Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 29 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.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

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

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

The PRESIDENT: According to standing orders, I nominate the Hon. Greg Donnelly to act as Temporary Chair of Committees during the remainder of the present session.

Motion by the Hon. Rick Colless agreed to:

That this House expresses its deep regret at the passing on 28 March 2006 of the world renowned Australian outback artist and father of the outback painting movement, Pro Hart, and conveys its profound sorrow and sympathy to his family.

Petition praying that the House reconsider the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

Petition opposing the construction of a pipeline from Tallowa Dam north and the raising of the dam wall, received from Mr Ian Cohen.

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

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders the question is: That the motion proceed as business of the House.

Question agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner agreed to:

That the matter proceed forthwith.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.09 a.m.]: I move:

That under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the Health Records and Information Privacy Regulation 2006 published in Government Gazette No. 32, dated 10 March 2006, page 1160, and tabled in this House on 28 March 2006.

This regulation, introduced by the Government and gazetted on 10 March 2006, overturns the requirement for a patient's consent to be given before he or she is placed in a system that shares electronic health records. The regulation enables the Department of Health to automatically enrol people into a central health link database. The regulation involves two pilots to test the establishment of an electronic health records system in New South Wales. The pilots target people in New South Wales over 65 years of age in parts of the Hunter region and people under 15 years of age in some suburbs of Western Sydney. The pilots began on 23 March 2006 in the Hunter and are due to begin on 25 May 2006 in Western Sydney, so it is urgent that the matter be debated today.

The pilots seek to test the records system before it is implemented throughout New South Wales. The health link database will include summaries of patients' visits to general practitioners, hospitals, pathology records such as blood test results and X-rays, and records of consultations with mental health, sexual health, family planning and counselling services. Consumers will have to proactively opt out if they do not wish their records to be viewed by all participating health practitioners, including dentists, doctors and social workers. Even then, the Department of Health will still keep information about those who opt out.

The regulation overturns the provisions of the Health Records and Information Privacy Bill, introduced in 2002. The Opposition supported the bill at that time because we believed that it provided a protective framework for patients while providing the benefit of collecting and electronically storing comprehensive data about treatment. Unlike this regulation, the legislation was based on extensive consultation undertaken by a committee chaired by the then Privacy Commissioner, Mr Chris Puplick, requiring patient consent and ensuring patient privacy. That is the reason the Opposition supported the bill at that time. It is interesting to note that Mr Puplick does not support this regulation.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: He is not here anymore. He has gone.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The Minister says, "He is not here anymore." He may have gone, but his expert advice at the time that we deliberated upon the statute was worth listening to. In his second reading speech on the bill on 11 June 2002 the then Leader of the Government in this House, the Hon. Michael Egan, said:

I consider the legislation to be an important step forward in establishing clear rights and protections for the community in relation to the management and accessing of personal health information.

He further stated:

This debate has often centred on the potential misuse of health information, which can include sensitive and personal details about a person's health or mental health.

He was correct in those comments. The Opposition felt that those concerns had been addressed in the statute, which we then supported. A number of groups monitoring privacy issues in New South Wales are concerned that the regulation may undermine doctor-patient confidentiality. The regulation runs contrary to the recommendations of the report by John Menadue, which was a very good analysis of the way forward for health services in the State of New South Wales, and contrary to the recommendations of the New South Wales Ministerial Advisory Committee on Privacy and Health Information. The regulation could well expose patients to undue risks to their privacy and, in some instances, may impinge upon their personal security.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Rubbish!

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I note the Minister's interjection that this is rubbish. The Australian Privacy Foundation does not object to electronic health records per se because benefits will flow to patients from having a properly guarded electronic health records system. However, the system must encourage a climate of trust between patients, their families and health services. That means privacy and security issues must be locked in and people must have confidence about them in the first place. There is an argument for enrolling in an electronic health records system only those people who consent to being included. The process must be transparent so that patients and health providers understand how the system will work and who can access what information about particular patients in any set of circumstances. Patients must have control over records that relate to them and who can access which parts of their health records.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: That is irresponsible.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The Minister says that is irresponsible. The system should only contain information that is relevant to a person's health record. The system must have adequate data security to ensure that information technology systems, policies and procedures are in place. This will minimise opportunities for unauthorised access, to prevent people entering the system, modifying records and deleting certain disclosures. Obviously, the records must be accurate and must relate to the correct patient.

There must be built into the system access and correction rights so that people can be assured that they have easy access to their own records and can correct any mistakes that may be embedded in the system. Limitation should be placed on who can access, use or add any information to the health record. There also needs to be protection from disclosure, limiting the circumstances in which health information from the electronic record can be disclosed by a clinician or the organisation running that particular health record database. Security must be provided about a person's anonymity so that people who wish to seek health care anonymously can do so.

Unique identifiers in the electronic health records system should be precluded from being used outside the health sector as a de facto identification number for the whole of the population. A number of privacy bodies have had the opportunity to see the system being trialled recently. They have had discussions with NSW Health officers, but they are not convinced about the wisdom of proceeding down the track specified in the regulation. The trials draw on people aged over 65 who live in postcodes 2320 to 2324 in the Hunter and people aged under 15 as at 25 May this year who live in postcodes 2145, 2148, 2150, 2170, 2560, 2747, 2750 or 2770 in the western suburbs of Sydney. Patients who meet those age criteria are automatically put into the system, the trial, unless they expressly opt out.

The electronic health record will contain non-health information about the patients. For example, it will contain their name, date of birth, address and home phone number, and it summarises the patient's health information gathered from records kept by participating doctors, hospitals and community health centres. Depending on the health services a patient has accessed since the start of the trial, this could include a health diary containing the patient's appointments and any health questionnaires they have filled out, and a summary of the treatments a patient has received from participating health services. This could include hospital in-patient departments, outpatient departments, emergency departments, and community and allied health services, including social workers and psychologists. Of course, it would include general practitioners, and if they have been to the dentist lately that would be included as well. The record would include results from blood tests or X-rays, and also discharge referrals.

The Opposition is concerned that, although the patient may opt out, some personal information would still be collected from anyone who falls within those eligibility criteria, even if the patient opts out from the very beginning of the survey period. Patients who opt out will still have their demographic information included on the central electronic records database—their name, sex, date of birth, address and home phone number—because the department will need to keep track of patients who opted out so that it knows not to keep collecting clinical data about them every time they visit a participating provider. Patients who opt out more than 30 days after their first visit to a participating health service provider will still have their health information kept by the department; it will not be deleted from the record.

We believe that there could be a risk to an individual's personal security if they choose to opt out yet some of their personal data is maintained on the database. This group may include victims of domestic violence; people, not many in number but nevertheless whose rights are as important as those of everyone else, who might be in witness protection programs; high-profile people who simply do not want people trawling through a computer searching for their health records; or people who are simply worried about identity theft or fraud. Whoever they are, that concern is important to them. There is some concern amongst the people consulted by the Opposition about the level of security that applies to the trials. Many—possibly hundreds—health service providers may be participating in the two trials alone, let alone when the system is rolled out down the track across the State.

Many people would be concerned that a patient would not have the option to block a particular health service provider from seeing their electronic health record. For example, a patient might not want their dentist to see their sexual health record, or a person may not want a person working in the health system with whom they had a previous personal relationship to see their record. Further, a patient will not be able to block additional information accumulating on their health record unless they opt out of the system altogether. So the results of a blood test or the record of attendance at alcohol counselling, for example, could be read by health service providers with access to the record. There are a number of concerns about this issue. Although the Government gave clear guidelines earlier, we are concerned that it has changed its mind now. We strongly believe that the regulation should be disallowed.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.24 a.m.]: The Greens support the disallowance motion moved by the Opposition, and we urge other crossbench members to give serious thought to the motion and to supporting it. If the Opposition had not been prepared to move the motion, the Greens were intending to do so. However, we are pleased that the Opposition has decided to act on the issue. The regulation will exempt health practitioners and public sector agencies involved in the Healthelink trial postcodes from the application of Health Privacy Principle 15 in the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002. There are many positive aspects to creating electronic health records. Health practitioners can use the information to make a more informed judgment about the best treatment of a patient. For example, in an emergency when a patient is comatose, a doctor who can access a person's health record will be able to access their medical history, as well as information on allergies and whether the patient has a condition such as diabetes.

The Greens support the right of people to choose whether their records are made available electronically. The scheme, including the pilot—or, rather, phase one of the new system—should be conducted on an opt-in basis. What point is there in conducting a trial that does not replicate the system as it is planned to operate? If the system as a whole is to be based upon a voluntary choosing to have one's records made available electronically, so should the preliminary trial of that system. The New South Wales Government originally spoke with Privacy New South Wales and other groups. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales, Privacy New South Wales and the Australian Medical Association all oppose the manner in which these trials are to be conducted, and have expressed serious misgivings about how the electronic database is being constructed. They have also made numerous suggestions to NSW Health about how the trial could be constructed, but these have been ignored.

The Government is now trying to impose an opt-out trial—what is in fact the initial phase of the new electronic health records system. The Government has claimed that the Commonwealth is making it do this but that is absolute rubbish. The Commonwealth is not forcing the New South Wales Government to act in this way; the New South Wales Government has chosen to conduct a trial which in effect removes the requirement that people participate knowingly and voluntarily. HealthConnect is the name of the Commonwealth co-ordinating body that is assisting the States and Territories to make their electronic health records systems compatible. The HealthConnect web site stated:

… consent must be informed and voluntary, with participation in HealthConnect for both consumers and providers to be on an opt-in basis.

The Federal Government's position is perfectly clear. The current New South Wales pilot projects are listed as HealthConnect trials. As I said, the HealthConnect web site stated that consent must be "informed and voluntary". However, on accessing the same web site today I see that any reference to "consent" has been removed altogether. Perhaps the New South Wales Government asked the Commonwealth Government to remove that reference to consent and to the need for patients to voluntarily opt in to the trials.

Participation is now being offered on an opt-out, rather than opt-in, basis for no good reason. People are usually required to give consent for their personal details to be used and accessed by others, but not in this case. It is interesting to note who the new system is being tested on: the old and the young in working-class suburbs. The older people will be drawn from postcodes in the Hunter such as Maitland, Tomago, Woodville, Metford, Raymond Terrace and Karuah. The young people will be drawn from postcodes in Sydney's west and south-west such as Greystanes, Pendle Hill, Blacktown, Marayong, Campbelltown, Lurnea and Emu Plains. The inclusion of Mt Druitt, Shalvey and Bidwill means many of them will be living in public housing. Perhaps the Government sees these areas as easier places to trial the new system than, for example, Sydney's north shore, which has a very privacy-conscious community.

Health practitioners may say, and it is a valid argument, that access to electronic health records is a useful tool that enables them to do their jobs better. However, we need to safeguard a person's right to privacy as well as to make the jobs of health practitioners easier. If patients do not want their records to be electronically available that should be their choice. This may result in less information being available to a health practitioner, which may result in more guesswork and may even result in a different outcome. However, patients should have the choice to make that decision and they should make the choice knowing that they have the right to make it. They should be deliberately informed. They should know that if they wish to have their records made available electronically they can do so by ticking the box to indicate "Yes, I want this to happen." It is the worst kind of paternalism to assume that people are not capable of making their own decisions about such matters. If they can make their own decisions, they should be allowed to opt in or opt out.

Medical practitioners will do the job to the best of their ability with the information they have available. After all, that is what happens now in emergency departments and elsewhere. I do not agree with the argument that we should legislate to make things easer for medical practitioners. Undoubtedly, the number of people choosing to opt out may be low. Some "difficult" people, who take up a lot of time, may certainly be among them. They will continue to present with vague symptoms, annoy doctors and take up their time. However, we have to accept such inconveniences as a fact of life. We cannot justify stripping away people's right to give consent for their personal medical records to be read and downloaded by medical practitioners and allied health services—and, may I add, by insurance companies, which will no doubt start to demand to see such records under the threat of refusing to provide an insurance policy.

People are always saying that The Greens are paranoid, but we have been proved right time and again on this sort of issue. We can see what is going to happen and we know that the insurance companies will be very keen, and will greet with some enthusiasm the prospect of electronic health records being made available in the absence of adequate safeguards. The electronic health record system should operate on the same basis as other systems where people are asked to give their consent for their private details to be used. For example, an applicant for a position in some areas of the public service is required to give written consent for a criminal record check to be carried out. That person can choose to say "No". That may or may not jeopardise his or her employment, but that is the applicant's choice. People weigh up the benefits and disadvantages and make an informed conscious decision.

There is no possible argument as to why an opt-in basis for the new system should not be possible, apart from the fallacious and spurious arguments revolving around expediency, cost savings and what the Commonwealth Government has or has not said to the New South Wales Government. The Greens do not accept that expediency and cost saving are adequate explanations. That is not what government is supposed to be about; it is supposed to be about maximising the good of citizens and increasing their freedoms and their rights. It should not be about reducing those freedoms and rights. An opt-in requirement is vastly superior to an opt-out requirement. As for the claim that the Commonwealth Government is somehow forcing New South Wales to set up the trial in this manner, as I have said before, there is no basis to that claim whatsoever. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.34 a.m.]: This is a difficult issue for me. In a sense, it was sprung on me because I did not realise until this morning that it would be debated today. I have been in complicated medical situations on many occasions with comatose patients absolutely without record. One does not know whether they have suffered a stroke or taken an overdose, have a psychiatric history or are diabetic. It is extremely difficult to determine these things in the middle of the night, in a casualty department with little backup. I have had the experience of people on either drugs or alcohol, totally disoriented, bursting into the surgery and creating mayhem. It would have been nice to know their situation.

The tragedy is that one can spend a lot of time sorting out these patients and probably never see them again because they bounce from doctor to doctor. A great deal of work is often required on complicated cases because it simply is not possible to get the patient's records in real time. If patients are capable of doing so, they will sometimes tell you that Dr Bloggs of Woop Woop did a wonderful job, but they are often not capable of doing so or are unaware. You can attempt to contact Dr Bloggs if he is still at the surgery, if he is not on holidays and if it is during surgery hours. You can get the material if the secretary has time to photocopy it and is willing to do so. You may get some information that way.

The patient may have been to a hospital, which will be happy to send you the information, provided it has gone through the appropriate checks and balances. It will arrive by the middle of next week, if you are lucky. This is a labour-intensive area and it involves a huge amount of work. The cost involved is lost opportunity because you can scramble your whole day's work or evening's work on a difficult case when you did not need to do all that work. There is a huge upside from a medical point of view. I am sure the medical profession—which is good so far as confidentiality is concerned—works on this.
The old-fashioned model of a doctor—a red light at the front gate, living on the premises, available during office hours in an elective situation but willing to be called out 24 hours a day, seven days a week if needed—is a nice village model that gives us all a warm glow. In the old-fashioned model patients were known in their communities. If they fell in the street, for example, something could be done about it. The more realistic model is that people do not have a doctor or, alternatively, visit a variety of medical centres. They live anonymously in the city. If anything happens to them nobody knows who they are. Technology is trying to bridge the gap created by that anonymity. In a sense, we have a medical system in favour of this course in conflict with a legal system that is suspicious of it. The Greens, taking that line, can be one-eyed about the issue. They have suggested that someone might be chasing or stalking a former partner or someone may be keen to engage in blackmail about some detail of a person's past life.

Looking at the situation holistically, the leaking of financial information has meant that people who have made a financial error in the past cannot get credit. It is as though they are condemned and can never rehabilitate themselves. A movie called Little Fish told the story of a woman who had been a drug addict. She tried to buy a share in a video rental shop in partnership with a person who had come to trust her, but could not get finance because of her credit references. In that sense, financial information is publicly available. There is a very finite risk that medical information could become publicly available, and just as some people are pariahs in a financial sense, people could become pariahs in a medical sense.

The consequence of the leaking of medical information is significant. For example, a young person who has an inherited disease may become virtually unemployable—even though he is perfectly healthy in his twenties and does not develop any symptoms of the disease until his forties. A person whose father had Huntington's chorea could be marked as likely to inherit the disease, which may have huge implications on his or her employability. As a former occupational health physician who undertook preplacement medicals, my job was to investigate whether people had a condition, in particular, previous workers compensation injuries, that may result in extra costs to the employer. If it was found that a person had a prior condition, the employer had the opportunity not to hire him.

We hold certain concepts about medicine. It would be nice if there were no moral judgments in medicine. But some people place significance on whether a person has had an illegitimate pregnancy, a sexually transmitted disease or infectious disease, such as AIDS. In fact, a law was passed that people could not be discriminated against on the basis of their HIV status. Now that people who are HIV positive can be maintained in a state of good health for an indefinite period, it is not of huge consequence. But in the days when people died fairly rapidly after being diagnosed with AIDS, it may have been harsh to expect employers to employ someone who would cost them a fortune in sick leave in the future.

Medical records can be used to blackmail people. I remember a case in which a woman who contracted cancer from passive smoking sued a tobacco company. The tobacco company discovered that the woman had had a child when she was young and the woman was so embarrassed she withdrew her case. It was 10 years before another plaintiff brought a case against the tobacco companies to create legal precedents. It would be dangerous for the medical records of people in public life to be accessible. The concept that medical records will not be leaked is a nice idea. But when we see the leaking of credit references, it is difficult to believe that medical records will not leak in the medium term. I understand it is intended there will be restricted access to medical records, but there will always be a doctor with a gambling problem or an axe to grind who will leak information. Admittedly, there are penalties and presumably checks that would discourage the leaking of information.

It can be said there is an advantage to not making medical records available. There has always been a market for people who are concerned about the security of their medical records. People have booked into the private wing of St Vincent's' Hospital because it has much tighter security on its medical records than the average hospital does. When I worked at Sydney Water I tried to introduce electronic medical records. It was not a question of whether to make the complete records available, but which fields to make available. For example, a person's sexual history could be made available only to gynaecologists under certain protocols. A summary of basic operations that are value neutral could be made available. If there was a problem with a kidney disease or diabetes that could cause unexpected trouble, those aspects could be on the record. Other aspects, such as mental health or congenital diseases, do not have to be on the record. Congenital diseases may not be required to be on the record. If the records of a patient's doctor indicate that a congenital disease was unlikely to be time critical, the presence of the disease may not need to be on the record. Again, sexual or obstetric history may not need to be on the record. Different parts of the record may need different levels of confidentiality. Although it is more complex, it can be worked out on computerised systems.
If it is considered that the health record does not have reasonable integrity, doctors will keep their own records and only put parts of medical information on the electronic system. That would defeat the purpose of the record. I understand the trials will involve 15-year-olds and over-65s. Perhaps they are the least controversial age groups in that children tend to have fewer diseases, particularly in mental health and sexual history, and older people are easy to keep track of because they are not as itinerant as middle-aged people in their working years. I have not yet made a decision how to vote on this motion because I believe it involves many issues. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [11.44 a.m.]: I speak on this motion briefly because it seems to me that it involves two intertwined issues. We need to be clear which one we are talking about. One is the question of how desirable are electronic records. That question can be dealt with very quickly by saying that a bill was passed in 2002 which basically said it was a good idea. The other question is whether to opt in or opt out. Generally speaking, I have always believed that people should be able to opt into a system that involved any disclosure of their personal information or background. But I can see that in some cases an opting-in situation would not work, as it apparently has not worked in some parts of the world that tried to bring in a similar system with opting in by patients. The next question that arises is: Can we allow the collection of electronic health records without a clear ability by patients to opt out if they do not want their personal details disclosed?

When I first examined this disallowance motion, I was very concerned that there did not seem to be any set-up or established system whereby I as a patient could nominate that I did not want my records on the Internet to be available to any clinician or accessed by anyone else. I do not have anything to hide but, in a general philosophical sense of privacy, it is my right to say that I do not want my health record put on the Internet. Admittedly, if enough people opted out, the whole electronic records system would be in a certain amount of trouble. I do not know that a great many people are worried about it. I do not think that many people have much to hide. The essential ingredient is that people who want to opt out should be able to know not only that they can opt out but how they can opt out.

During a briefing on this matter this morning I was concerned that there did not seem to be an understood system. Most people are not politically aware and do not understand the laws and how they affect them. I am concerned that Mrs Smith from Bandywallop would not realise that she could have her records removed or made inaccessible. After looking into the matter, I found out that in a kit that has been issued, there is a clearly defined system of opting out if one wants to do so. The next question is: Does the system make it clear to people who want to opt out that they can? That is probably the most important question of the lot. I believe the answer is yes. I am told that doctors in the pilot areas will be able to notify their patients that there will be four ways to opt out of the process if they want to. First, a leaflet will be delivered to every household in the pilot area explaining the system. Second, an 1800 phone number will be available for people to opt out. Third, people will be able to fill out a form obtainable from their general practitioner. Fourth, they can opt out on the Internet. That is not bad, so long as people understand, react and know how to exercise the options.

I am also told that on a visit to a general practitioner or to the medical centre, patients will be given an explanation in writing about the system so that they can decide what they want to do. Those who have decided not to opt out—that is, those who have allowed themselves to be included—also have a cooling-off period of up to 30 days. If they decide later that they want to opt out, they can do so and their records will be made inaccessible on the system. They cannot be removed from the system, but they can be made inaccessible. It appears to be a clearly laid out and readily explicable system of opting out if a patient wants to do so.

As I said, I have no idea how many people would want to opt out, or who would think about it very carefully. However, the important point is that even if it is only four or five individuals who have some very real and personal reason for wanting to opt out, they must be able to do so and to understand how. As the system is set up, although this is a change from the original 2002 legislation, the safety catch is available and will be made available to anyone who really wants to opt out. On that basis, although I originally intended to support this disallowance motion, I do not believe that there is anything in the regulations that should be disallowed.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [11.52 p.m.]: Like the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, I am confused. I was told that the legislation proposed an opt-in model, but the regulations propose an opt-out model. I am not sure under what legal framework we can change the opt-in model in the legislation to an opt-out model in the regulations. I believe the argument is that it is a trial, not the real thing. If it is not the real thing, do we need to have it in the regulations? I am not asking the Minister for Health to reply now, but I would like him to explain why it was an opt-in model in the legislation—which was obviously the desire of the Parliament—but an opt-out model in the regulations. That is contradictory. The Minister may not be aware that the department has said it is a trial, and therefore it is not real. If that is the case, why do a trial without going through all this? I am very confused.
Is this a good way forward? As a medical practitioner, a chemist, a former Medical Board member, a councillor and a community worker, I believe that electronic recordkeeping is a good method by which to transfer documents between one professional and another. Being able to share medical records is very good. As a general practitioner I often receive patient discharge summaries that are very badly written. There is no way I can understand what the patient has been through, especially if the treatment was provided over a weekend. Is it a good trial? I am not sure. I can see potential problems, and many of them have been raised by the Hon. Jenny Gardiner. There is the potential for the records to be misused, for patient-doctor confidentiality to be compromised, for privacy and trust to be breached, and for the information to be provided to people who should not have access to it. They are the issues that must be addressed in the trial. If the trial does not do that, we will never know.

I do not have major concerns about data collection if a dentist, doctor, chemist or nurse wants to send information to Healthelink. That is fine; in fact, it is wonderful. I have discussed my concerns with the Minister's staff. I appreciate that briefing and it provided me with a great deal of information. The departmental official also has been very good. My concern is to whom this information will be given. I would share the Hon. Jenny Gardiner's concern if a patient's sexual history were to be given to a dental clinic. I imagine the problems that would result if I as a chemist could recall Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans's medical records, including whether he was seeing a psychologist or a psychiatrist. I would be very concerned if that information could be displayed on a chemist's computer screen. A chemist's computer is not a restricted area; anyone can look at a chemist's database. The same problem could arise at a community health centre. Access to a computer is not always restricted. If someone legitimately accessing information forgot to turn off the computer, anyone passing could look at it. I do not believe that was the intention—at least for the time being—and my fears may be exaggerated.

I agree with the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans that, as a rule, hospital staff and general practitioners are very worried about privacy. Sometimes we do not even tell the next of kin or even spouses whether their partner has consulted us. That is another problem. It is proposed that a family member can ask for access to information. If an honourable member's partner asked whether he or she could access the member's health records, what would be the response? If access were denied, the pressure would be applied because the next question would be, "Why not? You can look at mine." It is a different culture in general practice and hospitals. The answer is that we will not allow that question. If it is public or semi-public information, and pressure is exerted on a spouse or a parent wants information about a child, what response can we give? Access cannot be denied. As doctors we know that there are certain things we would not tell anyone, even parents. This situation is not the department's or the legislation's fault. That is the culture. Overall, this measure is a good way forward. However, I would like to know why the opt-in model has become an opt-out model and whether this information provision will be extended to other parties in the future.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.58 a.m.]: The issue is not electronic health records per se. Clearly, they have benefits and are the way of the future. The issue is the Carr-Iemma Government's bungling and the fact that it cannot be trusted to manage privacy properly. This Government has a pathetic track record when it comes to privacy issues. It has set out to destroy Privacy New South Wales to punish it for having the temerity to try to hold the Government to account. When the Government could not get legislation passed to abolish Privacy New South Wales, it took the backdoor approach and started dismantling the watchdog piece by piece. Mr Chris Puplick resigned as New South Wales Privacy Commissioner on 2 May 2003. To this day, a permanent replacement has not been appointed.

