation of Tamworth regional council has cost approximately $5 million, grossly outweighing the amalgamation's projected cost savings of $2 million identified in the Peel regional review, which was undertaken by his appointee Mr Chris Varden? Is he further aware that the amalgamated Clarence Valley council is budgeting for a $1.15 million deficit despite claims by the regional reviewer, former Federal Labor Minister Mr Simmonds, of $5.2 million one-off savings and annual savings in excess of $1.5 million? Has the Minister misled the people of New South Wales and this House in that respect? Where are the so-called savings? Is this a first order issue, to quote the Hon. John Della Bosca, for the people of Tamworth and the Clarence regions?
The Hon. Michael Costa: When was the last time you were in Tamworth?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I was there the other day and I will be back there on Monday morning. What are these councils and ratepayers meant to do about these costs burdens?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am aware of the Clarence Valley council budget. I understand that council budgeted for a deficit, but only a small deficit. It has had two cost increases, but I cannot remember the figures exactly. The council had a deficit of about $1.6 million because of two cost blow outs. Council carried out additional capital works that were not in its budget and it had some additional workers compensation costs that were not reflected in its original budget. So it has had significant increases.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why did Mr Simmonds not identify them?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: This was decided by council after the amalgamation. If those two costs are taken out of the equation, it becomes obvious that council picked up $750,000 through the year. Those are the facts.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Will the Minister acquaint the House with the benefits and progress of the home building industry Continuing Professional Development Program, which commenced one year ago?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Members will remember that the introduction of the Continuing Professional Development Program [CPDP] for the residential building industry culminated following reports by the Campbell inquiry—a committee of this Parliament—and the inquiry into the home warranty insurance scheme conducted by Richard Grellman. Pages 43 to 44 of the Campbell inquiry encapsulated the rationale for this program. The report states:

... there has been a decline in builder skills and, in turn, a resulting decline in the quality of builders and building... Building today is a complex matter and builders' management skills are just as critical as their technical skills.

In 2002 legislation incorporating the new scheme was unanimously accepted by this Parliament. The CPDP was designed to raise the standards of industry in the interests of builders and of consumers. Other States have followed this initiative, specifically Victoria, which introduced a voluntary regime bearing the same name, which came into force in March 2004. The Building Commission of Victoria, heartened by the feedback, indicated that it might make its program compulsory. In July 2004 Tasmania implemented a similar program, which is also called the Continuing Professional Development Program.

Notwithstanding the support that that program has in other States, and notwithstanding the support that it had from this Parliament when it was introduced, I note that the shadow Minister for Fair Trading, Katrina Hodgkinson, called on the Government to adopt a more sensible and practical approach to the development of the CPDP. She said that the program imposed onerous burdens and posed a draconian threat. However, in contradiction of her earlier claims, she called it "a worthy aim". I do not know how something that she opposes can constitute a worthy aim. In any event, the Government has been careful in rolling out this program to ensure it has a staged approach for New South Wales.

The first licensees who will be required to collect continuing professional development points are builders and swimming pool builders. Other specialist trades such as plumbers, gasfitters, drainers, electrical contractors, airconditioning and refrigeration contractors will commence to collect points in July 2005. It is intended that all other categories of licence and certificate holders will commence at a later stage. The Office of Fair Trading has conducted 25 seminars across New South Wales to inform builders, answer their questions and hear their views on the program. Courses will be available through the TAFE network and through distance learning opportunities in remote areas. These low-cost courses will ensure that builders are offered an alternative to the expensive courses provided by some interest groups.

Credit for excellence points will be offered in recognition of a good licensing record. The range of learning opportunities encompasses areas such as new technologies, business management and financial skills, site safety, the Building Code of Australia, and basic contract law. A number of core benefits will flow from the scheme. It will maintain an increased technical competence and expertise, it will establish links between industry participants, it will raise industry standards and support business viability, it will enable builders to better manage their finances, and it will improve consumer confidence and help reduce costly disputes. The Master Builders Association has welcomed the program. In response to the discussion paper of the Office of Fair Trading it stated that it "is supportive and has been a strong advocate of continuing education and professional development within the NSW building and construction industry". The Home Building Advisory Council also endorses the program. It is a shame that the shadow Minister does not.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Special Minister of State. Is the Minister aware that the Walter Construction Group Ltd failed to lodge in trust at least $3 million that would have eased the burden on subcontractors following the collapse of this company? What is the Government doing to ensure that moneys owed to subcontractors of that company are pursued so that they and other employees will not be hung out to dry? Why did the Government not audit and monitor compliance to ensure that Walter was complying, given the obvious breach of trust? Is the Minister aware of any other instances where retention money is not held in trust?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: There have been many reports that Walter Construction Group Ltd failed to hold relevant security funds in trust. Under the Government's contracts, for example at the Gosford and Wyong hospital sites, Walter was required to include trust provisions in all its subcontracts of any value greater than $25,000. I understand—although I do not have specific information at my disposal at the moment—that the same or similar provisions existed in regard to Sydney Water project contracts. The subcontracted security funds were either in the form of a bank guarantee or moneys retained from progress payments. Fortunately, those subcontractors who lodged bank guarantees are currently not out of pocket. The provisions require that subcontractors' security funds would be held in trust. Media reports allege that Walter breached its obligations under the trade contracts and failed to hold these funds in trust.

