Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 15 September 2005, Corrected Copy)

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

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

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

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

1. That the report of Independent Legal Arbiter the Honourable Terence Cole QC dated 17 August 2005, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to the Circular Quay pylons, be laid on the table by the Clerk.

2. That, on tabling, the report is authorised to be published.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.03 a.m.]: I seek leave of the House to amend the motion of which I have given notice, in the following terms:

Omit "7 days". Insert instead "14 days"

Leave granted.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), the Minister for Roads, or the Minister for Infrastructure created since 1 January 1997:

(a) any document relating to the removal or alteration of the M4-M5 cash back scheme,

(b) all correspondence, memos and general communication between the RTA, the Minister for Roads, or the Minister for Infrastructure relating to the M4-M5 cash back scheme,

(c) all documents relating to the review of the M4-M5 cash back scheme, and

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

Motion by the Hon. Peter Breen agreed to:

That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Justice or the Department of Corrective Services created since 1 July 2005:

(a) all documents relating to a direction or memorandum to parole officers from the Commissioner for Corrective Services to cease processing and supervision of interstate sex or other offenders,

(b) a return identifying the following:

(i) the number of interstate sex or other offenders who have been paroled in New South Wales without processing or supervision,

(ii) the number of interstate sex or other offenders currently on parole in New South Wales

(iii) the number of interstate sex or other offenders who have been paroled in New South Wales and whose paperwork has not been processed,

(iv) the number of New South Wales sex or other offenders currently on parole in other States and territories,

(v) the number of New South Wales sex or other offenders who have been paroled in other States and territories and whose paperwork has not been completed, and

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

Motion by the Hon. Melinda Pavey agreed to:

1. That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Premier’s Office, the Department of Corrective Services, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Police or the Premier:

(a) all documents, emails, letters, faxes and file notes that relate to changed procedures for the transfer of parolees to and from other States, that have been created since October 2004, and

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

2. That each document provided be marked with a unique identifying number and that an indexed list of documents tabled be prepared showing the identifying number, the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author.

Motion by the Hon. Melinda Pavey agreed to:

1. That, under standing order 53, an Address be presented to the Governor requesting that Her Excellency may be pleased to cause to be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution all documents, emails, letters, faxes and file notes in the possession, custody or control of the Premier's Department, the Department of Corrective Services, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Police, or the Premier of New South Wales, which relate in any way to paroled Western Australian offender Otto Darcy-Searle, including documents which have been sent to or received from:

(a) all Western Australian State Authorities,

(b) the Murwillumbah office of the Department of Corrective Services,

(c) any other office of the NSW Department of Corrective Services,

(d) the office of the Premier,

(e) the office of Minster Kelly, or

(f) the office of Minister Hatzistergos.

2. That such documents are to be made available only to Members of the Legislative Council and not published or copied without an order of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Minister for Finance to order.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 1, entitled "Inquiry into the Administration of the 2003 Election and Related Matters", dated September 2005, together with transcripts of proceedings.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.11 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution this day, a report of Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Terence Cole, QC, dated 27 August 2005, relating to a disputed claim of privilege on Circular Quay pylons.

Petitions opposing same-sex marriage legislation, received from Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

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

Petitions opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation which would prevent religious groups from speaking frankly and openly, received from the Hon. Greg Donnelly and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

Petition opposing the removal of cypress pine and hardwood forests from State Forests management and the degradation of communities within the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

Petition requesting support for all forestry industries in the Riverina and Murray-Darling Depression Bioregions, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

Petition requesting action to protect public housing tenants and to ensure that public housing remains viable for low-income households, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Petition opposing any legislative changes that would violate the basic principles of marriage, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.23 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 173 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the attendance of the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, the Minister for Education and Training, at the Bar of the House, be called on forthwith.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.24 a.m.]: Standing orders should be suspended today because this is the only course of action available. The Government and the Minister for Education and Training have left us no choice. Honourable members have sought answers to important education questions since Parliament resumed after the 11-week winter recess, and those questions require an immediate response from the Minister for Education and Training. There are many other important questions within the Education portfolio needing urgent and accurate answers. We had to raise this issue today because Minister Tebbutt's decision to resign from the Legislative Council but not as Minister for Education and Training means that she is abrogating her Ministerial responsibilities. I urge honourable members to support the moving of this motion forthwith.

As parents and teachers urge Higher School Certificate students in their last two weeks of school to focus and get their priorities right, the number one priority of the Minister for Education and Training, in spite of what else she is doing, should be to attend Parliament to answer questions relating to her portfolio. What message does this send to school students, parents and teachers? The motion is urgent because, as we observed over the past two days during question time, no Government member in this Chamber is capable of answering questions about education. Parliament has been in recess for 11 weeks and during that time there has been a spate of arson attacks in New South Wales schools, yet the Minister is not here to answer questions about what the Government is doing to address security issues within our schools.

The motion is urgent because no member of the Government in this House is able to answer questions about why no schools have been allocated security fencing in this financial year when $6 million was promised to install 43 school security fences in the current financial cycle. The Opposition wants to know on what criteria it was determined that only $6 million would be spent on security fencing, but the Minister is not here. It is important to suspend standing orders because students and teachers deserve to know which schools have been identified as "at risk" and in need of security fencing in order to prevent further arson attacks. We want to know what the total cost has been of repairs to schools attacked by arson and vandalism over the past few months; and how much was spent on school security fences in the past financial year, including the total cost of implementing security fencing at schools identified as "at risk".

I repeat: no Government member in this Chamber is able to answer these questions for the students and teachers of New South Wales. The term "London is burning" could not be more appropriate. Our schools are burning and students have not only lost classrooms; many, including students at Kelso High School for example, have also lost Higher School Certificate [HSC] major works. It is important that standing orders be suspended to allow this motion to be called on because, during the 11-week winter recess when New South Wales' students sat trial HSC examinations, students from Cheltenham Girls High School ended up sitting the wrong examinations. The "trials" are extremely significant. Students deserve answers from their Minister for Education and Training; they deserve assurances from the Minister that in these last two weeks of school in the lead-up to the HSC they will be completing the correct examination.

The Opposition seeks clarifying guidelines from the Minister but cannot ask a question to that effect because she is not here. It is important that standing orders be suspended because the Minister is not here to address questions relating to the inadequate numbers of English as a second language teachers in New South Wales schools. Time does not stop merely because the Minister decides to take time off to further her own political career. Minister Tebbutt's first priority as Minister for Education and Training should be to the students and teachers of New South Wales, no matter what else she is doing. The time allotted for questions is only an hour—one hour to answer a plethora of questions that have arisen during the parliamentary recess.

The Minister elected to resign from this Chamber in order to campaign for a seat in the lower House. That was her decision; it was not the decision of New South Wales school students to have their Minister vacate her post. The Government is happy to pump dollar after dollar into helping one of its own while the people and students of New South Wales are left without a Minister to look after education issues in this State—and, in the case of Kelso High School, left without a school! Schools are burning down, making this an urgent matter that the Minister is neglecting by not fulfilling her role as Minister for Education and Training. The House has been patient as honourable members have sought answers to questions from the Minister for Education and Training. The Minister must attend and answer them. The Opposition has been left with no other action available to it but to support this urgent motion. I urge honourable members to support the motion to suspend standing orders so that we can get answers from the Minister and so she can address her number one priority, that is, education in this State.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.29 a.m.]: The Greens support the Hon. Robyn Parker's motion to suspend standing orders. We consider this matter to be urgent. It is urgent because the House should satisfy itself now, and not at some indeterminate time in the future, that the Minister for Education and Training has not been flagrantly exploiting her position to gain an advantage in Saturday's Marrickville by-election. The House can do so only by questioning the Minister today. It is urgent that the House examine now, in light of the Minister's response to questions, whether the convention of a Minister not being required to be an elected member of Parliament should be abandoned. It is urgent that the issue of ministerial responsibility and accountability be examined now, when the attention of the media is focused on the issue. It is urgent because a fundamental tenet of the Westminster principle of responsible government is that the Executive branch of government is accountable to the elected Parliament. The key elements underlying the principle of accountability are individual and collective responsibility to Parliament.

The motion is urgent because, individually, Ministers are responsible to Parliament for their actions. Ministers must retain the confidence of the House in which they sit. If a Minister loses that confidence, the convention of the Westminster system is that the Minister tenders his or her resignation. There is no way of ascertaining whether the Minister has retained the confidence of the House if she is not here to answer questions and be accountable for her actions. The motion is urgent because at question time the Parliament is able to keep itself informed about the actions of the Executive. How can this House question a Minister, in line with the Westminster system, if he or she is not here?

