Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 8 May 2008, Corrected Copy)

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

The President read the Prayers.

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.

Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

1. That this House expresses its deepest sympathy to the people of Burma who have suffered massive devastation caused by cyclone Nargis and the ensuing tidal surges.

2. That this House calls on the Burmese regime:

(a) to lift restrictions that are frustrating access to the affected areas by international aid agencies, and

(b) postpone voting on the constitutional referendum throughout the country in order to concentrate on delivering assistance to those affected by cyclone Nargis.

Private Members' Business item No. 101 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Debate resumed from 10 April 2008.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.10 a.m.]: I congratulate Ms Sylvia Hale on bringing forward this private member's bill. Clearly there is a need for reform of political funding and the planning process. I am pleased that the need for reform of at least political funding is now widely recognised amongst the conservative political forces in New South Wales. On 22 March 2008, Easter Saturday, Premier Morris Iemma changed his position and commenced to talk about the need to ban political donations. On the same day the Leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Farrell, also changed his position so we are now able to debate the need for reform in a much more constructive way.

However, serious problems still exist. This is issue is very complex and Ms Sylvia Hale should be congratulated on bringing forward a bill that addresses this difficult area. The need for wide-reaching reform in local government has been demonstrated time and again. A number of councils have become household names because of scandals associated with the activities of some councillors and staff members. The pattern is clear: donations are corrupting the planning system. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 March 2008 Malcolm Knox stated:

The link between money and potential for corrupt conduct is apparent in the tabulation of donations to councils. Of the top 15 council recipients of donations at the 2004 council elections Wollongong (fourth), Tweed (sixth), Rockdale (ninth), Canada Bay (12th) and Strathfield (13th) have been either sacked or investigated over allegations of corrupt conduct. Lake Macquarie (fifth) and Newcastle (seventh) have either investigated allegations of corruption against councillors internally or faced down allegations in meetings.

The corruption watchdog, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, has investigated many of these councils where the current laws have failed to protect local citizens from the ravages of corrupt planning practices. Today I will focus on some of the activities at Shoalhaven City Council. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has not undertaken an investigation of the council: I am not stating that local councillors have been involved in corrupt practices. However, recent events with regard to donations and planning decisions at that local council area raise many questions, questions that the mayor, Mr Greg Watson, must respond to.

I understand that the election campaigns of Mayor Watson and the Shoalhaven Independents Group are characterised by large donations enabling substantial media promotion compared with the activities of all other candidates and groups in the area. Election Funding Authority records for Shoalhaven City Council elections indicate that the mayor and his team received a total of $91,017.60 for the last local government elections. This extraordinary level of funding swamped the financial capacity of any individual or group running in the election. It was far in excess of donations accepted for electoral purposes in the history of the Shoalhaven. Now $78,000—that is, 86 per cent of the total—came from just 10 separate entities donating more than $1,500 each. Of these 10 donors, all except the Manildra Group are involved with property development in the Shoalhaven area.

As an interest group, property development accounted for 97 per cent of the large donations and at least 84 per cent of total donations to the party. WD Pty Ltd donated $20,000. The principal of this company, Michael Corban, purchased several contiguous blocks of residential land on the central business district fringe six months after the 2004 Shoalhaven election. Following meetings with the mayor council supported rezoning of the land "business 3B" in 2004 through a local environmental planning amendment. Such rezoning of the site pre-empted completion of the design and consultation process behind the East Nowra subarterial road linking the Princes Highway to Grenwell Point Road. The site is now situated on the corner of the proposed—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: I do not have in front of me the actual text, but it appears that the member could be reading in-camera evidence given to the committee inquiring into funding and donations. Therefore, it is out of order.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I am not a member of that committee. The Greens undertake their own very thorough research. We are presenting that as part of this debate. It would be unfortunate if any gag were implemented on the material we are putting forward.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: Perhaps the member could inform the House whether or not this is in-camera evidence, because if Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is correct, the Opposition would have concerns. If this evidence has come direct to her to be put on the public record, she should let the House know.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Further to the point of order: As I stated before, I am not a member of the inquiry to which Mr Nile referred, so I have not seen any of the in-camera material. We have undertaken our own research. This material has been collated. It came from a number of sources in the Shoalhaven, as well as our own research, but I have had no access to in-camera evidence put before the inquiry.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: It might clarify the situation if the member could acknowledge whether she was reading from the submission of Mr Corrigan, which was given in camera.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I am reading from my speech.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: A speech based on the submission from Mr Corrigan.

The PRESIDENT: Order! For one of a number of reasons the term "honourable" is used by members in this House as a sign of respect that members have for the word of other members. Of course, a degree of responsibility thereby rests with members. If a member advises the House that he or she is taking a course of action for good or appropriate reasons, the Chair is obliged to accept that advice, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ms Lee Rhiannon has advised that the material she is reading was sourced from information obtained otherwise than from in-camera evidence given to a committee of this House. I accept that advice. However, I caution members that it would be dishonourable and indeed potentially contempt of the House to attempt to read into the record material that was given in camera before a committee and that has not as yet been reported to the House. Bearing my ruling and observations in mind Ms Lee Rhiannon may proceed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I seek clarification. As I am not a member of the committee, I do not know what evidence was heard in camera. We conducted our own research and have been presented with information. I have no idea what was in camera, but as with all debates I bring material forward. I would like to continue with my speech but would like to clarify that issue.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of order: The member has pointed out that she is unsure whether this matter was in-camera evidence. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who is a member of the committee, has said he believes it is. The member should take his word that he is correct.

Ms Sylvia Hale: To the point of order: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile prefaced his remarks by saying he did not have the actual words with him, so clearly he is not sure what words were said in camera. It is impossible for any member who is not a member of a committee that has held hearings in camera, when that member was not present, to be absolutely sure that they are not repeating material that was given in camera. So the Minister's point, I believe, is absurd.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: I raised the point of order because it appeared that Ms Lee Rhiannon was referring to material that was presented in evidence in camera. Ms Lee Rhiannon may not have been aware of that, and that is the purpose of the point of order: it now brings it to her attention that she may be in contempt of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! We are exploring new territory on this point. I am reluctant to stop Ms Lee Rhiannon from presenting her material. However, I repeat the caution I gave members earlier, that it would be inappropriate for any member to attempt to place on the record material that was given in camera before a committee and that has not yet been reported to the House. Members have a responsibility to ascertain the source, reliability and validity of information that they wish to present to the House. If members are not sure of their position in this regard, I urge them to seek the guidance of the Clerks. I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to bear in mind my ruling on this matter as she proceeds.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: One way to resolve the matter would be for Ms Lee Rhiannon to table the document she has been reading from. The document could then be compared with the records of the committee.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am reluctant to ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to do that. It is a matter about which Ms Lee Rhiannon has to make a decision.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I seek leave to suspend my speech at this point to allow me to seek more information without holding up the House and to allow the debate to continue. I seek leave to return to my speech later in the debate.

Leave granted.

The PRESIDENT: I thank Ms Lee Rhiannon for taking that course of action.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.22 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008. The proposed legislation has three major aims: firstly, to broaden the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act objectives to include the need to respond to climate change; secondly, to extend the checks and balances on the powers exercised by the Minister under part 3A of the Act; and, finally, to prohibit donations from property developers.

The first part of the bill seeks to extend the objects of the principal Act. The two new objectives have been phrased as follows: first, to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation of the effects of climate change; and, second, to encourage the protection and enhancement of the health and wellbeing of the community. The first object of the principal Act encourages "the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment", while the sixth object encourages "the protection of the environment".

The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the mitigation of the effects of climate change are important issues, but there is probably a reasonable argument that both are comprehensively covered within the Act's existing objects of "promoting a better environment" and "the protection of the environment". Similarly, it would appear that the protection and enhancement of the community's health and wellbeing are already included within the scope of the principal Act's existing first object, that is, "the proper management, development and conservation of resources for the purpose of promoting the social welfare of the community". Nevertheless, the Opposition does not oppose the addition of these objectives to the relevant section of the Act.