I am advised that the Department of Commerce wrote to the administrators of Walter on 8 February this year seeking details about those funds currently held in trust. The administrators have not yet responded formally to that letter. However, I understand that the department has received verbal advice from the administrators that Walter held no funds in trust for the Gosford and Wyong projects. This indicates a clear breach by Walter of the head contracts and the subcontracts. The department has written again to the administrators of Walter about this matter and is investigating what appropriate action the Government can take if the trust moneys have been spent wrongfully.

My advice to affected subcontractors is that they should obtain legal advice on what action they may take at this time. The Government, through the Department of Commerce, is monitoring the situation closely. We believe it is outrageous when either workers lose their entitlements or subcontractors are not remunerated properly for the work they have performed. Lest the honourable member gain the wrong impression about how easy or difficult these problems are to resolve, I might add that the Government's other obligation is to ensure that taxpayers are not obliged to pay for the same work twice. That is a critical part of the equation in making sure the transaction is fair to everyone.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Why did the Minister refuse requests by Manly council to provide comprehensive plans for widening The Spit Bridge prior to lodging a development application? What is the current cost of the project? Does the Minister stand by the project cost estimated in the budget papers?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not aware that I have even met with Manly council. I met the local member from the lower House only recently to discuss The Spit Bridge.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What's his name?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: His name is David Barr. If the Hon. Melinda Pavey wants any other information, I am happy to provide it. I know that, with her research base, it is difficult to obtain that sort of information, but I am happy to provide it. The honourable member for Manly raised with me the matter of The Spit Bridge. I do not know the purpose of the question of the Hon. Greg Pearce, but I shall certainly continue to liaise with the local member about issues relating to his electorate.
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister inform the House whether the New South Wales Government supports a reduction in the minimum wage?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for her question and commend her for her ongoing interest in fair industrial outcomes. The New South Wales Government has given its formal support for a $20-a-week pay rise for workers on Federal awards. This is good news for working families, which, as honourable members will know, have just received a double huge hit from the Federal Government—an 8 per cent increase in private health insurance premiums and a quarter per cent rise in interest rates. The minimum wage in New South Wales is $12.30 an hour. The Commonwealth has signalled that it believes the 1.3 million workers who rely on the minimum wage are overpaid.

I note that before question time the Hon. Robyn Parker was discussing the way in which the New South Wales Government treats its emergency and essential services employees. As background, I note the public commentary from the Commonwealth Government about its approach to the minimum wage and the rather bizarre proposals that it has on the table about minimum wage fixation. Apart from the minimum wage issue, the Commonwealth has also signalled that we are paying our teachers, nurses, firefighters and police too much. The Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Andrews, claims that the minimum wage is about $70 too high.

Let us consider what that means. It means lower wages for the nation's cleaners, shop assistants and bar staff, for example. Cleaners are currently paid $516.20 a week. That is the accepted rate. A bar attendant in a hotel is paid $467.40 a week and a shop assistant is paid $527.80 a week. An aged care personal attendant receives $517 a week. Consider the consequences if the Commonwealth reduced these $500-a-week jobs by $70, as Mr Andrews is suggesting. Could honourable members pay their accommodation costs, feed their children, pay for their health care and clothe themselves on $400 a week? In the past two decades these minimum-wage workers have increased productivity for wage rises. But, every Federal Minister, like every parrot on every biscuit tin—as someone is wont to say at the moment—is ranting and raving about productivity in the economy and wage fixation.