Mr John Dickie is the acting privacy commissioner on a rolling, short-term employment contract. His ongoing employment is at the whim of the Attorney General—hardly a recipe for fearless independent advice. The foremost senior staff positions for Privacy NSW were abolished, and ultimately 9 of the 12 existing staff members left. Obviously this has resulted in a tremendous drain of talent and expertise, as well as a devastating loss of morale. This is public sector management Carr-Iemma style. Privacy NSW has effectively been cowered into submission: it has been reduced to an answering machine service. No wonder the Government is losing support.

Another example of the Carr-Iemma Government's contempt for privacy is the Attorney General's failure to table, as required by law, a review of the New South Wales Privacy and Personal Information Act, which was due on 30 November 2004 but is now nearly a year and a half overdue. Contempt for privacy, contempt for the Parliament, and contempt for the public—unfortunately, that is the Carr-Iemma Government's way on this issue. The Government's implementation of electronic health records has been so ham-fisted, so reckless and so incompetent that we have reached the point where this disallowance debate is needed. Sadly, public health administration and the people of New South Wales are the real losers. The Government has abandoned the long-held idea that patients should have to give informed consent to the use of their private information. Patients will be forced to opt out of the new system, and even then some data will be stored. This is terrible public policy—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Disability Services. Has the Minister decided to fund the Lifestart School Age Services Program in Sydney's northern suburbs? Does the department fund the Lifestart School Age Services Program in other areas of Sydney? Are parents asking for an amount of $4,600 to support each child? Does the Minister stand by comments made by his department that Lifestart will get funding only if another disability organisation loses its funding? Why will the Minister not fund this wonderful organisation and support the families who have not only founded Lifestart but have worked so hard to keep it going?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am aware of the services provided by Lifestart Co-operative Ltd. Indeed, I visited services last August and saw firsthand the benefits of these programs in supporting school-age children with intellectual disabilities and their families. In the last financial year Lifestart Co-operative Ltd received approximately $1.6 million in total funding to provide early childhood intervention services.

The Government and I recognise that caring for a child or young person with a disability can be a positive role for many families. But this role can also be challenging, particularly when children have very high or complex support needs. The New South Wales Government is seeking to expand intensive family support services to children and young people with a disability and their families. A tender was announced in December 2005, with the aim of providing statewide coverage for intensive family support services. The outcome of the tender process is currently being finalised by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and will be announced in due course.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. When the Minister was elucidating his answer, was he suggesting that substantial funding is allocated for disability services?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Disability funding is allocated to regions based on population, available resources and local priorities. This ensures that people with a disability and families across New South Wales have access to a fair share of services and help.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes or no.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I can answer the question in the way I want to, in the way the facts lead me. This year the Government will provide $106 million for therapy and support services for more than 20,000 children and families in New South Wales. Of this amount, northern Sydney receives more than $16 million. These funds provide help to families through the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and non-government organisations including the Spastic Centre, Autism Spectrum Australia, the Sunnyfield Association, Early Education Incorporated, and Lifestart. Lifestart is funded more than $1.6 million for its services, and of this amount $740,000 is allocated to northern Sydney.

I know that families need more help, and when funds become available they will be provided for those in greatest need. Disability funding has grown every year since the Labor Government was elected. It will grow again next year, and there will be extra funds for therapy and family support services. The Government has more than doubled disability funding since 1996, with a record $1.1 billion for disability services this year.

The Hon. John Ryan: It is ancient history.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is not ancient history; it is your Opposition, and you are part of it. Members opposite promised to slash DOCS services two elections ago, in order to enhance their prospects of proving that they are good economic managers. It is very smart and clever of the Hon. John Ryan to show off and throw clichés around in this place. The Coalition will not deliver because it does not have a plan. The Hon. John Ryan has not said anything positive about disability services since he became the shadow spokesperson for that portfolio. He is very clever in showing off, but he has nothing to offer people with disabilities—[Time expired.]

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform members of the work of the NSW Fire Brigades rescue teams?

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the skill and dedication that is consistently shown by our emergency service personnel, in particular on 18 March. On that Saturday morning, a 50-tonne section of earthen wall collapsed into an excavated area on a construction site in Castlereagh Street, Liverpool, pinning a worker against a concrete slab eight metres below street level. The NSW Fire Brigades rescue unit from Liverpool responded to the site at 9.30 a.m., finding the worker buried up to his waist in heavy clay and caged in by vertical steel reinforcing bars. The Liverpool crew was supported by a crew from Cabramatta, bringing to 12 the number of firefighters committed to the incident.

Ambulance and police officers were already on the site, which had been cleared of all but essential personnel. Recognising that a further collapse was likely, firefighters helped construction workers to shore up the wall with formwork boards and reinforcing timbers. Because the rescue operation was risky and posed technical challenges, the Fire Brigades urban search and rescue specialist unit attended to provide technical support. Firefighters cut through the steel reinforcing bars to get to the trapped man, before cautiously digging around him using hand tools while ambulance paramedics provided medical treatment to ease his pain. A harness, secured to a Fire Brigades ladder-truck at street level, was slipped over the man to take some of the weight off the lower half of his body.

Releasing the man's feet proved to be the most difficult part of the operation as they were encased in heavy, wet clay, which created a strong suction effect. The man remained conscious throughout the operation as paramedics kept his condition stable. The rescuers persevered until the man was finally released, lifted onto a stretcher, and taken to hospital by a waiting ambulance. His ordeal lasted for four hours, and I am sure all members would join me in wishing him well after such a traumatic experience.

The cause of the accident is the subject of a WorkCover investigation. We must never take the work of our emergency services for granted. I have been told that the rescue operation at Liverpool was outstanding for the quality of co-ordination, the technical excellence, and the skill and sheer persistence demonstrated by all the officers from the various emergency services. On behalf of the Government and the House, I am proud to extend our thanks to all the emergency services personnel involved in the rescue, and to the ranks of those who support them with safety equipment and continuous training.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Considering he has been Minister for Health for more than 230 days, why has he not been briefed on the health issues relating to the M5 East tunnel given that he publicly stated on 16 March, "Well, I haven't got a briefing in relation to that, nothing has been brought to my attention in relation to it, so I'm not in a position to make a comment"? Has the Minister now been briefed on this issue, particularly given that as health Minister the Premier was fully briefed on the risk of toxic fumes in the M5 East tunnel and, in addition, the Premier has confirmed that he winds up his own windows when going through the M5 East tunnel? When will the Minister use his powers to force the Roads and Traffic Authority to put up signs to warn motorists about the pollution risks associated with the M5 East tunnel?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This issue was canvassed in the media and my answers were accurate. Nothing was brought to my attention adversely in relation to the M5 East, and that continues to be the situation. New South Wales takes concerns about potential impacts on health in the community quite seriously. Environmental monitoring in the local area of the M5 stack showed that local pollution levels have not been significantly impacted by stack emissions.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Utilities. Is it planned to take the self-insurance status from Sydney Water and give its compensation unit to WorkCover? Given that self-insurers always achieve better results in cost terms than WorkCover because they are closer to their workforce, what would be the point of this? Is this suggestion merely a way of making WorkCover's statistics look better in the short term, or to get at the compensation reserves of Sydney Water to improve WorkCover's reserves? Will the Government clearly state whether this move is to take place, and if so for what reason? Is there any truth in the rumour that the managing director of Sydney Water has resigned?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know where the information contained in this question has come from.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are not the Minister, are you.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am the shareholding Minister, and so is my colleague the Leader of the House, and I have not heard any of this information. I think it has probably come from a very dubious source, but I am certainly happy to check it out.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It came from Minister Sparkles.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, he is not the Minister. David Campbell is the Minister. I will take it on notice and get the relevant information. But from my knowledge of Sydney Water the question appears to be based on some false premise.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister outline the existing protections for injured workers, and what is the Government doing to support these people?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: New South Wales has had in place valuable legislative protections for a long time. These protections prevent workers from being dismissed by their employer just because they have been injured in the workplace. But these protections are coming to an end. WorkChoices removes this protection by seeking to exclude all State industrial laws. There is no provision in the 1,388 pages of legislation, 400 pages of regulations and 500 pages of expanding notes in the WorkChoices laws and regulations that replicate any of the existing protections for injured workers in the workers compensation legislation in New South Wales. This will mean that workers working for corporations could face the prospect of immediately losing their job just because they are injured at work through no fault of their own.

Prior to the release of the WorkChoices regulations I wrote to the Federal Workplace Relations Minister about this matter and I asked that this important measure be safeguarded, but, yet again, this important request fell on deaf ears. The New South Wales laws, which have been included under section 99 of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act, prevent dismissals from taking place within six months of an injury occurring. Often this will extend to 39 weeks under all provisions providing for accident pay. Not only does the New South Wales provision give income security, it is also fundamental to the rehabilitation of an injured worker. The sooner an injured worker is reintroduced into the workplace, the better will be the prospect of a complete recovery.

This is a further reason why the Iemma Government is taking this unfair, unbalanced and quite possibly illegal legislation to the High Court. We need to protect workers, their families and small-business owners who will suffer if this unconstitutional law is allowed to stand. I recommend that workers who are dismissed under WorkChoices legislation immediately contact the State Government's Fair Go Advisory Service or visit the web site at industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au to get assistance. The Fair Go Advisory Service has been designed to prevent people being ripped off through unfair individual workplace agreements. A key feature of the service is the Compare What's Fair online calculator, which allows people to get a quick, accurate assessment of how an Australian workplace agreement [AWA] compares to existing award entitlements. People can then see exactly how well a dollar figure presented to them under an AWA really compares and what they are being asked to give up in exchange.

The Iemma Government will continue to look at all legislative options to protect workers, particularly vulnerable and injured workers in both the public and private sectors, from the excesses of the WorkChoices laws.
Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Mineral Resources. Is the Minister aware of the death of a dolphin, which was caught in a shark net at Whale Beach earlier this week, and of a dugong found dead in a shark net at Queenscliff on the weekend? Will the department investigate the use of shark repellent devices, which have been used successfully by abalone divers and surfers to ward off sharks without harming other organisms? Will the Minister consider the use of electronic shark repellent barriers on beaches and prevent destructive by-catch of protected marine mammals and other protected species? Why does the Minister refuse to look at advanced technological solutions in this case, as opposed to destructive, out-of-date the shark nets that do not work and do not cover the entire beach?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think it is undeniable that over the past 69 years of the use of shark nets along the beaches from Newcastle south to Wollongong they have had a very large impact on the reduction of deaths on our beaches. For instance, in the 30-odd years prior to the nets being put in place there was one death per annum and since then there has been only one death—in the early 1960s—on any beach that has been netted. I think the figures speak for themselves. Our scientists and the Government are very committed to this program.

[Interruption]

I can give you quite a long explanation. The 51 beaches that are netted on a periodical basis through the summer periods are probably the most extensively used beaches in Australia. It was clear last summer that the overwhelming public support for the beach-netting program was there for everyone to see. In terms of new technologies, I informed the House in the past that we have been trialling and utilising pingers that are designed to repel certain types of sea life including, if I recall correctly, turtles. Yes, there is an unfortunate number of species that occasionally get caught in the nets, but we are working on that, and any viable program that can be put in place in conjunction with our nets will be entertained and developed.

It is quite clear the pingers have been used, and that is precisely their operation: to repel certain types of sea life. But we cannot guarantee with these nets that there will not be some loss of sea life. The Government's view is that these nets have provided protection to beachgoers along our coast over the past 68 years. The figures are there—it is demonstrable: one death in 68 years. No matter how much some of the Greens and a few of their supporters jump up and down about this, the Government is committed to those nets and the net program, and will be into the future.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of the dairy industry's concerns about Monsanto's terminator technology to be used in cotton, tobacco and pharmaceutical crops and pastures? The industry says it could prove catastrophic to the industry. What is the Minister doing to allay the fears of the New South Wales dairy industry, and will the New South Wales Labor Government support a permanent ban on research development and the use of terminator seeds because of the high risks of cross- contamination into pastures?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Terminator technology has been widely discussed as something that will provide beneficial results for farming. For instance, in relation to gene technology, it is felt that if terminator technology were used or employed alongside gene technology, any potential for what we call "volunteers" would be eliminated.


Licensing for use in this State is very much in the province of the Federal Government. I suggest that the honourable member takes up the use of these technologies with his Federal ministerial colleagues.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You must have a view on this.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will consider these issues in the context that they are dealt with at the Federal level. That is clearly where it lies: it is up to the Federal Government to license.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on cancer services at Concord Hospital?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 9 March 2006 I was pleased to officially open a new cancer research laboratory at Concord Hospital, a laboratory that will investigate new ways of improving outcomes and reducing risks for cancer patients. Concord Hospital is already part of the Sydney Cancer Centres' integrated clinical services, with medical oncologists working between Royal Prince Alfred and Concord hospitals seeing some 600 new patients a year. Moreover, the establishment of a mesothelioma research and treatment facility at Concord Hospital has significantly progressed.

Professor Michele Carbone, an outstanding international researcher, has been selected as the preferred head of the institute. Planning for the institute is well advanced. In parallel with this, a video pleuroscopy service has been set up at Concord Hospital for the care of patients with mesothelioma, the only service of its kind in New South Wales. Now, with the addition of the Cancer Pharmacology Laboratory, Concord Hospital is set to become New South Wales' flagship in cancer research. With Professor Stephen Clarke and Associate Professor Graham Robertson at the helm of the new laboratory and a crew of post-doctoral scientists, PhD honours students and psycho-oncology support, research at Concord Hospital will potentially transform the lives of many people who suffer from cancer.

The research will help patients tolerate chemotherapy better and harmonise their treatment with the best drugs for their individual biomarkers. Researchers at the new laboratory have already made exciting advances that improve the provision of health to cancer patients in New South Wales. In what is pioneering research, the laboratory's scientists are identifying which patients with advanced colorectal cancer are at risk of life-threatening chemotherapy toxicity and malnutrition. This allows doctors to treat patients for toxicity and malnutrition before they begin chemotherapy, giving more patients access to better treatment.

Researchers are looking for biomarkers in patients to predict which drug will benefit each individual patient, thereby removing some of the trial and error of treatment. A number of other studies are already under way at the laboratory, including examining the use of fish oil to help patients better tolerate chemotherapy and improve nutrition. Other areas of research include a randomised trial of Chinese herbal medicines to investigate their use in combating toxicity, predicting the effectiveness of drugs by studying how the molecular structure of a drug fits into the molecular structure of a tumour, examining genetic changes in patients, and looking at the effects of chemotherapy on thinking.

The laboratory has been funded by a $185,000 grant from the New South Wales Cancer Institute, a National Health and Medical Research Council grant of $160,000 and a grant of $160,000 over three years from Burwood Council, as well as a number of private donations to the hospital, including from Burwood RSL Club. I acknowledge all the generous benefactors towards this important laboratory. The research done by this laboratory will help improve the treatment and quality of life of cancer patients. I congratulate all those involved in its realisation on their generosity, hard work and dedication to cancer research.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. What incentives have been put in place to encourage dentists to enter the public health system and thus reduce the excessive waiting list for public dental and oral health services in New South Wales? What has the Minister done to increase the number of dentists practising in rural areas? Has the number of training places in New South Wales universities for dental students been increased or is the Government relying on the recruitment of foreign dentists to solve the problem of chronic shortages of practitioners in rural New South Wales? If the number of trainee positions has been increased, what was the size of that increase? When will such trainees be fully operational in the New South Wales public dental health system?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I reiterate, as I have on a number of occasions, that while I empathise with all those who have dental concerns, particularly those who are waiting, the constitutional responsibility for this issue rests with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth constitution specifically states that dental services are a Federal responsibility. Yet the Federal Government is trawling around to overtake State powers in a number of different areas, such as industrial relations, while ignoring this area.

I make another point that the honourable member should be aware of because she specifically raised university training places. It might be news to her but the Federal Government actually provides training places for dentists. The sole dental faculty in New South Wales, the University of Sydney, has only 40 Higher Education Contribution Scheme [HECS] funded places for dentists. The rest go to overseas full-paying students.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What is wrong with that?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: What is wrong is that you complain about a shortage of dentists, but there are only 40 HECS-funded places and the rest are taken by full-fee paying students and overseas students. I suggest that any training matter be directed to those responsible. There are two issues: constitutional responsibility and the one I have just identified. Just about every other State in Australia charges public patients. People who go to public clinics are charged between $40 and $100. Is it part of the Opposition's policy that patients spend their own money on dental health? Does it want people to be coming in with their tax returns to show how much money they earn and to have a sliding scale on contributions? That is the extra money being talked about.

I do not like having to go trawling around overseas to get health professionals to come here. I had to do it with nurses; I got 1,000 nurses from overseas. Last year we went overseas to get 150 doctors. We are now going overseas again to get dentists from three countries. I would prefer not to have to do it. I would prefer to be able to offer opportunities to young people who want a career in dentistry to be able to study here and work in the public system. But the reality is that there are not enough of them, so I have no choice about that.

I have already indicated that we will unveil some proposals in relation to rural scholarships to provide some support for people who want to go particularly to rural areas. However, I should make it quite clear that the public sector cannot compete, with the shortage we have at the moment, against the private sector and the high payments that are being made for private dental fees. Another problem that has developed in the dental industry—and the Hon. Melinda Pavey should think about this—not only did the Commonwealth take its $100 million out of the Commonwealth dental program, it shovelled $350 million into the 30 per cent health insurance rebate.

[Interruption]

This will come out of the parliamentary dental inquiry. Last week the Private Insurance Ombudsman said that the average payout for private health insurance on dental care is 50 per cent. If members opposite want another statistic they should listen to this one: 17 per cent— [Time expired.]

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. What consultation did the Minister and the Premier undertake with NSW Fire Brigades prior to the Premier's announcement that NSW Police will be equipped with a water cannon vehicle? How is the Government utilising the expertise of NSW Fire Brigades in the process of constructing the vehicle? Given that the Government is purchasing a single water cannon to cover potential emergencies across the whole of the State, was prior consideration given to the use of fire trucks to assist police in cases of extreme public disorder? If so, what was the outcome of such consideration?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am of the understanding that members opposite are allowed to ask only one question at a time. I think the Hon. Catherine Cusack asked about five questions. The answer to the first question is none. There was no consultation. It is a protocol of the fire brigades that they do not use their fire trucks in riots to assist police. The police do their own job.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I ask a supplementary question. Did the Premier undertake any consultation with the Minister?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I said none.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister update the House on the latest developments with the WorkCover scheme?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: New South Wales business will benefit from the 10 per cent reduction in workers compensation premium rates announced by the Premier earlier today. This reduction is in addition to the 5 per cent reduction announced by the Premier in November 2005. It is the second reduction the Premier has announced. Together, these reductions represent a $430 million boost to 250,000 businesses in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government is reducing the cost of doing business in New South Wales. By cutting workers compensation premiums, we are saving money for every business in New South Wales and boosting job creation opportunities. The New South Wales Government has designed a scheme that focuses on the needs of injured workers, with fewer disputes and delays, on occupational health and safety, and on better injury management and return to work outcomes. The Government changes have rescued the finances of the WorkCover scheme, ensuring that the reduction from 30 June is both responsible and affordable. This 10 per cent rate reduction delivers practical benefits for business. For example, an industrial machinery manufacturer in Sydney's northern suburbs will save $237,916 per year, a bus service on the South Coast will save $5,691 per year and a small Concord florist will save $223 per year. As small employers, they are protected from an increase even if they have a claim.

[Interruption]

I am not surprised by the interjections. The Opposition did not support the reforms. It wants businesses to pay higher premiums.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They're moving to Queensland.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: A lot more of them would be moving to Queensland if the Coalition had anything to do with it. Australian Business Limited, the Australian Industry Group and the State Chamber of Commerce have praised the reductions, with Mark Bethwhaite stating that the reforms are now delivering real benefits to the businesses of New South Wales. In the latest valuation released today the independent actuary found that the WorkCover scheme deficit has fallen to $1.16 billion. That is $831 million less than it was six months ago. The New South Wales WorkCover scheme offers the nation's best suite of benefits for injured workers but remains excellent value for employers. We have boosted benefits with a doubling of maximum benefits for permanent impairment in the statutory scheme, and we boosted benefits again in 2005 with a 5 per cent increase in permanent impairment benefits for serious spinal injuries.

Some schemes provide support for two years; the New South Wales scheme supports injured workers until they are able to return to work or reach retirement age. The New South Wales scheme has a target premium collection rate of 2.17 per cent of wages, which makes it the third lowest of the eight State and Territory jurisdictions. The Government's measured and responsible changes are in stark contrast to the reckless and inexperienced approach of the Coalition, which has signalled that it has learnt nothing from the mistakes it made with the scheme in the 1990s. The previous Coalition Government created the deficit by allowing costs to blow out beyond premium revenue. The New South Wales Government is determined to ensure that the premium reductions are sustainable in the longer term and that we do not waste the hard work put in by New South Wales businesses, workers and the Government. As the scheme continues its trend to return to financial health, the Government will endeavour to pass on further benefits to employers and injured workers. These figures speak for themselves. This 10 per cent reduction is a boost to business and an endorsement of the Government's management of the WorkCover scheme.

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 an American report authored by the Commission on Children at Risk, a panel of leading children's doctors, neuroscientists, research scholars and youth service professionals, entitled "Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities"? Is the Minister aware that the report has found that children are biologically hardwired for enduring connections to others and for moral and spiritual meaning? Given that on conservative estimates 14 per cent of Australian children and young people suffer from mental illnesses, and given the recent debate about the degradation of standards in civility, will the Minister consider the incorporation of programs into the school curriculum that require children and young people to participate in community groups?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Education and Training.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister confirm that Cabinet has taken a decision to downgrade Mona Vale Hospital? Will the residents of the region be able to access emergency services at Mona Vale Hospital? Will the intensive care unit be maintained? What is the time frame for changes?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is a terrific question from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, who seems to have had a passing interest in this issue from time to time. Indeed, I note that the Opposition has had a keen interest in this matter. I shall take some time of the House to recount some of the history of this matter.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You could try to answer the question, for a start.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will. The Government has attempted to act in an open and transparent manner and is committed to reaching an outcome that is in the best interests of its people. However, we have not been assisted at all by the local members. I exclude the Hon. Patricia Forsythe from that—although she lives in the area—because she has tried through the committee process to enable people to be heard on this matter. In August 2004 the former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Wakehurst, Brad Hazzard, and the honourable member for Davidson, Andrew Humpherson, told the Manly Daily that the only "acceptable options" for the northern beaches were:

a) to build a high-level hospital in Frenchs Forest and upgrade Mona Vale hospital;

b) to rebuild a high-level hospital at the existing Manly site and upgrade Mona Vale, or

c) vice-versa to establish a large high-level hospital at Mona Vale and upgrade Manly.

Three months later, on 12 November 2004, those three people ruled out Mona Vale as a site for the new general hospital. They signed an agreement with the member for Manly which stated:

There should be two hospitals on the northern beaches comprising a new general hospital (to replace the existing Manly Hospital) and an ongoing complementary role for Mona Vale Hospital serving its local community.

Further, the Opposition has engaged in constant scaremongering on this issue. In the lead-up to the Pittwater by-election the Leader of the Opposition stated in an advertisement:

… only the Liberal Party guarantees [the future of Mona Vale]... through a two-hospital policy... unlike Labor and some independents.

But the Leader of the Opposition was not listening to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe because she, in her report to the upper House, said this about the Government and its position:

It is clear that Mona Vale hospital will not be closed.

I note that in a speech about a month ago the honourable member said that the Government was not funding the hospital adequately. However, in her report she said:

... no persuasive evidence that Mona Vale hospital is under funded.

That followed her searching examination of this issue. The Government has been attempting to go through this process in an open and transparent manner, which is exactly what the honourable member suggested. A value management study was conducted, on which there was public consultation, and an economic analysis has been conducted. A further commitment was made to the member for Pittwater that we would examine his alternative proposals in relation to the Warriewood option. An outcome of that process will be advised in due course.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House of the latest efforts by the New South Wales Government to help attract young people to careers in agriculture?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As honourable members would be aware, attracting young people to careers in agriculture, and retaining them, has been an ongoing challenge. Indeed, the average age of farmers working on the land today is over 50. To ensure that our agricultural industries remain competitive into the future we need to address the barriers that exist for the next generation of farming professionals. That is why we have developed AgStart—a stronger, smarter way to help young people wanting to develop careers in agriculture.

Honourable members will recall that the former Minister for Natural Resources, Craig Knowles, and the former president of the New South Wales Farmers' Association, Mr Mal Peters, last year announced a program concept designed to take on this challenge. When I assumed responsibility for the Natural Resources portfolio I took steps to make this initial concept even better. In particular I wanted to look at creating links between Natural Resources, the Department of Primary Industries and the Rural Assistance Authority. That is why I set up a working group with representatives from each of those organisations, as well as the New South Wales Farmers' Association. As a key partner in the original program concept, it was important to ensure that the New South Wales Farmers' Association was on board from the start—and it is.

In fact that organisation applauded the scheme publicly following its announcement at the recent New South Wales Farmers Executive Council dinner. A leading consultancy firm—PricewaterhouseCoopers—was also engaged to review the working group's findings and recommend further improvements. These efforts found that the barriers to success were not one-dimensional, and neither are the solutions. AgStart will help to address the full range of issues through a more holistic approach, one that involves career planning, mentoring and training, as well as financial support. Assistance measures will be guided by an AgStart board and will encompass a range of options, including grants for training and skills development, mentoring programs, financial management workshops and assistance with farm finance.