The motion is urgent because, given that the Minister is no longer an elected member of this House, there is no other mechanism for her to be questioned and held accountable for her actions other than the mechanism indicated in the Hon. Robyn Parker's motion. It is urgent because the House needs to satisfy itself that the Minister has not violated another convention: that between the announcement of an election and the holding of that election the Government or a Minister will not make major decisions or introduce policy initiatives. In the absence of the Minister, we cannot question her and ascertain whether this is another convention of the House that has been violated.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.32 a.m.]: I cannot support the motion to suspend standing orders because it is not urgent and it is without precedent. In the 24 years I have been a member of this Parliament I have not encountered a motion that sought to bring a former member of this place before the Bar of the House. A similar situation occurred regarding a judge, but that was because of the convention and policy that this House is the only body that has the power to deal with the removal of a judge from his position. I know a similar situation occurred in the Federal Parliament. But bringing a person before the Bar of the House is usually so serious that it implies that the person has committed a criminal offence. That is why I do not believe this motion is urgent or that the Minister should be brought before the Bar of the House.

The Director-General of the Department of Education and Training can be asked questions through another Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training. Ms Sylvia Hale's speech confirms what is now a view held in the community: that this is a politically motivated motion designed to damage the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt's opportunity to be elected in the Marrickville by-election. That is another reason why I do not believe the motion is urgent, and therefore I believe it should not be supported by the House. Certainly I, and I am sure many other members of this House, would do nothing to assist the election of a member of the Greens to the Legislative Assembly.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [11.34 a.m.]: This motion is urgent because the Labor Party is treating the Parliament, the Education portfolio and the children of New South Wales with utter contempt. If this House does not stand up to the Government, no-one can stand up to the Government, and its contemptuous attitude will flow unabated and continue to undermine education policy in New South Wales. This motion is urgent because, for the first time in the State's history, we have a Minister for Education and Training who is not a member of Parliament while the House is sitting.

It is extraordinary that the Minister did not resign from this place weeks ago, when she was preselected as the candidate for Marrickville. She did not follow the honourable course taken by her former colleague in this place, the Hon. Tony Burke; she resigned for the specific purpose of avoiding attendance in this Parliament. The motion is urgent, but the Government, which has so little business before the House, is desperate to avoid it because it does not wish to discuss the grubby truth about how this extraordinary and unprecedented situation came about. The situation we are in is a result of the Labor Party announcing last month that the by-elections would be held on Saturday 17 September 2005. Let us be clear about this. The by-elections could have been held on Saturday 10 September. The Labor Party had allowed for a huge 11-week break for the specific purpose of turning over the Premier and holding all the by-elections before Parliament resumed this week.

I confess that at the time I was baffled by the Government's decision to come back to Parliament for a week and then hold the by-elections. What could the new Premier possibly be thinking? The events of the past two weeks have made clear exactly what the Labor Party was thinking and what it was planning to do this week. The Labor Party wanted to come back a week before the by-elections so it could drop a big bucket on John Brogden. Anyone who is not totally blinded by love for the Labor Party can see exactly what the party was up to. But if anyone could not see it, a gloating Stephen Loosley spelt it out for us in his column in the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago. On 4 September he said:

In Sussex Street the ALP knew all the details of the Hilton Incident for some time. Disgust had given way to critical political assessment … The machine believed it had Brogden's measure.

This motion for urgency is not a stunt. I say to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The real stunt was Labor's big plan to drop a bucket on us this week. But Labor's plan A has failed because the grenade went off early and now Labor is stuck, like Winnie the Pooh in Rabbit's burrow. Labor has a week of Parliament, no plan A, and so we quickly shift to plan B, which is to save the Minister for Education and Training from being scrutinised in the days leading up to the by-election. That is what this is all about. The Labor Party was not thinking about education policy or the needs of children around the State. All of that took second place to this tacky, grubby agenda to drop a big bucket on John Brogden.

This is a shameful, disgraceful exercise by the Government, which has now been caught short by its own deviousness. This motion is urgent because it is our one and only chance to say to the Government: We will not let you get away with such shabby tactics. We are not fools, and the people of New South Wales are not fools either. Carmel Tebbutt is the Minister for Education and Training, and she will be accountable to this Parliament irrespective of the political convenience of the Labor Party.

I urge all members to realise that there has to be a line in the sand over which even the Labor Party cannot tread. There must be some standard, some point at which this House tells the Government enough is enough. The Government's arrogance and contempt has got to stop. I urge all members not to squib on this important moment. Do not give in to these grubby political tactics. The shabby rat-cunning of the Labor Party is the very reason why we are all here today and the Minister for Education and Training, Carmel Tebbutt, is not. Do not be fooled. Do not hold hands with the Labor Party on this issue. Vote for accountability and standards in the Parliament. Vote for the motion moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker today.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, Assistant Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.39 a.m.]: I thank the House for its consideration of this matter. Despite the contribution of Ms Sylvia Hale, I believe this motion really gets to the bottom level of shameful political stunts. The disgraceful and foolish contribution of the Hon. Catherine Cusack—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Crocodile tears!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is not crocodile tears. Members opposite should focus on just how low they have sunk, given the remarks of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. We need to ask: What are the issues? This situation is provided for very clearly in the New South Wales Constitution. It is not a convention of the House. To suggest so is simply wrong. Section 13B of the Constitution is clear on officer profit. The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt cannot be a member of the Legislative Council because, as would apply to all of us as members of the Parliament, she would be occupying an office of profit and could not be a candidate for a seat in any circumstance.

The honourable members who have some understanding of electoral process—it seems to wind up the Opposition for some strange reason—know that this happens because a legal framework and a constitutional framework provides for it. The Hon. Jenny Gardiner is smiling because she knows the facts: she knows that the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt could not be here as a member of this Chamber during the Marrickville by-election. This is the kind of scurrilous allegation the Opposition likes to make. Opposition members have never got the measure of the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt during any question time, regardless of the portfolio she has held. The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt has comprehensively answered every question she has been asked. To show the shameful hypocrisy of this Greens-Liberal-National alliance and just how low it is, if there was so much urgent education business, the cant and nonsense that—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What do you mean by "camp"?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I said "cant". It means nonsense, irrational, blurred. That is what we got from the last two members of the Coalition. We have heard nonsense. The Opposition has said, "This is terribly urgent. We have to talk about education." If it is so urgent, why did the Opposition not ask one question about education on Tuesday?

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: There was no-one to ask!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Opposition knew from the parliamentary arrangements that questions relating to education were to be directed to me. However, the Opposition did not ask me one question. Opposition members said, "There are all these urgent things we have to deal with in relation to education." The House resumed on Tuesday, and what happened? A whole question time went past and neither Opposition members nor crossbenchers asked one question about education. All the questions they asked were of life and death urgency and very important matters, but they were matters of procedure, the funding program and the roll out of security fencing, an initiative of the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt. That outstanding initiative of our Government has delivered safe and more secure public schools. The Opposition has an inherent detestation of that; the Opposition is always trying to run it down and put it in jeopardy.

In simple terms, this is an unchivalrous and scandalous attack on an excellent Minister. The Opposition should be wishing her well in her campaign to become member for Marrickville—I think some members probably are. She will make an outstanding contribution in that electorate. It was shameful to suggest that the presence or non-presence of the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt on a particular day would have anything to do with the terrible trauma the students and parents of Kelso High School have gone through. What the Hon. Catherine Cusack said was in terribly poor taste, apart from anything else. The Premier and the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt have visited Kelso High School to talk to the parents and students. Where has the Opposition been?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Here! Where's she?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not been down there though, and he has had weeks in which to do so. Opposition members had better mind their Ps and Qs. I will not address the nonsense in regard to the Stephen Loosley article. That is nonsense. I refuse to engage in that discussion.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is not nonsense.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: You are sitting next to the person who you ought to be directing those questions to. This has nothing to do with Stephen Loosley. He has not worked for the Labor Party, nor been a member of Parliament, for a decade. It is nonsense.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [11.44 a.m.]: I speak against the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders. I endorse the views of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Special Minister of State that it is inappropriate. So far I have not heard one valid reason why this motion is urgent. It is a con job. The Opposition has been conned by the Greens. This is not about the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt. I bring to the attention of the House last night's adjournment debate. I spoke during the adjournment debate. Ms Rhiannon was supposed to speak before me, but she asked me to speak first because she was not ready. I spoke and then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used the opportunity to attack me. This is all about the Marrickville election; it has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you want to make this statement you have to move a motion.

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

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I have great respect for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I was not going to get involved in the by-election campaign, and I have not said anything so far. However, the attacks on Unity and Ms Pauline Chan were totally unsubstantiated.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What has that got to do with this matter?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Everything. I know Opposition members are not fools, but this time they have been fooled by the Greens.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [11.46 a.m.]: I was not going to say anything until the Hon. Peter Wong made a contribution to the debate—I acknowledge that I missed a lot of what he said. However, I certainly heard the part about how the Opposition has been conned by the Greens. I inform the Hon. Peter Wong that I have not been conned by the Greens—far from it. Indeed, I have questions that I would like to ask the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt. In response to what the Hon. John Della Bosca said, I am on the record as having asked a number of questions of the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt. There has been a theme to my questions, which I intend to continue today. Unfortunately, she is not here to answer my questions.

