Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 May 2005, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 26 May 2005
______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

AUDIT OFFICE

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Emergency Mental Health Services: NSW Department of Health", dated May 2005.

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2

Report: Operation of Mona Vale Hospital

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe, as Chair, tabled report No. 19, entitled "Operation of Mona Vale Hospital", dated May 2005, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions, tabled documents, correspondence and answers to questions on notice.

Report ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

PETITIONS

Freedom of Speech

Petitions opposing any legislation that would inhibit unencumbered discussion and freedom of speech regarding religion and introduce religious vilification in New South Wales, received from the Hon. David Clarke and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Anti-Discrimination (Religious Tolerance) Legislation

Petitions opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

Unborn Child Protection

Petition requesting legislation to protect foetuses of 20 weeks gestation and to make resources available for post-abortion follow-up, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business items Nos 44 and 97 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 170 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Brigalow Belt South bioregion, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

BRIGALOW BELT SOUTH BIOREGION

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.13 a.m.]: I move:

(1) That this House notes:

(a) the promise from the Premier in 2003 that there would not be a big expansion of national parks in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion,

(b) the Premier's announcement this month that more than 348,000 hectares of prime woodlands in the Brigalow and Nandewar will be locked up for permanent conservation,

(c) that the future of the central and north western region's timber industry and the small towns which rely on it, is now in serious doubt,

(d) that the timber industry will be unsustainable under the current compartment allocations, and

(e) that the New South Wales Labor Government made the decision based on political grounds with the Greens preferences in mind for the 2007 State election.

(2) That this House condemns the New South Wales Labor Government and the Greens for their blatant disregard for the environment of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.

This important motion highlights the disastrous decision that the New South Wales Labor Government has made on the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. The decision is disastrous because it sounds the death knell for so many towns within the bioregion. The economic and social implications of that decision will be felt forever. The future of the central and north-western region's timber industry, and the small towns which rely on it, are now in serious doubt. The communities within the bioregion are heartbroken. They are angry, lost and feel empty because their lives and their future rest in the hands of a heartless New South Wales Labor Government. The people are scared and, frankly, who could blame them?

My motion highlights the fact that the timber industry will be decimated and that New South Wales will be forced to import rainforest timber. My motion highlights an environmental catastrophe that will result from the decision. I know that, frankly most Government members know that, and certainly the communities know it. The Government's decision means that 348,000 hectares of woodlands will be locked away; they will just sit there. The industry has committed itself to years of careful forest management to control fuel levels, but now the 348,000 hectares could quickly turn into a destructive and unstoppable forest fire. I do not believe the reality of this decision has been fully realised. I will cite some background to this issue. On 12 August 1818 John Oxley, an explorer, travelled in the area of what is now Yarragin State Forest. Describing the country in his journal, he wrote:

Remember those words! Yarragin State Forest is on the southern edge of the Pilliga. Oxley's description of the open nature of the area was typical of the bulk forest to the north and west. He described it as "a very thick brush of cypress trees and small shrubs". Historical land reports indicate the unnatural evolution of those forests; the forest environment has accelerated in the past 100 years. In 1877 a forest ranger estimated that timber in the area was one or two mature trees and 10 young ones to the acre. That is very different from the hundreds and thousands of trees per hectare today. The change in forest and forest wildlife is put down to a wave of regrowth following a heavy wet season in 1879, some time before the establishment of a commercial timber industry.

It was also heavily influenced by white farmers who settled in the area and had an abhorrence to fire. Over thousands of years native inhabitants had used fire to encourage growth in that area. On 4 May 2005 Premier Bob Carr announced the permanent conservation of 348,000 hectares of woodlands in the Brigalow and Nandewar areas. He promised $80 million for job creation, timber industry development, and conservation management over the next five years. The Premier promised that every timber worker who wanted a job would have one and every timber mill that wanted to continue in the industry would have new long-term supply contracts.

Each one of those promises was a blatant lie. After consultation with the timber mills, industry groups, community representatives and local councils on a recent visit to Quirindi, Gunnedah, Baradine, Gulargambone, Gwabegar and Coonabarabran it has become apparent to me that the New South Wales Government sold out these areas in the hope of Green preferences at the 2007 election. So 122,000 hectares of cypress pine has been allocated to the industry, and of that amount 57,000 cubic metres are to be harvested each year. That is a harvest rate of 0.46 cubic metres per hectare per year.

If the New South Wales Government had sat down and done its sums, as did my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless, it would have figured out that that position was not sustainable. These forests will be clear-felled and that will harm the environment. The harvest rate will be higher than the growth rate and the forest will be in decline. It will not regenerate sufficient timber to continue to provide millable timber to the industry. Sadly, our Green friends signed off on national parks without realising what had to be sacrificed in the rest of the forest. Now that I have alerted them to that fact I hope they become more aware of potential problems in that area.

The timber industry will be unsustainable under current compartment allocations and harvest restrictions. Premier Bob Carr has a bad record when it comes to job creation promises. Honourable members will recall that he made the same promise when several members of this House travelled to Coolah in the State's north-west when its timber mill closed down. Every timber mill worker who wanted a job was to be given one but, after just two years, no-one has a job. Will timber mill workers in the Brigalow area who have been given the same promises suffer the same fate? Promised tourism in Coolah has not eventuated; it just has not happened. This decision is an environmental catastrophe.

Although it will be difficult for some to fathom, there is much scientific evidence to successfully prove this argument. For example, a scientific report entitled "Actively Managing for Biodiversity", which researched biodiversity gained by harvesting and thinning, observed benefits of thinning cypress pine and the increased use of that habitat by wildlife. The report noted a more than 50 per cent increase in biodiversity because of that harvesting and thinning. After studying owl species in the Pilliga, a report entitled "Surveys of the Barking Owl and Masked Owl of the North-West Slopes of New South Wales" found:

Both owl species are more likely to occur in productive habitat in State Forests than in rugged, unproductive habitat in conservation reserves.

Another report found that cypress pine harvesting had no effect on koala populations or breeding. Honourable members might remember that the Premier did that to save koalas.

[Interruption]

If Mr Ian Cohen listened he might learn something. A paper entitled "Koala Population Status in the Pilliga Forest and a Review of Threatening Factors" found that within the unlogged study areas reproduction was 67 per cent but that within the logged areas reproduction was 75 per cent. Mr Ian Cohen is not even listening. If he opened his eyes and his ears and he listened to what I had to say he might learn something. He is not listening because he does not want to hear. There is no-one more blind than one who does not want to see, or hear. The report found conclusively that cypress pine harvesting had no effect on koalas. So why did Premier Bob Carr announce his decision to protect koalas? The biggest threat to koalas is fire. The National Parks and Wildlife Service indicated that it would control pine regrowth with fire, which is a threat to koalas. A five-year bird study concluded that harvesting and thinning are important to the survival of endangered woodland bird species. The study found:

These harvested areas are especially important for the declining species of the western woodlands; Turquoise Parrots, Dusky Woodswallows, Speckled Warblers, Yellow and Hooded Robins, Jacky Winter; as well as the more secure species.

If the honourable member listened, he would hear a new tune. Many of the endangered species within the Pilliga would not survive in an unmanaged forest because they are either grass seedeaters or they require open woodland. An assessment survey conducted on the Brigalow South Bioregion did not establish that logging had any adverse impact on the environment. In fact, the assessment on disturbance and land management practices found:

Selective thinning of Cypress Pine has been found to have a positive impact on biodiversity by allowing the return of a natural vegetation structure.

[Interruption]

I listen to the speeches that Government members make and I take into account what they have to say. I ask them to extend that same courtesy to me. When Premier Bob Carr made his announcement on the Brigalow earlier this month he released several initiatives for industry. One was cypress oil alternative use. The original concept came from the Red Chief Local Aboriginal Council at Gunnedah. Council delivered to the Labor Party a discussion paper entitled "Utilisation of Cypress Pine Thinnings" some time before Labor made its decision on Brigalow. Within its pages the paper lists oil extraction as a possible alternative use for timber treatment, pest control, and pharmaceutical and cosmetic use. However, since Labor received a copy of that discussion paper, which it used as one of the reasons to lock up this area, the local land council had access to Federal Government regional partnership funding to conduct a feasibility study into oil extraction, and the study found conclusively that it would not work. It stated:

It would be premature at the moment to consider White Cypress oil as being a possible commercial product to consider.

That proves that the Premier made a hasty decision and failed to properly consult industry. Had he consulted industry in the area he would have found that one of his key findings was a falsehood. He announced an initiative aimed at job creation without conducting a feasibility study to determine its viability. The Premier and the Government made false claims in this case. Cypress oil will not create the Premier's promised jobs. Many of the Government's other promises are false. The following extracts from a letter penned by an industry figure further highlight the blatant disregard by the New South Wales Labor Government and the Greens for the environment in the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion. I quote:

Professional people in the area who were more than willing to speak to us said the figure is probably more like 20,000 cubic metres. The letter continues:

I honestly don't think they realise the seriousness of the whole thing. What an arrogant bunch they are.

This decision proves that the Government cares only about votes, not the environment. It is embarrassingly obvious that the Government is declaring national parks in the hope of a cosy deal with the Greens. The Greens have fallen for it: They are getting national parks but not addressing other important environmental issues. On the surface, the Greens' stance is to be lauded but, in reality, they deserve to be condemned for adopting such a blinkered approach. They have been bought off by a few national parks and have sacrificed the rest of the environment. Rob Anderson, the Chair of the New South Wales Farmers Association Conservation and Resources Management Committee—a group that does not normally agree with the Opposition—supports the view that the Government has done a deal with the Greens. In a media release issued on 6 May 2005, he said:

He continued:

This decision will turn many communities in the bioregion into ghost towns. For that alone the Government stands condemned. I wonder whether the Government has considered what the future holds for those workers beyond the $72,000 redundancy payments. Many of those workers will not be able to find work because jobs are not just scarce but nonexistent. What will happen to those who take up the promise of a job and a one-off payment of $27,000? What will they do when the jobs run out? The packages offered will ultimately see many small towns become totally reliant on dole cheques. If workers decide to leave town, who will purchase their homes? The local schools will suffer and doctors and pharmacists will be forced to downsize or even close.

This is not a win-win situation, as the Hon. Ian Cohen described it in his media release of 4 May 2005. The honourable member should be aware that it is a lose-lose situation: a loss for the environment, for the owls, for the koalas, for biodiversity and for the endangered communities, which are just as important. What will happen to the 25 commissioned forestry positions in Baradine? No-one has told us what will happen to those workers. Businesses will also be devastated. Some of these mills pump tens of thousands of dollars into their communities each month. One timber mill buys $10,000 worth of bearings from Coonabarabran every month. Another loss like this would devastate a small business. Another mill that we visited puts more than $200,000 into Gunnedah every month. The flow-on effects of this decision are mind blowing.

It is little wonder that locals wanted to protest when the Minister for the Environment, Bob Debus, announced his visit to Gunnedah. I condemn the Independent member for Tamworth for showing his Labor leanings and criticising the community for wanting to express its displeasure. Bob Debus should have gone to the town to listen to residents and discuss their concerns. Instead he issued a press release bagging them, and then retired to his coward's castle. It was a gutless act from a gutless government.

The Labor Government has traded the future of country communities for a handful of Greens preferences. This is not a win; it is a loss for Quirindi, Gunnedah, Baradine, Gulargambone, Gwabegar, Coonabarabran and many other country towns. Dare I ask what is in the Sinclair report? In fact, where is that report? What did Ian Sinclair recommend to the Labor Government? Why has the Government gone to so much trouble to hide the Sinclair report? The Government commissioned the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair—an eminent statesmen whom people on all sides of the debate thought was the right man for the job—to write a report on the Brigalow bioregion. Despite moving two Standing Order 52 motions in Parliament regarding the receipt of that report, the Government has kept it hidden. That leads us to one conclusion only: The report supports the BRUS option, which is better for the environment and the community. Why else would the Government hide the report?

The State Government has proved that it is out of touch with these communities. It has scared and debilitated these communities. They have worked for some years to formulate a middle-of-the-road option that takes account of the environment and the economy. Some 28 groups supported the BRUS option and two groups opposed it. The Government option reflects the view of those two groups. The Aboriginal groups, the timber industry, the workers, the councils, the local chambers of commerce, the Country Women's Association and all those who made submissions supporting the BRUS option were ignored. We have been led to believe a majority of the Cabinet was also ignored in taking this decision. The current industries are unsustainable; they will be devastating to the environment and to the people. I believe this is one of the worst decisions that this Government has ever made. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr IAN COHEN [10.37 a.m.]: I listened with interest to the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and appreciate the Opposition's concerns. But the level of hypocrisy is quite blinding. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition accused the Labor Party of being interested only in politics while he—goaded by his colleagues—launched into a Faustian diatribe and is ready to suck the blood out of country communities for political purposes. Let us be clear: It is absolutely outrageous to claim that one side of the debate is politically motivated but the other side is not. I have had words with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about his motion. I am happy for him to move his motion and raise the issue but he should not make accusations that the decision was made on political grounds—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's all right when you guys do it but it is different when we do it.

Mr IAN COHEN: Show me where I have done that in a motion. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will have to conduct a long search of my speeches in Hansard to find the same sorts of below-the-belt statements that appear in his motion. For example, the motion states:

… the New South Wales Labor Government made the decision based on political grounds with The Greens preferences in mind for the 2007 State election.

Of course they are going to have the Greens in mind. We play a significant role in the Parliament. We have seen the Labor Government backsliding on many environmental issues. Of course, as a Greens representative I will unashamedly keep up the pressure on this Government, as I would if a Coalition government were in office, in order to achieve certain green wins in what is almost a two-party system, where there is such ignorance of real environmental issues and where the focus is constantly on survival of the party. They do not talk about survival of a species.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have been caught out on this one, and you don't like to be caught out.

Mr IAN COHEN: I have not been caught out at all. How could one be caught out? I have always been honest in the way I have worked for conservation. I stand on my record in this House, and outside the House, in regard to conservation in New South Wales. Of course, if the major parties disagree they have to throw out radical Greens and make statements about extremism because we might happen to disagree with a value system that is running at a particular time. This sort of labelling is pure prejudice. The major parties use bullyboy tactics when something happens that they do not agree with. In this House I constantly hear from both major party operatives, who are devoid of real argument, and their lacklustre lackeys who sit there soaking up the support from—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Have you got any facts?

Mr IAN COHEN: I will get to them; I am not in a hurry. The motion is insulting, and I am appalled at the level of debate. I will correct the misleading information that has been bandied about in this place and the media about the Brigalow Region United Stakeholders [BRUS] option for Brigalow Belt South bioregion. This option has only 10,000 hectares of new national park—we will call it community conservation area, as the Minister has poorly instituted a new regime in this matter, and he is scared to call it a national park. Nevertheless, the BRUS option has 10,000 hectares, none of which will protect high conservation value areas in the Pilliga, Goonoo, Bebo or Terry Hie Hie woodland areas. The Government stands condemned for getting Ian Sinclair, The Nationals warhorse, to conduct this type of assessment in the first place. Who will he talk to? The Nationals and their cohorts, of course. The remainder of the so-called reserve areas are informal reserves such as State conservation areas and forest management zones.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You would be surprised to know he didn't talk to us. We would have liked him to speak with us.

Mr IAN COHEN: It is interesting that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition bellowed like a wounded bull in a back paddock when I was speaking earlier, but it does not stop him having a go at me when I want to speak to this motion.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You asked me a question: He did not speak to The Nationals.

Mr IAN COHEN: He did not have any discussions? Nothing? No members of The Nationals?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No. Members of the National Party would have liked to.

Mr IAN COHEN: Are you trying to tell the House that there are no members of The Nationals in the timber industry in the western areas?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Now you have been caught out you want to change the ground rules.

Mr IAN COHEN: No, I am just saying they are one and the same, just as I have said about many people in the State Forests organisation who are waiting for you guys to get back into government so they can go about their own unsustainable methods of forest production. The conservation areas and forest management zones I have just mentioned do not afford the same level of protection for threatened species as national parks and nature reserves. There is a high level of clearing and environmental disturbance in the region. If all public land in the region, 15 per cent of the area, were protected in national parks, only 51 per cent of the region's biodiversity would be safe.

The BRUS option would pull that down to less than 48 per cent. Those figures were taken from a raw biodiversity index that measures every natural living thing in the region. The so-called minimal difference of 3 per cent of biodiversity could mean anywhere between 300 and 30,000 species. It would certainly include all threatened species identified in the region during the Western Region Assessment, that is, 58 threatened birds and animals, 100 plants and eight ecological communities. Those native species are threatened with extinction. Let us be clear: that means basically total wipe-out. The current management of Forests NSW has proved that the threatened species licence is constantly ignored by both timber contractors and Forests NSW staff. A number of serious breaches of the licence have been reported to the Department of Environment and Conservation and are now being considered by the legal team.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So why do you want the country they have managed for 100 years?

Mr IAN COHEN: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should listen for a change. Let us look at the facts regarding the 24 stakeholder groups making up the Brigalow Region United Stakeholders. The Country Women's Association representative sold her property to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and moved to Queensland; the regional vegetation committees were stacked with representatives from the New South Wales Farmers Association and no longer exist; and all the regional members of the Western Conservation Alliance [WCA] are members of Landcare groups and networks, so Landcare cannot be legitimately included as a BRUS stakeholder. Moree lands council supports the WCA option for the Terry Hie Hie Aboriginal-owned national park, and many of the other groups listed are made up of the same set of people.

I refer to the current state of play of the timber industries that were so well protected, productive and valuable in those areas and how they treated their members. The fact is that very few timber workers are union members. They are threatened with the sack if they consider joining the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. If the Government were to look more closely at some of the so-called jobs in the industry it would find casual cash-in-hand arrangements with people who are collecting the dole. The Goonoo Action Group stated in a document entitled "Goonoo, Pilliga and Related Forest 2002":

The industry is admitting that it does not want to implement WorkCover standards, it cannot pay its way to cover management costs, and it cannot protect threatened species. The timber industry has had access to more than 13 per cent of the bioregion and contributes only 1 per cent of the regional economy. During the two-year moratorium, while we have been waiting for this Government to keep its promise of a new national park, the industry has had access to more than 30 per cent of Forests NSW land, all Crown land and private land, yet it claims to have run out of timber. That means one thing and one thing only—the timber quotas are too high and totally unsustainable. If there is to be any future for the environment and the economy of this region, the timber industry must be assisted to move to value adding a smaller quota of timber for a smaller, well-managed area of forest. That means at least a 50 per cent quota cut for white cypress to keep the industry viable in the long term.

Time and again there has been a failure to look at the long term in dealing with timber production in the north-east, south-east and western areas. The minerals potential assessment of the region has shown that 80 per cent is on cleared private land, so new national parks in important woodland remnants will not impact on the mining industry potential. The honey industry will not be affected by new national parks in the region because its licences will be continued after tenure change. As for fire management issues, last summer the largest fire in New South Wales was in Goonoo State Forest. Bushfires in the Australian bush are natural occurrences. The Department of the Environment and Conservation has extensive fire management plans associated with national parks, so tenure is not the issue: the issue is attitude. The New South Wales Farmers Association is politically opposed to nature conservation in New South Wales and will beat up any issue in the community to prevent it.

The whole BRUS rhetoric is a beat up of doom and gloom—well reflected and resonating by The Nationals at the present time. The example of Coolah is a good one. With other members of Parliament I visited the Coolah mill, where work practices were pretty poor. Oil was leaking all over the floor from one very small machine. There has to be a better way to deal with workers than the way they were treated in the Coolah mill. Recently the third Jazz in the Tops festival was held in Coolah, and all accommodation in the area was fully booked out. How often was accommodation fully booked out under The Nationals old regime? Never. We had dying towns, towns that were withering on the vine, with an outdated mentality.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Because of decisions like this.

Mr IAN COHEN: I am talking about festivals that bring people to Coolah and result in all accommodation in the town being booking out. That has been the reality three times in a row.
The Hon. Rick Colless: When did that happen?

Mr IAN COHEN: Jazz in the Tops was at Coolah. Did you not go?

The Hon. Rick Colless: No, I didn't.

Mr IAN COHEN: Obviously not. Members of The Nationals do not know how to have a good time! If these visitors are made to feel welcome in the town, they will come back at other times of the year with friends.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There has got to be something to see.

Mr IAN COHEN: The mill at Coolah will not attract tourists. Plenty of other things will.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Name them!

Mr IAN COHEN: I will. Give me time. The Western Conservation Alliance developed a self-drive tour of the region four years ago. There is no tourist information centre in Coolah, and visitors to the town have been verbally abused or have found nowhere open to spend their money when they wanted to. National Parks staff and families were drummed out of town. Tourists want to travel to western woodlands to experience the bird life, wild flowers and natural features. There are over 30,000 registered bird watchers in New South Wales alone. This is a major international tourism activity. Birdies travel from all over the world to watch birds. Those areas have some wonderful wildlife, but The Nationals do not respect it.

People like to feel welcome in a rural community and will not return if they are treated poorly. I suggest The Nationals representatives in this House are stirring up trouble rather than accepting what is happening and working with it. Instead, they are indulging in politics, resulting in tourists who do come to town being treated very poorly. The Nationals are prepared to sell out the budding tourist industry of western areas for a few votes for their dying regime. It is time for New South Wales to invest in a viable future for the communities of the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions and protect the woodland ecosystems that provide vital and priceless environmental services. I feel it appropriate to say that the Greens will oppose the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [10.52 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who referred to the absolute lies that the Government has repeatedly told the people of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion, in north-western New South Wales. I have been involved with this issue for nearly five years, and during that time I have come to know the forests of the Pilliga in particular, I have come to know the people of the Pilliga, and I have come to know the communities of the Pilliga. I have purchased timber for a veranda on my house from the Pilliga. As I said in another debate on this issue recently, the two most durable building timbers in the world come from the forests of the Pilliga. They are white cypress pine and narrow-leafed ironbark, the two major species growing in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion that have economic value. Both grow in the region naturally and do not need to be artificially regenerated.

The assessment process has been going on for five years. The local community group known as the Brigalow Region United Stakeholders [BRUS] group came up with a recommendation that suited all participants' needs—with the exception of those of a small group of non-local interlopers who hide behind the tag of Western Conservation Alliance. Mr Ian Cohen is not listening to me. The BRUS group approached their task with professionalism and enthusiasm. They wished to see an outcome that would preserve their beautiful forests and protect their beautiful animals while ensuring the long-term viability of their larger towns such as Moree, Narrabri, Coonabarabran, Gunnedah, Gilgandra and Dubbo, and their smaller towns such as Yetman, Pilliga, Gwabegar, Bingara, Baradine and Gulargambone. The Government obviously was concerned by the deadlock that ensued, as in 2003 it contacted the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair "to progress the assessment of the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion"—and no doubt the Government paid Ian Sinclair well to do that job. It is now a matter of record that the Government has refused to release Ian Sinclair's report—despite being ordered to do so twice by this House!

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Shame!

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It is shameful. The cost of the assessment process and the cost of contracting Ian Sinclair to progress the issue must run into millions of dollars. The Government has thrown this money away by completely ignoring the assessment report and Ian Sinclair's report and adopting some ill thought out and nonsensical option that will decimate local communities, decimate the forests and destroy the biodiversity of the forests. So, when the Premier told Alan Jones in 2003 that Cabinet had made its decision and was going to protect the timber industry in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion, he was not telling the truth to Alan Jones, he was not telling the truth to the people of New South Wales, but most importantly he was not telling the truth to the people of the communities in the bioregion. The Premier ignored the findings of the assessment process, ignored the findings of Ian Sinclair, and ignored his own promise to the people of New South Wales. Shame, Premier! Shame!

Within the Pilliga are approximately 500,000 hectares of forests, which have varying quantities and qualities of cypress pine. It is interesting and informative to note that in 1805 Governor King gave the following definitions about the Australian Bush. He defined "brush" as "a dark impenetrable thicket", a definition that we might now associate with rainforests on the coasts and the regrowth in some forests round New South Wales. He said of "scrub" that it was an area that "consists of shrubs of low growth". And he said of "forest land" that it "is such as abounds with grass and is the only ground which is fit to graze; according to the local distinction, the grass is the discriminating character and not the trees …" That is what the Pilliga was like in those days.

So in 1770, and through into the late 1880s, this whole area was an open woodland of varying density, but with large trees of cypress pine, narrow-leafed ironbark and the other native species, such as bimble box, belah and brigalow in some areas, present at a density of approximately 10 to 12 large trees to the hectare. In 1818 John Oxley travelled through an area that is now known as Yarragin State Forest and gave this description of the country:

… the soil on which the ironbark, pine and box grow is as invariably loose sand, rendered by rain a perfect quicksand. These bogs are the more provoking, as without such impediments the country is clear and open and as favourable for travelling over as could be wished.

