Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 8 March 2006, Corrected Copy)

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

THE PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

MADAM PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly, having had under consideration the Legislative Council's message dated 28 February 2006, wishes to advise that the Legislative Assembly agrees with the resolution relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Tobacco Smoking in New South Wales and fixes Thursday 9 March 2006 at 1.00 pm in room 1108 as the time and place for the first meeting.

Legislative Assembly John Aquilina
8 March 2006 Speaker

The President announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "The New Schools Privately Financed Project", dated March 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon 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 Cabinet Office, NSW Police, the Commissioner of Police, the Ministry of Police or the Attorney General's Department relating to the Firearms Safety and Training Council Ltd [FSTC] or the NSW Shooting Association Ltd [NSWSA]:

(a) any document which refers to the contract under which FSTC administers firearms safety awareness testing for people applying for firearms licences,

(b) any document which refers to the new contract to be entered into in 2006 for the provision of firearms safety awareness testing for people applying for firearms licences, and

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

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 186 outside the Order of Precedence by omitting "licence" wherever occurring and inserting instead "approval number".

Leave granted.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon 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 all documents in the possession, custody or control of the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police, the Ministry of Police or the Attorney General's Department regarding the approval number granted to the Australian Target Shooters Club, including but not limited to:

(a) any briefing documents by the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police and the Attorney General's Department which provide notes, comment, opinion or advice, including expressions of concern, opposition or support for the application for an approval number; and

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

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, excluding any photographs, technical drawings, maps, plans, designs or specifications, in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, the Premier's Department, the Cabinet Office, Treasury, the Minister for Roads, or the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA], created since the order of the House of 25 June 2005 relating to the Lane Cove Tunnel:

(a) all correspondence, memorandums and general communication between the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Minister for Roads, the Premier's Department, the Lane Cove Tunnel Consortium and any other parties, relating to contracts for the Lane Cove Tunnel project, and

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

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin, on behalf of the Hon. Greg Pearce, agreed to:

That the reporting date for the reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 relating to the Budget Estimates and related papers be extended to Thursday 6 April 2006.

Private Members' Business item No. 162 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn on motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.11 a.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard as it has already been delivered in the other place.
Leave granted.

I bring before the House today an issue that starkly distinguishes the values of the Labor Government from those sitting opposite.

These Bills are one plank of the NSW Government's response to the Commonwealth's divisive Work Choices legislation, which is a direct attack on the working conditions and living standards of ordinary Australians.

It is an attack supported by the Opposition in this State. The so-called Work Choices legislation offers no choice, no protection, and will lead to confusion and complexity for both employers and employees.

Under the Work Choices legislation, all foreign, trading and financial corporations will be forced to operate under Work Choices—they will have no choice.

The Commonwealth has sought to base the legislation on its constitutional power to legislate in relation to foreign, trading and financial corporations. The NSW Government believes that the Work Choices legislation goes beyond the scope of this constitutional power. For this reason, the Government has launched a challenge to the legislation in the High Court. The High Court has indicated that this will be heard in May 2006.

The Work Choices legislation represents an unprecedented attack on the working conditions of ordinary Australian workers. It is an attack on family living standards.

What will employees get from Work Choices?:

• A substandard range of statutory protections to replace what were once comprehensive awards and agreements.

• The potential for a lower real minimum wage, if the Fair Pay Commission drives down pay rises.

• Protracted disputes with employers over wages and working conditions.

• A sidelined Australian Industrial Relations Commission without the ability to deal with industrial disputes easily and expeditiously.

By contrast, the NSW Labor Government supports an industrial relations system that promotes fairness and equity, and supports employers and employees in making decisions about the workplace. That is why the Government is introducing these Bills.

The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill makes three important amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to extend additional options and protections to those who are transferred to the federal industrial relations system by the Work Choices legislation.

The Bill does not add anything new in substance to employee and employer rights and obligations. Unlike our federal counterparts, we're not trying to interfere with the industrial arrangements that the parties have entered into. What we are doing, in fact, is attempting to maintain the rights and obligations that employees and employers now enjoy, before Work Choices rolls over the top of them.

So what are we proposing to do?

Firstly, the Bill will give industrial parties a further option for making and maintaining co-operative industrial arrangements outside the Work Choices system. A critical part of such arrangements is access to a means of negotiating and settling the disputes which inevitably arise from time to time.

Work Choices guts the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in dispute settling, and specifically prohibits it from being much more than an adviser to the parties. This is so, even if the parties agree to give the federal Commission a stronger role.

The Bill provides that, if the parties conclude a common law deed of arrangement, and they agree to give the NSW Industrial Relations Commission a role in resolving disputes about the application of the deed, then the Commission will be empowered to do so.

This gives the parties another option for making agreements if the state system is no longer available, and provides them with ready access to an expert tribunal as a means of supporting a co-operative industrial relationship.

The Bill further provides that those enterprise consent awards that currently apply to constitutional corporations will cease to operate, and will be replaced by enterprise agreements in the same terms as the previous award.

Given that enterprise consent awards are made with—and cannot be made without—the consent of the parties, they are in substance no different from an enterprise agreement, and so should be treated as such.

As a result, such agreements will be transferred to the federal industrial relations system in a form that protects the agreed conditions to the maximum extent possible. This is in the interests of both the employers and employees because it protects the integrity of the agreement that they have made.

Thirdly, the Bill proposes some minor administrative amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to make it easier for the NSW Commission to respond to the needs of industrial parties.
This will be done by amending section 159 of the Act to clarify that the general power of the President includes a specific power to determine the way in which a matter or a class of matters is listed before the Commission, and to determine the allocation of matters or the way in which such matters are to be included.

In addition, the Bill will amend section 156 (2) of the Act to provide that a Full Bench of the Commission must include at least one Presidential Member and at least one member who is a Commissioner or—if no Commissioner is available—one non judicial Presidential Member. This will open up the membership of Full Benches so that non-judicial Deputy Presidents may be used to fill the non-judicial role on a Full Bench, where no Commissioner is available.

In the immediate term, these proposals will allow the President to prioritise matters likely to be affected by the commencement of Work Choices. In the longer term, the Commission's capacity to deal with emerging industrial relations issues will be improved.

The reality is that Work Choices severely restricts the choices available to employers and employees. It will be vastly more complex to work with and it will be more costly for all parties involved. This Bill aims to mitigate some of those effects for those NSW employers and employees who will shortly be conscripted into the federal industrial relations system.

I now turn to the second Bill that the Government is introducing into the House. The Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill will make certain public sector employees the direct employees of the Government, rather than individual statutory corporations.

The Government believes that about 45 per cent of the NSW public sector may be exposed to the Work Choices legislation. In particular, there are a range of public sector organisations that are statutory corporations and which could be characterised as trading or financial corporations for.the purpose of the Work Choices legislation.

A number of these organisations employ key frontline staff, such as nurses and allied health workers in the Health area, and teachers in TAFE institutions.

The Government has a choice in how it employs its staff. And our choice is to take direct action where we can—to protect the working conditions and living standards of our own public sector employees.

Work Choices does not apply to the direct employees of the Government of NSW. Therefore, by transferring public sector workers to direct Government employment, we are ensuring the continued application of the State industrial relations system for key frontline employees, such as:

• nurses,

• ambulance staff, and

• TAFE teachers and support staff,

• Home Care workers, and

• other employees of statutory corporations.

About 45 per cent of the public sector (school teachers and support staff, police, fire-fighters, and other Crown employees) will not be covered by Work Choices. This is because they are already employed by the Government in the service of the Crown, and not by a corporation.

At this stage, the employees of State Owned Corporations have not been included in this Bill, and the Government is considering all available options for protecting their employees from the deleterious effects of the Work Choices legislation.

The Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002, the Health Administration Act 1982 and the Health Services Act 1997, and makes consequential amendments to the legislation establishing various statutory corporations.

Generally, the Bill removes the existing employment powers of the public sector corporations listed within it, and provides that the employees of these corporations will instead be employed by the Government of NSW in the service of the Crown under a new Chapter 1 A of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.

The Bill makes it clear that the transition from employment by a public sector corporation to employment by the Crown will not change the terms and conditions under which these staff are employed, and will not break the continuity of their service.

With the exception of TAFE administrative staff, the Bill does not make any public sector employees into public servants.

Schedule 1 of the Bill amends the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to create a new 'Government Service of NSW', which will consist of people employed by the Government of NSW in the service of the Crown. Staff within the Government Service will be assigned to public sector corporations to enable them to exercise their functions.

The NSW Government will employ staff in Divisions of the Government Service. A new Schedule to the Act will list the Divisions of the Government Service. Part 1 of the Schedule lists the Public Service Departments, and Part 2 lists the Non-Public Service Divisions within the Government Service.

In practice, the staff currently employed by each statutory corporation will form part of the Division that is assigned to assist that same corporation in exercising its functions.
Part 3 of the Schedule lists the Special Employment Divisions within the new Government Service. The employment of staff within these Divisions is subject to the limitations specified in relation to those staff. This Division is intended to preserve the effect of existing powers which statutory corporations have to employ outside the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, such as powers to employ casual staff.

The Bill does not include the Teaching Service, the Police Service or Parliamentary Staff, although these will continue to be defined as 'public sector services' under the Act. The Health Service will not be included in the Government Service, but its staff will be transferred to Crown employment through amendments to health-specific legislation.

Each Division of the Government Service will have a 'Division Head' who will exercise the Government's employment functions in relation to that group of staff.