The second part of the bill seeks to make six amendments relating to decisions made under part 3A of the Act, which empowers the Minister for Planning to seize control of developments that the Government deems to involve critical infrastructure. The first five of these six part 3A amendments appear to be quite straightforward, and consistent with the spirit of the earlier part of the bill. They seek to give greater prominence to environmental concerns in the decision-making process.

The bill proposes that the Minister should be required to publish guidelines with respect to the environmental assessment requirements for approving projects under part 3A; that proponents of projects should be required to prepare an environmental assessment; and that public submissions regarding environmental assessments, having been edited by the director general with regard to ensuring privacy and security, be published on the department's website and also be provided to the proponent of the project and included in the director general's report to the Minister.

The last of the amendments included in the second part of the bill is concerned with the limited checks and balances to which the powers granted to the Minister by part 3A are subjected. The amendment provides an extension of the circumstances in which an objector to a project can appeal against a determination of the Minister to give approval to a project under part 3A of the principal Act. In her second reading speech Ms Sylvia Hale stated that the change would "allow greater scope for the Minister's decisions to be appealed". In introducing this amendment Ms Sylvia Hale is reviving the amendments that the Coalition unsuccessfully moved when the current part 3A was enacted.

When the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill was debated in June 2005 the Greens attempted to refer the bill to General Standing Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 but moved no other amendments. Instead, it was the Opposition that led the attempt to ensure that the sweeping new powers of the Minister were checked and balanced by appropriate review mechanisms. Regrettably, despite the support of the Greens, the amendments were not passed.

For the record, my former colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe introduced five amendments to the bill on behalf of the Opposition, three of which were concerned with the opportunity to appeal decisions made under part 3A. These amendments sought to ensure the right of proponents, objectors and councils to appeal decisions made by the Minister under part 3A. During the debate the Hon. Patricia Forsythe stated:

The key issue in relation to these amendments is the right of appeal. The Committee needs to understand that it is essential that communities have a role and a place in planning in New South Wales, as well as a right to have a say about infrastructure, critical or otherwise, in an area.

It is thus the legacy of the Opposition's stance against the unfettered powers of part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that the Greens are now seeking to advance by way of amendment in this legislation, and therefore the Opposition has no objection to clauses 1 to 7 of the bill. But let us be quite clear about the context of the debate on the part 3A provision. Property developers have made $4 million worth of donations to the New South Wales Labor Party in the period since the current part 3A was enacted. Ten of the biggest developers paid more than $1 million to the Labor Party during the period in which the Minister considered $1.5 billion worth of their proposals.

The Minister currently has over 300 major projects on his desk under part 3A, and Liberal Party research shows that 48 of the developers involved in those projects have donated to the New South Wales Labor Party. This demonstrates the appalling conflict of interest that the 2005 change to the legislation has brought about. New South Wales Labor has created a culture in which businesses believe they must make donations to Labor in order for their development proposals to reach the Minister's desk, or for them to eventually receive approval.

I turn now to clause 8. While we are setting the record straight, I take this opportunity to refer to comments made by one of the Greens about the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding, a matter that directly relates to clause 8. On 11 March the Australian Financial Review reported Ms Lee Rhiannon as saying that the major parties colluded with the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters Party to keep the Greens off the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding.

I can only conclude that the journalist must have misquoted Ms Lee Rhiannon. As every member of the House knows, Opposition members voted for Ms Rhiannon to be on the committee, as well she knows. At the time the Leader of the Opposition condemned her exclusion from the committee in the media, and in his opening statement at the recent public hearings he again expressed his regret that a member of the Greens had not been included on the committee. Ms Rhiannon knows that it was the Labor members and not the Opposition that kept her off the committee. The Greens are not the only members of this House that have a longstanding association with political donations and campaign finance reform. Nearly four years ago I said in this place:

Effective restrictions on political donations and spending must be comprehensive, must apply to all jurisdictions, must act in parallel with regulations on spending by third entities, must be offset by a system of public subsidisation, and, finally, must be appropriately audited and regulated.

The Opposition has argued for reform of political financing, both funding and spending, for many years and understands that there is growing community concern that vested interests are using money, given as donations, to buy influence in New South Wales. It is one of the factors that has undermined public confidence in government and public administration in this State. Many people believe that the public interest has suffered when decisions are being made on a range of issues.

In May last year the Leader of the Liberal Party, Barry O'Farrell, member for Ku-ring-gai, attempted to establish a committee to report on political donations and campaign expenditure for State and local government elections in New South Wales. Disappointingly, Labor members in the other place used their numbers to thwart his attempt. Following this turn of events I introduced the motion of which I had given notice that established the select committee that is currently investigating electoral and political party funding.

Clauses 8 makes it an offence for a property developer to make or offer to make, including through another person, a donation to a member of Parliament, an elected member of a local council, a candidate for election, a political party or party official. It will also be an offence to accept or solicit such a donation. A property developer includes any person who has made a development application under the principal Act, or an application for approval under Part 3A, that is undetermined. It is a matter of public record that the select committee has produced a discussion paper, received 183 submissions at the time I wrote this speech—it might have gone up by now—has held five public hearings, and held a public forum.

The substance of clause 8 has been canvassed in the discussion paper, in many of the submissions, in the evidence of many of the witnesses, and by a number of the participants in the public forum. In fact, it is a matter of public record that a number of the specific changes are included in submission 182 from the Department of Premier and Cabinet and have been publicly endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. Many other excellent suggestions have been advanced and I thank all those who have put so much effort into their submissions. One of the most impressive witnesses has been Dr Joo-Cheung Tham, senior lecturer in the law faculty at the University of Melbourne. In his evidence in a public hearing, he stated:

If we are contemplating any reform, any changes to the regulatory framework, they must deal with the demand side of political funding, that is, the appetite for increasing campaign funds, in order to tackle the supply side problems, whether they are problems relating to influence or money coming from businesses and so on and so forth.

That was a very pertinent observation and something we must bear in mind as we consider proposals such as the one contained in clause 8 of the bill. In view of the fact that the select committee will shortly enter its deliberative phase to consider these and other matters, I think the appropriate course of action is to refer the bill to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for its consideration of clause 8. Accordingly, I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "that" and inserting instead "this bill be referred to the Select Committee on electoral and Political Party Funding for inquiry and report".

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [11.34 a.m.]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008 affects local governments and communities across New South Wales. As a local government councillor for more than 16 years and the Mayor of Hurstville City Council for some of that period I saw the many deficiencies in the operation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It is clear that the Act needs a major overhaul to restore power to local communities and not centralise power with the Minister for Planning, Mr Frank Sartor. The changes proposed by the Minister for Planning will give the Labor Government more control over every level of the planning approval process. The Minister's fingerprints will be on all appointments: the Planning Assessment Commission, the joint regional planning panels, the arbitrators and the planning administrators. With the exception of the Planning Assessment Commission, the Minister can fire any of the members that he has appointed if he does not like their decisions. The Planning Assessment Commission has no recourse to the Land and Environment Court if an application is refused. Whatever happened to natural justice in this State?

The object of the bill is to increase the level of community involvement in the determination of developments under part 3A of the Act. The bill makes it an offence for any property developer to make a donation to any elected office holder, candidate for election, political party or party official, or for a donation to be accepted. The bill also makes it an offence for any person to make a development application or lodge an expression of interest to carry out a development within one year after making a donation to the same category of persons previously mentioned, as well as making it an offence for a donation to be made within one year of a person's development application being determined.

If the Premier is serious about reforming the State's political donations law then the Government will ultimately support the bill either now or at the conclusion of the current upper House inquiry. The proper way to deal with this major public confidence issue would be to defer the bill and refer it for consideration to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for comprehensive assessment and examination of issues to tighten up any loopholes. The reform processes that have thus far been fed to the media have not stopped the Labor Party from raising approximately $110,000 every week or $24 million between 2003 and 2007.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: How was dinner last night?

