Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 7 June 2007, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 7 June 2007

__________

The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

DUTIES AMENDMENT (FIRST HOME PLUS ONE) BILL 2007

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Costa.

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 set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 7 in the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Private Members' Business item No. 62 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. Charlie Lynn.

Private Members' Business items Nos 47 and 60 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Business of the House Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

RADIO 2GB PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT AND VOICE TAPE

Personal Explanation

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY, by leave : I wish to make a personal explanation. On 10 May 2007 and 6 June 2007 the Hon. Amanda Fazio and the Minister for Roads misled the House when referring to comments I made on radio station 2GB's Luke Bona program on Sunday 6 May 2007. I wish to correct the record. On 6 June in the Legislative Council the Minister for Roads said:

The commentator, listening carefully to the mumblings of lazy Duncan, said, "What's your solution?" He said, "Oh, well, it's a Sunday. Oh, gee whiz, that's a bit hard." That is why I think he is lazy.

On 10 May the Hon. Amanda Fazio misled the House when she said:

What was his answer last Sunday when he was asked on radio 2GB about his wish list for traffic issues on the northern beaches? His grand plan for the northern beaches was, "Well, umm, it is Sunday, umm, umm."

The transcript from the Luke Bona program on radio station 2GB for 6 May 2007 is as follows:

Bona: I don't know what the answer is, Duncan. Give me your pie in the sky wish list.

Gay: Well, it is Sunday. I'll try Luke. Look, part of it is what Jillian Skinner and Mike Baird have said. It is not the bridge as much as the points north and south, the congestion points in Mosman and the congestion points on the northern side of the bridge at the top of the hill. We need to be able to get through there easily. It is a process that should be planned as you indicated. The other thing is the transport. The ferries are not being used as much, the buses are not being used as much, it needs to be coordinated. The sad thing about this is we have lost four to six years of planning. If we started six years ago it would have been easier. I hope that they'll put, this committee that he has put in place that is now a replacement for a $50 million bridge, I hope that at the very least it has some local representation and in particular the three local members from North Sydney, Manly and Pittwater.

Bona: Okay, Duncan, good to talk to you.

The transcript is quite different from the statements made in the House. The Minister for Roads deliberately misled the House. I accept that the Hon. Amanda Fazio relied on the material given to her by the Minister for Roads in good faith. So, in fact, the Minister has deliberately misled the House on two occasions. As I indicated yesterday, I have the voice tape and transcript and can make them available to honourable members, if they so wish.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.13 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 59 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding a New South Wales Law Reform Commission report, be called on forthwith.

I am informed that the Minister is presently unavailable for this debate. I seek leave to withdraw the motion,

Leave granted

Motion withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 57 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Educational Support for Dyslexic Children Bill 2007, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 57 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT FOR DYSLEXIC CHILDREN BILL 2007

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Second Reading

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.16 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.
The Educational Support for Dyslexic Children Bill, as members would probably know, has been of deep concern to Mr Jim Bond. Mr Bond, who suffers from dyslexia, has campaigned for at least six years to have this provision included in the Department of Education and Training Special Education Initiatives for Students with Disabilities. The legislation is long overdue and should be resolved as soon as possible. The word "dyslexia" was first coined in 1887 by Rudolf Berlin. It comes from the Greek words "dys" meaning "impaired", and "lexis" meaning "word". Dyslexia is a neurological disability that specifically inhibits learning and literacy. The World Health Organisation defines "dyslexia" as:

… a disorder manifested by difficulty learning to read, despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and sociocultural opportunity. It is dependent upon fundamental cognitive disabilities which are frequently of constitutional origin.

According to the International Dyslexia Association, approximately 12 per cent of the population suffer from varying degrees of dyslexia. Some members of this House may suffer from it. Paediatric neurologist Dr Gordon Serfontein says that children with dyslexia suffer from what he calls the "hidden handicap". In his book The Hidden Handicap Dr Gordon Serfontein states:

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND STATE ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.21 a.m.]: I move:

Australia is doing well as a result of the fine economic management of the Howard Government. Unemployment has been down to 4.4 per cent, which is virtually full employment. The problems the country faces are more concerned with productivity and the lack of workers than anything else, except in New South Wales, which for the past 12 years and until very recently had been the highest taxing State Government in the country. Notwithstanding record revenues rolling in from the high taxes that the Labor Government has continued to impose, infrastructure is crumbling and the people of this State do not receive the services they deserve in health, education, transport and so on that State governments are supposed to deliver.

On the other hand, the Federal Government has presided over a long period of increasing prosperity for all Australians. The most compelling thing about the 8 May Federal budget was that the Federal Opposition Leader had no criticism of it. Mr Rudd could not find anything to criticise about it because he has to accept that the Federal Government is doing a fantastic job for the people of Australia. The Federal budget includes record GST payments to the States and increases in and record specific purpose payments for the States. The States—and in particular New South Wales—have no excuse for not delivering the services required by the people of this State, for not encouraging business to grow, or for the State's crumbling infrastructure.

The fact that the Federal Government has delivered record GST and specific purpose payments to the States again makes it indefensible for the New South Wales Government to delay removing inefficient State taxes, the removal of which was part of the original GST deal. The removal of those taxes was only grudgingly agreed to by the New South Wales Government, and they should have been removed by now. I note that the timetable for their removal has been extended. Notwithstanding that, the Labor Party, represented at the time by Premier Carr, signed up to the original agreement to remove them and to encourage business and economic prosperity in New South Wales in exchange for the GST payment.

I could take all of my time going through the details of the Federal budget, but it was handed down a few weeks ago and I am sure honourable members will have had time to read the details with a great deal of enthusiasm. However, I will outline a few of the very significant highlights. The Treasurer announced a budget cash surplus of $10.6 billion; GDP growth was 3.75 per cent; the inflation rate has been kept under control by the Federal Government's policies; CPI growth of 2.5 per cent is predicted; and wage growth is predicted to be 4.25 per cent. The budget also introduced very significant personal tax cuts of $34.5 billion over four years, which is worth a significant amount each week to the workers of Australia and, in particular, of New South Wales.

Announcements were made about significant new policies and new funding for education. The budget also included an allocation of $1,000 for apprentices and $500 for training fees, a $700 voucher for remedial tuition, and a $50,000-bonus for schools that improve literacy and numeracy. Honourable members might ask why the Federal Government has to provide these funds when education is constitutionally a State responsibility and New South Wales has record revenues coming from GST and specific purpose grants and record State taxes are rolling in. Of course, the only answer is that the State Labor Government is simply incapable of delivering the services required and dealing with its expenses.

The budget also increased the child-care benefit and allocated specific grants for rural assistance, aged care, and a package for the environment and climate. Again, the Federal Government, under Prime Minister Howard and Minister Turnbull, is showing the leadership that Australia deserves and needs while not taking an hysterical approach like that taken by the Labor Party. Defence and security are great strengths of the Federal Government and they are obviously areas for which the Federal Government has primary responsibility. The budget continues the Federal Government's policy of providing the funds necessary both to recruit the personnel and to provide the equipment required in a modern world to ensure an appropriate level of defence and security for Australia.

Of course, the other major area of demand is health. Again, additional funds were provided for medical research and dental health. When the Federal economy is contrasted with the direction in which New South Wales has been heading, it is a very sorry and sad story. As I said, New South Wales has been the highest taxing State in Australia. Prior to the last election numerous commentators expressed concern that New South Wales could even head into a recession. Thankfully for all of us, New South Wales was not driven into recession by this Government—but it was not as a result of any positive policies or any skill exhibited by the Premier and his Ministers that that occurred. Rather, New South Wales has been the beneficiary of the booming Australian economy brought about by the Federal Government. It has been the beneficiary of the resources boom. One has only to go to Newcastle to see the large number of ships lined up off the harbour, waiting to be loaded with coal to take to China and other countries. Additionally, of course, New Sout h Wales has been the beneficiary of the flow-on of massive tax revenues because of the low rate of unemployment. Payroll taxes have been flowing in and the State has been the recipient of other State taxes, including stamp duty on conveyances.

It is almost as if the New South Wales Government operates in a parallel universe to the economy of the State as a whole. The New South Wales Government continues to tax wherever it can, and to receive the benefit of record taxes, but it does not do anything to contribute to the growth of the economy. It has allowed one of the major sectors in the economy to become a real basket case, and that is the housing industry. Housing affordability has now reached the point that people cannot afford to buy into the New South Wales market as first home owners; the New South Wales rental market is now being squeezed; and we see a continuing trend of people being attracted to Australia as migrants, a lot of them being attracted to Sydney, but when they get here they cannot find a house and they rapidly run into the State Government's rapacious tax environment, so we see a continual flow of those people and others to Queensland, in particular.

One of the key aspects of Federal-State relations is the GST. In the last couple of years we heard a lot of bleating by Labor politicians about the GST. They were able to create an impression that there was an unfair deal, even though it was the Labor Party, in all the Labor States, that signed up to the GST agreement in the first place. Anyone who understands how the GST operates would know that the equalisation that occurs is pursuant to a formula which takes a five-year period and it changes with time. The Labor politicians will have to change their tune because from 2007-08, instead of Western Australia and Queensland being significant beneficiaries of the redistribution of GST funds, the position will have changed. In 2007-08 Western Australia will not be a beneficiary of the redistribution of GST funds; in fact, it will be one of the donor States, with a projected figure of, I think, more than $260 million. Queensland will still be the beneficiary of a very minor redistribution: just $58 million.

In accordance with Australia's long tradition of supporting the smaller States and the redistribution of income across the country, New South Wales and Victoria, as the wealthier States, will continue to be donors in the GST arrangements, joined by Western Australia, and Queensland will be basically lineball. If the Labor politicians want to continue to whinge about the redistribution that has been a characteristic of Australian fairness and the basis for the growth of the country, certainly since the 1930s, they will have to take some money back from their cousins in South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory. So the convenient line put out by the Labor Party will have to be changed, and the New South Wales Government will have to admit that the GST is performing exactly as its predecessor expected it to perform, when Bob Carr originally signed up for the GST. The horizontal fiscal equalisation effect was deliberate. As I said, since at least the 1930s the Australian economy has operated on the basis that there be a redistribution of taxes to assist the smaller States.

Another area of significant interest relates to the special purpose payments. The New South Wales Treasurer is now putting up the proposition that the Federal Government has received considerable funds in excess of its budgets over a period of time. That is definitely true. It is a reflection of the fine state of the economy brought about by the Federal Government's policies.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: And the mineral boom.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: And the mineral boom, absolutely—of which New South Wales also gets its share. The financial statements for last year show that the over-budget excess on coal royalties was either $191 million or $181 million. I am not sure of the figure, but it was certainly well over budget. So New South Wales, like all the other States that have coal industries, has been the beneficiary of that international phenomenon.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Where's the money gone?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As my colleague says, where has the money gone? It certainly has not gone into delivering the standard and quality of services that the people of New South Wales expect.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How much is wasted on advertising?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As the Hon. Rick Colless says, in the lead-up to the election the Iemma Government spent around $90 million on advertising.

The Hon. Rick Colless: More than Coca-Cola.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is right, more than Coca-Cola and all the other major advertisers. I want to debunk the proposition being put forward by the Treasurer that in some way the Federal Government, with excess revenues coming in, has not been spending sufficient money on infrastructure and capital works. The Treasurer ought to know that constitutionally the States have the major responsibility for the provision of infrastructure. One of the reasons that the Federal Government allows the States to have the GST, and why it gives the States special purpose payments, is so that the States can pay for the provision of infrastructure.

The Federal Government's requirements for infrastructure are, of course, much less than the requirements of the State Government because the Federal Government does not provide the same level of infrastructure as each State would. The Federal Government is responsible, obviously, for the Australian Capital Territory and for various other pieces of land, but it does not have a major expenditure on capital because it does not have the land mass and the other responsibilities that the States have. I draw the Treasurer's attention to Budget Paper No. 1 at page 628, which speaks about the Federal Government's capital investment.

According to that, net capital investment of $2 billion is expected in 2006-07. That reflects a couple of things: the construction of the National Portrait Gallery, the Christmas Island Immigration, Reception and Processing Centre and various other construction projects that are managed by the Department of Finance and Administration. It also included the continuing refurbishment and relocation of various overseas missions by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, investment in information technology by several agencies, including the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and various defence capital projects. I could go on at length to point out to the House that the Federal Government's capital expenditure regime is very different from this State's, but any honourable member who has read the Federal budget papers will see the nonsensical nature of what was being put forward by this Treasurer.

To show the real way Federal-State relations work, I draw honourable members' attention to Federal budget paper No. 3, which, on pages 76 and 77, runs through the capital elements of the specific purpose payments made for 2006-07. They include over $275 million for education, nearly $13 million for social security and welfare, $295 million for housing and community assistance, and about $634 million for transport—for which the Government provides hundreds of millions of dollars through AusLink. In 2006-07, $1.2 billion was provided through capital grant specific purpose payments to New South Wales. In 2007-08, capital grant specific purpose grants were $1.38 billion, including $762 million for AusLink, another $286 million in education, $302 million for housing and community assistance, and so on. That is the real story of what is happening in Commonwealth funding to this State. I hope the lies do not continue, because they just expose the Treasurer and some of his colleagues as being ignorant of the Federal-State financial relationship.

What has been the reaction to the Federal budget? As I said, the Federal Opposition leader could not find anything wrong with it. He had nothing to say in criticism; how could he when the Federal Government has been managing the country so well and the budget is such an excellent one? I could refer to a number of commentaries but I thought I would mention what the New South Wales Business Chamber said:

This is a budget focused on removing capacity restraints and improving the economic capacity of Australia.

It went on:

We are at a historic juncture. Net debt has been eliminated, employment is at record highs, company and resource taxation is strong and the deficit is long gone. This is a budget that should create a platform of growth for Australia.

It said further:

Whilst the budgets of most OECD nations primarily focus on trying to balance the books Australia is now focusing on improving and investing in the longer-term economic capacity of Australia.

That is what the Federal Government is doing and that is what the State Government ought to be doing. But what does it do? I hope the Treasurer includes in the budget he will bring down in a few days some policies to encourage investment in New South Wales and that the Government gets on with the massive job of rebuilding existing infrastructure and building the new infrastructure that is required in this State.

Instead of that, we continue to see a very poor performance by the New South Wales economy compared to the rest of the country. That has gone on for 12 years. The New South Wales economy is not a basket case but, compared to the performance by the other States, the New South Wales Government has not been able to deliver. Many of the statistics that have been produced support that contention. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics report "New South Wales in Focus 2007" found:

Economic growth in New South Wales was the slowest of all States and Territories. New South Wales has been growing more slowly than the Australian economy for the last five years.

So, despite the national economy growing strongly, New South Wales under the Iemma-Costa Labor Government is being held back by high State taxes, red tape and regulations. We have had the best national economic conditions for 30 years, and that is being squandered by the Iemma Labor Government and the Treasurer, who refuse to give business and the families of New South Wales vital tax relief. They should be ashamed not to have implemented that tax relief. The Australian Bureau of Statistics report " New South Wales in Focus 2007" also found that in 2006 New South Wales had the lowest gross State product growth of just 1.4 per cent, which was half the Australian growth rate of 2.8 per cent, and far below those of our competitor States. Victoria was at 2.7 per cent, Queensland at 4.9 per cent, Western Australia at 4.9 per cent, and South Australia, believe it or not, at 2.2 per cent—all way ahead of New South Wales.

The report also found that New South Wales lost more families in net migration than any other State or Territory, with 24,000 people leaving the State. Total investment in housing fell for the second year in a row, housing approvals fell for the fourth year in a row and housing commencements fell for the third year in a row. The New South Wales Nationals and Liberals expect the Iemma Labor Government to start responding to some of these problems. Since the election we have not seen much except a bit of bickering and squabbling over the spoils of victory, but in delivering for New South Wales there has been nothing much. For example, 22,000 residents are supposed to be moving into the south-west growth area but they will not get a rail link until 2020.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Maybe.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is right, maybe. Oran Park, according to the planning Minister—Frank Not-Orana Sartor—will get 7,500 new homes, which is around 22,000 new residents, but the provision of infrastructure by this Government has not commenced. The State Government has confirmed the south-west rail link will not be completed, if at all, until 2020. In relation to energy and water—it is great to see some rain today—the crisis that this Government has created is continuing.

I refer also to a couple of lines that the Treasurer is trying to run at the moment. One is that the Federal Government received extra revenue. We are toting up the excess revenue that the State Government received over the past 12 years and those figures will be very interesting. It will not surprise me if the total excess revenue over budget is certainly proportionate to that received by the Federal Government. After all, New South Wales is home to 6.9 million people and is approximately one-third of the nation's gross domestic profit. It is quite obvious that the State, with its high taxing regime, will have received a very significant proportion of the excess revenue that went to the Federal Government as well.

I conclude by again urging the House to congratulate the Howard Government on its fine economic management of the country. I particularly congratulate the Treasurer, Mr Costello, on his budget. I join Mr Rudd in recognising that excellent budget. If honourable members are serious about their role in this House they should start screaming down their Premier, Mr Iemma, and the Treasurer, Mr Costa, for their inability to properly manage this State, given that infrastructure and services are crumbling and the hard-earned dollars of the people of New South Wales are being wasted. [ Time expired.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.51 a.m.]: If anything, this House should compliment the Hon. Greg Pearce on his sense of irony in bringing forward this motion in which, as a Liberal, he wishes to criticise others for economic mismanagement, debilitating red tape, wasting millions of taxpayers hard-earned money, and failure to deliver on infrastructure and services that New South Wales deserves. The motion raises firstly economic mismanagement. The State Labor Government does not have a good record of economic management, and I would never describe myself as a fan of the Treasurer, but the Federal Coalition Government is no better.

The people of New South Wales might well want to ask a member of the Liberal Party, the shadow Treasurer, to explain why it is that the Federal Liberal-National Coalition Government has presided over eight interest rate rises in a row? Does the member call that good economic management? Strange indeed if he does, given that the Federal Coalition Government's test of good economic management at the last Federal election was its ability to keep interest rates low. By its own criteria the Federal Coalition Government fails the test of economic management.

Mr Pearce then went on to comment on debilitating red tape. Let us have a look at an astounding piece of red tape—the Federal workplace relations laws, still infamously known as WorkChoices. The legislation that introduced those laws was the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 1995. How the Prime Minister must now regret putting those words "Work Choices" into the title of the Act. He is now stuck with them, no matter how much his advertising gurus are telling him that the voting public hold them in contempt—a delicious irony that even now must have George Orwell chortling in his grave.
When the honourable member talks about red tape, he needs to look at the WorkChoices legislation. The bill comprised 691 pages, the explanatory memorandum ran to 570 pages and the regulations included over 400 pages—approximately 1,600 pages in all. This legislation affects either directly or potentially most employees and most businesses in this country. Not only is it grossly unfair; it is red tape gone mad and it was brought in by the very Federal Coalition Government that the honourable member wants to congratulate.

Does Mr Pearce really wish to criticise the State Government for wasting millions of taxpayers' hardearned money and not have us all fall around laughing? He obviously never reads the newspaper. Has he looked at John Howard's spending of millions of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on his desperate attempts to convince Australian voters to give him another turn in the Lodge—I should say another turn in Kirribilli House—because the Prime Minister has been happy to have hard-earned taxpayers' dollars spent on the cost of keeping him at his preferred residence in Sydney when he has a perfectly good prime ministerial residence in Canberra.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Have his kids left school yet?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Thank you, Mr Donnelly. At the last the Federal Coalition Government was on track to spend more than $100 million on the advertising campaigns it will run before the election, making a total of nearly $2 billion spent on government advertising, mostly partisan political propaganda, since it was elected in 1996.