We would now refer to this vegetation density as open woodland. The description of the grassy white box woodland—although not found in the cypress forest areas, certainly found within the Nandewar bioregion to the east—would have been similar to the cypress forests in terms of tree density. Eric Rolls, in his book A Million Wild Acres, explores the history of the Pilliga forest in some detail. It is clear from his research that the forest exists because of activities following European settlement of the areas. In the opening paragraph of A Million Wild Acres Rolls also refers to Oxley's trip of 1818. I would like to quote the first two paragraphs of the first chapter of that book:

I recommend that Mr Ian Cohen read Eric Rolls's book because it contains important history. The refusal of the environmentalists, the Western Conservation Alliance [WCA] and members of the Greens to acknowledge that the one million wild acres is a product of 100 years of energetic growth is an insult to their intelligence and really shows their total ignorance of the history of the Australian forests and how they have developed. Their collective claim that the area is an old growth forest is a lie. It is an untruth. It is nothing. It is a falsehood. It is simply wrong. It is a falsehood spawned on false data. The science behind this falsehood is wrong. It is false science. And the history behind the falsehood is wrong. The history, as outlined so eloquently by Eric Rolls, is the correct version. One cannot have false history, one can only record history incorrectly, which is exactly what the environmentalists have done to achieve their narrow-minded agenda.

This lie has been promulgated in many other parts of New South Wales with many citations of coastal tablelands and other western forest in a similar vein to the cypress pine forest of the Pilliga. The bottom line is that once the management activities of the Aboriginal people changed, the regeneration patterns of these forests changed also. An old saying among learned people in ecology is that a species will move into an area when conditions are suitable for its establishment, and that same species will leave an area when conditions are no longer suitable for its reproduction. The New South Wales Government has had access to all the correct scientific information and the correct historical records and accounts, yet it decided to capitulate to the New South Wales Greens, the WCA and the environmental movement generally and announced a management option that locks up 348,000 hectares, or 860,000 acres out of one million wild acres. This decision was made in the face of the Australian Workers Union and the New South Wales Labor Council. Minutes of the New South Wales Labor Council meeting of 21 March 2002 state:

The Government had a promise from the Premier, and it had pressure from the Brigalow Region United Stakeholders [BRUS]. It went through an assessment process, including Ian Sinclair and his contracted report, and the union. There was total and absolute silence from Country Labor. The Premier promised that the towns of Baradine and Gwabegar as well as all the other towns in the region would not be decimated, yet still the Government decided to lock up 860,000 of one million wild acres. The Government announced that it would give a 20-year guarantee of supply to the remaining mills, a guarantee of 57,000 cubic metres of sawlogs every year, which is 348,000 hectares less than when they were harvesting 70,000 cubic metres previously. To put it simply, the figures do not stack up. The forests of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion and the Nandewar bioregion produce approximately 0.28 to 0.35 cubic metres of white cypress pine on each hectare of forest each year. Approximately 470,000 hectares were supplying 70,000 cubic metres of sawlogs annually. The previous harvest rate works out to about 0.15 cubic metres per hectare per year.

Following the implementation of this nonsensical decision, there will be 348,000 fewer hectares of harvestable forest, leaving 122,000 hectares to produce 57,000 cubic metres of sawlogs annually as guaranteed by this decision. The future harvest rate is 0.47 cubic metres per hectare per year, yet the maximum production that can be expected from the forest is 0.35 cubic metres per hectare per year. The timber is not available now because the forest compartments that remain for harvesting have either very little cypress on them or they have been harvested over the last 10 or so years. The 20-year supply guarantee is no guarantee at all. The Government will not be able to supply 57,000 cubic metres each year from the allocated harvest compartments. If the Government changes the compartments to include areas that currently are to be harvested but retains the 348,000 hectares to be locked up they will still run out of timber because the harvest rate exceeds the growth rate.

Who did the Minister's sums? Did he study arithmetic at primary school? He is pretending not to listen. Why did he not check those false configurations, or is it that he is ignorant of some of the simple forest management principles that he should have applied to this decision? The impact on these towns will be horrendous, not just because of the jobs that will be lost but also because of lost economic activity within the region. A sawmill the size of Gunnedah Timbers probably would spend in the vicinity of $200,000 per month with local businesses in Gunnedah. The well-documented multiplier effect means that $200,000 would go around the Gunnedah business community about five times before it goes out of town. That is $1 million per month in economic activity that a sawmill the size of Gunnedah Timbers would bring into the community. Proportionally the same applies to Bingara, Baradine, Narrabri, Gulargambone, Dubbo, Coonabarabran and all the other towns in those regions that supply the timber mills.

Then there is the value of the wages the industry brings into these towns, another $1.5 million to $2 million each year for a sawmill the size of Gunnedah Timbers. To suggest that these towns will be better off as a result of this decision is absolute nonsense. To suggest that the anger, disbelief and feeling of despair that exists in these towns and communities is the result of a political stunt by The Nationals is an insult to the hardworking people in those communities. It is unbelievable that Minister Debus can issue press releases saying that the doom and gloom is caused by The Nationals. What absolute nonsense! It is all the Minister's work. It is Bob Carr and Bob Debus. They agreed to sell out these communities for a few preference votes from the loony left of the environmental movement. That is why these communities wanted to stage a protest rally. It is all the Minister's work. Mr Ian Cohen made statements about the BRUS option. I note that he is walking out because he does not want to hear this.

Mr Ian Cohen: I am listening.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Mr Ian Cohen said that 10,000 hectares of new national parks were suggested under the BRUS option. I do not know whether the Minister or the Greens have read the BRUS option, which says:

2.1 New conservation reserves

That is 189,000 hectares of new national parks that were recommended by the BRUS option, yet Mr Ian Cohen lied to the House when he said that the BRUS option allowed for only an extra 10,000 hectares. He does not know what he is talking about. He lies constantly to this House and to the people of New South Wales about environmental issues. We have researched this issue and we have found out the facts from the people who know. We got the right science and we got the correct history. I draw the attention of the House to the way in which the media in some of the affected towns reported this decision. The headline on the front page of the Namoi Valley Independent of Thursday 5 May, the day after the decision was announced, was, "Slow Strangulation". That certainly is what is happening to Gunnedah: slow strangulation.

The headline on the front page of the Narrabri Courier of Thursday 5 May, was, "Victory to Greens in Brigalow Belt forests lock-up". The headline on the front page of the Coonabarabran Times of Thursday 5 May, which went to print on 4 May just as the decision was being made, was, "Lack of Brigalow decision condemned" and in a box on the front page "Late news: Gov't announces conservation of 348,000 hectares". But the king daddy of them all: the following week the Land took to Bob Carr on the front page with "Pilliga 'porkies'". That is what has been told in the Pilliga. The Government's announcement is all about porkies. The headlines are followed by three or four pages of reporting on the terrible effect the decision will have on local communities. I do not know whether the Minister has read these articles, but he should have. The Premier has lied to the people of New South Wales about the Pilliga decision. He has lied to the people of the Pilliga as well.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He has a nose bigger than his ego.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out, the Premier has a nose bigger than his ego. It is time for the Government to reassess its position. The Minister for Primary Industries has got it wrong, other Ministers have got it wrong and the Premier has lied to the people. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.09 a.m.]: My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved:

(1) That this House notes:

(a) the promise from the Premier in 2003 that there would not be a big expansion of national parks in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion,

(b) the Premier's announcement this month that more than 348,000 hectares of prime woodlands in the Brigalow and Nandewar will be locked up for permanent conservation,

(c) that the future of the central and north western region's timber industry and the small towns which rely on it, is now in serious doubt,

(d) that the timber industry will be unsustainable under the current compartment allocations, and

(e) that the New South Wales Labor Government made the decision based on political grounds with the Greens preferences in mind for the 2007 State election.

2. That this House condemns the New South Wales Labor Government and the Greens for their blatant disregard for the environment of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.

After five years of assessment, procrastination and a moratorium, the Carr Labor Government has decided to set aside 348,000 hectares of forest within the Brigalow Belt South bioregion to be reserved under a new land tenure that will be known as a community conservation area. Earlier in this debate one of the leaders of the Greens, Mr Ian Cohen, referred to the land title of "community conservation area" and said that the Government had made a bad decision in not continuing to use the terminology "national parks". That is one part of the speech made by Mr Ian Cohen that resonates throughout communities in the northern, north-western and central areas of New South Wales.

The Carr Labor Government has a habit of redefining when it comes to important issues—such as how many minutes should lapse before a train can be regarded as being late and whether construction planning for gaols is infrastructure, which is what the Minister for Justice suggested recently. The Pilliga Forest is the largest area of forest in the bioregion. The new land title of community conservation area will allow for different zones to be declared within its borders. The zones will be able to be designated for specific conservation or commercial uses, or for multiple purposes. The Government's decision has direct implications for a wide swath in New South Wales. It directly affects the electorates of Tamworth, Dubbo, Barwon, Upper Hunter and Orange. The Northern Tablelands electorate, whose new boundaries will come into effect at the next election, is also affected. It also sends the message to the whole State about the Carr Labor Government that, despite 10 years in office, it still does not have a metropolitan strategy that it can publish, let alone any strategy for non-metropolitan areas in terms of balanced regional and rural development.

Last week with my Nationals colleagues the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is the shadow Minister for forests, the Hon. Rick Colless and the honourable member for Barwon, Mr Ian Slack-Smith, I met with many concerned residents in and around Gunnedah, Baradine, Gwabegar and Gulargambone who time and again went to the question of what will happen to the forest from an environmental perspective. We spoke to many people who simply love the Pilliga Forest. Like so many others who know the Pilliga, they fear the normal incidence of lightning strikes that are common in any summer. The fear that is evident among all the communities is not something that has been whipped up by people from elsewhere. A concern for the forest is something that is understood by people who live in and around the forest. They fear that the forest could be burned to the ground as a consequence of the Carr Labor Government's decision to lock it up.

One of the gentlemen we met struggled repeatedly to hold back his tears when he asked, "What will happen to my forest?" His grandfather and his father before him had an intimate knowledge of the Pilliga Forest and as a boy he came to know the forest. It is one of his greatest ambitions to be able to help to look after the forest and to ensure that it is kept in a healthy and diverse condition. But now he fears for its very survival. His voice was not a voice in the wilderness—or the forest. What he said was literally a theme common to all manner of people we met and have been speaking to during the five long years of this decision-making process.

The Brigalow Belt South bioregion is an extremely interesting part of the State and it is home to a number of plant communities. The sandstone areas of the bioregion support various forests and woodlands. Woodlands are dominated by blue-leaved ironbark, scribbly gum, black cypress pine, whitewood and rough-barked apple. On the stony hills in the north of the bioregion there are silver-leaved ironbark, spotted gum and smooth-barked apple species. On the gentler sandstone slopes there are narrow-leaved red ironbark, white cypress pine, red stringy-bark, patches of mallee and broom heath species. In areas with heavier alluvial soils in the western and northern parts of the bioregion there are species of Pilliga box, with grey box, poplar box, fuzzy box, bull oak, rosewood, whitewood, wilga, belah, yarran and budda. In run-on sites there are species of Blakely's red gum and red ironbark.

Along all the streams in the bioregion there are river red gums. In the southern part of the bioregion there are narrow-leaved ironbark, white cypress pine and white box species on the hills and slopes. There are also patches of black cypress pine, hill red gum, some kurrajong, scrubby acacia, grey box, yellow box, rough-barked apple and river red gums along the tributaries. On the northern basalt areas there is brigalow, which gives its name to the bioregion, and species of belah, whitewood, wilga, budda and poplar box on the hills. There are species of river red gum, myall and poplar box on the flats. There is white box, silver-leaved ironbark, whitewood, bull oak and brigalow in the alluvial soils and river red gums along all streams. There are also diverse grasslands in the area, including species such as plains grass, panic grass, windmill grass, blue grass on black earths, and some white box, yellow box, poplar box and wilga. On the eastern slopes of the bioregion there are species of tallow wood, blackbutt and blue gum and small areas of vine forest. On the northern slopes there are species of white box, rough-barked apple and others.

The fauna of the area includes 18 amphibian species, 68 reptiles, 281 bird types and 82 mammal species. Many species are already considered to be threatened, including the endangered mallee fowl, for which, according to the Department of Environment and Conservation, the bioregion contains important habitat, and the vulnerable koala, which has important populations in the Warrumbungles, the Pilliga and the areas in and around Gunnedah. The bioregion also has tree species that are selected by koalas for food, including Blakely's red gum, river red gum and white box, Pilliga box, poplar box, narrow-leaved ironbark and rough-barked apple. The vulnerable eastern pygmy possum is also native to the area, albeit in a patchy distribution pattern, as is the Pilliga mouse, which lives exclusively in the Pilliga Forest, and the hopping mouse, which is present in some of the remnants of the forest. The diversity of bird species is high in the bioregion relative to other bioregions in the State. People from Pilliga say that that many fauna species can be found in the exact forest areas that have been most heavily logged, and they believe that that is not coincidental. They say, for example, that koalas have flourished in logged areas over the years of development of sustainable harvesting practices. I have not heard one member from the other side of the House deny that that is the case.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: What was that point?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The point is that koala populations tend to flourish in the logged areas of the Pilliga. Koalas have congregated more heavily in logged areas than in other parts of the forest. The koala does not feast upon cypress pines, but will climb into them on a hot day to get some shade. That is commonly known in the local communities. The motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition focuses on the theme that many communities, whilst on one hand feel that their livelihoods are threatened by the decision of the Carr Labor Government to lock up parts of the forest, on the other hand have a sincere and genuine concern that the forest will be damaged by that decision. In turn the people believe that decision will have a bad effect on the existing biodiversity.

Many locals genuinely appreciate that biodiversity and want it protected so it can flourish. It is a slight against them that they have been typecast as people who do not care about the environment, because it can be seen in their faces and on a reading of their family history that that is not true. The Carr Labor Government has been unable to convince people in the north, north-west and centre of the State of the environmental merits of its Brigalow Belt South bioregion policy. That situation worsened yesterday when the Minister for the Environment, Mr Bob Debus, wimped out on a visit to Gunnedah that was locked into his diary some time ago to open a new waste facility in that town on Thursday 2 June.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Did you say he was a sook? That was an intelligent comment.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I am happy that the Hon. Amanda Fazio, a member of the Labor Party, I believe, asked me that. Yes, he is a sook. The Gunnedah Shire Council has invited Premier Carr—whom I understand has never visited the Pilliga Forest—to open that facility next week. Mr Carr was unable to attend and the Premier's Office invited the Gunnedah Shire Council to nominate a Minister whom it would like to attend in Mr Carr's stead. The council nominated the Minister for the Environment, Mr Debus. It is all arranged—the plaque, with Mr Debus's name on it, is ready to be unveiled next Thursday. In the wake of widespread community anxiety about the Brigalow decision, local community leaders and the chamber of commerce organised for a peaceful rally to be organised on Thursday whilst Mr Debus was in town.

The community want that rally to be like another that was held some years ago when the reallocation of water was a major concern to the people of the Namoi. On that day the Gunnedah businesses closed their doors for an hour and the people turned up to hear parliamentary speakers address them on the implications, the rationale, of their decisions. That rally was addressed by the then Minister for Land and Water Conservation, Mr Richard Amery; the local Federal member, the Hon. John Anderson, the Leader of The Nationals; and the then State member of the Legislative Assembly. The rally was conducted by the people of Gunnedah in a sensible way with everyone trying to be constructive as they listened attentively to the cases put by the speakers.

As everyone in Gunnedah today is saying, at least Richard Amery had the moral courage to turn up and deliver the Government's message; to try to explain what was going on and the effect on the livelihoods of many people in the Namoi and beyond. It is not surprising that people are disgusted that today's Minister for the Environment, Mr Debus, has run away from Gunnedah on the fabricated basis that the community rally scheduled for next Thursday had somehow become political. That rally will still go ahead, in his absence, and there will be an empty chair marked "Bob Debus, Labor". How interesting, that people from Gunnedah cannot have a political discussion!

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: He didn't say it would be political. He said it was a Nationals stunt. I heard him say that on the radio.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is interesting that Bob Debus, Mr Draper, the member for Tamworth, and Mr Ian Cohen used the same language in this debate.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: The same scriptwriter.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: As my colleague the Hon. Charlie Lynn said, it is interesting that the honourable member for Tamworth, the Minister for the Environment and Mr Ian Cohen all have the same scriptwriter. They all say that a country community that is suffering because of a political decision by the Carr Labor Government cannot speak politically. However, the people of Gunnedah, Baradine, Coonabarabran, Narrabri, Dubbo, Eugowra, Quirindi, Tamworth and Gulargambone cannot be political in return. Do honourable members think that that is a coincidence? I do not. Everyone affected by the Brigalow decision can see that that is not a coincidence. That decision is confirmation of what the people throughout those five electorates and beyond think; that is what they say; and I reckon they are right.
It is terrific that the House is debating this matter, because everything said will be on record. The rally will go ahead next Thursday and I commend the people of Gunnedah for not being intimidated by the Minister for the Environment. Mr Debus is one of the two key players around the Cabinet table, the other is the Premier, who has never been to the Pilliga. Mr Debus should change his diary and he should go to Gunnedah—he would be respected at least for having the guts to turn up, as Mr Amery did.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Why should he go to a Nationals rally? Just to suit you lot?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Why should he do that? Because it is an insult to the people of Gunnedah, to the mayor, Gae Swain, and to the entire district to say that this is a Nationals event. As Gae Swain said, the rally is a spontaneous response, following representations by the timber industry.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Is Gae Swain a member of The Nationals?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, she is not.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You cannot keep a straight face; you were smiling when you said that.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I will say it again. The Mayor of Gunnedah Shire, Gae Swain, is not a member of The Nationals. She takes great pride in representing her community as an individual and she finds it insulting to hear that sort of comment from a Deputy-President of this House. Is the Hon. Amanda Fazio still a member of Country Labor? Or does that party no longer exist? If Hon. Amanda Fazio is a member of Country Labor, Gae Swain would find her comments insulting. I am glad this is on the record, so that Gae Swain can read it.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I will tell her next time I see her. I am not afraid of what I say.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Good. The decision—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: She simply won't stop.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, I only stop because of standing orders; otherwise I would keep going. This is a heartbreaking situation in the north, north-west and centre of the State. The Carr Labor Government has cruelly dragged out this decision for five years. The Government imposed a moratorium on certain parts of the forest two years ago. The Hon. Amanda Fazio should visit Baradine and ask the people what they think of the white elephant that the Carr Labor Government wants to put up as a tourist office. The people can see through that; they have been treated as though they are stupid—and they are not. Some of the people in the timber industry are the most defenceless people that one could meet. Many of them are illiterate workers. But the Labor Party is quite happy to throw them on the scrap heap to save a few inner-city Labor Party seats. It is a cruel decision that is bad not only for industry but also for the environment. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JON JENKINS [11.30 a.m.]: This is perhaps the most important speech that I will make in this House. It is more important than my inaugural speech because it specifies precisely the problems associated with national parks. Conversely to what some people have said recently, I do not overrate my own importance; I realise that in this House I am literally at the bottom of the food chain.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: And they will eat you!

The Hon. JON JENKINS: Yes they will; you all will. In addition, I do not negotiate my vote. No Government Minister will ever be able to stand up in this Chamber and say that I negotiated my vote. That is probably why I will never be a good politician. I urge all Government and Opposition members—and I have included Opposition members as they might be in government in the future—to read my speech. I ask them to urge Mr Carr and Mr Debus to read it also. When the Brigalow decision was announced my heart sank, not just because of the many precious places that will be lost when the gates and the fences go in, but also because of the effect that the flawed management strategy of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will have on this area.

The Pilliga will go the way of other national parks. Let me give honourable members a few examples. In the north of the State, which is where I live, once beautiful places are now covered in a carpet of lantana, which simply covers whole valleys. In the southern areas of the State huge forests of blackberries obliterate native flora. In both instances the blackberries and the lantana have formed impenetrable thorny masses—which is one of the reasons why these areas are almost devoid of small mammals. New South Wales has one of the highest percentages of national parks and wilderness areas of any country. We also have, as Mr Ian Cohen keeps reminding us, the highest number of threatened species. Those two factors are intrinsically linked by a flawed management strategy run by extremist ideologues.

I noted yesterday only a $1 million increase in this year's budget for weed and feral animal control. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition noted earlier, that brings the total to about $16 million or $17 million a year. On current estimates, that provides a few dollars a hectare to manage noxious weeds and feral animals. Some honourable members might have read in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald the other day that the National Parks and Wildlife Service ferries workers and equipment by helicopter to help control noxious weeds on the Snowy River. If such practices continue, one can only imagine how quickly a budget of $17 million will disappear. It is quite obvious that the entire weed and feral animal management budget could be spent in one national park without a dent being made in the problem.

By far the event that has the most devastating effect on national parks is fire, and it is one of my greatest concerns for the future of the Pilliga. A few years ago State Forests did 10 times the number of fuel load reduction burns conducted in the same period by the National Parks and Wildlife Service when the National Parks and Wildlife Service has 10 times as many estates and reserves as those administered by State Forests. I do not know what are the figures in that regard are for this year, but they have not changed a great deal.

The consequences of not doing fuel load reduction burns are devastating. There is no more poignant example of such devastation than that which was caused by fires a few years ago in the premier national park in New South Wales—Kosciuszko National Park. As I said on a previous occasion, large parts of Kosciuszko National Park are a barren desert and will remain so for some time. The park is a barren desert now because the fires were so intense they killed trees and seeds. It will take decades and generations for the seeds to be carried back by natural mechanisms. Because there are no trees there are no insects, and because there are no trees and no insects there are no birds. Those who have visited these devastated areas could not help but notice the complete silence. There is no sound. It is stunning. Even the buzzing of persistent flies is missing from these once beautiful areas. There are tens of thousands of hectares of barren, lifeless desert. After years of warnings from all and sundry the Kosciuszko National Park finally went up in flames.

Instead of the manager of this beautiful national park being castigated for this, he was promoted and made Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Division of the Department of Environment and Conservation. How it is possible that the person who presided over the greatest loss of biodiversity since the last Ice Age was made Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Division? Perhaps this is all a bit too esoteric for some people. Perhaps people would be better informed if the problem were presented in a more everyday manner. People often think of the koala as being representative of the Australian bush, but not so long ago the Australian Koala Foundation reported that all major koala colonies in south-eastern New South Wales were either on private land or in State forests. That announcement was part of a campaign to incorporate these "critical habitats" into the national park reserve.

So one has to ask: Why, with all the national parks and wilderness areas in the south-east of the State, are the only major koala colonies in State forests or on private land? The answer is simple. Koalas are extraordinarily sensitive to fire. Koalas cannot run away and they cannot hide from high-intensity crowning fires. They sit in their trees and literally burn to death. In October last year fires raged behind my house. When my daughter and I walked into what was left of the forest afterwards to try to rescue any injured animals, all we found were burned, dead koalas. That was one of the last koala colonies between where I live and the Queensland border.

From where did this management strategy come that currently pervades the National Parks and Wildlife Service? Why will it be applied blindly to the Pilliga and Brigalow regions? I understand that the Government is holding on to the Sinclair report into the Brigalow region and that the Minister will not release it because he believes it to be a confidential Cabinet document. I have stated in this Parliament, and I will continue to state, that I have no support for the concept of hidden or secret documents. I firmly believe in an open government process. The Minister stated point blank that he would not release the document, and I still believe that to be the case. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

I suppose that means there is something in the report that the Government does not wish us to see. I wish the Government would not do that. Why is it that nobody else can have the facts and information upon which to validate decisions? Of course, like many decisions relating to the environment, this decision was probably not based on good practical science or on community needs and desires, but rather on some back-room deal between the Government and the extreme environmental movement. I would like to read onto the record some of the comments made by early explorers about the nature of the Australian landscape before European settlement. Regardless of what Benson and Redpath said in the article Cunninghamia, which Mr Ian Cohen is so fond of quoting, we simply cannot ignore these observations, in many cases by some of the most prestigious and educated scientists who have ever lived, and think that they will simply go away. They will not. I refer, first, to what Captain James Cook said:

After this we made an excursion into the country which we found diversified with woods, lawns and marshes; the woods are free from underwood of any kind and the trees are such a distance from one another that the whole country will, at least part of it might be, cultivated without being obliged to cut down a single tree.

Sir Joseph Banks, the only trained botanist to visit Australia before European settlement, said:

A very barren place without wood, very few tree species but every place covered with vast quantities of grass... the trees were not very large and stood separate from each other without the least underwood.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Who said that?

The Hon. JON JENKINS: Sir Joseph Banks.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: He did not get to the Pilliga.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: He got to the Australian landscape; he travelled inland. Henry Anthill, Governor Macquarie's second-in-charge, said:

The country road over this day was beautiful and open, large tracts of land without timber or underwood.

The list goes on. Many early explorers described not only coastal landscapes but also landscapes beyond the ranges. The list includes: Pietrz Pietersen, 1636; Abel Tasman 1642; Captain William Vlamingh, 1697; Captain James Cook, 1770; and Sir Joseph Banks, 1770. Sir Joseph Banks was the only trained botanist to explore the coast of Australia. The list continues: Governor Philip, 1788; John White, 1788; Captain John Hunter 1788; Dr George Worgon, 1788; Justice David Collins, 1792; Watkin Tench; Gregory Blaxland, 1813 and Surveyor George Evans, to whom I will refer later. Henry Anthill, 1815; Allan Cunningham 1817; and Peter Cunningham, 1825.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is my great-great grandfather.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: Congratulations! The list continues: Charles Sturt, 1828; Thomas Mitchell, 1831; Dr John Lhotsky, 1834; and Ludwig Leichart, 1842. The observations of these and other explorers and scientists were supported and reinforced by the artists, writers and settlers of early New South Wales. Several contemporary investigators examined Australian native vegetation in some considerable detail. If the conclusion is so obvious, what is the reason for all the angst and the debate? Surely the evidence is clear about pre-European vegetation in New South Wales.