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: It was not a political fundraiser. We were charged $100, and I can assure the honourable member that we got far in excess of $100. It was not a major political fundraiser: it was a mark of respect for our previous Prime Minister. Let us face it; the Government intends to let Labor fundraising efforts proceed unimpeded in the lead-up to the local government elections on 13 September 2008. Proposals to channel political donations through party headquarters and union dues and memberships, rather than individuals, will obscure rather than prevent patterns of lobbying influence.

Are we to believe that an executive of a property company who paid $5,100 at a Labor fundraiser to have lunch with Minister Sartor did not discuss projects? Development approvals or changing in zoning can mean millions of dollars to developers. It is no wonder that the public has lost confidence in our democratic systems: we have had the Wollongong sex and gifts for development scandal, documents withheld from Parliament over the lower Hunter regional strategy, the Transport Workers Union moneymaking roundabout, and members of Parliament failing to disclose donations of $50,000 from developers.

Who is listening to the warnings of Noel Hemmings, QC, who is assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption in its investigation of Wollongong City Council, that caucusing to reach an agreed party position on a motion or development that comes before council is a corrupt activity? Mr Hemmings warned it was widespread amongst Labor councillors. Have we heard any supportive statements from Minister Sartor telling us his views on caucusing amongst councillors? No, there has been a deafening and guilty silence as these dodgy developers are paid in return for their dollars by having development applications approved, usually against council and planning officers' recommendations. Since my election in March 2007 I have travelled across New South Wales and met with numerous community leaders and community groups. I am yet to meet one person who is happy with the Labor Party's handling of planning matters in this State. There is great unrest about the abolition of planning under Minister Sartor.

The Government, in its current review of planning laws, has held little public consultation. Communities are outraged by the Labor Government's measures to take away their rights to comment upon and determine what they want for their local environment and residential amenity. Last November Minister Sartor called for public submissions on his discussion paper on proposed changes to the planning system. It is the biggest overhaul in more than a decade. More than 500 submissions have been received by the Department of Planning from local councils, developers, planners, and mums and dads. The submissions are to be kept secret by Minister Sartor—centralised power—and not one of the submissions has ever been published on the department's website. Similarly, last year more than 200 submissions were received in relation to the review of the Heritage Act and not one submission was published. What type of process is that? Where is the transparency and accountability the community deserves?

The Local Government and Shires Associations commissioned a review by John Mant, a highly respected lawyer and town planner who designed South Australia's planning laws and rewrote the New South Wales Local Government Act. His review found that the expanded role of planning panels and planning arbitrators, who are conveniently appointed by Minister Sartor, could open the door to greater pressure from developers, interest groups and politicians. Surprise, surprise—that would provide more avenues for political donations. The planning arbitrators would be a costly duplication of process for local councils. I congratulate the Local Government and Shires Associations on their letterbox, website and general media awareness campaign against the Government's planning reforms: "Three Strikes for Local Communities. How the New South Wales Government wants to take control of local planning." The three strikes are:

Strike 1: Councils lose funds for community services (via local S94 contributions powers being stolen from them).

Strike 2: Private companies approve local development applications.

Strike 3: Neighbourhoods lose their character!

As to Minister Sartor's proposed compulsory acquisition powers for cases of major urban renewal, the draft proposed bill does not limit where these powers can or cannot be used. Naturally, with this Minister and Government the community expects the worst-case scenario. Is anyone's home or land safe when the Minister determines its acquisition is necessary in the public interest? Another major concern that communities have raised is the power of the Minister for Planning to call in an application under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as a development of State significance. The power of communities and councils over their future has been taken away by this provision and, again, the public sees a link with political donations from the big end of town. Members of the community have raised the impact of political donations on a Minister's decision when calling in a development. They have noted that there seems to be no formal method of disclosure requiring the Minister to declare whether the applicant for the development has made a contribution to the political party of which the Minister is a member. Greater disclosure requirements should be included in part 3A. In September 2007 the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended:

The Commission believes that if the Minister is dealing with an application made by a political donor, higher levels of transparency and accountability are warranted.

It further recommended:

Persons submitting development applications or rezoning proposals to the Minister for Planning to declare any political donations they have made to the Minister or to his or her political party.

It also recommended:

The Minister for Planning include, in the list of designated development, development in respect of which a declaration as to the making of a donation has been made.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption urged:

Proposals lodged with the Minister by political donors should become designated development and thus subject to a Commission of Inquiry, an expert report, or the possibility of a third party appeal.

The Premier and Minister Sartor continue to ignore a critical seven-month-old Independent Commission Against Corruption recommendation for automatic referral of development applications from political donors to an arms-length approval process. Minister Sartor's draft legislation allows the Minister to decide whether to refer a project to the proposed new Planning Assessment Commission, despite the Independent Commission Against Corruption arguing that development applications from political donors should be automatically determined independently. The public continues to be most concerned about links between donations and decisions by the Minister. The Independent Commission Against Corruption proposed a method to reduce the risks of corruption, but its recommendations have been ignored completely by the Labor Government.

Last year Ms Sylvia Hale and I attended a public meeting in the Warringah Council area. Some major concerns raised were private certifiers, overdevelopment, the Minister's powers to call in development applications, pecuniary and conflict of interest provisions, political donations, independent hearing and assessment panels, and the failure of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to properly protect the environment and residential amenity, and ensure a transparent and accountable planning system. Warringah residents are a well-educated community when it comes to local government and planning law. As honourable members would be aware, Warringah Council was dismissed in 2003 following a section 740 public inquiry. A number of people who testified at that inquiry outlined various deficiencies in the planning process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Sadly, since the council was dismissed, little has been done by the State Government to address properly the concerns raised by the residents of Warringah and other similar local government areas that have had their democratically elected councils dismissed.

The Labor Government appointed former party member, Labor staffer and displaced director general Dick Persson as administrator. Mr Perssons recently tried to force upon the people of Warringah a change in height restrictions from 6 storeys to 20 storeys in the Dee Why town centre—I believe it is now 18 storeys as a concession to the community's outrage—and ram it through before the September council elections. His conduct highlights the bias of Labor to developer interests and the way in which the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act can be manipulated to ignore community opposition. It would be appropriate for the Independent Commission Against Corruption to examine the administrator's motives for supporting a major development company as opposed to community interests, his published public comments supporting the proposal, the misuse of public resources in promoting the proposal and the abusive conduct towards objectors. Instead, the Government has appointed Mr Persson administrator of Port Macquarie council, which was also sacked on spurious grounds—probably for political reasons.

I am alarmed that the Government intends to expand the role of private certifiers by including a capacity to approve development applications as well as oversee building construction. This causes a fundamental conflict of interest and is definitely not in the best interests of the community. We need a system where the private certifier is independently appointed. Under no circumstances should the Government pursue its objective to give private certifiers the dual role of approving a development application and overseeing compliance on the same matter. This is an inherent conflict of interest and a high risk of corruption. Even with the current Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel processes operating in some metropolitan councils, corruption risks must be identified and addressed. Permanent panels comprising the same people are not appropriate. The panels must be regularly turned over on a random rotational basis at each panel meeting and the composition must be changed to minimise the risk of corruption.

A full background check of the pecuniary interests and conflicts of interests of applicants for such panels must be undertaken before an appointment to panels. Strict pecuniary and conflict of interest disclosure provisions must be put in place to ensure that panel members, their family members or associates and companies do not benefit from their panel membership. All panels should be required to publish statements of decision and indicate how each panel member deliberated and voted. Panels that consist of tertiary-qualified and multiskilled town planners, engineers, lawyers and senior staff should decide more substantial development applications, with councillors as observers. An analysis of legislation across Australia governing local government pecuniary interest and conflict of interest disclosure provisions has revealed the lack of ability of the New South Wales legislation to deal with those in local government who seek to gain financially from their public office.