Why the Government did not call this by-election at a more appropriate time, thus allowing the Minister for Education and Training to attend to her duties, including being in the House, is beyond me. The Government has the power to do whatever it likes, and it has done whatever it liked: it has called the by-election so the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt is not here this week. For the information of the Hon. Peter Wong, I have not been conned by anybody. I want the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt here to answer my question today. I am going to ask it anyway.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [11.47 a.m.]: The only explanation the Opposition has given for the urgency of this motion is that it wants its questions to the Minister for Education and Training answered. My understanding is that Ministers have 35 days in which to answer questions. In respect to outstanding questions, that time has not expired. That is not a reasonable basis for suspending standing and sessional orders. Ms Sylvia Hale asked whether the Minister should be made accountable to this Parliament. Ms Hale said that the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt should be accountable to this House as she is a member of this House. However, clearly, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt is not a member of the House. If she is accountable, she is accountable as a Minister and as a member of the Executive Council, but not as a member of this House.

The Constitution clearly provides that a member of the Executive Council need not be a member of either this House or the other place. So far as I can see, the Minister is not in breach of any questions that might be outstanding or in breach of any provisions of the Constitution. There is a convention that Ministers ought to be members of either House, but it is only a convention. There are precedents for this, particularly where a Minister resigns to contest an election. To my mind, this situation is simply another one of the exceptions to the convention. I urge the House not to support the motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.48 a.m.]: I support the motion to suspend standing orders. The debate has been interesting. I was surprised at some of the arguments from the Hon. John Della Bosca. His analysis of the Constitution was correct. I do not think anybody has been incorrect in that regard. However, let us remember that the Constitution does not provide a role for the public. This situation is a left over from colonial days. Ministers can be appointed from the Executive Council, but there is no system for their accountability.

The Hon. Peter Breen referred to conventions. I agree that there are a number of conventions. However, there is a strong Westminster convention that Ministers are accountable through Parliament. The Greens strongly object to the fact that Ms Carmel Tebbutt stayed on as Minister for Education and Training and removed herself from accountability through Parliament. There is no other system of accountability when a Minister does that. The Greens argue passionately that the current system is most unhealthy. The Greens wish to raise many urgent issues with respect to New South Wales public schools and TAFEs. The Minister should be present in Parliament to explain what she is doing to address them.

As Education spokesperson for the Greens, I am frequently contacted by members of the public concerned about various aspects of the public school system. I shall give a few brief examples. First, yesterday my office was contacted by the mother of an Aboriginal child suffering from autism. She has been forced to home school him due to inadequate support from the Department of Education and Training. This child has complex needs. He is developmentally delayed, legally blind and suffers from lung disease. At the beginning of the year his family transferred him to Petersham Public School. Many difficulties were encountered there, including the high turnover of teacher's aides. The mother ended up in mediation with the department. Surely this is deserving of the Minister's time and attention. Surely I have a right, as an elected representative and holding the Education portfolio for the Greens, to question the Minister for Education and Training about this issue in the Parliament.
Second, I have been contacted by parents from Maroubra Junction Public School who are upset with the Minister about the appointment of the deputy principal. They feel that the Minister has ignored them in that to date she has twice refused to meet with them. On the most recent occasion the Minister claimed that she could not meet with them because she was on leave—on leave, as we know, to campaign in the by-election. Because of the Minister's absence from Parliament I am unable to raise this important and urgent issue with her. Clearly, this is not good enough. It is another reason we support the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders.

Third, I have been in frequent contact with northern beaches residents in regard to the closure of Beacon Hill High School. They have asked me to raise numerous issues with the Government because they do not feel the Minister is responding to their concerns. These people are genuine and deeply committed to their local community and I have endeavoured to work with them. If the Minister were here, I would have many issues to put to her. Indeed, the matter is even more important because, in her last letter to the parents the Minister stated in the final paragraph that she would no longer enter into correspondence with them. She has cut them off. Clearly I have a responsibility to follow through with their concerns.

Finally, this week I was contacted by a teacher who teaches a special education class at a public school in the Macquarie Fields electorate. She is deeply concerned by announced cutbacks to special education. From her email it is clear that she is a committed teacher who makes a real difference to her intellectually disabled students. She has asked me to raise her concerns. I would love to do so, but the Minister is not here. These are just four examples of numerous urgent issues in the Minister's portfolio and our function as elected representatives is being frustrated by her absence. While she is absent there can be no accountability. This goes to the essence of the matter, which the Special Minister of State did not acknowledge in his contribution. The Minister's actions might be allowed under the Constitution, but a Minister in any government should behave ethically, particularly a Minister in a Labor Government.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gay Ms Hale Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Fazio Ms Griffin

Mr Hatzistergos Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Roozendaal

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

Mr Ryan

Ms Robertson

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Finance, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter, and former Minister for Roads. Why was a decision made to close both of the Swansea bridges each evening from 8.00 p.m. until midnight and from 1.00 a.m. until 4.00 a.m. to try to fix safety problems with the bridges that have existed for some time without appropriate contingency plans being established and appropriately communicated to the local community? Given the ongoing safety concerns with the Swansea bridges, including reports that the western bridge is sinking again, will the Minister inform the House and the community what long-term plans have been put in place for a more durable and practical channel crossing that meets the needs of the community, road users, the channel and the Lake Macquarie environment, as well as the passage of water craft? What consultation has the Minister undertaken with local residents and Lake Macquarie City Council over the bridge condition, the timing for the repairs and long-term strategies?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the honourable member knows, under the standing orders being the former Minister for Roads is not a qualification for me to answer the question. I will refer the matter to the current roads Minister.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. What information can the Minister provide about the State Government's commitment to Sydney's firefighting resources?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Today marks a milestone in the Government's record commitment to emergency services in New South Wales. Soon—indeed, about now—another 19 firefighters will join the ranks of the New South Wales Fire Brigades after four months of intensive training. This morning 19 recruits will graduate at a ceremony at the New South Wales Fire Brigades State training centre at Alexandria. The recruits will take their place at front-line stations at Regentville, Silverwater, Concord, Smithfield, Leichhardt, city of Sydney, the Rocks, Campsie, Dunheved, Newtown, Pyrmont, Drummoyne, Schofields, Mount Druitt and St Marys. The training and deployment of these new recruits is part of our commitment to emergency services.

This year the Government will spend a record $700 million—although the former Treasurer has left the Parliament, I want him to understand that the new Treasurer is continuing a great tradition in terms of the budget—to ensure that our emergency services are equipped and trained to protect our communities. This commitment includes funding for an extra 52 firefighters, 52 new fire engines, Hazmat vans and other vehicles, improved firefighting training, and counter-terrorism and safety equipment. Since 1995 the Government has injected more than $4 billion into the New South Wales Fire Brigades. This year's budget provides another $4.4 million for new and upgraded stations around the State, bringing the total allocated over the past 11 years to more than $100 million. This year's budget also includes an investment of $8.25 million in counter-terrorism initiatives to protect our community and the State's critical infrastructure.

The Government is proud of our firefighters. Firefighters are among the most trusted people in our community. When we are in danger or our property is under threat we put our trust in them to be there as quickly as possible. Today's firefighters are trained to respond to a wide range of emergency situations. They fight fires, rescue car crash victims, attend industrial accidents and deal with hazardous material spills. They also play a vital role in educating the public on fire prevention. That is why we are backing their efforts with better resources and state-of-the-art equipment.