The person holding the position of Division Head will be listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. In relation to Public Service Departments, the existing Director-General or Chief Executive Officer will be the Division Head. In relation to other public sector corporations, the Division Head generally will be the existing Chief Executive Officer.

Schedule 1 also contains a number of transitional provisions in order to facilitate the smooth transition of staff into the NSW Government service, and ensure that their current employment terms and conditions are transferred to the new employer.

In particular, provision is made to ensure that the accrued annual leave, extended service leave, and sick leave are transferred to the new employer. Further, if a Federal award or agreement applies to an employee prior to the changes, the terms and conditions of the award will be carried over as a State instrument. The new arrangements will also preserve the current rights of employees to access appeals tribunals.

As the Public Employment Office is a statutory corporation, it has been decided to de-corporatise that organisation to be absolutely certain that it will not be covered by Work Choices.

Therefore, the Bill abolishes the Public Employment Office, and replaces it with the 'Director of Public Employment', who will be the Director-General of the Premier's Department. The Director of Public Employment will have the same powers and functions as are currently held by the Public Employment Office.

In addition to amending the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, the Bill also inserts a new Part 1 into Chapter 9 of the Health Services Act, dealing with the employment of staff in the NSW Health Service. The Bill provides that existing public healthy sector employees also will be employed under this Part by the Government of NSW in the service of the Crown.

• Staff will be employed within the NSW Health Service to enable the following health sector organisations to exercise their functions:

• Area health services and statutory health corporations, and the public hospitals that they control;

• Prescribed affiliated health corporations, in relation to recognised establishments and recognised services;

• The Health Administration Corporation; and

• The Director-General of Health, in relation to ambulance services, and the provision of health support services to public health organisations and the public hospitals that they control.

The Bill provides that the Director-General of NSW Health may exercise the Government's employer functions on its behalf in relation to the staff employed in the NSW Health Service.

Again, consequential provisions ensure that all staff who become members of the newly constituted NSW Health Service will continue to be employed in accordance with the terms and conditions that applied to them as members of staff of the statutory corporation concerned. The Bill does not change the salary, wages or employment conditions of these employees.

Special issues arise in relation to affiliated health organisations. These are non-government religious and charitable organisations, some or all of whose establishments or services are recognised as part of the public health system. The Health Administrative Corporation is currently the representative employer for these organisations.

Given the non-governmental nature of these organisations, the Bill provides that organisations may become 'declared' affiliated health organisations by being prescribed as such in a regulation. However they will not be prescribed if they do not concur.

The staff of 'declared' affiliated health organisations also will be employed in the NSW Health Service by the Government of NSW in the service of the Crown. A provision has been included in the Bill to ensure that only NSW Health Service staff whom the declared organisation considers will respect their health care philosophy will be able to work in their recognised services or establishments.

Whether or not an organisation is 'declared' by regulation for public health sector employment purposes will not affect its status as a public health organisation under the Health Services Act. 15.

Non-declared organisations, which are funded as part of the public health system, will be required as far as possible to provide terms and conditions of employment for their staff, which mirror those for the NSW Health Service. Regulations will also be developed to facilitate mobility between non-declared organisations and the NSW Health Service.
In relation to the Ambulance Service, additional changes are necessary to preserve the exempt benefits for its employees under Commonwealth fringe benefits tax legislation. These are contingent on the staff being employed by the body charged with providing public ambulance services.

Therefore, the Ambulance Service of NSW will no longer be a statutory corporation but will still retain its distinct identity as a Service. The Service will continue to comprise the highly professional group of staff dedicated to providing ambulance services for the people of NSW—however, they will be transferred to the NSW Health Service to form a distinct and separate Service with in it.

The Bill repeals the Ambulance Services Act 1990, and inserts a new Chapter SA into the Health Services Act 1997, which will instead establish and regulate the Ambulance Service of NSW.

In future, the Director-General of Health will exercise the functions of employer of Ambulance Service staff and will also be vested with the statutory responsibility for providing ambulance services. Day to day operational management responsibility will continue to reside with the Chief Executive, and in all practical respects the Ambulance Service of NSW will continue to operate as it currently does.

Schedule 3 of the Bill contains a set of amendments to the Health Administration Act 1982 that are required as a result of the changes to the NSW Health Service.

Schedule 4 contains a set of amendments to the legislation constituting the various statutory corporations covered by the Bill. These provisions expressly remove the power of the statutory corporations to employ staff. These corporations will instead draw on the employees of the Government Service of NSW to enable them to carry out their functions.

The New South Wales Labor Government strongly opposes the Commonwealth's Work Choices legislation, and the impact it will have on the working conditions and living standards of ordinary Australians. These Bills represent just one aspect of the Government's response to that legislation. They are strong measures that represent Labor's strong commitment to protecting fairness and equity within our community. I commend these Bills to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.12 a.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition in debate on these bills. In so doing I begin by asking the question: Where is the urgency in relation to this legislation? The Government has not sought urgency in a formal sense, but yesterday's notice paper made no mention of this industrial relations reform legislation. There was no suggestion of urgency in relation to this legislation in the hours leading up to yesterday's 12 o'clock press conference, headed up by the Premier, Morris Iemma. It was not until much later in the afternoon, in fact not until yesterday evening, that the legislation hit the deck. It is interesting to examine what is happening in regard to this legislation and to compare that with what is happening in particular in the public sector and the sense of urgency that exists there—but only in the minds of public servants and in the minds of the public.

It is interesting to contrast the sense of urgency in regard to this legislation with what occurred yesterday at the press conference and the announcement by Premier Iemma and Carl Scully, the Minister for Police, on the issue of the rebirthing of stolen vehicles. It is equally interesting to note that 10 months ago the Minister for Police made the very same announcement, citing a sense of urgency and the need to get this legislation before Parliament, not the industrial relations legislation, but an important area of criminal activity—the rebirthing of stolen cars. Only 10 months ago we were told that the legislation would be before Parliament in 2005, that it was a matter of urgency, and one that needed to be dealt with immediately.

Yesterday we heard the same announcement. In fact, the rebirthing of vehicles announcement was reborn yesterday, and no sense of urgency was conveyed during the past 10 months. Let me assure honourable members that one has only to speak to people in the community who have had their vehicles stolen to know that motor vehicle theft in New South Wales is an urgent issue. There is no doubt that motor vehicle theft can be attributed to clearly defined organised gangs. It took 10 months for the Government to act on something so urgent and we still do not have the legislation before us. That legislation is important because it relates to the working conditions of police officers who are dealing with highly-organised criminal gangs that are ruthless in their activity.

Once again the Government has been caught out making an announcement it made 10 months earlier, at which time it emphasised that the legislation was urgent. Once again it has failed to come up with the goods. With regard to the legislation before the House the Minister, a few moments ago—for the first time that I can remember in regard to industrial relations legislation—sought not to add to the contribution made by the Minister in the other House. He chose not to contribute to the debate and put forward his personal reflections and views on this legislation. He declined, instead sitting down after having the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard because the speech had already been delivered in the Legislative Assembly. Where is the urgency? What has been put before the Government to cause it to bring this matter before the House at this time when no mention was made of it when the House resumed yesterday afternoon?
It is important to examine another area relating to the working conditions of police officers. It is an issue that I, as shadow Minister for Police, regard as urgent. It is an issue that the Government has recognised as urgent but one in respect of which it has failed to produce the goods. I am referring to the provision of Tazar stun guns. The Government is considering a trial of Tazar stun guns, but if honourable members were to research this matter they would learn that the Government first made an announcement in regard to the trialling of Tazar stun guns back in 1998! This is a serious occupational health and safety issue relating to the working conditions of the men and women in the NSW Police but this Government has been caught out again dragging its feet. There is no sense of urgency about this matter. Despite claims that something needs to be done, the Government has not produced the legislation.

Today the Government introduced legislation earmarked as urgent but defined by its own lack of preparedness. There has been no consultation in New South Wales relating to the Government's proposal. It simply pulled this legislation out of the hat yesterday. In an endeavour to try to get some currency as it slips further and further down the black hole of its own neglect and incompetence, it plucked this one out of the hat yesterday. I ask the Minister: Whom has he consulted? Where is the Government's support for this issue in the wider scheme of things? I think it is fair to say—and I do not believe that the Minister would have the temerity to challenge me on this—that the Federal Government had the courage of its convictions and put out the legislation for public consultation.

Regardless of whether people liked it or did not like it they had an opportunity to look at it. Every man, woman and child in this country had an opportunity to participate in the debate—unionised, nonunionised, employee and employer, the lot! Everyone was involved in the debate and everyone had an opportunity to consider it. We have before us today something in respect of which there is no evidence of the Government coming forward with any examples of consultation. It has involved only a very small number of mates or people within the unions.

[Interruption]

The Minister said, "the cops", which is interesting because I spoke to some police officers this morning. I asked them whether they had heard about this legislation and they do not know a thing about it. I do not know which cops the Minister is referring to. He is obviously not talking to the real ones who are on the front line because they do not know what is happening here. They know about the federal legislation because the Federal Government had the guts to stand up and say, "This is what we are proposing." But slippery Sam opposite merely says, "This is urgent. We need to get this before the Parliament. We have not consulted with anyone."