In New South Wales if a councillor does not disclose a pecuniary interest and vote on a matter in which he or she receives a benefit, the penalty, if imposed, is a mere suspension or expulsion from office for five years. In Western Australia if a councillor abuses his or her position of power and votes on a matter in which he or she has an interest, the maximum penalty, if convicted, is a jail term. That is certainly a great deterrent against corruption. It is interesting to note that since 1999 only 15 of the 773 complaints about alleged breaches of pecuniary interest disclosure provisions received by the New South Wales Department of Local Government were prosecuted in the Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal. Communities have called time and time again for the true pecuniary interests of candidates for local government to be publicised. It has been proposed that candidates for office should have to disclose their pecuniary interests and sources of campaign funding prior to an election, and that such disclosures should be published in the voting booths on the day of an election in the interests of transparency and providing the community with information regarding those who aspire to public office. Keeping such a register up to date on a monthly basis is also an imperative.

The public's perception of the ethics of local government councillors and members of Parliament in regard to our planning processes is in an extremely poor state. Labor in New South Wales has created a climate in which there is a perception that donations buy influence—dollars for development. We need legislation that will ensure transparency and full community participation. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and associated legislation governing local government needs major reform. Unless and until that happens the problems at some of the councils I have mentioned will continue to plague efficient and effective community-based local government.

Local government continues to be plagued by vested interests. One has only to consider the events at Liverpool City Council surrounding the infamous Oasis project, Tweed Shire Council, Warringah Council and the recent examples in Wollongong City Council, to realise that local government in this State is in chaos. The stench of corruption of planning processes in this State due to the influence of political and developer donations will not go away. Have no fear: this issue will see us through to the next State election. The Labor Government must implement the Independent Commission Against Corruption's recommended arms-length independent assessment process.

The Coalition will continue to push for campaign finance reforms, as the Hon. Don Harwin outlined in his contribution, that seek limits on how much can be spent by candidates and parties and place a cap on annual donations. I urge the Government to take the lead and approach the Federal Government to place national bans on members of Parliament, their staff and all public servants from accepting all developer donations and to place a limit on election spending. I urge the Greens to agree to the motion moved by the Hon. Don Harwin for deferral of this matter and for its referral to the select committee. Let us make sure that when the select committee reports, its recommendations are as tight as we can make them so that we can restore some confidence in our communities in the local government planning process.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.52 a.m.]: I will speak briefly on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008. The bill covers a number of areas. One object of the bill is to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to provide for objectives further to the principal Act and to increase the level of community involvement in the determination of applications for approval of development projects under part 3A of the principal Act. The key areas of concern to me relate to property developer donations and development applications involving donations.

I have no problems with the content of the bill and I sympathise with the objectives of Ms Sylvia Hale. However, the bill pre-empts the report and recommendations of the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding. The committee has spent a great deal of time examining donations, as well as other matters referred to in the bill. These matters are very serious and must be dealt with. I assure the House that as chairman of the committee I will do everything I can to ensure that those matters are dealt with. Obviously, as chairman of the committee I am a servant of all the members of the committee, but my personal objective will be to ensure that we can achieve Ms Sylvia Hale's objectives through our committee's inquiry, report and recommendations. The committee is yet to finalise its report and recommendations.

Even though the Hon. Don Harwin has only just given notice of his amendment—I have not discussed it with him—I believe it has merit and I will therefore support the amendment in due course that the bill be referred to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for inquiry and report. The other matters in the bill dealing with part 3A of the Act are not part of the committee's terms of reference, so it would not report on those matters. However, as has been stated by previous speakers, the Government has issued an exposure bill for public comment and consultation that covers many of these issues. I understand that, with feedback from that consultation, the exposure bill is being redrafted and will be presented to the House in due course.

Therefore, I believe it would be better if the two objects of the bill dealing with those matters were dealt with also when the House debates the final environmental planning legislation that the Government has indicated will be introduced in due course. Instead of dealing with donations piecemeal now and then dealing with environmental planning issues later, I believe it will be far more efficient for the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding to consider aspects of the bill that fall within its terms of reference and then for the other matters to be dealt with when the House debates the Government's bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.57 a.m.]: I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008. In doing so I congratulate my colleagues Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon on their work to alert the people of New South Wales to the damaging effect that developer donations have had on the planning process throughout this State. They have been courageous and forthright in standing up for the rights of communities, particularly those that have been run over by a development process that has been systemically corrupted by donations flowing from developers to the Labor Party and the Coalition.

In her remarks my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon concentrated on the importance of this bill, and in particular its provisions relating to donations, in cleaning up past ongoing corruption of planning decisions at the local government level. When she speaks later in the debate she will elaborate on that matter in greater detail. I will refer to the State level and the relationship between donations and decisions at the State level, and the importance of not only the donations provisions in this bill but also the expanded appeals provisions the bill proposes for decisions made under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

What I have to say is alarming and is a reason for urgent action. There is evidence of systemic corruption of the planning system by large-scale donations from developers. The consequences of these donations and the systemic corruption they have wrought are writ large in the brick and concrete—the built fabric—of this State. Developments that should never have proceeded but have been passed through a planning system corrupted by donations will stand forever as a testament to the failure of Labor governments to reject donations and their influence.

If we do not act now this situation will continue and our community and the environment will continue to be blighted. These blights are highway robbery and the people who are rorting are highway robbers. As surely as they might walk into our homes and steal our videocassette recorders, they are robbing on an even grander scale. This is theft from the community; this is larceny from tomorrow. I will give evidence about part 3A development approvals being obtained by developers who have been massive donors to the Australian Labor Party. I will cite cases of developments that have flowed from developers and I will quote from developers who support the Greens' case.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Does the Government intend to indemnify the purchaser or lessee of the State's electricity assets against any liabilities, including claims or potential claims for compensation rising from exposure to asbestos and dust diseases? Does the Government intend to indemnify, or does it anticipate indemnifying, any purchaser or lessee of power generating facilities against the cost of removal of asbestos materials such as lagging and roofing materials used in power generating facilities? Has the State estimated the cost of those liabilities? If so, what is it?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am very surprised at this question because the Leader of the Opposition should know that—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you had done your homework, you wouldn't be.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already started interjecting. I am surprised at the question. How can I do homework on a question I do not know anything about? He has been rattled by the motion that is before the House at the moment of which notice was given.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: I have listened to the Treasurer's introductory comments and he is obviously debating the issue. Will he now get to the question?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Treasurer to answer the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Leader of the Opposition should know that the Government has an obligation under occupational health and safety laws to deal with the issues he is talking about. That obligation exists now and would exist if assets were transferred, leased or, in some cases, sold. The existing position will apply in the future.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister inform the House about changes to teacher staffing arrangements in public schools?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the member for the question and commend her for her ongoing interest in the education of young people in New South Wales. At the start of this school term the Iemma Government introduced new staffing arrangements in public schools to provide teachers with greater opportunities to secure permanent employment and to shape their career path. These improvements also give principals and school communities more of a say in some of the teaching appointments at their schools. I know that some people in the teaching profession are concerned about these changes and I want to reassure them about the Government's motivations and goodwill.

I want to maintain and improve the quality of teaching in public schools. I know there are concerns that this may be the start of a Victorian-style agenda. It is not. I know also that there is some concern in the teaching profession that the Commonwealth bureaucracy may want to continue the Nelson-Bishop agenda. New South Wales does not, and nor does the Commonwealth Minister, Julia Gillard. I assure teachers that if these modest changes have unintended consequences for staff in some schools I will take immediate steps. That is why the Government accepted the New South Wales Teachers Federation proposal for an expert panel to be established to monitor the effects of the change. I hope the federation reconsiders its decision to withdraw from that process.

There are 474 permanent teacher vacancies across the State, including 52 in Western Sydney, 104 in south-western Sydney, 38 on the Central Coast, 25 in the Central West, 28 in the Hunter region, and 20 in the Riverina. Under the Government's new arrangements, principals will have the opportunity to advertise a number of those positions and to select the qualified teacher who best suits the needs of their school community. Qualified teachers will also have the opportunity to consider whether a job will develop their skills and professionalism, provide a challenge or match them with colleagues they admire. They will also be able to factor in any other of the range of reasons people in most professions consider when applying for a new position.