The New South Wales Fire Brigades is an organisation with a long and distinguished heritage of more than 120 years. Our early firefighters did not have the modern equipment that is available today. They fought fires without breathing apparatus, wore heavy uniforms and arrived at fires in slow and rudimentary vehicles. Prior to that, insurance companies employed their own firefighters. If people did not display the plaque of a particular insurance company on the front of their house and firefighters from another company arrived they would not fight the fire. They would try to secure an insurance premium; but if the person did not join that insurance company their fire did not get put out.
Today's firefighters are equipped with a lighter plastic helmet and the latest protective clothing. Emergency vehicles now carry thousands of litres of water, high-tech hoses and ladders, thermal imaging equipment and gas detectors to help quickly extinguish fires. Our modern firefighters face new challenges ranging from emergency response to terrorist incidents and natural disasters, and they are meeting these challenges with quality equipment and training. The New South Wales Fire Brigades is among the best in the world in terms of its ability to detect and deal with chemical, biological emergencies and to rescue people from collapsed buildings. These new recruits need to be prepared physically, mentally and emotionally for all types of emergencies. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. Why are only four of the 18 beds open at the new $5 million mental health unit at Dubbo Base Hospital? Is it true that the four beds open were not operating until 1 September? Given that access to mental health services is difficult in country areas, when will the Minister open the remaining beds? Furthermore, was the opening held back from June to August simply to enable the new Premier, Morris Iemma, to attend with a media opening?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I visited Dubbo last week to look at this first-class facility. The 18-bed mental inpatient unit at Dubbo was officially opened on 18 August 2005, and it admitted its first patients within days. Some $2.5 million was provided for the development of the unit, with a further $3.2 million to come in 2006-07. It must be said that it is difficult to recruit staff specifically trained in mental health, particularly in the country. This unit, which is the only facility of its kind in rural New South Wales, apart from Orange, will provide a service that will be ideally located to meet the needs of this region.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When will you open the rest of the beds?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Additional beds will come on track before the end of the year as staff are trained and recruited.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I think the next group might be as early as October-November, and a further two will be opened in December. Ultimately, the unit will be fully operational next year. That is a total of 18.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's 12 months after you did the media opening.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is right. The staff have to be trained and be willing to go specifically to these country areas. If the honourable member can get some mental health nurses who want to go to Dubbo and work—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: How long did it take to build? You have had time to recruit.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: First one has to be able to train them. There is a lot of interest from nurses who want to work in that unit because it is a fine unit, and a number of them are being trained. We are using staff from other mental health units to upskill them in this area. It is not an easy area to work in. It requires high levels of skill. In country New South Wales it is particularly difficult to recruit these people. We have already opened the unit. Four beds are open at the moment. Additional beds will come on before the end of the year, and ultimately the unit will be fully functional by about this time next year. Of course, it would be much easier for us to recruit appropriate staff in mental health if the Federal Government had followed the Preston report of 2002 and provided sufficient training places in universities for nurses.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It would not have been such a problem if you had not adopted the Richmond report. Tell us about the Richmond report.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is not correct. The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. This is about treating people and not incarcerating them. If the honourable member considered what the Dubbo facility was, he would not have made such an extraordinary interjection. This is a fine facility. It will serve the needs of that region very well, and it is part of the more extensive rural mental health program that we will adopt across New South Wales.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. What data does the Department of Health have on the incidence of respiratory illness and asthma in the local government areas of Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield and Liverpool? How does the prevalence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in these local government areas compare with that of other local government areas in the Sydney statistical division? What are the health effects of ozone levels that exceed Environment Protection Authority guidelines?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The honourable member has been struggling hard this week to direct a question to me that related to my responsibilities. To a large extent this one relates to them. I do not have the figures in my head. I will take the question on notice.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister advise the House about his recent trip to the North Coast? How is the Government supporting the economic development of North Coast tourism?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am pleased to announce that the State Government will provide more than $2 million in funding to a variety of projects under way on the North Coast. Recently I visited Coffs Harbour and Tweed Heads, both of which have a number of key infrastructure projects in train. The Iemma Government has committed $130,000 towards the redevelopment master plan for the Harbourside precinct at Coffs Harbour. While there I signed off on a memorandum of understanding with council to progress the planning, adoption and implementation of the master plan. Lands and council have agreed to share the cost of planning and will continue to work closely together on this project.

[Interruption]

Members opposite are not much interested in what happens at Coffs Harbour even though they have a local member there. The Department of Lands has established an office in Coffs Harbour with staff and expertise to work closely with council in progressing the master plan. The staff will also be involved with projects of State and regional significance including the Coffs Harbour boat harbour and the Jack Evans boat harbour at the Tweed, to name just a couple.

We all know the importance of tourist infrastructure along coastal New South Wales. A key component of this infrastructure is our Crown land caravan parks. Caravan parks play a vital role in the State tourism sector, offering affordable and convenient accommodations for the many people who visit New South Wales coastal and regional centres. While visiting the North Coast I announced $2.3 million in loans and grants will go towards the redevelopment of a number of caravan parks situated on Crown land on the North Coast. That demonstrates this Government's support for the New South Wales tourism industry. The majority of these funds will be used for a range of projects including the upgrade and installation of new units, television and Internet connections, new bathroom facilities, as well as communal facilities such as barbecue areas and children's playgrounds.

One of the highlights of my trip was the announcement of the plan of management for Lot 490. Lot 490 and adjoining reserves are parcels of Crown land situated on the Tweed coastline bordering Cudgen Creek at Kingscliff. They are of significant value for tourism, public recreation and environmental protection. The plan of management provides the framework for a quality ecotourism development while ensuring the protection and enhancement of the site's environmental values. This now opens the way for advertisements for expressions of interest for tenders for the development of the site.

The State Government is also dedicated to the development of the boating infrastructure in the Tweed. To this end, the Government has committed $65,000 for the development of the southern boat harbour at Tweed Heads. The southern boat harbour at Tweed Heads is a busy fishing port and accommodates the commercial fishing fleet, charter boats and leisure craft. The funds will help pay for the refurbishment of the slipway as well as a master plan for the harbour precinct. If my memory serves me correctly, boat owners are contributing some $36,000 and the council is contributing $10,000.

The Iemma Government has a strong commitment to the coastal communities along the New South Wales North Coast. We are backing this commitment with the funds to ensure that these communities have the infrastructure to continue to attract tourism and to generate jobs. Also while I was there, in the presence of the honourable member for Lismore, I announced that the State and Federal governments were prepared to contribute almost half a million dollars towards a new State Emergency Service centre at Lismore.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. A recent survey on the importance of recreational fishing expenditure on the economies of two coastal towns in northern and southern New South Wales—Port Macquarie and Bermagui—was released in August 2005. This survey has revealed that fishing is not only one of the most popular pastimes in New South Wales but is also one of the most lucrative. The Minister is reported as saying that the survey results will be used to further develop tourism strategies to exploit fishing's popularity. Has the Minister done any research on his own or has he confirmed the existing commercial research that each kilogram of recreational fishing brings between $80 and $135 per kilogram into local communities? Will the Minister do any economic or social impact study or any research at all before imposing these fishing bans up and down the New South Wales Coast?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his interest in the surveys I released in August dealing with Port Macquarie and Bermagui. The surveys were undertaken between December 2003 and April 2004. The surveys showed a considerable economic value to the communities from recreational fishing. It was in the order of $22 million and $25 million in each of those communities due to the activities of recreational fishing. It is my view that when we are considering issues relevant to the future of our fishing stocks in New South Wales that those socioeconomic factors are taken into account. We do a triple bottom line analysis of all these issues. We did such in relation to the Byron Bay Marine Park, for instance, where it is proposed to have a number of areas that will be sanctuary zones. But, overall, there is still over 70 per cent or so of park available for fishing activities, and the honourable member will find that a similar analysis will be taken in the future.

If the honourable member is potentially referring to proposals about fishing bag limits and size limits, this is based on scientific evidence. It is not just people grabbing things out of the air. There is a concern about fish stocks in certain areas and I would have thought that the honourable member, who has a science background, would consider such proposals on their merits and not whip up unnecessary fear in the community. After all, we want to make sure that fishing stocks remain viable for the future so that people can continue to fish right along the coast. I ask the honourable member to consider that in relation to some of the sanctuary zones some research indicates that in areas where no-take zones have been implemented that they enhance the growth of fish and fish stocks in that area.

I am informed from material I have read that in New Zealand the zones have enhanced fishing and have encouraged the growth of fish stock. Clearly, the Government takes socioeconomic factors into account when considering the various proposals for the marine parks along the State. I acknowledge and have supported the recreational fishing industry. I meet regularly with recreational fishing groups. I speak regularly on radio programs to discuss issues with them.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They tell me they can't get you on.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is not correct. On many occasions I have travelled to Parramatta to speak on the 2KY Bruce Schumacher program. I have to get up at 3.30 a.m. and I get there by 5.00 a.m. From 5.00 to 7.00 I answer questions from recreational fishers all over the State. That is on a Sunday morning, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a go at me. I speak on the program a couple of times a year. I have been on 2SM Stinker Clark's program a few times. I have to get there by 6.00 a.m. On that occasion I only get up at 4.30 a.m.—it is not as onerous! The listeners are not anxious to hear the views of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on recreational fishing. I have been there several times, and I will go again in the not too distant future. When I do, I will give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition due reference.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister realise that when fishing is banned in a tiny percentage of a marine park the whole fishing industry in that particular area may be wiped out because fish do not swim all over the park, they concentrate in small areas? Will the Government undertake an appropriate economic study of the bans in marine parks?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government engages in triple bottom line analysis of all its decisions on natural resources management. That course of action will occur in relation to any future proposals. We do so every time, and will continue to do so. The Hon. Jon Jenkins has missed the point. Whenever we deal with natural resources management, the issues are considered exhaustively.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Disability Services. Is it a fact that the State Government plans to allow the Home Care Service and other service providers to increase charges for home care? Is the Minister for Disability Services about to become the first Minister in the State's history to introduce charges for people with high support needs who use attendant care? If so, how much does he plan to charge for these services and when will these new and increased charges apply?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: In good time I will be able to answer in detail the Hon. John Ryan's question.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It would be a good time right now.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I would be in breach of standing orders if I did. The Opposition has insisted on compliance with standing orders.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That is unlike you.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I have never breached standing orders—not me. The Hon. John Ryan has asked a somewhat loaded question. I will make announcements in due time after significant consultation with the disability sector about such matters. I will guarantee that in my time as the Minister for Disability Services the Government will improve, as we have, disability services. We have made a record commitment to and increased funding in disability services. We have addressed issues in accordance with the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt's previous commitment to the reform of the Post School Options [PSO] and Adult Training, Learning and Support [ATLAS] programs. We have addressed the concerns raised by the community and the families of people with disability who are leaving school. We are working towards an overall reform of disability services. We will massively expand the range and type of services available to people with a disability and support their families and carers. In the course of doing so, there may be additional fees and charges purely on an ability to pay basis. The Hon. John Ryan is well and truly ahead of himself. I will be very happy to debate with him the details when I am in a position to make a significant announcement.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You just gave him the answer he was looking for. The answer is "yes".