This brings me to the last of the issues raised in the motion, a failure to deliver on services. Perhaps Mr Pearce would like to explain why the Howard Government chose to abolish the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which now means that hundreds of thousands of New South Wales citizens and their children are faced with poor dental health. I look forward to hearing the comments of Mr Pearce's rural colleagues on the effect that this abolition has had on rural dental health. This brings me to the last of the issues raised in the motion, a failure to deliver on services. Perhaps Mr Pearce would like to explain why the Howard Government chose to abolish the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which now means that hundreds of thousands of New South Wales citizens and their children are faced with poor dental health. I look forward to hearing the comments of Mr Pearce's rural colleagues on the effect that this abolition has had on rural dental health.

I conclude by directing Mr Pearce to an article by Ross Gittens, Economics Editor for the Sydney Morning Herald , on 30 May 2007. The article is an incisive and illuminating demolition of the Howard Government's failed water policy and I encourage all members of the House to read it. Most relevant to this debate are the final words of the article. Having pointed out the economic irresponsibility of the first element of the water plan, Mr Gittens then attacked the second element in the following terms:

The plan's second element is to spend $3 billion buying back from farmers the grossly excessive (and hence often unfilled) water entitlements given to them by State National Party ministers, particularly in NSW. Not bad if you can get it. Trouble is the Howard government's tender to buy back entitlements under an earlier scheme has just collapsed because the price the farmers demanded was too high. They think they're sitting on a goldmine—why wouldn't they? And all this from a government that thinks it's God's gift to good economic management.

I assure the House that neither the Federal Coalition Government nor the State Labor Government is God's gift to economic management in this State or in this country.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.58 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion regarding the Federal budget. There are many positive aspects to the budget, particularly their priorities given to low income families. The Federal Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, has done an excellent job as Treasurer, for all the years he has been doing it, with five or six budgets.

The Hon. Michael Costa: And the rest, Fred.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: We are discussing the Federal budget, not the State one. The New South Wales Treasurer will have to wait for this House to respond to his budget in due course. There are many positive aspects to the Federal budget. The evidence for that is the historic low level of unemployment. One would have to go back many, many years—more than 30 years—to find a time when unemployment was at the same low level. On top of that, there has been a dramatic increase in advertisements for jobs. I believe the Federal Government, through its budgets, has brought about low unemployment and increased employment opportunities. The Labor Party does not accept the proposition that real salaries and wages have increased. Labor members have made strong attacks claiming that real wages are lower. However, I believe real wages are higher.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

WORKCHOICES LEGISLATION AND BUSINESS INVESTMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that last week the President of the Hunter Business Chamber said that the Federal industrial relations WorkChoices laws have improved the region's workforce, that he is unaware of any employer doing the wrong thing, and that he went on to say, "This is something that employers, wanting greater contribution for their staff, have been taking advantage of in the sense of remunerating their staff for increased effort and performance"? Is the Minister also aware that on Monday the New South Wales Business Chamber called on the Minister's Federal Labor colleagues to reject the occupational health and safety charter of the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU], saying, "We never thought OH&S laws in New South Wales could get any worse"? Given that New South Wales business chambers are openly supporting the current Federal system and rejecting the New South Wales Government's occupational health and safety system, what independent evidence does the Minister have that harmonising a New South Wales industrial relations system with any future Labor Federal system will improve business investment and attract new business to New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is a little hard to follow the various bits of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, but I will attempt to respond to his speech. I am not aware of the specific comments of anyone from the Hunter Business Chamber. The Hunter has benefited mightily from the Iemma Government's outstanding economic policies. That has been the case not only before but also during and after the closure of BHP. The Hunter is fortunate to have a skilled advocate in my colleague the Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Joel put it in writing and directed it at the Treasurer for showing a lack of leadership.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for continuing to demonstrate that the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter is in touch and close to the Hunter business community and the Hunter economy. I will make a couple of points about the generalisations enumerated by the Leader of the Opposition as he went through what I think was a question. He appeared to ask me whether it was true that WorkChoices had had an adverse effect on the Hunter economy.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, I didn't say that at all.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If the Leader of the Opposition did not say that, it is difficult to know what he was saying.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I asked you a clear question about harmonisation. What evidence does the Minister have that harmonisation—

The PRESIDENT: Order! All interjections are disorderly. The Minister's answer should be relevant.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I would have thought that if I am not allowed to argue the question, then neither is the questioner.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you challenging the President's ruling?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, I am simply adding to the President's ruling; I am supplementing it.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are not allowed to do that.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Then I will not do that; I am happy to withdraw my comment. I meant no disrespect. I was simply making the point that the Leader of the Opposition was having a private conversation with the Treasurer during my answer and it was a little difficult to recall all the bits and pieces of the threads the Leader of the Opposition asked me about. It will not be a problem to harmonise a sensible industrial relations package. As I have said in this Chamber and repeatedly in public, there are four or five basic principles of good industrial law. Australians have lived with those principles for more than 100 years and they want to see them reinstated. People recognise that the old system had lots of problems and that it no longer suits a twenty-first century economy—something made very clear by Kevin Rudd—but they want an independent umpire. They want a fair safety net that is meaningful. They want a minimal amount of red tape in the way industrial disputes can be resolved. They believe, appropriately, in access to collective bargaining. Importantly, they believe in protection for individual contractors. They believe that whether they are in the Hunter or in any other part of New South Wales, or indeed any other part of the country.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That's not what the business chamber is saying.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: When they see the package, when they see the benefit of a better industrial relations system, I am sure they will support it. Last but not least, in a curious codicil to the Leader of the Opposition's question was something about occupational health and safety. The Leader of the Opposition made the point that the business chamber is opposed to the New South Wales occupational health and safety framework. However, that is not the attitude I have been able to divine from the business community in New South Wales. Indeed, many are concerned about the red tape and confused at the bloody-minded pursuit of Comcare. [ Time expired.]

TAFE FUNDING

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister inform the House about the State-Commonwealth funding arrangements for TAFE institutes in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Iemma Government commits more than $1 billion each year to TAFE institutes, while the Commonwealth contributes about $400 million towards training in the State for apprenticeships and traineeships, vocational education and training [VET] in schools and adult and community education. Perversely, instead of praising the outstanding results that our TAFEs are achieving in turning out skilled apprentices and trainees, the Commonwealth Minister for Vocational and Further Education has been attacking this country's largest training provider and the Australian vocational system. On one hand, Andrew Robb has criticised TAFEs in this State for not being autonomous enough, for being too much under the control of government; yet he has also criticised them for trying to raise funds from commercial courses. The degree of intellectual inconsistency and contempt for the very portfolio he has responsibility for is mind-boggling.

In a further attack, the Commonwealth proposes to fund TAFEs in the same way it funds universities—or, should I say, underfunds universities—for student places rather than teaching hours. That model has seen Australia's tertiary funding go backwards in comparison with every other OECD nation. The proposal lacks science and creates a less efficient model, but it presents the Howard Government with a new opportunity to wind back funding to TAFEs if they refuse to accept more WorkChoices-style red tape. Under the Howard Government, the proportion of total university funds declined from 57 per cent in 1996 to 42 per cent in 2005. Public investment in tertiary education in Australia has declined by 7 per cent between 1995 and 2003 while the OECD average increased by 48 per cent. If Mr Robb were serious, he would not float such a major change in the media and in his speech at the Hyatt; he would present a detailed proposal to the States, which own and run TAFE institutes.

A change to fund places rather than teaching hours is not a serious reform. It does not take into account the high cost of face-to-face teaching in areas of high skill demand versus lower cost Internet-based courses. I suspect that Mr Robb's calls for more TAFE autonomy is in fact code for opening TAFE up for privatisation. The Iemma Government's management of the TAFE sector is already working well. It balances operational flexibility with appropriate accountability and performance measures. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal review confirmed that New South Wales does not need statutory institutional autonomy. TAFE institute directors already have responsibility for staff selection, appraisal, remuneration and professional development.

But we are not resting on our laurels. The Iemma Government has a range of initiatives to increase the number of people undertaking vocational education and to meet the challenges provided by skills shortages. The initiatives include getting a head start in a trade with a TAFE New South Wales pre-apprenticeship course, and joining the 50 per cent of year 11 and 12 students who are now undertaking vocational education and training courses in schools. We are also building 25 trade schools across New South Wales at existing TAFEs and high schools to ensure that students reach their full potential. Further, through our Learn or Earn policy we will spend $67 million to create more than 12,580 training places over the next four years, and our Training Our Workforce commitment will see an investment of $47 million to upskill our existing workforce, including 8,300 places in TAFE for skills shortage areas. The Commonwealth should stop playing wedge politics in areas it has little or no practical experience and start working cooperatively with the States in this key policy area.

THE SPIT BRIDGE WIDENING

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister guarantee the residents of the Northern Beaches and the lower North Shore that all funds from the dumped Spit Bridge widening project will be used for other road infrastructure and related projects in that region?

The Hon. Michael Costa: I could guarantee that, yes.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you, Treasurer.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Government has a record Roads budget of $3.3 billion this financial year, and I have been speaking to the Treasurer about next year's Roads budget. Clearly, it is important that the road network operates as efficiently as possible. The Government has already set up a group to examine issues on the Northern Beaches post the decision to not proceed with the Spit Bridge widening project—because it did not stack up. The group is examining traffic flow, regulation intersections, the potential for additional tidal flow to facilitate better traffic flow and bus prioritisation. We are committed to finding solutions to these issues. Obviously it is a challenging task. We are moving forward in improving traffic flows in the area. I would refer to the Coalition's transport policy, except it does not exist. They did not release a transport policy prior to the election. It is important to note that the Government is improving traffic flows and looking at ways to resolve the challenges of an international city like Sydney.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Minister for Roads is talking about transport issues. The question was specifically about his portfolio and whether all the money allocated for the Spit Bridge widening project would go to the people of the lower North Shore and the Northern Beaches.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I refer members to rulings on this point of President Burgmann, DeputyPresident Fazio and Deputy-President Forsythe to the effect that answers should be relevant to the questions asked but some generality is always allowed in answering a question. The answer of the Minister for Roads should be relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Spit Road and Military Road are identified in the Government's Urban Transport Statement for improvement. The Government has set up a working group to investigate initiatives to improve traffic flows on this corridor. The group consists of the Roads and Traffic Authority, State Transit, the Ministry of Transport and the Premier's Infrastructure Implementation Group. We will continue to progress improvements in traffic flows in the area.

YOUTH ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Premier, the following question without notice: Is the Minister aware that alcohol accounts for more than one-quarter of deaths among young people in the developed world? In particular, is the Minister aware of the Australian study published in the medical journal the Lancet , which has found that alcohol caused 27 per cent of deaths of young people aged between 15 to 29 years in 2002? Is the Minister aware that the problem of alcohol abuse among young people in Australia is most extreme when compared to statistics in comparable developed countries? Can the Minister indicate if there are any new measures to tackle the growing problem of youth alcohol consumption in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On behalf of the Premier I say that the Government is constantly monitoring the issue of alcohol and its health and social impacts. There has been a great deal of debate in the public, the media and in this Chamber and the other place about public order and alcohol consumption in and around licensed premises. It remains an important concern for the Minister for Police and the Commissioner of Police. Several initiatives have been implemented and are continuously under review.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You just throw pamphlets at the problem.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I am not exactly sure what she means. Does she want us to publish more pamphlets? This Government is about action. She is from an Opposition that believes the solution to everything is written on a bumper sticker or in a pamphlet. This Government is about implementing practical policies and services to address the issue. Since the Alcohol Summit the Government has undertaken initiatives in mental health services and drug and alcohol services and made changes to the Inebriates Act, which will be the subject of further announcements by my ministerial colleagues and the Premier. A range of other initiatives is being continuously rolled out. I will ask the Premier whether he wishes to enumerate further for Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I am sure he will. I will ask the Premier to provided an answer at his earliest convenience, which I will relay to the honourable member.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on confidential communications privilege and the New South Wales Government's leadership on reforms in this area?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the Hon. Lynda Voltz for this question about an important area of law on which the Government has provided real national leadership. New South Wales is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia to have passed laws to protect journalists and others from disclosing confidential information in court. Doctors, priests, journalists and others who receive confidential information can invoke our laws to provide protection to the person who confided in them. We passed those laws ten years ago. Since then the Australian, Victorian and New South Wales law reform commissions have recommended that all Australian jurisdictions adopt the New South Wales model. At April's meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Canberra, the Federal and Victorian Attorneys agreed to follow this recommendation and implement the New South Wales law.

However, the Federal Attorney-General has now gone back on the agreement to extend the protections to people other than journalists. That is despite Mr Ruddock repeatedly stating the importance of uniformity of laws across Australia. At April's Standing Committee of Attorneys- General Mr Ruddock introduced the proposal and said there is "positive momentum in this area and achieving uniformity of evidence laws would be a good outcome." As recently as 23 May 2007 he stated in a letter to me, "The Commonwealth remains committed to the model uniform evidence process". The fact is that Mr Ruddock has chosen not to consult with other jurisdictions on his proposed, non-uniform law and has failed to give Attorneys-General notice of its introduction into Parliament.

The timing and the manner in which other Attorneys have been advised of Mr Ruddock's proposal will obstruct the smooth functioning of the processes of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the goal of uniformity. The Federal bill departs from the New South Wales law in two ways: First, as stated, the Federal bill limits the privilege to journalists' sources only. This means that when other States and Territories amend their legislation later this year the Federal laws will be alone in protecting only journalists' sources—and not the sources of doctors and priests and other confidential communications. Second, the Federal bill is different from the New South Wales law in that it introduces a new and overriding factor of a risk of prejudice to national security for the court to take into account. I am concerned that this factor is so broadly drafted that it may fail to provide any protection at all, even where there is no actual danger to national security. Mr Ruddock fails to realise, or he does not care, that the New South Wales law already allows the court to consider national security. That law has been operating for over for 10 years.

Yesterday I wrote to Mr Ruddock asking for his reasons for modifying the New South Wales provisions—provisions he had agreed to—and his reasons for going back on his agreement to stick to the wording of the New South Wales privilege. For the new privilege to work properly the Federal Government must also introduce adequate protections for protected disclosures. The New South Wales Government is the only jurisdiction in Australia with "protected disclosure" law that recognises that public servants should, in some circumstances, be given legal protection when they reveal information. Further, New South Wales, unlike the Commonwealth but like other States, has a strong and effective anticorruption agency in the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. I urge the Federal Attorney-General to reconsider his rash, illconceived proposal. I urge him to amend his law to allow doctors, priests and others in confidential relationships to protect the person who confided in them.

BROTHEL REGULATION

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Attorney General a question without notice. Is it a fact that there are 51 legal brothels in New South Wales and at least 755 illegal brothels, nude massage and home prostitution businesses operating in New South Wales? Is it a fact that these illegal brothels are dependent on advertising in major city and suburban newspapers to increase their clientele? What action will the Government take to prohibit the advertising of illegal brothels, which was the intention of the legislation? What action is the Government taking to close down the 755 illegal brothels and related activities?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The answer to the first question is: I do not know. The answer to the second question is: I do not know. The answer to the third question is that advertising of illegal brothels can facilitate their detection. Legislation is to be introduced by the Minister for Planning in the other place that will address this issue.

LAND AND PROPERTY INFORMATION REGISTRATION FEES

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I direct my question to the Minister for Lands. Is it a fact that the Land and Property Information section within the Department of Lands intends to increase the cost of plan registrations and first title creation fees from $860 plus $86 per lot to $1,200 plus $120 per lot? How can the Minister justify such an increase, which is on top of an increase last year from $720 plus $72 per lot to $860 plus $86 per lot?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Each year the Government approves increases in fees to keep up with the cost of administration and consumer price index [CPI] increases.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a little more than CPI.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have not yet acknowledged that the honourable member's comments are true. I was going to say that each year the Government needs to increase fees to be able to provide the services that it does. Nothing in this State moves without the assistance of the Land and Property Information section. For example, one cannot register a block of land or mortgage a building in this State without the assistance of the Department of Lands and the Land and Property Information section. I recently signed off on some increases, and some further adjustments have been made.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: More increases.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: There are some adjustments downwards. I signed off on about 25 different fees and further adjustments. I do not acknowledge that the figures the honourable member quoted are factual. I will have to check them and get back to her.

MINERAL AND PETROLEUM EXPLORATION

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Can the Minister update the House on initiatives to attract investments and exploration designed to locate new mineral and petroleum deposits in New South Wales?

The Hon. Michael Costa: Good, more coal!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question and the Treasurer for his overwhelming enthusiasm on these matters. As honourable members would be aware, the Government has made considerable investment over the years in technologies and surveys that help us to learn more about the State's mineral and petroleum deposits. New South Wales has great untapped resources of coal and petroleum and the Labor Government strongly supports exploration, and has done so for more than a decade, with initiatives such as Discovery 2000, Exploration New South Wales and now New Frontiers. That is more than $70 million in initiative funding over the past 12 years. That has generated increased exploration interest in New South Wales, setting the scene for an exploration and development boom in this State.

In order to maintain jobs and wealth in the State's mineral sector, we must nurture research, exploration and development. That is why a $1.48 million seismic survey for petroleum begins this week and will continue for three weeks on the State's north-west slopes and in the Hunter region. It is part of the $8 million government-funded New Frontiers initiative. It will be carried out around Narrabri, Gunnedah, Tamworth, Liverpool Plains, Upper Hunter, Muswellbrook and Singleton, using state-of-the-art vibroseis technology.

I will explain that for honourable members opposite, who are known for their Luddite ways. This technique creates low impact seismic waves which travel down through the earth and which are detected by sensitive monitoring equipment spread out along the surface. This data allows geoscientists to "see" the geological features deep below the surface and to determine whether the region has oil and gas potential. This is cutting-edge technology.

Other projects already undertaken this year include: the $400,000 Thomson Orogen gravity survey covering 42,000 square kilometres in the Tilpa region in far north-west New South Wales; a $140,000-drilling program in the regions looking at the actual architecture of the rocks; and a teleseismic survey covering parts of the gold-rich Bendigo-Stawell zone in the far south-west of New South Wales. Private exploration investment in the Thomas Orogen and Stawell zones has also increased dramatically following the release of new geological data.

Honourable members should make no mistake, New South Wales produces a diverse range of minerals, including coal, gas, metallic minerals, industrial minerals and construction materials. The value of New South Wales mineral production represents about 15 per cent of the total value of Australian mineral production. Mineral and metal exports account for one-third of total New South Wales merchandise exports.

Private mineral exploration expenditure in New South Wales in 2005-06 was $114 million, which is more than 9 per cent of total Australian exploration expenditure, and that figure is growing. Incidentally, that is a record figure. Mining is important to regional development with more than 18,000 people directly employed and many times more indirectly employed. New South Wales is an attractive State for both investment and exploration with excellent infrastructure, for example, rail, ports, power, roads, communications, skilled workforce, four world-class mineral provinces, large areas underexplored, land access, Government support for exploration and world-best geoscience. Last, but not least, Sydney is also a major financial hub.

These factors drive exploration, and without exploration there would be no new discoveries, and without new discoveries there would be no mines. The Government is pursuing this program emphasising the need to expand our mining base. More than 40 coal and mineral mine proposals and extensions to existing mines are also in the development pipeline. If all of these projects were to proceed, they would involve cumulative expenditure of more than $6 billion and generate more than 5,000 new jobs. [ Time expired.]

RAILCORP OFFENCE PROSECUTION DELEGATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Attorney General. Given that RailCorp transit officers were found by the Local Court in October 2006 to be acting beyond the delegation given to them by commencing legal proceedings under the Rail Safety Act, why, notwithstanding this decision, did RailCorp transit officers continue to prosecute offences in court without the proper authorisation until recently when the authorisation was amended? Has the Attorney General conducted an assessment of exactly how many people were prosecuted by RailCorp transit officers without proper authorisation between 8 February 2003 and the date on which the regulation was amended? If not, why not? Will those people ordered by the court to pay fines following these prosecutions be repaid or compensated for the fines they paid?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not certain to what extent the matters the honourable member raises fall within my jurisdiction, but I will take the question on notice.