Last year the New South Wales Government negotiated a new five-year contract with our cleaning staff. It became a somewhat controversial exercise. We made it clear that we wanted more flexible use of hours and tighter control of cleaning contractors. We realised during the negotiations that one thing could not be achieved: After careful consideration and after working through the issues, we realised that there are not many productivity gains left to make. Anyone who understands what has happened in the economies of New South Wales and Australia as a whole will know that increased productivity among the lower paid can be achieved only through changes in technology and in the application and management of services. Productivity gains cannot be made by these employees giving up things—except if we start talking about core issues such as their wages, shift penalties and their entitlements.

Most Australians do not want an American-style system, under which people working full time cannot possibly afford to live on what their employers pay them. In response to public questions about this issue the other day the Premier mentioned that in Kansas the minimum wage is $US2.65 an hour. In Mississippi wages are as low as the employers can drive them—there is no minimum wage.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: How interesting; how intriguing.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Those opposite would find it interesting if they believed they might end up in that kind of fixed-wage system, which is what the Commonwealth is currently proposing. In America bar attendants, shop assistants and home care workers rely on tips for their living. That is the kind of mentality that the Federal Government is trying to impose on the Australian economy. [Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister act to protect the Radiata Plateau, which is the last remaining undeveloped plateau in the Blue Mountains, and consider taking out an interim preservation order to stop land clearing in preparation for sale and subdivision? In what way is the Minister protecting the environment of the Radiata Plateau, which is home to the Explorers' Tree and 30 rare and significant plant species? Will the Minister consider staged acquisitions?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for the Environment.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it still the Minister's intention, as advised to the House in June last year, that the transaction-based collection scheme that was used to fund the Ovine Johne's Disease [OJD] Program will not be used to pay off the loan that the Government made to the industry fund prior to amending the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Act? Has the Minister placed any pressure on the New South Wales OJD Industry Advisory Committee to make such a recommendation?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: A committee has been established under the Act. Mr Garry West chairs the committee and a number of industry representatives from New South Wales Farmers and elsewhere have been appointed to it. I have not put pressure on that committee in dealing with the matters raised by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I am waiting for the committee's advice and, when it sends me its advice, I will act on it. We will have a transaction levy in this State. We will deal with it accordingly and the committee will advise me about its purposes.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. What is the New South Wales Government's response to recent calls to reform the prison system?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Honourable members will be aware that, following the release of Christopher Binse from prison in February this year, a number of requests were made of me—both publicly and with the support of at least one member of this House—that I accord Mr Binse a visit to my office and, according to one media report, that I employ him as a consultant on rehabilitation, which Mr Binse was severely critical of in the context of the New South Wales prison system. Honourable members will also recall that on 7 December 2004 Ms Lee Rhiannon took the opportunity afforded by the adjournment debate to congratulate Mr Binse on circulating a prohibited questionnaire among fellow inmates and encouraging more to do the same.

On 11 February, following Mr Binse's release from custody at the end of a 13-year term, Ms Lee Rhiannon accompanied him to the Parliament's media room for the purposes of holding a press conference to expound and support his claims. Let me make it quite clear that I will not employ Mr Binse in any capacity, let alone to advise on rehabilitation. Before any member of this House decides to push the agenda of individuals such as Mr Binse they ought to know with whom they are dealing. The correctional system tries to give all offenders opportunities to address their offending behaviour, but in some instances it is dealing with very difficult material.

I will edify the House about the sort of person Mr Binse was, to confirm the Parole Board's wisdom in denying him parole on four occasions and ensuring that he served the whole 13-year term before he was released. This is a man who describes himself as "Badness". He was described in a publication entitled Tough: 101 Australian Gangsters in regard to offences including armed robbery, kidnapping and using a firearm in public. He had previous convictions in Victoria for escape, attempted escape, threatening life, assault police and illegally possessing and using a pistol. After he committed an armed robbery in Melbourne he took out an advertisement in the Melbourne Herald Sun, which stated "Badness is back". He bought a Queensland property with armed robbery money and named it Badlands. The reason he gave as to why he enjoyed committing armed robberies was:

For the excitement, the rush … you're in control, your blood starts rushing … it's an addiction.

In 1993 he was the leader of a plan to free up to 30 of Victoria's most dangerous prisoners, including double murderers, drug traffickers and escape experts, from Pentridge Prison. His plans involved taking hostage prison guards and other selected inmates to be killed as a payback. That is just one of the reasons that while he was imprisoned in Victoria he was the only prisoner to be shackled in leg irons and handcuffs for 23 hours a day. As I said, the Parole Board is to be commended for its wisdom in denying him parole, not only on the basis of that history, but also because his record in custody was frankly appalling, including assault, possession of contraband, fighting and refusing to provide urine samples.
He claims he was denied opportunities to reform his offending behaviour. I can advise the House that he was offered, and refused to complete, a violence prevention program at Long Bay Correctional Complex—a program which, bearing in mind his prison and previous record, one would think was one of the most important programs for him to undertake. I advise Ms Lee Rhiannon to use her position in this House a little bit more responsibly, and not support the twisted agenda of people such as Mr Binse. I wish him well on his return into the community, but I am certainly not going to provide him with any platform to rehabilitate anyone in the prison system.