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am a very honest man. I would not pretend—

The Hon. John Ryan: You will be charging for attendant care.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, the Hon. John Ryan is jumping to conclusions in his interjection.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the Government's response to reports of avian influenza in Asia and the possibility of a pandemic?


The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Honourable members would be aware that in mid-December 2003 an epidemic of avian influenza was detected in birds in the Republic of Korea. The epidemic has since spread to poultry flocks of eight other east and south-east Asian countries and, more recently, to countries of the former Soviet Union, in particular, Russia and Kazakhstan. These countries responded to the epidemic by culling domestic poultry flocks, instituting quarantine measures and, in some cases, vaccinating the flocks. However, the geographical range of the epidemic continues to expand. From December 2003 to 9 August 2005, 112 human cases of influenza caused by this virus have been reported by the World Health Organization [WHO]—including 90 in Vietnam, 17 in Thailand, 4 in Cambodia and 1 in Indonesia. Fifty-seven of these people have died.

Direct contact with infected birds or bird droppings is the source of the infection in most cases, and an additional small number have become infected after ingesting uncooked poultry products. There have been isolated reports where person-to-person transmission has been suspected, but none of these have been unequivocally proven. A similar outbreak of H5N1 bird influenza occurred in Hong Kong in 1997, during which 18 people became infected and 6 died. In that outbreak the entire Hong Kong poultry population was culled. Compared with the Hong Kong outbreak, the current epidemic is far more widespread. The World Health Organization experts are concerned that the co-circulation of the existing avian and human influenza strains could be a precursor to an influenza pandemic caused by the emergence of a novel human influenza to which the world's population has little or no immunity.

In response to recent suggestions that the H5N1 virus could be changing into a form that is more easily transmissible to humans, a World Health Organization investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence that this was occurring and that the current level of pandemic alert should remain unchanged. In June 2005 the Australian Government released a national pandemic plan, called "The Australian management plan for pandemic influenza". NSW Health is in the process of revising its influenza pandemic plan in light of the national plan and recent evidence from the Asian avian influenza epidemic. In Australia the National Influenza Pandemic Action Committee regularly meets and reviews the threat to Australia from avian influenza. There have been no Australians identified with avian influenza and no reports of infection in Australian birds with the strain that is currently circulating in Asia.

The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has been on high alert for illicit importation of bird products since the first cases were reported. In New South Wales an expert panel, the Infectious Diseases Emergency Advisory Group, advises on the public health implications of infectious diseases threats to the State, including avian influenza. Plans for the control of an outbreak in New South Wales have been developed. New South Wales Health has been working closely with area health services to plan the emergency management response to an outbreak of pandemic influenza. NSW Health will also be rehearsing its emergency plans with other agencies in Exercise Eleusis, an exercise co-ordinated by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, later this year.

New South Wales has set aside a stockpile of personal protective equipment, including gowns, goggles, gloves and masks that would be used in the event of an influenza pandemic. A quantity of the anti-influenza drug has also recently been added to the stockpile. There is limited worldwide supply of antiviral influenza drugs. The Australian Government maintains a sizeable stockpile of anti-influenza medicines for use in the event of a pandemic. New South Wales Health would use its supplies of the drug for treatment of influenza cases or for prophylaxis in the event of an influenza pandemic until such time as Australian Government stocks are made available. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not advised deferral of travel to affected countries, but does advise Australians, especially children, visiting countries affected by avian influenza to avoid situations where they may have contact with farms and live bird markets in areas that report outbreaks of avian influenza.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Natural Resources, representing the Minister for Housing, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that the Department of Housing plans to bill its tenants for water charges? In particular, is the Minister aware that about half the number of public housing tenants do not have their water charges separately metered and will be charged based on the water consumption of the entire property? Will the Minister explain if the Government intends to introduce separate metering systems for all public housing tenants to allow for fairer charges and to encourage water saving among tenants?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question, which I will refer to the Minister for an expeditious reply.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, and Minister for Juvenile Justice. Will the Minister outline the administrative arrangements for the Juvenile Justice agency within his Justice portfolio? Is the organisation to retain independent departmental status? What changes are proposed to senior management, and will there be any changes to their reporting lines to the Minister? What departmental functions are being considered for merging or realignment with the Department of Corrective Services or any other agency in his portfolio?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Most of the honourable member's question presupposed that there is to be some form of amalgamation of the two departments. It is a false premise, obviously based on the fact that one Minister administers both portfolios. There has been no suggestion of that. We are currently going through the process of replacing the chief executive officer.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister please advise the House on the successful outcomes of the 2005 New South Wales Workplace Safety Summit and highlight some of its achievements?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I commend the honourable member for his ongoing interest in workplace safety, which is a very important issue indeed. Honourable members would be aware of the great strides that have been made in improving workplace safety in New South Wales, with injuries and fatalities at their lowest rates in 17 years. In 2002 the Government hosted the inaugural Workplace Safety Summit in Bathurst, which delivered 132 recommendations for improving workplace safety. Some of the great successes of that summit include WorkCover's Business Assistance Unit and Small Business Assistance Strategy, and the continuation of WorkCover Assist and rural safety initiatives such as the rollover protective structures [ROPS] and ShearSafety rebate schemes.

Last month the Premier opened the 2005 Workplace Safety Summit in Orange, which reinforced this Government's commitment to making the workplace a safer and more productive environment. In front of 250 delegates, including peak business groups, trade unions and health professionals, the Premier reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the national strategy on injury and fatality reduction targets. The targets are to reduce workplace fatalities by at least 20 per cent by 2012, with a reduction of 10 per cent by 2007; and to reduce the incidence of workplace injury by at least 40 per cent by 2012, with a reduction of 20 per cent by 2007. We are well on track to meet these targets.

In the two years since 2003-04 the number of workplace fatalities has reduced by more than 40 per cent. The incidence of workplace injuries has declined by 7 per cent. In real terms, it equates to 2,870 fewer major workplace injuries and a reduction in the annual cost of workplace injuries of more than $207 million. Over the course of the two-day summit, nine industry working groups developed strategies and an action plan to address the major causes of injury. The Premier also used the summit as a forum to launch WorkCover's new $2.6 million Rural Safety Improvement Program. The ROPS and ShearSafety rebate schemes have helped reduce injury rates on New South Wales farms. However, they remain unacceptably high.

At the Workplace Safety Summit the Premier announced a new Power Take-Off Guard Rebate Scheme to provide direct financial incentives to farmers to install guards on power take-offs. This will save the lives, and literally save the limbs, of farmers and farm workers. The Premier also announced a $650,000 boost to WorkCover's Industry Advisory Service, with full-time regional advisory officers stationed in Maitland, Orange, Tamworth, Tweed, Wagga Wagga and Wollongong. What has been so heartening to Government is the spirit of partnership between workers and employers that is being strengthened through participation in events such as the safety summit.

Peak business groups, unions and the Government have been working hard to reduce injuries and fatalities, and to make safety simple for business, but unfortunately the shadow spokesperson for commerce did not take up his invitation to attend the summit. The co-operation between workers and employers, so clearly embodied in the summit, is helping to drive the cultural change that is delivering real improvements in workplace safety.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Health a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of the dangers surrounding compressed air cleaners commonly used to clean the dust from computers and other electrical devices? Is it the fact that in the United States of America [US] children as young as 10 have taken to using the cleaners as inhalants? Is it also a fact that the activity, commonly called "dusting" in the US—so-named after a leading brand called "Dust-Off" in that country—is thought by teenagers to be safe because the compressed air cleaners contain no butane, propane, ozone, et cetera? Is it a fact, however, that most of these compressed air cleaners do contain a compound used in refrigeration that has caused several sudden deaths in the US in children as young as 14 years old? Is it a further fact that here in New South Wales several products are readily available to teenagers and children for purchase for as little as $8 a unit? Will the Minister ensure that members of the community, especially teenagers, are adequately educated about the dangers of compressed air cleaners and inhalants in general? Will the Minister further ensure that all compressed air cleaners have highly visible warnings explicitly stating the dangers of inhalation and the fact that the product is to be sold only to persons over the age of 18 years?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for his important question. I do not have the details at hand but will seek an answer and provide it to him in due course.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. How does his role as Minister for Infrastructure interface with the Olympic-style infrastructure group established by the Premier in his office that is headed by David Richmond? Is the Minister aware that, in announcing the appointment of his infrastructure supremo, the Premier said, "From now on we will approach every major infrastructure project with the same Olympic 'can do' attitude—not just 'can do' but 'will do'"? If the Premier's infrastructure man is "Mr will do" what does the Minister do? Is the Minister's role to be limited to co-ordination of repairs and maintenance and heritage matters?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Clearly, the honourable member's question is not a serious one. I suggest he look once again at the Premier's very detailed statement about the roles.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on the status of plans to help ensure that sheep producers are reimbursed through the Ovine Johne's disease transaction scheme?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The State Government has worked very hard over the last two-and-a-half years to help our sheep producers overcome the division and strife that existed under the old Ovine Johne's disease [OJD] management program. We mapped a new risk-based management regime, following an extensive review by the Hon. Richard Bull and the former OJD Interim Steering Committee. The risk-based approach is a vast improvement on the old program and more firmly puts the management of OJD in the hands of industry. One of the outstanding issues under the previous program is the mechanism by which nearly 450 sheep producers can be reimbursed for work carried out on their properties to help stop the spread of OJD. It is important to remember that these works were specifically designed to benefit industry. Therefore, it was always understood that industry funds would be used to help ensure sheep producers were repaid for their efforts.