COOMA-MONARO LAND DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION CONTROL PLAN

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. Does the Minister support the concept of tree change, which has seen the repopulation of inland New South Wales with people seeking to enhance their lifestyle and quality of life by leaving the rat race? If so, what is the Government doing to assist landholders in the Cooma district who are being prohibited from selling sections of their property if access is via a Crown public road or a legal right of way? Is the Minister aware of concerns of the Justice for Rural Landholders group, headed by Trevor Boucher, the former Federal Tax Commissioner, that this prohibition by Cooma-Monaro Shire Council is unjustly destroying land values for many landholders?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Government certainly strongly supports tree change and getting people to move out of the rat race to rural and regional areas, where it is half as expensive to set up than in the city. I understand that the Minister for Primary Industries is undertaking a review of some of the issues to which the honourable member has referred. The review is being conducted by an eminent person from the Central West, who was once my local member, the Hon. Garry West.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: He is very honourable.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: He is honourable. He is a former Minister and he has applied to retain the honorific "The Hon.". I am not aware of the individual cases to which the Hon. Melinda Pavey referred in her question, but I will inquire about them.

PUBLIC RESERVES MANAGEMENT FUND

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister advise the House what assistance the Government provides for the various caravan parks and showgrounds on Crown land across New South Wales?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He sells most of them.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will deal with that interjection at the end of my answer, if I have time. The Iemma Government proudly supports the ongoing maintenance and improvement of Crown reserves across New South Wales. The State Plan confirms this support and commits the Government to doing what it can to boost the number of people using our parks, showgrounds, and other reserves across New South Wales. It is what the people of New South Wales have asked us to do, and it is what we are doing.

During this financial year we have backed this commitment with funding of more than $5.6 million for caravan park improvements and $500,000 for showground maintenance and improvements. Funding for these parks and showgrounds comes from the Public Reserves Management Fund. Funds are advanced as low-interest loans, grants, or a combination of the two, to the reserve trust boards that are responsible for the day-to-day management of these reserves—usually councils or volunteer boards. Since the creation of the caravan park levy scheme in 1992 more than $35 million has been provided for park improvement works. Since 1995 more than $6 million has been directed towards projects and improvements for rural and regional showgrounds. At the same time, around $30 million has been directed towards our caravan parks.

Such funding by the Iemma Government to individual recipients has delivered many benefits to our caravan parks and showgrounds. First I will deal with caravan parks. Crown caravan parks play a key role in the New South Wales tourism industry and the economic wellbeing of many coastal communities. They offer affordable and convenient accommodation for the many people who visit our State's coastal and regional areas. They also generate jobs for coastal towns.

In March this year the Iemma Government offered loans totalling $750,000 to Kempsey Shire Council as trust manager of the Hat Head and Stuarts Point caravan parks. A loan of $600,000 paid for road upgrades, plumbing and electrical works at Stuarts Point, and a $150,000 loan was for the purchase and installation of two new cabins at Hat Head. An amount of $655,200 has been provided to Wyong Shire Council as corporate trust manager for improvements at four coastal holiday parks in Wyong. The funds were used for works at the Toowoon Bay, Norah Head, Canton Beach and Budgewoi holiday parks. The funds will be used for master plans, entry point road and landscaping improvements, as well as for playground shade covers at each of the parks.

Showgrounds play an important role in the social and cultural fabric of country New South Wales. Often they are at the centre of a country community's life—from the annual show and public meetings, to trade fairs, gymkhanas and local sporting groups. It is important that they receive funding to ensure they are maintained, upgraded and kept safe.

In March this year the Iemma Government provided additional funds of $10,000 to the Boggabri Showground and Public Recreation Trust as managers of the Boggabri Showground. The additional $10,000 was used for a cement floor for the newly completed Boggabri Showground pavilion. This was built on a previous grant of $20,000 back in 2004-05, which was used to demolish the old grandstand, bar and canteen, and replace them with a new pavilion. Like all New South Wales showgrounds, the Boggabri Showground is a vital part of the community and host to numerous social, sporting and community activities.

The State Plan commits the Iemma Government to doing its bit to promote more people using our parks and reserves. The financial commitment of the Iemma Government is an important aspect to backing this commitment, ensuring that important public assets like our caravan parks and showgrounds are maintained and improved. In response to the interjection about selling off our caravan parks, there are about 900 caravan parks in this State and 300 of them are on Crown land. Not one of them is being sold. Indeed, we are trying to expand them, because private enterprise is selling them off. [ Time expired.]

ORGANIC STANDARDS

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister intend to consult thoroughly with all organic growers to determine which organic standards would suit all players in the industry, rather than simply rubber-stamp the Standards Australia version of a standard, which is the lowest common denominator? Is it not a fact that several standards already exist and they have served the industry well? If the Minister intends to legislate a standard, will he ensure that those who prefer the existing standards are able to operate under those standards? Will the Minister also ensure that inspections and certification remain mandatory, to ensure a robust and successful system of organics in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank Mr Ian Cohen for his question, which is important in the context of the growing organics industry. We need to ensure a bit of certainty in terms of what people are buying, and to that end a national framework is being discussed. Indeed, I have raised these issues at the Primary Industries Ministerial Council.

In relation to the specifics of the question, I rely on the Ministerial Advisory Council, which has been appointed by Cabinet, and the great enthusiasm of people like Jan Barham, the Mayor of Byron Bay, for advice on these matters. I will be consulting with them on these issues. I note Mr Ian Cohen's concern in relation to this issue embedded within his question. We will have to work carefully with all the producer groups in reaching some sort of consensus on this. However, I think the member would agree that it is important we get a solid framework in place so that when people buy an organic product they have certainty that it has been produced by a system that has great integrity.

SHARED CORPORATE SERVICES REVIEW

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister for Commerce. Given the Minister's announcement in this House last week that the Government's People First Information and Communications Technology Plan will result in cost savings, why is it still the case that the amount spent on shared corporate services is 4 per cent of budget, which is double the 2 per cent private sector equivalent? Does the Minister think these figures are acceptable? If not, when will he set a deadline for a complete review of shared corporate services, and what initiatives and targets will he put in place to address the Government's overspending in this area?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: The question, in part, seeks an opinion from the Minister and I ask you to rule it out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That part of the question that seeks an opinion is out of order. However, the Minister may proceed to answer the remainder of the question provided he is generally relevant in doing so.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am aware of the report from which I suspect the Hon. Marie Ficarra got her information. I fully support its aim of achieving savings for the Government. The Government has introduced a shared corporate services strategy with the aim of achieving significant administrative efficiencies and cost reductions across government. I am advised that over two years the Government has saved $130 million in running our agencies, in backroom services like human resources, finance and information technology. These savings are being redirected into frontline services, directly benefiting the people of New South Wales. This is about reducing duplication between agencies and increasing efficiencies.

I am advised that the Government is well on track to saving a further $170 million over the next two years. The reform of shared services across government has already achieved major benefits. I cannot take credit for all of them; my predecessor, the Leader of the House can take credit for many of them. From 2004 to 2006 corporate services costs have fallen by around 10 per cent, or $130 million; staff numbers engaged in corporate service activities fell from 13,500 to 11,700; since the implementation of new whole-of-government contracts the number of corporate applications across the sector has fallen from more than 40 to 14; the number of corporate services clusters has fallen from more than 40 to 25; major reform programs are currently under way in all major agencies, such as Health, Education, Rail and Police; and new shared services providers have been created, with BusinessLink being brought within the Department of Commerce structure, which will drive future efficiencies.

These reforms are encouraging, but there is more to do. That is why the Government established a shared services senior officers working group to drive implementation of the strategy, including the development of an implementation plan. This work is ongoing.

ENERGY SECTOR SKILLS SHORTAGES

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is addressed to the Minister for Energy. Will the Minister update the House on efforts by the New South Wales Government to address the skills shortage in the energy sector?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government has a strong focus on investing in young people. That is why we have invested $74 million to encourage the uptake of apprenticeships through workers compensation incentives. This package is expected to drive up the number of apprentices by 5 per cent, or an extra 1,000 apprentices a year. We have also committed to opening 10 new trade schools to increase opportunities for students to start an apprenticeship while at school, and to speed up their entry into the work force after they leave school. Nowhere is the need for committed and hardworking young people greater than in the electricity sector. The three State-owned electricity businesses are among the top employers of apprentices in New South Wales.

Let us consider the needs of the industry. In New South Wales, there are more than 290,000 kilometres of electricity wires and cables. To put that in some context, given the circumference of the Earth at the equator is just over 40,000 kilometres, 290,000 kilometres of wires and cables would wrap around the earth seven and a quarter times. There are 2.2 million power poles and 180,000 substations. These have to be regularly maintained and replaced. We are dealing with infrastructure on a massive scale. The Government is investing a massive $9.1 billion on electricity infrastructure—that is $6 million each day.

The result is world-class levels of reliability of between 99.94 per cent and 99.98 per cent. But it is not just about investing in wires and poles. It is a commitment to investing in our future and in our young people. This investment is paying dividends for our electricity businesses. Integral Energy, Country Energy and EnergyAustralia are some of the top employers of apprentices in the State, with apprenticeship numbers more than doubling over the past five years. At any given time there are 1,000 apprentices in the three businesses. EnergyAustralia is the biggest employer of apprentices in New South Wales and has been training apprentices since 1910. EnergyAustralia's apprentice recruitment numbers have tripled over the past four years. This year 164 apprentices have embarked on a career with EnergyAustralia, bringing the total number of apprentices currently in training to more than 500. Next month, I am pleased to say, EnergyAustralia will again open its doors and call for applications to recruit a further 150 apprentices to join its ranks in 2008, with registration open from 3 July to 2 August.

Integral Energy's intake represents a massive 500 per cent increase in its annual intake since 1997. It took in 64 apprentices earlier this year, some as young as 16. Next week, 15 more apprentices will begin their first day at Integral Energy and will have an opportunity to meet apprentices from across the State as the industry gathers at Rosehill for the annual New South Wales energy industry safety field day on 13 and 14 June. Early next year Integral Energy is due to open its new $11.5 million training centre at Hoxton Park, which will feature a simulated substation, covered electrical safety training area, lecture rooms and workshops.

Finally, Country Energy has created more than 620 apprenticeships across country and coastal New South Wales since 2001. In January this year, 114 new apprentices joined Country Energy's 4,000 strong workforce located across 142 customer and field service centres and corporate offices. The four-year apprenticeship opportunities include positions for powerline workers, electrical technicians, cable jointers, carpenters and gas distribution workers. Recently, Country Energy also announced the recruitment of an additional 24 indigenous apprentices across the State, further boosting local service levels. Indigenous apprenticeship opportunities with Country Energy for men and women in this intake include careers as line workers and electrical technicians in such places as Port Macquarie, Taree, Kempsey, Lismore, Bathurst, Albury, Bega and Dubbo. [ Time expired.]

KILLALEA STATE PARK

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Lands. Has any agreement been signed between the Killalea State Park Trust and a developer or developers in relation to proposed or potential development within the Killalea State Park? If so, what commitment has the trust made to the developer, in return for what consideration? Does the agreement provide grounds for the developer to seek compensation should its development application for the site not be approved? Will the agreement be made public? If so, when? If not, why not?

The Hon. Michael Costa: How many questions did the member ask?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I think there were about six, and I have answered them all before!

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I seek to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no cause for a supplementary question.

OPERATION RETZ

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney confirm that the Operation Retz report, which was tabled in this House yesterday, was signed by the Assistant Ombudsman (Police) on 23 February 2005? Will he advise why NSW Police defied an order by Justice Johnson of the New South Wales Supreme Court to release the report in regard to the defamation action taken by former Detective Sergeant Tim Priest for approximately 12 months? Is it acceptable practice for the New South Wales Government to defy rulings of the New South Wales Supreme Court? What was the cost to New South Wales taxpayers of the NSW Police defiance of the Supreme Court ruling? What action will the Attorney take to instruct New South Wales government departments to comply with the rulings of Supreme Court judges?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Almost all of those issues relate to the Minister for Police, and I will obtain an answer from him.

TRADE SCHOOLS

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister inform the House about the impact of recent proposals to encourage business involvement in schools?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am very keen to answer the honourable member's question. I thank her for her ongoing interest in education. Regrettably, the Howard Government is again attempting to dodge its responsibility for adequately funding schools. Engaging industry in our schools is important, particularly in vocational education and training, but it should never be a substitute for proper government funding. The Federal education Minister, Julie Bishop, claimed recently that, "it is almost beyond the capacity of any one government to resource schools". What an astonishing statement. The Federal Government has a surplus of $13.6 billion, yet the Minister claims it does not have enough money to fund schools. Clearly it has plenty of money—only the will has been lacking, as well as policy ideas.

The Commonwealth Government should be using its massive resource advantage to get behind what we are doing for education and training in New South Wales, instead of coming up with half-baked ideas for palming off its responsibilities. We need Canberra to sit down with the States and Territories to look at how we can best resource all schools and training providers to meet the challenges of the future. Instead, the Commonwealth is setting up its own programs, many of which duplicate what the States and Territories are already doing.

The Iemma Government is leading the way in getting industry on board in our schools, particularly in trades and vocational education and training. We have done this sensibly and without losing sight of our responsibility for the outcomes. For example, we have announced plans to establish 25 trade schools offering school-based apprenticeships and traineeships. Trade schools are being established in existing high schools and in technical and further education colleges, allowing students to take part in school-based apprenticeships, school-based traineeships and other vocational training while completing their Higher School Certificate.

The Iemma Government's trade school initiative has been welcomed by key New South Wales employers, including Australian Business Limited, the Housing Industry Association and the NRMA. Unlike the Commonwealth's Australian technical colleges, our trade schools enhance what is on offer at comprehensive high schools, and offer programs that expand options for students. By contrast, the Howard Government's Australian technical colleges are expensive and duplicate what is already available. If they ever get up and running properly, they will only serve to stream students down a narrow vocational pathway.

When it comes to involving private investment in our capital program, New South Wales is the national benchmark. Our public-private partnerships deliver new, state-of-the-art school facilities at a low cost to the taxpayer, without the Government surrendering any of its responsibility for the quality of the education. Trade skills and our public private partnerships are two examples of how the business and educational sectors are working alongside each other with great success in New South Wales.

Julie Bishop and her Canberra colleagues are once again demonstrating how ignorant and out of touch they are. Julie Bishop is not just talking about business taking over our schools; she has also come up with the idea that teachers need to do work experience. She has failed to notice that teachers have a job, and an important one at that. They are highly trained professionals. They are not out of touch with the workforce; they are in the workforce. Clearly Julie Bishop is out of touch. She should get some work experience. I suggest that she gets on with the real job of ensuring that her Government provides adequate funding for schools, here in New South Wales and right across the nation.

INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AUSTRALIA PRIVATE SCHOOL PROPOSAL, KURRI KURRI

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question to the Minister for Education and Training refers to the development by Independent Colleges Australia of a private school in the Hunter economic zone near Cessnock. Firstly, is the Minister aware of connections between Independent Colleges Australia and the childcare provider, ABC Learning?

The Hon. Michael Costa: ABC Learning!

Dr JOHN KAYE: Obviously the Treasurer is. Secondly, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the school complies with the provisions of section 21A of the Education Act in respect of schools paying profits to their owners? Thirdly, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the school does not exploit the loophole in section 21A (3) (a) of the legislation that allows schools to pass profits to corporations by unrestricted honorarium payments to members of the governing body?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am aware of the issues that the Dr John Kaye has raised. I have already had some discussions with local community representatives about this matter. I have asked the Department of Education and Training to give me further advice about the application of section 21A of the Act in relation to this issue, as well as the more general issue of the activities of the for-profit sector in primary and secondary education. I take this opportunity to reiterate the former Minister's view that there is no place for the for-profit—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Church schools have been making a profit for 150 years.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, they do not. That is quite a different thing.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They do. It is how they keep viable. They cannot lose money.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is quite a different thing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may be smart about sheep growing and farming—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And roads.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: And roads perhaps, but it is obvious he does not know a lot about education funding or education practice. The church schools in New South Wales do not make a profit.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They do.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: They do not seek to make a profit and they do not have a profit motive for their operation. That has always been a clear distinction in the Government's attitude to funding, management and regulation of education and schools. In the broadest sense the Government maintains its policy position, and I will seek to make further statements in relation to this and related matters in the near future when I have further advice from the department about the operation of the legislation. The policy has not changed but the entrepreneurial nature of this group of people and their operations appears to be boundless. They have some good accountants and lawyers and they continue to work on different models, and this might allow them to present their schooling activities as if they are not-for-profit ventures. That is not the spirit of the legislation and we will act to ensure that the legislation is observed not only to the letter but also in its spirit.

LIABILITY MANAGEMENT FUND

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. What is the current status of the Liability Management Fund? Have the assets of the fund been disbursed, as indicated in the 2006-07 budget papers? If not, what is the current balance and what is the current intention in relation to these assets?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is extraordinary that the honourable member continues to ask many questions, the answers to which will be revealed in the forthcoming budget. All I can assume is that he has an obligation to ask one question a day as part of a party room decision. He regrets having given that commitment so he merely ferrets through last year's budget to come up with some questions. On a day when the unemployment rate in New South Wales has reached 4.9 per cent, one of the lowest rates—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Thank you, John Howard!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: So when the unemployment rate goes up, it is our fault, and when it goes down, John Howard takes the credit! That is precisely why the Coalition is in trouble with the polls; nobody believes anything said by members of the Opposition or their Federal colleagues. The polls reflect that. Is it any wonder that in the lower House yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Farrell, decided to move a motion to request the Treasurer—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My question was about the current status, from the 2006-07 budget not the next budget, of the Liability Management Fund. Mr President, I ask that you direct the Minister to answer the question and be relevant in doing so.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Treasurer to be generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Is it any wonder that the Leader of the Opposition chose yesterday to move a motion in the lower House to require me to spend two hours in that Chamber answering questions. I am quite happy to do so, but I find it quite strange that he has no confidence in his upper House frontbench, particularly his Treasury spokesperson, to ask relevant questions. After hearing today's question I can understand why. The member will have to wait for the budget like everyone else. The Leader of the Opposition confirmed yesterday that all we have on the benches opposite is a bunch of faceless time-servers, extremists and foot soldiers.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: A very specific question was asked about the current status of the Liability Management Fund in this financial year. The Treasurer has not come within a bull's roar of answering that question in the 2½ minutes he has been speaking. I ask you to direct him to be directly relevant, not just generally relevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Opposition Whip has raised whether Ministers need to be specifically relevant or generally relevant. In that regard I abide by rulings on relevance of such eminent occupants of this Chair as the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. Johno Johnson and the Hon. Max Willis. The bottom line is that answers should be relevant to the question asked. However, some generality is always allowed to Ministers in answering a question. Accordingly, I ask the Treasury to be generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank you for that wonderful rendition of the rules of this House. I make one final point before my time runs out: We have an estimates process in this House to which Ministers are dragged to be asked the very questions that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to stop Coalition members in this House from asking because they are so incompetent. [ Time expired.]

NORTH-WEST SYDNEY PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Can the Minister provide the House with the latest information on initiatives to improve public transport infrastructure and reliability in north-west Sydney?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his question and commend him for his interest in this important matter. Improving public transport reliability and traffic flow for motorists is a priority for the Iemma Labor Government. Our $660 million urban transport statement makes it clear that improving public transport is a key strategy to relieve congestion on our busy roads. As part of the Iemma Government's commitment to improving bus travel times the hardworking member for Parramatta, Tanya Gadiel, and I visited Church Street in Parramatta to announce the start of work on a $3 million bus priority project to help buses bypass a bottleneck in North Parramatta.