The AgStart board will oversee the range of measures that might assist individual young people. Agriculture is not a one-size-fits-all industry and AgStart will not be a one-size-fits-all program. It is about matching the type of assistance with the individual and the career path he or she wants to take, whether that be farm ownership, leasing a farm, share farming or other agribusiness field. The AgStart program has been welcomed by the New South Wales Farmers' Association, which sees it as another major step forward for our young farmers. As expected, The Nationals are simply unable to realise the benefits. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's master plan would involve only one measure, concessional loans—"yesterday's" solution for "yesterday's" party. The reality is that the challenges for success are not limited to finances. I cannot wake up the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! In fact, we have found that the key challenges include a lack of understanding about the range of career paths available—

[Interruption]

I always get you going, Melinda. You are a troublemaker in this House, an absolute troublemaker!

[Interruption]

I am not a troublemaker. Melinda Pavey is.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The key challenge is a miserable $1 million. You are just mean. You are not only hopeless, you are also mean.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Go back to sleep! That got him going, didn't it? We woke him up for the first time in half an hour. Listen to him go!

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think $1 million to this program is a very good contribution by the Government. We found that key challenges included a lack of understanding about the range of career paths available, the financial risks associated with these paths and the inability of young people to tap into potential investors. The approach of The Nationals would seem to ignore these issues and the true needs of our young people. The Government will commit $1 million in the first year while also providing a platform to attract more funding through private contributions. The AgStart program is far stronger than its predecessor and we believe it will deliver better results for our rural communities. I will announce the membership of that board in the near future.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that his colleague the Minister for Roads stated in this Chamber yesterday:

The Hon. Charlie Lynn claimed that numerous people have suffered adverse health effects as a result of travelling through the tunnel—

That is the M5East tunnel—

I challenge the honourable member to produce some of those cases. Where are they? They do not exist because he made them up.

Does the Minister agree with the Minister for Roads that no-one has suffered adverse effects from travelling through the tunnel?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: That is not what he said. He said, "produce the evidence".

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No. He said, "They do not exist because he made them up." Does the Minister agree with that statement?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The standing orders do not allow me to express opinions.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister consider spending some of the $30 million allocated to the Monaro electorate from the privatisation of Snowy Hydro Limited on a historical centre detailing contributions to and the history of the Snowy Hydro Scheme in the town of Jindabyne?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is a very interesting question that I have not had put to me in any other forum. If the honourable member has followed these events closely, she may well know that I have had several consultations with the Snowy River councils and not one of them has yet raised the issue of a Snowy heritage museum, which the member appears to be advocating by way of her question. I would be happy to look at it. I will take the question on notice and obtain a reply for the honourable member as soon as possible.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Although it is disorderly for me to respond to interjections, I know that members opposite will seek to make nuisance by way of interjections. I would just refer the Opposition to the fact that the member for Monaro, who has been very diligent in pursuit of the interests of his electorate, has been dealing directly with the Premier, as he should, on matters in relation to—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: He has gone over your head. He has tried to stop you, has he?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No. He has not gone over my head to try to stop me. He has very strong views on the Snowy Hydro issue. He has also been dealing directly with the Premier on a range of matters relevant to his electorate, including matters in relation to a Snowy dividend for the communities that have spent a good deal of the past 50 years providing the labour and support for the great Snowy Mountains project. Just for the sake of the record, I will make sure the House is aware of that.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on the radiotherapy work force and the expansion of radiotherapy services?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am pleased to update the House on the New South Wales Government's significant investment in enhancing radiotherapy services and augmenting the radiotherapy work force. Some $12.7 million has been allocated to radiation therapy work force initiatives since 2003-04. This includes New South Wales Health and Cancer Institute funding of $1.15 million for 53 Professional Development Year positions in 2005 and $1.7million for 55 positions and 20 partially-funded positions in 2006. The sum of $78,000 has been provided for the recruitment of 11 radiation therapists from overseas and 3 Australian-trained radiation therapists returning to New South Wales. In addition, 11 radiation therapist tutor positions have received funding of $2.8 million over four years, and there has been considerable marketing of radiation therapy as an exciting career choice.

Funding of $5.7 million over four years, commencing in 2003-04, has been devoted to the establishment of a training program for radiation oncology medical physicists and continuing professional development. Expenditure of $1.24 million has resulted in 4 radiation oncology vocational registrar positions over four years, an investment that will provide improved opportunities for radiation oncology staff specialists in rural settings and ultimately increase the supply of trained radiation oncologists. The successful implementation of a range of work force strategies has resulted in an increased pool of radiation therapists and a solid foundation for sustainable services. But the lemma Government's commitment does not end there. The sum of $55.4 million has been earmarked in Labor's plan for capital investment and the expansion of radiotherapy services in New South Wales over three years between 2003-04 and 2006-07. This is in addition to $21.3 million of recurrent funding.

The new Mid-North Coast Cancer Care Centre, which will operate at Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour, is progressing well. I visited the sites last Friday, and both centres will have the capacity for two linear accelerators. Detailed planning for new radiotherapy services at Lismore and Orange has also commenced and these will be in conjunction with major redevelopment of hospitals in those towns. Expanded services at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital at Newcastle are also being planned. The achievements and vision of the New South Wales Government are instrumental in securing a sustainable radiotherapy work force and expanding radiotherapy services. Development of the New South Wales Government's radiotherapy services plan to 2011 is already under way. The plan will identify the next phase of expansion for radiotherapy services that will meet the needs of the people of this State and ensure even better and more timely care for patients.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister for Commerce, representing the Premier. Why is the Government Gazette not available in electronic form and placed on the Internet? Is the Government attempting to make it difficult to find information from the Government Gazette? How much of it is still typed on typewriters? Is the Government aware that many software packages are available that can compile an index automatically if the chapters are collated in a specified format? Why is such a system not used in the compilation of the Government Gazette? When will the Government Gazette be available in electronic form and placed on the Internet?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans for his question, and I am pleased to say that I am one step ahead of him. The Government Gazette is available on the Internet and has been for five years. All issues of the Government Gazette for the current month are available for access by the general public. This service is available free of charge to the public, as opposed to previously when the Government Gazette was only available via subscription or purchase. In answer to the second part of the honourable member's question, no, to the best of my knowledge, the Government is not attempting to make it difficult to find information in the Government Gazette. The placement of the Government Gazette on a Government web site was an initiative of this Government, and action is currently being taken to provide electronic access to all previous issues.

Special arrangements have also been implemented to provide access to the Government Gazette for the visually impaired. As part of the current review process, technology offering an indexed Government Gazette with a full search facility is being investigated by the Department of Commerce. We expect the investigation will be completed within the next six months. The current software is utilised to ensure integrity of the content and to prevent unauthorised access, which could lead to accidental or deliberate changes to the text of the Government Gazette. The current review will focus on maintaining the security of this essential Government information. As I indicated earlier, the current Government Gazette is available on the Internet. It is the Government's intention to enhance the current service to offer all editions of the Government Gazette published electronically since 2001 on the web. The Hon. Brian Pezzutti, whom we miss, used to read the Government Gazette cover to cover every day.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the draft zoning plan for the Port Stephens marine park now not be released until the end of April? If so, will this one-month extension mean that the Minister's department will now undertake a socioeconomic impact study to determine the impact on the recreational and commercial fishing industries and an environmental study to provide information and data on why a marine park is necessary in Port Stephens? Will he now provide data on what species will be protected and how a marine park will protect marine life? Given the lack of public consultation on the proposed establishment of a marine park in Port Stephens, will he agree to an extension of the period of consultation until after the 2007 election to allow the citizens of Port Stephens to vote on this issue?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The answer to the last question is certainly not. As to the Hon. Robyn Parker's other questions, the draft management plan will be released slightly later than anticipated. Intensive consultation is taking place with stakeholders in the marine park area. I have attended two sessions with stakeholders at Port Stephens. The socioeconomic impact study has almost been completed and, as I understand it, has been put in the hands of the consultative committee. The study will assist in making informed decisions on the park. The Government realises that buyouts will be necessary as a result of the establishment of the marine park, and the Government has provided $10 million for that purpose.

The Government made a commitment prior to the last election to create six marine parks along the coast of New South Wales. The Port Stephens and Batemans Bay marine parks are part of that commitment. The Government stands by that commitment and the consultation process will continue. The boundaries of the various marine park zones will be fixed some time after the release of the draft zone plans. Approximately three months will be allowed for consultation on each of the draft zone plans, which is ample time for all stakeholders and interested parties to have their say. I find it difficult to believe that the Liberal Party, which is taking up this issue, would not be aware that substantial consultation with stakeholders is taking place at the moment every day of the week. It is a passing parade, as people move the map around virtually every day.

A copy of a potential draft zone plan, in full colour, was placed in the Newcastle Herald a couple of days ago. Clearly, the consultation goes beyond the confines of the consultative committee, which is charged with looking at these issues. The consultation, which is extensive, will continue for approximately three months. I am sure within that period we can determine a park that suits all stakeholders and will meet the needs of commercial fishing, recreational fishing and charter boat operations and at the same time contribute to aquatic preservation in the region. If Opposition members think that the establishment of marine parks in New South Wales is just a Labor plot, they should remember who announced the establishment last year—or perhaps it was the year before—of the Great Barrier Reef marine park. It was none other than the Hon. Robyn Parker's Federal Liberal colleagues.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister make the socioeconomic impact study publicly available?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will take that question on board. I will have a discussion with the Marine Parks Authority and my department and have a think about it.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister update the House on the demolition of Katingal?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As a Minister it is usually my role to open buildings. Recently I found myself celebrating the closure of one. The infamous Katingal prison building at Long Bay Gaol will soon be just a bad memory. Deconstruction workers have begun knocking down the site, which took correctional services to a new low in this country. The demolition process began this month and should be completed by early June this year. The closure of Katingal truly represents the end of an era. It can be said now, with the immense benefit of hindsight, that Katingal had a short but notorious history. "Katingal" is an Aboriginal word meaning separation from social control. Katingal operated for just three years from 1975 to 1978. It has to be seen as a failure in correctional management. However, valuable lessons that were learnt from Katingal have been used to ensure the effectiveness of the High Risk Management Unit at Goulburn, known as the Supermax. I understand members of an upper House committee recently visited the Supermax.

Katingal was built to house intractable maximum security prisoners and as a holding place for terrorists, should the need arise. This followed the terrorist attacks at the Munich Olympic Games. At Katingal, inmates were kept in a collection of cells and exercise spaces without natural light and were deprived of any sensory relationship with the outside world. On a recent visit I was acutely aware of the claustrophobia, the sensory deprivation and the isolation that staff and inmates must have experienced. But correctional management has changed greatly since 1978. Today's most serious offenders, persons found guilty of heinous crimes, have regular contact with prison staff. This measure has proven valuable in the rehabilitation of most prisoners. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure inmates have the opportunity to reform and make a positive contribution to society upon their release. The harsh management regime practised at Katingal has no place in the twenty-first century.
What of the future? Following the deconstruction of this facility's 15-centimetre-thick concrete walls, construction will begin on a new central store on the site. However, for heritage purposes, artefacts will be removed and taken to the Department of Corrective Services museum—a fantastic museum in Cooma. They will include a Katingal cell, complete with control panels to open and close doors and to turn on and off water and light. Facilities like Katingal will never resurface, but the lessons will remain. They will ensure the best possible protection for the community and humane conditions for staff and inmates within the walls of the State's gaols.

Mr IAN COHEN: I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. What action has the Environment Protection Authority taken to deal with the hexachlorobenzene [HCB] stored in drums for decades at the Botany Orica site? Has it investigated the safety of those drums and any leakages? Is the Minister aware that there is also a mountain of HCB and other toxic waste under the onsite car park stacked over plastic liners on an existing rising water table? Is this toxic mountain containing HCB and other chemicals being dealt with, and does it contribute to the toxic plume moving towards Botany Bay?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question and will ensure that it is referred to the Minister for his consideration. I will provide an answer to him as soon as practicable.

I suggest that if honourable members have further questions they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

[The President left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 8 March 2006.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.30 p.m.]: I speak to this report as Deputy Chair of the Committee on Children and Young People, a parliamentary oversight committee. The committee's report, which is dated June 2005, is entitled "Review of the Child Death Review Team Report: Suicide and risk-taking deaths of children and young people” and is accompanied by the transcript of proceedings, written responses to questions and minutes. A large part of the report comprises the written questions sent to the Commissioner for Children and Young People, Gillian Calvert, and also to Professor Beverley Raphael, the Director of the New South Wales Centre for Mental Health. Indeed, there are two lots of the written questions and answers and two relatively short transcripts of the committee's hearings involving those people.

One of the difficulties we face when debating a report of this nature in the hour set aside for debate on committee reports is that the material presented in the report does not make a great deal of sense in isolation because it refers to issues that committee members felt they wanted to get more information on, or needed clarity on, arising out of the report itself. The report does not contain discussions of all the fine work done by the Child Death Review Team because, almost by definition, the fine work done by that team on this important matter—suicide and risk-taking deaths of children and young people—is not the subject of the report, precisely because it was so fine. Therefore I will speak briefly to the report, but in particular I wish to pay tribute to the work of the Child Death Review Team.
In some ways the report was prepared quite a long time ago. It contains a study of all deaths, either by suicide or risk taking, of children and young people in New South Wales aged under 18. It is extremely important that deaths resulting from risk taking are included in such a study. So often we are not certain of the motives of the young people concerned, but we certainly have no doubt about the tragedy and the long-lasting impact on families and friends, and people who have witnessed or been associated with the deaths. It is important to note that the report, simply because of the quality of its analysis and all the work that has been done on each individual case, including the Coroner's work and so on, deals with deaths that occurred between January 1996 and December 2000. I do not in any way suggest that any of this material is out of date, but I believe it is important to note that the report is, in a sense, removed from the much thicker and more comprehensive report that was presented to the committee and the people of New South Wales some time before the parliamentary oversight committee went through the relatively minor queries I have referred to.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.36 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the report to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 21 June 2005.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [2.36 p.m.]: I am pleased to present the final report of the Standing Committee on State Development on its inquiry into port infrastructure in New South Wales. As honourable members may be aware, this is the first take-note debate I have been involved in as chairman of the committee, and it is a great privilege and honour to do so. I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of all the committee members, with whom it has been a pleasure to work. I thank the deputy chair, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, for her assistance and input, and committee members the Hon. Greg Donnelly, Mr Ian Cohen, the Hon. Christine Robertson, and the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

The inquiry by the Standing Committee on State Development commenced under former chair Mr Tony Burke. I acknowledge Tony's hard work and commitment. Tony, who is now a shadow Federal Minister, was chair of the State development committee for the majority of the inquiry, and I am sure he would agree with the recommendations put forward by the committee. I also extend my thanks to immediate past chair, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, for his involvement in the inquiry. It is recognised that New South Wales, and in particular Sydney, is a successful trade destination. Furthermore, trade is continuing to grow, and for this growth to be appropriately accommodated port capacity will need to be increased. Balancing trade and employment needs with environmental, planning and transport issues has been a major focus of the committee's inquiry.

Before I go into the details of the report, I take the opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to extend our gratitude to the dedicated members of the committee secretariat who assisted with this inquiry. I make special mention of two former staff members, Mr Bayne McKissock and Ms Cathy Nunn, for their work over the years with the State development committee. Bayne and Cathy's assistance and hard work during the ports inquiry was very much appreciated. Thanks also go to Ms Julie Langsworth, Ms Laura Milkins and Mr Stephen Frappell, who worked diligently to ensure the completion of this report. The committee secretariat does an extraordinary job in ensuring the smooth running of things, and their hard work and dedication is applauded.

The inquiry arose out of a reference from the then Minister for Transport Services, the Hon. Michael Costa, in late October 2003. The terms of reference for the inquiry were comprehensive in both scope and geographical focus. The committee was asked to review the New South Wales Government's ports growth plan, including a planned closure of shipping freight facilities in Sydney Harbour; the economic, social and environmental impact on the State, including the proposed Port Botany upgrade; the employment implications for Sydney, the Hunter and the Illawarra regions; current and future infrastructure needs and social impacts, including the adequacy of existing road and rail infrastructure; and the future of public land at Millers Point, Glebe Island and White Bay on which shipping freight operations are currently carried out.

The committee received about 100 submissions from a wide range of individuals, companies, business representatives, environmental groups, industry groups and community organisations from metropolitan and regional areas. In addition, public hearings were conducted in Wollongong, Newcastle and Sydney, where evidence was heard from a total of 61 witnesses. Public open floor forums were also held at these locations. Thanks go to all the parties involved in this inquiry for the high-quality submissions that were received and for the valuable evidence and information that was provided to the committee during its hearings and public open floor meetings.

On behalf of the committee I thank representatives of each of the port corporations who met with us when we made site visits to Port Jackson, Port Botany, the Port of Newcastle and Port Kembla. The site visits allowed committee members to inspect existing facilities and the proposed sites for development. Site visits were also undertaken to both Brisbane and Fremantle to inspect port facilities and to meet with relevant representatives, allowing committee members to gain insight into and compare the operation of freight handling facilities in these two locations. Gratitude is extended to the various representatives for allowing us to take up some of their time.

Sixteen recommendations arose out of the Inquiry into Port Infrastructure in New South Wales, including a detailed examination of the Government's ports growth plan. The ports growth plan, announced on 5 October 2003, sets out the strategic direction for the future management of the four major commercial ports in New South Wales—Port Jackson, Port Botany, Port Kembla and the Port of Newcastle. The principal elements of the Government's ports growth plan are the proposed further development of Port Botany as the primary container port in New South Wales, the transfer of general cargo stevedoring from Darling Harbour to Port Kembla as existing leases expire, and the future expansion of the Port of Newcastle as a major container terminal once Port Botany reaches capacity.

The committee acknowledges all of the matters raised concerning the environmental and social impacts of the ports growth plan, particularly in and around Port Botany. It is generally held by the committee that the plan addresses the medium- to long-term requirements of the shipping industry, transport operators and business in New South Wales by providing them with surety about the future of the New South Wales ports. The inquiry also included the examination of the capacity of infrastructure, particularly rail and road, supporting the four major New South Wales ports.

The key recommendations of the committee include: highlighting the need for any expansion of existing container facilities at Port Botany to be accompanied by upgraded road and rail infrastructure and environmental management plans, should planning approval be obtained; ensuring plans for Darling Harbour East include open space and low-rise residential and commercial development as well as the preservation of Millers Point for a future iconic building; providing stringent and public environmental monitoring, reviews and auditing by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation at Botany in relation to the Orica plant clean up; pursuing a further increase of bulk haulage rail capacity in the Hunter and increased AusLink funding; and developing further strategies for the State's regional ports.

Following a commission of inquiry into the expansion of Port Botany, the Premier announced planning approval for the expansion. The project is expected to deliver 9,000 jobs to the State and boost the economy by $16 billion over the next two decades. The expansion will allow the port to meet the growth in container trade, expected to almost triple in the coming decades. The first stage of the development application approved by the planning Minister will include the construction of local, dedicated road and rail infrastructure and water channelling devices to be incorporated into the design of the new berths. The water channelling devices will allow tidal flushing of the Penrhyn Estuary to maintain water quality. In addition, an enhancement fund will be established to improve community facilities. The improvement of road and rail infrastructure in support of the expansion of Port Botany was one of the recommendations put forward by the committee, and a report from the Freight Infrastructure Advisory Board was recently released for public comment.

The report has been referred to Professor David Richmond, head of the Premier's Infrastructure Implementation Group, to accept submissions and advise the Government on the container freight plan to support an expanded Port Botany. I am advised Professor Richmond will consult widely with State and Commonwealth agencies, such as the Australian Rail Corporation, and with the freight and logistics industry. As I previously mentioned, the committee has highlighted the need to ensure environmental and social impacts are taken into account in relation to the further expansion of ports. More than 100 strict conditions have been attached to the consent of the Minister for Planning in relation to the development application for Port Botany. These conditions cover issues such as safety, traffic, noise, estuary management, air and soil quality, waste management and heritage issues.

The committee was asked to review the future of Sydney Harbour and the future of public land at Millers Point, Glebe Island and White Bay on which shipping freight operations are currently carried out. The committee called on the Government to closely examine the long-term future of car imports in New South Wales. Port Kembla was put forward as an option to be looked at as it has the land and infrastructure for the car trade to grow and for jobs to grow with it. It is pleasing to see the adoption of the committee's recommendation by the State Government with regard to the car trade and the proposed transfer to Port Kembla.

As I previously mentioned, committee members considered the future of Sydney Harbour. Since the release of the final report, the State Government has released a clear outline for the preservation of Sydney Harbour's maritime character. This is in line with recommendations about the need to preserve the character of the areas vacated in Port Jackson. Also, the Government has now determined the future of public land at Glebe Island and the area is to become a maritime precinct. There will be no residential development at Glebe Island and White Bay. For example, materials needed for construction projects such as cement, gypsum, gravel and soda ash imports will stay.

In addition to Port Kembla and the Sydney ports, the committee also considered the future of the State's other major port of Newcastle. It was noted that Newcastle is already the world's largest port for coal exports, exporting a record 78 million tonnes of coal last year. The investment in an additional coal loader on 136 hectares of Kooragang Island, adjacent to the existing coal terminal, is set to take Newcastle to another level. Since the publication of the report, the Government announced in August the winning proponent to develop the project. This development is worth an estimated $530 million and will create 2,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Today I can report that many of the key recommendations of the committee are already in the process of being implemented. The development of ports infrastructure through the ports growth plan will assist greatly in keeping New South Wales open for business. The committee's recommendations also included ensuring plans for Darling Harbour East include open space and low-rise residential and commercial development as well as the preservation of Millers Point for a future iconic development.

The preservation of Millers Point for this purpose is something that the committee is keen to see. The Government is undertaking development of further strategies for the State's regional ports, as recommended by the committee, and the announcement in early September of a $4 million cargo storage facility for the port of Eden is pleasing to note. This facility will support local exporters and will add to the value of the upgrades to the multipurpose wharf. Since the release of the report there have been significant announcements concerning the development of our ports. At Newcastle, Port Kembla, Port Botany and even at the port of Eden the recommendations of the committee have been heeded. The Government is planning facilities to cope with future trade demand. The development of port infrastructure is critical to the New South Wales economy, and a co-ordinated approach to planning infrastructure needs, while at the same time taking into account environmental and social impacts of the ports growth plan, is crucial. It will improve the efficiency and assist greatly in keeping the cost of imports down for the families of New South Wales.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [2.50 p.m.]: I am pleased to participate in the take-note debate on the final report of the Standing Committee on State Development into Port Infrastructure in New South Wales. I, too, thank the members of the secretariat who gave us enormous assistance throughout the inquiry, in particular, Bayne McKissock, who began the inquiry with us as head of the secretariat, Cathy Nunn, Steven Frappell, Julie Langsworth and Laura Milkins. I also acknowledge the chairman, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti. Although it was his first inquiry as chairman of the committee, he took to it well. This committee has a long history of working well together.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It has been a huge improvement.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: It was. I shall comment on one of his predecessors. I am not referring to the Hon. Tony Burke, who began the inquiry and who made a significant contribution. However, if one refers to the minutes of the various meetings one sees a reference to the brief appearance_we did but see him passing by_of the then chairman, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, at one meeting on 30 November 2004 and at a site visit on 3 December 2004. He was not quite as enthusiastic about committee work as his predecessor, the Hon. Tony Burke, and his successor, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti. We were delighted with the appointment of the Hon. Tony Catanzariti as chairman, following a long tradition of good chairmen of the Standing Committee on State Development.

I do not believe the Government would have changed its point of view regardless of whether the inquiry had been held. The Government was intent on certain things with respect to the future development of port infrastructure in New South Wales. However, the committee made a difference as the inquiry got underway. It became clear that the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry examining the expansion of Port Botany needed to be broadened. That recommendation was taken up by the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Perhaps it was a face-saving measure, because governments never like to admit that they got something wrong.

Ports are fundamental to the growth of every economy. As the economy of New South Wales grows, the importance of ports and freight will also increase. However, my colleague the Hon. Melinda Pavey and I remain sceptical about some aspects of the growth plan, in particular, what we regard as the loss of Port Jackson as a true working harbour. Shipping movements continue but at nothing like the rate they had in the past. There were clear concerns about the coexistence of people living around the harbour because thousands more people live in the area than in the past. This has created noise problems and other shipping-related problems. The Government's solution has been to change the zoning and to remove ships from Sydney Harbour, which has changed the character of the harbour.

The real issues relate to transport, both road and rail. It was obvious to some members of the committee that there is inadequate rail transport to support the growth of freight in New South Wales and insufficient road support, particularly around Port Botany. Indeed, the committee report noted that the intermodal transport system in Western Sydney needs closer scrutiny. The committee noted that while the majority of bulk of freight in New South Wales_coal and grain, in particular_is presently carried by rail, the majority of containerised freight in New South Wales is presently carried by road. At present only 21 per cent of freight containers going through Port Botany are transported by rail.

That goes to the heart of the problems underpinning our capacity to properly grow as an efficient and effective economy. We have a gridlock because so much of our freight containers are transported by road. These inefficiencies were obvious during our site visit to Port Botany. Indeed, Patrick Corporation made it clear to the committee that it was looking towards greater use of rail as part of its future development. With its investment in Pacific National, it said in evidence, "We are looking to maximise utilisation of rail wherever we can." The Government must give a greater commitment to support the corporation in expanding rail in New South Wales.