The confusion arises from a paper published by two relatively unknown botanists working for the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. The paper, which is often quoted as the bible on pre-European vegetation, is entitled "The Nature of pre-European Native Vegetation in South Eastern Australia: a critique of Ryan, D. G., Ryan, J. R., and Star, B. J. (1995). The Australian Landscape—Observations of Explorers and Early Settlers". That paper formed the basis of every management principles practice by the Department of Environment and Conservation. The fact that the paper has been significantly devalued scientifically by subsequent publications seems to have no effect on the extreme environmental movement, which has continued to use this paper and its flawed conclusions.

The fact that this paper completely ignored, disregarded and treated with contempt the observations of the early scientists, including Joseph Banks and Charles Darwin, is a disgrace. I refer to the list that I gave earlier in my speech and urge honourable members to consider the weight of evidence against the critique of Messrs Benson and Redpath. In order to set the record straight—at the risk of boring some—I believe it is necessary to do some scientific analysis of the paper by Benson and Redpath. It is interesting to note that this paper presents little or no new evidence but merely repeats the discussions of others who preceded Benson and Redpath. In fact, their paper is a review of evidence presented by others rather than a discovery of new evidence. The final paragraph of a further paper published by Benson and Redpath in defence of their claims states:

Therein we have the admission that, like many scientists involved in the conservation movement, Benson and Redpath have been blinded by an ideology and converted to a "noble cause". I commented on that at some length in my adjournment speech last night. Benson's paper claims:

However, this claim is completely without support, and Flannery's detailed response to the original paper by Benson and Redpath demolishes it thoroughly. Benson and Redpath published a further paper in reply to Flannery's response. I will quote some of it as it may provide some light relief in what is a fairly dry speech. Benson and Redpath start by contending that the alternative view neglects the role of insects and fauna in the native bush and use the example that in the Northern Territory 84 per cent of trees are infested with termites. To compare tropical far north Australia, with its high rainfall and totally different flora composition, to the coastal and plains areas of New South Wales is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It is scientifically unsupportable. Benson and Redpath go on to say:

But they fail to state why it is unlikely and how unlikely "unlikely" is. In fact, the papers by Benson and Redpath are replete with the terms "likely" and "unlikely" yet they provide little or no evidence as to why they draw these conclusions or how likely or unlikely their suggested hypotheses are. In fact, in almost every circumstance when they use the terms "likely" or "unlikely" the opposite or alternative view is more unlikely or likely, as the case may be. Benson and Redpath also say:

So what? They fail to mention that 100,000 years ago the sea level was about 50 metres lower than it is today and the climate was substantially cooler. Of course there was no rainforest! Their next statement is:

That is simply wrong. A remarkable facet of the Australian bush is its lack of complexity. Every botanist who came to Australia commented on the virtual monoculture of the Australian bush. As an experienced molecular biologist—in other words, a geneticist—I make the clear and unambiguous statement: Benson and Redpath are wrong. Overlying nature's slow and progressive evolution are huge leaps of mutation. In fact, all the available evidence points to a very jagged evolutionary path. A sudden or immediate mutation may give one particular variety an advantage in an environment and that species will become dominant very quickly. We see that happening today with lantana and blackberry—even in our lifetimes we can see species overtaking vast realms of our native bush. The principle of staggered-step-wise evolution is a foundation of modern genetics.

The simple, blank statement that there is no scientific evidence that open woodlands existed prior to settlement is a lie. The existence of open woodlands is a provable, scientifically supported fact. There is ample evidence in scientific literature about the nature of vegetation. In addressing this issue, I will quote from Sir Charles Darwin, who crossed the range into Bathurst in 1836. Unlike Benson and Redpath, I will quote from his original journals. Darwin wrote:

That is a direct quote from one of the greatest natural scientists who ever lived. Sir Joseph Banks described an almost identical view of the Australian bush. However, I have saved for last one of the most stunning blunders in the original paper by Benson and Redpath. The almost universally quoted figure for Australian bushland is about 30 trees per hectare. This figure was derived primarily from two sources: a study of pre-European tree densities in Gippsland Victoria; and the explorer George Evans, as quoted by Croft et al in 1997, regarding the "Bathurst plains". To extrapolate from the Gippsland area, which has a geology, geography and climate different from the northern coastal regions and plains of New South Wales, is simply scientifically unsupportable. However, it is the second piece of evidence that is basically flawed. The full evidence of this mistake will take some time to elucidate, so I will probably not conclude today.

Benson and Redpath quoted the explorer and surveyor George Evans, who was sent by Governor Macquarie to confirm and extend the discoveries of the party led by Blaxland early in 1813. Their reference for the quote is the publication "Forest and woodland cover in the Central Western Region of New South Wales prior to European settlement" by Croft, Goldney and Cardale, not Evans's journal. Benson and Redpath appear to have based their conclusions on a single misquoted journal entry. They estimated the tree density of 10 trees per acre—or 25 trees per hectare—based on a quote from Croft that did not contain Evans's original quote, which it mistakenly attributed as referring to a "plain near Bathurst". The following quote is extracted directly from George Evans's journal:

This is where the reference to 10 trees per acre comes from. However, it is critical to read the full journal to get a clear understanding of the language and context. On the same day Evans wrote in his journal:

Macquarie Plains

On Wednesday 8 December Evans wrote:

Mitchell Plains

On Thursday 9 December he wrote:

Macquarie River

On Wednesday 15 December Evans wrote:

On Thursday 16 December he wrote:

At this point George Evans realised that he was describing country of unimaginable quality, and the following entry in his diary attempts to justify that description. We can see from the four quotes that I read from his diary that Evans was not describing vast realms of forest with 30 trees per hectare. In fact, he was describing the converse: vast rolling plains with no trees at all, before any development occurred in the area. This account is verified by many of the early settlers who moved to the area. For example, Baron Field visited Bathurst in 1822 and wrote:

That is because there were no trees! So the seminal document—the very foundation—upon which the Native Vegetation Advisory Council is based can be proved false. I will continue my speech at a later time, but the thrust of my remarks today is that the whole Pilliga region, the Brigalow belt and all national parks are run according to a management strategy that is founded on a provably scientifically false document. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [11.50 a.m.]: There are some big winners in the decision of the Government to lock away 350,000 hectares of the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion: Bob Carr, Bob Debus, the Total Environment Centre, the Greens and the Australian Labor Party in general with respect to its preference negotiations for the next election. The losers are science, biodiversity and the future of our forests. But the biggest losers will be the communities that will die and wither because an industry essential to their survival is being taken away from them. And that is what the winners will be remembered for in those communities. The community has been told that the decision had nothing to do with politics, but there is no doubt that politics has driven this decision and that politics will destroy these communities. Well, the Coalition will not stand idly by and let this happen. We have given these communities a clear choice for 2007.

The Coalition will re-open those woodland areas to a viable industry and will preserve the biodiversity and the environment. I frequently visit Kosciuszko—which is one of my duty areas in the State—to listen to the concerns of people who are at present very poorly represented by their Labor local member. In the Kosciuszko region I have seen the wanton destruction of a most magnificent national park area because of mismanagement of the environment. My fear is that this will also happen in the Pilliga region. This lack of proper environmental management is the result of the best brains in NSW Forests and the National Parks and Wildlife Service not being allowed to work together. It is a travesty that these people are forced to work apart from one another, and that is having a significant impact on proper conservation, biodiversity, jobs and the industry.

It really gets my goat that I cannot buy outdoor furniture—say for about $1,000—made from white Cyprus pine from any supermarket, Barbeques Galore or Harvey Norman store. I can buy only stock outdoor settings made of New Guinea hardwood. I am sure that the Hon. Charlie Lynn can tell us about areas of the New Guinea Highlands that have been devastated as a result of poor forest management.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Obliteration.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Areas have been absolutely obliterated because countries like New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia do not have proper forest management practices. So we buy furniture made from cheap timber grown in countries that are ruining their forests. We are prohibited from buying goods made from timber grown in our own forests and produced by an industry that provides many jobs in our own country. Instead, we are helping to destroy the environments of other countries. That highlights the stupidity of this decision. As I said earlier, the big winners are Bob Carr, Bob Debus, the Total Environment Centre, the Greens and Country Labor with respect to preference deals for the 2007 election. But the community will continue to be caught up in the politics of the situation because in the end politics will make the difference, it will bring about a change and will bring the Coalition back into office to restore some commonsense to the debate.

The communities around the Pilliga will have to look to their representatives in this Parliament—the honourable member for Tamworth, the honourable member for Dubbo and the honourable member for Northern Tablelands—all of whom have said, "We do not want to bring politics [to their local communities] into this." Meanwhile they have their corflutes and election posters printed by the same company that prints election material for the Labor Party. That is the sort of politics they play. On one hand they do their backroom deals and have their corflutes and posters printed by the Labor Party, and on the other hand they say, "We don't want to play politics." I am surprised by the expression of shock on the face of the Hon. Christine Robertson; she knows full well that is what happens—and the Coalition has the documentation to prove it! The Independents say that they do not want to play politics but will use the expertise of the Labor Party to get their election posters printed.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You're just making that up!

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I am not making it up. I make the point that this is all about politics. It is worth putting on the record that these communities are represented by so-called Independents who are prepared to use the same printing company to print their election material that the Labor Party uses to print its election posters. Science and the historical journals from Oxley say that between 1770 and 1880 the relevant 500,000 hectares were open woodlands and grasslands with very few trees. As my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless said, and as Eric Rolls wrote in his book, the forest exists because of settlement. We can continue to manage our forests and improve on our forestry practices and win. We can save the environment of our neighbouring south-east Asian countries and provide employment. More importantly, we can ensure that the best people in the National Parks and Wildlife Service and NSW Forests work together, rather than against one another, and share their scientific expertise.

The economic impact of this decision on local communities will be profound. Potentially $1 million per month will be taken out of the Gunnedah economy. Jobs will be lost in Bingara. If one were to extrapolate the situation in Sydney, 20,000 jobs would be lost—which I am sure would not be acceptable to anyone. The unions are very concerned about the potential for job losses in the communities. It is worth reading a submission from those who worked on the commonsensical Brigalow Region United Stakeholders [BRUS] option. It states:

For the most part the assessment of the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion has been less about the realities of conservation, and more about how much state forest could be converted to national park. This, despite the science showing the best conservation outcome would come from a broad landscape approach.

That is, a triple bottom line that does not seem to matter in the country, only in the city. The submission continues:

That is, the conservation of both the communities and the forests. I reiterate that among the big winners in all of this are Bob Carr, the Total Environment Centre and the Greens. I note the presence in the Chamber of three senior Cabinet Ministers in the Chamber—the Special Minister of State, the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Primary Industries. I wonder how they feel about having been rolled by Bob Carr, Bob Debus and the Greens on this important decision, which is not supported by any evidence—scientific or anecdotal. Members of Country Labor were rolled, sensible science was rolled and the communities have been rolled to make way for Bob Carr, Bob Debus and the Greens.

The Greens, Bob Debus and Bob Carr are the true winners from this decision. It is now up to the affected communities to continue to fight, and they will. There is a big battle ahead. They will have to continue to pursue this issue on their own. They are not being motivated or pushed by any political party, but they will play the politics because they need to. And they will win.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.59 a.m.]: In speaking to the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I would like to put on record my concerns about the adverse impacts of the decision taken by the Government on the towns in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion, such as Dubbo, Dunedoo, Gilgandra, Binnaway, Quirindi, Coonabarabran, Baradine, Gunnedah, Moree and Murrurindi.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

HUNTER TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister for the Hunter. As Minister for the Hunter and former Minister for Transport Services, has the Minister expressed any concerns to the Treasurer or his ministerial successor that no funding was provided in this week's State budget for important Hunter transport infrastructure projects—projects that include implementation of the Lower Hunter Transport Plan, of which the proposed Broadmeadow Transport Hub is a key component, and other transport projects such as the proposed Glendale Interchange and the Easy Access upgrading of Cardiff railway station?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Clearly those questions should be directed to the Minister for Transport. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned a number of projects. I think he has confused the Government commitment in those areas. Ongoing work is being done on the Broadmeadow and Glendale projects. In relation to the Cardiff railway station, there are discussions between the local member and the current Minister. The Leader of the Opposition should direct the question to the Minister for Transport.

EDUCATION WEEK ACTIVITIES

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Could the Minister inform the House about the celebrations and activities that took place across the State last week during Education Week?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am pleased to inform the House about the wonderful celebrations and events that took place across New South Wales as part of Education Week, held last week. Education Week brought together more than 745,000 New South Wales students and 80,000 teachers to take part in celebrations in over 2,200 schools. Thousands of events were planned, involving parents and local communities.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: How much did the promotions cost?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I note the Opposition is critical about the promotion of Education Week. It is extraordinary that Opposition members continually cry crocodile tears about public education when they are not really interested in public education, and certainly not interested in promoting public education. To suggest that public Education Week should not be promoted and celebrated through local media seems an extraordinary position to be taken by the Opposition. What did we see on the Friday before public Education Week? Another churlish press release put out by Jillian Skinner, the Opposition spokesperson on education. The press release did not celebrate public education. Nor did it say to the community, "Why not visit your local public school next week and find out what it is doing? Why don't you visit your school and celebrate with your school community its wonderful achievements?" No, out comes a churlish press release asking, "How much did the promotion cost?" This was a pathetic attitude, and a pathetic attempt on the part of the Opposition.

I return to the wonderful achievements of public Education Week. This year's theme was "Leading the Way", which sums up the world-class achievements of New South Wales schools. From science workshops and open days, to puppet shows, art exhibitions and sporting carnivals, Education Week 2005 was an opportunity to highlight the great things happening in New South Wales schools. The week started with an Education Expo at Rosehill Gardens. Over 300 students performed, showcasing the talent in New South Wales public schools. The Back to School Day program was a great success, with graduates from public schools returning to their schools to share stories about life at school and inspire students with their stories of personal and professional achievements.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Robyn Parker to order for the first time.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Wayne Gardner, World Motorcycle Champion, went back to Keira High School along with Miles Franklin Award winning author Frank Moorhouse, and Hugh Craft, former senior diplomat and former head of the secretariat of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Lisa Forest, former Olympic swimmer, went to Northern Beaches secondary college.

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

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Alex Perry, internationally recognised fashion designer, went back to South Sydney High School and gave a presentation on the fashion industry to year 11 design and technology students. Some 219 New South Wales public schools, representing all 10 regions, participated in the program this year—almost a threefold increase on the 75 schools that registered in 2004. There was also the program Principal for a Day, which brings together school leaders with business, arts, media, political and community leaders. We hope to see this program extended further across the State in 2006. As well as those activities, as part of a range of local events New South Wales public schools threw open their doors and invited their communities to come in and share with them their students' achievements. I take this opportunity to thank teachers and principals for the work they do and for their efforts in making Education Week a success.

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION CARDS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister recall his announcement of 2 May that the State Government was in the process of mailing out property identification cards to beef and dairy producers across New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that Mrs Evelyn McLeod of Hardys Plains was sent one of those cards for a property that the McLeods once owned more than seven years ago at Yarras? Is the Minister further aware that the card was in the name of her late husband Ken, who died 2½ years ago, despite their details with the Kempsey Rural Lands Protection Board being correct, and that Mrs McLeod has now relived her husband's dying days? Is the Minister aware that Mrs McLeod's son, Colin, also received a card relating to a previous property he had owned—despite his details with the Kempsey Rural Lands Protection Board also being correct? Can the Minister explain to Mrs McLeod why she was forced to go through this traumatic ordeal?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. Around 80,000 cards are to be distributed across the State. They are based on rural lands protection board records. I am sure such mistakes are not confined to this particular mail-out. I have heard of past mail-outs, under all governments, having problems that arise purely from human error or a lack of collation at various points of time of those lists. I apologise on behalf of the Government to the people affected in the instance that the honourable member has raised. I appreciate that causes distress. I trust that in the process of mailing out the 80,000 cards we will have no further such examples. But, as I say, when dealing with so many people and 80,000 cards, some problems could arise. I apologise unreservedly on behalf of the rural lands protection board for any distress caused to those individuals.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL EXHIBITION

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Attorney General. Is the Minister aware of a request by the Office of Film and Literature Classification seeking a ruling on a proposal by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes to hold a public exhibition of pornographic material in the Parliament's Waratah Room today at 1.00 p.m.? Is the Minister also aware that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile informed this House on Tuesday of this week that he would be publicly exhibiting in the Parliament "hard-core pornographic material"? Is the Minister further aware that the honourable reverends propose holding their public exhibition of pornographic material contrary to the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995? I refer to the honourable reverends' proposal to publicly exhibit extracts of R18+ material for educational purposes when there is no such exemption in the relevant legislation and the penalty for exhibiting an extract from R18+ material is $11,000? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the honourable reverends do not proceed with their illegal public porn display?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: To a large extent the question of the honourable member seeks opinions. As I have said on a number of occasions, I am very well qualified to give opinions on a range of matters, but I will decline in these circumstances.

NOXIOUS WEEDS CONTROL

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. I noted that the State budget included $7.6 million for noxious weeds grants in the coming financial year.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: This is not a question. It is a statement. He notes. There is no question in this. I request that you rule this non-question out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing orders allow for a question to contain facts necessary to make it intelligible.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: Can the Minister update the House on additional steps the State Government is taking to help rural land-holders deal with noxious weeds in this State?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his well-rendered question with that fact at the beginning, which helps. The most recent figures from the Co-operative Research Centre for Weed Management indicates that noxious weeds cost Australia's agricultural sector between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion per year. In New South Wales the price tag is nearly $700 million. The 2005-06 State budget reflects our ongoing commitment to help land-holders tackle the threat of noxious weeds with another $7.6 million in grants to assist local councils and other weed control authorities. Since 1995 the Carr Labor Government has allocated nearly $60 million specifically for these weeds grants. But that is by no means the limit of our total commitment to fighting weeds in this State. The Carr Government dedicates much more through ongoing weeds research and our work in Forests NSW, the Department of Lands and local councils. We also carry out countless research and extension efforts designed to help local communities across New South Wales cope with noxious weeds.

In addition, my colleague the Hon. Bob Debus this week announced that another $18 million would be dedicated to feral animal and weed control combined in the next financial year under his portfolio area. This is a $1 million increase on last year's budget and is 18 times more than the level of spending by the Opposition when it was last in government. As members of the House would be aware, the State Government announced a review of the co-ordination and management of weeds, as they affected agriculture. Boorowa Mayor, Mr Robert Gledhill, headed up this important review. He canvassed the feedback of our rural lands protection boards, shire councils, country councils, catchment management boards, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Rail. The feedback from these organisations was essential to ensure we get the best value from every dollar spent on weeds management. Not long after I announced the weeds review I also announced a separate review of State rural lands protection boards. This review was conducted specifically to meet the requirements of both the National Competition Policy and the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998.
Both reviews involve extensive consultation with key stakeholders and our rural and regional communities. The noxious weeds review garnered 194 submissions. The rural lands protection boards review attracted comments from more than 200 participants. As submissions for both reviews flowed in it became apparent that they were canvassing similar issues, particularly in relation to weeds. As a result the State Government decided to release both reviews at the same time to ensure a holistic approach to key issues. I have made it clear many times that I would release the reports of both reviews together. This is yet another mark of our commitment to pursue the highest standards of consultative government. Today I can inform the House that I will table both reports at the end of question time. In addition we will invite the broader public to examine specific recommendations of each review and submit their comments. The State Government has been committed to ensuring a robust and thorough process with both reviews. I look forward to updating the House on future developments in due course.

MOAMA BOWLING CLUB TOBACCO SMOKE

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it true that WorkCover is turning a blind eye to smoking in licensed premises and that the Smoke-Free Environment Act has become the smoky environment Act because it allows no action to be taken under the Occupational Health and Safety Act on smoking until the deadline in mid 2007? Is it true that Moama Bowling Club, which became smoke free after a passive smoking case, has reintroduced smoking with the tacit support of WorkCover despite the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which demands that a workplace be free of hazard? Is it true that WorkCover withdrew from the legal action against Moama Bowling Club over smoking in the workplace?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I note that the honourable member is asking about the specifics relating to an incident a year or so ago involving Moama Bowling Club and the issuing of an improvement notice in relation to smoking in the workplace. I understand that matter has concluded. As I have said previously in the House and publicly, the obligations that employers have to provide employees with a safe workplace cannot be countermanded. As the honourable member is aware, current laws covering environmental tobacco smoke and occupational tobacco smoke have exercised WorkCover for some time. Individual complaints have been resolved successfully. If he requires further details about the specifics of Moama Bowling Club I am very happy to provide him with publicly available information. I am unaware of what he means by legal action against Moama Bowling Club in this specific case, but I am happy to investigate that and come back to him with an answer about the reasons for withdrawal of any legal action. He probably is talking about an improvement notice, which is not legal action in the normal sense.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister give those further details that he has offered? Will he also explain how reintroducing smoking is an improvement to the hazardous situation of a workplace?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I made no such claim. I cannot explain that because I did not suggest that. I suggested that my understanding was that action taken by WorkCover inspectors at the Moama Bowling club was the issuing of an improvement notice, which requires the club to make certain changes to the workplace to reduce risk in the workplace. I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that smoking one way or the other either improved or did not improve the workplace, simply that an improvement notice was issued. As to the second part of his question, I am very happy to provide those details.

RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS CLOSURE

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I direct my question to the Minister for Disability Services. Did the Carr Government commit to close all residential institutions for people with disabilities by the year 2010? Did the Government commit to complete stage one of this process by bringing the first 400 people into the community within four years? When will stage one be completed, and what planning is under way for stage two? What plans are in place for people who are medically frail, such as those living in Grosvenor and the Lachlan Centre?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. John Ryan for his question. He refers to a very important matter. To a large extent I think he is already aware of the basic policy mechanisms. The Hon. John Ryan would be aware that since the first stage of the closure of large residential centres commenced in 2000, 271 people have been moved into community-based accommodation options, resulting in the closure of seven institutions. I am sure that he could name each of those seven. The department developed an options paper for supported accommodation and invited all stakeholders to submit written comments on 10 different models.
The paper is available on the department's web site. The closing date for the submissions was 29 April. Through that process the department has established a whole range of stakeholders' views on different models that may be appropriate to accommodate in a supportive way people who have a range of disabilities and who require support within the community. I am expecting a report in June 2005 that will summarise the submissions in response to the consultation. The proposal at this stage is to host, for want of a better way to describe it, a ministerial roundtable with stakeholders and persons who represent people with disabilities and their carers about the way in which those models could be brought forward.

The Hon. John Ryan is obviously talking about the concept of devolution or deinstitutionalisation. As he is aware, a number of issues, including the types of accommodation that are appropriate, must be taken into account in order to plan the final stages of devolution. The Hon. John Ryan may expect from me the production of a fairly concrete plan regarding these matters, but I will not give it to him during question time today. However, I indicate my intention to provide a clear long-term plan on these matters, certainly before the end of this year.

I invite the Hon. John Ryan and other members of the Opposition to join in the debate and take it seriously. The debate surrounding accommodation for people who have disabilities has tended to be narrowly focused, with parameters ranging from the old schedule 5 style of institutions, to which the Hon. John Ryan has referred several times during debates in this House, to the group home model. I have spoken to enough people who require disability services and their carers to have reached a conclusion that the narrow concept of the group home model as currently adhered to—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It means revisiting the standards.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe says, revisiting standards is exactly one of the things that needs to be considered, though more in the context that we need a full debate to plan the best ways to provide supported accommodation for the range of disabilities, including the medical needs of people with disabilities. That will assist us to take devolution or deinstitutionalisation to the next steps. That is a fair summary of my answer to the Hon. John Ryan's question. I need another month or two to get those directions broadly agreed to. I expect to produce a fairly concrete plan before the end of the year.

WORLDSKILLS COMPETITION

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister inform the House about the participation of New South Wales in the thirty-eighth Worldskills Competition?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for his question. Worldskills is the equivalent of the Olympics for vocational training. It is a regional, national and international competition. It promotes and celebrates excellence in the development of vocational skills. Each year over 800 of the world's best young apprentices and trainees from over 40 countries compete across a number of vocational areas, including automotive, construction, electro technology, food processing, hospitality, manufacturing and engineering, and primary industries. The Australian team consists of gold medal winners from the 2004 national competition.

Twenty-five representatives have been selected to compete in the thirty-eighth Worldskills Competition in Helsinki, Finland, in the coming week. Participation in Worldskills helps to promote vocational training at a regional level and also demonstrates the quality of training that is being delivered at local TAFE campuses across the State. I am pleased to inform the House that this year TAFE New South Wales is contributing to the Australian effort with 13 young people selected for competition and nine judges selected for participation. These 13 young people and nine judges form part of the Australian team that consists of 25 competitors and 21 judges. The young competitors come from across the State. They all competed at a regional level and subsequently at a national level for selection in the team. In addition to their studies and work, these young people demonstrated their commitment to the competition by fundraising and training for Worldskills over the past 12 months.