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

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 1 March the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question regarding staffing at Greenwell Point Public School and I undertook to provide her with further information on the matter. As the answer is lengthy, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

The Department of Education and Training has provided me with the following advice:

In 2003 and 2004 the teacher entitlement at Greenwell Point Public School was four classroom teachers.

This year there are 75 students enrolled at the school, which entitles the school to three classroom teachers. This is seven few students than are required for a fourth classroom teaching position.

The Department's Staffing Services Directorate will continue to work closely with the School Education Director and Principal to monitor the enrolments at Greenwell Point Public School. If enrolments increase during the year to a level which provides an additional teacher, the school's entitled will be adjusted.

The circumstances affecting the school community at Scarborough Public School regarding the road closure are different. The RTA has funded the additional temporary teacher at that school for 2005.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [2.45 p.m.]: I wish to make a short ministerial statement to respond to claims made in the other place by the honourable member for Liverpool on 1 March 2005. I should say at the outset that I do not generally comment on individual grievances. However, the comments were incorrect on a number of points, so it is important that I set the record straight. The member's comments related to two of his constituents who were issued with an infringement notice on 5 February 2004 by New South Wales Fisheries because they were fishing on the Parramatta River in an area which is closed to recreational angling. I am also advised that they were in possession of a large number of fish taken illegally, and that a number of those fish were of a prohibited size.

This is not a new fishing closure; in fact, it has been in place for 25 years. As with many of our closures, it is a sensible precaution designed to protect human safety, as there are concerns surrounding higher than normal levels of heavy metals in the water. Even with regular monitoring the closure remains in place to ensure that public safety is given the highest priority, which is of paramount importance. I am advised that there was clear and adequate signage in the vicinity of the closure to alert the general public to the fact that fishing is not permitted. This included a sign at the entrance of Homebush Bay on Rodd Point and other signs throughout the park. However, I am also advised that statements given by the Fisheries officers involved claimed that the couple in question accessed the river through a hole in a fence which had been erected around private property.

The honourable member for Liverpool also referred to a third person who accompanied the couple in question. I am advised that the Infringement Processing Bureau referred a written representation from this third person on 23 February 2004 to New South Wales Fisheries, as it then was, which exercised its discretion and withdrew the penalty notice, on the basis that he was a senior citizen. The third person was advised by the Infringement Processing Bureau, by letter dated 3 May 2004, that the matter pertaining to his representations had been withdrawn. The member claimed that the couple approached him after receiving their Fisheries infringement notice, as they are entitled to do. This is a reasonable course of action and I regularly receive representations from local members who have been approached on similar issues.

The member made representations to the Treasurer on 25 February. I am advised that Mr Egan referred the matter to the Infringement Processing Bureau and a response was issued to the member by Mr Graham West, Parliamentary Secretary, advising him that the penalties stand. The member then made further representations to the Treasurer on 10 May. There is no record of any representations being made by the member to me, as the Minister for Primary Industries responsible for fisheries in New South Wales, relating to the couple on either 25 February or 8 June 2004. Instead, it was the Infringement Processing Bureau that took the step of bringing the issue to my attention when it referred the matter to me on 7 October 2004. I immediately instructed my department to investigate the matter and provide advice.

Within five weeks the investigation was completed. On 15 November I wrote to the member advising him of, and enclosing, the findings signed by Ms Renata Brooks, Executive Director Biosecurity, Compliance and Mine Safety, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. It is and has been an established practice for many years for the department to investigate and make decisions on such matters. I am confident that the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries has been professional and thorough at all times in its treatment of this case. The matter was handled entirely appropriately when it was brought to my attention by the Infringement Processing Bureau, for the first time, on 7 October last year.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.49 p.m.]: I thank the Minister's staff for letting me know that the Minister was to make a ministerial statement to address a matter raised by a member of Parliament yesterday in the lower House. I had no further information. My research following that advice revealed that the only matter that could be the subject of a ministerial statement was one which the Minister's Labor Party colleague Mr Lynch had raised the previous day. I now know from the Minister's statement that that is so. It would be unfair if the Minister's statement was not put in context, and to address that I will place on record part of what was said in the lower House. Mr Lynch, the Labor member for Liverpool, said:

One is inclined to speculate that some bureaucrat has decided to punish Mr and Mrs Bui for having the temerity to raise the issue with a local MP. Alternatively, someone has decided to placate their animus against me by punishing my constituents—or it may just be bureaucratic stupidity and bloody-mindedness. Needless to say, when I became aware of the position I made some fairly enthusiastic further representations. My letter, which was sent by facsimile, was dated 8 June 2004. I requested a response by return mail. I did not receive a substantive response for five months. The eventual response was from Minister Ian Macdonald, dated 15 November 2004 and received in my office on 17 November. There are a number of interesting features about the response. First and obviously, it was five months late.

Anyone who deals with the Minister would not be surprised. Mr Lynch continued:

Second, the Minister simply attached a letter from the agency, the Department of Primary Industries. There was no separate assessment by the Minister's office of the issue involved. Third, the department's response comprehensively fails to confront the central issue raised in my April representations: why were similar cases treated so differently?

This comes not from a Coalition member, but from a Labor member in the lower House. Mr Lynch went on to say:

Perhaps there is some massive distinction between these cases, but if so, none of the official responses are able to identify it. More likely, it is about bureaucratic arrogance and ministerial indifference.

I remind the House that this comes not from one of ours, but one of theirs. Mr Lynch continued:

The other interesting issue from the Minister's letter was that the Minister asserted that the fines had been paid. In fact, they have not. So apart from all the other issues, there is some real question about who is keeping records and what is being paid and what is not. I would ask someone in the Minister's office, or the Minister, to have a proper look at this. What has happened is an absolute outrage.

[Time expired.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [2.53 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition rejects the motion. The failure of the New South Wales health system should be sheeted home to Bob Carr instead of his Government trying to palm off any problems to Canberra. All our local areas have health care problems. On 20 December 2004 the Newcastle Herald ran an article about staff at Newcastle Hospital slamming as inhumane the treatment of a patient forced to sleep on the floor because of a lack of beds. Another article on 10 February highlighted growing waiting lists in orthopaedic surgery. All of us have numerous newspaper clippings highlighting problems within the New South Wales health system—bed closures and mismanagement by the Carr Labor Government—that the Government refuses to admit to because it wants to sheet home the blame to the Federal Government. It wants to shift costs from the State Government to the Federal Government at a time when it is imposing further taxes on the highest-taxing State in Australia. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "House" and inserting instead::

(a) recognises the Carr Government's closure of 4,750 hospital beds since 1995 and the pressure these closures have caused within public hospitals,

(b) notes Department of Health statistics that, contrary to Carr Government claims, show that its Triage Level 5 presentations have declined since 2000; and

(c) calls upon the Government to stop blaming others for its health failures, reopen closed beds and start to support the hardworking doctors and nurses in the public hospital system.

We oppose the motion.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.55 p.m.]: The motion is another example of the depressing point scoring and time wasting that goes on in this House. Private members' motions should be innovative. Their aim should be to draw attention to model legislation or problems the Government is not addressing adequately to solve problems within New South Wales. This motion contributes little and does nothing other than blame another tier of government and another party. It is true that co-located general practice clinics reduce the pressure on busy public hospital emergency departments, but why do so many people present at emergency departments rather than general practice? It is not difficult to work out. Originally the Medicare rebate was 85 per cent of the Australian Medical Association most common fee, but because it has not been raised against the consumer price index it now represents less than 50 per cent. Some doctors are not allowed to raise their fees because they do not have general practice accreditation.

Big corporations are buying into general practice and, in some cases, taking up to 55 per cent of doctors' gross salaries. Thus doctors will not provide their services at the Medicare rebate level set by the Federal Government. They will not bulk-bill so the patient must pay. Cost shifting from the Federal Government then goes back to either the patient or the private health insurance system. Many people, particularly poorer people, who are not covered by private health insurance either cannot or will not pay the difference so they present to the hospital emergency department. It is exactly because of the cost shifting of the Federal Government to the private sector and individuals that people present to emergency departments: they have been shifted there.

I understand that the emergency department staff at Newcastle Hospital were working so hard attending to people who should have been seen in general practice that the hospital agreed to pay general practitioners in session so that when patients presented at the hospital they had the choice of being seen in either the emergency department or the general practice. Some patients chose to be seen in the general practice, which took the load off the emergency department staff. However, the emergency depart