I refer to the future development at Newcastle port, whether in 2020 or whenever. The inquiry found that it is important to earmark now some of the land between Sydney and Newcastle for a proper rail corridor and to provide opportunities to expand the port without being reliant on road transport. The companies involved expressed concerns with respect to transport infrastructure in New South Wales. The New South Wales Transport Association highlighted the importance of finding engineering solutions for some of the streets that run off Botany Road to take traffic onto and off Foreshore Road, rather than through Botany Road. Community groups expressed concerns in regard to this aspect. They are feeling the effects of being strangled_day in, day out_by long lines of trucks waiting to collect containers and bring them back to Port Botany.

If we are to provide an efficient and effective system, we must solve the problems at Port Botany. There is no point planning the long-term growth of that port without providing the proper road and rail support network. That was glaringly obvious to members of the committee. Although the Government has put the focus on expanding Port Botany and making provision for containers, it has been done without proper transport considerations. For example, these days many of the trucks carrying containers cannot access the M5 East tunnel because of height considerations. Indeed, one needs to ask how the road was constructed without due consideration of its capacity to carry some of the newer, larger boxes. That should have been foreseen; many of the containers we now see in Australia are part of a worldwide trend. It was forecast years ago that we would be moving to large boxes.

Once again, that highlights the Government's lack of proper infrastructure planning and lack of proper consideration. Any proposal for growth of the ports in New South Wales must be seen in a broader context. That comes through in the report. However, as it was not the only focus of the report, I think we did a good job at analysing issues relating to the ports. We have opened the door to further examination of those things that will hold back the development of New South Wales, particularly in relation to road and rail, and the connections to the ports.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.00 p.m.]: This inquiry, which commenced in October 2003, was my first involvement with committees since becoming a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council. It was a revelation to me as an outsider that the committee system could be so productive. I acknowledge the work of the committee secretariat—particularly Bayne McKissock, who is no longer with us, and Cathy Nunn—during that period in helping me to understand how the system worked. As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe said, members of the Standing Committee on State Development have a good reputation of working well together, and I think we did that. However, although we worked well together, at the end of the day we still do not have a proper way forward for the ports in New South Wales.

The report covers all the issues in detail, but the most pressing issue relating to the delivery of goods and services into Port Botany is the rail intermodal that is required. However, the Labor Government seems to be unable to make a decision about that, to the great detriment of economic activity in New South Wales. As I said, the inquiry started in 2003, and 2½ years later the House is taking note of the committee's work. We cannot forget that basically the terms of reference for the inquiry came about following the famous address by the then Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Bob Carr, as he arrived at the conference of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party on 5 October 2003.

The then Premier had just got off a plane from overseas and really had nothing to say so he announced that there would be no more port activities in Sydney's inner harbour. That resulted in the terms of reference for this inquiry. I thank the then Premier for his need to have something to say and create a news story on page one of the Daily Telegraph after he made his address. As our report has proven, the then Premier's announcement was hasty and not thought out properly. In the report we have encapsulated the needs of transport and freight within the ports and shipping areas of New South Wales.

I refer to a chapter in the report that will probably not get much attention from anyone today, but it is an issue that I knew nothing about until the inquiry_that is, the transport of freight by barge between New South Wales ports. That has particular relevance to the North Coast and the South Coast of New South Wales. New South Wales has probably the most magnificent coastline of any State or any country, and there is the potential to transport much more freight and cargo on barges. We should remember that many communities along our coastline_such as my hometown of Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Yamba, Eden and Bega_were formed on the basis of the timber and primary produce that came out of those communities.

There are good arguments for looking at transporting more freight by barge to take the pressure off the Princes Highway and the Pacific Highway. The Federal Government is doing a good job of rehabilitating our rail network through the AusLink proposal, but there is no reason that we cannot look at barging more cargo between communities. Population growth will make that necessary, and it should be encouraged by the Government. In a submission Newcastle Stevedores stated that barging is a means of lessening the transport burdens on our road and rail infrastructure. Evidence was given by the Managing Director of Newcastle Stevedores, Mr Geoffrey Beesley, who said:

Where it is done in overseas countries, and my visits to overseas countries, everything there is turning to barge or whatever they can do up their river systems or on their coastal systems. They use barges wherever possible.

Mr Beesley noted that the modern barges or small ro-ro ships holding 350 to 400 containers are well adapted to handle adverse weather conditions. Obviously, the first question is whether a barge would be able to withstand the fury of the weather patterns we experience in New South Wales. But there are precedents for barging in Europe, not only in river systems but also in coastal areas. Similarly, in a submission Adsteam Marine stated that an environmentally friendly and cost-effective transport option to complement existing New South Wales road and rail infrastructure would be a coastal feeder service provided by a tug and barging system. However, the committee noted the more cautious sound of the Chief Executive Officer of Shipping Australia Ltd, Mr Llew Russell, about the viability of coastal transport. He said:

The history of coastal shipping around Australia shows that road and rail have been able to out compete it and it has been forced out of business.

However, with current population flows, with most people living in coastal areas, I believe that we should keep an eye on international developments. The submission by the Northern Rivers Regional Development Board noted that the primary focus of the New South Wales ports and growth plan is on the development of port capacity in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. However, in line with what I have just said, the board argued that the existing regional ports at Coffs Harbour and Yamba and their contribution to future economic development and growth in New South Wales should be considered. So it is necessary to establish and maintain or upgrade access routes and networks to regional ports.

In relation to the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the former Deputy Prime Minister, former transport Minister and former Federal leader of The Nationals, John Anderson, was pleasantly surprised by the increase in capacity of the Hunter Valley rail network since the ARTC took over that responsibility. The feeding of coal into the port of Newcastle has substantially improved. When the committee travelled to Newcastle we were all concerned about the number of ships lodged out to sea at Newcastle. There are good reasons for so many ships waiting offshore. Indeed, I acknowledge the Government's announcement of a new terminal for the Hunter, which will be funded by private enterprise. It is about improving the rail network to get efficiencies on the port so that 30, 40 or 50 ships are not waiting offshore to take coal out of Newcastle.

On a broader note, it is important for the community to appreciate that one overriding problem with shipping in Australia is that many containers come in but not many containers carrying produce or goods go out. That is the nature of our country. A number of ships leave our ports carrying coal, cotton, wheat and other primary produce. However, so far as the ships that enter our ports are concerned, we do not have the capacity to fill their cargo holds for the return voyage. That is something we should all be aware of. It is important to get the links right to enable companies in Dubbo, the north-west and the Riverina to have clear access to terminals for the speedy delivery of produce. Fletcher International at Dubbo is one company that uses the containers to advantage. It packs its meat in Dubbo and sends it by rail and/or truck across to Port Botany. That is one area of primary production in respect of which we are taking full advantage of our capacity to fill up the containers.

I thank the members of the committee. I encourage the Government to make a decision on the intermodal terminal. I note that David Richmond, a well-respected bureaucrat, has control of that issue. We have a decision pending on Enfield. We urge the Government to make a decision in light of the announcement it made in 2003: Its goal is that by 2011 40 per cent of freight will be moved by rail from Port Botany. It is essential that that goal be achieved.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.10 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in this take-note debate on the Standing Committee on State Development Inquiry into Port Infrastructure in New South Wales. I thank the committee secretariat staff, who did a fantastic job supporting the members of the committee during a fairly long inquiry. There were a number of stages in the deliberations of the committee and some events created external pressures on the workings of the committee, including the fact that there was a commission of inquiry running parallel with our inquiry and that involved a fair degree of crossover. It was certainly a worthwhile investigation, and I say that as one who has been a member of the Standing Committee on State Development since 1995 and who has seen the chair of the committee come and go over time. It has been an education for me. I found it worthwhile and it has been good to broaden one's horizons.

In the early days I did not see myself as keen to be involved in an entity such as the Standing Committee on State Development, but many important issues have been the focus of an inquiry by the committee. Almost every development involves a social or environmental cost and I do not think this issue is any different. It was of great worth to be able to look at a number of aspects of the work of the committee. I must say that the Standing Committee on State Development, unlike some other committees of which I am a member, continues to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion. I believe this is a valuable report and there are a number of issues that I would like to touch upon.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey said she did not expect anyone else to speak about sea transport, but it can deliver great social, environmental and strategic advantage. Whilst I note her comment, as was reported during the course of the committee's inquiry, about certain potential shortcomings and an inability to compete with road and rail transport, the fact is we have enough growth in this industry that it would be reasonable to say that there is enough space for all modes of transport. I appreciate that there have been problems in the past few days because of the huge seas. However, similar problems are confronted by rail and road transport due to inclement weather and other difficulties. These issues are shared by sea, road and rail transport. There is potential for ships of adequate design to take some of the load, particularly from road transport. I agree with the Hon. Melinda Pavey that that would be a creative direction for the Government to take, as outlined in some of the recommendations of this committee report.

It is important to recognise that we have a number of strategies. It is for the Government and other authorities to work out the balance. In recent times there has been a move away from the working harbour and a broadening of industrial activities with the development of Port Kembla and Newcastle. That issue was discussed in the course of the committee hearings. That brings into the discussion the issues of road and rail transport. The Greens welcome the expansion of decentralised port facilities, but there are many downsides to the expansion of Port Botany that I will come to in a short while. I refer to Newcastle and Port Kembla and the transport options that exist between them. Our investigations showed that 80 per cent of material transported in bulk travels is by rail and in containers. There is potential to facilitate greater opportunity of transport from Port Kembla. For example, recommendation 13 deals with the feasibility of upgrading rail infrastructure, including consideration of the Maldon to Dombarton rail connection between Port Kembla and the south-west of Sydney, which is pretty much the growing hub for container depots.

When one takes into account the traffic chaos that is developing around the inner city, a rail transport link between Port Kembla and the south-west of Sydney could result in delivery times that would be more efficient than transporting out of Port Botany. Despite the fact that it is seen as a Sydney terminal, the advantages of having a well-established rail link with Port Kembla could have fantastic potential for opportunity to increase efficiencies and lower the impact on communities around the Port Botany terminal. It has been well documented that the port of Newcastle is a major port, with some 78 million tonnes of coal going out of the port. Decentralisation provides a great opportunity to develop both rail and, as was mentioned earlier, ocean barge transport.

One of the most interesting parts of the inquiry_there has been a great deal of discussion on these matters_related to the expansion of the Port Botany terminal. The committee received submissions from the various major players and there was some level of disagreement about the nature of the industrial expansion—I certainly will not go into that—between Patrick Corporation and P&O. That needs to be worked out at the highest government level. One of the things that concerns me is that that type of dispute results in an almost inevitable expansion of the Botany terminals to the detriment of the potential that could be developed. A more decentralised strategy for developing port facilities will be far more ecologically, economically and socially beneficial in the long term. There was a great deal of concern about the environmental impact. I think the committee's interim report provided an overview of the environmental concerns relating to the proposed Port Botany expansion.

Community groups and environmental groups expressed concern that the proposed expansion of the Port Botany facilities will result in the loss of feeding habitat for migratory wader birds and over-wintering shore birds in the Penrhyn Estuary and southern portions of the bay and the further loss of seagrass from the bay. Any further dredging or disturbance will have a significant impact on migratory birds and seagrass. They also expressed concern about the degradation of coastal systems along the foreshore of the bay and the discharge of ballast from ships, which raises quarantine concerns about introduced marine pests.

The massive proliferation of marine pests is a major concern in all ports—certainly in the Port Botany area. This problem, which does not receive adequate attention, has troubling consequences for the ecosystem, various industries and commercial and recreational fisheries. The unregulated release of ballast under these circumstances has a massive impact. Another issue that adds to a very overloaded system in the port areas is the contamination of water by tributyl tin oxide, a ship antifouling agent used on the hulls of ships visiting Port Botany. A further matter being debated currently is the potential contamination of the groundwater under the bay by the toxic plume that is coming primarily from the Orica site. These concerns were expressed by a broad range of parties in written submissions to the inquiry. [Time expired.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.20 p.m.]: Although I am not a member of the Standing Committee on State Development, I was concerned to read its report on port infrastructure in New South Wales, particularly in light of subsequent developments and the declaration of Port Botany as a piece of critical infrastructure. A significant aspect of a major development being declared critical infrastructure is that any right of appeal on any decision made by the Minister is eliminated. In submissions to the committee, many residents raised concerns about their fears of an unimpeded expansion of Port Botany and that such expansion and growth would take place at the expense of the ports of Newcastle or Wollongong.

A worrying aspect of the report is that it does not challenge a number of underlying assumptions on issues such as freight growth, particularly the growth of freight into Port Botany. Both the Ports Growth Plan and the inquiry uncritically accepted that there would continue to be an 8 per cent per annum increase in the number of containers through Port Botany up until 2020, which would see container traffic at Port Botany double in the next 15 years. That is a very bold prediction. It was based on the assumption that Sydney's population would continue to expand and there would be an unconstrained growth in the demand for imported goods. In the same breath that these claims were made, an assertion was made that Sydney's population was growing at 1,000 per week and that we had to accommodate such growth.

A subsequent examination of figures has indicated that Sydney's growth is nowhere near that vicinity. Admittedly it is still increasing, but it is in the vicinity of 600 to 700 per week, rather than 1,000 per week. It is a courageous step to suggest that growth will continue into the future merely because there has been growth in the past. As I have said, past growth is not a good indicator of future growth. Recommendation No. 2 states:

That New South Wales Government agencies work together to ensure a coordinated approach in the development and implementation of plans for NSW ports and related infrastructure, including the NSW Ports Growth Plan.

Obviously, the way in which our ports authorities are constituted is inherently biased against there being any co-ordinated, co-operative approach. Indeed, during budget estimates hearings I questioned the then Minister for Ports and Waterways, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, about this feature. He seemed to be perfectly happy with the notion that ports should compete. If an obligation is placed on ports authorities to operate separately and they are each required to produce a profit to return dividends to the Government, each port authority will put its interest first. As we have seen in the case of Port Botany, the interests of other sections of the State, namely, Newcastle and Wollongong, are ignored in a desperate attempt to ensure that the maximum amount of freight comes through its port. No consideration is given to how freight should be handled from a State, let alone a national, perspective. The way in which the Government has constituted the ports authorities is a matter of real concern. Recommendation No. 10 states:

That the NSW Government, before any future expansion of Port Botany, ensure there is a thorough process of assessment to take account of the environmental and social impacts in relation to the construction and operation of the new facilities.

I believe that such a process is totally at odds with the process that is now being entered into at Port Botany. I have received correspondence from William McManus, a resident of the Strathfield area, where an inquiry is being conducted into the impact upon residents of the intermodal terminal at Enfield. Mr McManus wrote to the Department of Planning about the proposed Enfield intermodal logistics centre and the composition of the independent panel of experts. He complained to the department about the constitution of the so-called independent panel of experts. In particular, he asked that panel member Mr Matthew Stephens excuse himself from the panel because of an apprehension of bias on the basis of previous work done by Mr Stephens' employer on the potential expansion of Port Botany. Chris Wilson, the Acting Executive Director, of the Department of Planning, wrote in a letter Mr McManus:

The Department has investigated this matter in detail and does not support Mr Stephens' removal from the Panel. It does not intend to recommend that the Minister take further action …

The Minister appoints the panel members. When a member of the public complains about a clear case of bias and indicates that people will not get a fair hearing, the Department of Planning writes back to him and says, "Tough, you will have to like it or lump it."

He then said in response to Mr Wilson's letter:

With respect, I make the following comments:

1. You or anyone else from the Department of Planning are not in a position to make a decision on this matter. Either the Minister or the Director General appointed the independent experts pursuant to the legislation and cannot now respond to my application in respect of Mr Stephens. There must be independence and procedural fairness.

He is asking why the department should have the final say in relation to both. He then states:

The Chair, Ms Helen Weston, was appointed as an independent expert, however, she chose not to make a decision on the application. The Department has presented its view on the matter. Accordingly, the decision needs to be made by some other independent person or body. The lack of authority in the Chair is something the Department will need to address.

If at this very early stage of the proceedings these concerns are being expressed by the public and they are not being adequately addressed, what hope is there that in accord with recommendation No. 10 the Government will ensure that a thorough assessment of the environmental and social impacts is carried out? The port also failed to critically examine whether predominant cargo moving through Port Botany could be redirected to other ports. While recognising that the majority of coal and grain freight exported through Port Kembla and Port Newcastle is moved by rail, the majority of containerised freight moving through Port Botany is moved by road. Unless some of this freight can be redirected to alternative ports, expanding Port Botany will result in a major impact on surrounding roads and suburbs. While the port's growth plan and the metropolitan strategy propose expanding the percentage— [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.30 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate, and I commend the report to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted.
Debate resumed from 28 March 2006.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.31 p.m.]: It is almost laughable that we are debating when a room is not a room. In fact, it would be laughable if what we are talking about were not the reality of people dying from smoking-related diseases. I acknowledge the members of Action on Smoking and Health [ASH] who were in the gallery yesterday and who, while they were there, lit cigarettes to symbolise the hypocrisy of members of this House who do not tolerate smoking in their workplace but who are prepared to condone it in the workplaces of others. The Greens fully support their campaign and activities.

I also pay tribute to Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who has waged a tireless campaign on this issue for many years. Smoking should be banned in all indoor areas, and the definition of an outdoor area should be consistent with the views and perceptions of the average person on the street. If a place has walls and a roof, it is indoors, pure and simple. Instead, we are having a weasel-words debate about what constitutes indoors and outdoors, and all because the Government has caved in to the pubs and clubs lobby.

As I said in this House when we debated the Government's Smoke-free Environment Amendment Bill in November 2004, the laws governing smoking in New South Wales do not go far enough. During that debate the Greens proposed amendments to totally prohibit smoking in all enclosed public spaces from the moment the legislation was gazetted. At that time the Government procrastinated and prevaricated, arguing that the ban had to be phased in over time. The Greens amendment proposed introducing the ban in a single move in 2004. That would have created certainty for the industry and a level playing field on which all clubs and pubs could operate. The Greens amendment was supported by members of the crossbench, but not by the Government, no doubt because it was already in negotiations with the industry to come up with this spurious, deliberately misleading definition of open space.

We now know that the Labor Government had, and still has, no genuine intention to ban smoking indoors. The political donations that the ALP receives from the hotels and clubs industry are too large for it to resist. In the past five years, individual clubs, pubs and associated companies have donated more than $2.5 million to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party [ALP]. The Australian Hotels Association [AHA], the industry's peak lobbying organisation, has donated a further $502,000. In total, that is more than $3 million in political bribes that have been paid to the New South Wales Labor Party.

The story is even more revealing. Of the $502,000 donated by the AHA in the past five years, $267,700 was donated during the 2004-05 reporting year. The last State election took place in March 2004. Political donations associated with that election would have been made primarily in late 2003. Therefore, 2004 and 2005 were outside the election cycle. However, 2005 was the year during which the Government was negotiating with the industry on the scope and extent of the smoking ban in New South Wales. It was in 2005 that the AHA gave the Government $267,700 in bribes. The President of the AHA, John Thorpe, defends these donations by saying, and saying it frequently: "Who said democracy was cheap?" Well, it may not be cheap, but unfortunately it is for sale. The AHA and the pubs and clubs may have had to pay handsomely, but in the end their money has bought the outcome they were after.

They got a Clayton's definition of non-smoking: The smoking ban you have when you can still smoke. Under this definition, smoking will continue in many existing bars that will require only minor renovations. It is a definition that ignores the health of every bar worker across the State. It is a definition that demonstrates that profits for bosses and political bribes paid to this Government are more important than the health of employees. Workers and bar patrons will continue to die in their thousands as a direct result of this shonky deal done between the Iemma Government and the hotel industry.

The House should not delude itself that this definition will do anything less than facilitate more smoking-related deaths. There is certainly no lack of evidence about the detrimental health effects of smoking. The figures have been cited and I will not repeat them again in detail. Suffice it to say that in any one year more people will die from tobacco-related causes than from breast cancer, melanoma, diabetes, suicide, road deaths, leukaemia, cirrhosis, falls, AIDS, murder, narcotics, drowning and maternal deaths during childbirth combined. Each year 54,000 hospital admissions are caused by tobacco consumption, creating a massive drain on the State's health budget. There are 6,500 smoking-related deaths in New South Wales every year, more than 2,000 of which are from lung cancer alone. Most poignant for this Government and its shonky definition of open space, is that every year 97 bar staff in New South Wales die from the effects of passive smoking—not active smoking but inhaling the fumes exhaled by smokers.

It is now the beginning of 2006, and already there have been more than 100 preventable deaths since we last debated this issue in 2004. Were it not for the Government's refusal to act honestly and expeditiously, some of those 100 lives could have been saved. By July 2007, when the Government's pretend non-smoking ban finally comes into effect, another 145 bar workers will be dead. This spurious definition of open space will ensure that many more will die in the years that follow. Installing a few large doors and opening windows does not turn a room into outdoor space. Everyone in this House knows that—even the Government members of this House know it.

As we speak, owners of pubs and clubs are undertaking building works—in some cases, very significant and costly works—to conform to the requirements of this legislation. Rather than enlarging windows and doors so existing bars can suddenly be deemed to be open space, these same venues could just as easily be remodelled to conform with a genuine definition of open space. They could be creating outdoor areas that offer a safer environment for both patrons and workers—an outdoor area where smoke can dissipate and reduce the risk of passive smoking. Instead, the Government has caved in to the hotels lobby and contrived this ludicrous definition in order to keep its big donors happy. Thousands of New South Wales residents will die of smoking-related diseases because the ALP and the Liberal-National Opposition cannot get their snouts out of the donations trough. The Greens believe that there is no justification whatsoever for failing to introduce a full ban on smoking in all indoor public areas. To protect the health of workers and patrons of pubs and clubs, members should vote to disallow this regulation.

I find it quite astonishing that the Minister for Health will oppose the disallowance of the regulation. I have noticed that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), who was a strident opponent of smoking and was so determined to eliminate the carcinogenic effects of smoking, has totally caved in on this issue. It has been a pathetic example of hypocrisy of the worst order. When we look back on this year—indeed, the last 12 months of this Government's term of office—there will be significant things for which this State will blame the Minister for Planning, who is also the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). We will look at the planning legislation and the gutting of local government in this State, but we will also look at the Government's appalling definition of an outdoor area. If there is anything to cause the members of this Government to be genuinely ashamed, it is this regulation.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.43 p.m.]: I commend the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans for moving this disallowance motion. I am an avid supporter of the honourable member's stance on this issue, as is my leader, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and the attitude of the Christian Democratic Party in this regard has been most consistent. It is reprehensible that the Government has legislated in this clever way to concede to the demands of the Australian Hotels Association and other related organisations.

At a joint crossbench meeting Phil Edge shared his striking story about the effects of the regulation we are discussing today. Phil Edge is one of many individuals who have been affected by a smoky workplace. A young man who did not smoke himself in his twenties nevertheless has spent the last three years fighting tongue and throat cancer. Many members know about the adverse health effects of active smoking. Smoking is Australia's number one preventable health problem. Each year it kills more than 19,000 people and costs the nation $21 billion, at the very least, in health and social costs. However, passive smoking is often seen in a different light.

The Government's stance on this issue appears clear. I am a firm believer that individuals should not be subjected to being in any area in which air cannot circulate fully. We have often said that this Chamber has very cold airconditioning. However, interestingly, yesterday when the people from ASH [Action on Smoking and Health] who were in the public gallery lit up their cigarettes and started smoking—until they were removed from the Chamber by the attendants—from where I was sitting near the public gallery I could smell the smoke from their cigarettes for at least four hours after they had left the gallery. Passive smoking is a phenomenon that has, arguably, only been closely considered as a source of adverse health effects in the last couple of decades. I am convinced that areas that are the subject of this disallowance motion are areas in which people passively smoke.

In 1986 the National Health and Medical Research Council examined passive smoking and found sufficient evidence of an adverse effect on health to recommend that policies and practices be introduced to reduce exposure to passive smoking. This is but one of many well-resourced reports on passive smoking initiated in the last couple of decades. A report published by the council in 1997 titled "The Health Effects of Passive Smoking" held that the scientific evidence reviewed found positive associations between passive smoking and the following diseases: asthma in children, lower respiratory illness, lung cancer, major coronary events, and other illnesses. The report found:

On the basis of 48 studies of the relationship between passive smoking and asthma, children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are estimated to be about 1.4 times as likely to suffer from asthma symptoms as children who are not exposed. Passive smoking also aggravates pre-existing asthma in children. It is estimated that in Australia about 8 per cent of childhood asthma—or 46,500 Australian children—is attributable to passive smoking. The effect is most marked in children of mothers who smoke heavily (more than 10 cigarettes/day). It is likely that there is an effect on asthma due to lower levels of smoking but this has not been included in the burden of illness estimates.

Further, the report held:

On the basis of 25 studies, it is estimated that the risk of lower respiratory illnesses (such as croup, bronchitis, bronchiolitis and pneumonia) is about 60 per cent higher in children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke during the first eighteen months of life than in unexposed children. In addition, a number of studies have reported a positive association with lower respiratory illness in older children, but the conservative assumption was made that the effect ended at 18 months of age. On this basis, it is estimated that about 13 per cent of lower respiratory illness in Australian children under 18 months of age is due to passive smoking (approximately 16,300 cases each year).

In relation to lung cancer the report states:

Estimating the risk of lung cancer in people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke is complicated by differences in the way studies have been conducted and what they have measured. On the basis of 34 studies, it is estimated that there is an increase in risk of about 30 per cent in never-smokers who live with a smoker compared with never-smokers living with a non-smoker. On this basis, it is estimated that exposure to a partner who smokes at home causes about 12 new cases of lung cancer and 11 deaths from lung cancer each year in never-smokers. This estimate does not take into account exposure outside the home, nor effects of passive smoking on ex-smokers or current smokers.