The Government has not spoken to anyone, apart perhaps from a few mates in the Labor Council. In a desperate attempt to grab some currency and become relevant the Government said, "Let us come up with something." I go back to the point I made at the commencement of my contribution: Where is the urgency? Where is the consultation? Has the Minister spoken to farmers? Has he spoken to nonunionised workers?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Yes.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister said yes, he has spoken to farmers. When I refer to farmers I am not talking about the Minister for Rural Affairs and his mates in Country Labor; I am talking about farmers who have a bit of dirt under their fingernails, who are out there working on their properties. The Minister said he has spoken to them. I am talking about speaking to them face to face, not through a medium or through a ouija board, and saying, "This is what we are proposing." There has been no debate whatsoever on the Government's proposals.

At the beginning of debate the Minister had the opportunity to say, "I am the Minister for Industrial Relations in New South Wales and this is what I stand for". Forget the pathetic contribution of the Deputy Premier, John Watkins, in the Legislative Assembly. The Minister for Industrial Relations had the chance to show what he is made of by making a personal contribution to the debate. But he did not do that. Instead he simply said, "It has already been said before; here is the legislation. Now pass the beer nuts and let us move on." The Minister showed no interest in these bills. Of course, he will reply to the second reading debate, as he tries desperately to prove that he is interested. But if the Minister were dead-set serious about these bills he would have contributed already to this debate. The fact is that Labor members have nothing to add. They have no sense of urgency and nothing to contribute because there has been no consultation on this matter.

It is important to put into perspective the current situation in New South Wales. The Government is trying to rebadge itself as the workers' friend. We have to give it to Government members: they are good. If we take our eyes off them for a moment, they move and slip around. I like that: The Labor Party is the workers' friend. Remember how the workers' friends treated the workers—their support base—a few years ago, when the Premier stood at the front of Parliament House and gave them the peace sign in reverse? Those workers were concerned about the lack of consultation in relation to workers compensation reforms.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: They weren't concerned about that at all.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Apparently they were not concerned about that. Sleep easy, the Hon. John Della Bosca is in charge. Be calm, little children, Della is here to look after you; everything is fine. The fact is that workers did not trust Labor then so how, in heaven's name, can they trust Labor now? When was the last time a senior Minister—or, for that matter, any Minister or even a Labor member of Parliament—put up his or her hand and said, "I am responsible; I made a mistake"? It does not happen. Instead the Government ceremonially rolls out some unsuspecting public servant, who is usually a couple of rungs below Labor's mates on the ladder. Labor's mates are all at the top of the tree. They have their noses in the trough, enjoying all that is available to them on the gravy train of State Parliament. The Government marches out an unwitting underling at some public meeting to be hung, drawn and quartered. It makes an example of that lowly public servant to dispel the belief that the Government is not acting. That happens time and again.

We saw what happened to Paul Forward and we see what happens to police officers. The Government is never at fault when something goes wrong. Labor never interferes or does the wrong thing; it just drags out some police officer to be humiliated. How can we forget what happened to Dennis Bray, a most hardworking police officer? The Government thought it could get away with it by removing him from his position. But the officers of NSW Police—the morale and confidence of whom Labor members continue to undermine—had had enough of the Government's political interference in senior levels of the force and they said, "No way; we have had enough". The Government was then forced to try to weasel its way out of trouble by suggesting that it did not remove Dennis Bray from his position; it simply gave him the weekend off and then put him in a new position to complement the work yet to be done.

The Government does not like public servants; it shoots them. The Government gets rid of public servants. So much for the suggestion that Labor is the workers' friend! It is a shame that the Treasurer is not in the Chamber, because he is a real favourite of the workers. He was here when the workers compensation reforms were being debated in Parliament.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He was not, actually.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: At the time he was in the process of moving from the Labor Council to Parliament. It was remarkable what little the fighter for the workers and the union movement said about those reforms. The Hon. Michael Costa said nothing because he had a secret plan. That plan is not so secret now because the Hon. Michael Costa ran off at the mouth at a function one night and said that New South Wales had one or two public servants too many. In fact, it was a bit more than one or two: it was 20 per cent too many from a work force of 340,000.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: So you had to outdo him, didn't you?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is interesting to hear the cheap points that come from the land of irrelevancy that is the Greens bench. I will come back to the Greens in a moment. The difference between the Liberal-Nationals Coalition and the Labor Party and its left-wing branch, the Greens, is that we will work with public servants to ensure that there are no sackings.

[Interruption]

Members opposite laugh but I remind them of the words of the Hon. Michael Costa, who let fly about the 340,000 public servants in this State and said that that was 20 per cent too many. He said that it was going to fall to him, as Treasurer, to do something about it. Armed with an axe, he is working his way, quietly but surely, through the public service. The Hon. Michael Costa is the masked avenger for the Australian Labor Party. But he wears two masks: one for each face. The Hon. Michael Costa wears one mask for his mates at the Labor Council, where he is the workers' friend, and another mask in caucus, where he gets out the chainsaw. The blood must be all over the floor when the Treasurer has finished chopping away at public servants. He does not care.

The difference between the Liberal-Nationals Coalition and the Labor Party and the left-wing Greens is that they want to sack public servants, full stop. We want to restructure the public service over time as officers leave the service. That restructure will take time but it will happen. The public sector will not fall for the Government's rubbish. Public servants know that the Government is not concerned about their interests in any way. Look at what Labor did to them in the area of workers compensation. The Government reformed workers compensation but did not consult the workers about it. They did not feel that they were part of the process. The Government simply said that workers were ripping off the system so it was going to do something about it. Many people are doing it tough but the so-called workers' friends show them no compassion. In my shadow portfolio of Police—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: The lowest incidence of injuries and fatalities in 17 years.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: That is an interesting comment. I recently took the opportunity to visit some of the workplaces in which police officers must perform their duties. I am glad that the Hon. Tony Catanzariti is in the Chamber because he comes from the south-west of New South Wales and I recently met police in Moama and Deniliquin. The working conditions of those police officers are an absolute disgrace. The cracks in the wall of Moama police station are so big that people do not have to use the Eagle phone to talk to officers: they simply speak through the cracks. Daylight shines through the cracks and into the police station. I also visited some police residences in Moama. The only thing keeping the panes of glass in the windows is the paint. The white ants have eaten everything else; there is nothing there. Thank God this generous Government provided lead-based paint to hold together the panes of glass!

At a police residence I saw massive pieces of lead-based paint falling off the walls of a child's bedroom. These complaints are all falling on deaf ears because the Government is simply not interested. When the Government talks about workers' rights it should look at its own bailiwick and the conditions in which police officers work and it will know it has failed them. Recently the Minister admitted there has been 10 years of neglect in police stations and police premises—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I think he said no Minister had ever taken responsibility.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Of course he did not take responsibility, because he said it was somebody else's fault. This neglect did not occur during his shift but during somebody else's. Once again the Government has flicked out the ball and made sure it keeps moving around. Joe Tripodi is here one moment and gone the next. It is like the three shell trick—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He's always there!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister rightly interjects that Joe Tripodi is always there. He is one of the men who stands behind the curtain behind the Premier—one of the men who puts his hands up the Premier's jacket. Joe is one of those men who is controlling the strings of the puppet but he is not the only one. One cannot ignore for one moment the contribution of the Hon. Eddie Obeid and Mark Obeid from the Labor Party, who also control the puppet. They all control the puppet but no-one takes any responsibility. The only people who are taken out, and made an example of, are the public servants.

There has been no urgency in relation to this matter. The public servants in this State know how the Government has mistreated them and ignored them over the years. Any last ditch attempt by the Government to try to suggest that it is serious about looking after the workers in this State will fall on deaf ears because they have switched on to the Government. The most disappointing fact is that despite the Government's efforts yesterday to try to get some currency, it got nowhere near it. I feel sorry for the Labor Government because it is on its way out.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.32 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill and the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill. Employees in the public sector are effectively summed up by the words "in the service of the Crown". Last night the House debated removing the word "Crown" from the oath of allegiance taken by members of Parliament.

The Hon. Peter Breen: It was the Queen. The Queen is not the same as the Crown.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, it is. The Queen is the Crown.

The Hon. Peter Breen: No, it is not. The Queen is a person.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Queen wears the crown. The Queen is the Crown. This hypocritical legislation reassigns all employees of the State Government. As the overview states, the bill:

(a) removes the employment functions of certain statutory corporations that currently employ their own staff (such as the RTA, STA and the TAFE Commission) and provides instead for the staff to be employed by the Government of New South Wales in the service of the Crown, and

The reference to the Crown is repeated through the legislation. The Government, in the service of the Crown, will employ employees in public health—for example, area health services and, as noted in schedule 5 to the bill, the staff of the ICAC—and existing provisions relating to arrangements for other staff are retained. It is hypocritical of the Government to propose to remove references to the Crown by changing "Crown land" to "State land", and to remove the royal symbol—not a Queen Elizabeth symbol—in this Chamber and in other places.

For political purposes the Government has identified this loophole and put employees under the service of the Crown so they will not be affected by the Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation. This bill is merely a device to achieve the Labor Government's objective to maintain control over all public servants and not give them an opportunity to have a role in work choices. Maybe some public servants prefer to negotiate individual contracts perhaps to improve their financial return within their government department, which this legislation prevents.

The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill is a more positive piece of legislation that deals with a number of practical matters. It clarifies the unfair contracts jurisdiction of the Industrial Relation Commission [IRC] of New South Wales; it allows the Supreme Court to supervise the jurisdiction of the Commission in Court Session after the processes of the commission are complete; it changes the name of the Commission in Court Session; and it allows the commission to extend the time in which an unfair contract claim can be brought.