A good example of their commitment is Jeremy Gransden from Eugowra. Jeremy is the Australian competitor in welding. After completing high school Jeremy enrolled at Orange TAFE and while at TAFE he entered the regional Worldskills Competition and won. After his success Jeremy took part in TAFE skills development programs in Tamworth and received additional training at the Illawarra institute before travelling to Brisbane in May last year to compete at the Worldskills Australian national finals. After three days of intense competition Jeremy won the gold medal and a place in the Australian team.
In the lead-up to the international competition the local community has rallied around Jeremy to form a strong support network—including his employer, Midpro Engineering, family, friends, his TAFE teachers, former competitor, Michael Whalan, and industry mentor, Paul Condran—to focus his attitude and prepare him to take on the best welders in the world. I also draw to the attention of the House that TAFE New South Wales has been asked to provide nine teachers to be expert judges for the competition.

[Interruption]

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

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: Madam President, I wonder about your sexist actions today in calling three lady members on the Opposition side to order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I think every member of this House could join in congratulating Jeremy Gransden on his fantastic achievement instead of making cheap interjections.

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

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Jeremy Gransden's achievement is fantastic.

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

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It also a fantastic achievement for all the other competitors as well as a credit to the staff of TAFE New South Wales that those skills are recognised and in demand in world-class forums. All their hard work should pay off as the competitors try for Australia's best ever Worldskills performance this week. Australia is currently ranked in the top 10. Since 1983, 105 of Australia's 326 international competitors have been from TAFE New South Wales.

[Questions without notice interrupted.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I draw the attention of members to the presence in the public gallery of a delegation from the New Zealand Justice and Electoral Select Committee, led by Mr Timothy Barnett, MP.

[Questions without notice resumed.]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

SCHOOLS RAINWATER TANKS

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What is her department doing about the program to encourage rainwater tanks in schools? Is it a fact that as at March 2005 the program resulted in only two schools receiving the $2,500 grant after a year of operation, even though more than 150 schools registered for the scheme?

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Good question.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It is a good question. Yesterday I had a very good meeting with the New South Wales Council on Environmental Education to discuss some of the many wonderful things that are happening within schools in New South Wales with regard to environmental education and sustainable practices. However, the topic of rainwater tanks did not come up. It is not an issue with which I am familiar so I will have to take Mr Ian Cohen's question on notice and undertake to obtain more details for him.

WORKCOVER AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERSHIP

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What action has he taken to establish the membership of the WorkCover Authority board? Did the current term of the board expire on 16 May this year? Will he be reappointing Unions New South Wales secretary, John Robertson, who last year attended only six of the 14 board meetings, leaving employees and unions without ongoing representation on the WorkCover board?

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Greg Pearce for giving me the opportunity to express my absolute confidence in the outgoing WorkCover board. There will be minimal changes to the board of WorkCover, and Mr John Robertson, I hope, will accept my invitation to serve on the new board.

SEX OFFENDERS ELECTRONIC MONITORING

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. What is the latest information on technological advances the New South Wales Government is utilising to monitor offenders on parole?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: It is natural for the community at large to feel a degree of apprehension when a serious offender, such as a sex offender, is released back into the community on parole. Many offenders in that category are very compliant in prison: they meet the terms and preconditions enabling them to be paroled in accordance with orders of either the court or the Parole Board. In many cases at present the supervision of those offenders cannot include the use of all available technologies to determine their movements. I am pleased to inform the House that a new global positioning system [GPS] tracking technology will soon be introduced to monitor serious offenders 24 hours a day while they are on parole. The emergence of GPS technology began in the United States of America Department of Defence, and in 1993 it was licensed for civilian use. England piloted the technology in 2004, and New South Wales will be the first Australian jurisdiction to pilot it.

The technology has been used in the United States of America for a number of years and currently it accounts for approximately 3 per cent of the electronic monitoring market. It is deployed in 28 states, targeting repeat offenders, sex offenders and domestic violence offenders. Using the GPS-based satellite tracking and recording system, called the STaR unit, the Department of Corrective Services will have the capacity to pinpoint an offender on parole within five metres. The new system will be used, particularly in the case of serial sex offenders, with the aim of providing a higher level of protection to the community. It is important to remember that this is not about relaxing circumstances for grounding a parolee; it is about enhancing the department's capacity to supervise a parolee.

The system will do this by establishing exclusion zones for offenders through state-of-the-art satellite technology, electronic bracelets, and centralised round-the-clock monitoring. If the offender enters an exclusion zone, an alarm will be immediately triggered to a central monitoring unit in the Department of Corrective Services. This will allow the supervising parole officer to take action on the breach. Where a risk to a member of the public is imminent, a NSW Police response will be activated. The Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Corrective Services are working on an agreed response model. Offenders will know they are being closely monitored, and this in itself will serve as a deterrent to further offences and breaches of parole conditions.

The supervising parole officer will be alerted immediately if an offender's bracelet or anklet is tampered with or removed. Allow me to narrate a hypothetical scenario: An offender is released to parole on the condition that he must wear a monitoring bracelet or anklet at all times. He must also carry a special satellite receiver-transmitter. As part of his parole conditions, the parolee is forbidden to go within 100 metres of schools and other predetermined sites where children are present. These sites have been identified on an electronic map. Accordingly, an exclusion zone is programmed into the system. If the offender enters the exclusion zone at any time, his transmitter sends a signal to a central monitoring unit, which sends a short message service alert to his parole officer advising of the breach within minutes of it occurring.

Data from the offender's transmitter allows the monitoring unit to determine the nature of the breach such as the exact location, how long the offender has been in the zone or if he was merely passing through the zone on a bus. This information then enables his parole officer to contact the offender and, if necessary, NSW Police. No new legislation is required for the system to be applied to a parolee. The new technology will undergo a number of trials to ensure its efficacy. The equipment for each offender will cost $5,000, with existing monitoring infrastructure in the Department of Corrective Services being adapted to suit the new system. This GPS technology is indicative of the Government's commitment to prepare for the future and willingness to embrace new technology in order to implement smart justice and cut no corners in improving community safety.

RESIDENTIAL PARKS RESIDENTS PROTECTION

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. In view of the proposed redevelopment of the Lansdowne Caravan Park in Fairfield, the lodging last week of an application to redevelop the Bass Hill Tourist Park, and the undoubted social hardship that will result from the loss of such vital sources of affordable and crisis housing, will the Minister act to stop the issuing of termination notices to van renters when an application to redevelop a residential park is lodged? What steps will the Minister take to guarantee that the renters of residential park vans, as well as the owners of vans, receive appropriate compensation in the event of their being required to leave a residential park?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will make an announcement about these matters in due course.

FORESTS NSW EMPLOYEES

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Are there any plans for Forests NSW employees to be directed into National Parks and Wildlife Service jobs following the Minister's decision on the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion? Will Forests NSW employees displaced by the bioregion decision be given the opportunity to take up public service positions in the National Parks and Wildlife Service?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The question is out of order because, as honourable members are well aware, prior to the commencement of question time the House was debating this very issue. That debate has not finished. It is improper for the member to ask that question. I ask you to rule it out of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The question is quite specifically about Forests NSW employees.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: How do you know?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Because I listened to the question, unlike the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. The question is quite specifically about employees of Forests NSW. My motion contains absolutely nothing relating to Forests NSW employees. I can understand why the Government does not want to answer this question; it is embarrassed about the situation. I can understand it if the Government is reliant on the Hon. Amanda Fazio to get it out of trouble.

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: I point out that my colleague said the Opposition disputes that the question is relevant to this morning's debate in that sense. But that debate was about an item of private member's business outside the order of precedence. It was allowed to proceed by way of contingent notice of motion, and was interrupted at 12.00 p.m. for question time. It is no longer before the House so it cannot possibly be out of order.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: I allude to the same matter as that of my learned colleague opposite.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Very learned.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Yes, my very learned colleague. Standing Order 65 (3) (a) states that questions must not refer to debates in the current session. The question had nothing to do with anticipation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order of the Hon. Don Harwin. Questions must not anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or other matter on the notice paper except an item of private members' business outside the order of precedence. Because a matter was debated this morning does not necessarily mean that it will be debated this afternoon. The question is in order; however, it contained argument.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member asked a good question, which I am happy to answer. First, there will not be any directions to any workers about future employment prospects if they do not take up the option of the $72,000 payout for leaving the industry. Second, there will be flexibility.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you saying that they get that as well?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. Those who are exiting the industry get $72,000.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about the forestry commission people?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member asked me only about Forests NSW. As yet no decisions have been made in relation to that matter. I do not believe there will be any directions about future employment prospects.

NEW SOUTH WALES FIRE BRIGADES BUDGET

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform honourable members of the 2005-06 budget for the NSW Fire Brigades, and how that money will be used to assist NSW Fire Brigades?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am proud to be able to report to the House that NSW Fire Brigades has received its eleventh straight record budget. That will include money for additional firefighters and fire engines.

[Interruption]

I am disappointed that the Hon. Michael Egan is no longer a member of this Chamber, as I would have liked to thank him.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: What is he doing now?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is obvious that Opposition members have not read the latest parliamentary guide. That is why he has gone. As I said earlier, this budget includes money for additional firefighters, fire engines, the continuation of the fire station building program and more community fire units. This year the Carr Government will spend $489.5 million on the NSW Fire Brigades, an increase of $16.1 million on last year's figures and $248 million since 1994-95.

We all know that the budget papers are not the easiest things in the world to read. There are lots of pages and lots of numbers. Unless people are astute and they know how to read or they know how to add up, it is quite easy to get confused. That is what appears to have happened yesterday to that gallant shadow Minister, Andrew Humpherson. I said that he is gallant because last year he tried to read the budget papers and he got it wrong. Yet again this year he gallantly tried to read and understand them but again he has failed.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He did his best.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: He did his best.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: It is pretty obvious that the Minister is about to embark on an attack on another member. If he wants to do so he should do it by way of a substantive motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that he must not make imputations against members of either Chamber.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have completed my attack. I was just about to indicate why the shadow Minister was wrong. While the Carr Government continues its tradition of increasing the budget for NSW Fire Brigades, Mr Humpherson continues to issue dodgy media releases that mislead the community. Anyone reading Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 18-6 will see as plain as day a dot point that states:

In 2005-06 the NSW Fire Brigades will receive funding to deploy an additional 52 permanent firefighters to various fire stations.

Those members who turn to page 18-26 will see as plain as day a number for average staffing in equivalent full-time staff. A shadow Minister who never bothers to check the facts might not understand how that staffing is comprised. Some firefighters who are on a retainer respond only when they are called out. There are full-time firefighters and trained administration staff. The figure that is displayed on that page has nothing to do with the number of firefighters; it reflects equivalent full-time staff.
However, those figures still show an increase. Average staffing goes from 3,792 in 2002-03 to 3,915. We have seen an increase each year because of the Government's efforts to provide more money for firefighters. If Mr Humpherson had bothered to read the annual reports he would have seen that firefighter numbers, including retained firefighters, are at a record level of 6,517, with an additional 52 for this year. [Time expired].

NORTH COAST NATIONAL PARK GATHERING

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. Towards the end of April and the beginning of May did about 500 people gather in a national park on the North Coast of New South Wales to celebrate alternative culture and lifestyle? Did that group have a permit for that mass gathering, or any formalised toilet, bathing or cooking facilities? Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service issue any fines or charge anyone in relation to that gathering? If not, why not? Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service immediately disband that mass gathering, or instead order portable toilets and pay for them? Were the police called to break up that illegal and environmentally damaging gathering? If not, why not? Will the Minister inform the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife that the same courtesy and leniency should be extended to other groups visiting national parks?

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

BALLINA BYPASS

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Why has he failed to provide substantial funding in this week's State budget to construct the Ballina bypass rather than the paltry $5 million outlined in the budget papers? Given that the Federal Government has already committed $125 million to the project, when will the Ballina community see this Government handing over the remainder of the money as a proportion of this important $245 million project?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am pleased that the honourable member gave me an opportunity to comment on the paltry funding provided by the Federal Government for the Pacific Highway. If he wants to see the construction of any of our major national arterial roads he should address his question to the national transport Minister. The Pacific Highway is being well provided for by this State Government. As I pointed out yesterday, we are providing four times the funding that is being provided by the Federal Government for this national highway.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is not as significant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am sure people would love to hear Opposition members say that it is not a road of national significance. That is what they appear to be saying. As I said yesterday, I will continue to remind Opposition members that the Federal Government collects $14 billion a year from fuel excise and it returns just under $3 billion to the transport system, which includes roads and also rail. Clearly, that puts financial constraints on the ability of the State Government to fund major projects. We will continue to fund projects such as the Ballina bypass according to our means. If the honourable member wants a more rapid escalation in funding arrangements I urge him to talk to John Anderson about having some of that fuel excise returned to the States in the form of additional road funding.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Has New South Wales been consulted about the Commonwealth's plans to close the State industrial relations scheme?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No. New South Wales administers a system used by 2.7 million employees. It is a system that is used by two businesses out of every three in New South Wales and the vast majority of small businesses also use it. One would assume that the Commonwealth Government, which is seeking to make changes to a successful, popular and efficient system, would consult the State that runs it. One would think that a Government that wants a State to co-operatively refer its powers might consult in a co-operative fashion. I am disappointed to inform honourable members that no such consultation has taken place. Until a matter of moments ago, after the Prime Minister delivered his remarks in the Parliament, we were unable to ascertain what he intended to tell the Federal Parliament.
There is a body through which to discuss these matters with all Australian States. The Workplace Relations Ministers Council brings together all State and Territory Industrial Relations Ministers and their senior departmental officers. Despite planning the most radical upturn in industrial relations for more than 100 years, the Commonwealth has not considered it necessary to consult. Even worse, it has actively avoided any co-operative discussion. The Commonwealth has cancelled—at late notice—the last three meetings of the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. The Prime Minister's request to the States at this late stage to refer their powers co-operatively is in stark contrast to the Commonwealth's approach. There was no consultation or co-operation from the Commonwealth and then a threat to use corporations power if we do not agree. It is just like the option that workers will receive under the system that Mr Howard proposed today: sign it or else.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Did you consult on your changes to workers compensation?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I consulted ad nauseam about those reforms. The proposals that the Howard Government is revealing today would seek to end a most successful industrial relations system in favour of an unfair model, based on unfettered conflict between employers and employees. According to every measure, the New South Wales system outperforms the Federal model. The Australian Bureau of Statistics December quarter survey revealed that New South Wales accounted for 21 per cent of working days lost due to industrial disputes while Victoria contributed more than 36 per cent. Disputes in Victoria are resolved through the hostile and complicated Federal industrial relations system.

Nationally, 6.1 working days per 1,000 employees were lost due to industrial disputation. In the same period Victoria lost 8.7 working days per 1,000 employees and in New South Wales only 3.9 working days were lost. Disputes are also resolved more quickly in New South Wales compared with disputes under Victoria's combative Federal system. In disputes lasting five days or more, Victoria lost more than 52 per cent of the working days lost to Australia last year compared with just 18 per cent in New South Wales. The New South Wales construction industry accounted for 1.3 per cent of the nation's working days lost in the December quarter compared with Victoria's 33 per cent.

The Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, is on record as saying that the minimum wage in Australia is $70 a week too high. Why else would the Howard Government want a new system to set minimum wages if not to claw back that $70? Cleaners, retail workers, and security industry and hospitality workers earn $467 a week—and the Commonwealth believes they should be earning $70 less! It is widely reported today that protection from unfair dismissal will be denied to 60 per cent of the New South Wales work force. This is not fair or productive and is tilting the playing field to make life harder for the low paid and for people with less power in the industrial market.

PALGO HOLDING PTY LTD

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Is it a fact that the High Court has just handed down the decision that the Cash Counters company, Palgo Holding Pty Ltd, is not a pawnbroker under the New South Wales legislation? How does the Minister propose to respond to this decision? Will the New South Wales legislation be amended to include a definition of the term "pawned" so as to protect New South Wales consumers, members of the Labor Party and others?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am aware of the matter to which Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile refers regarding an appeal in the High Court on a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal that upheld the argument of the shop in question that it need not be licensed. As the honourable member suggested, this has implications for the definition of "pawnbroking" under the pawnbroker legislation. The Government is giving urgent consideration to the possible amendment of that legislation and I will take a proposal to Cabinet very shortly.

NORTHERN TABLELANDS BUSINESSES WORKERS COMPENSATION PREMIUMS AND PAYROLL TAX

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Following this week's budget announcement, when will the Minister grant workers compensation premiums and payroll tax relief to Northern Tablelands businesses, including Bindaree Beef Pty Ltd?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am surprised that the Hon. Rick Colless, who, I am led to believe, had a distinguished career as a public servant before his election to this place—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Well, he was a public servant; I don't know about distinguished.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Perhaps I am mistaken and his career was something other than distinguished. The budget has nothing to do with workers compensation premiums in New South Wales. The WorkCover Scheme collects premiums from employers and the level of premiums is determined after consultation on an actuarial basis. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Government's budget process. The entire WorkCover organisation operates off budget.

The Hon. Rick Colless's question—which I think was a little confused—referred also to payroll tax. The Treasurer in his Budget Speech dealt more than adequately with the revenue situation. I remind the Hon. Rick Colless that revenue must come from somewhere and that, under the Commonwealth GST agreement, New South Wales taxpayers are taxed to the tune of $13 billion and receive just $10 billion in return. That is a $3 billion deficit, which affects the services and infrastructure that we can provide through the New South Wales budget. Revenue simply must come from somewhere—even Opposition members would understand that.

By way of comparison, when I assumed responsibility for the Industrial Relations portfolio I was often asked when premiums would increase. With rising costs and an increasing deficit, the pressure on premiums was always strong. But as a result of the Government's 2001 reform package—which the Opposition did not support—and the ongoing effort to improve value for employers and injured workers, times have changed. The WorkCover balance sheet is the strongest it has been in more than a decade. Costs, delays and disputes have been reduced significantly, injured workers are getting medical and financial support when they need it and the deficit has reduced from $3.2 billion to $1.65 billion.

Honourable members will be aware that the reckless premium reductions by the Coalition Government in the early 1990s saw revenue fall below costs, creating a deficit. This Government has a well-founded reputation for taking a much more responsible approach to economic management—which may be why the Hon. Rick Colless got the budget confused with WorkCover's performance. Premiums will be reduced and benefits enhanced as soon as it is financially responsible to do so. Opening the scheme to further competition—which is the final part of the scheme redesign that is occurring at the moment—will create greater efficiencies and improve service delivery to employers and injured workers. We must ensure that these changes do not introduce instability. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Comparisons between schemes in different jurisdictions are difficult because of differing workers compensation laws and coverage in each State. The New South Wales workers compensation scheme provides the most comprehensive suite of benefits in the nation, including weekly income support, lump sums for permanent impairment and pain and suffering, payment of medical bills, provision of legal assistance to pursue a claim and an intensive rehabilitation and return-to-work service. New South Wales also provides incentives for employers to hire injured workers. In New South Wales injured workers have ongoing entitlements to benefits available under the statutory scheme until they are fit to return to work. WorkCover assists with vocational rehabilitation, including formal retraining for workers who cannot return to their previous jobs.

In New South Wales a severely injured worker who is unable to return to work remains entitled to workers compensation benefits until one year after the age at which they were eligible for the age pension. In Queensland, for example, the duration of benefits in many cases is limited to two years. The situation is similar in Victoria: Workers are required to undertake a work capacity test after two years and, if they are assessed as being incapable of undertaking any work, they lose their entitlement to workers compensation benefits. While New South Wales workers are covered for journey claims to and from work and recess claims, Victorian workers are not. In addition, the Victorian cap on maximum weekly benefits is substantially lower than that in New South Wales. Victorian employers are also required to pay the first 10 days of weekly benefits and the first $495 of the cost of medical treatment compared with the maximum excess in New South Wales of $500 for each claim.

Another difference that might help the Hon. Rick Colless understand why our workers compensation scheme is much more comprehensive than the schemes in other jurisdictions is that New South Wales published rates are inclusive of all charges, whereas Queensland published rates do not include the goods and services tax of 10 per cent. In addition, Queensland imposes workplace registration fees amounting to approximately $10 million per annum and construction notification fees amounting to approximately $20 million per annum. These fees depend on the number of employees declared by employers and the value of construction projects notified by principal contractors.

REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND COMMUNITY OF THE YEAR AWARDS

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Will the Minister for Lands inform the House about what the Government is doing to recognise the great work being carried out in rural and regional communities?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Country communities are renown for their resilience, inventiveness and close sense of community. The Carr Government appreciates the challenges of country New South Wales and continues to work with those communities in facing the many issues confronting rural New South Wales. The Government believed that the great work going on in country communities should be acknowledged. That is why the Government, through the Department of Lands, got on board two years ago to sponsor the New South Wales Regional Achievement and Community of the Year Awards.

Earlier this month I travelled to Queanbeyan to officially kick off this year's search for the New South Wales rural community of the year. Against a background of dramatic economic and social change, country communities have faced their challenges with their typical courage and inventiveness. It might be through a local program that provides an outstanding example of planning or leadership, or a project that identifies issues and develops specific strategies to address them. I can give no better example than to tell honourable members about the achievements of last year's winners—the Tibooburra Village committee, a volunteer group that provides many of the community services for a town that lacks a local council.

Tibooburra's volunteers provide almost all the services in the town, including maintenance of the water treatment plant, rubbish removal, rubbish tip maintenance, public toilet cleaning, weeding, playground and park maintenance. Other achievements include buying a town water plant and dam, improvements to the local aerodrome, bush care revegetation, tourist brochures, and a local web site and newspaper. They were worthy successors of the inaugural winners—Gulargambone's Flying Ahead committee. This year the Community of the Year Award is divided into two categories. One award will be granted to a town with a population over 15,000 and one will be awarded to a town with a population under 15,000. Each category winner will receive a Commonwealth Bank Award Saver Account of $5,000.

I am pleased that my ministerial colleague David Campbell has come on board through the Department of State and Regional Development to sponsor the Business Enterprise and Events and Tourism award categories. It demonstrates once again the Carr Government's ongoing support for country New South Wales. Nominations for all awards close on 5 August, and the winners will be announced in November in Wagga Wagga. I urge country towns to get behind their local volunteers and organisations and submit their nominations. I wish all participants the best of luck in this year's search.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

SURVEYING AMENDMENT BILL

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT (PERMITS AND LEASES) BILL

ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (SPEED LIMITERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I welcome into the President's Gallery His Excellency Mr Tamam Souliman, Ambassador of the Syrian Arab Republic, and His Excellency Mr Ali Kazak, of the General Palestinian Delegation to Canberra.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

BRIGALOW BELT SOUTH BIOREGION

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [2.31 p.m.]: For a number of reasons, the Government will oppose the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Might I add that in the not too distant future this House will debate these matters in considerable detail. I recognise that a number of honourable members have carefully considered these matters and made strong statements in the debate today. However, as will become evident from events that will evolve in the next few weeks, some of those statements are within the realm of exaggeration. The motion, in part, states:

1. That this House notes:

(a) the promise from the Premier in 2003 that there would not be a big expansion of national parks in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.

I have sought advice from the Clerks as to whether I can defer to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and whether subsequently I will be able to speak in the debate a second time. I have been advised that I will be able to do so by leave. That being so, I defer to the honourable member.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.31 p.m.], by leave: The motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition states:

1. That this House notes:

(a) the promise from the Premier in 2003 that there would not be a big expansion of national parks in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion,

(b) the Premier's announcement this month that more than 348,000 hectares of prime woodlands in the Brigalow and Nandewar will be locked up for permanent conservation,

(c) that the future of the central and north western region's timber industry and the small towns which rely on it, is now in serious doubt,

(d) that the timber industry will be unsustainable under the current compartment allocations, and

(e) that the New South Wales Labor Government made the decision based on political grounds with the Greens preferences in mind for the 2007 State election.

2. That this House condemns the New South Wales Labor Government and the Greens for their blatant disregard for the environment of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.

As honourable members know, the Government initiated an inquiry into the Brigalow Belt South bioregion and appointed the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair to head up that inquiry. The Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair had been very active in Federal politics and was highly regarded. In fact, he had been engaged by a number of organisations and by the Federal Parliament in Canberra, where his reputation was that of a very reasonable man, to chair a number of bodies undertaking certain activities. It is very disappointing that the extensive inquiry that he conducted into this Brigalow Belt South bioregion issue seems to have been wasted, in that he produced a report that is not available to honourable members of this House. Today I made inquiries at the Parliamentary Library and elsewhere about the report, which appears to have become invisible.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. If members wish to converse, they should leave the Chamber.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: If this report is in the hands of the Minister, it is a pity that he has not made it available. This document follows a great deal of inquiry and other work, and no doubt will contain important recommendations. The logical question to ask is: Do the recommendations in the Sinclair report reflect what the Government is doing, or is the Government acting completely contrary to the recommendations? Being denied access to the report, the only deduction we can make is that the report and its recommendations are not favourable to the policy that the Government has adopted on this issue.