Under the old arrangements, many graduate, casual and temporary teachers were locked out of applying for jobs. Despite the benefits that these changes will deliver to school communities and teachers, needless to say, the Opposition has refused to state a consistent position. The Broken Hill Barrier Daily Truth quotes the member for Murray-Darling declaring his "total opposition to the changes" on the basis that they remove incentives for hard-to-staff schools. Of course they do not. All priority schools remain priority schools and all teachers keep their priority status. There is certainly no change in Broken Hill or in the Broken Hill area, except that Broken Hill schools will now have a choice in selecting teachers if they want. The member should support these changes.

In the Western Herald earlier this month the member for Barwon made it clear that he did not support the changes on the basis that "teacher staffing and the existing transfer system need to be balanced with local ability to employ and maintain accountability". That is exactly what the new system does. The incentive transfer system and the service transfer list will not be dismantled or abolished and there will now be local input into these decisions. The member should support this policy. We have also heard from the member for Oxley, who claims to be the Opposition's education spokesman. Initially he said he supported such a policy, but he then spent two months attacking it to get headlines. The modest changes that the Government has introduced are supported by local school communities and are designed to the give schools and teachers more options and opportunities.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that a fatal accident occurred on the M4 at 8.30 a.m. last Saturday? The resulting accident investigation caused traffic to back up eastbound for nearly four hours. Is the Minister aware that during those four hours no warning signs or diversions were put in place for drivers?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: What about Woolooware Road, Duncan?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Someone died in this accident; this is serious. There is traffic chaos after accidents because the Minister's department has failed continuously to implement its lane crossover strategy. Why were people left sitting in their cars for hours on the M4 without warning signs or diversions? What plan will the Minister put in place to deal with future traffic problems on the M4 and the F3?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am aware of that fatal accident. It underlines the fact that, despite all the initiatives that have been put in place to reduce the road toll, unfortunately people still die on our roads—even though last year we had the lowest road toll since the Second World War. Those fatalities represent real grief for families, friends and the community. When fatalities occur the police and other emergency services are required to undertake appropriate investigations into the cause. They do that as quickly as possible with a minimum of inconvenience to the community.

However, at the time, the investigations caused delays in our very busy network. That is unfortunately a part of the—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I accept that, but why were no diversion or warning signs put in place?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will seek further information about the suggestion from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the actions that should have been taken by the Roads and Traffic Authority and other emergency services. Our state-of-the-art traffic management centre monitors all major parts of the network to deal with those issues. I am disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has tried to connect a fatality on the M4 with an issue on the F3.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I ask the Minister to take back that comment. That is an unfortunate imputation. I quite correctly identified as a fact that there was a death and an investigation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked the Minister to withdraw his comment.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Government has a $28 million plan for the F3—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Withdraw!

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: What comment was I asked to withdraw? Was it that I am disappointed that he connected the two issues—which he did?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I did not connect it to the death. I connected it to the lack of signage and the lack of activity.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: You connected the two issues in one question. That is all I said I was disappointed about.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I request the Minister withdraw that imputation.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The honourable member feels I have made some imputations against his character. It would not be the first time, but I withdraw that. There is a $28 million plan to develop a crossover strategy on the F3 to avoid delays, which involves the building of a number of crossover points. Some of that construction has commenced already. It also involves the installation of a number of additional variable message signs along the F3 and, of course, the installation of a number of cameras to give the traffic management committee and the Roads and Traffic Authority website better views of what happens on the F3. That is part of our commitment to continually upgrade the road network to improve safety and improve travel times, particularly when there are accidents. Anywhere in the world, in any global city, accidents will cause delays in the network. There are a million more vehicles on our roads than there were in 1995, and that urban congestion causes a major challenge for the network. We are committed to resolving those issues and working to keep Sydney moving.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training. Why has the Government agreed to provide an extended lease of the former site of the Department of Education and Training school at Yasmar to the Co.As.It organisation, which is proposing to build and run a 250-student non-government school on the site? Is it the case that the neighbouring Haberfield Public School asked for use of the Yasmar site for the benefit of its students but was refused? Given this is public land and the former site of a public school, why is the Government giving a non-government school with big expansion plans preference over the existing needs of public school students?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member has directed her question to the wrong Minister. This is a question for the Minister for Lands. As a courtesy, the Government will be happy to answer the question and I ask my colleague the Minister for Lands to respond.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Leader of the Government for his courtesy in passing this question on to me. As the member knows, as Minister for Lands, and Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister for Justice, I transferred this land to the Department of Lands. In doing so I fully researched with the Department of Education and Training whether this land was needed for the adjoining school. I was given the answer no, that it was not. Therefore, I looked at some way of preserving it. Despite the honourable member's question, I have read this week's newspaper from that area. The honourable member said that because part of the land at Yasmar was going to be leased to Co.As.It it would become financially unviable to restore Yasmar. She is completely wrong. The money from Co.As.It will fund the restoration of Yasmar, with the million dollars I have offered.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: A $3 million restoration is needed.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: So, you are with Ms Sylvia Hale on this? The Liberals were with her, and you would like to see us get no money? Honourable members will be aware that the entire Yasmar site was protected and reserved under the Crown Lands Act for government and community purposes in 2006. While the Department of Juvenile Justice will continue to use the west wing of the reserve as a training centre, the east wing will be leased to provide a home for the Italian bilingual school as a result of a public expression of interest process, through which we exhausted all the opportunities for the public to use it. The Greens did not put in a submission. There were three submissions.

Ms Sylvia Hale: There was a press release calling for interest, and that was about it.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: How come a trucking company and another facility also put in a submission on Yasmar? What a fool!

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease their verbal abuse against Ms Sylvia Hale.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The lease not only caters for the needs of the important part of the inner western Sydney community, but the proceeds from the commercial rent, which is $120,000 a year, will assist the restoration of the historic Yasmar homestead. It is a good outcome, broadly welcomed in the inner west community, delivering against a backdrop of opposition from, at the time, the Liberal Party—I understand it has now seen the light—but still the Greens are continuing. We know the Greens are opposed to jobs and economic growth but you would think they would applaud us building schools.

What also concerns me about Yasmar is that the Greens have continued to conduct a Howard-style, dog whistle campaign against Co.As.It. Furthermore, if Ms Sylvia Hale is worried about the financial viability of the site, perhaps we should put some residential, high-income-earning proposition there—some high-rise. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. What is the Government doing about providing burial space in the greater Sydney region, given predictions that current space will run out in around 30 years?

[Interruption]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I would be happy to make a particular allocation of burial space for the Greens. While there is enough burial space to meet the short- and medium-term needs of most sections of the community for some years yet—about 650,000 burial spaces are available—the Iemma Government is hard at work looking at ways to extend the life of our Crown cemeteries. We realise the importance of consulting with the community to devise ways to have sustainable burial options for the future needs of the people of Sydney. That is why we have released a discussion paper of sustainable burial practices for Sydney Crown cemeteries. It follows a discussion paper released in 2006 to the funeral industry and local government, which gave positive feedback on ways to address diminishing burial space.

The discussion paper seeks community comments, feedback and suggestions on 19 specific options designed to address the management of burial space in the Sydney greater metropolitan area. The paper takes into account the great work done by the social issues committee in the New South Wales Legislative Council and the recommendations it made on the funeral industry, as well as the industry-based discussion paper "Burial Space in the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area". It also reflects the work of an interdepartmental committee report into the shortage of burial space in the Sydney greater metropolitan area. The discussion paper, which is available on the Department of Lands website, includes a survey on the options presented. This can be completed online, and written submissions from the public are also welcome.

A public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 4 June at the State Library in Sydney. There will be a briefing for all members of Parliament at Parliament House next Wednesday 14 May. The Government's consultation with the funeral industry indicates its members largely support the options outlined in the second discussion paper. In addition, a number of managers of Sydney-based Crown cemeteries are seeking changes that will allow them to operate their cemeteries in the longer term.