The Court of Appeal was concerned that the IRC wrongly decided on cases about commercial contracts that were outside its industrial jurisdictions and that those judgments could not be appealed against. To avoid the effect of section 179, the Court of Appeal decided to allow parties to bring cases before it as soon as proceedings had been filed in the IRC because the IRC had not yet made a decision; section 179 did not apply. However, the problem with that approach was that employees could be put at a significant disadvantage if they were forced to bear the expense of running a case in the Court of Appeal rather than in the IRC. The Court of Appeal is considerably more expensive than the IRC, and cases generally take longer to hear and often provide no remedy. The IRC was designed to be a quick and inexpensive forum for settling workplace disputes.

That is why the Attorney General convened a working party—chaired by Acting Justice Stein of the Court of Appeal and comprising representatives of the Law Society, the Bar Association, Unions NSW, and Australian Business Ltd—to inquire into and report upon the operation of the sections of the Industrial Relations Act dealing with the privative clause and unfair contracts. The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill puts into effect a number of recommendations of that working party.

The bill will amend the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to clarify that where there is a contract by which work is performed in an industry, any related condition or collateral arrangements may also be reviewed by the commission, and may be varied or declared void within the commission's unfair contracts jurisdiction. The bill also changes the name of the "Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session" to the "Industrial Court of New South Wales". The bill extends, with the leave of the commission, the time in which an unfair contract claim can be brought. We support both bills, but I note the hypocrisy of the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill 2006.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.38 a.m.]: Madam President—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I hope you are going to make more sympathetic remarks.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Absolutely, Minister. The debate has been a bit of a worry. The Greens support the bills but are considering moving an amendment because of our concern that some other sections of what all would probably regard as public sector workers, in a wide definition of the term, should be picked up by and given the protective coverage of this legislation. First, I congratulate the Government on challenging the Federal WorkChoices legislation in the High Court. I understand that that case will be heard in May. The Greens regard that as a very important step, but it is only one of a range of diverse responses necessary to give workers, their families and those they support the protection that can be afforded them at the State level.
I want to comment on the Federal industrial relations approach, and in particular the Fair Pay Commission. This is just one of the many rorts the Federal Government is trying to foist on the workers of this country, trying to con them that the Government is trying to do the right thing. The so-called Fair Pay Commission is modelled on a like body in Britain, but at least that country is honest and calls it the Low Pay Commission. The Federal Government body is a replica of the Low Pay Commission, but our Federal Government resorted to spin and deception, which characterises all aspects of this WorkChoices legislation. Therefore the Greens are pleased to work with the Labor Government of New South Wales to endeavour to bring some fairness and equity to working relations in this State.

This is able to be achieved because the WorkChoices legislation does not apply to direct employees of the Government of New South Wales. So we must ensure that a whole range of workers are regarded as direct employees of the Government of this State, so that protections can be put in place for them. I understand that the bill will give industrial parties a further option for making and maintaining co-operative industrial arrangements outside the WorkChoices system. An obvious part of those arrangements is access to a means of negotiating and settling the disputes that inevitably arise in workplaces from time to time.

The bill provides that parties will have ready access to an expert tribunal as a means of supporting a co-operative industrial relationship. The Greens certainly support the umbrella that is being provided by this legislation to cover more New South Wales workers, but our main point is that more workers need to be brought under the umbrella. That is particularly so with local government workers and employees of some State-owned corporations who have not yet been picked up by this legislation. So the Greens support the sentiment of the bills.

The New South Wales Government's response to the Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation is telling. These bills are being dealt with too quickly. It is unfortunate that more time has not been allowed for discussion of them. The New South Wales Government has known for a long time that March was the critical month for workers in New South Wales who would fall foul of the WorkChoices legislation. Surely we could have been given more time to consider the bills. It could have been out in the community for a number of months for discussion and consideration. I do not believe that the New South Wales Government is doing all it can to protect more New South Wales workers from the ravages of the Federal Government's WorkChoices laws.

I want to speak about the non-government, religious and charitable organisations that will now be deemed to be Crown employees by consent. In the second reading debate last night the Deputy Premier made the following remarks about those workers:

Special issues arise in relation to affiliated health organisations. These are non-government religious and charitable organisations, some or all of whose establishments or services are recognised as part of the public health system … Given the non-governmental nature of these organisations, the bill provides that organisations may become declared affiliated health organisations by being prescribed as such in a regulation. However, they will not be prescribed if they do not concur. The staff of declared affiliated health organisations also will be employed in the NSW Health Service by the Government of New South Wales in the service of the Crown.

This point begs the question: Why is the Government going out of its way to provide coverage for employees of non-government religious and charitable organisation but appears to be not doing the same for employees of State-owned corporations, or for local government employees or other workers? As far as I can see, the best that we have is this statement from the Minister:

Further consideration will be given to extending [this] policy to State-owned corporations at a later date.

The Greens find that statement worrying. I ask the Minister, in his reply to the debate, to clarify where the Government is heading with this aspect of the bill and the problems faced by a sizeable section of the New South Wales work force. The Greens will move amendments to this legislation which, if passed, will ensure that the New South Wales Government also gives local government employees the status of Crown employees. These amendments would require the Premier and the Government to introduce legislation in both Houses of the Parliament no later than 7 April 2006; to, as far as practicable, convert the employment status of New South Wales local government employees to that of New South Wales Crown employees; to take similar legislative action that would shield local government employees from the reach of the Federal Government's Workplaces Relations Act; or to provide written reasons, including legal advice, to the Parliament explaining why that is not possible.

I will give one example to demonstrate why those amendments are clearly necessary. To do so, I will relate some information that the Greens have about the Hunter. Large sections of the work force in different parts of New South Wales will be vulnerable to the WorkChoices legislation. We believe that the Labor Government should have by now offered protection to those sections of the work force but it has not given a good reason why it has not done so. All local government workers across the State are still vulnerable, and that makes this one of the most urgent matters the Government needs to address. For example, the following are the numbers of workers in local councils that will remain vulnerable: 1,230 in Newcastle, 1,038 in Lake Macquarie, 70 in Dungog, 96 in Gloucester, 350 in Great Lakes, 150 in Muswellbrook, 326 in Maitland, 285 in Cessnock, 376 in Port Stephens, 101 in Scone, and 198 in Singleton. That is more than 3,000 workers in the Hunter alone. Surely they should have been given protection by now.

I cited those numbers to underline that a large section of the work force in New South Wales will miss out on necessary coverage when this legislation becomes law. Then there is the unclear position with State-owned corporations. I must admit that I have not had time to check which of the State-owned corporations are covered and which are not, so maybe some of these corporations are brought under this legislation. However, I know that not all of them are covered. A considerable number of workers in State-owned corporations will be left in the vulnerable position of their colleagues in local councils.

In the Hunter alone, the Hunter Water Corporation has 128 workers, Macquarie Generation has 608, the Newcastle Port Corporation has 99, and Delta Electricity has 728. That totals more than 1,500 more workers, and some of them will not have the protection devised by the Government and included in the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill and the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill.

This is very worrying. We have not been given a clear explanation. I acknowledge that I have not had the opportunity to go through the bill fully because of lack of time, but we require a much more detailed explanation. I very much hope not only that the Minister will give us a clear explanation in his reply, but that he will support our amendment, which does not lock the procedure in place but requires the Government to develop a procedure to protect the workers the Government says it is committed to protecting. It is pleasing that we are able to work on the legislation, because we certainly need something to combat WorkChoices, which will do so much damage to the fabric of Australian society.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.50 a.m.]: I support the bills, which, as has been pointed out, were introduced quickly. I apologise that I am not better prepared, but having seen them only half an hour ago it is difficult to assess them properly. The bills provide that people covered by New South Wales public service awards will not come under the Federal Government WorkChoices legislation, which has been much criticised. It is important, and it is worth noting, that the Howard Government has based its aggressive reform process on ideology rather than evidence. It is bad government. The only guaranteed outcome is that the poorest workers will suffer. In a sense we will have globalisation as our lowest paid workers move towards the wages paid in China or Bangladesh to be competitive.

Workers at the top will be very sought after and will have huge wage rises. We have seen progressively a huge change in the number of multipliers between the poorest workers and the richest workers. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but the American marine from AMP who demolished the share price and took $17 million as his prize set a new benchmark for chief executive officers to say that they were worth a fortune, no matter what they do. The payout heralded the drop in Australian wages for the lowest paid.

In 1985 I received a Public Service Fellowship to study workplace absence. I travelled through Japan, Sweden, Canada and the United States of America assessing industrial relations systems and the reasons why people were and were not absent from work. It was interesting to note that "absenteeism" was a pejorative: it suggested that the worker is absent because of laziness. Certain industries have very high rates of absenteeism. The American car industry grappled with up to 10 per cent absenteeism in some areas at some times. But if one considers the ergonomics of what they were asked to do and the positions in which they were doing it—for example screwing on exhaust pipes in an upside-down position, which caused their shoulders to ache—a lack of social support and a lack of child-minding facilities, it is not surprising. For example, if parents' shifts did not coincide, one had to take time off to look after their children. The key point was that the more that workers were in control of their destiny the better their attendance records were.

In about 1991 I did some interesting research at Sydney Water, which revealed that although absenteeism was assumed to be higher in lower-paid and blue-colour groups, which it was, the cost of absenteeism per employee in the female work force rose to about $35,000. Although less than 10 per cent of workers had salaries above $35,000, in salaries up to $35,000 the total cost of absenteeism kept rising. In other words, although people at the top were absent for fewer days than those at the bottom, they cost the organisation more for the same number of days because their wage rates were higher.
The absence increased in cost per employee above the ninetieth percentile of salaries. In the male work force it rose to above $50,000, which also was above the ninetieth percentile. Although managers were happy to say, "Those lazy employees take more days off than I do," the fact that they earned extra salary meant that the days they took off were more expensive to the organisation than the days the lower paid workers took off. The idea that people at the bottom are lazy and have to be bashed into submission is paternalistic.