We note the different situation in Tasmania. The new Premier of the Labor Government in Tasmania is co-operating with the unions responsible for the timber industry and with the Prime Minister to protect jobs, the environment and forests. It is a pity we do not have the same degree of co-operation in New South Wales. I wondered why the unions had been so silent when they were so outspoken in Tasmania. Mr Ian Cohen resolved that when he said that workers in the timber mills in the region are not members of the union. Does that mean that the union, which was active in Tasmania, is running silent at protecting the jobs of workers? If the union were consistent it would support the workers, regardless of whether they were union members. Chapter 11 of a report produced by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which provides a lot of information on the Brigalow Belt South bioregion, confirms a number of points made strongly by the Hon. Jon Jenkins about the condition of this area of New South Wales. The report states:

The report confirms that it is not old growth forest, contrary to the assertions of other speakers. Before the early settlers encouraged the growth of the forest in the 1830s it was grasslands. We can only assume that the Government's decision was made in co-operation with the Greens because it is illogical. What other factors were at work in the decision? Why has the Government made this decision? It is obvious, even though we are in 2005, that the Government brought down this week's budget with a view to the 2007 election. It will have only one more budget to deliver. The Government is now in election mode, which is why it is logical to assume that this decision was based on preparation for the 2007 election to shore up preferences from the Greens in both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council.

This decision will have a dramatic effect on the jobs and futures of those who live in the affected area. We oppose the Government's decision. We assume that the appropriate legislation will be introduced in due course, unless it can be done by way of regulation. However, we urge the Government to review the decision and follow through on what we hope would have been the recommendations of the Sinclair report. Even though the Government's decision is long overdue, we hope it will not close the door on conducting such a review. I know that the green groups and the environment groups have run an active campaign. On this occasion it appears that they have been able to influence the Government's decision, which will affect timber mills, jobs and the income of those living in surrounding towns.

If residents are unable to purchase food and clothing in the various shops, each of those communities will suffer. We know from experience that once a timber mill closes down and timber workers who own a house want to move to another area for employment they are unable to sell their house because no-one wants to buy a house if no jobs are available. Timber workers and other workers in such areas lose the value of their assets. The Government's decision will have a snowball effect. Country communities are already suffering through this horrific drought. Instead of lifting them up the Government's decision is an uppercut that will not knock them out of the ring. The Government should give special consideration to country communities when conditions in our State are so difficult. We support the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, I move:

, and

(f) that the Greens have ignored all evidence of undesirable conservation outcomes in the conversion of woodlands to National Parks in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.47 p.m.]: I congratulate the many community and environment groups that have worked so hard for the Brigalow. They have done a great job in considering the needs of local communities and environmental protection, which is why we are debating this motion today. The decision to protect the Brigalow woodlands contains not only environmental wins but it will benefit the—

The Hon. Rick Colless: It doesn't contain any environmental wins.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: "It doesn't contain any environmental wins." That is part of the scare tactics and misinformation The Nationals are spreading. There are wins for the environment and the local economy. The motion exposes the sorry state of The Nationals. They are trying to make out that they are the true friends of the working people in western New South Wales and the environment when the truth is that The Nationals are fighting for their survival. They are trying to use this to breathe some life—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you're just going to indulge in personal vilification—

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There was nothing personal. I have just started. The response of The Nationals to the package shows no commitment to workers. The plan gives hope for long-term sustainable jobs.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We want to keep their jobs there. What better commitment can you get than that?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is committed to jobs, he should be supporting this package because it provides for long-term jobs.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No it does not.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It has a commitment to jobs and it has a commitment to rural workers.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What are the long-term jobs?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I will come to that. It is not surprising that The Nationals do not support this package because The Nationals support industries that have been bleeding the brigalow. If The Nationals were in government, jobs would vanish, along with our precious environment. What we know about The Nationals is that they do not care about timber workers. They care about: timber owners, yes; big pastoralists, yes; gas miners, yes. But do The Nationals care about the workers on farms, in mines and in timber yards? No! The history of The Nationals in that regard is very clear.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Do you have something to back that up?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I have. Every inch of the way The Nationals have blocked any attempt to bring greater protection for workers onto many pastoral lands and farms, just as they have blocked recent attempts to introduce industrial manslaughter legislation. The Nationals say that farms are too dangerous and that we cannot have such laws applying on farms. Yes, farms are dangerous, and that is precisely why such laws are needed. The Nationals have not provided protection on farms for the safety of workers, just as they are not providing protection through job security. But job security is what is being offered by this package.

The Nationals are now working to undermine the Government's plans that will bring job security to many communities as well as offer a substantial financial package to the timber industry. The money set aside for the timber industry and for park management will mean better times ahead for the local economy. New parks mean more tourists, and that will mean more jobs. The end to major ironbark operations and a value-adding white cypress industry makes more sense in the long run for both forests and the timber industry, in which many jobs will be created. Let us remember that people will be in a position to choose to accept this package. Jobs will be created in the timber industry by virtue of this package. By ignoring the package and misrepresenting what it will do, The Nationals—particularly those in this House—are doing a great disservice to rural people.

The package does not have everything that the Greens wanted. For example, mining exploration in the Goonoo State Forest will go ahead, and that is a disappointment. The Greens argued that downgrading of the Goonoo Forest from full protection status was not warranted. The carping over deals between the Greens and the Labor Party comes from a sad old party, The Nationals, which is now conning rural workers into believing that it is committed to their welfare. The Greens are not fully satisfied with the package, so why can The Nationals not get behind the package and agree to work with it because it goes some of the way toward providing much-needed, long-term jobs?

The Hon. Rick Colless: It does not. What jobs?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It does. The contributions of The Nationals resemble the Back to the Future movies.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Where is your substance? You have got a lot of rhetoric but no substance.

The Hon. Rick Colless: This is all anecdotal.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is definitely not.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Where are the long-term jobs?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Obviously the Hon. Melinda Pavey has not been listening. I have spoken about the white cypress industry and tourism. There are many jobs in the timber industry and in tourism. Clearly considerable restructuring will be undertaken, but there is hope—and that is what The Nationals are not giving the people who will be affected. The Greens did not succeed in ending gas mining, but we will give this package a go.

The Greens are concerned about the different management zones proposed for the woodlands. The National Parks Association has stated that the system may compromise conservation values and will possibly result in management problems for the new conservation areas. The model for the brigalow bioregion is likely to be inferior to the existing system of national parks and nature reserves and State conservation area categories under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Mr Everingham from the National Parks Association stated:

The Greens largely share those views. I reiterate that although the Greens did not get everything we wanted out of this package, we regard it as a balanced package.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: How can it be balanced if it is less than what you wanted?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: For heaven's sake, the Hon. Melinda Pavey's grasp of this issue is just poor beyond belief. Although the Greens did not win retention of the long-established national park status for the Goonoo Forest, which would have been our preference, we are willing to give the Government's plan for the Pilliga a go because it addresses many of the needs of the local environment and the local economy. Despite all the problems associated with the package, the Greens acknowledge that the plan is on a par with the huge achievements in the 1980s in banning rainforest logging.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You just want to ban logging, full stop.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No. Again, that is actually not true, and the Hon. Rick Colless knows it. This is another example of The Nationals' sad old rhetoric—that the Greens want to ban all guns and all logging. The Nationals should listen when members make their contributions to debate instead of reverting to their tired old ways. This long-awaited decision rewards the dedicated efforts of many people in the bioregion and throughout this State, including the National Parks Association, the Nature Conservation Council, the Western Conservation Alliance, the Wilderness Society and many young and old activists who have worked hard to achieve this outcome.

The Nationals have revealed their true colours with regard to the impacts of the brigalow plan upon local communities and local economies. Financial assistance that has been set aside for the timber industry and park management has the potential to greatly improve the regional economy. New parks attract more tourists, and value adding will put the white cypress industry on a more solid footing. I really wonder whether The Nationals understand what value adding is. They just want to chop trees down, burn them and ship them out for chips. That is certainly not the best way to proceed in the future and it is not the way to assist the bioregion.

The Hon. Rick Colless: There is no woodchipping in the Brigalow.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I know that. I am talking about The Nationals' overall point of view.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Do not mislead the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not misleading the House, I am talking about The Nationals' overall approach. The Government's offer of exit payments to firewood contractors and a review of the hardwood fire industry will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that the enormous damage being caused by the industry does not continue. The Brigalow has the largest temperate woodland forests remaining in New South Wales. The end of major ironbark operations and protection of most of the last stand of those iconic forests in the region is also a welcome step.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is a man-made forest.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of the member opposite. The Nationals have been arguing the line that these forests are man-made. That just shows The Nationals' tragic misunderstanding of the environmental significance of the area, which is famous for glossy black cockatoos, barking owls and many woodland birds and mammals.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You have not heard a word we have said, have you?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Hon. Rick Colless does not have the stomach for this. Glossy black cockatoos, barking owls and many woodland birds and mammals need larger old ironbarks and other hardwoods with big hollows in which to raise their young. Surely The Nationals cannot deny that.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Did you say ironback? What is ironback?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I said ironbark.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You did not.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: So what if I mispronounced a word! If that is the level to which this debate has sunk, we should all be very sad. My background is actually in botany. The Nationals are in a sad state when they abuse people for mispronunciations. Fifteen of the twenty-four species of mammals that remain in this region are known to be in decline, along with 60 species of birds. Already 17 mammal species have become extinct in the last 200 years. For the remaining species, the Pilliga and Goonoo forests are islands of habitat in an ocean of agriculture and cleared land. I am very proud of the contribution that has been made by the Greens and the many community and environment groups. I congratulate my colleague Mr Ian Cohen on all the work he has done for this bioregion. The Greens look forward to the legislation coming before the House.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.00 p.m.]: I have tried to take a strong interest in this area. I have visited employees of Forests NSW at Baradine, I have heard from Aboriginal people advocating the Brigalow Region United Stakeholders option of trying to maintain their culture as part of an ongoing tourist interest in the area, and I have spoken to people from the Western Conservation Alliance in the region and in Sydney. There is a need for a decision to be made on the matter and for certainty. In society in general there is always immense resistance to change. In the olden days if a king was brought bad news, the person who delivered the bad news—the messenger—was killed, because that was seen as the best way of restoring the status quo.

A decision on this matter was needed, and the delay in the making of that decision has been widely criticised. The Government is in favour of a decision that was driven, it has been said, by the Western Conservation Alliance option. I was not convinced that there was sufficient wood in the area to maintain the current extraction rates: 70,000 cubic metres from 470,000 hectares. The new figures are 57,000 cubic metres from 122,000 hectares—much higher than the previous rate. If the former rate was not sustainable, certainly the new rate will not be sustainable. There will not be enough wood for logging; the 122,000 hectares will be logged out and the remaining area as a national park will, presumably, come under pressure from loggers as wood resources run out.
On my visit to Baradine I learnt that trees that are allowed to grow unmanaged will spring up and, effectively, form a carpet—almost like grass—that excludes other species. Because of the nature of the trees and the low level of nutrient in the soil, a spindly forest of trees less than six feet high will result. That is growth that is vulnerable to fire and of no use to Forests NSW and of not much use to anyone else. There is a danger associated with simply leaving such vegetation to grow unsupervised in a national park. The Hon. Jon Jenkins made the point that national parks have been greatly expanding in New South Wales, but the budget for their maintenance has not. He said that failure to clear either feral plants or animals from national parks results in general degradation of the area. The national parks will have far fewer people to maintain them than Forests NSW has, and that will create another problem. The Government's plan is of concern to me. A press released issued by the Premier on 4 May stated:

That certainly sounds like a magic pudding concept. If it is proposed that the amount of wood to be harvested is to be reduced, how can the Government guarantee that under its plan every timber worker who wants a job will have one and that every timber mill that wants to continue in the industry will have new long-term timber supply contracts? The two concepts are totally contradictory. The Government has made available significant money. The average annual salary of timber workers is about $25,000. The press release stated further:

The Government was generous in its negotiation to convince people to accept the change; no wonder the union is not kicking up a fuss. Obviously it was involved in the deal. The New South Wales cypress strategic plan states that there has been a drop in the harvesting of blackbutt. Although that fall is not marked, it is beyond my level of expertise for me to say whether it is at a rate sufficient to maintain a sustainable position for the trees. I am completely unimpressed by the argument that we must keep harvesting because no other jobs are available. Workers in all spheres change jobs. We hear of terrible problems faced by workers because of changes in the timber industry, but we must not forget that thousands of bank workers have been retrenched without the slightest concern for their welfare.

I have spent a considerable amount of time over the years talking about the tobacco industry. Tobacco growers said that if they could not grow tobacco, the world as they knew it would end. Their plight laboured on for 20 years with the assistance of tobacco industry support plans and so on. Tobacco growers were subsidised to at least four times the value of their product, which, of course, could never compete with the South American or Zimbabwean product at any stage. After a great deal of work by many people, growers were forced out of this death-dealing industry and are now doing quite well growing berries and making wine. They did not need tobacco at all, but it was politically convenient for them to grow tobacco at the time. As a society changes many people have to change jobs. While I do not wish to seem unsympathetic to workers in the timber industry, I believe that it is unreasonable to continue to log a forest simply because people need jobs. Most jobs lost in these sorts of industries are lost as a result of advances in technology. To justify the loss of jobs, the tobacco industry used a fall of about 1 per cent per year in tobacco consumption. In fact, it rationalised three plants in three States into one plant in New South Wales and managed to operate that new plant with about a quarter of its former labour force. Any changes made by that industry were huge, whereas any changes in rates of logging are trivial.

It has been said that the only industry in Tasmania capable of keeping people in work is woodchipping in Tasmania's forests. That is an outrageous proposition. Recently a tree stump that had been left in a forest by woodchippers was picked up by a maker of high-quality furniture from Unanderra. The stump was cut obliquely. Its longest side was just over six feet, its shortest about five-feet. It had been growing on a hillside and probably should not have been felled in any event. The woodchip machine took the tree high up and gatherers of small timber were allowed to take what remained. Furniture made from that stump has been sold for $7,000—much more than would have been gained from woodchipping a number of trees. My point is that value adding to the wood is far more important and profitable.

On a recent visit to China I saw furniture made from tree branches and tree forks and a combination of both. This artistic furniture is extremely beautiful and extremely valuable. It is nonsense to suggest that we cannot get more value and more jobs from more intelligent use of resources. The Brigalow area has a great potential for tourism, but that will have to be future developed. The Aboriginal people of the area can assist in that development. Perhaps the local bee industry can be increased. The area certainly has great potential.

I am concerned about the Government's plan, as it makes extraordinary promises about extraction rates. The previous extraction rate was not sustainable despite the fact that some people said it was. On balance, change is needed but I am not sure whether the Government's plan is the answer. The Western Conservation Alliance was right but I think something has to be done to maintain the forest if we are to go along with this plan.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [3.10 p.m.]: I now speak to the amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, which condemns the green movement for its lack of recognition of the undesirable conservation outcomes of this transfer of land management practices. The fundamental management principle on which the National Parks and Wildlife Service manages this land is founded upon a rationale described in its document entitled "A Series of Background Papers on Native Vegetation Conservation". What is known as paper No. 1 was propagated by the same Mr Benson who authored a paper by Benson and Redpath. That paper determined the forest and tree densities on which current management principles are based. We now come to the salient problem: extremist environmental movements have championed the authors of this paper because it promulgates their pantheistic view of the world. Man is portrayed as some sort of evil defiler of the environment who should be banned from this wonderful place. If that were the only result, it would be enough. However, the extreme green movement used its political power to install at various levels of government compliant bureaucrats and scientists who now, unfortunately, will manage the land that we are about to commit to their care. That is the salient problem.

The Native Vegetation Advisory Council, which was established under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1988, was armed with the task of providing advice to the New South Wales Government on native vegetation issues. It published a series of background papers on native vegetation, conservation and management issues in New South Wales. Background paper No. 1, also authored by the same John Benson, provides an overview of the status of native vegetation in New South Wales. This key advisory paper claims that the density of the woodland varied but, on average, it would have been about 30 trees per hectare. That, too, is a salient point.

The seminal document used for native vegetation advisory issues contains a claim of about 30 trees per hectare, which constitutes quite a dense forest. As I indicated earlier, that claim is simply not supported by evidence, scientific, anecdotal or otherwise. All the evidence points to a lesser density. I state again that one of the seminal and key advisory papers on which the New South Wales Government bases almost all its strategy for native vegetation conservation contains a fundamentally false assumption. For that reason there should be a complete review of the system of management of national parks, nature reserves and wilderness areas throughout New South Wales.

The extreme density to which our native bushland is allowed to grow in an unmanaged state is a completely man-made artefact. For at least 40,000 years—and probably for as much as 20,000, 30,000 or more years before that—bushland has adapted to low temperature and cool fire regime burning, which has resulted in vast grass plains. Our native animals have adapted to that process. At present, where fuel loads exceed tonnes per hectare because there are high tree densities, crowning wild fires completely and absolutely annihilate everything in their path, including trees.

It is a travesty to move 350,000 hectares into the Brigalow region national parks reserve while this flawed management principle, which is driven by the extremist environmental movement, underlies the National Parks and Wildlife Service management strategy—a flawed strategy that is used to manage the environment. For that reason alone I condemn the Greens for not acknowledging the overwhelming bank of scientific evidence that the conservation outcomes for this area are undesirable and unwelcome.

The Hon IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [3.15 p.m.], by leave: This Government's forestry policy has been widely known for many years. In 2000, when we embarked on the assessment of the western region, we said we intended to develop an ecologically sustainable, value added and secure native forest timber industry and a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system in the western region. In 2001 the Government's Action for the Environment statement revealed its commitment to new reserves and new conservation measures in the west.

At the same time, the Government acknowledged the important contribution made by the timber industry to small towns in the west. It committed to an industry adjustment package to create a sustainable value adding industry. The Government's announcement is totally in line with this policy and these commitments. The Government's decision on the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions follows five years of detailed scientific analysis and stakeholder and community consultation. Since receiving this portfolio in July last year I have visited the area several times to hear directly from industry and local communities. The Government is continuing that consultation. It is currently working closely with the Forest Products Association, affected mills, workers and their unions.

I met with cypress sawmill owners on 12 May in Dubbo to discuss and clarify the Government's position. This was after the Government's announcement. The area we are talking about has been extensively cleared for agriculture. The Federal Department of the Environment and Heritage has acknowledged the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions as one of Australia's top 15 biodiversity hotspots. It is part of the highly modified sheep and wheat belt, with approximately 70 per cent of the area having been cleared. This decision takes into account the special circumstances applying in the region. It represents a sensible balance between conservation and sustainable resource use for the bioregions and allows for strong involvement by the local community in planning and management.

The Premier's announcement on 4 May 2005 provides $80 million to be spent over the next five years on job creation, timber industry development and conservation management. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suspects that an investment by the Government of $80 million would result in a ghost town. It seems that he is as far removed from these local communities as Mr Slack-Smith is. The owner of Bingara newsagency, a Mr King, was reported in a recent article in the Northern Daily Leader under the heading "Bingara bites back—MPs doom remark misinformed" as follows:

I am extremely surprised that someone who is supposed to be our representative in Parliament has such a limited knowledge of the Bingara economy. To suggest that the mill project could see Bingara turn into a ghost town is laughable. I personally would have expected more from him.

That doom and gloom remark is a bit beyond the pale. This $80 million investment in regional New South Wales is a substantial cash injection. If one uses the Hon. Rick Colless' multiplier effect of five times, one sees that there will not be a reduction in cash flow through to the local economy. In fact, this will result in $400 million flowing through to the local economy. This afternoon in the other place the Government introduced the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill, which will implement its decision for the Brigalow and Nandewar bioregions.

Let me remind honourable members what the Government's decision is all about, as it seems that some Opposition members have overlooked the wide-ranging reforms that the Government will implement with this decision. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition believes that the decision will result in the timber industry being decimated. Given that the industry package includes a number of items, how that would happen is beyond belief. For instance, up to 57,000 cubic metres of cypress pine per year will be available to the cypress industry. Twenty-year wood supply agreements, underwritten by the Government, will be negotiated with Forests NSW. Log quality and log size issues will be considered in the wood supply agreements and will be based on current log specifications. Unprecedented industry assistance will be provided at a rate of $2 from the Government for every $1 of private investment—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Just like the North Coast?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is better than the North Coast. This will allow investment in value-adding processes. The reinvestment in plant and equipment, underwritten by long-term wood supply agreements and government funding, will allow the inherent qualities of harvested white cypress timber to be maximised. I suggest that the Hon. Rick Colless talk to Mr Peacock about his investment, with government assistance, on the North Coast. The local industry there has been transformed under that framework.

The Government is confident that the package will produce a world-class timber industry, rich in value adding. The Government has undertaken a scientific assessment over the past five years. It was not a back-of-the-envelope assessment like the assessments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Rick Colless, whose base figures are out of the ballpark—as will be revealed in the forthcoming legislation. We have assessed the timber volumes available for the cypress industry and are confident that we will meet our contracted volumes through the 20-year wood supply agreements. Some 70,000 hectares of forest previously under moratorium have been released and are now available to the cypress industry. While the announcement provides for 348,000 hectares of new conservation reserves, it should not be forgotten that more than 264,000 hectares remain available within the timber production zone. This is not the whole story, as Forests NSW will also source timber from outside the bioregion—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Whereabouts? Which forests?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It does that already. Dedicated resources will be committed to sourcing timber from private property and leasehold lands.

The Hon. Rick Colless: There is none on private property.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, there is. The previous timber supply zones no longer apply and timber will be made available from areas to the south as well as from the western lands. Haulage assistance will also be available as part of the wood supply agreements to equalise any transportation costs associated with sourcing timber from non-traditional supply areas.

Far from condemning the Government for disregarding the environment, the Opposition should acknowledge the protection that this decision will give to forests with the highest conservation value in the area. It protects about 60,000 hectares of endangered ecological communities and rare, vulnerable and endangered ecosystems. It protects the habitat of 26 endangered and vulnerable threatened fauna species in the Brigalow and 21 threatened fauna species in Nandewar. The reserves will provide permanent strongholds for the turquoise parrot, swift parrot, barking owl, mallee fowl and other woodland birds that have largely disappeared from most of the region. These areas will continue to be managed actively under the guidance of the Community Conservation Council and the Community Advisory Committee.

Mr Ian Cohen again criticised Forests NSW and made a range of allegations. As he knows, forestry in New South Wales is strictly regulated to protect native fauna and flora from the potentially damaging effects of timber harvesting, and it is never reported how many such allegations are unfounded. For example, the Western Conservation Alliance has made a number of allegations over the past five years. Some 25 allegations have been made known to Forests NSW, which has investigated them in conjunction with the Department of Environment and Conservation. These investigations revealed that the majority were not breaches and that the cases that constituted breaches had already been identified by Forests NSW monitoring systems. It had taken the relevant action, including licence suspension in one case. It is a credit to the professionalism of the agency how few breaches occur when operating in such a difficult natural environment. Citizens can report suspected breaches of the relevant threatened species licence to the principal regulator, the Department of Environment and Conservation. Allegations of offences in State forests are investigated thoroughly against the rules and proven offences are dealt with by the regulators.

Opposition members and the Hon. Jon Jenkins expressed concern about the management of the new conservation areas within the Brigalow. Let me set their minds at rest. A major element of the Government's decision is the establishment of three community advisory committees that will comprise a range of community representatives to advise on the management of the community conservation areas. The fact sheet issued on 4 May 2005 that was attached to the Premier's release states:

_ To advise on management objectives for all zones within the CCA.
_ To consult with and ensure effective communication with local communities.
_ To form partnerships with private land owners to demand landscape-wide policies.

These committees will comprise the chairs of the new CMAs for the area to ensure that there is an integrated approach to management across public and private land. As outlined, there is provision for thinning forests to promote timber growth in areas where timber harvesting will continue. Thinning will not only occur in forest areas but also be undertaken in conservation areas and across the private land estate to promote biodiversity. That is a radical change in the management of these forests.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Is that for the next 150 years or 500 years?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Indefinitely. All Opposition speakers in this debate and the Hon. Jon Jenkins have expressed concerns about an unstoppable fire that will result from the Government's decision. Let me respond to this hysteria. The House may be assured that, with the employment of up to 50 workers in major white cypress thinning programs, the number of field personnel on hand to respond to fires will be even greater than before. There will also be additional jobs in the Department of Environment and Conservation. The Rural Fire Service operational fire plan for the Pilliga will remain in force, providing for hazard reduction burning and strategic fire advantage zones. Forests NSW and the Department of Environment and Conservation are both party to the plan and their co-ordinated contributions will continue.

On the question of the work force, the Premier has announced that all workers affected by the voluntary exit of mills will be offered new employment at or near their current place of residence plus a one-off special payment of $27,000 in addition to relevant relocation and training expenses. The jobs in thinning operations with Forests NSW, land management with the Department of Environment and Conservation, and positions with local councils will be permanent—I stress that point. Those individuals who prefer to leave the industry permanently will receive a redundancy payment of $72,000 on top of the standard entitlements under the relevant industrial award. Staff from the Forestry Structural Adjustment Unit, Forests NSW and the Department of Environment and Conservation are meeting this week with employees of the cypress and hardwood industries in Bingara, Gwabegar, Baradine, Coonabarabran and Dubbo to outline the Government's assistance package and to discuss the available options.