The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring public burial space in the Sydney greater metropolitan area remains available, accessible and affordable well into the future. We want to generate quality community discussion over how we can extend the life span of our public cemeteries, which currently only have sufficient space to about the year 2040, and some less than that. I do not think there has been one significant cemetery set out in Sydney since 1937. Population growth is placing increasing pressure on public cemeteries, and certain sections of the community are affected more than others. We must balance that with respect for the broad range of burial traditions and cultural practices, as well as heritage issues. Now is a sensible time for community discussion over ways to extend the life span of current cemeteries.

Among the 19 options on which community comment is sought are unused burial rights, renewable tenure, extinction of tenure, cemetery renewal and green burials, although I prefer to call them environmental burials. Some people may be surprised at some of the options canvassed, but they are practiced in other countries that have had to deal with diminishing burial space well before Sydney. Some practices, such as renewable tenure, are established in other Australian States such as South Australia and Western Australia. The Government is not advocating any option but wants to hear what the community thinks about the best ways to ensure the ongoing availability of burial space within Sydney. I look forward to the community's participation and welcome comments on how best to ensure more sustainable cemeteries in the future. [Time expired.]

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does he stand by remarks made on numerous occasions by both him and the Premier that implementing the recommendations of the Owen inquiry, including selling the retailers and leasing out the generators, is essential to keeping the lights on in New South Wales? How does the Treasurer reconcile those statements with remarks made by Professor Tony Owen on 2GB radio on 5 May 2008 referring to the report that bears his name in which he said, "I wrote that under current circumstances additional power flow would be required by then. But there are a number of factors in existence at the moment which could push that off quite some years"?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I stand by the basis of the decision made by the Government and certainly Professor Owen's report was a critical component of that. The honourable member ought to recognise that any demand analysis will be affected by decisions made in the market place. The report talked about the demand analysis at the time and made the point that there was some movement in that. Professor Owen talks about—and the Government has talked about—the requirement being somewhere about 2013, 2014 or 2015, which is consistent with taking a prudent approach and ensuring that the lead times are met that require us to have that generating capacity on board for the public at that time. The member is clutching at straws. I heard Professor Owens in that 2GB interview and he backed in the Government. He should have quoted the rest of the interview where he was backing in the Government on what it was doing.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I ask a supplementary question. In what way does he back in the Government?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: He backed in the Government by indicating that the principles underlying his report were based on assessing the State's generating needs and the information provided in his report was the basis of sound decision rather than the ideological position of the honourable member. One thing I have not understood is that the Greens claim that demand management will get us to the point where we do not need to put in baseload capacity, yet the Owen report clearly indicates that demand management, at best, will give us 1,500 gigawatts out of a required supply of 10,500 gigawatts. That is the fundamental fact—

Dr John Kaye: You are totally underestimating it.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: When it suits him, Professor Owen is right and when it does not suit him, Professor Owen is wrong. You are a joke. Nobody takes the Greens seriously on that.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister for Commerce. Is the Minister aware that an accident on the New England Highway last week in Maitland, which saw the road closed for eight hours, highlighted that there is no Maitland city bypass? Given that millions of dollars have already been spent, including planning and acquisition of properties for the F3 to Branxton link road, does the New South Wales Government support the construction of this road? Given that the Federal member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, has repeatedly told Hunter media that he is trying to organise a meeting with the Federal Minister Anthony Albanese and the Minister for Roads, will the Minister confirm when he intends to meet with him, and if not, why not?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The New South Wales Government will work cooperatively with the new Rudd Labor Government to improve roads throughout New South Wales. On many occasions I have met with the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese. He is making a real meal; he is a very good mate of mine these days and is doing a great job. It is worth reflecting that since Anthony Albanese became Minister for Infrastructure our Australian Transport Council meetings have been very well run and have generated a lot of important outcomes. At the last Australian Transport Council meeting only last week real progress was made in heavy vehicle safety.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What were they?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The first was an agreement by all States to go to a national truck licence. For the last 10 years under the Howard Government they resisted any attempt—

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Point of order: My question was about the Minister committing to the F3 link road and when he would meet with the Federal Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon.

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

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: A number of initiatives came from the last Australian Transport Council meeting, but I will inform the House about those on another day. I am advised that the Roads and Traffic Authority is undertaking a number of upgrade projects to ease traffic congestion and improve safety in the Hunter region. We are getting on with the job of building the third Hunter River crossing, a new central road corridor connecting East Maitland to Bolwarra and bypassing the Maitland central business district.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Why don't you go and have a look at it?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I was going to tell you about the Australian Transport Council but you would not let me so now you have to listen to this. Last year the traffic improvement measures at Melbourne Street in East Maitland, the first part of the third crossing in Maitland were completed. The Government is also getting on with the job of upgrading Nelson Bay Road, as I have previously advised the House. Work was completed last year on the duplication of Nelson Bay Road from south of Marsh Road to north of Cromarty Lane. The project involved construction of a further 1.6 kilometres of roadway. The Premier opened this stage to traffic on 17 August last year and that project cost $12 million.

This project follows the previously completed work south of Marsh Road and will provide a continuous 8.6 kilometres of dual carriageway on this section of Nelson Bay Road. The intersection of the Pacific Highway and Tomago Road at Tomago is also being upgraded to improve safety for all road users, particularly motorists turning in and out of Tomago Road. The major work provides two right-hand turn lanes on the Pacific Highway for traffic turning into Tomago Road, left-turn access onto the highway and pedestrian crossing across the highway to access a nearby bus stop. The right-turn exit from Tomago Road to the highway has been removed and traffic wishing to turn right can use the new intersection to the old Punt Road. We are committed to continually upgrading the network and I will have ongoing discussions with the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and local members in the Hunter for a good outcome.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. What is the latest information on the Mothers and Children's Program in New South Wales correctional centres?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the member for her important and timely question as we approach Mothers Day. It has been four years since I last spoke in the House about this excellent program, which is aimed at reducing recidivism and helping offenders address their behaviour. The maintenance of relationships with family, community and kinship is well acknowledged in contemporary correctional management strategies as being of utmost importance in helping offenders take up crime-free lives.

The Government is committed to providing inmates and their children with the opportunity to spend valuable time together and maintain positive contact. All correctional and transitional centres have visiting facilities for children to visit incarcerated parents as per local visiting arrangements. All centres are also encouraged to hold child-parent activity days, with the emphasis on providing a service to the child and assisting the child maintain a relationship with their incarcerated parent or carer.

In 2006-07 video conferencing was used to facilitate contact between inmates and their children, particularly for those who live in more remote parts of the State or where regular contact visits to a correctional centre are difficult to arrange. The Government also recognises that the attachment between an infant and the caregiver is crucial to the infant's healthy psychological, emotional, intellectual and social development. Early experiences influence how infants learn, cope with stress, and regulate their emotions as adults.

[Interruption]

If the Hon. Catherine Cusack continues to interrupt, I might have to remind the House about her woeful experience when she was an adviser to the previous Minister. The successful Mothers and Children's Program that now operates at a number of centres across the State, including Emu Plains Correctional Centre and Parramatta Transitional Centre, will now also be offered at the Wellington Correctional Centre. As at 1 May 2008, 102 women have applied for the Mothers and Children's Program this financial year. Of the 102 applicants, 21 have so far been approved to participate with 29 children. Of the 29 children in the program, 12 were born during their mother's current period of incarceration. Participant mothers and children are provided with opportunities to maintain and enhance their relationship, increase maternal knowledge and skills, reduce negative or punitive parenting interactions and develop pro-social play skills and behaviour management. The programs teach the mothers how to best communicate with their children, how to budget, principles of nutrition, rules for preparing and storing children's food, and first aid. Children participating in the full-time program are provided with a wide range of recreational and educational programs to ensure that they develop in an enriching environment.

It is also important to report that women's correctional centres across the State offer mid-week all day special visit days for children. This is in addition to normal weekly visits. The purpose of these visit days is to ensure that children who are in the care of the New South Wales Department of Community Services and require supervised visits during business hours are not disadvantaged because they cannot access weekend visits.