When I spoke to Americans at the School for Workers in Madison, Wisconsin, they could not believe how fortunate Australia was to have an award system that guaranteed a certain amount of holidays, a certain amount of sick leave and some discretion to approve additional sick leave, for example in the case of a person who had been a good worker for years. If that person had a heart attack that required more than the statutory amount of sick leave, they could appeal and the boss could say, "That's fair enough. Over the broad picture of your total work life you have given a lot of service and you haven't taken a lot of sick leave. We will grant you extra sick leave."

Whenever I tried to visit unions in America, often they were not allowed anywhere near the plants. They were literally being run out of a broom cupboard. Whenever I asked about pay and conditions they would draw from their back pocket—like someone pulling a gun from a holster—a little fat book that was their contract, which outlined how many sick days they were entitled to. If they took any more than their entitlement it was entirely at the discretion of management to sack them. That was the common practice. Everything was extremely legalistic. The deal the Americans were getting was very bad. The working poor were extremely disadvantaged.

When I went into restaurants in America the tip theoretically was 10 per cent, but it was regarded as so mandatory that it was included in the bill and I had to tip on top of that. Many of the people working in restaurants were illegal migrants who did not have green cards. They were paid virtually no wages and so they relied on their tips. Without their tips they could not survive. Last year when I was away with a committee we got the bill for breakfast and we tried to pay the actual figure on the bill. We were nearly lynched trying to get out of the restaurant. If you do not pay a 15 per cent tip, which is the absolute basic, the staff will not let you leave. The charge is actually 15 per cent more than the figure written on the bill. It might be discretionary, but only in theory. America has a private health insurance system and a very limited Medicare system.

The Federal Government is undermining our Medicare system and taking away its universality. Of the 250 million Americans, 100 million are either uninsured or cannot afford to have a significant illness without going bankrupt. More than one-third of the American population has totally inadequate health cover. America is the wealthiest country in the world and spends a greater percentage of gross domestic product on its health system than any other country in the world, which highlights the degree of inequity. Everyone in Australia is happy about the rise in house prices, but if you do not have a stable job and you ask for a loan you will not get very far. You will not get a loan. As investments in real estate are made, people who do not have stable employment—or if the bank is not sure that their employment is stable—cannot get a home loan regardless of their salary.

Unemployed people cannot join in the prosperity. It is an irony in my own life that I have worked hard as a doctor but I have never been particularly materialistic, although I think I have done quite a good job in putting people's health before my own payment. I can afford to do that because I have been reasonably paid, but it is interesting that my house has made more money than I have. That shows how fast real estate prices have risen in Sydney over the past 20 years. If a person is an employee without stable employment, that person will never get to have a house, so they are perpetually locked into renting. It is institutionalised poverty.

In an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins examined unemployment in the United State of America versus Australian unemployment rates. This is an interesting matter to examine because some years ago there was an article by Maximilian Walsh, who is a finance journalist, which trumpeted the wonderfully low unemployment rate that existed in the United States of America. Having been to the United States of America, I knew the difference between the Australian unemployment rate and unemployment rate in the United States of America. At that stage the Australian Bureau of Statistics worked out the unemployment rate as a reasonable figure to best reflect the real situation. The United States of America's definition of unemployment was that if a person had any regular employment, even one hour per week at, for example, the local milk bar or checkout, that person was classed as employed. So, not surprisingly, the statistics for the United States of America looked a lot better than Australia's.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. In answer to a question asked in the House on 2 March 2006 he said:

The New South Wales Government has spoken to the Opposition about the GST. Indeed, I can confirm that I have spoken to a number of shadow Ministers about the GST.

Will he outline to the House which Federal shadow Ministers he has spoken to, and what their responses were?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not intend to outline to the House whom I have spoken to. I am entitled to have discussions with whomever I like without having the Opposition knowing the purpose of my discussions. But let me say that the question does not deal with the principle that I made those comments in response to, and that is the powers of the Federal Treasurer to make adjustments to the Commonwealth Grants Commission formula for the GST to ensure that New South Wales gets a fair share of the GST. I was intrigued to read in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Federal Treasurer is already back-pedalling on his inquiry into taxation.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister is entitled to make a ministerial statement after question time, and I welcome his doing so, but the question was very specific. It related to the shadow Ministers that he had spoken to. Arising from his own admission in relation to the GST last week, we are simply asking him to indicate the shadow Ministers he spoke to and their responses to his proposition.

The PRESIDENT: Order! While I have ruled on many occasions that Ministers may make general comments about a subject when answering a question, I have also ruled that their answers are required to be relevant. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: In relation to the GST, as I have pointed out, the GST has an incidence of unfairness toward New South Wales as a result of the Commonwealth Grants Commission arrangements. As I said on the occasion when the Leader of the Opposition had asked the question, the Federal Treasurer has the full authority and legal and constitutional power to alter the GST in favour of New South Wales. Clearly the Opposition has no influence with the Federal Treasurer. Members opposite purport to represent New South Wales taxpayers, either in their constituencies, or in general through the Legislative Council, yet they cannot influence their own Federal Treasurer to make sure that New South Wales has a fairer share of the GST.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Federal Government currently is constituted by the Coalition that the Leader of the Opposition in this House happens to be a member of. If he is serious about helping taxpayers in New South Wales, he ought to speak to the Federal Treasurer and point out that the current arrangements applying to the GST are not fair to New South Wales. We are getting ripped off. We pay 34 per cent of the GST and get back only 28 per cent. By any standard, that is a rip-off. Clearly, if the Leader of the Opposition were to address that issue, he would be doing something beneficial for this State rather than asking questions that really have no relevance to what the public of New South Wales is interested in.

The honourable member for Vaucluse has made a range of comments about what he believes the Opposition's policies will be, if they are successful at the next election. We know that is not likely to happen. Not only that, we also know that, going into the election, we will hold them accountable for the $22 billion in expenditure that they are already committed to, and we will be asking the fundamental question: How are they going to pay for this, particularly as they are reluctant to do anything in relation to the GST? I welcome the honourable member's question.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. Will he inform the House of the status of interstate flows between New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am very pleased that the Hon. Kayee Griffin has asked me this very important question regarding the Greater Southern Area Health Service and flows to the Australian Capital Territory for treatment of New South Wales residents. It arises from a press release which was issued by the honourable member for Bega, who yet again has demonstrated the complete ignorance and incompetence of the Opposition in relation to issues that potentially affect electorates such as his. He stated, "I would like to hear how the Minister justifies this spend". I will be happy to justify the spend to the Australian Capital Territory health system.

It arises as a consequence of an Australian Health Care Agreement, which requires each State and Territory to reciprocate medical services for each jurisdiction's citizens. Indeed, we have no choice in relation people who go to Canberra for treatment. Similarly we have to treat those people from the Australian Capital Territory who come to New South Wales for treatment. If New South Wales attempted to put up some form of barrier to prevent people from either jurisdiction from accessing services, we would potentially lose our Commonwealth funding under the Australian Health Care Agreement.

I am sure all honourable members will recall that that was the agreement that New South Wales was either forced to sign or lose up to $1.1 billion of Commonwealth funding for hospitals. This is the same agreement that gave New South Wales $278 million less than we received under previous agreements and the agreement which resulted in New South Wales funding from the Commonwealth declining even further, by some $114 million over five years of the agreement. That is the same agreement as has resulted in New South Wales now contributing $1.63 for every one dollar of funds which the Commonwealth provided last year.

If the honourable member for Bega had bothered to make a few inquiries about this issue, he would have had explained to him the circumstances under which that Australian health agreement operates and saved himself the embarrassment of issuing a media release about $244 million going to Australian Capital Territory health.

[Interruption]

I see the Hon. Patricia Forsythe is still with us. The agreement is one of the reasons why we are building the Queanbeyan hospital, or rebuilding a Commonwealth hospital. I might add that the Queanbeyan hospital will be a terrific hospital. The only problem with the Queanbeyan hospital is that its construction will be limited because when the Coalition was in government, it sold off most of the land around the hospital, which prevented it from having a better footprint than would otherwise be the case. I have made the point that under the Australian Health Care Agreement it is true that the Australian Capital Territory receives a generous payment from the New South Wales Government—much more generous than I would like.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: But the Australian Capital Territory does not want you any more.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Oh, yes they do. I can tell the Hon. Melinda Pavey that the only way that system stays afloat is because of the money we give them. This is a fact of life.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: That is not what their Minister said.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am prepared to offer to take over the Australian Capital Territory system. I would be more than happy to take it over if they want to do that because I can tell the Hon. Melinda Pavey that it is one of the most inefficient systems, although not quite as inefficient as two hospitals the Commonwealth ran, Concord and Heidelberg in Victoria. They were the Fawlty Towers of the health system before they were handed over to State control under the New South Wales and the Victorian governments.