The Roads and Traffic Authority will build 1.5 kilometres of new bus lanes in Church Street to help make peak hour bus travel faster and more convenient between Parramatta and Castle Hill. It is important to stress that the number of general traffic lanes will remain unchanged. The Church Street upgrade is part of the New South Wales Government's $235 million strategic bus corridor program. Bus priority projects like this are about making it quicker and easier for public transport passengers to get around and ease congestion for road users. One bus takes up to 40 cars off our roads.

By building new bus lanes or making other improvements to roads with bus routes, we can improve public transport reliability and traffic flow for cars. Church Street is one of the major links between Parramatta and surrounding suburbs and is used by several of the area's main bus routes. The work on Church Street will clear two bus bottlenecks between James Ruse Drive and Victoria Road by creating 1.5 kilometres of bus lane on both sides of the roads.

I am advised that the $3 million Church Street bus priority upgrade includes a number of features: a new 24-hour northbound bus lane from Pennants Hill Road to North Rocks Road; conversion of the northbound T2 lane to a 24-hour bus lane between Boundary Road and Barney Street; a new northbound bus lane between Barney Street and the Briens Road-James Ruse Drive intersection; and conversion of the southbound T2 lane to a morning bus lane between James Ruse Drive-Briens Road and Seville Street. As part of the Church Street bus priority work, Church Street between Barney Street and James Ruse Drive-Briens Road will be resurfaced. The work on Church Street is part of a series of bus priority projects being carried out on the strategic bus corridor between Parramatta and Castle Hill, and is expected to be completed at the end of July.

The New South Wales Government is currently implementing a $235 million package of bus priority measures to support the rollout of strategic bus corridors across the Sydney road network. I am advised that bus priority measures have already been introduced on corridors such as Miranda to Hurstville, Warringah Road, Anzac Parade, Parramatta to the central business district [CBD] via Macquarie Park, Parramatta to the city via Ryde, Miranda to Bankstown, and Liverpool to Bankstown. I am further advised that work is also currently under way on nine other strategic bus corridors. The Roads and Traffic Authority and the Ministry of Transport will continue their integrated approach to implementing these bus priority measures.

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

LAND AND PROPERTY INFORMATION REGISTRATION FEES

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier I was asked a question about Land and Property Information charges. I can now advise that Land and Property Information recently recommended changes to the cost of plan registration. Rather than simply increasing the fee to $1,200 as suggested, a three-tier fee system has been put in place. Formerly, the fee was $860, but for 80 per cent of deposited plans the fee will now be $1,000, reducing costs to ordinary households by $200. As I said, I thought I had signed a reduction. For three or more lots the fee will be $1,200, and the fee for community plans will be $1,600. This three-tier approach is equitable and reflects the time and resources required to register various plans. The changes have been the subject of close consultation with the Law Society of New South Wales, the Institute of Surveyors, the Association of Consulting Surveyors, and other Land and Property Information customers and the general public.

Questions without notice concluded.

[ The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

HUMAN CLONING AND OTHER PROHIBITED PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang, on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos.
Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang 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 set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.33 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 59 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding a New South Wales Law Reform Commission report, be called on forthwith.

This matter is urgent because the report is two years overdue. The release by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission of the report on surveillance is urgent because we as a society are increasingly under surveillance by law enforcement bodies, private investigators and the media. There are cameras in shop changing rooms, traffic and crowd control cameras, and neighbours watching neighbours. This surveillance is undertaken without adequate regulation. The matter is urgent because we must make sure that people are shielded from unjustified surveillance and that their privacy is protected. The release of the report is urgent because the New South Wales Government actively refuses to release critical reports—whether it is the Operation Retz report on police corruption or this report by the Law Reform Commission—until it is backed into a corner or embarrassed by the media.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [2.34 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose the motion. As I indicated to Ms Lee Rhiannon privately, the Government intends to release this document in any event following consideration of it by Cabinet next week. However, I will signal a legal point that has been raised about the power of this House to order the tabling of a report that is the subject of statute. Whilst I do not oppose the motion on this occasion, on future occasions should this point arise the Government will reserve its position to argue that it is beyond the power of the House to order the tabling of documents in circumstances where the document is specifically regulated by a statutory instrument. If required, further advice will be provided to the House at the time of such requests. As to the release of the report, Ms Lee Rhiannon should have read the context of the surveillance report. It dos not address the issues she has raised.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.36 p.m.]: This matter deserves urgency. The referral of this matter to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission took place on 2 July 1996. The Law Reform Commission was to examine surveillance, the current scope and operation of the Listening Devices Act, and the need to regulate the use of surveillance equipment and any related matters. The commission was to have regard to the protection and privacy of the individual, the views and interests of users of surveillance technology, including law enforcement agencies, private investigators and owners of private premises such as banks and service stations, and the use of surveillance technology in public places.

This matter began in 1996. Report No. 98, the interim report of the Law Reform Commission, is dated February 2001. Report No. 108, the final report into the initial inquiry that took place as a result of a reference from the Hon. Jeff Shaw in 1996, was completed in 2005. This important issue has been running for 11 years. As a person with a background in surveillance and a genuine interest in this area, I am very interested to see the information that the Government has been aware of for a number of years.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: I bet you won't be.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Attorney General says I will not be, but there needs to be rigorous debate in the community on the future of an industry that is growing exponentially. Technology is an important part of the surveillance industry. It is no longer about human surveillance; it is more about electronic surveillance and interception devices. It is also about our privacy as we move around Parliament and the city. It would be very difficult for a member to leave this Chamber and walk in a westerly direction to the other side of the city and not be under constant surveillance for some kilometres. Although we have become accustomed to such surveillance, it is there. The Minister says I will not be happy with the findings. I am a great believer in the security industry. Governments need to work with the industry, particularly on surveillance, which is a growth area.
It is most certainly a very important part of the security industry. The more quickly we look at the Law Reform Commission report, which was commissioned in July 1996, the better we will be able to debate the future of the industry in New South Wales. I welcome this motion being moved by the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. Despite what I perceive to be some concern on the part of the Attorney General that the industry may not necessarily welcome the report, it is fair to say that it is also prepared to play a role in ensuring the necessary protection of individual rights while at the same time ensuring that the use of technology protects us as individuals. Of course, it is a two-edged sword: It protects us but it also has an impact on privacy. We need to strike a balance in that area.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.41 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the suspension of standing orders so that this matter can proceed, even though the mover's intention may be to attack the security industry and to object to the amount of surveillance that is occurring. I believe that we have no choice. As I said earlier about the terrorism threat, those involved in violent crime are often caught as a result of the use of surveillance cameras. They are a very valuable tool in our modern society.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 59 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

LAW REFORM COMMISSION REPORT 108: SURVEILLANCE

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.42 p.m.]: I move:

That under Standing Order 52 there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the NSW Law Reform Commission report into surveillance entitled "Report 108 – Surveillance: Final Report", dated May 2005, in the possession, custody or control of the Attorney-General and any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

I was pleased to hear from the Attorney General that the report will be released. It appears to be a coincidence, and I wonder about that. The Attorney General's office has had this report since May 2005; it has clearly been sitting on it for two years. From what we can see, the Government has been content for the report to gather dust and to become outdated and useless as a law reform tool because it has most likely been overtaken by developments in surveillance technology. The secretive Iemma Government appears to be happy to distribute information when it suits it and to hold it back when it does not. That is very unfortunate and does it no credit. This Government has a bad name for secrecy, and scenarios like this make the situation worse.

The Greens call on the Attorney General to release the report on the review of the New South Wales Privacy Act. It is a similar situation in respect of this report. The report on the Privacy Act is overdue by close on three years. It has not yet been released despite a legislative obligation on the Attorney General to table the report in Parliament. We must recognise that the failure to table these reports is a waste of government and public time, money and resources. The failure to release these reports means that citizens are missing out on the opportunity to live in a State with modern, effective surveillance and privacy laws. We are all the poorer for the inadequate way in which the Government manages the dissemination of information in this area. I urge all members to support the motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND STATE ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.45 p.m.]: I earlier referred to the unemployment figures. To make the point even clearer, Australia's unemployment rate is now 4.4 per cent. That is the lowest rate in 32 years. Something is working—apart from the people who are getting jobs—and I believe it is the Federal Government's policies. The most important thing a government can provide to its citizens is jobs. We know the tremendous effect that high unemployment has had in other nations. At the beginning of the Second World War, prior to the rise of Hitler, Germany was experiencing huge unemployment. That gave rise to the Nazi regime and caused widespread instability and desperate men who wanted work to think that Nazism was the answer. Similar things have happened in other countries experiencing high unemployment. Good employment figures are a benefit not only to the people who get jobs but also to society in helping to ensure a stable community.

It has just been announced that Australia's economic growth last quarter was 1.6 per cent. That is the strongest quarter of growth in three years and it is another tick for the Treasurer, Mr Costello. In addition, the Australian dollar is now worth US84.39¢, which is a 17-year high. The stock market has also reached another record high rate of 6,419 points, and profit share has recorded a high of 28.1 per cent of the economy. The variable interest rate is now 6.25 per cent and the expected Reserve Bank rate rise did not occur this week. I am sure everyone with a mortgage is grateful for that. However, that is the highest variable interest rate for six years, and that is a concern. Of course, that rate is set by the Reserve Bank, not the Federal Treasurer, and that would have been the rate irrespective of the political leanings of the Federal Government, be it a Coalition government or a Labor government. As we know, the Reserve Bank operates independently of the Government, and that is a good thing.

Economic growth has been strong, but it would have been even stronger if there had not been a drought. The drought reduced farm production by 0.2 per cent in the last quarter and by 23 per cent over the year. One would expect the drought to have a dramatic impact on the economy, but it shows how strong the economy is under the Coalition Government that it has been able to withstand one of the worst droughts in Australia's history. In other circumstances the economy would have been on its knees. That is another salient fact that must be taken into account. Today's Sydney Morning Herald has a quote from Treasurer Costello referring to workers:

There are more of them, earning more money in real terms, than ever before … Sound economic management means … households are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in 32 years, real wage increases of around 20.8 per cent since 1996, solid growth in the midst of a … rural downturn, and we are doing that in a period of low inflation.

I appreciate that this motion was moved some time ago, on 9 May, when the Hon. Greg Pearce did not have the figures that are now to hand, which confirm the factual basis of his motion. The second part of the motion is critical of the Iemma-Costa Government when it refers to matters such as high taxes. I do not think anyone could disagree with that proposition. We continually receive complaints from people who are affected by high taxes, whether they be stamp duty, land tax, vendor tax, or other taxes. We acknowledge that the State Government needs revenue to match its expenditure, but we believe that some of its decisions have forced people and industry to leave New South Wales. We would have had an even better unemployment figure if some of the companies had not moved to Queensland and other States but were still in New South Wales providing jobs.

We know that the polls have been very unfavourable towards the Federal Coalition—which, from the Coalition's point of view, seems to be unexplainable when everything is going so well. It may be some reflection of human nature: people simply want a change. But the question is: Can a Rudd-Gillard government match the achievements of the Howard-Costello Government? As an outsider watching Labor politics I imagine that if Rudd and Gillard did win it will come down to which wing of the Labor government would decide economic policies—the left wing or the right wing.

The Hon. Rick Colless: The unions would have an impact.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I also wonder about the impact of the union movement, which has a fairly strong left influence. If that occurs, all these positive results could be destroyed overnight. That is an issue for voters to consider as they face the forthcoming Federal election.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter) [2.52 p.m.]: I reluctantly join the debate on this motion because I believe it is a waste of the House's time to debate a motion that has obviously been moved as a post-election stunt on the part of the Coalition given its deplorable result in the election.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You don't have any real arguments, is that what you are saying?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You'll hear plenty of real arguments. In a democracy, at election time members of the public have a choice to make a decision about the respective merits of both parties. The public made a choice on 24 March: they decided that the Coalition was incompetent, that it had no policies to run the economy. Despite all the distortions in the lead-up to the election about the state of the New South Wales economy, the public made an overwhelming choice and re-elected the Government. That should be enough to defeat this motion, which flies in the face of a decision that was made by the public on 24 March, when the New South Wales Opposition put up the same arguments it is putting up today.

However, we are faced with another time-filling exercise on the part of the Opposition, which seeks to draw a comparison between the performances of the New South Wales Government and the Howard Federal Government on economic management. If members opposite want to engage in historical analogies, they need to be fair dinkum about this. Today we heard references about the State's strongest growth in 32 years, the strongest growth in three decades. Let us go back four decades. Let us go back to the Rip van Winkle years, the Menzies years, when the Coalition refused to remove tariffs and refused to engage in economic reform. In fact, it was the Whitlam Government that started the process of tariff reduction and the removal of the tariff board, and it was the subsequent Hawke-Keating period when we saw an opening of the economy. Indeed, it is ironic that the current Prime Minister, Mr Howard, opposed the opening up of the Australian economy. That is the historical record: John Howard and John Stone opposed the opening up of the Australian economy.

I am not so naïve, like members opposite, to think that one or two individuals make an economy. I do not care how good an economist a person in a Federal Treasury position is; if they do not have a sound economic base to build on, they cannot do anything. That sound economic base was the liberalisation that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s under the Hawke-Keating Government. Any economics commentator who understands these issues would support that proposition. That is why I am reluctant to take one month's economic statistics—like members opposite do—and claim that the New South Wales economy is in recession.

Before the last election Coalition members were running around claiming that the New South Wales economy was in recession. At the time I said to them that I do not make comments on quarterly statistics because the trends are important and the statistics are subject to revision. And the statistics were revised—upwards! In other words, that negative statistic was revised out of the system. Indeed, based on yesterday's State demand figures, New South Wales now has one of the highest growth rates in the country. Again, that should be put in the context of New South Wales not being part of the massive resources boom that is going on in Western Australia and Queensland.

This motion is simply a waste of the House's time. It does not have any reality in terms of how economic processes work. The reason the Australian economy has been able to function well is that it is part of a globally integrated economy. We were able to go through the Asian financial crisis because we were an open economy. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile spoke about the high level of the Australian dollar. I hope he realises—I am sure he does—that that is a two-edged sword. For our exporters, the Australian dollar is not so good; indeed, it is one of the variables we are very concerned ab This motion is simply a waste of the House's time. It does not have any reality in terms of how economic processes work. The reason the Australian economy has been able to function well is that it is part of a globally integrated economy. We were able to go through the Asian financial crisis because we were an open economy. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile spoke about the high level of the Australian dollar. I hope he realises—I am sure he does—that that is a two-edged sword. For our exporters, the Australian dollar is not so good; indeed, it is one of the variables we are very concerned about. Part of the reason for the dollar being so high is that there is an expectation of an interest rate rise down the track—which is not a good sign of economic management. We have to be sensible about that. I have been consistent about this. Every time a statistic comes out, I do not get up and say, "Look, we're fantastic." It is naïve of the Coalition to do that. The unemployment statistics revealed today are the best since the 1980s: 4.9 per cent of the labour force—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: It's a 5 per cent trend.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: But they are fantastic figures. I recall that when I studied economics 5 per cent was regarded as full employment. We have had to revise all our notions about what is unemployment and what is full employment as a result of the changes that have occurred because of globalisation. The Phillips curve, which we studied in economics 101, has been thrown out; that has been a reality for a long time. It is absolutely nonsense to say that John Howard and Peter Costello are responsible for Australia's economic growth. I do not accept that. The liberalisation of financial markets occurred under the Hawke-Keating Government; global integration occurred under the Hawke-Keating Government; the beginnings of the change away from centralised wage fixing occurred under the Hawke-Keating Government.

If members opposite want to go into history, I was one of the people who argued for enterprise bargaining in the middle of the accord, and I was criticised by Keating and Hawke for arguing the case for a more flexible labour market. So I know this area well. I am not a Johnny-come- lately in this area, like members opposite. I was part of the debates during that period, and I argued the case for labour market liberalisation. And we came up with a sensible program of labour market liberalisation that enabled enterprise bargaining but protected the base conditions of the workforce.

The worst part about the stuff John Howard has trotted out about WorkChoices recently is that it just does not do anything. It is pure ideology. We have been able to have individual agreements in the past. What we are now seeing from John Howard is pure ideology. But let us not get onto that. This motion is about whether New South Wales is well managed compared with the Commonwealth. As I have said publicly on many occasions—and members opposite have refused to agree with this—State governments are essentially accounting entities. The bulk of our revenue comes from sources that are tied—for example, the GST, where we get ripped off. It is galling that we will be paying $2.5 billion in GST revenue to other States, including Queensland, which yesterday announced a $2.3 billion budget surplus.

They are the national issues the Opposition needs to take on, rather than putting up these pathetic, timefilling motions that show a complete lack of understanding about economic processes. Anyone who thinks that John Howard and Peter Costello are solely responsible for the changes that have occurred in the Australian economy is absol They are the national issues the Opposition needs to take on, rather than putting up these pathetic, timefilling motions that show a complete lack of understanding about economic processes. Anyone who thinks that John Howard and Peter Costello are solely responsible for the changes that have occurred in the Australian economy is absolutely a fool. Consequently, anyone who thinks that Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan will have a negative impact on the Australian economy is also a fool. The reality is that those parties have managed to provide macro economic settings that are consistent with globalisation.

They have done that for a number of reasons: one is buoyant revenues, another is the resources boom. I said the other day that the most embarrassing tier of government in tax revenues is the Federal Government. It has had $46 billion in revenue above budgeted estimates over the past six years. Tax revenues are not a virtue. Tax revenues need to be spent. We tax people to provide services. Honourable members should not think that having big surpluses is somehow a virtue, because it is not. If you are not using tax revenue for investment, to do creative things, it is theft. That money comes from mining companies and pay-as-you-earn taxpayers who expect the Government to invest it in services.

The Commonwealth Government has been squeezing service provision at the State level. Rory Robertson from Macquarie Bank has done the analysis. We used to get at the State level somewhere in the order of 6 per cent of gross domestic product in state-based grants. We are down to 5 per cent now. That is a squeeze on State resources.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Rubbish.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is absolutely true. The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. He is barely a competent lawyer, let alone an economist. On all the statistics, there is a clear shift towards the Federal Government collecting tax revenues, partly the GST—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Partly the GST?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Partly the GST, but the States have been required to provide more services, not less—because the ageing population hits the States more than it does the Commonwealth—through the hospital system and disability services and associated things like community transport. All those services are provided by the State.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: That is our constitutional system.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am arguing for a new federalism. I am supporting Kevin Rudd. One can criticise past Labor governments and the current Labor Opposition, but every time a Labor government has been in office it has looked not at mickey mouse reform like WorkChoices but at real fundamental reform such as opening up the economy, looking at Federal-State relationships, taking over key areas like transport, and providing funding. The Coalition parties have done none of that. Part of the problem has been they have played ideological games.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile talked about taxation levels. On a per capita basis in 1989-90 our ranking was No. 1 among all the States. We are now No. 3. We have had to do that at the same time as redistributing GST income to other States. Some of those States, like Western Australia until recently and Queensland, have had massive budget surpluses because of the mining boom. It is absurd to be criticising the State Government, just as it is absurd to give credit when credit is not due.

The honourable member has the causality wrong. Everyone knows my views, and people have been burning effigies of me and carrying on about my views on these things, but the labour market was well on the way to being liberalised and more flexible under Labor. It has not been WorkChoices. Enterprise bargaining was the key to doing that, and it is an evolutionary process. WorkChoices is straight ideology; it has nothing to do with economic efficiency. One can see that from the number of Australian workplace agreements around at the moment and the fact that they have made no difference to the economy. Most of the sectors that are growing were not unionised sectors. These agreements are undermining conditions in unionised sectors, not in the service sectors which, because of their history and structure, did not have large union membership.