[Interruption]

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The very premise of the program is the concept of the best interests of the child. Any placement of a child with a mother who is serving a custodial sentence is only permitted after careful consideration, and only if it is established that it is in the best interests of the child. To determine "the best interests of the child" there is a rigorous assessment process based on established community standards of child protection. All staff working in areas where children reside are well trained in the relevant child protection procedures, and I congratulate them on their dedication and professionalism.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands, representing the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware that Blue Mountains City Council is exempt from paying the landfill levy and that Shoalhaven City Council, which houses some of the most seriously disadvantaged communities in the State, is required to pay the landfill levy? Is the Minister aware of census data that states that Shoalhaven's unemployment rate is 11 per cent compared to 7 per cent for the rest of New South Wales; the average household income level in Shoalhaven is as low as $736 per week compared to $1,074 per week for the rest of New South Wales; and that the percentage of early school leavers in Shoalhaven is as high as 58 per cent compared to 43 per cent for the rest of New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that Shoalhaven is geographically located on the fringe of the regulatory requirements set by the New South Wales Government, where the local government area is largely rural and remote from recycling markets? [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for his question, which I will refer to the Minister for Local Government for a speedy response.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. Does the Minister stand by this year's budget papers that state in relation to the ongoing departure from the targets in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, "Adherence to the debt target … is not consistent with the Government's fiscal strategy, as it would require unnecessarily harsh cutbacks in service delivery or increases in taxation." What is the Government's current fiscal strategy?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: How many times can you rewrite the same question?

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Until you can answer it!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have answered it. The Budget last year indicated very clearly—and I think clear enough for even the Hon. Greg Pearce to understand—that the Government was not going to meet that particular target under the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Or any targets.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, we have met many of our targets. There are at least 10 targets under the Fiscal Responsibility Act and we have met most of them. We did not meet the one target that I explained last time—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: You should be a target under the Act.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I see the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox has woken up. David must have replaced his battery! I just hope it is not an Energiser, otherwise we will be in for more of the same. The honourable member already knows that there are many targets under the Fiscal Responsibility Act—they are the Government's targets. I indicated last year that it is a long-term fiscal target that would be very hard for us to meet because of a range of issues: we have been dudded on a range of health care and education agreements by the previous Howard Government that cost us $300 million. The honourable member will have to wait for this year's budget to see what the position is.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy, and Minister for Mineral Resources. Can the Minister update the House on the latest developments with clean coal technologies?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for her continuing interest in this important issue. This is a very timely question. Yesterday I had the pleasure of opening the New South Wales Clean Coal Summit in Parliament House. The summit brought together more than 150 key industry and government representatives to discuss the vital issues of coal technologies facing Australia, and the future opportunities for New South Wales in this increasingly important area.

[Interruption]

I remind the Hon. Charlie Lynn that this about jobs and that a very good union—the mining and energy Union—is involved. The summit featured Professor Ross Garnaut as the keynote speaker. Professor Garnaut heads up the Federal Government's Climate Change Review. I am pleased to say that a number of positive ideas to advance clean coal technologies were generated from this gathering of experts. These constructive ideas are a step in the right direction to meeting our greenhouse gas emission targets and securing our future energy needs. Outcomes from the summit include a proposal for a national emissions coal council carbon storage taskforce; support for a coordinated national approach in the assessment and identification of potential storage sites and transport options; the importance of coal as an energy source, which means the world will continue to rely on it as an energy source for generations to come; the importance of establishing near-term targets to drive technical innovation; the urgent need to accelerate clean coal technologies, particularly in developing strategic demonstration projects; and low emission technologies as the foundation to an urgent and necessary strategy to secure our future.

In terms of energy needs, any strategy must address our continuing need for coal. There is no way around it, and clean coal technology answers this call. Al Gore, Professor Ross Garnaut, Sir Nicholas Stern and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all are in agreement on this base issue.

[Interruption]

Al Gore is a very fine intellectual. He would have more brains than all the members of the Opposition—put together!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He was beaten by George Bush! How good is he?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He was unfairly beaten—he was robbed. There is no question of that. Bush's brother stole his votes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should get the history right. The Iemma Government is committed to the development of clean coal technology, which supports the continuation of an industry that provides enormous benefits for New South Wales. As I have said many times, we are also committed to reaching an interim target of Year 2000 greenhouse gas levels by 2025 and a long-term target of 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Owen inquiry noted the need for coal-fired power to meet the States baseload energy requirements beyond 2013. Coal generation makes up about 90 per cent of our current energy needs and will play a major role for the foreseeable future. That is why clean coal technology is so important. We must make our existing energy sources as clean and green as possible.

The Iemma Government already has committed $22 million to two clean coal projects. A $5 million pilot project is underway at Lake Munmorah on the Central Coast. The research scale post combustion capture pilot facility, which is expected to be operational in the very near future, will capture greenhouse gas emissions using ammonia absorption technology. The technology we are working on is retrofittable, that is, we can clean up the coal-based power stations already polluting the atmosphere. The Lake Munmorah development, in conjunction with the search for carbon geosequestration sites by the Department of Primary Industries, should provide the base for a $150 million demonstration scale carbon capture storage project, which will capture more than 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year in New South Wales by 2013. A strong coordinated approach is needed to hasten the commercial availability of these technologies. That is why the Government is establishing the Clean Coal Council to help drive research funding in this crucial area. The council will administer a $100 million Clean Coal Fund. The Clean Coal Summit demonstrated how government and industry are working together to help drive this exciting technology further.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Minister for Fair Trading, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has recently reported that Coles Express has been rorting its own discount docket scheme by inflating its petrol prices across the State? Is the Minister aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner, Pat Walker, stated that Coles Express was setting high prices at a significant number of sites, forcing mums and dads to pay much more for petrol than they should? What action has the Government taken or will it take to protect New South Wales families from this exploitation?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I undertake to obtain a detailed response from the Minister for Fair Trading. I am aware of the reports on this issue. I was surprised to hear Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile use such inflammatory language as "rorting" in his question. I am sure the Federal Assistant Treasurer, Chris Bowen, will deal with this problem—which occurs because of large duopoly providers—in a timely fashion. The Assistant Treasurer is doing an excellent job. He is the first person in 14 years in Commonwealth public office to bring this problem to book in an attempt to get meaningful results. The Minister for Fair Trading is working closely with him to implement appropriate initiatives. I will provide a more detailed response to the House as soon as possible.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. Is the Treasurer aware that Macquarie Generation holds a water licence to pump water from the Barnard River catchment into the Hunter River catchment to store water in Glenbawn Dam? Can the Treasurer inform the House as to the annual megalitre entitlement that Macquarie Energy is able to take from the Barnard River and what, if any, conditions are attached to that water licence? Can the Treasurer inform the House as to how many megalitres were taken on average over the past 10 years? Is it intended that the water licence that allows Macquarie Energy to draw water from the Barnard River will be transferred as part of the electricity privatisation plan? If so, would the water licence purchaser or lessee be able to on-sell or assign the licence entitlements to irrigators in the Hunter Valley at the expense of users currently accessing the water?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I pointed out yesterday—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is about detail.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will give you the detail—it is 32 gigalitres. But that is not the issue. This has nothing to do with the Government's energy plans.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, it does.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is about water licences. People have to apply for water licences to the appropriate authorities. It has nothing to do with the linkage that the Opposition tried to make yesterday. That is why yesterday I chose to answer the question in the way that I did. I will continue to answer that way. The Opposition does not understand this issue. It has no understanding of the energy market or how water licences are issued.

[Interruption]

Clearly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not understand the issue. The way he is defending the question suggest that he must have written it for the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. He does not understand the difference between the water market and the energy market. However, the question gives me an opportunity to point out that some members of The Nationals have come out in support of the Government's energy strategy. Yesterday Andrew Fraser was quoted in the Coffs Coast Advocate as saying, "I have no problem with the private sector being involved in essential services."

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Treasurer is misleading the House. A member saying he has no problem with private sector involvement is not the same as endorsing a sale.