It is about time that members opposite understood the issues in relation to health services that affect their constituents. The Australian Capital Territory Government has, for some time, been charging us large amounts of money for the services they provide. We are under a limited capacity to be able to deal with that, although we are examining arbitration to try to have this matter resolved. The charges that they are inflicting on this State, which we cannot control because of the Australian Health Care Agreement, are exorbitant.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that Tilligerry Creek oyster growers are going broke through no fault of their own because faulty septic tanks in the Port Stephens area have contaminated the water? Despite claims made by Premier Morris Iemma and the Minister that the blame lies squarely with the local council, is the Minister aware that the council has legal advice that states that it is not responsible? The oyster growers pay rent to the State Government for the oyster leases, so why does the Minister shrink from his responsibility to keep the industry afloat in Port Stephens?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am glad that the honourable member has asked me that question. This issue has been discussed considerably over the past few months, and the Opposition has weighed in on it. I make it very clear that legal advice obtained by the State Government is that it is not responsible for the pollution that has been found in Tilligerry Creek.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who are you going to blame this time?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Wait a second! The pollution is related to sewerage systems on the back of the growth of housing in the area. It is clearly a local government responsibility, involving sewerage in the area. For the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to try to suggest that the Government has some sort of responsibility for that pollution is totally erroneous. The local government has a clear legal liability. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows nothing about the law, and everyone in this place knows that. The Government's legal advice is quite clear. The local government is responsible for the sewerage system in that area. The oyster growers in the area have septic tanks, and the local government is responsible for cleaning those several hundred household septic tanks and keeping them up to standard.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: And they license them.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As the Minister for Rural Affairs has pointed out, the local government has inspected the tanks and found that hundreds do not comply, and that is the problem in Tilligerry Creek. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be thinking about the State; that is, that the Government should not take on legal liability for a matter that should be dealt with by local government. That is the correct, legal approach and that is what is happening.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. I refer to the recommendations contained in the Deputy Coroner's report into the death of Ms Sharon Brophy at Campbelltown Hospital in March 2004. On 10 November 2005, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Minister as stating:

… we will take up all of these recommendations [from the deputy coroner] and embrace them.

Have all the recommendations of the Deputy Coroner now been implemented? If any of the recommendations have not been implemented, which ones have not, and why not?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Many of the issues that arose in the Brophy case had been addressed prior to the Deputy Coroner handing down that decision. Specifically, the issue of whether a patient has not been seen within the applicable triage time was reassessed at the time, and NSW Health had put that in place through the clinical initiatives of nurses. The Coroner also made some general observations in relation to having more doctors and more nurses. Of course, no specific targets were put down in the Coroner's decision but he certainly raised that issue and I am happy to endorse it. The Government is doing everything it can do acquire more nurses and doctors, but we are constrained because in the mid-1990s the Commonwealth decided as a cost-cutting exercise to reduce the number of training places, particularly for nurses but also for doctors. So, the Government had to recruit from overseas in order to meet additional demands.

Other issues were raised in the Coroner's decision relating specifically to pathology tests—in the case referred to they were obtained by the general practitioner—and the need to transmit those pathology tests to hospitals as early as possible so that the hospitals have that relevant information. Again, that is a very important issue and one that the Government has to discuss with general practitioners. Those matters, I add, ultimately will be subsumed by the electronic health record, which the Greens have opposed. The Greens have run a campaign against the Government establishing pilots for electronic health records, which would gather various pieces of information from general practitioners and other health professionals so that the hospitals, when they have to treat someone in an emergency capacity, are able to access those details. In light of the question raised by Ms Sylvia Hale, I hope she will go back to her caucus and revise the attitude of the Greens to electronic health records. It is a very important initiative and deserves to be embraced.
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's efforts to tackle noxious weeds in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Weeds threaten productivity, influence our economic viability, pose human health risks and are a major threat to our unique biodiversity. Every year weeds cost Australia's agriculture—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why has it taken eight months?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He should just listen for a while, and he will find out how wrong he is, as usual. The cost of our nation's winter cropping systems alone is roughly $1.2 billion.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It has taken six months.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, just listen; you do not want me to bring it out too early. In New South Wales weeds cost our farmers an estimated $600 million each year through lost production and control measures.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Is that why you rev it out at peak times?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member talks about being revved up. Every time he comes to the podium he is revved up. The impacts on our waterways, fishing industries and forest industries are equally as profound. To help local communities tackle the problems, the New South Wales Labor Government has allocated more than $70 million in noxious weeds grants over the past 10 years to help local communities manage noxious weeds incursions. This financial year alone the allocation was $7.6 million. Earlier this week the Opposition was ranting and raving, as usual, about this year's funding, making all sorts of false assumptions, proving once again that they are out of touch.

Of the $7.6 million allocated this year, $4.4 million has already been allocated to 99 local weed control authorities. Furthermore, that $4.4 million was issued in October 2005 to support ongoing weed control projects and operational needs. An additional $3.2 million will soon be provided to those groups to support new projects that were not in place last year, or for additional needs. By providing the funding in two tranches the Government is helping to expedite payments to local organisations, giving them more security. As I indicated previously, the process of providing a second tranche of funding is well and truly under way.

I remind the Opposition that an independent Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee reviews all submissions for noxious weeds grants. That group includes representatives from the NSW Farmers Association, the Shires Association, Local Government Association, rural lands protection boards, catchment management committees and various government departments. When the committee approves projects, the State Government provides funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis with the local control authorities. Project agreements for the remaining $3.2 million have been sent to the relevant local weed control groups. Once those agreements are signed and returned—in other words, there is an agreement process, and it has been in place for a while—the money will flow. I have no doubt that the weed control groups will make it a priority to get their agreements back to us.

I point out that noxious weed funding under the New South Wales Labor Government has steadily increased in recent years. This year's allocation of $7.6 million is up from $7 million in the 2002-03 financial year and $7.4 million last year. It is also $2 million more than the level of funding provided by the Coalition when it was last in government.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. What is the Government's policy and position on buyouts for shared and other fisheries? Does the Minister or his Government have any estimate of the potential compensation claims for shared and other fisheries? If not, will Minister provide this House with an estimate of any potential compensation claims for shared and other fisheries? Will the Government give an absolute assurance that it will guarantee any and all moneys needed in case a buyout is required in the future for any reason, such as the current shambles in Sydney Harbour or current or future marine parks?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think the honourable member has got his question somewhat confused. In relation to marine parks, and the $5 million available for compensation in relation to Sydney Harbour, that is a specific funding grant to purchase specific licence holders in certain areas, such as marine parks and Sydney Harbour. In relation to share-managed fisheries, no current buyout policy is in place. As I understand the process, and it is under way at the moment, shares are allocated within that fishery between the current licence holders on the basis of history of use. Once that process is sorted out, in effect that fishery is covered by the allocation of shares. There is a need, I believe, for some buyout in commercial areas outside of marine parks and also Sydney harbour. We are working with a number of different bodies to put a plan in place, including the recreational fishing trusts.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. What advice did the Minister or his department give to the State Electoral Office or its commissioner about its plan to support people with disabilities at the 2007 State election? Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner has plans to establish a separate and segregated voting centre for people with disabilities? Why is the commissioner not trying to achieve the objective of the Disability Services Act and make all polling places disability accessible? Did the Minister or the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner consult the disability sector about this plan? If so, what was the response?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I have to say that it is possible, in fact it is very likely, that my agency was consulted about preparations for the 2007 election and the provisions that may or may not be part of the New South Wales Electoral Office's plans in relation to disability access. I would expect that to be so. I would be disappointed with the electoral commissioner if that had not been the case. I will make inquiries about the substance of those consultations and advise the honourable member in the House as soon as practicable. I can say that the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner had not consulted me about those matters. As part of the process of getting a briefing on the State of any discussions between the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and the New South Wales Electoral Commission, I will offer my views on the matter.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is for the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the efforts of the State Emergency Service to assist residents affected by floods on the North Coast?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for his continuing interest in the North Coast of New South Wales. I again thank members of our emergency services in the State's north for their hard work over the past week and, indeed, throughout this summer. Members of the State Emergency Service [SES] have been kept particularly busy since last Thursday when torrential rain began falling in the Bellinger, Orara and Nambucca river catchments. With an average of 170 millimetres falling across the Bellingen district within 24 hours and steady rain continuing over the next three days, widespread flooding throughout the valleys of this picturesque region was inevitable. I inform honourable members that today the Government has declared the Bellingen, Coffs Harbour, Nambucca and Clarence Valley shires a natural disaster area. This triggers a range of assistance for residents, business owners and councils where properties were damaged. In particular, this will ensure the councils will be reimbursed for the cost of repairing public infrastructure, including local roads and bridges damaged by fast-flowing floodwaters and debris.

A number of local roads were cut, including the bridge across the Bellinger River in Bellingen and the main thoroughfare, the Waterfall Way, isolating the town's 2,500 residents from the coast. By Friday afternoon, up to 15 low-level crossings and bridges were under water in the upper Bellinger valley. The floodwaters peaked at the Bellingen Bridge around 1.00 p.m. on Friday, with the bridge able to be reopened by Saturday morning. In nearby Thora, the river peaked at 6.7 metres on Friday morning with major flooding. Rural property owners upstream of Thora in the Darkwood area remained isolated until Monday morning. More than 100 SES volunteers from nine units were on the ground to assist the residents of Bellingen and the surrounding communities with evacuations, road closures and damage from minor flooding. A caravan park at Repton, near Urunga, was evacuated to escape rising floodwater, horses were rescued from flooding paddocks, and SES volunteers were able to ferry vital blood supplies to Bellingen Hospital.
In all, nine SES flood boats were at the ready for evacuations and to provide food and medical supplies to stranded residents, if needed. Helicopters also were available for these operations if required. Further north, heavy rains and winds lashed the Northern Rivers and Tweed regions as well, without causing the same amount of damage as in the four shires covered by today's disaster declaration. The SES received about 50 calls for assistance in its Richmond Tweed division and volunteers from five units were busy clearing trees off roads, tarping roofs and helping with other minor flood damage. The emergency services have rescued a number of people from vehicles in floodwaters over the past week and I would again caution people against driving through floodwaters, which can be unpredictable and dangerous.