It is galling that this motion does not refer to the responsibility of governments to provide services. It refers only to one side of the equation: It is always about tax and surpluses, rather than expenditure to meet the requirements of the community. We have been criticised for paying down debt in the early part of the Carr Government and we took the decision to use our strong balance sheet to invest in infrastructure. I made this point on many occasions: We are investing more in infrastructure in New South Wales every year than the Commonwealth invests nationally. We are spending well over $10 billion a year on infrastructure in New South Wales but the Commonwealth spends something in the order of $5 billion for the whole nation. It is an absolute scandal.

Surplus funds are not funds that the Government should wave the flag about and say how great it is. It has to have a surplus over a cycle—that is the point of having a surplus. Governments collect taxation to fund services. They make sure they have a surplus so that if the economy goes down—and economies do move up and down over a cycle—they are in a position to run small deficits to accommodate the poorer economic conditions. They do not run surpluses as some sort of scorecard on their economic management. The contrary is true. Historically, economies that fail are the mercantilist economies. They ran surpluses, pocketed it all away, did not invest, and ended up failing. There is no virtue in surpluses. I say that as a fiscal conservative, as one who is on the record as being a fiscal conservative. You have to maintain a proper balance sheet and manage expenditure over the cycle so that you can deliver services.

There is no virtue in taxing people. I do not know what members of the Opposition are on about. You tax only to provide services, not for any other reason. I do not know why they think that taking from the public of Australia $46 billion more than the Government budgeted for is some virtue. It is a disgrace, a failure.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: How much extra have you taken?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I said at the time of the last budget that we should have a surplus over the cycle. That is our strategy. If we have to go into deficit because of the economic conditions—and they have been like that in the property market in recent times—as long as we have a healthy balance sheet we can maintain that and not get ourselves into difficulty. If we are so incompetent why do we continue to get our triple-A credit rating reaffirmed by the ratings agencies? The ratings agencies look at the New South Wales balance sheet and are absolutely amazed. They look at our ability to provide services and are amazed. Why are they amazed? They do the same ratings in the United States, and, from memory, less than 10 States in the United States have a triple-A credit rating. This State is very healthy and is very well run.

I have given credit many times to the role Nick Greiner played with some of his reforms to the structure of government-owned businesses, which members opposite are starting to criticise. Nick Greiner would probably turn in his political grave. Some of those reforms were good, and we built on them. Members opposite should not say that economic history in Australia started when John Howard was elected. That is absolute nonsense. Go back to the Rip Van Winkle years when we were asleep, through the Menzies period, when Black Jack McEwen refused to look at any tariff reductions. That distorted the Australian economy to such an extent that it took us almost a decade to get out of those distortions through reforms. As I said, John Howard is on the record as opposing the floating of the dollar. John Stone and Black Jack McEwen are on the record as opposing that.

We have been lucky in this country because our globalisation and our integration into the world economy occurred at a time when there were shocks—notably in Latin America and Asia—and we were able to weather our way through. We were able to do that because we had the automatic stabilisers that one has in a global economy—the dollar, interest rates, and fiscal policy. To the extent that anybody believes that fiscal policy is an important economic stimulant, we had that. I am on the other side of that argument but that is a debate for another time.

This motion should be defeated because it is silly. It is historically nonsensical to start with. It does not reflect reality. When John Howard came into government we were number one in per capita tax. We are number three now. With this Government's economic policies we have been able to reduce taxes. We have weathered the housing problems. State demand levels are high.

Unemployment rates are at historically low levels and the Government is investing massive amounts in State infrastructure and expanding service provision in areas such as health. The New South Wales Government is taking on areas in which the Commonwealth Government has failed. We are building general practitioner clinics. Primary health care is a Commonwealth responsibility. The Federal Government has $46 billion more than it budgeted for over the last six years but the State Government has to build general practitioner clinics around hospitals because the Coalition will not provide enough Medicare numbers and training for doctors.

Under the Constitution the Commonwealth Government has responsibility for these matters yet the State Government is assuming responsibility for them. There are some grey areas about who has responsibility, which is why this Government commissioned the Warren inquiry to look at reform to Federal-State fiscal arrangements. I have said on many occasions, and I say again, it is the No. 1 issue. For microeconomic reform there must be a proper division of labour between Federal, State and local government and it must be properly funded.

It does not make sense for the Commonwealth to collect 80 per cent of the nation's tax revenue and be accountable only for somewhere in the order of 50 per cent of national expenditure, and most of that is transfer payments such as welfare and not actual services, whereas the States collect 18 per cent of the national tax take but are responsible for 40 per cent of services. I call on the House to reject this motion. I do not know whether the motion is serious. I could speak for hours on the subject but the motion simply does not make sense. It is historically inaccurate and it certainly does not reflect the conditions that exist today.

I highlight yesterday's Sensis business report that shows an improvement in small business confidence, yesterday's final demand figures that show there has been an significant increase in State final demand, and today's unemployment figures that show we have extremely low rates in an historical sense with high participation rates and high growth in full-time jobs, which is unique in the New South Wales economy. I call on the House to reject the motion as nonsense.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.12 p.m.]: I am in the embarrassing position of agreeing, in large measure, with the Treasurer.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I must be wrong.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I will yield to the Treasurer if he wishes to recant everything he has said in the last two decades. The Greens oppose the motion. I echo the comments of Sylvia Hale but add a few comments. The motion does nothing to add to the debate in any substantial way because it fails to advance an alternative vision for the economic management of New South Wales. If the Opposition is to be critical of the way in which the economics of New South Wales have been managed over the last 10 years, the motion has an obligation to outline what the Opposition would do differently rather than just carping and criticising.

The motion congratulates the Howard Government. I contemplated but then rejected the idea of two amendments to the motion. The first was to congratulate the good luck of economic circumstances in which this country found itself, to congratulate the minerals boom, because to the extent to which there has been a delivery of improved economic circumstances for Australians, it is insanity to suggest it is the economic policies of one government. It is a reality that unfortunately we have become an economy that is largely based on the export of commodities and we are exposing ourselves to massive risk. Right now we are experiencing the upside risk of a buoyant international commodities market, driven by a boom in the Chinese economy. That will come to an end one day, and when it does, so will our economic good times.

It is not good economic management—and this is a major reason for rejecting the motion—to continue down the path of making Australia more and more economically dependent on the good fortunes of another country. We should be building our own buoyant economy, one that is sustainable both economically and in terms of its respect for the environment. The other amendment I thought of moving, tongue in cheek, was to delete references to the "Howard Government" and "Peter Costello" and add "Hawke-Keating Government". In as much as the Howard Government's economic policies can be said to have worked over the last 10 years, they are a little more than a continuation of the neoliberal ideology that the Hawke-Keating Government took on and enthusiastically prosecuted.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: They were right.
Dr JOHN KAYE: And they were right. I acknowledge Mr Lynn's comments when he endorses the Hawke-Keating Government.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: No, the Howard-Costello Government.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I heard you saying they were right when I was talking about the Hawke-Keating Government. What the Howard-Costello Government has done over the last 10 years in large measure is squander the dividends of the economic boom that has been forced on us by international circumstances. By failing to invest in our education system, in our universities, TAFE colleges and public school system, the longterm benefits that we could have derived from the income that we are currently earning from our commodities have been squandered. When the commodities boom comes to an end we will be at risk of becoming a nation with no economic substance or future simply because we have not created a manufacturing base for capturing the incredible inventiveness the Australian people can display when they are given appropriate opportunities through education and training.

The second issue I have with the way in which this motion has been written is economic success. If one takes statistics, we are in an employment boom but we must bear in mind that the current methods used to measure unemployment in this country are dodgy. What we are measuring is not a boom in full-time employment but in casualisation of the labour market. People with one week's part-time casual, insecure employment are not regarded as unemployed. One of the great con jobs pulled on Australian people over the last decade is the failure to release genuine and meaningful employment figures that actually measure the number of hours of employment of each person in the workforce.

It is absolute madness to suggest that a person who works one single hour a week is not unemployed. Also, the measures of economic health that we currently use are massively short term. They talk about income and outgoings but not the drawdown on our ecological capital. They fail to address the fact that the economy we are currently running is having a long-term impact on that which we hold in trust for future generations. We are eating into things that we cannot hand down to our children and their children. We are creating an economy that is based on destroying water supplies, forests and mineral resources. The second part of the motion attacks the Iemma Government; there is plenty of room to do so and we are known for doing so. We regularly get clipped over the ear for doing that and we are proud of it.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are very consistent when it comes to preferences, though.

Dr JOHN KAYE: We only gave them preferences because you guys were so appalling, with your policy of sacking 20,000 public servants. Let me turn now to the second part of the motion in an attempt to deconstruct some of the attacks on it. The attack is based on the idea that the Iemma-Costa Government is inexperienced. I would have thought that an Opposition that has spent 10 years—and will spend at least 14 years—on the Opposition benches would have very few people, if it ever does get into government, experienced in Treasury, so to criticise an existing government on its lack of experience is rather strange and would be called an own goal.

The Hon. Rick Colless: The only sure thing is that you will never be there, ever.

Dr JOHN KAYE: That is possibly true.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: It is the Greens Labor coalition.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It will not be a Greens Liberal coalition, I can assure you of that.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Your problem is that you could not get preselected for Labor, which is why you are a Green. That is your problem.

Dr JOHN KAYE: That is an outrageous proposition. On what occasion did I stand for preselection for the Labor Party? Peter Costello and John Howard argue that people should not vote for Kevin Rudd and the Labor team because they are inexperienced. That is an extraordinary argument. If we were to follow that to its extreme, we would never have a change of government. Perhaps that is where John Howard and Peter Costello are coming from; they have a secret desire to create a one-party state based on the idea that once a party is in government the other side becomes inexperienced and therefore is disqualified from ever coming to government. Among the Australian people there is a strong sense of "It's time". And never more so than now. But I move on.
The second paragraph of the motion suggests that the problem with the Iemma-Costa Government is that it is union centric. Like many people in Australia, I am thoroughly bored with the idea that "union" is a pejorative term. I am a proud member of a union and have been so for 25 years. I see no reason why a union member or, indeed, an official in the union movement should somehow or other be less adequate for government than a manager of a small business, a university academic or any other professional in life. Indeed, one could argue that union officials, who have been involved in an organisation based on democracy and service to its members, are to some extent better qualified for this place than those who have been involved in the pure pursuit of profit.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The motion does not deal with union membership or the adequacy of union members to be members of Parliament. It is self-evident that union membership and union management—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I hope that the Hon. Greg Pearce is not about to make a debating point.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Union membership and union management are not part of the motion.

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: My copy of the motion—perhaps the Hon. Greg Pearce has a different motion—states:

The PRESIDENT:

Dr JOHN KAYE:

The Hon. Rick Colless:

Dr JOHN KAYE:

The Hon. Rick Colless:

Dr JOHN KAYE:

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX

Interruption

The PRESIDENT:

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX:

New South Wales in Focus 2007

I refer now to this Labor Government's economic competence. I have detailed a range of economic indicators and, as the Hon. Greg Pearce said, there is no comparison between what the Howard-Costello Government has done and what has happened under this Labor Government for the past 10 years. The people of New South Wales and Australia understand that. They understand that the subliminal message from Labor is "economic incompetence", and the subliminal message from the Coalition is "economic security". That will be reflected in the Federal election later this year; people will understand that when they go into the polling booths. They will ask themselves whether they can trust Labor with their economic security, and the result will speak for itself: The Federal Coalition Government will be returned to manage our economy responsibly. I wish that this State Government would take a few pages out of the Federal Government's book and realise what economic competence is all about. It should focus on making the best possible investments and providing the best possible service delivery in the interests of everyone in New South Wales, not only those living in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. If the Government did that, there would be an enormous rush of investment in the intellectual and economic potential of people outside the major cities in this great State.

I turn now to comment on the contribution of the Treasurer and his rewriting of history. He said that successive governments build upon the changes made by their predecessors, and I acknowledge that. The changes introduced by the Hawke-Keating Government—the liberalisation of our economy and the floating of the exchange and interest rates—were very important, and I wholeheartedly endorse them. However, the Treasurer did not state that the Hawke-Keating Government built on foundations put in place by the FraserHoward Government, which commissioned the Campbell report.

[ Interruption]

Government members will learn a few things, if they just listen. The Campbell report led to financial deregulation of the economy. That was the building block put in place by none other than our current Prime Minister, John Howard, as the Federal Treasurer in the Fraser Government. In contrast, currently in the Federal Parliament when the Government puts forward a great idea the Opposition shouts it down because it is not its idea. Under the Hawke-Keating Government these wonderful reforms were brought in as a result of the Campbell report, which John Howard commissioned. What did Howard do? He supported the Hawke-Keating Government right through that economic liberalisation and is now seen to be advantaged by that. Well, good on him! That is exactly the way it should be. He has reaped the rewards of the seeds he sowed in those times. [ Time expired.]

The Hon. IAN WEST [3.50 p.m.]: Rather than wasting the House's valuable time, the shadow Treasurer ought to be working to outline serious alternative policy proposals for the people of New South Wales. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer will be taken seriously in this House when he does some real work on policy issues. We on this side of the House have come to expect inertia from members opposite. One could be forgiven for thinking that members opposite have become relaxed and comfortable as the perennial Opposition. It would be novel if the Opposition acted like it wanted to one day govern this great State, by getting down to the business of trying to understand the real concerns of the people of New South Wales.

One of those real concerns is investment in infrastructure. One finds some interesting things when one examines the recent history of investment infrastructure in New South Wales. Between 1988 and 1995, when the Coalition was last in government in New South Wales, it invested $42.8 billion in infrastructure, or $5.4 billion a year. In contrast, between 1995 and 2006 the New South Wales Labor Government invested $78.4 billion in infrastructure, or $6.5 billion a year. In 2006-07 the State's annual capital spending will reach $10.5 billion—the highest spending ever by a New South Wales government, and 30 per cent greater than in 2005-06.

Over the next four years the State's capital investment will increase by 53 per cent more than during the previous four years. This record investment will deliver infrastructure to enable New South Wales to manage unprecedented demand from population growth and ageing, and address urban and regional development pressures across the State. The State's infrastructure investment has grown exponentially in real terms. Investment in 2006-07 will be 85 per cent higher than in the 1990s, more than double, or 109 per cent higher, than in the 1980s, and more than 2½ times, or 153 per cent, higher than in the 1970s. They are the facts that expose the fiction trotted out in this debate by members opposite.

If the shadow Treasurer wants to learn more about his Federal colleagues and their neglectful attitude to this country's infrastructure needs, he may want to have a yarn to the member for Burrinjuck. In responding to a recent tragic fatal accident on the Barton Highway, the member for Burrinjuck was quoted in the Yass Tribune as saying:

The fatality rate per kilometre on the Barton Highway is higher than on the Hume, Newell and New England Highways, all of which are currently receiving Federal Government funding under the current round of AusLink Road Program. The Federal Government has said that the duplication start date will not even be announced until after 2008-09.

The member for Burrinjuck seems to be aware of the shameful neglect of infrastructure in the recent Federal budget. I am sure the shadow Treasurer is just as aware of that neglect when he looks at the statistics. The 200708 Federal budget has allocated $5 billion for infrastructure across the entire country—that is, less than half the level of investment that the New South Wales Labor Government is putting into infrastructure. I suggest that the sensible members opposite would be appropriately embarrassed by those figures.
While the New South Wales Government is spending a record $44 billion over the next four years on infrastructure, the Federal Government is sitting on huge mining boom surpluses. If members opposite, particularly the shadow Treasurer, were serious about the issue they would follow the sensible lead of the member for Burrinjuck and join us in seeking a more responsible approach from the Commonwealth. Rather than playing partisan politics, the member for Burrinjuck is standing up for her constituents and expressing her frustration at the Federal Government's abrogation of its infrastructure responsibilities. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer should take a leaf out of his colleague's book, ease up a bit on the propaganda, get across the facts, and get down to work for the people he is supposed to serve.

The latest State Final Demand figures, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday, show that spending in New South Wales in the March quarter rose by 1.2 per cent, after rising by 1.4 per cent in the December 2006 quarter. In the March quarter only the resource boom states of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory experienced stronger growth than New South Wales. In addition, the September 2006 quarter was revised from a negative figure to a positive figure. In other words, New South Wales has experienced positive growth in spending for nearly three consecutive years. So there are now three lots of good news for the New South Wales economy: good news for jobs, good news for the economy, and good news for growth. But there is bad news for the Opposition. The second paragraph of the motion refers to the "inexperienced, union-centric mismanagement of the Iemma-Costa Government".

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Do you like that?

The Hon. IAN WEST: I suggest to the shadow Treasurer that he have a close look at the Federal Cabinet.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Again I ask the Hon. Ian West to speak through the Chair, and again I ask all members to cease interjecting.

The Hon. IAN WEST: All the members of the Federal Cabinet are members of collective bargaining organisations. When those Federal Cabinet members hold discussions, they include various employer organisations. The Business Council of Australia, various federations and confederations, associations, guilds, institutes, societies, boards and executives collectively lobby members of the Federal Government about issues of concern to them.

Apparently it is okay for business organisations to go to the Federal Government and lobby Ministers over particular issues. They are unions—they are organisations, confederations, associations or guilds—so it is bold of the shadow Treasurer to tell us that union-centric management in New South Wales is a problem. Unioncentric management in the Commonwealth is completely one-sided. At least in New South Wales we operate from a tripartite point of view. We negotiate with lobby groups from employers.

If in the Federal arena the Australian Council of Trade Unions or an affiliate were to approach a Federal Minister about an issue, the Minister would not talk to it, but it is alright for bosses' unions, for employer organisations. Apparently those collective bargaining organisations are kosher and they can talk to the Federal Ministers at any time but if an employee organisation does that, members opposite say there is something intrinsically wrong with it. I find that completely hypocritical.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Why is it hypocritical?

The Hon. IAN WEST: It is hypocritical because members of the Opposition know exactly what they are trying to do. It is alright for them to talk to their employer mates but is not alright for anyone to talk to an organisation of employees. This motion has no credibility and should be seen for what it is—a farce.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [4.02 p.m.]: I want to focus on a couple of aspects of the motion, and I think that honourable members will conclude from my comments that many of the words in the Hon. Greg Pearce's motion and many of his own words condemn him, so much so that on that basis the motion deserves to be rejected.

First is a matter that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox spoke about in some detail and the Hon. Greg Pearce spoke to also. That is taxation and the significance of taxation. I refer to personal income tax and the Howard Government's record in regard to tax cuts over the past few years. I have had a table prepared, a copy of which I have just given to the Hon. Greg Pearce. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Leave is not granted.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: What I would like to do then is read into Hansard the information in the table. I assure the honourable member that the information is accurate. It sets out the tax cuts provided to pay-as-you-earn taxpayers between 2003 and 2007. In the left-hand column under "Annual Income" we start at $25,000, and then we go to $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000, $125,000, $150,000, $200,000, $250,000 and $1 million.

In the next column, under the year 2003, I show the tax cuts rendered by the Howard-Costello Government for that year, starting at an income of $25,000 and less and ascending to $1 million. The weekly tax cuts from 1 July of that financial year are, in order, $4.00, $4.00, $8.62, $11.02, $11.02, $11.02, $11.02, $11.02, $11.02, $11.02, $11.02, and $11.02.

In the next financial year workers on $25,000 or less and $50,000 received no tax cuts, workers on $60,000 received $13.85, and then in ascending order they received $21.06, $21.06, $21.06, $21.06, $21.06, $21.06, and so on, to the $1 million mark. The tax cuts for the next year were, again starting at the $25,000 mark and ascending to $1 million, $6.00, $6.00, $10.60, $17,50, $27.15, $36.76, $41.57, $41.57, $41.57, $41.57, and so on.