In view of the fact that this matter will be debated in the near future in this place, when we will have ample opportunity to deal with many more related issues, and given that we must consider other important matters this afternoon, I shall conclude my remarks. Suffice to say, this is a balanced decision. I call on honourable members to look carefully at what is proposed in the bill that has been introduced in the other place and will be referred to this House in the not too distant future. It is a very complex interrelated arrangement that seeks to balance the needs of the environment and those of the local economies.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members who contributed to the debate on this motion. The debate is characterised by two distinct issues. It would probably surprise many people to learn that speakers from The Nationals and others in this place whom they would consider to be conservatives raised valid issues about the environment that the bill does not address. Yet we had personal and party political vilification from members on the other side of the House. They harangued us and made no attempt to address the issues that we raised. The Government said we did not listen. The Coalition has been listening. It has been to the people and spoken with Aboriginal groups and millers, and has come back with genuine concerns from the area.

I advise the Minister that if anyone told me they believed there were 57,000 cubic metres of cypress pine, I would walk across this Chamber and vote with him on the bill. They are not there, and that means it is not a sustainable industry. The Minister spoke kindly of the staff of Forests NSW, who are a fine body of people who do not know what is happening to them. They do not know whether they are to get a redundancy payment of $27,000 or $72,000. Today the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked the Minister for Primary Industries a question regarding this matter, but he obfuscated and did not answer the question. I would have thought the Minister, representing the department, would have carefully detailed his staff, who are suffering great anxiety at the moment. They are the meat in the sandwich between the various groups in the community.

There was a degree of vilification of the millers, those who own the timber mills. The timber mills are operating, employing and paying people, even though the announcement was made on 4 May, more than two weeks ago, and many people knew that they would not have a job in the future. Usually in such circumstances employees are offered a redundancy package and immediately leave their jobs. The millers have continued to employ those people although many of them, because of the moratorium, are losing money, and the mill workers, who must be very frustrated, have not taken any action to damage the mills' equipment or assets.

The Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, the Hon. Melinda Pavey, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Jon Jenkins detailed concerns about the environment. They spoke about the history of the Pilliga. When Oxley travelled through the area in the late 1800s it was open grazing land with a couple of trees per acre. In fact, a forester counted the trees and documented it at the time. Honourable members referred to pastoralists finding that the land was one of the driest places in the State. After a short time they moved on, and left the European hatred of fire. In the late 1800s one of the wettest seasons on record brought about a new group of cypress pines. The cypress forest is not a natural forest, but one that was determined by the management of State forests over decades. The careful thinning of the vegetation has allowed the trees to grow up and be dominant.
Honourable members on this side of the House showed that within the managed forest areas the reproductive ability of koalas was 95 per cent, yet in unmanaged areas it is less. I can remember the Premier making his grab, facing the camera and waiving his arm, and saying in that baritone voice developed from years in the media, "We have a plan that will save the koalas in New South Wales."

The Hon. Rick Colless: Everyone burst into laughter.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As my colleague said, everyone in the region burst into laughter because the fact is that koalas are doing best in the managed areas that foresters have been operating. As a result of this decision the biodiversity in those areas is at risk, as well as owls and other birds. That is because there are not 57,000 cubic metres of cypress pine but somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 cubic metres. Even if some millers were removed—and bear in mind that this motion is based on the package that went to the people—it would not be sustainable. It is simple to say that it would not be sustainable, but even if they could get anywhere near the quota they have been given by the Government to keep their doors open, the timber would not grow back to the level at which they are entitled to cut it. That means that—probably for the best reasons, but some would say not—the Government has cynically made a decision that it knows is not sustainable.

The Minister said in his speech, "Have a look at the legislation." The Government has moved a degree to provide more resource, but it would never admit that what the Coalition and others in the community have been saying is correct. The Coalition has not seen the relevant material, so we do not know whether the Government has moved far enough to maintain a sustainable industry. But we do know that as it currently stands, this Government and the Greens should be firmly condemned because of what they are doing to the environment—not the least of which is our expressed concern about fires. When the thinning and management of the forest cease and it is locked up it will become an intense forest with a huge amount of fuel. The ecoculture has been developed by thinning and cutting, not by fire. Fires will occur naturally or by management by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Rather than save the koalas the Government will actually fry them.

I ask the Minister for Primary Industries who will man the volunteer bush fire brigade when all the people have left? Volunteers will not put themselves into a high-risk environment to save a forest that it has worked for hundreds of years to preserve and has now been allowed to go to ruin. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to censure the Government and the Greens, to send a message that they have got this environmental issue wrong. [Time expired.]

Amendment agreed to.

Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 15

Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay

Mr Jenkins
Mr Lynn
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 22

Mr Breen
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson

Mr Roozendaal
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West

Pair

Mr Ryan

Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion as amended negatived.

COAL ACQUISITION AMENDMENT (FAIR COMPENSATION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 May 2005.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.47 p.m.]: The purposes of the Coal Acquisition Amendment (Fair Compensation) Bill are: first to amend the Coal Acquisition Act 1981 to ensure that any royalty included in a compensation payment for a claim not finally determined will be calculated on the same basis as that on which other claims have previously been determined, rather than under the new Mining Act 1992 scheme; second, to make it clear that compensation for loss of super royalty can be paid in relation to appropriate claims, but only for periods occurring before the repeal of the provisions of the Mining Regulation 2003; and, third, to provide that a payment of compensation under the principal Act is not to take into account any arrangements required to be entered into under the Mining Act 1992 by the holder of a mining lease or similar authorisation that deal with the supply of coal at a particular price.

As honourable members know, I was very much involved with the Coal Acquisition Amendment Bill 1997. This week's bill is being debated some eight years after the passage of that legislation. The previous debate involved a great deal of discussion about the need for just and equitable compensation. I note that the Government's bill includes the word "fair". But one has to ask, "What is the Government's definition of the word 'fair'? What does 'fair' mean? Does 'fair' mean the same as 'just and equitable'?" It does not. The Government's bill would reduce the amount of compensation and would not apply the just and equitable principle. My conscience compels me to follow the same principles I adopted in debate on the previous bill when the amendments were accepted. The first amendment stated:

(7) That the amount of compensation payable under arrangements under this section must be just and equitable insofar as the compensation …

The second amendment stated:

(8) Arrangements under the section must (as far as possible) have the effect of applying, in relation to the determination of compensation referred to in subsection (7) in respect of coal, substantially the same principles of compensation as are applicable in relation to the determination of compensation in respect of the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

I supported the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act. The Government must always provide just terms compensation when acquiring land and the same principle should apply when it is acquiring coalmining rights. As honourable members would know, we had some confusion last night. The Opposition prepared amendments that provided a compromise and reduced the amount of money payable by the Government. I understand that those amendments were agreed to by the Freehold Rights Association. The Opposition advised me that the Government agreed with its amendments and that position would be adopted by the House. During the course of debate it became clear that the Minister who had carriage of the bill in this place, the Minister for Primary Industries, was not aware of that agreement. The Minister who had carriage of the bill in the other place, the Minister for Mineral Resources, came to this House to clarify the agreement with Mr Souris from the other place and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this House. Mr Hickey's attitude was that the agreement was subject to the Treasurer.

According to Opposition members the words "subject to the Treasurer" were not used in the original discussion. Last night we were unable to proceed with the bill and we hoped that by this time the problems would be resolved. Sadly, the amendments have not been clarified and the matter has not been resolved. I understand that the attitude of the Minister for Mineral Resources is that if it is not provided for in the budget he cannot do it. If we accept the Governor's argument that there is no money in the current budget, we should consider adjourning debate on the bill. One option would be to amend the bill to accept the amendments foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and to add another amendment that the agreed formula would not take effect until the next budget, or even the next two budgets. We could resolve the problem without animosity and, at the same time, comply with the just and equitable agreement. I have a letter from the Treasurer of the time, the Hon. Michael Egan, dated 20 May stating, "The coal compensation arrangements 1985, which will be used to determine compensation already, provide that compensation will be just and equitable. The Government is bound by that commitment." For those reasons, I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until Tuesday 7 June 2005.

The House divided.

Ayes, 17

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

Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Jenkins
Mr Lynn
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield

Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 20

Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio
Ms Griffin

Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson

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

Pair

Mr Ryan

Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion for adjournment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.00 p.m.]: The Greens support the Coal Acquisition Amendment (Fair Compensation) Bill. We are not excited about the prospect of wealthy litigants who held out being able to obtain much more money than they would have if they had settled their claims earlier. When private ownership of coal was transferred to the State in 1981, the Freehold Rights Association campaigned for the introduction of a coal compensation scheme. They were committed to follow the compensation scheme to its conclusion to ensure that every coal owner was compensated. The same people are still pursuing compensation for the last 129 claims. Let us remember that the 129 claimants who have not received compensation will not be denied compensation. We are arguing about the amount they will receive. The Greens are satisfied that these 129 claimants will not lose out under the bill.

If the bill is not passed or if The Nationals amendments are passed, the 129 claimants would be much better off, but the Greens think that the fairer system is for the remaining compensation packages to be determined in a similar way to those that have already been settled. For various reasons the price of coal has skyrocketed in recent times.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's interjection, which is yet another example of the problem of his not listening to my comments. Australian coal in particular is reaping record prices in world markets. The mining companies are awash with a windfall that keeps jackpotting. For example, Xstrata has just received from Japan a 70 per cent increase in coking coal prices and a 68 per cent increase in steaming coal prices. The record prices are not limited to Xstrata. For example, steaming coal prices have broken through the US$60 per tonne level.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Ms Lee Rhiannon's comments are outside the leave of the bill. This is not a bill that is about judging coal companies for their returns. This is quite a discrete and specific bill. I request that you bring Ms Lee Rhiannon back to the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I think it is unfortunate when members express their annoyance at the way that other members have voted and bring that into points of order. Clearly the points that I am making are very relevant. What is happening in the coal industry, particularly with the money that is being raised, is very relevant to this bill. We are talking about compensation that has increased because of money that is being made in the industry. Clearly that is within the leave of what we are discussing.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! It is in order for Ms Lee Rhiannon to refer to individual coal companies and their relationship, if any, to profit margins.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Net earnings generated by Rio Tinto's coal business more than doubled to $350 million in 2004, accounting for 14 per cent of its net earnings. The changing fortunes of coal are relevant to this bill. Because of the change in the value of coal, if the present system of compensation is not changed, those who are yet to settle stand to get a much higher payout than that received by those who have already settled. It is also relevant for the Greens to consider why coal is so valuable today. The world has changed enormously since the Coal Acquisition Act was introduced in 1981. At that time emerging new technologies were being developed in Australia, including solar power, and wind and tidal energy was being explored for their use in domestic power generation. If the Labor Government or successive governments had invested in these industries, much of this country's coal could have sat in the ground for another 100 years until someone found a cleaner more sustainable way of using it than burning it for coal-fired power. But there has been no real investment in renewable energy. The New South Wales figures over the past 25 years are paltry.

Twenty-five years after the Act was introduced, New South Wales is more dependent on fossil fuels than ever. Just last week we heard from the Sydney Morning Herald that it had obtained a white paper which stated that if the leaders of this State had had the vision to develop clean energy options a quarter of a century ago, we would not be witnessing the present coal rush and the associated mega profits. In turn, we would not have to reassess how the coal compensation scheme works. At this time when we are grappling with coal compensation payouts, let us remember that the negative effects of climate change will cost this State, its environment and its people dearly.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [4.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Coal Acquisition Amendment (Fair Compensation) Bill will ensure that the calculation of coal compensation is fair for all claims, no matter when the claims are settled. Some former private coal owners with outstanding claims for compensation stand to receive a windfall benefit and others may have their compensation reduced unless the legislation is changed. The bill provides that coal compensation will be based on the same flat royalty rate regime for all 28,000 claimants, including the 129 with outstanding compensation claims. The compensation in each case will be assessed by reference to the flat coal royalty rate of $1.70 per tonne, which has been in place for more than 23 years.

The bill does not impact on those claimants who have already been compensated. It simply means that any remaining claims will be determined in the same way as the 99.5 per cent of claims already finalised. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans have suggested that this bill may override the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Nardell Colliery test case. That is simply not true. The entitlements arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal remain. They include compensation for super royalty before 1 July 2004, compensation for front-end payments and an adjustment to the discount rate in order to take into account the benefits of dividend imputation. During the debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the key rulings from the Court of Appeal decision in the Nardell Colliery test case.

He said that the court ruled, "The calculation of just and equitable compensation is to be based on the actual royalty received by the Government from year to year." He went on to say, "In practice this means that compensation was received for super royalty payments and ad valorem royalty." That is not the case. The most that could be said about the court's decision is that it is a factor in determining whether super or additional royalty should be taken into account in assessing compensation. The Court of Appeal decision did not remove the discretion of the board to determine the appropriate factors to be taken into account when assessing compensation. The expertise of the board is utilised in determining whether super or additional royalty is applicable to each claim.
Further, the Court of Appeal decision in Nardell is completely silent on ad valorem royalty. The introduction of the ad valorem royalty and the abolition of super royalty did not occur until well after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Nardell. That decision was handed down by the Court of Appeal in March 2004. The legislation effecting changes to the coal royalty regime was not enacted until 1 July 2004. This bill brings certainty to super royalty. It clarifies that the board may include in its calculation of compensation a component for super royalty for periods before 1 July 2004, when it was abolished, in favour of the ad valorem regime. In doing this, the bill confirms the position adopted in the Coal Acquisition (Reacquisition) Order 1997.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that some finalised claims have been calculated with reference to super royalty. This is not the case. No Nardell dependent claims have been finalised by the Coal Compensation Board. A further issue raised during the debate was front-end payments. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was correct in stating that just and equitable compensation should include a component for any front-end payments that were foregone because of the acquisition of private coal. As I indicated earlier, the Nardell Colliery test case clarified that front-end payments are a legitimate element of compensation. This bill does not remove entitlements to front-end payments. There appears to have been some confusion as to the impact of proposed section 6A (5).

The Government awarded the tender for the Mount Arthur Coal mining lease to the company that offered the lowest priced coal to Macquarie Generation. Some claimants now say that they should share in the value of this commercial contract. These claimants argue that the commercial contract is a substitute for a front-end payment. However, this claim is highly speculative and has not been tested in the courts. The value of this potential windfall is $50 million. The proposed section in the bill clarifies that such commercial arrangements are not to be included in the calculation of compensation. This is a separate matter from the entitlement to front-end payments as won in Nardell. This position is in line with the Coal Compensation Board's corporate goal of managing the Government's budget risk associated with litigation.

The Coal Compensation Board was established as a sunset organisation. It costs about $9 million per year to run. The longer that litigation is drawn out, the more it will cost. Any effort to introduce certainty and thereby reduce litigation will benefit all the people of New South Wales. In summary, this bill will ensure that coal compensation is based on the longstanding royalty rate of $1.70 per tonne. This means that the method of calculating compensation for the remaining claims is consistent with that used for the claims already determined by the Coal Compensation Board. The bill also clarifies the payment of super royalty. The bill sets out very clearly that super royalty ceased to exist on 1 July 2004, and accordingly no compensation for super royalty can be paid after that date.

The bill restores fair compensation to the approximately one-third of claimants who potentially may be disadvantaged by the introduction of the ad valorem royalty regime. Finally, the bill ensures that no compensation is payable from contracts negotiated in conjunction with tenders for coalmining leases for supply of coal at favourable prices. This bill means that the people of New South Wales, rather than a few select individuals, will benefit by an estimated $116 million. The $116 million saved by this bill equals 1,450 new nurses, based on an $80,000 per annum salary, or 1,380 police, based on an $83,000 to $84,000 per annum salary, or 1,700 new teachers, based on a $68,000 per annum salary and on costs.

The bill also prevents a further $50 million increase in the Government's liability, which may arise from potential litigation. The Government does not shy away from its priority to run the State efficiently. The bill is even-handed and a fair way forward. It is therefore fair for the remaining claimants, fair for claimants who have already settled and fair to the wider community. I formally clarify that the Government has not at any stage had any agreement with the Opposition on amendments to the bill. The Minister for Mineral Resources has advised me that he had discussions with the honourable member for Upper Hunter in the other place, but there was no agreement. Those discussions ended with the Minister committing to talk to the Treasurer about the amendments, which he did. I am advised that the Treasurer refused his concurrence with the Opposition's amendments, because they would cost the people of New South Wales a further $31 million.

That $31 million equals 385 new nurses, 370 new police and 455 new teachers. The Opposition's amendment to apply super royalty after 1 July 2004 will add at least an extra $31 million to the Coal Compensation Board's outstanding liability. That would be $245 million to be shared amongst the remaining 129 claimants, instead of $214 million. The average claimant in the compensation scheme received $57,000 prior to 1 July 2004. The average claimant before the 1 July 2004 reacquisition scheme received $90,000. And the remaining 129 applicants will still receive $720,000 on average even if the bill goes through—a massive leap in payment compared to previous applicants. The top 15 remaining claimants have been paid more than $112.2 million to date—they are entitled to, and will, be paid more.
Let us get the Government's amendments in their proper context. When the Coalition was in Government it capped payments. Claims in excess of $20 million were capped and an amount of $60 million was distributed amongst the three claimants pro rata to the size of their claims. Clause 22AA of the Coal Acquisition (Compensation) Arrangements 1985 provided for capped compensation. Special provision was made in clause 22AB of the 1985 arrangements for the Nardell Colliery Pty Ltd, but only for its claim in Nardell Colliery Holding. As 6.5 per cent of the shares in that company were received by landowners on the transfer of their coal rights to the company prior to acquisition, compensation at the ordinary rate was paid to them pro rata to their respective shareholdings. The remainder was included in the cap of the major shareholder, Durham Holdings. Then in 1993, the Fahey Government imposed a further cap of $20 million on compensation payable to R. W. Miller and Company Pty Ltd following the acquisition of that company by Coal and Allied. The total of capped compensation was $80 million. The Coal Compensation Board determined the value of each claim but paid only up to the amount of each cap plus interest from the date of the legislation.

The total of unpaid balances was $164.47 million by both former Premiers Greiner and Fahey. That is right—more than $164 million in entitlements to compensation—legitimate, fair compensation gone! That is the real context of these amendments. The Government has approached the amendments with fairness in mind. The easy option would have been to simply cap some of the major claimants as the former Coalition did. In the words of the honourable member for Upper Hunter in the other place, the Coalition has promised "to restore freehold property rights". This would cost in excess of half a billion dollars. And I believe that this is an underestimation. How do you justify selling down the river 14,000 people who have already settled on generous compensation payouts? They are the Opposition's constituents too! By opposing this bill, the Opposition is holding the interests of the remaining few, only 80 people, above the almost 14,000 people who have already settled their claims. In response to what the Grants Commission had to say, whether the Opposition likes it or not, the facts of the matter are clear: Since 1999 the Federal Coalition Government has pushed in New South Wales—with what the Productivity Commission and the Grants Commission wanted—a change to the way coal royalties are calculated in this State, a change to an ad valorem system. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Robertson

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

Noes, 18

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Mr Jenkins
Mr Lynn
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce
Mr Ryan

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.30 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Pages 3 and 4, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 6A (3) and (4), line 26 on page 3 to line 5 on page 4. Omit all words on those lines.

All honourable members should support this amendment, which seeks to reinstate and give effect to a decision made in this place in 1997. The amendment would restore property rights that have been removed. The Government's action in this case is akin to a government repossessing a house on freehold title and offering compensation to the owner, which a later government then takes away. Perhaps the compensation payable in that theoretical case was agreed at $2.20, which was won in a court case. But the government in question then introduced legislation that second-guessed the court, which interpreted the will of Parliament.

It is interesting to note that four members of the House were for the reinstatement of just and equitable terms but voted against our having further negotiations with the Government, which is in denial and has gone into hiding. The Minister for Mineral Resources is either incompetent or willing to break his word—or both. When my colleague the Hon. George Souris foreshadowed in the other place that The Nationals in the upper House would move this amendment in Committee, he was told: "Give the amendments to us and we'll look at them because we think that's the way to go"—or words to that effect; I will not quibble about the actual words used or their particular interpretation.

I was not party to the discussion between the Minister and the Hon. George Souris but I was involved in a conversation at the minerals conference in Leura last Monday morning. On that occasion the Minister approached me, unprovoked, and said, "I understand you've got some amendments to the bill." He then said, "Get them to us; if they don't extend the benefits beyond the existing claimants, we will agree to them." There were no provisos or qualifications that the Government's agreement depended on the Treasurer allocating the necessary funds; that is what the Minister said on that occasion. It does not get any clearer. The Minister said, "We understand that you have amendments to restore rights to the people who have lost them. Get them to us as soon as you receive them"—I told him that we did not yet have the text of the amendments, which were with the Parliamentary Counsel—"and the Government will agree to them, provided they do not extend the rights any further."

The Government requested copies of our amendments, which we supplied as soon as we received them, but then failed to respond. We fulfilled our obligation under that simple contract: An offer was made and we accepted it. But, as I was told when I began studying accountancy, a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is made between people of good faith. It is obvious that only one party to this contract was a person of good faith. I assure honourable members that I am telling the Committee exactly what occurred. I may have got one or two words wrong, but I give honourable members my word that I have not changed the meaning of the conversation I had with the Minister.

Yesterday morning, while discussing a Greens motion, I met the Minister outside the House. I do not usually recount such conversations but the Minister has changed his mind dramatically in this case. He was in great disarray because he thought the Greens intended to amend mining legislation, and he said, "What are you blokes going to do about this?" I replied, "Well, we're not getting too excited about it" and he exclaimed, "But it's a disaster!" I assured the Minister not to worry because the Greens simply planned to give notice of their intention to move a motion critical of mining companies and of the Government. They did not intend to amend legislation. The Minister and I then talked about a call for papers by the Greens—I do not need to relate that conversation now. We then went on to speak about the bill and, while we were standing in the foyer of the Parliament, the Minister told me that the Government would agree to The Nationals amendments so long as they did not extend the Government's liability.

I have had various confusing discussions about this matter with the Minister's staff. Yesterday they indicated to my staff that we disagreed about $9 million—our amendment would deliver $40 million and the Government thinks the entitlement should be $31 million. So I told the staffer in question that the Coalition would support an amendment that clarified the situation. Last night we wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Counsel. We explained that the Government believed our amendment would extend the entitlement to restitution of $2.20 per tonne and asked how to rectify the problem. The Parliamentary Counsel told us to ask the Government to identify the additional people who would be eligible for compensation under our amendment and said that when the group was identified it could draft an amendment to exclude them from receiving any benefit.

To that end, today I asked the Minister's advisers to identify that group—I will refer later to a conversation that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Minister and I had late last night. I said in relation to the undertaking the Minister gave me that we would be willing to change the amendment to reflect that. One of the reasons we asked for an adjournment today was so that negotiations could continue. The Minister and his advisers claim that George Souris was made aware of this on a previous occasion. I was not a party to that conversation so I cannot vouch for the veracity of that claim.

A further reason for requesting an adjournment was a conversation I had at the back of the Chamber with the Minister, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and several others. I do not remember the exact words used by the Minister—I am sure those who were present will correct me if what I am about to say is wrong—but he intimated that he agreed that the people concerned are entitled to compensation but that he did not have the approval of the Treasurer to pay any compensation and that there were no funds for compensation in this year's budget. The Minister said he was going to try to get funds put into the budget for this year for that purpose. He agreed that people were entitled to compensation and he said he was going back to the Treasurer to get funding. The Minister for Primary Industries has carriage of this bill on behalf of another Minister. It is strange that another Minister is able to operate within the Primary Industries portfolio. I do not know how that it is managed.

Today the Minister for Primary Industries has said something entirely different. He said that there was never an undertaking given or a belief stated that these people should be compensated. He said that these are rich people who are not entitled to anything. In fact, we heard a line similar to that which we come to expect from Ms Lee Rhiannon, who believes that everything should be socialised. A clear commitment was given to those who owned property. The House decided that compensation should be just and equitable. People went to court and the decision was reinforced. Despite all that, this Government has introduced legislation to change that decision.

The Opposition and those involved could have asked for the entire ad valorem royalties that apply to coal rights. It has been suggested that the Government was forced by the Federal Government to accept the ad valorem system. If people believe that, they believe fairies are living at the bottom of their garden. The reality is that the Government, on its own reckoning, is $40 million per annum better off. A more educated estimate is that the Government is bettor off to the tune of between $240 million and $300 million per annum. We are not taking money away from schools, teachers, doctors and nurses. We are asking that money be paid to people who deserve to be recompensed for their freehold rights. The Government is being opportunistic. This matter has nothing to do with the obscene profits of coal companies, as has been suggested by Ms Lee Rhiannon. It is about a Government that breaks its word and does not believe in freehold rights.

One of the prime freehold rights in this country is the family home. As a result of the Government changing its decision, people's rights to their own property on which they have paid tax, probate and stamp duty for a number of years will be affected. In many instances this freehold right was tradeable and not simply inherited. The Government has tried to spin the story that the families involved are well-connected old pioneering families that fell into good luck and that they are now getting their comeuppance. But that is not the case. The Government is blatantly removing people's rights. I will move two amendments in relation to the Freehold Rights Association and one in relation to Muswellbrook Shire Council, one of the last remaining councils that rates rating freehold rights and has not been able to settle. It recently won a court case and is also a party in a continuing court case.