This week's rainfall comes on the tail of one of the North Coast region's wettest summers. I understand some towns recorded their wettest January for 40 years. This has meant many hours of hard, wet and hazardous work for local SES volunteers over the past eight weeks. Extraordinary rainfall from 18 to 20 January led to widespread flash flooding in Lismore and the surrounding region. The Government has also declared this event a natural disaster, covering Lismore City and the Ballina, Byron, Kyogle, Richmond Valley and Tweed shires, in order to assist the community with the cost of repairing damage, particularly to public infrastructure. Around 200 SES volunteers turned out to respond to more than 150 calls for help. As usual, they were assisted by members of the NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service, along with local police and council personnel. The emergency services assisted councils with several road closures, including the Bruxner and Pacific highways, and sandbagged shops and homes. I know the House will join with me in thanking the SES volunteers for their help.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of conflicting policies on the presentation of M15+ films to primary school students? In particular, is the Minister aware that the latest excursion policy released in 2004 allows for M15+ films to be shown to primary school students while a more detailed memorandum to principals, entitled "Use of Videos in Schools", that currently remains in force, expressly forbids showing M15+ films to under-age children? Is the Minister aware that the conflicting policies have created much angst and some confusion between parents and principals? What is the correct policy on showing M15+ films to primary schoolchildren, most of them under 11 years of age, when the law says they must be restricted to people over the age of 15 years? What will the Minister do to correct the discrepancy?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The last time I visited this issue was when I was Minister for Justice and looking into what ratings we gave prisoners in respect of the videos they saw in prison. I cannot say that I am familiar with the school policy, but I will take the question on notice and obtain an answer from the Minister for Education and Training.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that every day more and more cars are jammed into the M5 tunnel, causing massive traffic blockages? Is he also aware that motorcyclists trapped in what is now regarded as a tunnel of toxins are exposed to what a CSIRO atmospheric research scientist, Dr Peter Manins, has claimed to be one of the worst examples of environmental practice in the world? Will the Minister now admit that the use of the tunnel by motorcyclists is a health hazard? What is the Minister going to do to fix it?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Department of Planning conducted an audit of compliance with the M5 East planning conditions. That audit highlighted different interpretations by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the department regarding planning conditions for portal emissions. The audit recommended that the Department of Planning and the RTA develop protocols on portal emissions. The RTA and the department are considering these recommendations carefully. At present portal emissions are initiated when the in-tunnel carbon monoxide levels increase above normal levels because of accidents or breakdowns as well as during overnight maintenance. Portal emissions are used around the world to manage air quality in tunnels. In New South Wales they are already allowed in the harbour tunnel and on the Eastern Distributor. Recordings from in-tunnel monitors, the ambient monitoring network for the M5 East and monitors near the tunnel portals show that the air quality has been well within world standards. I am aware of media reports concerning the ventilation system in the M5 East tunnel and I will continue to monitor the situation.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Can the Minister give the House the latest information on the New South Wales Government's efforts to improve road infrastructure in the Hunter?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It's under "H" for Hunter.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Every time I get up there is a squawk from my fans on the Opposition back bench. It is embarrassing.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I think there's a few galahs in the Chamber.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Indeed. I thought it was a galah, but galahs do not squawk. I thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe for her question and acknowledge her ongoing interest in this matter. On 21 February I accompanied the Premier, Morris Iemma, and the honourable member for Lake Macquarie, Jeff Hunter, on an inspection of the progress of the State Government's $41 million Five Islands project. I was in the Hunter to attend a meeting of the State Cabinet in Maitland and had the opportunity during the inspection to meet some of the workers on the project.

The Five Islands upgrade will be a major boost for the region. The existing road and bridge were built in 1973 and much has changed since then, with the region growing by 6 per cent each year. Improved access is essential in order to cater for the area's booming population. Some 30,000 vehicles use the road each day and this major upgrade will be a bonus for the booming western edge of Lake Macquarie and the Hunter in general. The project will see access improve from one lane to two lanes in each direction. This means that, instead of being stuck in single-lane traffic, motorists travelling to and from Lake Macquarie will have two lanes in each direction.

Overall, the upgrade of Five Islands Road will provide a four-lane divided carriageway along a 1.7-kilometre stretch of road and two new bridge crossings over Cockle Creek. It will also provide an upgrading of the existing two bridges over Cockle Creek and an additional left-turn lane from The Esplanade into Five Islands Road, improving traffic flow at the intersection. As well as significantly improving traffic flow, it will reduce delays and improve safety for all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. An underpass will be constructed beneath the southern bridges to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. This new underpass will connect Tulkaba Park to the Lakeside Pathway. The area will be landscaped progressively through the project. In line with commitments made during the project's environmental impact statement process, creation of a new wetlands habitat is also under way.

Construction works are undertaken according to very strict environmental conditions as Cockle Creek and the surrounding land have been contaminated by previous industrial activities. Heavy metal contaminants are embedded in the creek sediments so it is important to minimise their disturbance. I have been told that the creek is so polluted that the creek bed could be mined for metals. The RTA has faced quite a challenge in managing the environmental issues, and I think it has proceeded in a most efficient and effective manner. To complete this work the bridge construction is carried out within floating sediment curtains to ensure that any mobilised sediments are retained close by. The project is on track for completion next year. Right now the workers are constructing the bridge over the north arm of Cockle Creek and continuing with the southern roundabout. The next phase of work involves the construction of the northbound road surface. Motorists and river craft have been advised of increased construction vehicle movements, speed restrictions on Five Islands Road, and barges and work boats on both arms of Cockle Creek.

The New South Wales Government is committed to providing the Hunter with quality road infrastructure. More than $178 million was allocated in the roads program to the Hunter region in 2005-06. In total, across the Hunter $81.3 million was allocated for road development; $4.6 million was allocated for traffic management projects; $9.4 million, for road safety initiatives; and $83.1 million, for maintenance of State roads. That is a 16.5 per cent increase on the road funding allocated to the region in 2004-05.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is it a fact that hundreds of cars bearing disability permits are being parked illegally in Sydney so that their drivers can avoid paying parking fees and avoid time limits? Is it a fact that on 31 January and 3 March 2006 more than 10 cars with disability stickers were parked all day in Napoleon Street, Sydney? From observations, the drivers of those cars appeared to be businessmen with no disabilities. What urgent action will the Minister take to stop this misuse of disability stickers and disability parking spaces? Will the Minister direct the Roads and Traffic Authority to act urgently to prevent the continuing abuse of disability permits?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am advised that the Mobility Parking Scheme [MPS] was relaunched in September 2003. This followed extensive consultation with Privacy NSW, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and peak organisations. Improvements included a licence-style MPS card bearing the photograph of the cardholder, unless exempted. The penalty for parking without an MPS card in spaces signposted for people with disabilities and other misuse of an MPS card is currently $375. A penalty of up to $2,200 may be imposed by a court. On 20 February this year Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] officers met various peak organisations representing people with disabilities and others. The meeting supported changes designed to help genuine disabled people avoid making unnecessary visits to motor registries and to find ways of identifying ineligible people who have been issued with MPS cards.

However, I share community concerns regarding the abuse of the scheme by a minority of people. For this reason I will be working with the RTA and peak disability groups to develop new ways to crack down on the actions of this minority. The Government's goal is to remove rorting from the system without unfairly penalising genuine disabled drivers. It is important that Opposition members understand that the Government does not want to disadvantage people who need these passes. We must discuss the matter carefully with them and work out a way through.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You need to stop the rorting.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Of course we need to stop the rorting; that is obvious.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You need to do something.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That is why we are sitting down and working with the relevant groups to find a better resolution. The Government does not believe in taking unilateral action.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources. Does the Minister now concede that the Government's previous announcement that water allocations to the irrigation industries on the Darling River between Mungindi and Menindee would be reduced by 67 per cent has resulted in at least one major business and exporter being forced into voluntary receivership as a result of falling equity and an untenable debt-to-equity ratio that required them to trade insolvent? When will the Minister complete the review of the proposed cap of 173 gigalitres for this section of the Darling River, which the industry has been calling for for the past two years, and finally end the uncertainty that all businesses between Mungindi and Menindee are facing?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am glad that the Hon. Rick Colless asked that question because he listened to some of the announcements I made in Broken Hill on Monday morning. I made some very clear statements then about the Barwon-Darling cap, which was a proposal put forward under the Murray-Darling Basin Commission arrangements by former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, and the former New South Wales Minister for Natural Resources, Craig Knowles. In July last year they proposed a cap of 173 gigalitres, based on history of use on the Barwon-Darling section of the river. The 173 gigalitres was based on a realistic assessment of what was used, not the entitlement. The Hon. Rick Colless wants to jump up and down about this matter, but he ignores the fact that the Commonwealth was involved in determining the cap and has been anxious to enforce it across all irrigation areas in this State. He has ignored the fact that this is a Commonwealth-State initiative and that the former Minister for Natural Resources issued a joint, Commonwealth-State, statement.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Nonsense!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It was a joint statement! It is completely misleading for the Hon. Rick Colless to say that the cap of 173 gigalitres applied last year by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, and Mr Craig Knowles was somehow responsible for the collapse of Back O'Bourke Fruits. The crops of Back O'Bourke Fruits were destroyed because January 2006 brought with it the hottest temperatures ever recorded in that region for a consistent period of time. During the past three or four years, Back O'Bourke Fruits received from the Department of Planning and Natural Resources and then from the Department of Natural Resources heavy concessions for water usage of 80 days—not one, two or seven days—and that helped it survive that period.