In 2006 the cuts were, in the same order, $20.96, $9.81, $9.81, $25.96, $39.42, $43.27, $51.92, $85.58, $119.23, $138.45, $157.67 and $311.54. That brings us to the latest round of tax cuts, which will operate from 1 July 2007. Again in the same order they are $2.88, $14.42, $14.42, $14.42, $14.42, $14.42. $14.42, $14.42, $14.22 and $14.42, and I have not been able to get the figures for the last two income brackets.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: So you admit it might not be accurate?

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I just do not have the figures. In the total tax cut column, which is obviously the addition of the figures across the rows, the figures are $33.84, $34.23, $57.30, $89.96, $113.07, $126.53, $139.99, $173.65, $207.30, $226.52, $231.32 and $385.19. Using a calculator one can do some pretty basic arithmetic to work out that the lowest income earners—there are many hundreds of thousands of workers in this income bracket in industries such as retail, fast food, and hospitality, including restaurants, clubs and pubs, so ultimately there are millions of these workers—achieved tax cuts of 7 per cent in 2003-07. Workers in the reasonably high salary bracket of $100,000—certainly four times the lowest category—received a tax cut of 7.3 per cent. Workers in the salary bracket of $125,000 received a 7.2 per cent tax cut and workers in the $150,000 salary bracket received a 7.1 per cent tax cut over the respective period.

Treasurer Costa spoke about the notion of budget deficits being somewhat of a virtue. The Federal Government has skewed the tax cuts towards those who least need them. If John Howard wants to continue to carry his mantle of standing up for the working battlers of the western suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and the other capital cities, to say nothing about workers outside the major capital cities who are on low incomes and receive significantly less than workers in the capital cities, one would think that he would skew tax cuts towards those who would most benefit from them and that he would provide tax cuts to people who would do something useful with the extra dollars in their pockets each week such as buy food, pay for life's necessities or pay more off their mortgage.

The facts speak for themselves with respect to the notion that the Commonwealth Government is fair with taxation and its personal income tax cuts. The Commonwealth Government has deliberately favoured highincome earners. That is undeniable and unacceptable. Because of the size of the deficit the Commonwealth Government could well afford to provide better tax cuts for the people who could most benefit from them.

I want to touch also on the point made by the Hon. Ian West and give an example of what I consider to be an extraordinary situation. In effect, the genie is out of the bottle—the unleashing of WorkChoices and its impact on low-income workers and their families—and this will lead to the demise of the Howard Government when the Federal election is held at the end of this year. Indeed, we have only just begun to see the impact of that legislation. I was surprised to read in the Sydney Morning Herald last Tuesday, 5 June, a very large advertisement on page 14. It caught my attention because it was by the banner of the Australian Government Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources under the heading "Collecting Bargaining: making it easier to do business". The advertisement had the subheading "Collective bargaining—making it easier to do business whatever the size of your business". I do not intend to read out the full advertisement but I would like to read part of it and comment on it. It stated:

Collective bargaining enables businesses of all sizes to work together co-operatively.

I do not think we would disagree with that.

Small businesses can benefit by joining together to negotiate with a larger business, who is their common customer or supplier. Larger businesses can find it more efficient to negotiate directly with a group of small businesses rather than each small business individually.

Businesses can collectively bargain with other businesses as long as they get approval to do so from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) under the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Recent Australian Government reforms to the collective bargaining processes under the Trade Practices Act have established a new notification process. This will make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for small businesses to engage in collective bargaining.

The new notification process allows small business to commence collective bargaining, where it is in the public interest, in as little as 28 days following the lodgement of a valid notification with the ACCC.

This shows the almost perverse irony of the Federal Government and its economic rationalist approach. On the one hand the effect of the WorkChoices legislation, which commenced last year and recently had its first anniversary, is that working people in Australia are effectively denied collective bargaining. An employer can simply refuse to negotiate with employees who request collective bargaining by simply saying, "No, we are not prepared to bargain. We are going to offer Australian workplace agreements." Those workers, no matter how much they wish to be represented collectively, have no right to collectively bargain with their employer.

That is the effect of the WorkChoices legislation; it is the key point that Government members have commented on leading up to and since the introduction of WorkChoices. It is the reality for Australian workers in Australia today. They may wish, through proper discussion with their trade union, to sit down and negotiate over wages and working conditions and the employer can simply say, "No, I am not prepared to negotiate with you. I am only prepared to offer individual contracts." And that, as a matter of law, is that. But it gets worse. Even if collective bargaining is done under WorkChoices—which the legislation permits—the agreement is not binding on employers to this extent: once a collective agreement is certified by the body responsible for registering and certifying collective agreements under WorkChoices, the next day the employer can offer individual agreements not only to workers who are bound by the collective agreement but also any employee who walks in the door. That is the nature of the WorkChoices legislation. Members opposite are silent.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You've got the floor.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Members opposite usually interject in these types of debates.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's not revolutionary.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: It is revolutionary because the reality is that people in the community are embarrassed that in the end WorkChoices was the millstone that sunk the New South Wales Coalition on 24 March this year.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Is it a genie or a millstone?

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: It was the millstone. WorkChoices is the genie out of the bottle, but the millstone is what sunk the Coalition in New South Wales. There is no doubt in my mind that WorkChoices will be what sinks the Coalition at the Federal election. Australian workers—I acknowledge that many of them are not trade union members—and their families are fundamentally concerned about the reality of WorkChoices. In their heart of hearts they know that WorkChoices is fundamentally unfair legislation. They are counting down the days to the Federal election at the end of this year, at the very latest, so they can sink the Coalition. I am of the view that John Howard will lose his seat in the Commonwealth Parliament because of what he has done to industrial relations legislation. He did not take WorkChoices to the last Federal election. He passed it for one reason: He had control of the Senate. Even members of his own party did not generally support WorkChoices, except for some ideologues who support economic rationalism. He did it, and he and the Coalition will pay the ultimate price at the Federal election this year. [ Time expired.]

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [4.22 p.m.], in reply: Notwithstanding the quality of some speeches, I thank all honourable members who made a contribution to this debate. Ms Sylvia Hale made some useful comments about red tape. However, much of what she said seemed to be rushed. Perhaps she had not had adequate time to think it through. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, as is usual in his considered contributions, made some valuable comments. He said he supported the motion for one good reason: as a result of the Federal Government's policies unemployment is down to 4.4 per cent—the lowest for 32 years. He talked about the Federal Government's success in ensuring that jobs are available, which is key to any good government.

The honourable member pointed to a number of other indicators that reflect the fact that the Federal Government's policies are working. The Australian dollar is at a 17-year high against the American dollar, there are record stock market profits, interest rates are stable at 6.25 per cent, and the economy has been strong enough to enable us to withstand the devastating drought and continue to grow, notwithstanding the drought is impacting greatly and disproportionately on rural and regional communities. The Treasurer gave one of his typical performances. He spent most of his time giving his version of history and his role in history. He spent some time talking about workplace reform but did not make much of an effort to defend his Government's performance.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: His idea of history would be the Dark Ages.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Dark Ages, certainly. Notably, most speakers spent time talking about the Federal Government's performance. They made little effort to defend the performance of the IemmaCosta Labor Government. Dr John Kaye—I am not sure whether he wants to be addressed as "honourable"—showed, embarrassingly, his inexperience in the Chamber. He confirmed that he wanted to be a Labor member but Labor would not have him. Other than that, he did not have much to say. He said that infrastructure in this State had been run down over the past 10 years. I agree with him that clearly one can run deficit budgets over the economic cycle. The honourable member supports the need to ease the burden of red tape.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox gave a mature and reasoned contribution. He pointed out some of the true history of economic reform in this country. He started with the $96 billion debt left by the Hawke-Keating governments and the loss of our triple-A rating. He referred to the record revenues flowing into New South Wales and revenue growth over the past four years. He pointed out that the mid-year review indicated that over the four years to 2006-07—this is probably the key issue relating to the New South Wales Government—revenue growth has been averaging about 4 per cent, whereas expenses have been averaging almost 6 per cent. Lack of fiscal discipline is one key reason New South Wales was trending towards a recession late last year. It is wonderful for all of us that, notwithstanding the efforts of the Iemma-Costa Government, the Federal Government's economic management has saved New South Wales from falling into the recession trap.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox debunked some of the ill-informed comments by other speakers about a vertical fiscal imbalance. He also talked about the disaster of the Labor Party's vendor tax and its impact on the real estate sector in New South Wales, and the land tax issues that will impact on people later this year. Importantly—I have raised this before on a number of occasions—the honourable member put on the record the fact that the Fraser-Howard Government was responsible for initiating the economic reform that occurred after it left office. It initiated the Campbell report, of which we are all beneficiaries.

The Hon. Ian West made a somewhat interesting contribution. The key point he made is that infrastructure investment in New South Wales will increase by 53 per cent over the next four years. What an admission! The honourable member admitted that the Carr and Iemma-Costa governments have failed to invest in infrastructure and let infrastructure run down over the past 12 years. The Hon. Greg Donnelly made a curious contribution. I was not sure whether he was speaking for or against the motion. He took an inordinate amount of time complimenting the Howard Government on its series of tax cuts. It was very good of the honourable member to do so. I fail to see how it added to what I believe was his argument. He did leave out one set of tax cuts: the Howard Government introduced tax cuts in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And they will introduce them in 2008 as well.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Absolutely. The Howard Government has introduced a total of $31.5 billion over four years in tax cuts. That is a very strong argument, and I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for introducing it into the debate. A number of members have referred to WorkChoices. The curious thing about the debate is that whilst most members spoke for some time about the record of the Federal Government and workplace reforms, they made no real attempt to defend the record of the Iemma-Costa Government. It was as though it was territory that was too barren to attempt to cross.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a step too far.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It is a step too far. As I said, a number of members referred to workplace reform. I draw the attention of the House to the New South Wales Business Chamber, who I referred to in my earlier speech, which said that there is a "risk-of-Rudd" premium emerging in the building industry. Employers all around the country are becoming very fearful of a change in government because of the likely impact it would have on the Australian economy. The risk of Rudd is one risk that none of us wants to take. I commend the motion to the House and urge members to join me in congratulating the Howard Liberal-Nationals Government on its exemplary economic management and, in particular, Treasurer Mr Costello on his budget on 8 May 2007, and in condemning the inexperienced union-centric mismanagement of the Iemma-Costa State Labor Government.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 14

Mr Ajaka
Mr Clarke
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gay
Mr Khan

Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 20

Mr Brown
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Dr KayeMr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms SharpeMr Tsang
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Pairs

Ms Cusack

Mr Catanzariti

Pairs

Ms Cusack	Mr Catanzariti
Mr Gallacher	Mr Della Bosca
Miss Gardiner	Ms Fazio

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS SYSTEM

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Christine Robertson.

SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PATRON PROTECTION) BILL 2007

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

Second Reading

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Security Industry Amendment (Patron Protection) Bill today, the object of which is to make amendments to the Security Industry Act 1997 to introduce new measures covering the security industry, including targeted drug and alcohol testing of bouncers and crowd controllers. These measures will affect only those who have a 1C or a PIC licence that authorises the licensee to act as a crowd controller, venue controller or bouncer or to act in a similar capacity. Other people who are licensed by the Security Industry Registry are not subject to drug or alcohol testing under this bill.

The intention of this bill is to enhance the safety and security of patrons in hotels and nightclubs across the State. By way of background, the bill sets out to achieve a number of policy objectives: to ensure that crowd controllers are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol while working because of the lack of judgment and increased levels of aggression associated with many of these substances; to reduce the prevalence of drug trading in nightclubs and hotels; to facilitate increased reporting to police and the Security Industry Registry of assaults committed by crowd controllers; to dramatically increase the accountability of crowd controllers while on duty with regard to violent and other criminal conduct; to ensure that crowd controllers are part of the solution to violence in licensed premises as opposed to being part of the problem in a significant percentage of incidents; and to ensure that master licence holders act in accordance with the principles of fair trading.

Before I lay the foundations of the rationale for this bill I point out that it has been developed in close consultation with all of the peak bodies that represent the security industry. Consultation has taken place with the Australian Security Industry Association, the Institute of Security Executives and the Building Services Contractors Association of Australia. I have also received a joint submission from those organisations and had discussions with the Australian Hotels Association. Those organisations have had a copy of this bill and the explanatory notes for many months prior to today's sitting in order that they might fully analyse the content and its ramifications. Industry representatives have indicated that they were suitably impressed with the degree of consultation that took place with them in relation to this bill. I can safely say that no other bill concerning the security industry in New South Wales has been the subject of more consultation with the industry since the inception of the Security Industry Act 1997.

I also point to out that two other Australian States—South Australia and Western Australia—have similar testing programs to that which is proposed in this bill. The Premiers of those States have made testing regimes the centrepiece of reform with regard to their zero-tolerance approach to crowd controller misconduct. We have all heard stories about the treatment of some patrons by bouncers. In fact, one need only look at the sports pages of almost any day's newspapers to read about various sportspersons who get involved in brawls and drunken boxing matches after hotel closing hours and in the early hours of the morning.

In my travels around this State this issue, along with other varieties of after-dark violence and antisocial behaviour, is a common theme among constituents. I submit that the incidence of violence in pubs and hotels is certainly not peculiar to centres such as Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong—or are inebriated patrons solely to blame for its prevalence? Honourable members will remember the highly publicised death of the Australian cricketer David Hookes early in 2004. Unfortunately, a series of similar bouncer-patron deaths has occurred since then. That incident is a constant reminder of how the patron-bouncer relationship can go awfully awry.

The reality is that if the Parliament of New South Wales were to pass this bill, the risk of similar incidents occurring would be dramatically reduced. Studies on violence in New South Wales indicate that a significant percentage of criminal assaults tend to cluster in and around licensed premises. There is not a day's newspaper that does not recount at least one story. About 90 per cent of assaults that occur late at night—the most common time for assaults generally—are those associated with alcohol abuse. With regard to the establishments, the majority of violent incidents were concentrated in a small number of larger hotels and nightclubs, most of which were trading at later hours.

A prominent feature in all these larger pubs and clubs is the teams of crowd controllers that emit people from outside and move among the crowd indoors. Police are rarely—or never—seen in such venues; they leave it all to the crowd controllers. Sometimes the crowds are in excess of a few thousand patrons. Further, statistics produced by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that general violent assaults in licensed premises are on the increase. Assaults in New South Wales hotels and clubs have consistently grown, from 3,041 incidents in 2000 to 3,972 assaults in 2004. In registered clubs the number of incidents has also increased, from 1,000 to 1,400 over the same period. Assaults in nightclubs have increased from 537 to 713. It can be seen that there is a 25 per cent, 33 per cent or 50 per cent increase in these various categories in a matter of just four or five years. In each of these cases, it is a remarkable increase in aggression in licensed premises.

Throughout all licensed premises in New South Wales there has been a 29 per cent increase in assaults since the period from 2000 to 2004. The House should note that all the research in this regard shows that the existence of late trading hours is the greatest antecedent to violence in and around licensed premises, which spikes in the hours following midnight. Members would be aware that many councils have banned, or have sought to ban, late opening hours in their municipalities. As one might be able to appreciate, the extent of bouncer-instigated aggression towards patrons is very difficult to measure. It requires teams of researchers sitting in licensed premises until the early hours of the morning, waiting for incidents to occur. However, these studies have been done by university-based research teams to confirm the assertion that there is a significant problem with some crowd controllers who engage in violent conduct against patrons.

Moreover, policing agencies and crime researchers are increasingly becoming aware of the role that crowd controllers play in inciting incidences of violence conducted in hotels and nightclubs. In a 1998 article in the Journal of Drug Issues that was authored by Wells and others entitled "Responses to security staff to violent incidents in public settings", 182 violent incidences in bar settings in Toronto, Canada, involving crowd controllers were examined. The researchers found that in 12 per cent of the incidences the crowd controllers' responses were related as "good", 20 per cent of the responses were related as "neutral", but 36 per cent of the responses were related as "bad". That is, the crowd controllers enhanced the likelihood of violence but were themselves not violent. In 31 per cent, or almost one-third, of the incidences the crowd controllers' responses were related as "ugly". The crowd controllers' action involved gratuitous aggression, harassment of patrons, and provocative behaviour.

Likewise, studies in Australia, most of which are fairly dated now, have indicated that between 21 per cent and 47 per cent of all violent incidences in licensed premises involve violence by or against security staff. A Queensland study undertaken in 1999 assessed whether providers of security personnel believe that regulation had reduced the number of assaults by crowd controllers in licensed premises. The State Security Providers Act, a regulation that does not provide for drug and alcohol testing, was judged by 37 per cent of the security companies to have reduced crowd controller assaults, 30 per cent were unsure whether they had been reduced, and 32 per cent of security companies disagreed that assaults were decreasing. This level of violence in licensed premises is notable, especially given the possible bias that security companies may have in minimising the public perception of violent crowd controllers.

Given this range of figures, one can say that the evidence suggests that a significant minority of violent incidents that occur in hotels and nightclubs are initiated by aggression or provocative behaviour on the part of crowd controllers towards patrons. Importantly, these figures do not include any incidents initiated by crowd controllers that were not reported by patrons to the police. According to the Australasian Centre of Policing Research in a 2004 research paper entitled "The antecedents of alcohol-related violence in and around licensed premises", the reasons for underreporting are as follows: the perceived low conviction rates of crowd controllers involved in the assaults; difficulties associated with the identification of the assailant; difficulties with the victim obtaining corroborating evidence; the perceived risk of physical intimidation by the crowd controllers in the future; a perception that reporting crowd controllers to the police would lead to the victims being banned from licensed premises; and police decisions concerning whether to proceed with assault charges being influenced by the recognition that police also have to deal with some of the same abuse and behaviour that crowd controllers have to deal with.

There is a code of silence, or perhaps collusion, that is intrinsic in the culture of crowd controllers that render police investigations problematic, and delays between the alleged assaults and the interviewing of crowd controllers by police facilitate collusion between crowd controllers. Members should note that the total number of licensed security officers and crowd controllers in New South Wales, including those that are armed with weapons, is 43,838. This number compares with only 14,200 police officers. Licensed security officers play a role in maintaining safety and security not only in private spaces but frequently also in public spaces. The number of private security guards is increasing rapidly. I ask members to imagine the situation now: within the State there are around 50,000 private security controllers, many of whom are armed, compared with fewer than 15,000 police officers.

When the Australian States began regulating the burgeoning security forces in the 1990s it was acknowledged that this private police force of 43,800 people must be regulated to maintain the integrity of the industry. Legislators understood the propensity of risk to the industry for being infiltrated by criminality and the abuse of power. This is perhaps one of the main reasons why the bill needs to become New South Wales law. Crowd controllers on private property act with the additional delegated power of the landowner or the publican. In 1999 Professor Rick Starr of the University of South Australia and Associate Professor Tim Prenzler from Griffith University noted that in private venues such as nightclubs and hotels crowd controllers operate with more real authority than police officers. If police officers are publicly held accountable for their conduct while on the job, a similar argument can be made in relation to crowd controllers.
As I have said previously, the centrepiece of this bill is the introduction of drug and alcohol testing of crowd controllers who work in hotels and nightclubs. My office—and I acknowledge especially the work of my former staffer Jonathon Flegg—contacted all the leading experts in criminology and the security industry to ask for their opinions on this bill. Members may care to note that these leading experts strongly supported the bill. Indeed, as a result of the bill Australian experts in their respective areas are calling upon members of the New South Wales Parliament to introduce drug and alcohol testing of licensed crowd controllers. I seek to table a letter signed by a series of professors from seven universities.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

The document I have tabled is a letter of support for this bill from seven professors in seven universities who have specialised in the study of the behaviour of crowd controllers within licensed premises. I thank those experts for their work and research in support of the bill. We must not reject the reports of those professors. I thank each of them for their efforts, especially Professor Tim Princely for his assistance in producing the statement.