Feedback from the Government is that the first of my amendments is okay but the second amendment is flawed. I have to say the lines of contact in this regard are blurred. The Freehold Rights Association has advised the Opposition that it agrees with the first amendment but not the second. I have not understood what has happened. I look forward to the Minister addressing these matters when he contributes to the debate. I cannot see anyone taking notes of what I have been saying. If they are not addressed, I will ask again and again until I get answers. I have plenty of time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [4.46 p.m.]: So have I. The Government opposes the deletion of proposed section 6A (3). The Committee is considering one amendment, not debating the range of issues canvassed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Super royalty is the term commonly used to refer to additional payments of royalty provided for in certain circumstances under the former Coal Mining Act 1973, and until 1 July 2004 under the Mining Act 1992. The Government proposes section 6A (3) to give the Coal Compensation Board the discretion to pay compensation in relation to super royalty relating to a period before 1 July 2004, but not otherwise.

If proposed section 6A (3) is removed, the Coal Compensation Board will be required to automatically pay super royalty in all cases, rather than allow it to be paid up to 1 July 2004 at the board's discretion. Before it was abolished on 1 July 2004, super royalty was not paid in respect of all coalmines, or even in respect of all open-cut mines. This bill, as introduced, is therefore consistent with existing entitlements. Claimants for coal compensation are not currently entitled to compensation for super royalties for periods after 1 July 2004. Therefore, this bill does not remove any entitlement to post 1 July 2004 super royalty, as no such entitlement exists.

By this amendment the Opposition is seeking to pay some applicants compensation for a loss they will not have suffered. The proposed amendment will have consequences that I can only assume are unintended, as it fails to differentiate between cases where super royalty did not even apply prior to 1 July 2004 and cases where there is some entitlement. I remind the Opposition that super royalty or additional royalty has not been payable on private coal since it was specifically provided in section 283 of the Mining Act 1992 to be paid only on publicly owned coal. Super royalty was not payable on underground coal, and was not even payable on all open-cut coal.

This Government is determined to pay fair compensation, but not to throw away taxpayers' money. The Coal Compensation Board should not be obligated to pay super royalty in cases where super royalty did not apply before 1 July 2004, and would not have applied after 1 July 2004. The amendment, as proposed, takes away the benefits of the board's expertise and provides for super royalty in all cases. This amendment is clearly unfair and should be rejected.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are actually backing our argument.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I'm not.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.50 p.m.]: The last two paragraphs of the Minister's speech identify the crux of the whole argument. Opposition members also do not believe that the super royalty should be paid to those who are not entitled to it, but some are entitled to that royalty and that is the reason for the amendments. The amendments seek to extend the super royalty beyond 1 July 2004 claimants to those who would have received those additional payments before 1 July 2004.

The first amendment proposes to remove from the bill sections 6A (3) and 6A (4). The amendment seeks to remove the bill's current restriction and to stipulate that compensation for loss of super royalty can be paid in relation to appropriate claims, but only for periods occurring before the repeal of the provisions of the Mining Regulation 2003. The Coalition amendment would deliver a fairer rate of compensation to claimants who would have been entitled to receive the super royalty of $2.20 had the ad valorem royalty scheme not been introduced on 1 July 2004. This is a very simple philosophy. We want those who were entitled to receive royalty at $2.20 a tonne had the ad valorem rate not come into effect still to receive the $2.20—no more, no less. It is important to make the point that the compensation is calculated on the basis of projected future royalties from the coal.

It is unfair that compensation for super royalty payments is to be calculated only up to 1 July 2004 when those super royalty payments would have continued to be so calculated into the future had the Government not changed its mind and not introduced the ad valorem scheme. After 1 July 2004 claimants who were entitled to receive super royalty payments for open-cut coal will be forced to accept the underground coal royalty of $1.70 a tonne. If we removed the Minister's freehold property rights he would squeal like a stuck pig. The Minister is a man of property and he would not like his property removed from his possession without compensation at less than an agreed rate. It will cause fear in the suburbs, in farming communities and elsewhere in New South Wales that the Government has not only breached an agreement but breached the word of one of its Ministers given not only to me but to George Souris and others. The Government has not addressed the matters raised in this House last night. I suspect that is because the Minister is embarrassed.

The Opposition amendment will, to some degree, reflect what was found to be just and equitable compensation by the Liddell Colliery Pty Ltd test case. One of the key rulings that came from that test case was that the calculation of just and equitable compensation was to be based on the actual royalty received by the government from year to year. The Opposition is not seeking to amend the bill to entitle claimants to receive compensation based on the ad valorem coal royalty system that was introduced on 1 July 2004. However, we believe claimants should receive compensation based on super royalty payments that would have been received in the absence of the ad valorem coal royalty scheme. If the ad valorem scheme, by which the Government takes the cream of coal royalties, had not been introduced, those particular former coal owners would have been paid compensation at $2.20 a tonne.

The Government does not like competition for the spoils of its theft. It is stealing this money, yet when it is told to return a little of it the Government demonstrates its dislike for competition. The Opposition is asking that those who were entitled to compensation at a rate of $2.20 a tonne continue to be entitled to that $2.20. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile mentioned the introduction in 1997 of the coal re-acquisition scheme. For those who were not here or cannot remember, the Government introduced a second round of compulsory coal acquisitions in 1997. The first round was in 1982. Before passing the 1997 legislation, crossbench members insisted that those affected by that new scheme should receive just and equitable compensation. I note that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has an amendment that is along those lines.

The just and equitable amendments were introduced by the Hon. Richard Jones and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. All Independent members supported the principle of just and equitable compensation. It is interesting to note who voted for that amendment. They were the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, who was then Leader of the Democrats, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Elaine Nile, the Hon. Alan Corbett of A Better Future for Our Children, the Hon. Richard Jones, a well-known Green activist, and—this one will rock your socks off—Mr Ian Cohen.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He was a straighter shooter in those days; he was more independent.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is probably right. But it is interesting that he is one of those who voted against the motion that would have enabled us to sort this matter out tonight and, I suspect—but I hope not—will vote against this amendment, even though it reflects a decision of the House. That decision of the House was tested and upheld in court. It is a sad day when people's rights are removed from them. It is sad that the Government, which is about to collect $200 million to $300 million, is quibbling about the rights of people who over the years have paid probate, tax and stamp duty in respect of those rights. Some would have purchased those rights. The Government's action is pretty ordinary. The Minister and I became members of this House on the same day. The Minister is in fact the father of the House. Though we have disagreements and on occasions strongly debate our different views on some matters, we have regarded understandings and undertakings given in conversations as binding. In all of my time here, I cannot recall an instance of a breaching of a binding undertaking in this manner. I think this breach is pretty ordinary.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.57 p.m.]: I will not canvass all the points made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, I support the principle that he has enunciated to the House. I reiterate the important point he made in response to the argument put by the Minister that the Opposition amendment would deprive the Government of funds that would pay the salaries of so many nurses and so many police. In this debate we are discussing the huge profit that the Government makes from confiscated coal and the fact that a small proportion of that profit is to be returned to the former owners of the coal. So funds to pay these royalties are not coming from the salaries of nurses or police; they come from the profits that the Government is making from confiscation of coal. That point should be borne in mind.

I have said previously that if the Government has a problem with its budget—I understand the Government anticipated this bill going through and framed its budget according to the amount of money it would be required to pay, not a larger amount—perhaps the Treasurer and the Premier could exercise their discretion and deal with the matter in that way. But, even if it is not able to do that, the Government could move an amendment to stipulate that the Opposition proposal would not have effect until the next budget or the budget after that. I gather that the Freehold Rights Association is not putting pressure on for immediate payment, so long as they get just and equitable compensation. All parties could agree to defer any payments until a further budget is announced. I urge the Government to give that some consideration. We support the amendment.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [4.59 p.m.]: I support the amendment. Had I been in this House when the socialisation of coal was debated in the first instance I would not have supported it. However, I am told it has been policy since the early 1800s. I understand the reason for that from both sides because coal is such an important part of our generation capacity. This is a very difficult bill on which we have to make a very difficult moral decision. I would have preferred to adjourn debate on the bill to give the Government and the Opposition the opportunity to try to negotiate a better compromise, which I would have supported as I supported the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. Regardless of whether it is $130 million or $214 million, it is an astronomical amount of money. The vast majority of the money will go to large corporations. I do not have a great deal of sympathy for them and they certainly have very little sympathy for the people from whom they take money.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is not true.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: It is true. I have seen the evidence. The only sympathy I have is for the people, particularly private people who may have relied upon or expected to gain some income. For that reason alone I support the Opposition amendments. I do not subscribe to the equity argument. Every financial transaction has risks. If some brilliant scientist tomorrow were to discover a reasonable fusion power alternative or even an efficient solar cell with 30 per cent efficiency, the whole value of the coal and petroleum industry would change and disappear overnight. That is the risk of doing business, of being a human being or of being a business entity.

I do not agree with the risk scenario and business. If that were to happen one day after the settlement the Government would feel as though it had been hard done by because it had paid out a lot of money for what could be construed as a worthless resource. I do not subscribe to the fairness of the ad valorem formula. The Opposition's amendment would provide an extra $30 million, which would have been fair, just and equitable, and I support it. However, in the event of the amendment being negatived I probably will support the Government on the bill, much to my disgust.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 16

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Clarke
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay

Mr Jenkins
Mr Lynn
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce
Mr Ryan

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 19

Dr Burgmann
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Cohen
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Donnelly
Ms Griffin

Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal

Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West

Pairs

Ms Cusack	Mr Costa
Miss Gardiner	Mr Kelly

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.10 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 6A. Insert after line 18:

(6) If:

(a) a local council has made a valid claim for compensation under section 6 based wholly or partly on pecuniary loss attributable to a reduction in the value of rateable land, and
(b) a factor in determining the loss in value of the land is the amount of royalty that would have been payable in relation to coal situated on or below the surface of the land,

Mining Act 1992

Coal Mining Act 1973

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that local councils that are entitled to compensation for the loss of rates revenue under the Coal Acquisition Act 1981 are able to receive compensation based on the coal royalty rate of $2.20 instead of $1.70. The background to the amendment is that Muswellbrook Shire Council is entitled to compensation for loss under that rates revenue under the Coal Acquisition Act 1981. The council lodged an appeal with the Coal Compensation Review Tribunal.

The basis of the appeal, which has not as yet been heard, relates to the valuations of each of the coal titles used in the calculation of Muswellbrook Shire Council's rates loss. The council argues that its loss is based on lost rates revenue and that, for the resumption of coal titles by the State, the council rates were to be calculated by using the Valuer-General's valuation for the coal. These calculations have ceased to be available. The Coal Compensation Board has used an alternative formula which Muswellbrook council contests. Muswellbrook Shire Council has received legal advice that its argument is supported by the recent tribunal decision in the Franks Estate case.

For what I believe to be the wrong reasons, members voted against my previous amendment. They believed that the effect of the amendment would be to channel money to private citizens to reinstate their freehold rights. I wonder what they think about this amendment, in which the ratepayers of a local shire are petitioning the Government to recover their rights. It will be interesting to see how those members justify their vote on this amendment.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [5.13 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment to insert section 6A (6) (a). The aim of the amendment is to change the way compensation is calculated for the one remaining local council whose claims are not yet finalised. The amendment fails to make the distinction between the fact that most private coal is under a separate land title and that it is the valuation of private coal that is in dispute. Muswellbrook Shire Council is the only remaining local council that has yet to accept the Coal Compensation Board's determination of compensation for the lost opportunity to rate coal that was formerly privately owned. The council has lodged an appeal to the New South Wales Coal Compensation Review Tribunal against the determinations of the Coal Compensation Board.

The dispute between the parties centres on which Coal Compensation Board determination is to be used as a surrogate valuation of the coal titles contained within that local council's area. This dispute is capable of resolution by the New South Wales Coal Compensation Review Tribunal. The tribunal is constituted by a chairperson and members who are experts in deciding issues that are relevant to coal compensation. There is no need for this Parliament to short-circuit the legal process by intervening in this appeal.

As a matter of principle, it would be unfair to allow one local council to receive a windfall benefit by allowing it to receive more compensation than the other 16 local councils that have already accepted the determinations of the Coal Compensation Board and settled their claims. Muswellbrook Shire Council has already received millions of dollars in coal compensation. Even without this amendment, it is estimated that it will receive millions more in the future. Surely no-one could deny that this Government has been more than generous with regard to that council. The Government does not support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.16 p.m.]: I will not move the second amendment that was circulated on sheet c-034C I will defer to the amendment that will be moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.16 p.m.]: I move:

Page 4, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 6A. Insert after line 31:

(8) Despite the other provisions of this section, the amount of any compensation determined under section 6 must be just and equitable.
This is a very simple amendment. It would restore the words that appeared in the original bill in 1997. Those words were an important guide for the Government as to the manner in which it dealt with coal compensation matters. I can well imagine the Government advancing the argument that the amendment is not necessary because it was moved on a previous occasion. However, my concern is that the amending bill contains the term "fair compensation". A possible implication of this change is the suggestion that the word "fair" replace the words "just and equitable".

The main purpose of the bill is to insert section 6A, special provisions relating to compensation. It could be argued that the only provision affecting compensation is what has been printed as section 6A to the exclusion of all other sections. I have moved my amendment to remove any doubt. Earlier the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that when I originally moved the amendment, one of the enthusiastic supporters of the amendment to retain the term "just and equitable" was Mr Ian Cohen. I hope he maintains the highly principled approach that he adopted on that occasion.

My amendment was supported not only by Mr Ian Cohen, who was the real Greens representative, but also by Richard Jones and Alan Corbett, who both claimed to be philosophically aligned with the Greens. It was also supported by the Australian Democrats member of the Legislative Council at that time, Elisabeth Kirkby, whose successor is endeavouring to follow the highly principled approach that she adopted in this House on a number of occasions.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby exercised her high principles even during debate on the oath. As a staunch republican, Elisabeth Kirkby voted against the motion, because she said it was pre-empting the will of the people. That was an important step to take on behalf of the Australian Democrats. Obviously I voted for it, as did the Hon. Elaine Nile. The Government does not lose anything by accepting this amendment; it keeps the principle before the Government and those bureaucrats and others who have to implement legislation, and also is a guide to the courts.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.21 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile indicated, when this amendment was put up by the Hon. Richard Jones and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile previously, it was supported by the Hon. Ian Cohen, the Hon. Alan Corbett, the Hon. Richard Jones, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. One person voted against it: the Hon. John Tingle. He voted against the reacquisition scheme as a whole, and he is not in the Chamber today. It was interesting that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile reminded the Hon. Ian Cohen of his commitment. Another interesting person supported this principle on that day, and that was the Hon. Michael Egan, the relevant Minister in the House at the time. He accepted the amendment and went on to say:

That was the former Leader of this House, and former Treasurer. I would hope that at the very least, having vented our spleen on whether people should own private property, or for whatever reason—maybe paying me back for something—we should come out of this debate today with some sort of honour. We should continue the process that we started in 1997 and the distribution should be just and equitable. I totally support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.22 p.m.]: I support the amendment. The question of being just and equitable was critical in 1997; it is still critical today. I take the same position taken by my predecessor and as I did earlier in the debate.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [5.22 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment as there are already arrangements in section 6 (7) the Coal Acquisition Act for compensation to be just and equitable. The bill does not seek to alter or amend that section, and as such there is no need to add it again. There is also the risk that an amendment of this nature will result in unnecessary further litigation, which would take time and add uncertainty to an already costly process. In response to the point raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about the use of the word "fair", the bill defines "just and equitable compensation". The requirement that compensation be just and equitable remains. Although the word "fair" is contained in the title to the bill there is no provision requiring compensation to be fair. The only requirement remains in section 6 (7), that it is just and equitable. The amendment is both unnecessary and would potentially lead to further rounds of litigation, which everyone associated with this issue would like to see concluded expeditiously rather than being further delayed.
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 16

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Clarke
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay

Mr Jenkins
Mr Lynn
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce
Mr Ryan

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 19

Dr Burgmann
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Cohen
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Donnelly
Ms Griffin

Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal

Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West

Pairs

Ms Cusack	Mr Costa
Miss Gardiner	Mr Kelly

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Order! In recent years two memorandums have been circulated concerning the lodgement of amendments after the commencement of the Committee process. Preparation for the Committee stage and the marking up of a bill is made more difficult if amendments are lodged after the House has resolved itself into a Committee to consider the bill in detail. All members should reacquaint themselves with the content of those circulars, copies of which are available from the Clerks. The first of the memorandums, which is signed by the Leader of Government Business in the House, the Hon. Tony Kelly, indicates that amendments might be ruled out of order if lodged after the commencement of the Committee stage. Members may wish to bear that advice in mind.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.

Third Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [5.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Cohen
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio
Ms Griffin

Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Jenkins
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson

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

Noes, 15

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Clarke
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay

Mr Lynn
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce

Mr Ryan

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Pairs

Mr Costa	Ms Cusack
Mr Kelly	Miss Gardiner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 154 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Sydney University Settlement Incorporation Amendment Bill, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 154 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

SYDNEY UNIVERSITY SETTLEMENT INCORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL

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

Second Reading

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.39 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I have introduced the Sydney University Settlement Incorporation Amendment Bill for two reasons: first, to ensure that proper process is followed in the management of the Sydney University Settlement Neighbourhood Centre; and, secondly, to gain publicity for the current problems of the settlement in the hope that they will be resolved sensibly. The original Sydney University Settlement Incorporation Act 1959 was merely enabling legislation that allowed the creation of an entity that could own land so that titles for the properties owned by the settlement did not have to be transferred from trustee to trustee. The Act preceded the Associations Incorporation Act and similar Acts that regulate the behaviour of trusts, corporations, charities and non-government organisations [NGOs].

The settlement wrote its constitution in 2001 in which it stated its aims and objectives and the rules of its meetings. As a non-lawyer, I am unsure how binding these are in law. This bill incorporates verbatim the aims and objectives of the 2001 constitution and sets rules that are consistent with normal practice in regulating incorporated associations. It is not for me to tell people how to run their organisations, but it is reasonable to set rules for proper process—and that is what this bill attempts to do. It does not favour any faction but favours proper process consistent with the agreed and stated aims of the settlement's constitution. The fact that I have brought this bill to Parliament urgently has achieved some publicity, and I think that is important. It is not a bad thing for decisions to be public and to be publicly accountable. That is true for NGOs, and I try to make it so for this and other governments also.

The Sydney University Settlement Neighbourhood Centre was established in 1895 by female Sydney University staff and students. The centre moved to its current location at 17 Edward Street, Chippendale—a couple of streets away from The Block—80 years ago. Since then, it has provided community programs for those in the Redfern, Chippendale and Darlington areas who are disadvantaged and need assistance. In addition to the Settlement Neighbourhood Centre Hall, the Sydney University settlement owns six houses and a block of six flats on Edward Street. All but two of these residences provide low-income housing for indigenous people. This desperately needed housing is occupied by about 20 tenants and their families.

For many decades the most disadvantaged people in the Redfern-Chippendale neighbourhood have been the indigenous people. The settlement as an organisation is based on anti-discrimination principles and has enshrined in its constitution the recognition of prior occupation by Aboriginal peoples, who were displaced and dispossessed. The settlement acknowledges the harsh legacy of colonisation and its effects on indigenous people today, and is proud to support indigenous rights. Indigenous people across the country identify the settlement as a friendly place, where they are welcome and where they can find friends and family when in Sydney. The settlement runs after-school and holiday programs for local kids that help children and young adults in the area just to survive. It instils in them a sense of pride in their Aboriginality and raises their self-esteem when they might otherwise have none. The non-Aboriginal kids at the settlement develop a respect for, and an understanding of, the importance of Aboriginal culture in our shared country. The settlement provides a place for children to be children in an environment that can sometimes make that hard.

The legislation that established the settlement as the organisation it is today was enacted in 1959. It is old and offers no accountability mechanisms for the governing body: the management committee. It does not include a "purpose clause" to ensure that the management committee acts according to the settlement's principles and objectives. While the members of the organisation should technically be able to hold the committee to account, this is a fallible process and subject to personalities, membership stacking and bending the rules. The real estate assets are worth about $3 million—quite a prize. Initially, the situation was not urgent but an unfortunate turn of events could see the Settlement Hall and all the low-cost housing sold any day now, against the wishes of the long-term members—both indigenous and non-indigenous—and certainly against the wishes of the community, which relies on the Settlement Neighbourhood Centre.

How has this happened? To this day, the settlement and many of its long-term members maintain one of the organisation's original aims, which is to provide an opportunity for the well-off and the not-so-well-off to get to know one another and live together and provide assistance to those who need it. This fundamental principle has been tested in recent years with the gentrification of Redfern. Despite knowing that the Redfern-Chippendale area is home to Aboriginal people from Sydney and a place where Aboriginal people from far and wide congregate, and that Aboriginals are disadvantaged and likely to remain so in the medium term at least, there are those who purchase property in the area who do not like living with Aboriginal people. They hope that the Aboriginal people will go and that house prices will rise as a consequence. Some of the settlement's management committee members own property on the same street as the settlement: Edward Street. In fact, 8 of the 12 elected management committee members own property on Edward Street. It is alleged that some of these members have been planning over the past few years to stack the organisation's membership and essentially launch a coup, taking over the management committee with the intention of selling the settlement and moving it from Edward Street.

There was a changing of the guard in October 2004, at the most recent annual general meeting. At the management committee meeting on 1 March 2005—when the only indigenous member of the committee was overseas, the obligatory Sydney University appointee was on sabbatical, and six of the eight members present owned properties on Edward Street—a decision was made to sell the settlement hall and the other residential properties, including all the low-cost housing. This involves paying the State Government the significant sum of about $500,000 to release the settlement from obligations to provide low-cost housing in order to sell the block of six units. At the same meeting a decision was made to purchase the old Masonic Hall in Cope Street on the other side of Redfern, across Botany Road, at a cost of $2.8 million. No feasibility study was conducted into the appropriateness of the premises as a location for the settlement hall and there is no provision for low-cost housing. Many members have serious concerns that, with such a relocation, the area serviced will be totally different and funding from various government departments will be put in jeopardy.

On Saturday 14 May 2005 the settlement hall and the adjoining residential premises were advertised for sale for $895,000—or for just over $900,000, depending on where one saw the advertisement. The advertisement described it as "Priced to sell". That is an understatement! If The Block is worth $22 million to $23 million, as a recent valuation has stated, then, on a land area basis, the settlement hall and adjoining premises are worth at least $1.5 million. There has been an offer of just under $800,000, which the committee is allegedly taking seriously. Those in favour of the sale and the relocation say that the physical state of the buildings is such that they will cost a fortune to repair, that insurance cannot be obtained and that, in essence, there is no alternative to the sale. Further, they state that those who now criticise the management committee have allowed the situation to decay, both financially and in infrastructure terms, to a very bad level. I cannot comment on the financial situation as the books are not available, but in what is, in essence, a charitable organisation one can only reflect that the best hope for good governance lies in transparency.

I will comment on the buildings later, but I am reminded of an elderly lady who said to me as I waited in a queue to vote at Gladesville Public School, "This does not look like it has changed much since 1937." Dilapidated buildings are not desirable, but they can still have important and relevant functions. There is a desire to keep the settlement in Edward Street. The historical and heritage value of the Edward Street settlement hall makes this location important. The artwork on the building is of significant heritage value. The management committee has allegedly breached one stop-work order from South Sydney Council by painting over the Aboriginal mural on the front of the building. The mural was painted in the late 1980s by internationally renowned artists Tracy Moffat, Jeffrey Samuels, Fiona Foley and Avril Quaill. It is not something to be painted over because it looks a bit old!

The existing premises require renovation, which is the committee's justification for selling. But the management committee has allegedly rejected and blocked offers of pro bono help from finance, architectural and building-related firms to have the renovations done. Macquarie Bank offered funds and financial services to renovate the existing hall. The previous executive officer had organised an architectural firm, Cracknell Lonergan, to provide pro bono assistance in restoring and conserving the heritage mural and the rest of the façade, as well as carrying out some internal building work. Cracknell Lonergan had builders and a team of scenic artists ready to start work on the building in February at no cost to the settlement.

After refusing permission for this work to start, the management committee allegedly paid more than $6,000 to a painter to paint over the Aboriginal artwork on the front of the building in an off-white colour. It is alleged that when told by the council it was illegal, one member of the management committee specifically instructed the painter to continue. It is alleged that the management committee did not maintain insurance over the property and used the lack of insurance to disallow the volunteer restorations. The previous executive officer secured volunteer insurance at very low cost, but it seems that the management committee was not interested in these options. It has been alleged that influential members of the management committee have been set on getting rid of the settlement and its clients, regardless of any other, possibly more appropriate and cheaper, options.

Honourable members may be aware of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, which was part of the Government's planning process for the area. This project was examined recently when the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquired into the recent Redfern disturbances. Part of the examination of the area was a human services review conducted by consultants Morgan Disney. The Morgan Disney report was in two parts: a general overview of the situation of human services in Redfern with comments on needs, availability and co-ordination; and a confidential report on individual services to provide the Government with a basis for changing the funding and delivery of services. It is rumoured that the settlement did not feature well in the Morgan Disney report. On one view this is regarded as some justification for the committee's behaviour. Another view is that it is just a further example of mismanagement of the settlement.