On the basis of 16 studies, it is estimated that the risk of heart attack or death from coronary heart disease is about 24 per cent higher in never-smokers who live with a smoker compared with unexposed never-smokers. Based on this estimate, each year passive smoking could cause some 77 deaths and 132 hospital admissions for a major coronary event in Australia. On the available evidence, however, it was not possible to conclude with certainty that passive smoking is a cause of heart attack or death from coronary heart disease, or any other type of cardiovascular disease. The report emphasised that the above estimates of burden of illness relate only to exposure at home and include only illnesses in never-smokers. The repercussions of smoking outside the home could only be heightened given the prevalence of smoking in places outside the home.

Other honourable members mentioned that five bar workers in Australia die every month due to inhaling other people's smoke. The review of the scientific evidence also concluded that passive smoking contributes significantly to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome and may increase the risk of death from all causes. In addition to the more serious health effects of passive smoking so far listed, exposure to second-hand smoke irritates the eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Plausible estimates for the burden of illness associated with these health problems could not be calculated because adequate data is lacking. For these reasons, I embrace any moves towards increasing a prohibition on smoking in all places. As pronounced by Stan Glatz in the Independent in 2001:

I'm a great believer in civil liberties, but I don't believe anyone has the right to poison someone else. A cigarette is a little toxic waste dump on fire.

I feel very sorry for the Minister for Health, who has to sit there and listen to this, knowing in his heart of hearts that supporting the Government's acceptance of enclosed spaces in regard to smoke-free environments is absolutely wrong.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.50 p.m.]: I support the motion of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans that this House disallows the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. I congratulate him. Often, with ongoing ridicule, he has consistently—some might say incessantly—been a forthright advocate for the community against the transgressions of the tobacco industry at all levels. He has a real concern for the health of the population. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has done an admirable job and, if nothing else, he will go down in history as someone who has been a constant advocate for the health of the people of New South Wales against the tobacco industry. I personally appreciate the work that he has done on this matter in this House and he is to be commended.

According to the Australian Medical Association [AMA], tobacco smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease in Australia, contributing to more deaths and hospitalisations than alcohol and illicit drug use combined. With these sorts of statistics it shocks me to think of the cost to Australian society through tobacco addiction. Yet those costs seem always to be compartmentalised: on one side the profits by the tobacco company and on the other side the cost to the medical fraternity and, of course, to the taxpayers. There seems to be a lack of recognition of the real cost to all people in New South Wales quite apart from the terrible and devastating effects of tobacco addiction. The AMA makes the following recommendation in regard to smoking in order to reduce the number of individuals who smoke:

A change in the social climate, so that smoking is no longer viewed by the public as normal, but is regarded as unhealthy and unnecessary.

I believe that part of that should be making social settings, such as pubs and clubs, smoke-free environments. This has already happened with workplaces, shops and restaurants, so that there is, to an extent, a stigma about having to go outside and stand on a footpath to smoke. The public attitude seems to be shifting towards less cultural acceptance of smoking. There is some evidence of this among young people: smoking rates among teenagers are dropping consistently with increased usage of mobile phones, which are seen as fulfilling the function of social belonging, something to do with their hands, and a defence mechanism. The change in cultural attitudes should be further encouraged by removing the ability to smoke cigarettes in pubs and clubs. The AMA further recommended:

A change in the economic and legislative climate, so that cigarettes are less readily available, the influences such as advertising and the media that promotes smoking are diminished, and educational programs on the hazards of smoking are supported and reinforced.

This is also happening. Advertising of cigarettes has been curtailed. I was an active member of Billboard Utilising Graffiti Use Against Unhealthy Promotion [BUGA-UP], as I know the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans was; we even attended a reunion together, which was great fun at one stage.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the interjection of the Treasurer who says, "They don't smoke, they don't drink, they don't do nothing". If the Treasurer thinks that smoking and drinking are the only ways anyone can possibly have fun, let him do it. I would think he would be doing the public a service if he consistently and heavily indulged. That just indicates once again his consummate lack of understanding of the issues. The actions of BUGA-UP have been effective; cigarette billboards have been taken down from the Sydney landscape. The group was very effective in sending up and making a joke of people who supported the tobacco industry, like the Treasurer. If the amount of suffering caused by pushing this hard drug was not such a disaster, it would be laughable. It certainly does make a joke of this Treasurer. The issue with tobacco is to limit consumption. I think the Greens are consistent with that, with all drugs, both legal and illegal.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When are you going to let sniffer dogs into your office?

Mr IAN COHEN: It is really difficult to get outside the prejudice of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I presume he is saying that I must be smoking marijuana in my office. That does not happen. I do not smoke. As I have said in this House before, I probably take less drugs than any member of the House and I would stand in any forum and be challenged on that matter. The Deputy Leader of The Opposition makes presumptions, and it is not appropriate. I really have concerns about tobacco addiction. Many of my friends quite clearly admit to being addicted to tobacco. It is a real tragedy when high-powered people—who often have great potential to do wonderful things in society by their very nature of being high powered and high tensioned—tend to smoke cigarettes. It is a tragedy to see those people cut down in their prime when they have so much to offer society. When we are making legislation in this House we should ensure we are not playing a role in limiting the potential of so many brilliant people in our society.

Unfortunately, both legal and illegal activities to curtail the tobacco industry's advertising campaigns have not gone far enough, with cigarette advertising still being associated with certain sporting events, such as Formula One racing. Furthermore, we recently saw the Government's backflip over the prominent display of cigarettes at supermarket checkouts. This is indicative of the stronghold that the tobacco lobby has over governments. Another recommendation of the AMA is:

A multifactorial approach to assisting and supporting cigarette smokers in quitting, including individual techniques, use of taxation and encouraging smoke-free environments.

The final point speaks for itself. Any indoor areas should remain smoke free. Indeed, there are good arguments for outdoor areas to be smoke free also. We should not accept a definition of an unenclosed area to be anything other than completely open. It is clear that tobacco smoke can affect individuals even in open spaces. This has been recognised and has led to certain councils enforcing smoke-free areas in open-air areas such as children's playgrounds and beaches. Over the past decade, being a member of Parliament, I have used the airport more than I ever have before. The environment inside the airport is smoke free. In the taxi rank area outside there is a very high roof and the smoke is appalling. People go outside to smoke, understandably, but that is a real health hazard, not only for the smokers but also for people passing through that area. That is, relatively speaking, an open space, but there is a very strong smell of tobacco and smoke in that area. Another area I suggest we should do something about smoking is at public bus stops. Non-smokers are impacted upon by people smoking at public bus stops.

As well as the health issue, there is the careless attitude of smokers just throwing their cigarette butts on the ground. The Government could tackle these problems if it had the will. It should be condemned for not acknowledging the importance of retaining open smoke-free areas in clubs and pubs. According to dozens of studies published over the past few decades, passive smoking increases the risk of cancer in people who have never been smokers. It is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, acute heart disease and adverse effects on the respiratory system.

By allowing smoking in partially, or even mostly, enclosed areas as proposed by this regulation the Government is allowing hospitality workers to be exposed to smoke. It is essentially forcing workers to become passive smokers, despite the overwhelming evidence of adverse health effects. This is totally unacceptable discrimination. If smoking is unacceptable in the Minister's office, that is, in his workplace, why should it be acceptable in the workplaces of hospitality workers? The environmental impact of smoking results in 32 billion cigarettes butts being discarded in Australia each year, which translates into 40,000 cubic metres of toxic waste. It is appropriate that the House supports the disallowance motion and that the Government takes more stringent measures against the tobacco industry.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [4.00 p.m.]: I speak against the disallowance motion. I state at the outset that although I appreciate the interest and passion with which members have addressed the debate in general, particularly members of the crossbench. Some of the comments of Sylvia Hale were offensive, not only to the Government but to other individuals, particularly those in relation to Mr Thorpe, who is not a member of this House. She cast aspersions on him that were totally unjustified.

Anyone who was following the debate would be aware that the position of the Australian Hotels Association, as communicated to my colleague Frank Sartor, the Minister assisting me with health matters involving cancer, was that it did not insist on the definition. The debate was not about the hotels per se but more about concerns by the club industry that resulted in the Government deciding that it was better to be more definitive on what constitutes an enclosed space. That is what the regulation does. We could have left the situation to be determined by the courts from 1 July, when the new laws come into force, but for greater certainty and to respond to genuine concerns from participants other than Mr Thorpe, the Government decided to move in this direction.

From 1 July smoking will not be allowed in enclosed licensed premises. It will be permitted in outdoor areas, balconies and beer gardens. The precise definition of outdoor areas is that at least 25 per cent of the notional wall and ceiling level must be open to the outside. Also, at least 10 per cent must be permanently open to the elements while the remainder can be comprised of doors and windows, but these must locked open for the duration of trading and must not be closable by patrons. New South Wales is not alone in bringing in new definitions for outdoor areas. Similar rules have been introduced in every State and Territory, with the exception of the Northern Territory. I am advised that the New South Wales regulation is similar to those that exist in both Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. It was the subject of extensive consultation between many stakeholders. The result is a workable middle ground between proposals from health groups and those of industry. The regulation allows smoking in bona fide outdoor areas while preventing the construction of internal smoking rooms.

I remind honourable members that there is no such thing as a safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and the regulation does not attempt to set such a level. It is important to note that nothing in the Act or regulation abrogates an employer's occupational health and safety responsibilities. That is specifically preserved. Much of the discussion about the effects on bar staff overlooks the fact that the Act does not abrogate the obligations of an employer under the occupational health and safety legislation. Honourable members would be aware that in previous cases workers have been awarded compensation arising from events during which they were exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
The clear message is that the only way to protect workers and patrons is to ban smoking altogether. That is why we have enacted the legislation to be more definitive and precise about what constitutes an enclosed area. We have included this regulation, which is in response to industry concerns, but it still does not abrogate the health obligations on people who allow smoking in particular areas.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.05 p.m.]: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has moved a motion to disallow the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. The Opposition believes that debate on designated smoking areas in clubs and hotels in this State has been extensively canvassed in the public domain, leading to gazettal of this regulation. Following consultation on the disallowance motion I inform the House, as the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans intimated at the beginning of the debate, that the Opposition does not support the motion. The regulation provides a reasonable definition of an enclosed area and balances the competing interests of participants in this important debate.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.06 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to disallow the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes has placed the position of the Christian Democratic Party on the record already. However, I wish to make a couple of remarks and highlight the hypocrisy of the Government with respect to the 25:75 rule. By definition, an open space cannot have a ceiling, yet this regulation allows for a ceiling, which is where cigarette smoke remains trapped. The regulation is based on a fallacy and should be disallowed to enable the Government to go back to the drawing board and come back with a further amendment, if necessary.

Hotel owners and club managers would clearly understand what was meant by a ban on smoking in public places. Patrons could only smoke in open areas, such as a beer garden or a completely open area. However, rooms with certain windows or removable opening doors should not be regarded as acceptable, but this regulation encourages such a room. Indeed, I have heard reports that some places were already declared non-smoking places by hotels and clubs and they were operating as such. Under the regulation they will revert to being designated as smoking areas. Those establishments will consider that they were too strict and that, because Government has watered down the legislation, they will reinstate the area as a smoking area. This proves that the regulation is flawed. If people have interpreted the legislation to mean that certain parts of their hotel or club should be non-smoking areas, but that the decision can be reversed under this regulation, that proves the regulation is based on a fallacy.

I feel very strongly about this matter. Honourable members may have forgotten that I introduced a bill to prohibit smoking in all public places. I simply said "no smoking in all public places". That bill was passed by the upper House; the Government took over the bill in the lower House and changed its name to the Smoke-free Environment Bill—I suppose to separate it from the fact that I had originally introduced the bill. I understand that is what governments do so they can take credit for the legislation. My original bill clearly stated that public places meant any area that could be regarded as an enclosed place. Any area with a ceiling was defined as a "public place" and smoking in those areas would be prohibited. We know from statements issued by the Australian Medical Association [AMA] and other organisations that they are fiercely critical of the Government and of the regulation. One might say that it is not just the anti-smoking members of the upper House but also reputable community organisations. The President of the AMA, Associate Professor John Gullotta, said:

The government's half-ban on smoking in pubs and clubs is ridiculous …

He said that we should support this motion to disallow the regulation. He continued:

We have had enough of the government's play on words and silly measurements that will permit smokers to puff away in public areas, to the detriment of other patrons.

The 75 per cent rule is a facade—anyone can see that a room with 25 per cent of open windows or doors is still largely made up of solid walls that trap cigarette smoke.

The government keeps saying it must compromise and please both parties for and against the smoking bans—but it is amazing that the government doesn't seem to understand that this compromise is a compromise on the health of its citizens …

Every year in NSW 73 pubs, clubs and bar workers die following lengthy exposure to cigarette smoke, of them 59 are non-smokers.

This is a serious challenge to the Minister for Health, whose priority is to care for the health of all the citizens of this State, especially those who through no choice of their own are exposed to passive smoke in their workplace. In our crossbench meetings we have met various people who are suffering as a result of passive smoking. One of those people is Phil Edge, a young non-smoking bar worker. One tragedy of these cases is that people who contract some form of cancer through passive smoke must fight for years to get justice from our legal system. Mr Edge fought for three years to get compensation after losing half his tongue to cancer caused by working in a smoky Adelaide pub.

We also met Marlene Sharp, another non-smoking bar worker. Thankfully, she won her case with a $500,000 payout from her smoky New South Wales club—I understand it was the Port Kembla RSL club—after she developed throat cancer. We could cite many more examples. Those two citizens of this State deserve protection by the health department and the health Minister but they have not received it. Another tragedy is that in 2004 the Government through the former Premier—he was most outspoken on these issues—promised without reservation that all indoor areas of pubs and clubs would be totally smoke free by July 2007. We were pleased to have that assurance. We saw it as one stage; various changes would be made over a period, and July 2007 would be the end of the whole story. However, this regulation is creating another stage. I assume that the regulation, if we cannot defeat it, will operate—

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Forever!

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, forever in theory, but we will continually fight it. So the regulation is another stage in the debate and the campaign. Instead of the debate concluding in July 2007, we have simply reached another stage in the campaign, which will be a further irritant to the Government. If the Government thinks that this is the end of the matter, it is nowhere near the end because community groups, particularly the AMA, Action on Smoking and Health, cancer societies and so on, are angry about the Government's compromise plan and there will be continuous agitation. At some point the health Minister, whoever is Minister in a year or two, will have to say, "We need to have another look at this. The 75 per cent, 25 per cent system doesn't work. We need a genuine ban on all indoor smoking, particularly in areas with a ceiling."

I strongly support the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. I will not go into the details about all the harmful effects of passive smoking as we should understand them by now. The regulation is simply unworkable. The Government thinks we have a solution, but it is not a solution. Sadly, as we have heard, some pubs and clubs think that the regulation is a green light for them to start renovations in order to establish special 75 per cent, 25 per cent rooms with a ceiling as areas where people can smoke legally within their premises. However, at some point they will be told that that is not workable and that will have to cease. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.16 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to disallow the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. Any action to discourage smoking should be promoted, and any suggestion or perception of supportive or compromise actions should be condemned. Like previous speakers, I congratulate the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans on his long, distinguished history of campaigning against cigarette smoking and promoting health in New South Wales. As the honourable member said, the regulation will allow smoking well past 1 July 2007 in what he correctly calls "fake outdoor rooms" in pubs and clubs throughout New South Wales. Verandas, balconies and covered beer gardens will be the new smoking meccas.

The regulation will allow areas of 75 per cent enclosure to be defined as not enclosed, which will allow smoking to continue. The honourable member correctly said that the regime envisaged in this regulation will fail to protect workers and patrons from the well-known and seriously harmful effects of second-hand smoke. I note that some members have spoken at length about the various nations that have successfully banned smoking in indoor areas, including clubs. Indeed, those bans have been welcomed by the vast majority of smokers. As a doctor I have observed the smoking ban in many restaurants, particularly Chinese restaurants. In the beginning the response was very negative. I can inform honourable members that since that time the restaurant owners and their patrons have been most happy with the state of affairs in New South Wales.

I believe that what has been proposed by the Government will counteract the success we have achieved to date. I regret that today in this House the Minister for Health—who is a capable person and, I believe, an honourable person—has had carriage of this motion. I wonder how many compromises we will have to make in regard to cigarette smoking? I wonder why it is that the members of the major political parties cannot stand up against this terrible habit of cigarette smoking? Recently the Australian Labor Party, in particular, made headlines for appearing to care about the issue of asbestos and James Hardie.

On the other hand, the Government does not seem to care much that children's playgrounds have possibly been contaminated with asbestos. I recall that a Government member, a Minister in fact, even jeered at me when I asked a question about playground contamination, saying that I was being alarmist. Honourable members know what has happened with regard to problems with the cross-city tunnel and M5 East tunnel, and indeed the dioxin poisoning of Sydney harbour and its fishermen. I think it will go down in the history of this State as a sad reflection of a political party that has itself become toxic and poisonous. I am happy, therefore, to cast my vote to support the disallowance motion of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank the crossbench members for their sensible and constructive comments, and I criticise the Government and the Opposition for their cowardice and their weasel words. Fifty-five years ago smoking was shown to cause lung cancer. Twenty-eight years ago when I was registrar at Port Kembla Hospital I amputated a man's leg because his peripheral vascular disease graft had failed. He sat in the intensive care unit—he, of course, had a bad heart and bad lungs also because of smoking. He sat there with his oxygen mask on and I said to him, "Look, mate. If you don't stop smoking I am going to have to chop off the other leg." He said, "All you doctors go on about smoking. If it was so bad the government would do something about it."

In essence, that is the way a lot of people think. The lack of government action has normalised what is a crazy habit. The health groups set themselves modest targets. They say they are doing really well by reducing smoking by 1 per cent per year. If 20 per cent of the population was not wearing seat belts, would we say, "We are doing really well. The number of people wearing seat belts went up by 1 per cent per year and the number not wearing them went down by 1 per cent a year"? Of course we would not. We should have a decent campaign and do something. We could cut it by one-third each year easily if someone put some effort into it.

Twenty-five years ago I was surgical registrar at Royal North Shore Hospital. I had a 37-year-old patient with a mouth cancer at the back of his tongue. A visiting professor from Edinburgh operated on the patient with us and brought a graft with a piece of skin from his shoulder up on a muscle flap of his pectoral muscle to replace the hole in his mouth. When you replace the floor of the mouth it is not a good replacement because it does not contract and the milky feed sits in the corner and rots. There is a smell of rotting milk so you put him in a room on his own. In his case, the flap died so there was the smell of rotting flesh as well. His 31-year-old wife and six-month-old baby stood looking at him at the end of the bed in his isolated room. The pathology came back "excision incomplete", so he was going to die from it anyway.

Twenty-five years ago I saw a man who had recently spent three years in a pub and had cancer of the mouth. Now we have a regulation that will allow smoking in pubs forever. Forever, Minister! Forever! Not good enough! I have had only mealy-mouth words, and pathetic arrangements and compromises since the time I graduated and learned what was going on. No-one in this Parliament cares. I have written to all members of this House and asked them for a conscience vote. It seems that conscience votes only apply when morals are about sex. Morals seem to be only about sex. One does not have morals about anything else. The Hon. Charlie Lynn is a good person in terms of his dislike of tobacco. I quote from a letter he wrote on 12 April 2001 to Brendan Brady, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs Director of British American Tobacco. The letter stated:

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for your invitation to take part in a tour of your factory to see first hand how your cigarettes are made.

I will accept your invitation to join the tour if you accept my invitation to come down to my home town in Orbost to see what cigarettes have done to my father—a TPI pensioner with emphysema.

The enclosed cigarette (which you sent me) is returned for you to stick up your—

I will end the quote there, but the last word is what you think it is. I seek leave to table the letter.

Leave granted.

I do not understand why the Government would take a strong line on asbestos, why asbestos is taken seriously and why tobacco is not. Why is it that 150 hospital admissions per day from tobacco caused illness does not raise a ruffle with the press gallery or anyone else? We can have 6,600 deaths per year in New South Wales and no-one is concerned. We can spend $6 million from the State's coffers every year to meet the cost of this carnage, death and human suffering, and still the Government sits there making these compromise deals on smoking forever. We can speculate on why this is so. Let us look at what was happening while $6 billion of this State's money was being wasted on tobacco-caused disease.

In 2004-05, according to the records, the Coalition received $190,705 from big tobacco companies and the Australian Hotels Association. In the same year, Labor received nothing from the tobacco companies but received $259,704 from the Australian Hotels Association. That results in a combined total for the Liberal and Labor parties of $450,409. That is the price paid by the Government and the Opposition in the duopoly government we have in this country, where it makes no difference whether Liberal or Labor is elected because the people will not be looked after. They will be allowed to get lung cancer. The Government will not take the lead, despite the words of the man in the intensive care ward who said that if it were serious the government would do something about it. That is the overall message when the socialisation of smoking is permitted in the face of the Government's boast in 2004 that it would all stop in 2007.

Every time there are weasel words; every time there is a wriggle out. That has gone on for 55 years and we are still counting. It is an absolute disgrace. I ask honourable members to examine their consciences and to vote according to their consciences, to make this a moral issue and to not go along with the major parties. They are so cynical and so cheaply bought. It is such a paltry amount of money, compared with the harm that the tobacco industry does and the indifference and venality of the hoteliers. I urge honourable members to support this motion. I thank the health groups that have done their best to support me. I only ask that honourable members examine their conscience, have the courage to do the right thing by the people who elected them and to whom they owe their primary duty, and vote for this motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Cohen Ms Hale Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Ms Rhiannon Mr Tingle Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mr Donnelly Ms Fazio

Miss Gardiner Mr Hatzistergos Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Robertson

Mr Ryan Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.36 p.m.]: This is terrible public policy and, in all likelihood, will be so offputting to the general public that the course of electronic health records will be set back many years. I have no doubt that when the general public catches on to what the Government is up to there will be widespread anger and fear. I do not base my views just on my own opinion or the many conversations I have had with worried constituents; I base my views also on research undertaken by AC Nielsen for NSW Health in 2001. The final report provided to NSW Health stated that those polled raised the following issues: the potential for discrimination, patients' lack of control, the potential for misuse of data and the adequacy of security. Honourable members should remember that this poll was conducted before the requirement for consent was deleted. Even with consent explicitly required, people identified those issues as serious concerns. Yet the Government dismissed those concerns as out of hand and blundered ahead. It is poor policy from a Government that is losing the plot. The Carr-Iemma Government should abide by its own regulations. On this issue the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2000 clearly states:

An organisation must not:

include health information about an individual in a health records linkage system unless the individual has expressly consented to the information being so included

In a letter dated June 2002 Mr Chris Puplick, the then Privacy Commissioner, stated:

However I am of course concerned that the introduction of both legislation and policy in this area must ensure the most stringent protection of the privacy of health information possible.

The importance of those comments is underlined by the fact that the misuse of medical records is at the top of the list of complaints to the New South Wales Privacy Commissioner. When the Minister for Health claimed in a press release on 21 February that the Healthelink trials would be "in accordance with health privacy laws" he was not accurate. If the trials were in accordance with health privacy laws, there would not be any need to seek an exemption or for the regulation we are debating today. Hence, we have had this furtive gazettal of the regulation, which must be disallowed. The present format of electronic health records is not in the public interest and the Government should redesign the pilot program and produce a consent form. It should also attend to who can access the records, apart from the person concerned, and how. It should look at the latest security software. The Greens are not opposed to an electronic health records system, but we are opposed to this badly designed system, its misuse and the fact that people cannot make an active choice for their personal medical records to be included.

We must also consider what might be driving NSW Health's desire to run the system as a compulsory environment. It appears that the information and technology vendor-supplier consortium the department contracted to develop Healthelink has a big role to play. I have received this information only recently, and I believe it is extremely serious. It throws into further question the way in which the Government is conducting this so-called trial, which really is the first stage of the implementation of the system. The Greens have found out that NSW Health is dealing with Health Communications Network, a company that supplies software to general practitioners. That company was the subject of a privacy scandal last year. It was discovered to be extracting patient data from general practitioners' computers and selling it to pharmaceutical companies without the patients' knowledge, and in some cases without the general practitioners knowing.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: What has this got to do with anything?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection. Again, we have a Minister for Health stumbling in the handling of his portfolio. Surely he can see the link that the company the Government is engaging to work with Healthelink has acted in a most improper way and compromised privacy. If that does not worry the Minister, we have more problems than we thought we had at the beginning of the debate.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Who told you this?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am about to provide a bit more information. According to an Orion report, the controversial switch by NSW Health to the opt-out patient consent model was based on the consortium's recommendation. That information was revealed in the information technology section of the Australian yesterday. This is a most serious addition to the debate. I urge honourable members to consider it very carefully. The Government is engaging in a full-on race to get this up and running. I remind honourable members that it is not a trial; it is a roll out of the first stage; it is another Government con job. The Government is claiming that it is consulting and conducting a trial. That is not true; it is well down the track towards implementing this system.

I urge honourable members to support this motion, not to prevent the establishment of electronic health records—far from it—but to send a message to the Government that it must do better. It should go back to the drawing board. Privacy is an important right that should not be trifled with and confidence in the public health system is essential. This regulation imperils both. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments and finding out how serious he is about privacy, let alone these records.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [4.44 p.m.]: I will start my contribution by quoting Tony Abbott, the Federal Minister for Health, who in 2003 made a significant speech on e-medicine. I do so to ensure that honourable members are aware of what he said. Tony Abbott said:

One of the most significant causes of preventable death is inappropriate treatment based on ignorance of patients' previous medical history. Analysis of the 1994 study suggests that 9 per cent of preventable deaths result from communications problems and 11 per cent result from poor record keeping. In other words, accurate information about patients' medication, allergies, previous treatments, past illnesses and health characteristics could be a decisive factor in saving up to 3600 lives every year.