As members would be aware, the Ovine Johne's Disease Advisory Committee, chaired by former Minister and member for Orange Mr Garry West, recommended to me in March this year that the Government endorse the transaction-based contribution system to collect and distribute the funds to sheep producers. I would not have the Hon. Patricia Forsythe enter into this discussion; I think one of her sources moved on in recent times. I endorsed the approach as recommended to me, and I have since worked with the New South Wales Farmers Association and other industry groups to put such a scheme into place. In fact, last year the State Government introduced the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Amendment Bill to enable the implementation of such a scheme, and The Nationals supported it. The legislation passed through State Parliament with bipartisan support. It also had the backing of the New South Wales Farmers Association.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When are you going to pay them—is it $4.2 million?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is $2.4 million.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When are you going to pay them?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If the honourable member is patient, I will deal with it. The scheme will now come into effect on 1 October. Under the transaction-based contribution system, abattoirs and the State's stock and station agents will collect a fee of 20¢ per sheep and 10¢ per lamb for all transactions. Those contributions will be placed into a special fund, with moneys distributed by the Rural Assistance Authority. This is the fairest and most effective means currently available to help ensure some 450 sheep producers are repaid moneys owed to them for work carried out in good faith—work designed to benefit the entire industry. It is important to note that many of these producers have been out of pocket for nearly three years. This extended drought has only placed more strain on their cash flow. Today I can announce that the New South Wales Government has decided to provide a $725,000 advance to the industry, so producers can receive an initial payment straight away.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This repayable advance will help relieve some of the financial pressure. It means that each of the affected producers will receive an instalment of 30 per cent of the total moneys owed to them before the end of the calendar year. Once the transaction fund builds up based on the 20¢ and 10¢ contribution system, producers will receive the remainder of moneys owed to them, in the order in which the original claim was received by the Rural Assistance Authority. These latest developments follow extensive consultation in recent weeks with the New South Wales Farmers Association, and the Australian Livestock and Property Agents Association, which represent the stock and station agents in New South Wales.

Clearly there have been many viewpoints on the transaction scheme, and I thank all those involved for their input throughout the consultation phase. I urge members to read today's edition of The Land, because the New South Wales Farmers Association, which represents farmers—not this silly National Party lot, which should be declared an endangered species in the bush—has endorsed the scheme. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should have a look at The Land. I will send him a copy.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training during her campaign for the seat of Marrickville. Does the Minister recall naming a teacher, Mr Ian Hale, in response to my question of 25 May 2005 regarding inappropriate use of public schools by political activists? Is the Minister aware that Mr Hale has since written to her seeking a retraction of matters she incorrectly attributed to him, but that despite more than two months having elapsed since that letter was sent Mr Hale has still not received the Minister's response? Will the Minister explain why Mr Hale has since been threatened with a transfer? Are these matters not being attended to because of the time being taken due to the Minister's personal desire to move to the lower House? Is it appropriate that Mr Hale, a teacher praised by both the previous Premier and Minister for Education and Training, should be asked to urgently sign a transfer form? Would not students be better served by the Minister's support for teachers like Mr Hale, rather than her apparent support for teachers who clearly breach departmental protocols by pushing political prejudices on vulnerable students?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. David Oldfield asked the Minister for Education and Training a question without notice regarding this matter on 25 May. An answer was provided and printed in the questions and answers paper. The honourable member also asked the Minister related questions without notice on 21 and 22 June 2005. The Minister answered those questions, and her answers are publicly available in Hansard.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I ask a supplementary question. I draw to the Minister's attention, whenever she might return, or to the attention of the Special Minister of State if he wishes to respond, the fact that the Minister's answer today is not appropriate. The questions I have raised have not been answered; anything that has been provided in writing has not been complete. Today I have raised new matters, specifically in relation to letters that have been sent to the Minister but remain unanswered.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am happy to confirm that the Minister for Education and Training has received correspondence from the Hon. David Oldfield in relation to this matter. As the honourable member has already been advised, he will receive the Minister's response in due course. I might say that the honourable member, if not chivalrous, is at least consistent; he has asked a question about education. We are now 75 per cent of the way through question time, but members opposite have not asked one question about education.

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

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. How many doctors are qualified and certified to deliver babies at Armidale hospital? Is the Minister aware that on the weekend of 3 September 2005 three pregnant women were forced to travel from Armidale hospital to Tamworth hospital, a distance of 110 kilometres, to give birth because there were insufficient medical staff available at Armidale hospital to provide proper birthing facilities? Is the Minister further aware that Armidale hospital provides birthing facilities on a regular basis for mothers from many other towns in the Northern Tablelands, including Inverell, Glen Innes and Guyra, and the surrounding areas? What action will the Minister take to ensure the safety of mothers and babies by providing proper birthing facilities at Armidale hospital 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am aware of the issue to which the Hon. Rick Colless refers. I think the local area health service made a statement about the matter, and I refer the honourable member to that statement. The reality is that two-thirds of the State's birthing facilities are in rural areas, and in some parts of New South Wales the facilities are difficult to maintain due to a lack of obstetricians. My priority is always safety. I understand that on the weekend in question there was a lack of obstetricians and that resulted in the temporary issue arising, which has since been addressed. However, that is the crisis with which we are faced regarding maternity services.

Through an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sponsored process, the colleges control the number of obstetrician training positions in existence. We continually argue with the Commonwealth about our being provided with sufficient training positions for doctors and nurses, as well as other work force training positions. In this case, the colleges control the number of training positions for obstetricians. There is a shortage of obstetricians in New South Wales; there is no issue about that. If we are not able to provide a safe service, we will not have mothers going to places where the service cannot be provided; it is as simple as that.

Recently in Quirindi, I think it was, the only doctor there decided that he would go because of the declining birth rates in that community, and unfortunately the service was lost to that community. The issue at Armidale to which the honourable member refers was a temporary issue and it has since been addressed. If the Hon. Rick Colless is referring to the general situation regarding birthing facilities across New South Wales, it is as I have described. What I will not do while I am Minister for Health is provide unsafe services.

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

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ports and Waterways. Will the Minister provide the House with information on infrastructure works in Eden, on the New South Wales South Coast?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Hon. Ian West for his question and commend him for his interest in this important part of New South Wales. The importance of planning and developing New South Wales port infrastructure is not limited to our major ports in Sydney, Newcastle and Port Kembla. The Port of Eden is an example of a regional port making a significant contribution to the local and State economy, and the New South Wales Government is committed to boosting that role.

[Interruption]

Opposition members might not be interested in these issues, but many people in Eden are. On 1 September construction commenced on a commercial cargo storage area at the naval wharf on the southern shore of Twofold Bay. The New South Wales Government has committed $4 million to the project. When completed, the facility will comprise two four-hectare storage areas. Initially the facility will be used for the storage of softwood plantation pine prior to export. I am advised that this facility, including the connecting multipurpose wharf, will result in up to 50 full-time, ongoing, direct jobs, and more jobs and investment will follow as the new wharf provides greater flexibility for our exporters.

I had the opportunity to inspect the site of the new cargo storage facility on 1 September with the local member for Monaro, Steve Whan—a fine, young member who does an excellent job. I congratulate him on being a strong advocate of the port and its importance for the region. I also met the harbourmaster, Josephine Clark, who is New South Wales' first female harbourmaster, as well as members of the local Aboriginal community who helped bring the project to its construction stage. The New South Wales Government strongly supports the commercial potential of Twofold Bay wharf, the port's main wharf, which was completed in November 2003. The wharf is used by the Navy for about 70 days a year and is available for use by commercial vessels for the remainder of the year. To maximise the value of the wharf for commercial shipping, the State Government has contributed around $2 million converting the structure to a multipurpose wharf able to accommodate vessels up to 32,000 tonnes.

It is not just local exporters who stand to benefit from this upgraded facility. Over the coming year eight large international passenger cruise vessels are expected, including P&O's Artemis, which can carry 1,200 passengers, and the six-star luxury cruise vessel Silver Shadow. The port's status as a cruise ship destination is set to raise the profile of Eden as a domestic tourist destination.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order for the first time.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Members of the House may be interested to learn that when the wharf is not in use for shipping it is open to the public for fishing. There is excellent fishing in the area. I inform the House also that the New South Wales Government has upgraded the port's navigation aids at a cost of $32,000 over the past 12 months, and the port of Eden has had a security plan in place since mid-2004. Building world-class port infrastructure in regional New South Wales is a priority of this Government.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Ports and Waterways. Considering the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Port Botany was finished three months ago, when will the report be publicly released?