The fundamental problem for Back O'Bourke Fruits was that it invested heavily in permanent horticulture without adequate on-farm storage on an unregulated river. It is difficult to guarantee supply commensurate with the level at which it was committing investment, given the flow regime and seasonal nature of the Darling, the Barwon and other northern rivers. That is undeniable. Furthermore, the Hon. Rick Colless ignores the fact that over the past four years New South Wales has been in the grip of a 1-in-100 year drought. In fact, this morning I read that over the past 56 months the level of flow down the Darling River has been the worst ever recorded. The Hon. Rick Colless should not play politics and attempt to sheet home to this Government blame for the collapse of Back O'Bourke Fruits. To do so is misleading and mischievous and completely ignores the fact that the cap is a joint initiative of the Commonwealth and this State.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House of the effects of the Commonwealth's WorkChoices legislation on New South Wales families?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: There is a debate currently before the House relating to industrial relations reforms. This question is clearly out of order.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: To the point of order: I am asking about the general effects of legislation on New South Wales families. I am specifically not asking a question relating to the legislation that is before the House.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Further to the point of order: The question clearly relates to industrial relations and its impact on families in New South Wales, which is the subject matter of a debate that is currently before the Chair. The question is clearly out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may answer the question and make general comments about the situation but must not refer to the legislation that is before the House.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I do not intend to do that. The dark mills of Howard's decision-making has been exposed by one of its own key people. Senator Nick Minchin, Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the Minister for Finance and Administration, has said what many Australians already fear. The third most senior member of the Howard Government was a keynote speaker at the mysterious and extremist H. R. Nicholls Society's twenty-seventh conference. Senator Minchin was honest to admit the Commonwealth's so-called WorkChoices legislation is deeply unpopular. He acknowledged that the New South Wales Government's challenge to WorkChoices before the High Court had a real chance of succeeding.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is clearly canvassing matters that are the subject of bills that are before the House. In fact, he said in the third paragraph of his second reading speech:

These bills are one plank of the NSW Government's response to the Commonwealth's divisive WorkChoices legislation, which is a direct attack on the working conditions and living standards of ordinary Australians.

And that is precisely what he is talking about at the moment.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: To the point of order: The honourable member is clearly wasting the time of the Chamber and does not want to hear my answer. I have followed your ruling, Madam President, to the letter. I am not referring to matters that are before the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot give a ruling that makes it impossible for members to discuss industrial relations in New South Wales. A sensible approach must be taken to this matter. General statements made by a Minister in a second reading speech are not necessarily statements related specifically to legislation. The Minister is in order provided he makes general comments about the situation in New South Wales. If he attempts to canvass the specifics of legislation that is before the House, I will rule him out of order.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Senator Minchin let the cat out of the bag when he said that WorkChoices had not gone far enough and that more legislation will be coming. The H. R. Nicholls Society cheered him. What is the agenda? WorkChoices, in the eyes of this society, failed to immediately reduce minimum wages. Des Moore, Director of the Institute for Private Enterprise, described this failure as "the worst feature of the new legislation"—that is, that the legislation did not immediately reduce the minimum wage. The president of this dark, mysterious and malignant society referred to Christmas Day and Easter as "so called icons" and then said, "Will Ramadan be next?" I do not know whether I am more disgusted by the un-Australian sectarian nastiness of his comment than I am outraged by his disregard for cultural institutions.
Already New South Wales workers are being stripped of entitlements. Now, thanks to the honesty of Senator Minchin, families in this State know working conditions and living standards will be further attacked. The New South Wales Government will defend those conditions and standards. What will the Opposition do? The honourable member for Vaucluse will not stand up to Canberra's plans to strip conditions from nurses, teachers and ambulance officers. He is part of the Howard Government's WorkChoices agenda and part of this secret, spiteful campaign against family living standards and hard-won working conditions.

Senator Nick Minchin told the H. R. Nicholls Society a much more aggressive attack on working conditions was needed. Minchin was not alone. There was another keynote speaker at the H. R. Nicholls Society conference. Who was the H. R. Nicholls Society's guest of honour at that dinner? In a coincidence stranger than fiction, the guest of honour was the honourable member for Vaucluse! What he said behind closed doors we will never know. [Time expired]

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate his answer?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Peter Primrose to order.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: What did he say to a group that wants legislation to reduce minimum wages and remove anti-discrimination legislation and regards Christmas Day as just another working day?

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member for Vaucluse has already pledged to cut 29,000 front-line workers in the public sector. H. R. Nicholls members will be cheering him even more. What else is planned for working families in this State? I call on the honourable member for Vaucluse to come clean and tell the families of this State what his plans are.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister concerned by reports of numerous attempts by a female teacher from Cronulla High School who, to no avail, alerted police to serious incidents involving violence and harassment by Middle Eastern gangs in the days leading up to last December's protests? Is the Minister concerned by reports that, after witnessing an attack by a Middle Eastern gang on a local Cronulla man, the same teacher was ignored by police despite being able to provide the complete details of the number plate of the getaway car? Is it correct that these attacks, which preceded the protests at Cronulla, were not followed up by police despite witnesses being willing to give descriptions of the attackers and the complete details of the number plate of the getaway car? If these reports are accurate, why are police being commanded to overlook such assaults? Might the protests at Cronulla on 11 December not have occurred if police had felt able to pursue Middle Eastern gangs?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his question, which I will pass on to the Minister for a response.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister acquaint the House with the Sub-acute Fast Track Elderly Care program?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for this very important question. The challenge of an ageing population is at the planning forefront for the future provision and delivery of health services in New South Wales. The number of people 75 years and over in New South Wales is expected to increase from 394,076 in 2001, to 544,327 in 2015. In 2004-05, people between the ages of 65 and 75 years occupied 16 per cent of all acute bed days, and those over 75 years occupied 30 per cent. Hospitals are also seeing an 8 per cent annual increase in emergency department attendances by patients over 80 years of age. People over 75 years of age suffer from the heaviest burden of disease and disability, and have the highest rate of hospital admissions once they present to the emergency department.

For the period 2003-04, the approximate public hospital cost for persons aged 75 years and older was $771 million. The demand for health services will only increase with rising numbers of older people with chronic and complex needs. The salient problem is access of appropriate aged care facilities for community support systems at an early stage that can avert the ultimate need for hospital admission. As a result, the Government has developed an innovative and targeted health services trial for older people.

The Sub-acute Fast Track Elderly Care program—or SAFTE Care, as it is known—is based on research undertaken by geriatrician Dr Tuly Rosenfeld from the Prince of Wales Hospital. Dr Rosenfeld identified a number of milestones experienced by older people where, if a specific range of service supports could be provided, there would have been a reduced need for hospital admission for those who were over 75 years of age. The need to attend hospital would have been averted by intervening earlier—when the health of those older people was just beginning to deteriorate—using better co-ordination of services in the community.

SAFTE is a $4 million year-long pilot program aimed at minimising the need for older people to be admitted to hospital, and improving older peoples' quality of life. It is taking place at St George, John Hunter, Hornsby and Queanbeyan hospitals, where partnerships will be developed between the community and hospital sectors. The SAFTE program teams will be co-ordinated by the geriatric services and community care case managers from the four pilot hospitals. The teams will visit older patients at home when early warning signs of deterioration occur, providing rapid assessment, diagnostic tests and diagnosis, and facilitating timely access to support services. Patients will be flagged to these teams by general practitioners, aged care teams or other community service providers. The SAFTE program provides the capacity for area health service staff to jointly manage care with the general practitioner and non-health service providers.

The four sites will test the program in a tertiary setting with large numbers of older people presenting to emergency departments, the metropolitan district hospital in a population with high numbers of elderly people, and a rural site where older people travel long distances for care. This new program means better care for older people and less demand for acute services. The program better integrates hospital services, community services and general practice so that patients receive the right help at the right time. The program will be fully evaluated over the 12-month period to develop effective ways for it to become available to all older people. It is a shame the Commonwealth could not match our commitment to delivering the SAFTE program. I specifically wrote to Minister Abbott asking for Federal Government assistance in the rolling out of this program to additional sites if necessary. Mr Abbott has declined to provide such funding. Indeed, he has not even responded to my letter.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Can the Minister assure this House that he took all reasonable precautions to ensure that Emergency Services personnel were not exposed to asbestos dust at the Holsworthy Training Centre?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for her question on this important matter. The Government's top priority is to ensure information and support are provided to all people who have worked at or visited the site. I am advised the Holsworthy army base site has been sealed off and that WorkCover and the Department of Environment and Conservation have been notified. NSW Fire Brigades has implemented a health and welfare plan to provide assistance to those individuals, and support and information services are in place, including a dedicated 1800 information line. Firefighters were advised last week, along with unions and other agencies, including I think ambulance and a number of others that have used the site. I am advised that the matter is now subject to a number of investigations, including by WorkCover. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate until those investigations conclude.

I am advised a preliminary scientific assessment received by the commissioner on 6 March showed the risk to be generally considered low. So that preliminary assessment, which the commissioner arranged and was received on 6 March, showed the risk to be generally low. The commissioner has sought further testing as well as independent advice on remediation of the site. NSW Fire