He further said:

The challenge is connecting systems and linking information in ways which enhance patients' control over their own health records and facilitate the best possible medical treatment.

The Healthelink electronic health record will create a lifetime electronic record of all care provided in public and private health settings. It is an integrated record that translates into improved safety, quality and efficiency of health care. That can be achieved by giving the right information to the right people at the right time. Honourable members should distinguish the need from the basis of much of this debate. A number of honourable members have questioned the need for this system. Ms Lee Rhiannon has attempted to camouflage her opposition by appearing to support an electronic health record, but not the model the Government has proposed. This is not a compulsory system.

[Interruption]

Patients can choose to participate in the system. The Government's proposed model has been carefully considered, not over the past 12 months, but some time before that. I will refer in a moment to how the opt-out model was developed. The decision to trial an opt-out model was made during the early stages of the project when research on international experience in the United Kingdom and Canada identified significant problems with the use of an opt-in model and when community consultation identified high levels of support for this initiative. Honourable members should be made aware that the Alberta Government in Canada was forced to repeal legislation requiring an opt-in approach to electronic health record because it was found to be unworkable. Indeed, its Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner supported the repeal of section 59 of the Alberta legislation which, until that point, contained an opt-in model. The decision to trial an opt-out model—

Ms Sylvia Hale: You should repeal your Act; you should not hide behind a regulation.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Hold on a moment! The Act sets out principles and allows for exemptions from those principles. A regulation has been drafted in an open manner providing for an exemption from a principle. That is what we are debating today.

Ms Sylvia Hale: How can you have a principle from which there are exemptions?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The legislation which the honourable member supported and which was passed by this Parliament provided for principles and a process of exemptions. It allowed those exemptions to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The decision to trial an opt-out model was endorsed by the peak New South Wales information management and technology body and the national Health Connect Board in 2004. A public consultation forum was held on 13 April 2005 with the Council of Social Service NSW [NCOSS] to provide information on the opt-out model to peak community bodies and to get feedback. Consumer consultation was held with 50 community organisations, two public forums were held in conjunction with NCOSS, and consumer survey research and focus groups were organised with members of the general population. All of these showed a very high level of support and a strong view that this type of initiative was overdue. The proposed model has been discussed with both New South Wales and Federal Privacy Commissioners. The pilot has the support of a range of clinicians, such as John Hunter Hospital's director of cardiology, Peter Fletcher, who told the Newcastle Herald:

You can't have too much information in a difficult clinical situation.

At the recent Council of Australian Governments meeting, the Prime Minister and State Premiers agreed to accelerate work on a national electronic health records system to enable health providers to communicate quickly and securely across the hospital, community and primary medical settings. These pilots will be fully evaluated and will make a valuable contribution to the progress on the national electronic health record. They are specifically time limited under the regulations to expire in 2009. Those who oppose this initiative are out of step with international experience and evidence, out of step with community opinions and expectations, out of step with clinicians, and out of step with the Federal Government.

Indeed, Healthelink will enhance patients' control over their own health record. People who are to access the record require specific identifying numbers. The patient whose record it relates to will be able to access his or her own record and determine from that access who has access to the record. There are very strong security provisions in place, and they are outlined in the pamphlet that is provided to patients so they can determine whether they want to opt out. I quote from the pamphlet:

Healthelink knows that protecting the privacy and security of health information is essential. There are several ways Healthelink looks after the security of the record. The computer your health information is stored on is kept in a secure room. All information sent to Healthelink computer is sent in a special way that meets with international clinical messaging standards. What this means is that information is scrambled into a special code that no-one can read while it is being sent, until it safely arrives at the Healthelink computer.

Healthelink is also protected by tools to keep it safe from viruses and from other people getting access if they are not authorised. Anyone who uses Healthelink will need their own personal username and password.

To make sure the Healthelink computer is secure, we run checks that can tell whether any authorised person is trying to access Healthelink. Our security systems are based on national and international standards and are similar to what banks use to keep online banking safe and secure.

Even personal log in details can be an important part of online security. That's why Healthelink makes it possible to see who has accessed your Healthelink electronic health record and what information they have looked at. This will help you to keep track of online access to your record.

I again emphasise that this is not a system that does not provide options. Patients who are given that information can make a decision that they do not want to participate. A comprehensive information campaign is already under way to ensure consumers in the pilot groups are aware of the Healthelink electronic health record. This information makes it clear that participation is voluntary, and provides information on how to opt out. There are four mechanisms by which patients can opt out. They can call the 1800 phone number that has been set up as part of the pilot, they can submit an opt-out form by mail, they can opt out over the Internet, or they can advise their general practitioner [GP] that they do not wish to participate.

Patients can opt out before they have any contact with the health system, or at their first visit to a participating GP surgery, and no clinical data will be collected. All patients who do not opt out at this point will be sent a comprehensive information pack about the pilot and will have a 30-day cooling-off period in which to opt out. During the cooling-off period no information will be accessible. Patients can also opt out at any time after this, and no clinical information will be stored after this date. Information collected before they opted out will be inaccessible.

Privacy and security will be paramount, in the way I have outlined. I am advised that the pilot has been enthusiastically embraced by older patients visiting the emergency department at Maitland hospital. Indeed, I am further advised that the help line established for the Hunter pilot has received a number of calls from people who are disappointed that they are not part of the target group for the pilot. If certain members of the Opposition and crossbenches who are over 65 years of age and who live in one of the pilot postcodes in the Hunter did not want to participate, they could opt out. It is that simple.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Why don't you send them a letter?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Obviously the Hon. Robyn Parker has not been listening, because I outlined the fact that there has been a letterbox drop. But the rest of the community's right to access better health care should not be allowed to be hijacked by a handful of privacy zealots in this place. If this motion succeeds, the pilot in the upper Hunter will have to be terminated and the children's hospital pilot in western Sydney will not commence. This will deprive older people, children and parents of the opportunity to access the very best health care that is currently available.

Of all the comments that have been made in this debate, a comment made by Ms Sylvia Hale, as usual, gets the prize for being the most offensive. Her characterisation of older people and those living in regional New South Wales and Western Sydney as being especially incapable of understanding and giving informed consent was most offensive. But then, what would one expect from someone who largely does not venture outside the inner city except to visit Byron Bay for holidays. It could be argued that regional New South Wales and Western Sydney are the most deserving of this investment, knowing, as we do, that socioeconomic disadvantage is a major predictor of poor health. This is not a theoretical argument. Older people have been selected because they are more likely to experience complex health problems requiring multiple interactions with the health system, and therefore they are one of the major beneficiaries.

An integrated, comprehensive health record for children lays the foundation for a lifetime of enhanced health care. Indeed, this system will enable important information such as the "blue book" to be incorporated in children's health records. Any parent who has forgotten to take his or her child's blue book along to a GP visit will understand how useful this feature can be. Do honourable members really want to deny those in the pilot studies the benefits that integrated health information can offer them, or to deny the rest of the community the benefits that electronic health records offer in the future? I urge all honourable members to oppose the disallowance of the regulation.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [4.55 p.m.]: The Health Records and Information Privacy Regulation establishes a pilot program conducted by the Department of Health to trial the electronic recording and exchange of health information of two groups of people: the first, people over the age of 65 who live in five identifiable postcode areas; the second, people aged 15 or under who reside in eight identifiable postcode areas. Importantly, the regulation permits any of the people so identified to opt out of the pilot program.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that all people in those postcode areas who fit into the two identifiable groups will be, or have been, notified of the trial and have 30 days in which to opt out. That information was not available to members on the crossbenches when they were briefed on this issue. In fact, I asked a question about it and was told that people would not have the opportunity to opt out. The regulation is made pursuant to the Health Records and Information Privacy Act, schedule 1, clause 15, which clearly provides that people who are the subject of any health records collecting are to give their express consent.

On the face of it, this aspect of the regulation is inconsistent with the legislation. However, clause 4 of schedule 1 provides that an organisation that collects health information is not required to comply with the provision if the organisation is lawfully authorised or required not to comply with it. It is what I call a two-bob-each-way provision. It allows the Government to publish a regulation that, on the face of it, does not appear to comply with the enabling legislation. However, on closer examination, the Health Records and Information Privacy Act does, in my opinion, allow for the regulation.

This is all a little legalistic. The important point is that the pilot program is already under way. It is a good program. I do not think there is any argument about the importance of there being a database for people's health records, particularly when they find themselves in an emergency situation. It is simply a question of whether this opting out and opting in is the appropriate way to allow people to be part of the pilot program. I believe that the regulation is a reasonable outcome. In the circumstances, I do not think it would be practical to ask people to opt in. People's apathy is such that in most cases they would simply ignore anything that arrived in their letterbox, particularly if they were healthy. Young people, for example, probably would not be too anxious to fill out a form and send it back. So it would be impractical, I believe, to have a pilot program asking people to opt in. On that basis I suggest to members that the regulation is appropriate in the circumstances and should not be disallowed.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.59 p.m.], in reply: Firstly I thank all members who contributed to the debate. If it is true, as the Minister said, that the practice that was the basis for the legislation under which this regulation was made is out of step with overseas practice, I believe that the Government should have introduced an amendment to the Act so the Parliament would have the opportunity to redebate the principles under which bipartisan support for the bill was given in 2002.

In 2002 the shadow Minister for Health at that time, Mrs Jillian Skinner, particularly referred to health privacy principle No. 15, which requires express consent—that is opting in—before a patient's record is placed on a shared electronic health records system. The Opposition gave its support to the legislation at that time on that basis. This regulation is a sleight-of-hand way of turning the impact of the legislation on its head. There are many instances of the Iemma Government trying to do this sort of thing—going behind people's backs, and in this case behind the back of the Parliament, to tie people down to regulations they were not consulted about and which they oppose.

A number of members who have spoken in this debate have acknowledged this turnabout. For example, the Hon. John Tingle acknowledged that what is in this regulation represents a change from the original bill. If honourable members read the contributions to the second reading debate on the original bill, including that of the Leader of the Government in this House at the time, the Hon. Michael Egan, they will see why so many people interested in privacy issues, professional organisations and representatives of professional practitioners, such as the Australian Medical Association, are opposed to this regulation. As the Hon. Dr Wong pointed out, it was the wish of the Parliament that patients opt in, and now with this trial it is the Government's wish that patients opt out. Ms Sylvia Hale asked: Why change the regulation around to conduct a trial? Surely a trial should replicate the system that it is intended to implement. That is a very good question.

Ms Lee Rhiannon made the point that the Government cannot be trusted on privacy matters, and she referred to debate in this place on the lack of a privacy commissioner and the like. I endorse those comments. A matter of concern with regard to privacy arose in this House just a couple of weeks ago when a Minister of the Crown—indeed, the Deputy Leader of the Government in this House—read out the contents of a personal note written by a member of the House, the Hon. Melinda Pavey. That is the culture of the Labor Government: it is undermining its own legislation with this regulation. The best possible safeguards have to be in place with such material. Yet in the case I have just referred to the Deputy Leader of the Government, Mr Costa, abused another member's privacy inside the Parliament. What hope have patients got outside the Parliament if health service workers are given access to electronic records and it is made possible for them to use them in an abusive way? The Government has certainly not consulted extensively on this regulation

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Yes, we have.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is not what people are telling me.

The Hon. Don Harwin: The trouble is they don't listen to them.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is right, they were not listened to. There is a great deal of concern in the community about the ham-fisted way this electronics records system is being put in place and trialled. I urge the House to support the disallowance of this regulation.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

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

Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Robertson

Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Macdonald Mr West

Mr Gallacher

Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [5.14 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust Amendment (Duties) Bill 2005 will amend the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust Act 1994 to provide that duty is not chargeable when property is conveyed to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust from a person who holds that property on behalf of a Greek Orthodox parish or congregation.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust was established in 1995. The creation of the Consolidated Trust brought great benefits for the administration and organisation of the Church's affairs, and has enhanced the progress and activities of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia.

This Bill facilitates the principal purposes of the original legislation, by making it simpler and less costly for Parishes to transfer their property into the Consolidated Trust.

When the Consolidated Trust was created, all property that was held by the existing Greek Orthodox Property Trust was automatically transferred into it. These transfers were exempt from stamp duty under the Act.

For historical reasons, a number of Greek Orthodox Parishes in New South Wales hold Parish property in the names of individual Parish members, as trustees for the Parish; or as companies limited by guarantee. These properties were not automatically transferred into the Consolidated Trust when it was created.

A number of Parishes have chosen to transfer their property into the Consolidated Trust since 1995. A number of other Parishes have indicated that they are interested in transferring property into the Consolidated Trust in the future. These transfers become necessary particularly as many members of the local congregations approach retirement, and are no longer able to be responsible for the upkeep of the property.

Each time that there is a transfer of property into the trust, the Church must apply to the Commissioner of State Revenue for an ex gratia payment of the duty payable on the transaction. The Commissioner has a discretionary power to make an Act of Grace payment of the duty, but the process for exercising this power is time-consuming and resource-intensive. The Commissioner cannot delegate the power.

The Government's policy has been to grant an exemption on each occasion it is requested. However, the Act of Grace procedure is designed to be used only in special cases and on isolated occasions. It is not appropriate that it be used repeatedly in respect of the same kind of transaction.

By providing a statutory exemption from duty when property is transferred into the trust, this Bill will remove the need for the Church and the Office of State Revenue to go through the time-consuming process of respectively applying for and granting an ex gratia payment.

The Bill does not make any changes to the operation of the Consolidated Trust. It does not require any Parish or any person to transfer property to the Consolidated Trust. Transfers will continue to be purely voluntary.

The Bill simply facilitates the voluntary transfer of property from Parishes to the trust.

The Bill has been drafted in consultation with the Church. It also has the support of the Office of State Revenue.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.14 p.m.]: The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust Amendment (Duties) Bill 2005 has the support of the Opposition. Its purpose is to provide that the duty payable under the Duties Act 1997 is not chargeable when property is conveyed to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust from a person who holds that property on behalf of a Greek Orthodox parish or congregation. When the consolidated trust was established in 1995 church property held by the existing Greek Orthodox Property Trust was transferred to it exempt from the payment of stamp duty. For a number of reasons there were, at that time—and still are—other church properties held separately by individual parishes that have not been transferred to the consolidated trust.
Since the establishment of the consolidated trust in 1995, as the need has arisen to transfer church properties to the trust it has been necessary to apply to the Commissioner of State Revenue for an exemption from stamp duty. This bill will remove the necessity for seeking such an exemption on each occasion that existing church property is transferred to the consolidated trust. The bill does not alter in any way the structure or operation of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust. It will provide a simpler, more streamlined and less costly procedure for church property to be placed in the consolidated trust and it has been prepared at the request, and with the assistance, of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia.

The passing of this bill will give us the opportunity to reflect on the important part played by the Greek Orthodox Church in the life and wellbeing of our nation and, indeed, throughout the world. The Greek contribution to civilisation throughout the ages has been immense. The Greeks gave to the world Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. The concept of democracy stems from the Greeks. Their contribution to mankind in the fields of science, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, as well as in literature and art, is universally recognised. In these fields the Greeks have been like a flowing river, constantly enriching and nourishing mankind throughout the ages.

In the growth and development of Christianity, the Greek contribution has been special and unique. The New Testament, which has transformed, for the better, the lives of many hundreds of millions from all races, was first written in Greek. For the first few centuries of its existence worship within the Christian faith was conducted in the Greek language right throughout the Roman Empire. As the noted ecclesiastical historian Henry Hart Milman recorded:

For some considerable part of the three first centuries, the Church of Rome, and most, if not all the Churches of the West, were, if we may so speak, Greek religious colonies. Their language was Greek, their organisation Greek, the writers Greek, their scriptures Greek, and many vestiges and traditions show that their ritual, their Liturgy, was Greek.

Many church fathers and martyrs were Greek or Hellenised, including Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Gregory the Iluminator, Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Saint Cyril and Saint George, to name just a few. The teaching authority and power to administer the sacraments and confer priestly powers possessed today by bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church, including those in Australia, have been passed down in an unbroken line from Jesus Christ Himself. The Greek Orthodox Church has withstood much persecution and hardship in defence and propagation of the faith throughout the ages.

During 500 years of Turkish occupation of Greece and the suppression of the Greek people during that period it was the Greek Orthodox Church that gave inspiration, hope and leadership to the Greek people so that their Christian faith and culture at the end of that occupation remained as strong as it ever had been. And today in Cyprus, despite the destruction and desecration of Greek Orthodox churches and cemeteries, and other provocations by non-Greek elements on that once peaceful Hellenic island, the Greek Orthodox Church brings hope and faith to the great majority of citizens of that island nation.

In Australia the Greek-Australian community is a major contributor to the success of our nation as a peaceful, law-abiding and prosperous land and has been one of our most successful in its integration into the fabric of the Australian nation. I can think of some people in our community who could well learn from the admirable example set by Australians of Greek origin. In conclusion, I pay tribute to Australians of Greek background. I acknowledge with admiration the significant part played by the Greek Orthodox Church in the wellbeing of our nation. In some small way this bill will help facilitate the continuing good work of the Greek Orthodox Church in our community and, therefore, it has the full support of the Opposition.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [5.19 p.m.]: I, too, use debate on this bill to pay tribute to the Greek Orthodox Church. There has been a Greek Orthodox community in Sydney since 1820 when a monk practised the divine liturgy at Kirribilli Point for several months. The first priest to serve the needs of the Greek Orthodox in Sydney and Melbourne arrived in 1896, and the first Greek Orthodox Church was opened in May 1898 at Surry Hills in New South Wales and was dedicated to the Holy Trinity. For most of the time the archdiocese of Australia also included New Zealand, but the two separated in January 1970. Four years later, on 13 February 1974, His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos was appointed as Archbishop of Australia from other work in Greece, and he arrived in Australia in April 1975.

During the time that Archbishop Stylianos has been administering the affairs of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia it has flourished under his clear vision and selfless leadership. This is an appropriate occasion on which to pay tribute to Archbishop Stylianos because to the best of my knowledge there would not be many other church leaders who have served for quite as long as Archbishop Stylianos or seen as much growth and development of their community. One of his most important achievements was the completion and establishment of St Andrew's Theological College. The college curriculum is recognised as equivalent to university courses in Australia and in Greece. Archbishop Stylianos is a theologian of international standing. He is the co-chairman of the official dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. He is the patron of the Australian Theological Forum and a board member of the new Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture.

Archbishop Stylianos has taught Orthodox theology and spirituality at the University of Sydney. From 1986 he was the Dean of the theological college of St Andrew, established during his time, at which he lectures in systematic theology. Apart from other honorary distinctions, he was given an award for poetry by the Academy of Athens in 1980, and holds an honorary doctorate from Lublin university in Poland. In November 1996 the church sponsored an official visit to Australia of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Most significantly, Archbishop Stylianos has served as the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia for 31 years, providing not only clear leadership but also enormous stability. As I said, Archbishop Stylianos received an award for poetry. Indeed, he has written 16 collections of poetry, which shows that he is not only an eminent theologian and servant of the church but also a patron of the literary arts.

There are now more than 30 parishes of the Greek Orthodox Church, not only throughout Sydney but also in Newcastle, Wollongong, Dubbo, Orange, Tamworth, Queanbeyan, Batemans Bay, Goulburn, the Central Coast, Albury and Wagga Wagga. The church carries out many other distinguished works in the community, including operating two schools in Sydney, a number of childcare centres and aged care. Best known of the church's work and relevant to my portfolio responsibility of ageing is the St Basil Homes at Lakemba. St Basil provides a wide scope of quality care for aged clients, including a state-of-the-art nursing home, a dementia unit and two self-care retirement facilities, Lourantos Village and Sister Dorothea Village.

St Basil's nursing home at Lakemba has accommodation for 109 residents in one-bed, two-bed and four-bed wards. Each ward is airconditioned and has been designed for wheelchair use. There are opportunities for private dining, and there are courtyards and a chapel. One outstanding service is the day programs provided for people with dementia. The nursing home provides a special dementia section, with up to 35 clients receiving specialist care provided at the St Basil dementia unit within the Lakemba complex. It is a state-of-the-art facility providing nursing, diversional therapy activities, accommodation and menus specific to the needs of the clients. The residents of the unit are able to be cared for appropriately, with dignity, and in an environment in which they feel secure.

As I said, the Greek Orthodox community also operates two schools. Best known is St Spyridon College, which offers co-education for students in years K-12, providing education to 740 students on two campuses at Kingsford and Maroubra. It was established in 1983 by the St Spyridon parish of East Sydney under the auspices of the Greek Orthodox archdiocese of Australia. It provides services not only to Greek Orthodox families. A number of Serbian Orthodox families also send their children to St Spyridon because there is not yet a Serbian Orthodox school. However, a Serbian Orthodox school is currently being constructed in the south-western Sydney suburb of St Andrews. The community also operates All Saints Grammar School at Lakemba, which caters for students in years K-12. That school was founded in 1990 by the parish community of Belmore. It devotes itself to a foundation of sound Christian ethics and Hellenic heritage.

All Saints Grammar School is a co-educational day school that has been operating for 14 years. The junior school is situated in Hampden Road, Lakemba. It caters for students from years K-6 and has a student enrolment of 388. The senior school is located in Forsyth Street, Belmore, and caters for students from years 7-12. It has a current enrolment of 290 students. Last year it distinguished itself with six students achieving university admission index results of 90 or better in the 2005 Higher School Certificate. The ministry of the Greek Orthodox church in New South Wales has been expanding. It is distinguished and it is wide and varied in its operation, catering for all manner of services such as education, childcare and aged care. No doubt as a result of the passage of this bill, the church will be able to organise its financial affairs more efficiently and continue to carry out the ministry that it provides with great distinction, enormous diligence and care to the residents of New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.26 p.m.]: The object of this bill is to provide that duty under the Duties Act 1997 is not chargeable when property is conveyed to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust from a person who holds that property on behalf of a Greek Orthodox parish or congregation. The Greek Orthodox Church has a long and great history in New South Wales, as was mentioned by the two previous speakers. The first Orthodox church service was held in Sydney by a chaplain from a Russian Antarctic expedition ship as early as 1820. Then in 1896 the first Greek Orthodox priest arrived in Sydney to minister to the congregation. The first Greek Orthodox Church was opened in May 1898 in Surry Hills, followed by another church in Melbourne, with both being dedicated to the Holy Trinity.

Currently, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia has five archdiocesan districts: first, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory; second, Victoria and Tasmania; third, the district of South Australia and the Northern Territory; fourth, Queensland and Papua New Guinea; and, fifth, Western Australia. They are all constituted by about 120 parishes. There are 40 parishes in New South Wales, ministering to about 200,000 people. Many of those who minister to congregations are trained by the church's own theological college, namely, St Andrew's Greek Orthodox Theological College, in Redfern, Sydney. The archdiocese includes preschools, primary schools and high schools, as well as the St Basil Homes centred on Lakemba and the Greek Welfare Centre, which are involved in care of the aged, the poor and the needy.

A bill to establish the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust was introduced in late 1994, assented to in November 1994 and commenced operation in February 1995. That bill has greatly assisted the church in its organisational and administrative affairs, providing a stable and solid foundation for developments and activities of the Orthodox church in Australia. This bill makes it simpler and less costly for parishes of the church to transfer their property into the consolidated trust. At the point where the consolidated trust was formed, the property that was held by the existing Greek Orthodox Property Trust was automatically transferred into it. All of these automatic transfers were not subject to stamp duty under the Act.

It is said that for historical reasons a number of Greek Orthodox parishes in New South Wales hold parish property in the names of individual parish members as trustees for the parish or as companies limited by guarantee. Property held in such a way was not automatically transferred into the consolidated trust when the trust was created.

This bill allows for such property to be transferred to the consolidated trust without incurring stamp duty. The second reading speech to the bill indicates that these transfers become necessary, particularly as many members of the local congregations approach retirement and are no longer able to be responsible for the upkeep of the property. Each time there is a transfer of property into the trust, the church must apply to the Commissioner of State Revenue for an ex gratia payment of the duty payable on the transaction. The commissioner has a discretionary power to make an act of grace payment of the duty, but the process for exercising this power is time consuming and resource intensive. The commissioner cannot delegate the power. The Government's policy has been to grant an exemption on each occasion it is requested. I thank several governments under different leaders of political parties who have granted such exemptions, not only to the Greek Orthodox Church, but also to other churches that have sought ex gratia payments.

Clearly, by providing a statutory exemption from duty when property is transferred into the trust, the bill will do away with the need for both the church and the Office of State Revenue to enter into the time-consuming process of respectively applying for and granting an ex gratia payment. In particular, the bill proposes to insert section 21A to provide that duty under the Duties Act 1997 is not chargeable in respect of, or in connection with, a conveyance to the trust of property from a person or body who holds that property on behalf of any parish or congregation of the church. The bill will not introduce any provision other than one that exempts from duty transfers to the trust. The bill does not compel any person to transfer property; it is purely facilitative.