Moving the settlement to a new location may not improve the service provided. The Cope Street site is across Botany Road, which forms a significant barrier. The Cope Street building also lacks a grassed area, which is very popular with children. A move to Cope Street may hasten the demise of the settlement. That cannot be said with any certainty at this stage because the studies have not been done. In relation to issues of process, the management committee's right to decide is in question. The issues raised so far are of substance, and demonstrate that some members of the management committee do not support the ethos of the settlement. There may be some people in the management committee who believe that the financial situation is so dire that this is necessary. It is hard to believe that they are all so motivated.

An analysis of the decisions also indicates that there are serious issues of proper process to consider. There are questions regarding the right of the management committee to make the decision to sell Edward Street and purchase Cope Street. First, it has been suggested that the annual general meeting that elected the committee was plagued by irregularities—many members have said they have never seen such a shambles of a meeting. Second, there is clear potential for a conflict of interest, given that most management committee members own property that may be affected by other property transactions on the street. Clause 21 of the settlement's constitution states:

Any member of the Management Committee shall not take part in decisions or vote on questions where they, their family or close associates might gain a financial or other personal benefit from the decisions made by the Sydney University Settlement.

There has been no prudent investigation into the appropriateness of the new Cope Street premises. The members believe that a decision as big as the one that was made should have been taken to the membership. The sale of premises that the settlement had occupied for 80 years, the relocation to another neighbourhood, and the disposal of all low-cost housing are huge decisions, especially considering that it is an objective of the settlement to provide such housing. Taking big decisions to the membership is an accepted business practice. If the price of the new Cope Street building is $2.8 million, in relation to which a deposit has been paid, and the hall is for sale at $900,000 or less, it is difficult to see—even if all the low-cost housing is sold—that the settlement could meet its contractual obligations. It would be insolvent. That is hardly good governance.

There has been much friction and a lack of communication between a group of long-term members calling themselves "the Friends of the Settlement" and the management committee. The management committee has refused to provide relevant records to its members, which the "Friends" claim it must do according to clause 41 of the settlement's constitution. When the "Friends" have suggested that the committee is acting improperly or inappropriately they have been yelled down and/or threatened with legal action. The same threats have been made to politicians, journalists, and individual members of the settlement who have spoken out. Individual members have told me that they feel personally intimidated by certain management committee members. And during this time the management committee has been hastily making arrangements to sell significant properties.

A significant allegation of the "Friends" is that for key members of the management committee a conflict of interest arose in that the settlement is located in the street in which they live, which will become gentrified and land values will rise if, as is generally believed, no Aboriginal people live in the street. It has been suggested that those members should have disqualified themselves from these decisions, which are clearly critical to the future of the settlement. So how will these amendments help? This amending bill is simple. It is not designed to do anything more than update the 1959 legislation to ensure that any decisions made by any management committee, now or in the future, will be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Sydney University Settlement and will be approved by the members.

The aims and objectives have been lifted from the constitution. They are nothing new; they will just be more enforceable. There is nothing contentious about the amendments—they require that any real property transactions are approved by 75 per cent of membership, and that all actions taken be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the settlement. These simple and overdue amendments have become urgent because of the current situation. The amendments will not physically prevent the management committee from selling the properties. They merely give the existing aims and objectives the force of law, so that correct process is followed. Hopefully, the publicity will also help those who want to help the objectives of the settlement.

Everyone acknowledges that currently Aboriginal people are disadvantaged and that the aims and objectives of a well-functioning settlement will be a significant force for long-term good. The amending bill will provide a clear avenue for the management committee to be held accountable if it ignores its obligations to act in the interests of the settlement. The purpose of these amendments is not to stop the sale of the Edward Street properties, or even the low-cost housing. It is not to prevent the purchase of the Cope Street property. Neither option will necessarily be the result of the amendments. However, it is possible, after research and investigation, that these options are, in fact, the most suitable.

It is possible that after presenting the findings of those studies and investigations to the membership of the settlement that more than 75 per cent of the members will vote in favour of those options and agree to the huge step of selling the Edward Street properties. However, that research and investigation had not been done. The members have not had a say in this monumental decision. The purpose of this amending bill is to ensure that all decisions are made properly, with all due consideration, supported by feasibility studies. Decisions made by the management committee should be guided by the objectives and principles of the settlement—anti-discrimination, community capacity building, assistance for the disadvantaged, and recognition of and respect for indigenous culture and history.

Committee members should be able to justify their decisions according to those objectives, otherwise their decisions cannot be said to be legitimate. This has always been the case; it just has not been necessary until now to enshrine such a requirement in legislation. What could possibly be the argument against including the objectives of the settlement in the settlement's incorporation Act? And what could be the argument against members having the final say on such a big decision as relocation? There are no legitimate arguments. If members do not agree with the objectives, they should not be on the management committee. And if they do not like the people who go to the settlement, they should not buy a house in the same street or try to move the people who are at the settlement. I understand that the Government has not yet taken a position on the bill. I hope that it decides to support the bill in order that it passes through the House as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal agreed to:

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.58 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS COMMEMORATION

The Hon. DON HARWIN [5.58 p.m.]: Last month marks the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe. The struggle against Nazism has been remembered at ceremonies honouring those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty, and there have been commemorations focussed on the victims of Nazism's darkest horror—the Holocaust. The attempt to systematically eradicate the Jewish population of Europe through a methodical process of extermination is one of the most unspeakably appalling acts of the twentieth century. Histories of the war, documentaries and feature films have all chronicled the concentration camps and the gas chambers, and the six million victims have been memorialised in museums, most notably at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, which I have visited.

I honour and congratulate the Jewish community for their determination to ensure that this horrific catastrophe is never forgotten. Perhaps because the dimension of the tragedy for the other communities victimised in the Nazi Holocaust was not as great as it was for the Jewish community, we sometimes forget the suffering of others whose predicament was nevertheless as profoundly tragic. The Polish people, for example, suffered enormously. The obliteration of Polish culture and identity was a key element in the Nazi strategy for obtaining lebensraum.

Over the course of the war, more than six million Poles were exterminated—three million were Jewish, three million were not. Polish community leaders were among the early victims. Politicians, priests, teachers, judges and doctors were either executed publicly or sent to concentration camps. Soon after the better educated sections of the population were then targeted for execution or deportation. Approximately two million Polish Christians were deported into Germany or Russia as slave labour. Those considered unsuitable were sent to Auschwitz. Polish Christians were the initial victims of the concentration camps. For the first 21 months after it was opened, Auschwitz was inhabited almost exclusively by Polish Christians. Over 100,000 died there. Most of them were Roman Catholic.

Many German Christians were also targeted for resisting Nazi ideology. I have visited the special barracks established at Dachau for Christian clergymen, most of whom were simply allowed to die of starvation or disease. Around 4,000 Jehovah Witnesses were imprisoned and ultimately shot for refusing to take a pledge of loyalty to the Third Reich. Like Jews, the Gypsies were chosen for total annihilation because they were deemed by the Nazis to be racially inferior. Most were sent to concentration camps. Nearly half a million Gypsies were killed in the Holocaust. Other citizens were victimised for offending the Nazi ideology of racial purity. Many adults of mixed African and German heritage were executed, while mixed-race children were systematically sterilised. Similarly, thousands of people with physical and mental disabilities were put to death or used for scientific experimentation.

Homosexual men were hunted down across Germany and the various countries occupied by the Third Reich. Suspected homosexuals identified in the ranks of the armed forces or SS were routinely tortured and then imprisoned while still wearing their uniforms in order to encourage other prisoners to abuse them further. Similarly, all gay men imprisoned by the Nazis were forced to wear pink triangles so they would be further persecuted within the concentration camps. Over 10,000 gay men were executed by the Nazis. Sadly, while persecution of Jews, the disabled and people of mixed ethnicity is no longer acceptable, prejudice against homosexuals persists in our own society.

In summary, it is believed that in addition to the six million Jews, around five million others perished in the Holocaust. And State-sponsored genocide has claimed the lives of millions of other victims around the world over the past century. This year marks the ninetieth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, in which as many as two million Armenians are believed to have been deported and murdered in Turkey. Under Josef Stalin, countless millions of political dissidents were sent to labour camps where the survival rate was less than 3 per cent. One and a half million Cambodians died under the Khmer Rouge in the late 1970s as a result of ethnic difference and extremist ideology. Only a decade ago, nearly a million Tutsis were killed in an open and organised attempt to eliminate an entire ethnic group from Rwanda. The anniversary of the end of the Second World War is an important opportunity to commemorate the 11 million people exterminated by the Nazis because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical disability, or political beliefs. And in remembering the Holocaust we have the chance to honour all the victims of genocide by reaffirming our resolution never to allow such calamities to occur again.

TRIBUTE TO MRS VAL BUSWELL, OAM

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.03 p.m.]: Tonight I would like to pay tribute to Val Buswell, OAM, who died on 8 May this year. Many members of this House will have spoken to and seen Val because she was often in these precincts as a consummate lobbyist and organiser for all sorts of good causes. I knew Val particularly through the Ryde-Hunters Hill branch of Business and Professional Women, of which I am a member. Val had been a member of that organisation since 1960. Val was 83 years of age when she died.

I would like to say a little about the history of this quite remarkable woman. There was a tribute to Val in one of this week's local papers. It is headed "A battler dies: she fought for equal pay for women". I suspect Val would have thought that a very appropriate headline and one that she would have liked. Her battle for various things relating to women began when she was a WAAF during the war. After the war she became head buyer at Beard Watsons, a well-known company that some of us may remember. Val knew that in the services women received only two-thirds of a man's pay. She tolerated that during the war. But in the business world she did not believe it should be tolerated. In the article in the local paper by Gaye Carson, who is President of the Ryde-Hunters Hill branch of Business and Professional Women, Gaye said:

Val fought, along with a variety of other women, for 40 or 50 years for equal rights for women in a number of areas. She was very much involved in the equal pay and pay equity cases over the past 30 years or so that I know of. But she was involved also in other battles, both locally and generally. For instance, very few people will know of the fight, in which Val was involved, that went on to have women employed at polling booths on election days—a position that used to be restricted to men. She also was part of the group of women who lobbied the government of the day to set up the first women's refuge in the whole of the North Shore area.

At the local level, she organised a large number of seminars, and fought for women to be more involved in local government, in which she helped play a mentoring role. She was at different times a member of the National Women's Consultative Council and the Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans Issues. As an ex-WAAF, she involved herself in lobbying on behalf of all those wonderful women who served during the war but were often neglected, and she played a major role in getting the Defence Services Homes Act amended to allow ex-servicewomen access to defence service home loans.

I was sad that I was unable to attend Val's funeral and join with the many members of Parliament and representatives of so many organisations, particularly women's organisations, who were there on the day. I was unable to attend as I had to leave Sydney because of the death of my mother just a few days before Val's passing. One of the things that struck me as I talked to my mother's friends and acquaintances was how much we owe a whole generation of women, survivors of whom are now in their mid-eighties, who worked so hard in so many different ways. In the case of my mother and friends, for instance, I thought of women who had been in the services, women who had been widowed during the war and had gone on to set up businesses, and women who had had to work for all those years to support themselves on two-thirds of a male wage. They belonged to a generation of women of whom, unfortunately, we are now seeing the last.

I salute women like Val and others who have given so much—another striking quality of that generation. I salute, too, those who are still living and in many ways are serving the communities and organisations of which they are part. Farewell to Val Buswell, and farewell and a tribute to the many women who have not been remembered as Val has.

BLACKMANS FLAT MINE SITE CONTAMINATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.08 p.m.]: I have received information from residents of Blackmans Flat, near Lithgow, that is deeply disturbing. The Environment Protection Authority recently varied Protection of Environmental Operations Licence No. 4911 for Pine Vale mine, approving the use of hundreds of tonnes of highly alkaline boiler ash from Carter Holt Harvey in Oberon on the mine site just metres from the homes of Blackmans Flat residents. This waste dumping is in addition to formaldehyde-contaminated particleboard manufacturing waste that has been stockpiled on the Pine Vale site since at least June 2003, and municipal green waste from the Bankstown area, contaminated with plastics, other litter and exotic weed seed that has been spread at Enhance Place mine.

Local residents have also been exposed to an extraordinary number of other forms of waste, including Mount Piper power station hazardous solid waste, called fly-ash dams, which tower 40 metres over the town of Blackman's Flat, blanketing residences with dust every time the wind blows, just 800 metres from residential property; dust and chemical toxins from blasting at Centennial Lambert's open-cut coalmine, taking place on a weekly basis and set to continue for another 12 months, just 500 metres from residential property; dust and pollutants from Centennial's Springvale to Mount Piper power station coal conveyor, coal washery and open-cut coalmine, just 300 metres from residential property; and dust and pollutants from Yarraboldy Briquettes, just 300 metres from residential property.

Residents have been exposed to dust and pollutants from Ivanhoe Colliery, just 800 metres from residential property; dust and pollutants from Enhance Place open-cut mine, just 50 metres from residential property; and dust and pollutants from tonnes of sewage sludge from the Sydney region being hauled along the Castlereagh Highway daily through Blackman's Flat to Baal Bone Colliery and other users in the Mudgee region, just metres from residential property.

Then there are the future contaminants—dust, noise, and surface and ground water contamination from council's proposed mega landfill in Blackman's Flat, just 300 metres from residential property. There is future dust and pollutants from the proposed Neubeck's Creek open-cut mine, just 800 metres from residential property; as well as future dust, noise, odours, and surface and ground water contamination from the proposed new agricultural-based industry on land adjacent to Mount Piper power station, just 800 metres from residential property.

These residents have every right to complain and the Greens support their endeavours to get the Government to clean up its own backyard. The residents have asked the Minister, as a matter of urgency, to provide them with a detailed analysis of the chemical and heavy metal components in the boiler ash that is about to be spread over the mining land just metres from their front doors. They have requested that such an analysis include details of the many contaminants that could be included in these waste products. That material has been forwarded to the Minister.

It seems that the Blackman's Flat area is fast becoming everyone's idea of a great place to dump their toxic waste. That is simply unacceptable. The National Pollutant Inventory, Emission Estimation Manual for Timber and Wood Product Manufacturing 2002, identified that people cannot tolerate in excess of 10 parts per million of formaldehyde for more than a few minutes. It can cause a range of diseases, impaired lung function, allergic reactions, dermatitis and eczema, to name just a few problems.

Similar health effects associated with toxic contaminants in fly-ash has prompted these residents to again write to me because it is about to be spread literally outside their doors. Local residents have suggested that Pine Vale should use agricultural lime rather than hazardous materials to neutralise acidic coal, and that councils and the State Government should stop dumping on this community. If not, the Government should rezone this rural and residential land as a "hazardous and offensive industry, hazardous waste disposal" zone, and acquire all affected properties. It is tragic that the residents have reached the point where they have to advocate a rezoning if the Government does not do a clean-up immediately and stop dumping on them. The Greens support the residents. I will be visiting them shortly to continue their important campaign to have a responsible system for the dumping of this waste. It should not happen so close to people's homes.

LICENSED VENUES TOBACCO SMOKE

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.13 p.m.]: When the Smoke-free Environment Amendment Act was passed in 2004 many of us in the non-smokers movement were suspicious that pubs and clubs did not have to go smoke-free until mid-2007. Effectively this meant that clubs and pubs that had to be smoke-free for fear of being sued under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the obligation to provide a workplace free of hazards were now using the new Smoke-free Environment Amendment Act to say that they did not have to go smoke-free yet. The Smoke-free Environment Act had become the "Smoky Environment Act". But the situation is worse than that; the devil is in the detail. Clubs and pubs are now lobbying—successfully, it is rumoured—about the definition of outdoor areas where smoking will be allowed. One would have thought that "outdoors" means an area that does not have a roof. But, no, they want "outdoors" to be an area whose combined roof and wall area is 25 per cent open.

This effectively means that there will be areas in which smoking will be allowed forever. We can only imagine that in that situation staff will be asked to work in a smoky environment; someone has to clean up the tables, pick up the ashtrays, and so on. From a public health point of view, smokers will be under no pressure to quit, and smoking-caused diseases will have a social smoking locus forever. The Carr Government has rolled over to the Australian Hotels Association [AHA] on this matter. The Australian Capital Territory has rolled over, due to some foolish advice from the chief health officer there, and it is rumoured that Victoria may be next. Clearly, this is extremely bad for public health.

Some countries that have a much higher smoking rate than Australia, including Ireland, have already successfully introduced totally smoke-free pubs at quite short notice, yet our governments are ignoring the huge majority of people that want smoke-free air and are giving in to a moneyed lobby. It is a disgrace that governments are doing that. It is now 55 years since smoking was shown to cause lung cancer. The head of the AHA, John Thorpe, said to me that they gave cigarettes to our heroic airmen as they went off to fight in World War II, and that there was a long history of smoking, so why should I interfere? I pointed out to him that, after all, that was 60 years ago and smoking was shown to cause lung cancer 55 years ago, so perhaps we should bring ourselves up to date just a tad.

WorkCover is turning a blind eye to smoking in licensed premises, because the Smoke-free Environment Amendment Act is undermining the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Minister has been mealy-mouthing about this recently during question time. The fact is that for many years there has been huge public support for smoke-free air. The figure is about 80 per cent, because smokers now comprise less than 20 per cent of the population. For years, the 80 per cent of people who do not smoke have had to put up with pollution from the 20 per cent who do. But this is not a battle between smokers and non-smokers. The research that showed that people are more inclined to quit if workplaces are smoke-free was done years ago, when the Federal public service was made smoke-free in 1977.

Pubs and clubs have a very important place in the social life of Australians. If they become smoke-free there will be no social locus in which people can smoke. That will have an immense public health impact. By the same token, this little deal made behind closed doors between a highly conservative, indeed reactionary, lobby group and the Government would have immense public health implications for years to come.

The people at the front line, of course, are the hospitality workers, who, as it was shown years ago, have a higher rate of tobacco-related disease. They will continue to be exposed to smoke if patrons are allowed to smoke in these outdoor areas, and the Minister has to guarantee their health. It might be noted that the Metro, in George St, Sydney, is one of Sydney's most popular live music venues. The Metro voluntarily adopted a complete ban on indoor smoking in 2003. On still days the most important area for air movement is the roof. Any area that has a roof is not an outdoor area, and that is what the law should state. [Time expired.]

QUEANBEYAN INFRASTRUCTURE

KOSCIUSZKO NATIONAL PARK PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [6.18 p.m.]: The people of Monaro are suffering from a lack of attention and care from their local member, especially in relation to the development of Queanbeyan hospital, the Queanbeyan northern bypass, and the Kosciuszko National Park plan of management. In 2000 the Queanbeyan Age excitedly reported "Bypass by 2004" and stated that the New South Wales roads and transport Minister, Carl Scully, visited Queanbeyan to announce the State Government's $2.9 million commitment to the northern route ring road. The Government also used the visit as an opportunity to promote Steve Whan as the future candidate. In 2003 Queanbeyan residents were sent a letter from the Labor candidate during the campaign, promising that the next Carr Government would spend $30 million—
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: It is very hard to understand the honourable member, given the speed at which she is speaking. But she appears to be attacking another member, which can be done only by way of substantive motion. She appears to be attacking a member in the other House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey is indeed speaking very quickly. I remind the member that if she wishes to attack a member of the other place, she can do so only by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In 2003 the Government promised that construction would begin on the hospital in 2005. More than two years later the people of Queanbeyan are left scratching their heads wondering what has happened to the promises. The Queanbeyan hospital budget has blown out to $44 million due to increased building costs since the promise was first made in 2003, a promise that was made originally by the National Party. No money was allocated in the budget after the election. Planning money was allocated in 2004-05 and $30 million was set down for this year's budget according to the local Labor member. However, only $3.5 million materialised and is allocated in this year's budget—hardly any money to cover construction costs this year and not the $30 million predicted by the local Labor member.

The next Carr Government will not deliver the Queanbeyan hospital. The Carr Government promises that the hospital will be completed by mid-2008, which is after the next election. The promise of construction commencing by 2005 has been already broken as there is no sign that construction will start by the end of this year. Funding of $20.25 million will need to be allocated in 2006-07 and $20.25 million in 2007-08. I have real doubts that this time frame can be achieved, and Labor's record on blow-outs and time delays does not fill me with the greatest of confidence. The total number of projects delayed or blown out from last year's budget to this year's budget is a whopping 171, and the total value of the blow-outs comes to a staggering $515 million. With every month the hospital is delayed, New South Wales taxpayers are forced to pay more to have patients sent to Canberra, not to mention the inconvenience for the patients.

The Queanbeyan and northern bypass was not completed by 2004. Construction of the concrete bridge over the Canberra to Queanbeyan railway line is yet to be completed. It is even doubtful that the bypass will be opened by the end of this year, despite the Government stating that $2.5 million has been allocated to complete the works. Anyone driving in and out of Jerrambomberra can tell you that the first stage of a full traffic solution is not yet completed, with the extension of the Edwin Land Parkway yet to commence. Every day cars are lined up along Lanyon Drive and wait at the roundabout for far too long to get to and from work. Residents driving down the main road of Queanbeyan must fight for space with the heavy trucks and fuel tankers. Queanbeyan residents have been subjected to this for far too long. It is time the New South Wales Government solved these ongoing traffic issues, as it promised.

The budget allocates about $20 million for road maintenance, but where it is going is not specifically identified. Why is that the case? The people of Monaro should be told where the money is going and what problems it will fix. The process should be transparent so that residents can see where the money is going. While the people of Monaro wait years for their hospital and their roads to be improved, the Government crows about a $19 million office block to be built—in a location the locals think is absolutely ridiculous—to house the bureaucrats that the Government continues to look after.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: How do you know?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Just read the local papers. It is obvious where the Carr Government's priorities lie, and it is clear that the residents of Queanbeyan and Jerrambomberra are at the bottom of the list. I am continually searching the National Parks and Wildlife Service web site for the Kosciuszko National Park's plan of management. The web site states that in February 2001, that is four years ago, the New South Wales Government announced that the Kosciuszko National Park plan of management would be reviewed commencing January 2002, that it would take about two years and would involve wide-ranging public consultation. In addition, the web site states that the key dates and milestones in the review process include the final stage titled "Final plan of management to NSW Minister for Environment for adoption", which is due to occur between August and December 2004.

It is now May 2005, some six months late already. Many people are very frustrated by this process. They want to make investment decisions about their businesses in Kosciuszko National Park, but they are not able to do that because the Government cannot make a decision. The recreational users of Kosciuszko deserve to have the plan of management issue resolved. They deserve access. They should not be locked out, especially for horse riding purposes. I hope the advisory body and the Minister ensure that the process does not take any more time. Could the National Parks and Wildlife Service please update the key dates and milestones section of its web site?

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [6.23 p.m.]: Yesterday in this place I referred to some of the dire consequences we can expect from John Howard's new industrial relations legislation. I know that some members on the other side of the House found what I had to say disturbing, but it is not as disturbing as workers in this State will find working under the new legislation that John Howard announced this morning. John Howard just could not wait until July. This morning he told the country what he has in mind for Australian workers once his Senate majority is confirmed in July. What is clear is that any pretence that he is on the side of the battlers is seen for what it is: a lie. John Howard's new industrial relations legislation is a body blow to ordinary Australian workers and their families. The changes that John Howard is celebrating will drive down living standards for ordinary working families, and ensure that no Australian worker will have any long-term job security for themselves and their families.

Millions of Australians working in businesses of up to 100 employees face the threat of being sacked unfairly for no reason, with no warning and no right of appeal. Some 99 per cent of Australian workers are employed in businesses with 100 or fewer employees, which is over half a million businesses. No Australian worker can feel relaxed and comfortable knowing that at any time their employer will have the right to sack them with little or no explanation, jeopardising the family mortgage or rent, medical bills, school fees and food on the table. No young person starting work for the first time can feel secure and confident knowing that no matter how hard they try their employer can sack them after six months, again with little or no explanation, and they have no right of redress. The most disadvantaged workers in the country, single parents and those with disabilities—the very same people who are being forced to look for work under threat of having their benefits terminated— will be forced to negotiate individual contracts with employers.

The young mother who has been at home bringing up her children alone, often the victim of domestic violence, homelessness and abuse, is now told to hand over her child to a carer, negotiate an employment contract with an employer and go to work. So much for the picket fence family values that John Howard and his Ministers wrap themselves in. As always, it is the weakest and worst paid people who will be the most affected—the people forced to work under the worst conditions and in the least safe workplaces. No worker will feel safe to complain about bullying, harassment, workplace safety hazards, or worse, because they will know they can be sacked with no explanation. To say that the future is bleak for Australia's most honourable people is an understatement. How does John Howard justify his outrageous attack on his little battlers? He says it will improve efficiency and productivity. He says it will reduce unemployment. But not one shred of credible evidence shows that scrapping workers' rights will improve unemployment. No evidence shows that it will create jobs.

What we do know is that workers forced into individual contracts will be paid less, work longer hours and enjoy fewer benefits. They will have less security for themselves and their families, and it is likely that workplaces will be less safe. There is no comfort for any Australian worker or the many decent employers who will be forced to exist under an industrial relations system that has come to be symbolised by thugs in balaclavas. This is a very sad day. I know that members on the other side of the House will feel ashamed and disturbed by what they are witnessing. This is not an act of betrayal that will be forgotten by Australian workers.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m. until Tuesday 7 June 2005 at 2.00 p.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 May 2005, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links