The list of workers in New South Wales subject to drug and alcohol testing is growing. For example, police officers are tested regularly. Military personnel, pilots, train drivers, ferry pilots, bus drivers, transport and maintenance workers, and safety workers are all subject to some kind of testing. So too are all motor vehicle drivers, who may be subjected to random breath testing for alcohol and, more recently, drug abuse. It is only sensible that those who are in control of the safety of large numbers of the public—patrons and members of the public in general—should also be subject to such random testing.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

The House continued to sit.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 19 June 2007 at 2.30 p.m.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT BILL 2007

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June 2007.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have received a request from the Hon. Helen Westwood that a sign interpreter be permitted to stand on the floor of the House to assist people in the public gallery during the giving of her inaugural speech. After consulting with members and the Clerk I have agreed to this request on the basis that it is only for the duration of the member's speech.

Before I call the Hon. Helen Westwood I remind all members and people in the galleries that the member is about to make her first speech in this House, and I ask that all the customary courtesies be extended to her.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.02 p.m.] (Inaugural Speech): I speak in support of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Bill. I acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, and pay my respects to their Elders past and present. The week just passed has been a commemoration of significant events for indigenous and non-indigenous Australians alike, and also a reminder of a history of severe disadvantage—regretfully, disadvantage that still exists for the majority of indigenous Australians. The commemorations have included the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 referendum, the fifteenth anniversary of the High Court's Mabo decision and the tenth anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report on the stolen generation. There was also a celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Linkup, the very successful organisation run by indigenous people for the benefit of indigenous people. The week also saw the release of the Productivity Commission's report on overcoming indigenous disadvantage that details the wide gaps that remain in outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. The report states:

Despite Australia's world-class health system, the life expectancy of Indigenous people is estimated to be around 17 years lower than that for the total Australian population. Despite compulsory education, Indigenous students at all levels experience much worse outcomes than non-Indigenous students. And Indigenous people are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system, as both victims and offenders.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up just 2 per cent of the Australian population. It is hard to believe that a nation as wealthy as ours with all the intellectual, economic and cultural resources we have at our disposal has not been able to invest just some of those plentiful resources in overcoming this shameful blight on our nation's record. The over half a million Australians who took part in the reconciliation walk of May 2000 were an indication of the desire of Australians to rectify the wrongs of the past. The goodwill was palpable on the day I joined the 250,000 who walked the Sydney Harbour Bridge. All that was required was for the political leadership of that time to lead this nation to reconciliation. It is a tragedy that such political leadership was absent. I believe that history will judge Australia poorly for not seizing the opportunity to right the wrongs of the past.

Members' inaugural speeches are defining ones; an opportunity to thank those whose support has been invaluable, and to inform the House of the personal journey that brought us here; to reveal the life experiences and ideas that have shaped our views on public policy matters; to disclose the values and principles we hold that will guide us as we make decisions in our roles as legislators, and, most importantly, as representatives of the people—on whose behalf we act in this Chamber. My speech tonight will be a very personal one because my life experiences are what have brought me here and have most definitely shaped my view on public policy matters. For me, the personal is political.

I want to acknowledge the former President of this House, the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, who I replace in this Chamber and whose record on issues of social justice and human rights is highly regarded well beyond this Parliament—indeed, well beyond this State. I particularly want to acknowledge that during Dr Burgmann's presidency she ensured that this House was the people's Parliament; her commitment to the principles of parliamentary democracy opened this House up to the broader community. She made it accessible to the people and I commend her for that.

I will begin my thankyous by thanking the people of New South Wales, who had the good sense to reelect the Iemma Labor Government despite the aggressive anti-Labor campaign run by the Sydney media, in particular the press and radio. In addition to the re-election of this responsible Government I hope another positive outcome of the election campaign will be a rethink of the influence of shock jocks in this State. I sincerely hope that any such rethink will lead the observer to see that there is no need to give succour to their bullying, divisive style of broadcasting by genuflecting at their altar.

My sincere thanks also to the men and women of the Australian Labor Party, whose support and assistance resulted in my election to this Parliament. I joined the Bargo-Picton Branch—it no longer exists under that name; it is now the Wollondilly branch—of the Australian Labor Party in 1976. My motivation was like so many of my generation—the Whitlam years, a time that enabled us to conceive of a socially just and civilised society. We had marvelled, indeed revelled, in the reforms Whitlam and his Government had brought about only to see them whittled away by a conservative government. Add to this the dismissal, and many were politicised. All political parties in this country rely upon the support of their membership and the Labor Party, as great as its history, traditions and objectives are, would achieve little if it were not for the participation and support of rank and file members—those individuals who give their time and energy for the cause they believe in. I particularly want to thank the members of Sefton and Chester Hill branches for their unflagging support and confidence in me.

There are so many in the party I want to thank but unfortunately time does not permit. However, I want to mention Jan Primrose, your good self, Mr President, Luke Foley, the Hon. John Faulkner, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, Sally McManus, Geoff Derrick, Glenn Martin, Mick Simpson, Neo Achidellis, Doreen Maybury and Bill Lovelee for their support and guidance over the years.

I was the first born to Harry and Cecily Wray. Harry came to Australia from England after World War II. Harry's childhood had been a tough one—one of four children in a single parent family growing up in England during the Depression—and there was never any need to convince him of the need for a good social security system. Cecily, born in Australia, was the eldest girl in a family of 10. She also lived with the deprivation of the Depression and, as a girl, was not given the opportunities of education afforded to the boys of the family—a true injustice as she was, in my view, far brighter than the boys. Both Harry and Cecily served in World War II.

I had the good fortune, therefore, of being born to parents with a great sense of social justice. For my parents this was not an ideology but a way of life. They were generous, compassionate, empathetic, communityspirited people and both staunch trade unionists. As Catholics we attended our local parish of Sefton. It was there that my mother heard of the plight of very young children who were in need of foster parents, and hence my sister Colleen joined our family at 2½ years of age, just a few weeks after my second birthday. My brother, David, was born less than 12 months after Colleen joined our family. David was a creative and talented child, who channelled those gifts into his love of music. David is now known in the Australian music industry as Frank Bennett, the fabulous crooner.

I thank my parents for their unqualified love and support. Sadly, my father did not live to see me take my seat in this House but I know how proud and amazed he would have been that this daughter of a cleaner is sitting in this Chamber. It is my mother who has been the greatest influence throughout my life, and still is, and I am extraordinarily grateful to my mother for her love, guidance and support. I am truly delighted that she is here in the gallery tonight.

I began my working life at 15 years of age and have had a variety of jobs including shop assistant, accounting machinist, clerical assistant, stay-at-home mum, community worker and electorate officer. As a worker I learned very quickly the value of belonging to a trade union and over my years in the paid work force I have belonged to a number of unions including the Public Service Union, the Australian Services Union and the Community and Public Sector Union. The current Federal Government has been very successful at demonising the trade union movement. Trade unions make a significant contribution to individuals, families and the broader fabric of our community.

Over this nation's recent history unions have contributed to improving the lives of working people through our industrial relations systems, through the contribution that they have made to the development of good social policy and via the work they do on specific community issues. Perhaps the best contemporary example of their work is the James Hardie campaign for the victims of asbestos. The efforts of the trade union movement in advocating for those victims illustrate the way trade unions pursue a just outcome on behalf of workers and the broader community. I express my thanks to my comrades in the trade union movement. I look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that workers in this State have decent working conditions and wages.

Following my marriage in 1973 at the age 17 my husband, Bob, and I moved to Bargo on Sydney's south-western outskirts. In 1978 my first daughter, Jessica, was born. She was the child and is the adult who simply makes motherhood a truly joyous experience. She has grown into an outstanding young woman, who is now my best mate. The birth of my second daughter, Hayley, in 1980 was life changing. Hayley was born at 26 weeks gestation after a very complicated and difficult pregnancy and, as a consequence of this, she is profoundly deaf. At this time in my life I am sincerely grateful to have had the opportunity of entering the world of the deaf community, to learn their language, their culture and share their life experiences. The road to this point, however, was not an easy one. Understanding the nature of your child's disability and locating and accessing the services that she and my family needed required a great deal of tenacity and resourcefulness.

My experience as a parent of a child with a disability changed my life forever. I became my daughter's advocate, lobbyist, speech pathologist and teacher. I had to make decisions about what mode of communication we should use with her—oral, cueing, signed-English or Auslan. I had very little or no knowledge about these modes of communication nor did I know which one of these was in her best interests and which one would help her realise her full potential as an independent, well-educated, happy adult. I did, though, learn an awful lot about the needs of families with children with a disability and the role of the community services sector in providing information, support and resources. I discovered that the role of community services is invaluable, to say the least; in fact, in my experience it was life saving. I also came to understand the importance of being able to access services in one's local community. The personal time and cost of driving many kilometres for basic or specialised health and community services compounded the social, economic and emotional effect on our family.
Like a number of other honourable members who have made their inaugural speeches these last few weeks I have great faith in our public education system to deliver the best education outcomes for the children of this State. Although most of my education was through the Catholic education system, my final years at high school were at a public school. Both my daughters attended public schools, and it is as a parent that I came to realise the full value to society of a quality, inclusive education system. The public school system has the capacity to meet the education needs of our diverse population, particularly in the field of special education. It is my experience that the more complex a child's education needs are, the more likely it is that they will be educated in a public school. The dedication and professionalism of teachers of children with special needs are something my family has enjoyed since Hayley was 18 months old. I would particularly like to thank Julie Ford, who is here interpreting for Hayley tonight. Julie is an outstanding teacher of the deaf who has made a significant difference in the lives of many deaf children, particularly Hayley.

I express my thanks to my daughters, Jessica and Hayley, and my son-in-law, Brett, for their unqualified love and support, for understanding my radicalism and forgiving me my life choices, which made their life a little different from that of most kids in the western suburbs of Sydney. I love my daughters deeply and now love the gorgeous grandchildren they have given me. Here, I have to challenge the declaration made in this Chamber last week by the Hon. Mick Veitch, who claimed to have the most gorgeous granddaughter known to humankind. This is not possible as it is indeed I who have the three most gorgeous granddaughters, who are here tonight—Isabella, Tamara and Chelsea. I have an equally gorgeous grandson, Lachlan, who is also here. However, I am willing to concede to the honourable that his granddaughter is probably equally as gorgeous as mine.

The knowledge that I gained and the skills I developed in Hayley's early years afforded me the opportunity to return to the workforce as a community worker. In the community services sector I worked in neighbourhood centres, disability services and women's health. I was involved in the management of youth services, accommodation services and drug and alcohol services. I think most workers in the community services sector would agree with me when I say that as a community worker you get to see the very best and worst of humanity. You witness firsthand the very difficult, often tragic, circumstances people in our community are living in and you develop a deep desire to find the answers to eliminating the causes of social injustice. You cannot ignore the pain of others in the hope that someone else will do what is needed.

Domestic violence was often the cause of pain and misery of many of the women I worked with as a community worker. Women sought advice and information on how they could stop the violence, how they could escape the violence or what options they had to make themselves and their children safe. Domestic violence is an issue of widespread and justifiable concern, and the level of domestic violence in our community is unacceptable. Research nationwide tells us that somewhere between 6 per cent and 9 per cent of Australian women aged over 18 are physically assaulted each year. In the majority of cases the assailant is a man they know. Domestic assaults accounted for 35 per cent to 40 per cent of annual assaults recorded by police in the years 1997 to 2004. A recent study on reporting crime to the police found that most assaults against women, where the victim knows the offender, go unreported. Further, a survey on personal safety in 2005 found that only 36 per cent of women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator reported it to police. The costs of domestic violence are many and perhaps are best summed up in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Overview of domestic violence, which states:

Domestic violence directly affects the victims, their children, their families and friends, employers, co-workers and has repercussions for the quality of life in a local community. There can be far-reaching financial, social, health and psychological consequences. The impact of violence can also have indirect costs, including the costs to the community of bringing perpetrators to justice or the costs of medical treatment.

I acknowledge workers in our State who support the victims of domestic violence, including those in the domestic violence court support schemes, the women's refuge movement, women's health centres and community legal centres. They have all contributed to our understanding of the causes of domestic violence, with the aim of preventing it. Research that has examined the relationship between certain sociodemographic factors and intimate partner physical violence found that overall the strongest risk factors were characters of the male, such as controlling behaviours, aggression and drinking habits. It is an inexcusable crime, and a gendered form of abuse of power where the majority of perpetrators are men. The message I hear from domestic violence workers is that violence against women is a global issue that pervades all cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The New South Wales State Plan identifies domestic and family violence as a priority area for government to address. I am pleased to be a member of a government that has given this commitment. I am confident that our political leadership will continue to act in the interests of victims of domestic violence and send a clear message that domestic violence is totally unacceptable in a civilised and just society. In 1995, having moved back to the community I grew up in some years earlier, I stood for election to Bankstown City Council. My main motivation for standing was the absence of women on our council. I found it hard to believe, and I did not want to continue living in a community where women did not have a voice in the decisions that affected their daily lives.

I have served on Bankstown City Council since September 1995, and was mayor of the city for nearly four years. I believe that I am the first mayor of Bankstown to be elected to the Parliament. I have also served as President of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils [WSROC] and as a member of the New South Wales Local Government Association executive. I acknowledge the great work of these organisations, particularly the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, which they carry out on behalf of the people of Western Sydney. I am delighted that a number of representatives from the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils are in the gallery this evening, including my successor as its president, Councillor Tony Hay.

My time in local government has reinforced my belief in the important role that local government plays in people's daily lives. Good planning policies and practices shape the physical characteristics of the places where people live and work, and good leadership ensures that those places are safe, attractive, prosperous and socially cohesive. Bankstown local government area is one of the most diverse local government areas in this State, with people from 130 countries speaking 60 different languages. Its diversity is its greatest strength, and the migrants who have settled in this community have contributed greatly to its cultural and economic development. It is now one of the areas in Sydney recommended for its range of quality food outlets and restaurants.

One of the most rewarding and enjoyable duties I had as mayor was to conduct citizenship ceremonies. At Bankstown these were regular and large events. Contrary to the oft-repeated claims that migrants do not value Australian citizenship, I found that our newest citizens placed great importance on becoming an Australian citizen and were keen to contribute positively to and participate in community life. It is in part, therefore, my personal journey that began my political journey. As an individual and a representative of the people, I hold a steadfast belief in contributing to and providing leadership for a civilised, fair and socially just society.

A civilised society supports accessible quality education and health services that are available for every generation in accordance with community needs. A civilised society tends to the disadvantaged and advocates for community inclusivity. A civilised society is a safe society where all individuals are protected from crime, violence and harassment. A civilised society is a sustainable society that values its investment in social capital. Undeniably, investment in social capital has wide-ranging benefits for individuals and communities, and it is correlated with improved health outcomes. My personal journey reflects my commitment and passion for investment in social capital and the building of a civilised society.

It is not possible to name all those people in my life to whom I owe gratitude for their support, guidance, friendship and wise counsel. Many of them are in the gallery tonight so I simply say thank you to all of you. I want to mention a number of people: Robyn Williams from the Bankstown cancer women's support group; Sue McClelland from the Bankstown Women's Health Centre; Councillor Richard McLaughlin, who is a colleague from Bankstown; Councillor Susan Page from Penrith City Council and current the President of the New South Wales Local Government Women's Association; Darriea Turley, the immediate past president of the New South Wales Local Government Women's Association and a former Broken Hill councillor; my good friend Vicki McLean from Dragons Abreast; and Seide Ramadani and Christina Radburn, who are wonderful youth and community workers.

There is another person I had not initially identified as someone to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. However, as I listened to the discussion in this place last week I realised that I also need to thank the Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Costa. Last week he told honourable members that it is because he is so popular that my Labor colleagues and I were elected on 24 March. So I thank the Treasurer, and I look forward to him being as popular after the budget as he assured the House he is now.

My thanks to Amanda Hill for her support, love, friendship, and great campaigning skills, and for sharing the responsibility of parenting my daughters with me for so many years. Thank you to my soul mate and partner, Dr Lauretta Luck, for her friendship, love, support and wise counsel, and for being so willing to take this journey with me. My aim while I am here is as it is in life: to leave this place a better one than I found it. I thank the House for its indulgence. I commend the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.30 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Bill 2007 and for the level of support and interest they have indicated. The enactment of the bill will be a major step towards trialling a new approach to the treatment of people in extreme situations of drug and alcohol dependence where their health and safety are seriously at risk and when they can no longer make decisions about seeking help. In line with the Government's commitment to make the new framework for involuntary care a therapeutic model with the least restrictive components as possible, the bill sets the parameters for testing the effectiveness of short-term involuntary treatment with a strong component of aftercare.

The Inebriates Act 1912 has been long criticised, yet has remained on our statute books as a safety net for people with substance dependence problems in the absence of any clear and viable alternatives. The Alcohol Summit recommendation and the comprehensive report of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues have provided the opportunity for the Parliament to consider options for reform and to test an alternative approach. Importantly, the bill reflects the standing committee's recommendations for a new legislative framework for involuntary care, which took into account the expertise and personal experience of many of those who made submissions to the inquiry. In addition, the Government is grateful for the contribution of the medical profession, police and the courts administration in the development of specific provisions of the bill. In line with the Government's commitment to evidence-based policy, we will carefully consider the outcomes of the trial at the end of the two-year period. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

ADMISSION OF THE TREASURER INTO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang, on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly, agreed to:

That this House agrees to the request of the Legislative Assembly in its message dated 6 June 2007 for the Hon. Michael Costa, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter, to attend the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 19 June 2007 at 12 noon to give a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the New South Wales Budget 2007-08.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

MS PHYLLIS JOHNSON, OAM

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.33 p.m.]: Phyllis Johnson is a remarkable woman. Next week she turns 90. She has had a hard but most rewarding life, throughout which she has made great contributions to our community. Phyllis has dedicated her life to making our world a more peaceful, fairer and healthier place for all. Phyllis was born in 1917 in Albany, Western Australia, into a close-knit, working-class family of five children. Phyllis learned early about poverty and inequality, both of which she dedicated her life to ending. Her father was an active unionist. This provided Phyllis with a model for a life of commitment to the betterment of all. She has pursued remedies for social and economic ills throughout her life. Phyllis has been a lifelong activist for women's equality, especially for equal pay. During the Great Depression Phyllis and her father moved to Sydney, where she has lived to this day. The hardship and horrific conditions that she witnessed among unemployed people and their children had a great impact on Phyllis. She knew it was deeply wrong that people were forced to live under such destitute conditions. Those early experiences formed her strong socialist view of politics and she joined the Communist Party of Australia.

In about 1933 she was fortunate to find a job in a small business in Woolloomooloo as an office clerk, working for 48 hours per week for the equivalent of 94¢ per week. She joined the Clerks' Union, as it was known then, and took part in many campaigns for equal pay and decent working conditions. During those grim Depression years she observed the long lines of men, women and children waiting to receive a bowl of hot soup, a warm blanket and clothing, especially for the young children. She observed the many heartless evictions of struggling families from their homes. Not surprisingly, she joined the anti-eviction movement and, interestingly, made some of her protests in Parliament. She has spoken of a protest in the New South Wales parliamentary public gallery where she stood up and called for a moratorium on evictions, which were causing such hardship. Issues like that led Phyllis to a lifetime of activism. She has worked hard to prevail on governments to provide adequate support mechanisms for all Australians.

Phyllis has always abhorred war. During World War II she spent a month in Long Bay jail for giving an anti-conscription speech at the Sydney Domain. She handed out communist literature that criticised the early stages of war and took part in anti-war rallies throughout her many decades of activism. Phyllis attended her first International Women's Day march in 1936. I doubt in the following 61 years that Phyllis would have ever failed to celebrate International Women's Day. I remember Phyllis in the 1980s when year after year she would organise an International Women's Day luncheon or some such event at Bankstown to promote equal rights and world peace. She would involve many of the local dignitaries and extend invitations to women from all walks of life to those events. She has travelled all over the country addressing meetings and conferences.