The bill has been drafted in consultation with the Greek Orthodox Church and also has the support of the Office of State Revenue. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia seems to be the only church that has had legislation allowing for a consolidated trust in its name. Thus, it is not envisaged that other denominations or churches will need a bill similar in nature to this one. I commend the bill to the House on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their constructive contributions to this debate. The bill continues the longstanding Government policy of assisting churches to organise their financial and property affairs by sponsoring legislation in relation to corporate property trusts. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary [5.33 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This Bill amends the Fines Act 1996 to:

• authorise and validate the collection of compensation levies from inmates' prison earnings; and
• put the enforcement of compensation levies under the Fines Act 1996 beyond doubt.

The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 requires everyone convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment to pay a compensation levy. The levy is $70 when the person is convicted on indictment, and $30 otherwise. The Act also provides for that money to be paid into the Victims Compensation Fund, from which compensation under the Act is paid to the victims of acts of violence.

The purpose of the compensation levy is to force those persons committing criminal offences to make a personal contribution to the compensation of victims of crime. The levy is additional to the restitution that an offender is required to pay when one of their victims receives compensation under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996.

Enforcement of compensation levies from prison earnings

Regulation 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 previously authorised the deduction of compensation levies from the prison earnings of inmates.

The specific section (section 80) in the Victims Compensation Act 1996 that permitted such a Regulation to be made was repealed when the Fines Act 1996 commenced and a compensation levy was included in the definition of a 'fine.'

The effect the repeal of section 80 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 appears to have been that Regulation 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 was impliedly repealed, but this was not recognised at the time.

The entire Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 later lapsed under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989.

Compensation levies, however, continued to be deducted from inmates' prison earnings in accordance with established procedures.

This Bill inserts section 18 into the Fines Act 1996. This is similar to Regulation 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 and will ensure that compensation levies can continue to be deducted from inmates' prison earnings.

Enforcement of compensation levies under the Fines Act

Compensation levies are defined as 'fines' for the purposes of the Fines Act 1996 and the Act allows the State Debt Recovery Office to enforce fines imposed by courts.

The State Debt Recovery Office enforces compensation levies against offenders who are not imprisoned and this money is paid into the Victims Compensation Fund.

It has been suggested that a compensation levy payable under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 might be construed as not being 'imposed by a court.'

The Bill inserts a new subsection 4(2A) in the Fines Act 1996 to provide that a compensation levy is taken to be a fine imposed by a court. This will put the enforcement of compensation levies under the Fines Act 1996 beyond any doubt.

Validating Past Collection—Schedule 3

Schedule 3 of the Bill validates the past collection of compensation levies provided they could have been collected if the provisions of the Bill were in force.

This is consistent with the purpose of the levy—requiring those persons committing criminal offences to make a personal contribution to the compensation of victims of crime.

It is both in the public interest, and in the interest of victims, that this Bill be passed to validate the past collection of compensation levies from inmates' prison earnings, and under the Fines Act 1996.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.34 p.m.]: Under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 a victims compensation levy is required to be paid by those convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment. These levies are paid into the Victims Compensation Fund to pay compensation to victims of criminal acts. Such compensation levies are fines within the meaning of the Fines Act 1996. The purpose of the Fines Amendment (Payment of Victims Compensation Levies) Bill, which has the support of the Opposition, is to ensure that a compensation levy is taken to be a fine imposed by the court in which the person liable to pay the levy was convicted. This is to remove any suggestion that a victim's compensation levy payable under that Act has not been imposed by a court.

It also provides that payment of certain levies that are payable by persons who are in prison may be enforced by means of the attachment of the person's earnings. The bill specifies that it refers to levies payable by persons who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment by way of full-time detention as a result of the conviction that gave rise to the imposition of the levy but does not apply if the sentence has been suspended. Compensation levies to which the bill applies that are not paid by the due date may be enforced by deducting the amount due from the offender's prison earnings. The Commissioner of Corrective Services or the governor of the correctional centre where the offender is imprisoned may deduct the amount of the compensation levy from the offender's prison earnings irrespective of the provisions of any other law.

Any unpaid amount of a compensation levy remaining when the offender is discharged from the correctional centre is taken to have been satisfied. The bill validates beyond doubt the past collection of victims' compensation levies from inmates' prison earnings pursuant to the Fines Act 1996. As I have indicated, the Opposition supports this bill. Those who are convicted of crimes of violence should be required to contribute to financial restitution apart from any other punishment, such as imprisonment, imposed by the law. Criminals need to be made aware of the harm, suffering and loss inflicted upon their victims, and financial restitution to the victim is a necessary and appropriate part of that process. The bill will help to ensure that the process established by the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 operates efficiently and effectively. We need to constantly strive to focus on the suffering and loss sustained by victims of crime and the necessity for the perpetrators of such crimes to be required to make appropriate restitution to the victims of their criminal actions. This bill is part of that process.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.36 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I am pleased to speak to the Fines Amendment (Payment of Victims Compensation Levies) Bill. The object of this bill is to amend the Fines Act 1996 to authorise and validate the collection of compensation levies from inmates' prison earnings, and also to clarify that the enforcement of compensation levies will be carried out under the Fines Act 1996. The latest statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that there were 25,353 prisoners in Australia on 30 June 2005. The imprisonment rate of 163 prisoners per 100,000 adult population represents a 3 per cent increase on the rate of 157 prisoners per 100,000 adult population in the previous year. Three-quarters of all prisoners are held in New South Wales—approximately 10,000 prisoners. In Queensland there are approximately 5,000 prisoners and in Victoria 3,692.

Between 2004 and 2005, the prison population increased in New South Wales by 5 per cent. Notably, decreases in prison populations have occurred in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The reasons for the decrease in prison populations in those States ought to be noted by our authorities. Overall, the prison population has increased by a massive 45 per cent since 1995. This increase has exceeded the 15 per cent growth in the Australian adult population rate, resulting in the adult imprisonment rate increasing from 127 to 163 prisoners per 100,000 adult population between 1994 and 2005. With this increase, it is clear that the capacity of corrective services agencies and the resources that are given to them must also increase.

I point out the following fact because there is a good side to it. A study conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology shows that there is a direct correlation between the increase in prison populations and the decrease in crime outside prison. As a result, people in the community feel safer. According to the Institute of Criminology, in the past two years in particular there has been a sharp drop in murders, robberies, burglaries and theft. For example, the robbery rate peaked at 137 per 100,000 people in 2001 before declining 40 per cent to only 82 per 100,000 last year. The institute report also stated that violent crimes carried out at transport and retail locations had the sharpest falls—by 31 per cent and 36 per cent respectively. Violent crime in homes fell by 11 per cent, on the streets by 17 per cent and in parks and other recreational places by 25 per cent.

Sadly, nearly one in two prisoners committed a most serious offence that involved violence or the threat of violence, including offences such as acts intended to cause injury, robbery-extortion, sexual assault and homicide. These statistics indicate one of many things. Perhaps we have more and improved laws, which have resulted in a larger number of people being imprisoned. Perhaps the police are doing a better job of catching those who breach New South Wales laws. Perhaps the increase in the prisoner population is a reflection of the social and moral conditions in sections of our society. All in all, effective legislation and the resources to implement it must be in place to manage our prisoner population in New South Wales and across Australia.

A report by the Productivity Commission, entitled "Report on Government Services 2006", provides statistics on expenditure by governments on the justice system. Nationally, the expenditure to provide justice services in 2004-05 was $412 per person. "Justice services" means police services, civil and criminal court administration and corrective services. In 2004-05 the New South Wales Government spent, in real terms, $96 per person to provide services for persons within the corrective services system. That figure is much lower than the national average of $412 per person.

Crime exacts a devastating cost on society. As can be gleaned from the statistics I have quoted, the cost is widespread and pervasive. For every perpetrator of crime within our correctional facilities, at least one other person's life has been adversely affected. The Victims Compensation Tribunal chairman's report for 2004-05 noted that the tribunal received approximately 5,000 applications for compensation. In 2004-05, 5,616 claims for compensation were determined and $61.56 million paid out in statutory compensation. Approximately $3.6 million was recovered by restitution action, which is the highest in any year. That is the very tip of the iceberg on meeting victim's needs and upholding their rights.

This bill seeks to entrench a mechanism to compensate victims of crime, albeit in some small fashion. The bill upholds the ability of the Office of State Revenue to levy a fine from persons convicted on indictment or otherwise. The levy will be $70 when the person is convicted on indictment and $30 in other cases. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that the compensation levy will be paid into the Victims Compensation Fund, from which compensation under the Act is paid to the victims of acts of violence. The Christian Democratic Party applauds this measure. The stated purpose of the bill is to force those who commit criminal offences to make a personal contribution to the compensation of victims of crime. As many will say, it is about time. Most importantly, the levy is additional to the restitution that an offender is required to pay when the offender's victim receives compensation under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. It is important that all moneys levied in such a fashion are given to victims. Transparent mechanisms are necessary to ensure that this occurs. I would be interested to find out exactly how this money is given to victims and for what particular purpose.

The levying of this fine has occurred for almost a decade. Clause 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 previously authorised the deduction of such levies from inmates' prison earnings. Section 80 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996, which allowed for such a regulation to be enacted, was repealed when the Fines Act 1996 commenced operation. Within the Fines Act 1996 the phrase "compensation levy" was included in the definition of a "fine". It follows that when section 80 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 was repealed, clause 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 was also repealed, albeit implied. Further, the entire Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 later lapsed under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. However, compensation levies continued to be deducted from the earnings of inmates in accordance with established procedures. This bill seeks to remove any doubt that a compensation levy can be exacted from prisoners under the Fines Act 1996.

This bill inserts section 18 into the Fines Act 1996. Section 18 is similar to clause 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 and will ensure that compensation levies can continue to be deducted from inmates' prison earnings. Compensation levies are defined as "fines" for the purpose of the Fines Act 1996. The Act allows the State Debt Recovery Office to enforce fines imposed by courts. The office enforces such levies against offenders who are not imprisoned and this money is also paid into the Victims Compensation Fund.

It has been suggested that a compensation levy payable under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 might be construed as not being "imposed by a court". The bill inserts new section 4 (2A) in the Fines Act 1996 to provide that a compensation levy is taken to be a fine imposed by a court. This will put the enforcement of compensation levies under the Fines Act 1996 beyond doubt. Schedule 3 to the bill retrospectively validates the past collection of compensation levies, provided they could have been collected if the provisions of the bill were in force. As to the retrospective nature of this schedule, the Legislation Review Committee said:

Given that the bill only affects the means of enforcement of levies owed and not the imposition of such levies, and that the legality of such enforcement is only in doubt due to a legislative oversight, the Committee does not consider that the retrospective validation of the enforcement of compensation levies unduly trespasses upon personal rights and liberties.

The bill simply entrenches the current practice of levying inmates for the purpose of compensating victims. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.46 p.m.]: This bill simply reinforces an existing practice. Perhaps it could be said that it does not do anything. It is interesting that the practice has continued without the necessary legislation. I am concerned that the Government charges ahead and then brings in retrospective legislation to justify its actions. Although the levy on prisoners is fairly small, prisoners' wages are also extremely small. From their wages prisoners would buy little luxuries such as Vegemite or—perish the thought—cigarettes. Their wages are a fraction of the amount the Department of Corrective Services is paid for their work.

I do not have a problem with the concept of victims compensation in monetary terms. But we need to move away from the notion of linking punishment with money to the notion of providing some other type of restitution. Parliament seems very keen on the concept that the more money victims get the happier they will be. Some offenders who in youthful exuberance, folly or indifference damage others and then feel remorse for their actions can be encouraged to make some form of restitution. Some victims who have suffered injury can recognise that the offender was transiently foolish, the malice was not personal and the offender is remorseful. Governments should put more effort into the process of reconciliation. Prisoners are eventually released from gaol. It would be a better outcome if they were able to understand what they have done and show remorse for their crimes.

I am not sure that simply passing legislation to ensure that very small fines are collected to make a symbolic gesture is as important as other symbolic gestures one might make in restitution. If I seem to be nitpicking, I wonder whether the bill is nitpicking and whether we should be giving as much attention in the legislation that is passed in this place to measures that will lessen the amount of harm done to people while they are in prison, and perhaps even reducing the number of inmates. Perhaps we should look at strategies other than tiny token fines collected from the miserable portion of prisoners' wages to achieve restitution from the victims' point of view.

If we were to look at the bulk of legislation passing through this Parliament, the nature of that legislation, the obsession with punishment and widening dragnets, and the lack of thought about restitution, we would recognise that it is an indictment of the way society is thinking. It is also an indictment of this Government's and this Opposition's vision. The Opposition invariably supports these measures. We need to think beyond the square in this area. I do not feel strongly one way or the other about this bill—it involves such a small amount. However, it says something about the direction in which we are heading, and I do not think that is the correct direction.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In answer to the question asked by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, the levied funds are paid into the general Victims Compensation Fund. The fund pays for all compensation claims under the Victims Compensation Scheme. The Fines Amendment (Payment of Victims Compensation Levies) Bill will ensure that compensation levies can continue to be deducted from inmates' earnings by the State Debt Recovery Office under the Fines Act 1996. Compensation levies are paid into the Victims Compensation Fund, and in this way people committing criminal offences are required to make a personal contribution to the compensation of victims of crime. The bill facilitates the collection of compensation levies from offenders and is both in the public interest and in the interest of victims. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.55 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government's announcement in January that the land tax threshold for the 2006 land tax year would be increased from 330,000 to 352,000 dollars.

This measure will make land tax fairer and simpler and exempt thousands of "mum and dad" property investors from paying land tax this year.

Increasing the threshold provides a $53 million tax cut for NSW taxpayers and means that an additional 12,700 investment property owners won't pay any land tax this year.

This brings the number of investment property owners who paid land tax last year, but won't pay anything this year, to three hundred and ninety thousand.

The increase in the tax-free threshold of 6.7% matches the average increase in the value of land subject to land tax as determined by the independent Valuer General.

The 330,000 dollar threshold, initially set for the 2006 land tax year, was based on no increases in land values.
Because values have been assessed to have increased by the Valuer General... the Government has responded quickly to adjust the threshold.

This Government believes in sensible taxation, along with providing essential services which, as we all know, would be slashed if the opposition was ever to win government in New South Wales.

State revenue is used to fund healthcare, social security and welfare services, transport, education, public order and security.

Over the last five years the growth in expenditure across these areas alone has exceeded $9 billion.

In the 2005-06 Budget the Government announced a fairer and simpler land tax system.

This system reinstated a single land tax rate of $100 plus 1.7 percent of the land value above the threshold.

For example, if a liable property has a land value of $400,000, the tax payable would be 1.7 percent on the $48,000 above the new $352,000 threshold plus $100.

In this instance the tax paid would be $916, a reduction of $684 on the previous system.

The new single rate replaces the previous three-tiered tax scale that applied in the 2005 land tax year.

As a result of the Government's actions New South Wales remains more than competitive compared to other jurisdictions.

New South Wales now has the second highest tax-free threshold in the country, dwarfing those of Victoria at $200,000, Western Australia at $130,000 and South Australia at $110,000.

New South Wales also has one of the lowest top marginal land tax rates in the country, well below states such as Western Australia and Tasmania at 2.5 percent, Victoria at 3.5 percent and South Australia at 3.7 percent.

Principal places of residence and land used for primary production will remain exempt from land tax.

These two exemptions are the most well known but it may interest the house to hear that many other groups are granted land tax exemptions in New South Wales, including the following:

• Boarding Houses for low-income persons
• Retirement Villages
• Child Care Centres
• Friendly Societies
• Sporting Clubs
• Community Land Development
• Non-profit societies... clubs and associations
• Charitable and educational institutions
• Public gardens... recreation grounds and reserves

In addition, property owners will still have the option of gaining a 1.5% concession on their land tax bill should they decide to pay the total amount owed by the due date rather than in three instalments over a longer period of time.

Reforming the land tax system, including the increase in the tax-free threshold, is another example of this Government's determination to keep the New South Wales economy strong.

Combined with the abolition of the vendor duty, the 5% cut in workers compensation premiums, and most recently a $90 million payroll tax package for businesses setting up in employment priority zones, the increase in the tax-free threshold is more evidence of this Government's commitment to a strong New South Wales economy that is open for business.

The payroll tax measure was only one of a range of measures announced by the Premier on Thursday 23rd February.

Other initiatives include:

• A four year, $2.5 billion public sector savings plan building on $395 million in savings in IT and property outlined in last December's budget review

• A $13 million boost to the Department of State and Regional Development to drive investment and job creation in NSW, and

• Major reforms that will streamline the state's planning system...ensuring the economy remains competitive. This will cut zoning bottlenecks and delays, slashing red tape for major developments.

This Bill is another sensible taxation initiative from a government committed to sound financial management and a strong New South Wales economy.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.56 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Land Tax Management Amendment (Tax Threshold) Bill. We are in favour of cutting taxes in this State and we are appalled at the Iemma Labor Government's record. As everyone knows, New South Wales is the highest taxing State in Australia, and that addiction to taxation has led to a steady decline in our economy. This bill raises the land tax threshold from $330,000 to $352,000 with effect from the beginning of the 2006 land tax year. The Government claims that this measure will give taxpayers $53 million in tax relief. As most of us are aware, this is one of those corrections that the Government has been forced to make as a result of its addiction to any type of tax increase it can grab. Of course, we can trace the need for this change back to the 2004 mini-budget when the then Treasurer, Michael Egan, introduced the vendor tax and made some other tax grabs.

The result was that he drove the New South Wales property market to its knees. That then resulted in the unceremonious backdown that was forced on Morris Iemma in his first act as Premier last year. The Carr Government removed the land tax threshold in the 2004-05 budget and created 400,000 new land taxpayers. That is how callous this Government is and how little concern it has for the State's economy. In one grab it imposed a tax on 400,000 people. At the same time, it increased the tax rate to 1.7 per cent. It is good to see that it is following last year's removal of the tax on many of those taxpayers by raising the threshold again.

One issue that concerns the Opposition is that the Government has not attempted to deal with land tax problems in that it has not adopted the recommendations in the Ombudsman's October 2005 report. Among other things, the Ombudsman slammed the valuation system and made a number of recommendations about the valuation process that have not been implemented by this Government, and it does not seem to be very keen to do so. Although the Iemma premiership is based on the proposition that it is somehow a new government, the fact is that it has continued the same policies and approaches taken by the Carr Labor Government—it is imposing every possible extra fee, charge and tax that it can.

In January my colleague the honourable member for Southern Highlands in the other place summarised the new taxes and fees that have been introduced by Mr Iemma since he became Premier. They total about $700 million. They include increasing the stamp duty rate on insurance products from 5 to 9 per cent, costing families about $50 extra and businesses about $100 extra; increasing the waste and environmental levy by about $425 million; extending payroll tax from $1 million to $2 million; imposing new mining charges of $13 million to pay for government regulation; extending land tax disguised as tax minimisation measures costing about $5 million; imposing new mortgage duty totalling about $6 million; and imposing a $60 hike in water charges to pay for the desalination plant. We know that the Government is spending $120 million of taxpayers' money on that plant even though it says it is not proceeding with it.

Some 11 charges were also increased ahead of time, including Sydney Water rates by as much as 73 per cent, Heritage Office fees by 400 per cent and Hunter Water fees by 36 per cent. Department of Lands fees were also increased. In fact, everywhere one looks this Government takes the opportunity to increase taxes and fees. It is estimated that $60 million was gouged in vendor tax between the time former Premier Carr decided he was going and Mr Iemma's announcement when he assumed the premiership last year.

As I indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. We are in favour of lowering taxation and increasing economic activity in this State. That brings into stark relief the difference between the Opposition and the Morris Iemma Labor Government. Mr Iemma's refrain that New South Wales is open for business is pitiful—not only because he does not mean it, but because he leads a government of Labor political hacks dictated to by the union movement. They have no idea about economic prosperity and low taxes. We offer a real opportunity for an alternative.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.00 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Land Tax Management Amendment (Tax Threshold) Bill, which is a very straightforward bill to raise the land tax threshold from $330,000 to $352,000. The increase is in line with a claimed 6.7 per cent rise in land values. But we want to take this opportunity to make some general comments about land tax policy. Labor has made a ghastly mess of land tax over the past three years—a political mess and a policy mess. As a result, the opportunity for sensible debate about progressive tax reform has been lost. Michael Egan's mini-budget—which overhauled land tax rules—was a disaster. He brought forward two key changes: the abolition of the threshold and the abolition of the premium property tax. The removal of the premium property tax was appalling, and particularly galling from a Labor government. The premium property tax was a highly progressive tax.

At a time when public services in New South Wales are not up to scratch and the budget is under pressure, the abolition of the premium property tax was both regressive and financially irresponsible. With CountryLink services being cut, public schools and hospitals under pressure, and Sydney's public transport in dire straits, the revenue from the premium property tax could have been put to great use. We really need to reconsider land tax from scratch, and design a fair, progressive and efficient system. I spoke in more detail on this topic with regard to the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill in 2004. But, sadly, Labor's mismanagement and poor judgment has set back sensible land tax reform debate by about a decade. Now it is policy on the run in the lead-up to the election. Once again, the people of New South Wales and the environment will be the losers.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.02 p.m.]: I support the Land Tax Management Amendment (Tax Threshold) Bill. I believe that if there is to be land tax, the threshold must change with the increased value of the land so that it reflects inflation. Otherwise, of course, there would be an immense creep in the amount of tax paid because property values are increasing much faster than people's wages or the consumer price index. This worries me a little. I believe the preferential treatment of real estate for investment in Australia has been a mistake on the part of the Howard Government. As I have said on other occasions in this House during debate about land tax, it is not wise for Australia to spend so much of its money on property speculation, as opposed to industrial wealth creation. Indeed, I quoted a series of articles from the Australian Financial Review on the subject. However, given that that happens, clearly the land tax threshold must change for the benefit of people who have small investments.

I was contacted by one of my constituents who is concerned about an anomaly in the legislation. With regard to mum and dad investors, if the mum owns a property valued at $352,000 and the dad owns a property valued at $352,000, they would both be just below the land tax threshold. However, if the mum and dad investors together purchase property valued at the sum of those two properties—in other words, $704,000—they would be liable to $6,084 in land tax. In other words, the threshold does not apply to each individual. This seems to be an anomaly, in the sense that it changes the nature of the investment even though the same amount of money is invested by the couple. My constituents have asked for clarification of the matter. I recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary will not have sufficient time to investigate the apparent anomaly and provide such clarification in his reply, but I ask him to give an undertaking to look into the matter. It appears that a couple who jointly own two properties, rather than individually owning them, will be required to pay far more land tax than they otherwise would.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.05 p.m.]: I wish to make a brief contribution to debate on the Land Tax Management Amendment (Tax Threshold) Bill, which proposes to raise the tax-free threshold for land tax from $330,000 to $352,000 from for the start of the 2006 tax year, a saving of an estimated $53 million to the investors and taxpayers of New South Wales. While this may sound like a very generous offer to the people of New South Wales, it must be kept in perspective. As the member for Southern Highlands in another place pointed out in her address, the new Premier has introduced 14 new taxes since his appointment, which raise an extra $700 million from New South Wales taxpayers. So the $53 million he is giving back pales into insignificance when measured against increases of $700 million.

The Carr Government removed the threshold in the 2004-05 budget and 400,000 small investors suddenly became land taxpayers for the first time. At the same time the vendor duty was introduced, so we had a situation where New South Wales investors were being hit with a triple dipping tax: you were taxed when bought land, you were taxed while you owned land, and you were taxed when you sold land. The fact that the Government was collecting tax on both the sale and the purchase of the same transaction is moral highway robbery, and investors left New South Wales in droves and headed to Victoria and Queensland. It applied to all land, unless you used it for agriculture or you slept on it.
The whole issue of land tax must be considered in concert with the process in place for valuing land in New South Wales. A recent Ombudsman's report slammed the land valuation process in New South Wales as having a systemic and chronic problem of undervaluation. The Government has now used this situation as the justification for applying unchecked and unvalidated increases in land valuation across the State, in many cases completely unrepresentative of actual market land values. This increase in land values is way in excess of the increase in the threshold that the Government is proposing, delivering to the Government yet another tax windfall on top of the windfalls it has received every year during the property boom from stamp duties.

The February 2006 round of valuations saw land values across the State rise by 4 per cent, during which period the sale prices for land were actually decreasing. The situation was even more serious for investors, as valuations on land that was subject to land tax actually increased by 6.7 per cent, and that created a lot of anger throughout the investment community. Land tax revenues were $188 million higher than forecast during 2004-05, yet this bill proposes to hand back just $53 million of that—hardly something the Government should be publicly back slapping itself for, although no doubt the Treasurer would be gleefully rubbing his hands together, saying behind closed doors, "Ha ha, they didn't see that one coming." In a time when the Government is talking about shedding some of its public service excess, it appoints an additional 400 land tax collectors! It does not seem to care about providing services that help people with the day-to-day issues they face, but it sure has time to find the money for an extra 400 tax collectors.

I referred earlier to unvalidated and unchecked increases in valuations. National and Liberal members in another place gave many examples of this, with valuations increasing by up to 100 per cent without any justification. On the Northern Tablelands, non-urban land property values are almost solely dependent on soil type, with basalt soils being more valuable than trap soils or granite soils. Soil types are typically extremely variable, with all soil types in close proximity and in many cases the three soil types present on individual properties. The valuation procedures involve taking the highest value property in the vicinity, being a basalt soil property, and applying that value to the granite soil property next door, with the result that the granite soil property is allocated a value far in excess of what that property would achieve in the marketplace. This has happened in many cases around Inverell, and it is a practical reality of the problems the Ombudsman recognised—insufficient checks and balances in the system, inaccurate assessments, and little understanding of the local variations and conditions.