[Interruption]

Madam President, I do not think the Minister can hear my question. Does the Minister agree that this report should be released as soon as possible to assist industry and members of the public to be better informed in the debate about the future of Port Botany? Does the Minister plan to use any of the $3 billion available from AusLink for rail freight infrastructure to ensure that ports growth in this State is consistent with the New South Wales ports growth plan, which states that when Port Botany reaches capacity Newcastle will become the State's next container facility. Does the Minister plan to put a cap on the number of containers that can be moved through Port Botany, considering the increase in traffic congestion around the port, or does the Minister support Chris Corrigan's push to increase container movements from one million to eight million containers annually?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the member for her question but I inform her that the report to which she refers went to the Minister for Planning and he will deal with it. I will refer the question to the Minister.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest that it is somewhat hypocritical for a member to complain about interjections by other members when that member is one of the worst offenders in that regard. I ask all members to keep the noise down.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister for Finance, and Minister for the Hunter. Would the Minister advise why there have been delays in the release of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy? What action has the Minister taken, along with the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources, to release the strategy? Is the Minister aware that the strategy was earmarked for release in November 2004 and again in June 2005, and that local councillors and developers have put numerous projects on indefinite hold while they await the release of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I read the same editorial in today's Newcastle Herald. It is pleasing that the Hon. Robyn Parker is doing her in-depth research as usual. It is a matter for the Minister for Planning and I will refer the question to him.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Is the Minister aware of a plan by the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council to establish a co-ordinated emergency services centre on council-owned land in Port Macquarie to house the ambulance, Rural Fire Service, Fire Brigade and State Emergency Service? Does the Minister agree that this should lead to a more efficient use of available resources, and does he, generally, support this type of co-ordination of emergency services? Is it a fact that the council has been negotiating with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR] since February 2003 trying to get approval for a variation of the Koala Plan of Management so the centre can go ahead? Can the Minister use his good offices to try to expedite this very necessary project?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, I am aware of the proposals in Port Macquarie and I generally do support the co-location of emergency services. For quite some time now the Government has been co-locating a number of emergency services, such as the State Emergency Service and the Rural Fire Service, particularly across country areas. I will refer the honourable member's question to the appropriate Minister.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Would the Minister please update the House on the State Government's efforts to enforce seafood labelling laws in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no doubt that Australian consumers love their seafood. Demand is growing yearly for fresh, safe and healthy fish, prawns, lobsters and other seafood products. There has been an increasing trend towards large volumes of imports entering Australian markets to meet this demand. Many of these are from countries where the cost of production is far lower than in our domestic industry. As a result, commercial fishers in New South Wales sometimes find themselves competing on a quite uneven playing field. That is why the State Government is doing what it can to make sure that local fishers are given a fair go at the point of sale.

Under the National Food Standards Code all imported seafood products are required to be clearly labelled and identified by retailers. This gives consumers the information they need to choose between local or imported catch. Unfortunately, some retailers have not always obeyed these rules, meaning that consumers can be duped into buying imported products under the assumption that they are purchasing Australian seafood. This is a problem that the State Government, through the New South Wales Food Authority, has been working hard to overcome. As I informed the House at the time, last year the authority conducted its first seafood labelling compliance survey.

Inspectors carried out random surveys of 221 premises and found that 100 of those retailers were breaking the law by failing to identify imports or partaking in fish substitution. Although this was a disappointing result, an education campaign conducted by the Food Authority resulted in a vast improvement in those figures. A follow-up survey found that 100 per cent of retailers were following the rules and this week I announced the results of the latest, random inspections carried out by the Food Authority last month.

Inspections of 91 supermarkets, butchers and fishmongers in the Sydney, Newcastle and North Coast areas found that 84 were correctly labelling imports. Seven retailers received on-the-spot fines ranging from $330 for incorrect labelling of imported products to $1,320 for the practice of fish substitution. Although it was unfortunate to find some retailers continuing to ignore labelling laws, I was pleased that the majority of retailers are doing the right thing and I congratulate them.

However, for the sake of New South Wales' fishers and consumers I am determined to continue this campaign until we once again achieve 100 per cent compliance across the State. This is a problem that the State Government takes very seriously. Last year the maximum penalties for labelling offences that breach the Food Standards Codes were increased tenfold. Individuals can now be fined up to $55,000 and corporations up to $275,000 for breaches. This week I asked the Food Authority to review this fine structure to determine if even stricter penalties are necessary.

Country-of-origin labelling is one of the most important issues facing both the State's commercial fishers and our farmers, and is one that the Government has been pursuing vigorously. Last month we announced a proposal to extend country-of-origin labelling to unpackaged home grown and imported meat products. This proposal seeks the same rules for our meat industry as for our seafood industry. The Government's proposal has been submitted to the review currently being conducted by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Consumers may not be aware that there are substantial imports of meat into Australia, particularly pork, which is processed here and sold as bacon or ham.

I believe that consumers have the right to make informed choices about the food they buy and they are best informed by clear information being displayed at the point of sale. The Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meets at the end of October and country-of-origin labelling is already on the agenda. I will ensure that the opportunity is taken to provide a meaningful labelling system for the benefit of consumers and primary producers in New South Wales. Recently when I attended the tractor rally at Circular Quay I spoke on the same platform as Alan Jones and Doug Cameron from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. There were about 500 people present, including many farmers from across New South Wales to represent the horticultural sections of the New South Wales Farmers Association. I was very disappointed to see that not one member of The Nationals was there.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: It is unfair for the Minister to challenge me like that when I am on two calls to order.

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

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Earlier in question time Ms Sylvia Hale asked me a question about asthma rates. I would like to draw her attention to the annual reports of the New South Wales Chief Health Officer 2004 and, in particular, the section on respiratory diseases, which incidentally shows that the Sydney South West Area Health Service has an asthma rate lower than the metropolitan average. This report contains a lot of very useful information. The House will be pleased to note, in particular, that between 1983 and 2002 the asthma death rate in New South Wales declined by 58 per cent in all ages and by 69 per cent in the 5-year to 34-year age group. I would encourage Ms Hale to take a copy of this document and improve her questionable knowledge.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA, by leave: When I was speaking in the debate immediately before question time I made a statement that the Premier had visited Kelso High School. I was, in fact, referring to the Deputy Premier, the Hon. John Watkins. I also note that as recently as 16 August Ms Lee Rhiannon met with the Minister for Education and Training to discuss the issues Ms Rhiannon raised during her remarks.

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

Motion by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal agreed to:

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

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

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

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [2.46 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the Crimes Amendment (Protection of Innocent Accused) Bill is to protect the identity of innocent persons who are accused wrongfully, unfairly or, indeed, with malicious intent. It is not the intention of the bill to provide protection of any kind for persons for whom the weight of evidence is such that criminal charges are laid against them. While, of course, innocent people are charged and ultimately found innocent by the court process, the bill relates only to the protection from public exposure of the accused, not those already charged. While we as a society recognise that a person is innocent until found guilty, the bill does not seek to protect the identity of persons charged.

However, it is not fair—indeed, it is entirely unreasonable—that a person who is merely accused of a crime should have his or her life destroyed by the notion of guilt established simply by the media. There is an unfortunate widespread public acceptance that where there is smoke there is fire. I imagine that most honourable members in this House have at some time been the subject of totally unfounded gossip, accusations and, in some cases, matters so serious that the media has speculated on corrupt conduct or the possibility of criminal charges.

Anyone who has ever had a dirty little story invented by an enemy knows full well that there can be lots of smoke without even so much as the tiniest spark. If we believe in the presumption of innocence, why should the innocent suffer the horrendous penalty of public humiliation and vilification as a consequence of widespread media coverage? We all know that accusations will make the front page but, equally, we also know that should nothing come of accusations, apologies are rare. If a person rates media coverage on the basis of accusations and nothing comes of those accusations, chances are you will hear no more and, hence, will never be informed of the spuriousness of the allegations. Does anyone here believe it is right or fair for a person to be publicly dragged through the mud by what may be nothing more than a malicious lie?

This bill in no way attacks freedom of speech. However, it will protect accused from having their identity disclosed. Crime can be reported, the victim can be interviewed, and the only thing the bill prohibits is the identification of the accused until that person's status changes from accused to charged. Until that time, widespread knowledge of the identity of the accused has no more public value than gossip. The public gains nothing from knowing such a person's identity, but the accused may lose almost everything by being publicly identified. While it may be argued that it is appropriate to publicly expose those charged with crime, what of those who are not charged yet suffer allegations through maliciousness or for financial or, possibly, political gain?

The bill does not hinder the safety of the community or justice in relation to the apprehension of suspects for criminal proceedings, because the bill does not apply to a publication authorised by the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of apprehending a person accused of having committed an offence. Nefarious people make false allegations for all manner of reasons. They may be motivated by misplaced notions of vengeance, personal gain—financial or otherwise—different beliefs, or opposing views. Sometimes they are motivated by political persuasion. If the unfortunate target of allegations happens to have a public or, perhaps, an industry profile, the media attention of them proportionately skyrockets. There are many examples of decent, law-abiding citizens having their lives devastated by allegations given widespread media attention.