In 1970 as a representative of the campaign against rising prices, which was nicknamed CARP, she continued to argue for a fairer go for ordinary Australians. Again, she brought her protests to the Parliament. In the gallery in the Legislative Assembly once again she stood up and raised the concerns of the organisation. She passionately believed in the need for protection of consumers and, ultimately, during the Whitlam years the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations was established and Phyllis was a founding member. Phyllis had the great knack of working with people from all political parties and many political persuasions. She was a great team builder. She believed consumers needed protection against rapacious companies who sought more and more profit at the expense of the consumer—a common complaint that we continue to hear today.

Former New South Wales Minister for Consumer Affairs Mr Syd Einfeld worked closely with Phyllis and fortunately agreed with many of her concerns. They became known for a period as Mr and Mrs Prices because of their many achievements in the area of consumer affairs. One of the first acts of Mr Einfeld when he became a Minister was to introduce use-by dates on consumer products, an initiative that Phyllis had advocated for many years. I have covered only a few cameos from Phyllis's life. Phyllis's contribution has been recognised with some commendations. She received the Queen's Silver Jubilee medal in 1977 and was named Woman of the Year in 1977. She also received the Order of Australia in 1989 and the Syd Einfeld award in 1993. Happy birthday, Phyllis. Congratulations on your selfless contribution and your rich life.

MR NEVILLE MILSTON AND AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY CASTLECRAG BRANCH

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.38 p.m.]: It is the custom in this House to mark the anniversaries of renowned individuals and organisations. But it is equally important to commemorate the work of small community organisations and celebrate the lives of the unsung heroes of local communities. Today I want to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the formation of the Castlecrag branch of the Australian Labor Party, and to pay tribute to the tireless party and community work of one of its founding members, Neville Milston. Neville's commitment to the Labor cause was forged through his experiences as a soldier and prisoner of war during World War II. Neville served in the 8th division and was taken prisoner by the Japanese after the fall of Singapore. After three months in southern Burma, he spent the rest of the war working on the Burma Railway.

Neville's experiences left him with a great admiration for both Chifley and Curtin. They were great Labor wartime leaders and nation builders who demonstrated that commitment to one's party and commitment to one's community can go hand in hand. So, although Neville missed the first two elections after his coming of age due to his imprisonment by the Japanese, he took the first opportunity offered and voted Labor in 1945. He has kept voting Labor ever since.

The dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 served to deepen Neville's commitment to Labor. When Eddie Britt formed the Castlecrag Branch of the ALP in 1977, Neville seized the opportunity to contribute to the rebuilding of the party. He immediately went on to work on Eddie Britt's successful campaign for the State seat of Willoughby in 1978. While the thrill of a successful campaign fired his interest in party activism, his commitment to the party has remained steadfast ever since, regardless of the result on polling day.

In every State and Federal election from 1977 to March 2003, Neville was active in Willoughby as a booth captain, a branch campaign manager, a scrutineer, a letter boxer, a pre-poll worker and a donor. He also found time to work on campaigns for other branches when they were short of volunteers. However, it was as a party fundraiser that Neville's contribution was especially noteworthy. Year after year, he and his wife, the late Madge Milston, opened their home to host Australian Labor Party functions. It became a hub for fundraising activities for more than 20 years, as the Milstons hosted Labor luminaries from Barrie Unsworth to Meredith Burgmann.

Neville's growing passion for politics found intellectual as well as practical expression. He enrolled at Macquarie University as a mature aged student, where his tutor in politics was Meredith Burgmann. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1981 at the age of 61. Neville's enthusiasm for politics remains undiminished to this day. Now well into his 80s, he continues to attend meetings of the now amalgamated Willoughby-Castlecrag branch and to contribute to election campaigns in whatever way he can. He retains the respect of his fellow branch members, for his warmth and his humour, as well as his thorough understanding of branch procedures.

As many a member here can attest, the long-term loyalty of activists like Neville is the lifeblood that sustains a great party. At its best, such activism is an adjunct to or an expression of a still more important commitment to the broader community at large. In these cynical times, it pays to remember that commitment to party and to community can and should be complementary. This is certainly the case with Neville. Many of the most vulnerable members of the Willoughby community have had reason to thank Neville, whose commitment to the welfare of others found practical expression through volunteer work for Meals on Wheels and community aid.

For more than 20 years, Neville helped to provide services that enabled the elderly and the infirm to remain in their own homes. His unstinting efforts were recognised when the Mayor of Willoughby presented him with a Premiers Award in 1996. He continued to volunteer for another six years, until he himself was no longer able to drive. Neville has served his country, his community and his party loyally. He has worked hard, without thought of reward or favour. He has done it all with humour and good grace. He represents what is best in our nation and in the Labor movement. So, on the thirtieth anniversary of the Castlecrag branch, I pay tribute to Neville Milston.

SENSIS BUSINESS CONFIDENCE SURVEY

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.43 p.m.]: Earlier this week we all saw further evidence of the Iemma Labor Government's failure to create a business-friendly environment. I refer to the release of a damning survey conducted by the Sensis Business Index, which shows that the Iemma Labor Government is again seen as the least business-friendly government in the country, with support remaining the lowest for the thirteenth successive quarter. Only 4 per cent of small and medium businesses support the Iemma Labor Government's policies. What is even more incredible is that nearly half, or 44 per cent, of businesses in New South Wales say that the Iemma Government is working against them.

The Iemma Labor Government must use the upcoming State budget to cut taxes to drive investment and growth in the New South Wales economy. Small businesses are being taxed to within an inch of their lives and the Government is acting as a disincentive to invest. The Iemma Labor Government needs to get off the back of and out of the pocket of small businesses so they can get on with their jobs. It must cut the red tape and bureaucracy that, along with Labor's onerous occupational health and safety laws, is strangling small business.

New South Wales has suffered long enough under this Government. I draw to the attention of the House a few details in the Sensis survey because it has been mentioned in question time and at other times by various people. The first Sensis survey, which measures business activity and attitudes, was conducted in 1989 and it is one of the most well-regarded surveys undertaken in this country.
According to the Sensis Business Index released earlier this week, support for the Federal Government has risen dramatically and is positive overall on the back of strong support from small and medium enterprises as a result of the Government's workplace relations agenda. The Federal Government was the most supported government in Australia. The Northern Territory Government was the most supported State or Territory government by small and medium enterprises, and New South Wales was again the least supported. Concern about a lack of work or sales was highest in New South Wales, where 13 per cent of small and medium enterprises reported their concerns in this area.

Among other key findings in the report was that support for the Federal Government among small and medium enterprises was very strong and rose during the quarter. It has now been positive for 10 out of the past 11 quarters. As I said earlier, the Federal Government's industrial relations policies were by far the main reason that small and medium enterprises gave for believing that it was trying to support small business. Surprisingly, that view was particularly strong among small and medium enterprises in the Northern Territory, followed by those in New South Wales and Victoria.

It was also found that the New South Wales Government remained the least popular State or Territory government among small and medium enterprises for the thirteenth successive quarter, following a further fall in support in that quarter. The areas of most concern for small and medium enterprises were the bureaucracy in New South Wales, government charges and land taxes. I commend the report to honourable members. It was pleasing that, although the New South Wales Government was the object of such concern, overall the economy is doing well and business confidence is improving, primarily as a result of the Federal Government's policies.

INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AUSTRALIA PRIVATE SCHOOL PROPOSAL, KURRI KURRI

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.48 p.m.]: The operation of private schools for profit is a new phenomenon in New South Wales. It involves the operation of a school in a way that returns a profit to its owner. This new phenomenon raises serious issues about public subsidies to private schools and concerns about the effects that the profit motive will have on the delivery of education. It is a great concern when the commitment to students and to the community must compete against the profit motive.

The case that has brought this matter to public attention is the development proposal lodged by Independent Colleges Australia to build a private school in the Hunter Economic Zone near Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley. Independent Colleges Australia has connections with, and was created by, ABC Learning Pty Limited, which is Australia's largest and most aggressive provider of child-care services and which competes directly with community child-care operators. The entry of ABC Learning into the schools education area raises major concerns about the future of school education in New South Wales and Australia. It is of particular concern if ABC Learning and associated entities compete directly against public education.

The Independent Colleges Australia proposal involves land that is zoned for community purposes. A disadvantaged community like Kurri Kurri desperately needs public land. A proposal to rezone the land for school education purposes is currently before the planning Minister, Frank Sartor. The Minister needs to consider that the rezoning proposal will also mean that the land will be used for the purpose of a profit-making activity. Fundamentally it amounts to a community rip-off. The Greens congratulate the Coalfields Community Education Coalition on conducting an excellent campaign against the rezoning. In June 2006, in response to community outrage about the proposal for a school for profit, the then Minister for Education and Training, Carmel Tebbutt, introduced legislation to, supposedly, prevent schools for profit from receiving public subsidies. The Chief Executive of Independent Colleges Australia, Tom Mould, told the The Independent Colleges Australia proposal involves land that is zoned for community purposes. A disadvantaged community like Kurri Kurri desperately needs public land. A proposal to rezone the land for school education purposes is currently before the planning Minister, Frank Sartor. The Minister needs to consider that the rezoning proposal will also mean that the land will be used for the purpose of a profit-making activity. Fundamentally it amounts to a community rip-off. The Greens congratulate the Coalfields Community Education Coalition on conducting an excellent campaign against the rezoning. In June 2006, in response to community outrage about the proposal for a school for profit, the then Minister for Education and Training, Carmel Tebbutt, introduced legislation to, supposedly, prevent schools for profit from receiving public subsidies. The Chief Executive of Independent Colleges Australia, Tom Mould, told the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 June 2006 that despite the new law he was confident he would get funding from the New South Wales Government for the school. He said:

We have no issue with the legislation at all. The Queensland legislation is a different kettle of fish.

Mr Mould was referring to legislation introduced by the Beattie Labor Government that really did close the door on corporate schools. So effective was the Queensland legislation that ABC Learning's attempt to establish a school for profit in Queensland was thwarted.

However, according to Mr Mould's and the Greens' analysis, that is not so in New South Wales. The Iemma Government's legislation left open two massive loopholes that will allow New South Wales public funding to become corporate profit or dividends for corporate executives. Section 20A allows schools to pay members of their governing bodies honoraria. It fails to impose a limit on the size of such honoraria. The unrestricted size of those payments means that public funding can flow out of those schools, through their boards, and into the profits of large corporations.

The second loophole is that the legislation allows private schools to contract out educational services at commercial rates, and those include profits. The school itself would become a shelf company to siphon public dollars into private profits. Currently, $730 million in State funding and much more in Commonwealth funding is going into private schools each year. For as long as these loopholes remain open, this money acts as a honey pot to attract corporate operators into the New South Wales education sector. The Greens welcome the Minister's statement given in question time this afternoon that he is examining the matter. We are committed to working with the Minister to ensure the introduction of legislation that will close these loopholes.

If we do not close these loopholes, more corporate operators will come into New South Wales and will compete directly with public education for students and funding. If we really care about the quality of public education and about what is being taught in our schools, we will stop this alarming development. We call on the Government to reject the rezoning and stop Independent Colleges Australia setting up its school. We also call on the Government to reform the legislation to close the two loopholes I have referred to.

ALBURY-WODONGA HUME FREEWAY

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [5.53 p.m.]: Earlier this year I had the great pleasure of representing Premier Iemma at the opening of the Albury-Wodonga Hume Freeway. This 17.4-kilometre road links the Hume Freeway at Wodonga with the Hume Highway at Ettamogah, north of Albury, and bypasses 17 sets of traffic lights and 5 right-angled bends, as well as a number of railway level crossings. The road, at a cost of $524 million, is a much-needed piece of our roads network. It will not only make travel time between Sydney and Melbourne quicker but, more importantly, it will also make it safer. It is a vital piece of our national infrastructure—yet another section of the road between Sydney and Melbourne that is so vital to the Australian economy. It reflects what can be done when the Federal Government works in partnership with the States—a theme I have reflected on before and will come back to later in this speech.

The history of this road has been as long and winding as the route it replaces. In the 1960s the New South Wales and Victorian governments each had planned their own individual bypasses, and it was only in 1970 that the two governments met and decided on a single route. However, this was put on hold only a few years later as the Albury-Wodonga growth centre was established. For the next few years debate raged over the most appropriate route, and especially over whether it should bypass or go through the centre of town, whilst small additions were constructed from time to time, including the upgrade of the existing Hume Highway. There was hope in 1978, after an announcement was made to construct the freeway, but it was shelved by the Federal Government just days later.

By the 1990s Albury was a city divided over whether an internal or external route should be taken for the road, and elections were fought on this basis. Eventually, in December 1997, Albury council held a vote to gauge the reaction to its policy of building an internal route, to be followed in the future by an external route, and almost 60 per cent of the population said they disagreed with council's policy. The internal route was granted approval, until John Anderson stopped it dead in its tracks in 2000 when yet another study was done into the most feasible route. Eventually, after intense lobbying and heated argument from both sides of the debate, an internal route was chosen in 2002, and the contracts awarded were to build this important stretch of road.

Throughout this tumultuous history the New South Wales, Victorian, and Federal governments have all been key players, with each playing its role in the creation of the bypass. When the road was finally completed, the Federal Government had contributed the vast majority of the costs—given that the road is now part of the Federal Highway—whilst the Victorian Government made up the remainder of construction costs. Whilst the route for the road was being debated, the New South Wales Government bought up 400 hectares of land in anticipation of the external route being selected, which is currently leased to farmers. However, a more important role our Government played was in coordinating the works that were undertaken and arranging the contracts to ensure that the project was completed as smoothly as possible and to the best possible standards.

Sadly, the hard work of the Roads and Traffic Authority did not receive the full recognition it deserved. Whilst Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile acknowledged the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority's role in ensuring the success of the project, and is to be commended for doing so, John Howard did not. This is very sad for the many Roads and Traffic Authority workers who negotiated such a positive outcome for the Albury community and yet were not recognised for their hard work. Whilst John Howard's apologists in this Chamber may claim that this was a simple oversight, I seriously doubt it.

When I arrived at the opening event, the Prime Minister's minders had already ensured that Victorian Premier Steve Bracks' chair, as well as my chair, had been removed from the stage, lest a Labor Party figure be seen in the picture beside him. What was supposed to be an event celebrating an achievement that was arrived at through cooperation became a political point-scoring exercise for John Howard, as he sought to hog the limelight and take all the credit for this road. By the way, Premier Bracks did eventually get his chair back on the stage.

I do not think anyone begrudges the Federal Government taking credit for its role in the construction of this road and other vital infrastructure, but its inability to recognise the hard work of others is petty in the extreme, and shows that John Howard will stoop to new depths to give himself a political free kick. When Australia's next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, talks of ending the blame game between State and Federal governments, he is pointing in the right direction. If John Howard was more concerned about providing good infrastructure for the people of Australia than getting himself on the evening news, he would spend more time working with the State governments instead of fighting them, and would acknowledge that when we all work together there is nothing we cannot achieve, especially for country New South Wales.

OPERATION RETZ

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [5.58 p.m.]: Operation Retz was an investigation into the leadership of Endeavour Command from 1994 through to the end of the decade. The report in relation to Operation Retz was tabled by the Attorney General in this House yesterday. The investigation was conducted by Inspector Glynis Cameron over a 3½-year period from July 2000 until January 2004. Operation Retz was a response to complaints received from serving police officers. The last paragraph in the report has caused me great concern. It reads:

The investigation was originally under the control of the former commander of special crime and internal affairs, Commander Brammer. This decision was made in line with the outcomes of the PIC investigation, Operation Dresden, which indicated that junior police should not investigate senior police. Detective Sergeant Lindsay McGillcuddy has addressed this issue previously when he noted that the interview of Commander Scott was conducted by Detective Inspector Glynis Cameron and Detective Sergeant McGillcuddy. It was originally anticipated that Commander Brammer, an officer of equal rank to the involved officer, would conduct the interview. However, just prior to the interview a "perceived conflict of interest" was identified and Deputy Commissioner Moroney stepped in, excluding Mr Brammer. Mr Moroney was briefed in relation to the interview, however, it is the opinion of the investigator that an officer of equal or greater rank to the involved officer, with investigatory and interrogatory experience, who had first hand knowledge of the investigation should have conducted the interview with Commander Scott.

This is a very serious disclaimer by Inspector Cameron. Operation Retz provides a disturbing insight into incompetent and corrupt leadership practices at the highest levels of NSW Police. The report indicates that these corrupt practices extend into the offices of the NSW Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission. The disclaimer indicates that the corrupt leadership culture in NSW Police is much worse than indicated in the report. A logical conclusion from the disclaimer is that if an investigating officer of appropriate experience and rank with proven investigatory and interrogatory skills had been assigned to the case the report would have been more scathing.

Nevertheless, Detective Inspector Cameron is to be congratulated on her work in spite of the inherent intimidation associated with investigating such a senior officer who has a ruthless reputation towards her perceived enemies within the police force. I do not believe that the tasking of a junior officer to investigate a senior officer was a mistake; I believe it was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the process of the investigation. It was a means of ensuring Operation Retz would be a Clayton's investigation and that the full extent of the corrupt leadership and management practices in New South Wales would never be exposed.

The report—with supporting documents that I have read but which remain under privilege—is of great concern to me as the Government is in the process of selecting a new commissioner. After the Wood royal commission the New South Wales Government realised that public confidence in NSW Police had been compromised and it had to look outside the ranks of NSW Police. Unfortunately, it made a grave mistake in looking outside Australia. It was never going to be possible to select a foreign police officer to command an Australian uniformed force. Such a person might have all the necessary leadership and managerial qualifications for the position but they would never have the most important qualification of all—that is, a deep understanding of the Australian character.
This shortcoming is recognised by armed forces around the world and it leads to complex command and control arrangements to protect the leadership integrity of national forces in joint force operations. The command and control of police forces is no different. The New South Wales Government has a dilemma with the selection of a new commissioner. Operation Retz and other reports yet to be made available for public scrutiny indicate that the current generation of senior leaders in the NSW Police Force would probably have been compromised. Opportunities to recruit a new commissioner from other Labor States would appear to be limited, with recent calls for royal commissions in both Queensland and Victoria.

Therefore, I encourage the Government to look at the senior ranks of our armed forces. Many of these officers have tactical command experience in joint force environments. They have proven leadership abilities. They understand the command and control of a disciplined force and they understand the Australian character. I believe they would provide a leadership environment that would allow ethical, professional police to do their proper job of preventing crime and maintaining order.

Two other important issues need to be addressed. The first is the appointment of an independent inspector general to investigate complaints by and against serving police officers. The second is the need to provide political protection for the police commissioner by removing the ability of the police Minister of the day to dismiss him. Our police commissioner should have the same protection that is afforded to the judiciary by Parliament. As part of the process of examining these options, I believe an independent judicial inquiry, or possibly even a royal commission, should be established to examine all of the major investigations relating to the command, control and leadership of NSW Police since the appointment of Commissioner Peter Ryan.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTY

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [6.02 p.m.]: In the House today we have had some serious discussion about the Australian economy. In discussing that, it is relevant to look at a recent report from the Macquarie Research Strategy Group. In that report Mr Rory Robertson, a well-regarded economist, makes the following observation:

In the process of becoming Australia's biggest-taxing Treasurer, Treasurer Costello looks to have breached his own Charter of Budget Honesty in the most basic way.

The seriously misleading budget aggregates effectively hide the fact that Canberra is collecting more taxes as a share of GDP—and keeping more for its own use—than ever before.

I make a comparison with the New South Wales Government, which, as we know, is very determined to try to—

[ Time for debate expired.]

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.03 p.m. until Tuesday 19 June 2007 at 2.30 p.m.

Last modified 16/11/2007 14:39:28 : Update this page