Some concern has been expressed to me that local rates will escalate because of increased land values, but this is not entirely correct because of the rate pegging legislation. However, in the case I just mentioned concerning the granite property increasing in value when compared with the basalt soil property, it will have an effect on local council rates as a result of the comparative value between the two properties—a problem further exacerbated for the granite property as the basalt property is far more productive than the granite property. However, the major issue is not council rates, it is land tax rates. The way the tax is administered means it is a State-levied capital gains tax_as the value of the land goes up, the landowner pays more land tax after each valuation.

Australian Labor Party members in another place made it clear that investors are reaping the benefits of capital gain as the value of their land increases. Members opposite should remember that increasing land values does not mean that people have more money to spend; it is not liquid cash until such time as the land is sold. We hear reports of elderly people having a home on two blocks of land and they suddenly get a land tax bill for an extra $6,000 or $7,000 a year but they do not have any additional cash. It is simply a case of a Robin Hood government again—only Robin Hood robbed the rich to pay the poor and this Government robs the poor to pay its tax collectors.

The honourable member for Ballina in the other place noted that Australia's social security bill is $63 billion, 30 per cent of the entire Federal Government's budget. He said that we must make people financially independent. Investing in land and property is a good way of investing in one's future financial means and achieving financial independence. However, during the process of establishing that independence small investors may find their asset value improving but their cash flow reduced as they attempt to improve the equity in their assets_they are asset rich and cash poor. It is the same scenario as the elderly couple who owned their home on two blocks for many years but are caught by the inequity of a land tax system that is inflexible and non-responsive to the individual needs of people.

The other group of people who are expected to pay land tax are those who rent their business premises or their home residence. Businesspeople who rent their premises from the private commercial industry will, of course, pay land tax indirectly. However, we heard only last week that business owners who rent premises on Crown land are now being hit with land tax, with accounts for up to five years in arrears being sent to some business operators. This is an extraordinary situation. Private landowners have to pay their land tax and try to recoup it through increased rents; public landowners do not pay land tax, but the leaseholders are expected to pay it directly.

Home renters are not necessarily investors_many of them are attempting to save enough money to buy their own home_yet they are indirectly paying land tax through increased rents. Of course, that slows their saving ability and keeps them in rental accommodation for longer. This is a discriminatory tax on people who need to rent their homes. People who own their home or who are paying a home mortgage do not pay land tax on their principal place of residence, but those who rent a home pay land tax through increased rents. Again, the Government is robbing the poor to pay the tax collectors.

The honourable member for Murrumbidgee in another place pointed out that when we drive people away from investing in residential property the pool of available residential rental accommodation diminishes. The well-documented rules of supply and demand then force residential rents to increase. The Government seems to have a view that land tax affects only rich landlords and the investors. However, it affects small mum and dad investors, elderly people and people on fixed incomes, people who are attempting to provide for their retirement and home renters. Many people are indirectly impacted upon by land tax. As has already been stated, The Nationals and the Liberals will not oppose this bill but we believe it does not go far enough in raising the threshold because of the increased land values. It does not remove the discriminatory aspects of the tax on those less fortunate than those it is supposed to tax.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge the query of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. Because of the short notice I shall arrange for the Office of State Revenue to take details of his representation and advise him directly. The Land Tax Management Amendment (Tax Threshold) Bill implements the Government's announcement in January that the threshold for exemption from land tax would be increased from $330,000 to $352,000. The 6.7 per cent rise in the tax-free threshold matches the average statewide increase in the value of land subject to land tax. It means that thousands of property investors at the lower end of the scale become exempt from paying land tax this year. Approximately 12,700 additional investment property owners will not pay any land tax this year. This brings the number of investment property owners who paid land tax last year, but who will not pay anything this year, to 390,000.

By raising the threshold the Government is providing a $53 million tax cut. The measure is one of four tax cuts delivered by the Government in the past eight months. In addition to the threshold change, the Government abolished vendor duty in August 2005—saving New South Wales taxpayers $358 million in 2005-06_reduced workers compensation premiums by 5 per cent and introduced a new payroll tax concession in February targeting areas of above average unemployment. This measure is expected to boost business in New South Wales to the tune of $90 million over the next five years. That is what the Government has been doing to strengthen the New South Wales economy. It begs the question: What has the Opposition been doing in the meantime? Disturbingly for the people of New South Wales, the Opposition has been doing what it normally does best—talking New South Wales down, failing to produce any sensible policies and wildly launching a reckless $22 billion spending spree. Be under no illusions: the greatest risk faced by the New South Wales economy is the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Vaucluse, and his big spending frontbench colleagues.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, the Hon. Henry Tsang is supposed to be speaking in reply to the bill. None of these matters was raised in the debate and they are totally irrelevant to a speech in reply. I ask you to direct the honourable member to speak in reply and to not deal with irrelevancies.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: To the point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce brutally attacked the Government on various issues in his contribution. This is a direct response to what the Opposition is doing. The Opposition is talking New South Wales down and spending big. Therefore there is no point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Penny Sharpe): Order! The contribution of the Hon. Henry Tsang should remain relevant to the question before the Chair.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: While the Premier is outlining a series of sound economic measures—sensible and deliverable measures—the Opposition is spending like Paris Hilton on Rodeo Drive.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, the Parliamentary Secretary, acting as the Minister, is exhibiting not only his inexperience but also his arrogance. He is flouting your ruling, and I ask you to warn him that he should not flout your rulings.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Penny Sharpe): Order! The Hon. Henry Tsang is making some concluding, and relevant, comments. He may continue.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: The Opposition is fiscally dangerous. Its crazy spending proposals would rip New South Wales' triple-A credit rating to pieces, sending the State bankrupt. People in New South Wales ask the question: Where is all this money going to come from? While this fiscally irresponsible gaggle from the other side continues on its dangerous path, the New South Wales Government is making sound and responsible policy decisions. This bill is an example of the Government's commitment to sound financial management and continuing economic growth. I commend this wonderful bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [6.20 p.m.]: I raise concerns being experienced by the New South Wales Developmental Disability Clinic, which is situated on the campus of the Royal Ryde Rehabilitation Centre. The health unit was established with the assistance of the Centre for Developmental Disability Studies at the University of Sydney and was originally the result of work carried out by Dr Helen Beange, who was awarded an Order of Australia for her work for people with disabilities. She is now retired, but excellent physicians such as Dr Jane Law, a general practitioner from Sydney's eastern suburbs, now carry on her work.

This clinic absolutely operates on a shoestring and has only four staff—a receptionist-nurse and three part-time doctors—but its work is incredible. The clinic identifies, studies and addresses the complex medical needs of many people with disabilities. It recognises that people with disabilities often have multiple complex medical requirements that often need to be treated holistically. Many of these medical needs are made all the more complex by the social settings in which the person with the disability lives. For example, a person with intellectual disability may also suffer from obesity and depression. He or she may well be living with ageing carers who themselves have complex medical needs and suffer from clinical depression. The clinic is extremely popular, as evidenced by its hundreds of clients. The waiting time to gain access to the clinic is sometimes up to a year, but commonly about six months. Clients treated by the clinic are given a thorough evaluation and examined for periods of up to two hours. Advice is then given to their carers, local general practitioners and other allied specialists to ensure that the medical regimes administered to them are appropriate and well co-ordinated.

This incredible clinic, which does wonderful work, has requested a grant of $250,000 from the Government, either from the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care or the Department of Health. The staff would like to develop it to become a centre of excellence, employing the services of general practitioners and other allied specialists such as psychologists, dieticians and speech pathologists. One would have thought that the decision to fund a clinic such as this would be simple. The related service, the Centre for Developmental Disability Studies associated with the University of Sydney, operates on a shoestring also and it maybe the only academic unit in the State, and possibly the country, that studies the medical needs of people with disabilities.

These two services have sought what one might regard as fairly modest funding from the Government, but both departments have refused to grant them the $250,000 they have requested. They also sought $90,000 for another program to enable them to secure basic secretarial services because the booking procedures for their clients require considerable resources and the funding would also give them access to a few allied specialists. Again, the Government refused. As Dr Law explained, the State Government does not want to fund specialist clinics like this because it would prefer to place the care of developmentally disabled adults into the hands of general practitioners and shift the cost back to the Federal Government. This is another example, similar to the Life Start Program, to which I drew attention during question time today, of how the Government has its priorities wrong.

Organisations that do important work for vulnerable people are left wanting because the Government wastes enormous amounts of public money. It has nothing to do with misallocation of GST, about which the Government today initiated a $400,000 political campaign. One-quarter of that amount would allow the centre to continue its work, and half that sum would expand and improve the centre. The work undertaken by the clinic is infinitely better than anything that could be achieved by today's campaign launch. That funding would have greatly assisted families who care for people with disabilities and have contributed immensely to their health and wellbeing. But the Government has obviously lost its way; it no longer cares. It prefers to fund spin rather than substance, and I am sure all members find that utterly regrettable.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [6.25 p.m.]: I bring to the Parliament's attention the plight of Macedonians who have been denied the right to ethnic self-identification by the States of Greece, Bulgaria and Albania, as well as by Australian governments, under pressure from a lobby of the Greek state. Following the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 Macedonia, which was until then part of the Ottoman Empire, was divided between Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania. In a bid to create an ethnically homogenous nation, each of those states adopted the policy of denying indigenous Macedonians the right to maintain their own ethnic identity.

After World War II, following struggles by the Macedonian Liberation Movement, the Serb-occupied part of Macedonia was established as a Macedonian republic within the Yugoslav Federation. In 1991 the Republic of Macedonia became a sovereign and democratic state, recognised by the international community. But Greece, Bulgaria and, to a lesser extent Albania, continue to deny the existence of a Macedonian ethnic identity. Greece has extended this policy to denying the Republic of Macedonia the right to call itself Macedonia. To appease the Greek Government and its international lobby, some members of the international community, including Australia, have refused to recognise Macedonia under its proper name, and refer to it by the absurd name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

When Macedonian Australians declare their country of origin as Macedonia, Australian government departments record their country of origin as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". This is despite the fact that over 120 countries, including the United States of America, Russia and China, have now recognised the Republic of Macedonia under its proper name. In 1994 the Australian Government further appeased the Greek Government's lobby by adopting a policy that all Australian government departments and agencies should refer to Australian Macedonians as "Slav Macedonians", with the official excuse that it was necessary to distinguish Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia from Greek Macedonians.

Australian Macedonians are an ethnic community originating not only from the Republic of Macedonia, but also from parts of Macedonia under Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. They find it discriminatory and oppressive that the Australian Government should impose on them any identity other than the identity they have determined for themselves. I am not aware of any other ethnic community towards which Australia has adopted such a policy. In a report entitled "Denying Ethnic Identity: The Macedonians of Greece", Human Rights Watch-Helsinki found:

The Greek Government denies that a Macedonian minority exists in Greece. It refers to ethnic Macedonians as "Slavophones" or "Slav-Speakers". The official Greek position is that the Greek state is ethnically homogenous, the only exception being the Muslim minority in western Thrace—which is in reality a Turkish minority—whose existence was confirmed in 1923 by the Lausanne Treaty …

The Greek Government's denial of the existence of the Macedonian minority violates international human rights agreements to which the Greek Government is a party. [Under international law], minority identity is a matter to be determined by the individual, and not by the state.

In May 2004 the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights urged Greece to reconsider its position with regard to the recognition of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, and invited it to ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 1995.

In June 2004 the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance noted that "persons wishing to express their Macedonian, Turkish or other identity incur the hostility of the population". The commission encouraged the Greek authorities to take further steps toward the recognition of the freedom of association and expression of members of the Macedonian and Turkish communities. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Religious and Linguistic Minorities requires that:

… States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity. (Article 1 (1))

Greece's denial of the existence of the Macedonian minority clearly contravenes its obligations under international law and agreements. A multicultural country like Australia should be strongly discouraging such an oppressive policy, rather than reinforcing it with its own denial of the Macedonian ethnic identity. If Australia had a bill of rights to give domestic force to international human rights law, the Government's refusal to respect the right of Macedonians to self-identification would likely be declared by a court as a breach of human rights. Australian Macedonians reject being identified as Slav-Macedonians or Former Yugoslav Macedonians. Australia should respect the right of Australian Macedonians to self-identification and should urge other countries to do likewise.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.30 p.m.]: In talking about the success of the medically supervised injecting centre located in Kings Cross, I shall refer to two matters. The first is a newspaper article of 11 March that reports on a detailed study of the successful operation of the centre. I draw the attention of honourable members to an account of the first few years of the centre written by its director, Dr Ingrid van Beek, entitled In the Eye of the Needle. I thank John Weate from Great Lakes Council for kindly giving me this fascinating book. Honourable members will remember that the injecting centre grew out of a recommendation—perhaps many recommendations–of the Drug Summit held in the Parliament in 1999. I pay tribute to the then Premier Bob Carr for organising the Drug Summit. I also pay tribute to many members of Parliament, representatives from various groups, including health and police, and many others involved in issues centring on drugs during the fruitful week of discussions that took place.

As with most summits, the Drug Summit was notable because several people changed their minds after listening to the debate. I think we all move forward when that happens. It may be remembered that, arising out of the decision to trial a medically supervised injecting centre, it was decided that the centre would be run by the Sisters of Charity health service, which is linked to St Vincent's Hospital. Consequently, it was a great disappointment when Archbishop Pell, as he then was, persuaded various authorities in the Vatican that the Sisters of Charity should be ordered not to proceed down that path. However, as it turned out, perhaps that was a good thing. The Kirketon Road Centre, run by Dr Ingrid van Beek, was successfully dealing with not only the medical needs but also a variety of social and other needs of injecting drug users. The centre was in the area and was familiar with the issues, and it was willing to take on the onerous task of running the injecting centre.

The medically supervised injecting centre opened on 6 May 2001. A report by the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research has produced what I think are some astounding but impressive figures. Since the centre opened in May 2001 it has supervised more than 214,400 visits and managed 1,262 drug overdoses without a fatality. These figures cover the first 3½ years of the centre's operations, up to December 2004. Many of us remember when it was a regular occurrence to open a newspaper or watch a television news program and learn that yet another person had been found dead of a drug overdose, often in the inner city but also in other parts of Sydney.

The injecting centre has been successful not only in preventing these preventable deaths but also, in many cases, in helping get people back on track by leading a life that works for them. Whether it is other medical issues, housing issues, a need for social support or addressing homelessness, the centre has played a role that goes way beyond its narrowly defined tasks. During the time covered by the report, the centre had referred 3,620 people for drug treatment and health and medical care. Obviously the report contains a number of other statistics. The 1,700 overdoses that occurred up to the end of 2005 were treated immediately—in other words, an average of 20 to 30 minutes sooner than if they had occurred on the streets. Dr van Beek made that point in her book and when talking about this report. The centre ensured that people survived, and survived without great harm.

Unfortunately, the centre is still controversial, despite all its success. I am disappointed that even after all this time, and after the leading role played by some Opposition members, the member for Vaucluse, the temporary Leader of the Opposition, has vowed to close the centre if he becomes the Premier. I cannot think of a more retrograde step in relation to injecting drug users. I certainly hope that that is one policy area on which he changes his mind.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [6.35 p.m.]: Earlier this month I visited the Elderslie and Spring Farm new land releases at Camden with Camden mayor Fred Anderson and deputy mayor Chris Patterson. If one accepted the spin from the Premier and planning Minister Sartor, one would expect the releases to be proceeding apace. However, the reality is that there is no essential infrastructure, a lack of co-ordination between New South Wales government agencies, and confusion over funding. The Elderslie and Spring Farm releases are tests of the Iemma Labor Government's commitment and capacity to deliver on its metropolitan strategy. The residents of Camden have a right to be wary of the Iemma Government's proposals because of Labor's abysmal track record on these projects.

The Elderslie development comprises the potential of about 2,000 lots located between the existing suburb of Elderslie and the Camden golf course, bounded by Camden Valley Way and the Camden bypass. Spring Farm comprises a further 4,500 lots also on the end of Camden. These release areas are at the pointy end of the 155,000 dwellings and 80,000 jobs forecast over the next 25 years as part of the metropolitan strategy for south-western Sydney. The Government's responsibility is to provide the necessary infrastructure to support these developments, including transport links, water and sewerage, electricity and social facilities such as schools and hospitals. But this Labor Government's record in all these areas is a worry.

As the Property Council's report this week shows, the Labor Government is trying to push all the cost of this infrastructure on to first home buyers. Developers and purchasers acknowledge the need to make a contribution, but the money must be used to deliver infrastructure in time for occupancy. At Camden the Iemma Government is proposing a levy of $15,000 per lot to cover regional transport. But already the Government's response has been appallingly slow, as seen in the upgrade of Narellan Road, which is the major expenditure for this levy. The works have been going on forever and are still not finished. Similarly, the anticipated rail link, the southern rail link, is way off in the never-never. Supposedly, the Government has allocated $360 million for the acquisition of the route for the southern and northern rail links, but little, if any, of this funding has been spent.

In Camden the construction of Liz Kernohan Drive, the link road between Camden Valley Way and the Camden bypass, has stalled because the Roads and Traffic Authority has not determined the nature of the connection at the Camden bypass and has not funded the alterations to the Camden bypass that will be required. Yesterday the Minister for Roads said he had no idea when this would be funded.

Similarly, Sydney Water has yet to do anything to connect the Mt Annan Reservoir to the new land releases at Elderslie and Spring Farm, which is needed for these new release areas. At present there is only capacity to supply water to about 750 lots, and a new primary school in Elderslie has also been stalled by the Department of Education and Training, which will only commit when the first 200 homes have been built. Where are the funds for this important part of social infrastructure for the community? Of great concern to residents also is that funding is also lagging for construction of the links between existing areas and the new development. I am talking here about construction of cycle ways, paths and roads, which are necessary in large areas.

I saw on Camden Valley Way that the pathway for children attending the new sports facilities along the verge of a very busy road has not been completed. I hope that this exercise is not a cynical repeat of other exercises by the Iemma-Sartor Labor Government. Recently the local press highlighted what occurred in Blair Athol in Campbelltown. Even though it was developed a decade ago, the suburb still has no sporting facilities, no neighbourhood centre, no post office box, no playground equipment, no street furniture and no public toilets. Given the Iemma Labor Government's track record and lack of funding for the development, the residents of Camden have every reason to be wary for the area's future. Residents of the Camden area have accepted the need for further land releases but they rightly want assurances that their urban lifestyle will be protected. That necessitates the Iemma Government providing the infrastructure necessary to support new land releases.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [6.40 p.m.]: Experto crede: trust the expert! For years, indeed for some decades, we have been hearing from many so-called experts in a number of fields about the benign nature of cannabis. So-called experts have informed us that cannabis is not particularly addictive or does not present any major threat to health. Indeed some have argued that it is a perfectly safe recreational drug. Tragically many people today, particularly the young, have a fundamentally flawed and, I would argue, dangerously naive understanding of the serious health and wellbeing implications of cannabis.
No longer can the argument be sustained that the jury is out. The fact of the matter is that the jury is back and the news is not good. Indeed the tide of evidence against the benign nature of cannabis has in fact become a tidal wave. It is not an exaggeration to say that there is now a continuous stream of medical and scientific evidence being produced that puts beyond any doubt the deleterious effects of cannabis. It seems to me that if we are concerned, as we all are, about the health of young people now and into the future, we have no time to waste when it comes to setting the record straight. In truth cannabis never was a soft drug. However over the past 20 to 30 years of selective breeding of hybrid varieties of cannabis sativa, the THC concentrations in leaves and flowerheads is now between 5 to 50 times more potent than their 1960's predecessors.

I invite all honourable members to take the time to read the recent February 2006 NSW Health Department report titled "Cannabis and Associated Physical and Mental Health Risks: A Survey of Research Evidence". The report is only eight pages long but it contains very detailed footnotes and references; it is most comprehensive. It examines the most contemporary domestic and international research. In particular it looks at a number of longitudinal studies. The key elements of the research findings include:

cannabis has a detrimental effect on the cardiovascular system. When smoked, cannabis harms the respiratory and immune systems. Reproductive organs can be harmed through frequent use and foetal development impaired;

cannabis warps perception, reactions are slowed, motor skills are impaired and concentration is more difficult;

premature ageing in the area of the brain responsible for short-term memory (hippocampus) can be caused by habitual use. Cannabis has also been linked to slowed brain development and brain damage through frequent use, particularly if consumed at a young age;

there is a strong link between cannabis use and psychosis, particularly schizophrenia;

chronic use of cannabis is linked to high rates of depression, anxiety and lack of motivation in long-term users;

cannabis use is often part of a wider pattern of substance use, including cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs;

research is increasingly suggesting that cannabis is an addictive drug, which can cause physical and psychological dependence; and

young people who use cannabis frequently are at an increased risk of experiencing mental health and developmental problems, and other adverse outcomes, including suicide, other substance misuse, criminal behaviour, poor performance at school and reduced life opportunities.

The report by the NSW Health is measured and was carefully written. I am sure that its wording was struck after a decision was made about the clearest and most accurate way to express the medical and scientific evidence that is currently available. When commenting on the report the Minister for Health, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, said:

With the incidence of mental illness among cannabis users on the rise, it is now more important than ever to take action.

Anyone who thinks cannabis is a soft drug should come to visit a psychiatric unit to see its devastating affects.

Using cannabis is self-inflicted destruction of the mind and body. This report should silence the apologists for the so-called soft drug market.

The Minister is dead right, and I congratulate him on speaking out so forthrightly on the matter. It is time to be clear. For the sake of young people now and into the future we all should speak out and state the facts. In terms of explaining to young people in accurate, straightforward terms the implications of using drugs, both legal and illegal, I cannot recommend highly enough the book written by Tom Scott and Trevor Grice, The Great Brain Robbery—What Everyone Should Know About Teenagers and Drugs. The book went to a second edition last year and is published by Allen and Unwin. Young people want to hear it the way it is. They do not want or need mixed signals or doublespeak. Leo Tolstoy famously said:

I know that most men can seldom accept even the most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

Wise words indeed for many so-called experts to reflect on.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.45 p.m.]: The anger about the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill, which passed through all its stages last night, continues. I want to share with members excerpts from a letter that was sent to me by the Lithgow Environment Group. The group states:

Lithgow Environment Group (LEG) is very concerned about the direction planning legislation in NSW is heading.

The letter continues:

We believe any further weakening of already inadequate planning legislation in the hands of just one Minister will only exacerbate an already chronic situation in the Lithgow region.

Of particular concern is the lemma Government's subversion of democratic process and abuse of planning powers by imposing projects of State Significance on councils with weak planning instruments, such as the Lithgow City Council area.

In the last 12 months the Lithgow region has had to contend with nine (9) projects of State Significance, without any real public consultation, and in the absence of any Strategic Plans, REP's, LEP's or any other planning instruments to underpin these major decisions.

These projects include a Minimum Security Jail, the Modification (read expansion) of Mount Piper Power Station, Newne's Sand Mine, two (2) underground mine proposals, three (3) open-cut mine proposals, and the Emirates Resort in Wolgan Valley.

Minister Sartor's approval last week of a huge sand quarry at Newne's Junction pre-empts the findings of Sydney Construction Materials Strategy (SCMS), Gardens of Stone Proposal Stage 2, and wishes of the Lithgow community who are currently developing their first ever Strategic Plan for the Lithgow region for the next 20 years.

The letter goes on:

Minister Tripodi advertised modification of Mount Piper power station on 12 January 2006, in the middle of the school holidays. Lithgow residents were given just 2 weeks until 30 January 2006 to respond. It involves modifying a DA approved way back in 1982, when environmental standards were far more lax than today, and when local and global conditions were far different than today.

It will result in a 23% increase in production, 23% increase in greenhouse emissions, 1.7 million tonnes/year of dirtier coal burnt and hauled past our doors, an extra 1.54 million tonnes/year of fly-ash, 8 ML/year more brine with a very high salt content of 10,000mg/kg, and a 23% increase in water drawn from the once mighty Cox's River catchment, which is already in crisis.

Yet after the 14 week modification period, Delta will not create a single extra job to run the plant.

Justice Minister Tony Kelly continues to talk-up the minimum security prison project in the media as though it was a "done deal". Yet he has never consulted the local community. Not a single member of LEG has ever met a local resident who is in favour of this proposal. Yet our Labor member and Labor dominated Council continue to pretend the project has local support.

Further, the letter states:

The most appalling example of abuse of planning powers by both Local and State government in the Lithgow region is currently being played out in the small township of Blackman's Flat.

The residents of Blackman's Flat are currently facing four (4) projects of State Significance (Pine Dale open-cut mine; Extension of Lambert's Gully open-cut mine; Extension of Angus Place Colliery; and Modification of Mount Piper Power Station) PLUS a fifth project—Lithgow City Council's proposed Solid Waste Landfill. All are less than a kilometre from homes.

The letter continues:

Blackman's Flat township is now totally surrounded by hazardous and offensive industry, including Delta Mount Piper's massive fly-ash dams, open-cut mines, coal-fines Briquette plants, even the EPA is dumping hazardous waste on mining land in town under the WARR Act.

The letter concludes:

We have seen no evidence that development in NSW has slowed to the point that justifies such major changes to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. On the contrary, development in the Lithgow region, especially State Significant development, is out of control.

The Government would be wise to listen to groups such as the Lithgow Environment Group. Lithgow should not be used as a dumping ground any longer.

Motion agreed to.