To some—the media in particular—members of Parliament are unfairly considered targets of opportunity. I expect that the House remembers the terrible treatment received by Joe Tripodi. The difficulties he must have suffered after the disgraceful public assault made on him will hopefully always be a matter the rest of us can only imagine. Mr Tripodi was never charged but if we stepped out onto Macquarie Street and asked a few passers-by or visited his electorate at the time and spoke to a few constituents, what impression do you think they were left with? Perhaps suspicion that he got away with it because he was a member of Parliament.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid was also publicly dragged to and past the point of humiliation but no charges were ever laid; nor were there any adverse findings. Yet, if we asked talkback radio callers about the Hon. Eddie Obeid, would they say he was innocent or guilty? Of course, the Opposition could be smiling at this stage, thinking that that was Labor and we did our best to score political points off the misfortune of those accusations, be they true or not. But the shoe has been on the other foot, and will be again.

If the average person on the street—or, more particularly, in the electorate of Pittwater—was asked about John Brogden's financial conflicts of interest alleged to the ICAC in the lead-up to the last election, what would they say? That they are suspicious about that matter? That he is innocent or he is guilty? Members of this House should not delude themselves into thinking that such public disclosures aid one side or the other at any given time. All politicians are brought into disrepute by such allegations, so no side should think it will be advantaged by being able to slur the other at any given moment through the media's willingness to jump on the so-called good story. The experiences of the Hon. Peter Breen provided a good example of how allegations made to ICAC can so unfortunately slur a person's reputation, although, as with those mentioned previously, no charges were ever laid.
The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: I am reluctant to intrude into the honourable member's second reading speech but I am the fourth member he has mentioned as having been the subject of allegations, all by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. His bill amends the Crimes Act to protect so-called innocent accused. None of the members he has mentioned, including me, was ever accused of any crime. I ask the honourable member not to refer to members who are not the subject of inquiries and investigations in the context of criminal accusations.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: To the point of order: I am surprised the Hon. Peter Breen has raised this point of order. Essentially I am defending him against what took place with him and saying it was wrong. The bill relates to people who are accused of a crime. Someone who is taken to ICAC is potentially going to be charged with a crime. I am merely making the point that simply using ICAC to slur someone in the media should not be done. So, ICAC is appropriate in the sense that one is being exposed publicly as a consequence of that which will perhaps lead to charges or lead to serious accusations.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member may proceed.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: Of course, there is the practice of simply referring false allegations to ICAC and then alerting the media, hence creating the story that the accused is under investigation for corruption. This very tactic has been used maliciously against me. I have not raised these specific incidents to relive events. Those members have my sympathy. Indeed, I am on the public record as defending Joe Tripodi, the Minister for Roads. I have defended him not because I know him—I do not know him really—but because what was done to him was unfair. I simply refer to those matters to highlight that members are far from immune from the matters this bill seeks to rectify. Many people would say that politicians are fair game. But should that be extended to us being unfair game? Do we deserve to suffer the effects of false or unproved allegations? Where there is smoke, is there always fire? Will it be your life and the lives of your loved ones that are one day destroyed by false allegations?

It may be considered that existing defamation laws provide adequate redress, but the damage is already done. Often, such legal action is not realistic. A case takes years and the expense excludes most people from even trying, especially against the billions of dollars at the fingertips of the media. Successful defamation under such circumstances is to be applauded, but the compensation only helps to ease the pain that this bill seeks to avoid. A recent case in the United Kingdom brought against television personality John Leslie sparked British Ministers to consider a bill similar to this one. A BBC report stated:

Labour's convenor of the parliament's justice committee Pauline McNeill, MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, said the case against John Leslie raises serious questions about the current system. You have to consider the consequences on all sides when anonymity is not granted. I think you would have to consider what the specific reasons would be that you would not be granting anonymity.

Although the Commons Home Affairs Committee recommended that suspects should not be named up to the point of charge, the members of Parliament could not agree on whether such protection should extend to the trial itself. In correspondence I received in the last 24 hours from the member just referred to, I am informed that that matter is still pending. Following the court case, it was said that the Leslie scandal was "the latest example of the evil consequences of publicity, police and prosecutors combining to trial by media". After the charges were dropped against Leslie, the prosecutor, Richard Howell, said in court of Leslie:

The prosecution gladly acknowledges that he will leave this court without a stain on his character from this investigation.

That statement is in complete denial of the damage that had already been done to Leslie's character and his career. After months of media speculation and gossip, Leslie was arrested on 5 December 2002 and charged in June 2003 with two counts of indecent assault. During that time he was sacked from his $600,000 a year job. Yet charges were dropped only one month after they were laid. In an interview with the Daily Express newspaper in the United Kingdom Leslie told how his weight seesawed as he stopped eating and then binged on poor quality food. He no longer felt like playing the piano or playing tennis and football. Leslie said:

From successful TV celebrity, I had suddenly become portrayed as a vile monster and I could not defend myself. I thought the best thing to do would be to do away with myself.

Show business manager Jonathon Shalit said:

He (Leslie) has been tried by the media and a whispering campaign, and by people who could not substantiate their claims.

Publicist Max Clifford agreed:

He's got to win the hearts and minds of the British public again, and that's going to be an uphill struggle.

After all charges were dropped Leslie's solicitor, Paul Fox, said:

His life has been really a nightmare. His job is being in the media in the public eye, and yet he's almost had to become a sort of monk. He's had to retire from public life whilst these police investigations went on. He's lived his life under a cloud.

One of the most glaring examples of double standards in public identification of accused is the law in regard to the treatment of juveniles as opposed to the treatment of adults. Juveniles are not named. I understand that is to protect them. Why does the law fail to protect adults? Is it because society has determined that young people are entitled to make mistakes which should not be held against them for the rest of their lives? Do we say they are young and can be excused? By doing so, does not society recognise the lifelong damage that is done from being associated with crime?

In the case of juveniles we do not just protect the innocent accused, we protect the guilty as well. It does not matter how often they are proven guilty, we just keep saying, "It's okay, we understand you are young. We understand you have been convicted 50 times for stealing cars. We understand you have been convicted a dozen times for robbery or a few times for assault or a couple of times for rape, or maybe you have murdered only one other human being. It's because you are young and young people make mistakes. So we will make sure the media never tell anyone you are a dangerous violent offender." We keep secret the identity of convicted teenage murderers, but we broadcast the names of adults who later turn out to be the innocent accused.

Do members see the hypocrisy and the double standard that is applied in law: protect the guilty convicted children and expose the not yet charged, potentially innocent adults? I note the Hon. Peter Breen says "No", he does not see the hypocrisy. It is inconceivable that he cannot see the hypocrisy in protecting guilty convicted children time and time and time again, yet exposing not yet charged potentially innocent adults. I simply point out that innocent adults should at least be afforded the same protection that is enjoyed continuously by criminal juveniles.

Many people have described to me how they have been tried, convicted and executed by the media, only to find later the accusations go nowhere. They come from all walks of life: the famous and the unknown; professionals such as doctors, and workers such as security personnel; others innocently accused through vindictiveness or from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Until a person is charged, there is no justifiable public interest in his identity. There is no issue of freedom of speech. If we truly uphold the presumption of innocence, then we must accept allegations as little more than gossip, at least until the person is charged.

It may be argued that by not naming the accused the public will be denied due process, including knowledge of the accused. Such arguments are wrong. Without charges, accusations should be considered gossip. Gossip is not a matter of public interest. Gossip is an unsustainable matter of public snooping and nosiness, an invasion of privacy. It may be argued that by not naming the accused, the media will not be able to report the story. That notion is also plainly wrong. A Sydney Morning Herald headline read, "Judges upbraid 'little thug' over sentence appeal". Because some of the little thugs mentioned in the case were juveniles they were not identified. Yet they were criminals who had already been found guilty by the court. Although these criminal kids were not named, the media was still able to inform the public about the trial. Why not afford adults, who have not even been charged, at least the same protection?

The Crimes Amendment (Protection of Innocent Accused) Bill will not prevent public awareness of crimes or the perpetrators who committed them. The bill will not prevent the airing of television shows such as Australia's Most Wanted. The bill does not protect the guilty or those seeking to avoid prosecution through non-identification. The innocent accused are just that—innocent accused—and they deserve to have the fundamental right of being presumed innocent until it is shown to be reasonably otherwise. Comments that victims, like John Leslie, who were innocent accused are now okay because they have a job and are back on their way in their chosen careers are offensive at best.

How many members would suffer in this manner and then write it off as bad luck on life's journey? I implore members to seriously consider the free reign of the press to pick and choose whom they destroy. I am not stuck hard and fast on this bill in its present form; I am open to amendments. I expect members to suggest improvements to the bill. I welcome any amendment that improves the bill whilst still preserving the principle of protection for the innocent accused. When those members who choose not to support this bill find themselves the innocent accused, I hope that as they loudly profess their innocence they will remember they were warned.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.08 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(a) expresses concern at Telstra's submission to the ACCC's review into price controls calling for an end to the 22 cent cap on local call costs,

(b) notes that this would allow Telstra to increase local call costs at their discretion, leading to higher local call costs for consumers and paving the way for timed local calls,

(c) expresses con