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

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Treasurer is scared to talk to journalists at the Newcastle Herald about his electricity plans. He has told them he will talk to anyone else—even the bloke who writes the horoscopes.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Members of the Opposition would be better served getting political advice from the bloke who does the horoscopes than from those who are advising them at the moment. The Opposition benches are a rabble. Yesterday I said that The Nationals did not support the Government's strategy. But today we find that they have split on the issue. Andrew Fraser now supports the Government. The Liberal Party is in confusion, with its Federal leadership going one way and its State leadership going another. They cannot make up their minds. Even Mike Baird, on his website, supports the Government on this issue. We do not know what the position is of the rabble over on the Opposition side of the House. Their leadership has not shown any direction. Because of that, different positions have emerged. Andrew Fraser has broken from The Nationals leadership on this issue and now supports the Government. They are out of touch. Is it any wonder, when their leader says about their energy policy, "We might sell some and might not sell some"?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer has finished his answer.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Could the Minister update the House on the latest initiative to improve road safety for children?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Eric is going to read to them.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I read to my children often and I encourage my children to read. It is important to nurture a love of books in young children. I hope every member of the Houses has a similar view. Children are our most vulnerable road users. That is why the Iemma Government is getting on with the job of improving road safety for children. I am pleased to inform the House about the latest road safety program to improve traffic awareness of young children. This initiative puts a road safety twist on well-known songs and nursery rhymes. The New South Wales Centre for Road Safety, in conjunction with Macquarie University, has developed a new CD called Road Safety Songs and Rhymes for Young Children. It is designed to encourage road safety from a young age and to make the learning process enjoyable. The CD is part of the very popular Kids and Traffic resource and is being distributed free to more than 3,000 licensed early childhood services across New South Wales, including preschools, long day care, occasional care, family day care and mobile children's services. We want to encourage a lifetime of road safety awareness from an early age.

Traditional songs and rhymes have been adapted to include a road safety focus with lyrics, such as "Twinkle, twinkle, little star, I wear my seatbelt in the car." The songs reinforce important road safety messages to children: buckle up your seatbelt, wear a bike helmet, hold hands with a grown-up whenever cars are about, always use the safety door to enter and exit the car and always ask an adult where it is safe to play. The new CD provides staff in children's services with easy, practical and fun ways to make road safety education a regular feature of their program. The CD has been developed in association with the Early Childhood Road Safety Education Program at Macquarie University.

I launched the CD earlier this month with children from the university's Banksia Cottage Early Childhood Centre, who were the first in New South Wales to trial the new resource. A charming group of young children and parents attended the launch of the CD. I thank the director of Macquarie University's Early Childhood Road Safety Education Program, Maureen Fegan, for her hard work on this project, and also the New South Wales Centre for Road Safety's Maureen Elliott and her hardworking staff. I wholeheartedly agree with Ms Fegan when she says the CD is a good reminder for adults to take an active role in keeping our children safe and to make road safety part of our daily conversations with them.

The Iemma Government is getting on with the job of improving road safety around our schools. I took the opportunity to road test these nursery rhymes with my own children, and my daughter was particularly impressed with them. She gave them the thumbs-up and said they were good songs to play in the car. She really enjoyed them and she proudly took the CD along to her local kindy so she could play it at the school. Of course, the school will receive the whole kit: 3,000 of these CDs will go out around the State. Interested members can download some of the nursery rhymes from the website of the Roads and Traffic Authority and play them to their children. They provide a very important message.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Considering that today the Government blocked my motion to release documents estimating the cost to the Government of World Youth Day 2008, could the Treasurer explain to the House why the Government does not think it is appropriate for information on World Youth Day costs to be made publicly available?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The question is not in accordance with standing orders because it contains argument. I would ask you to rule it out of order.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: To the point of order: I point out that the member's question reflects on a decision of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! More and more questions being asked of Ministers contain argument. However, the question is clearly out of order on the basis that the matter referred to seeks to canvass an earlier decision of the House.

Later,

The PRESIDENT: Order! Earlier, a question asked by Ms Lee Rhiannon relating to World Youth Day 2008, to which two points of order were taken, was ruled out of order. The first contended that the question contained argument. That point of order was upheld and, accordingly, the question was ruled out of order.

The other point raised was whether the matter related to debate that had taken place in the current session. This is obviously a far more complex point. Whether a matter that has merely been discussed as opposed to formally debated in the House should be regarded for the purposes of Standing Order 65 (3) (a) as a matter that has been debated "within the current session" is a procedural, rather than a substantive, issue. Therefore, I would not uphold any point of order that seeks to have a question ruled out of order on that basis.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. How does the Minister account for the leak of details to the press regarding a complaint made by the Director of Public Prosecutions about the professional conduct of a defence barrister in a trial of sexual assault charges in the District Court? What action has been taken to investigate the source of the leak? What action will the Minister now take to assure the public that the department will safeguard the confidentiality of such matters in future and protect the integrity of trials involving persons who are the subject of such complaints?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Because of the coverage that this matter has received in the media I—along with many other people—am aware of this matter. I note that on 2 May the Sydney Morning Herald printed an apology to Ms Evers for the incorrect reporting of just about every aspect of the story. The Legal Services Commissioner receives all complaints about solicitors and barristers in New South Wales. Confidentiality provisions of the Act do not allow either the commissioner or me to comment on complaints received. It is not appropriate for me to provide any further comment. Matters that are before the Legal Services Commissioner should be investigated by him in accordance with his statute.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Could the Minister update the House on the progress of occupational health and safety management in the Department of Education and Training?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the member for his question and for his ongoing interest in both occupational health and safety and public education. In 2005 the Department of Education and Training identified the need for a substantial review of its workplace safety program. The department developed Safe Working and Learning, a three-year strategy for continuous improvement in health and safety based on the premise that people are our most valuable asset and there is nothing more important than their wellbeing.

I am pleased to advise that the strategy has been an outstanding success, with significant improvements in workplace safety. While the cost of claims last year was more than $33 million, there has been a 17 per cent reduction in the department's workers compensation premium. There has also been a 17 per cent reduction in time away from the workplace following an injury. For the calendar year 2007, the department had 6,821 claims incurring costs, although only about half required time away from work. There were 1,000 claims for psychological injury, a reduction to 11 per cent of claims from 14 per cent of claims three years ago. WorkCover data also shows that the number of mental disorder claims from school teachers have fallen by more than 17 per cent since 2002-03.

An online safety management system has been developed that provides comprehensive guidelines and support tools for workplace managers, including school principals. Trainers have travelled throughout the State to train school principals and TAFE managers in occupational health and safety management practices to ensure schools, TAFE colleges and campuses are amongst the safest places in the community. This commitment to training continues, with more than 1,000 staff receiving occupational health and safety training in 2007, thereby maximising the benefits returned to the department from staff who are undertaking the role of occupational health and safety committee member or occupational health and safety representative.

A range of risk management programs and resource materials has been developed to reduce the risk of injury. These include risk management guidelines for specific issues including anaphylaxis, student behaviour and other issues that relate to the day-to-day work in New South Wales government schools. In addition, the department has conducted studies into high-frequency incidents to better inform risk management and injury prevention.

A wide range of employee injury management and rehabilitation services has been provided for staff. The department has introduced a telephone-based incident notification hotline, which enables staff and workplace managers to lodge notifications of injuries. This encourages early reporting of incidents and allows the department to respond more quickly to ensure a durable and safe return to work for staff who have suffered an injury or illness. The department is also introducing systems to support improved early intervention to manage workplace injury and it is currently implementing an early intervention program for teachers and other staff who have suffered a psychological injury in the workplace.

The department recognises the need for early and targeted support for individuals reporting workplace injury, in particular psychological injury. Better access to employee assistance services has been provided, including conflict resolution and mediation, to ensure that workplace issues identified by employees are managed more effectively. In addition to the health and wellbeing benefits, these improvements have resulted in an additional $27 million of funding being redirected into educational services. The improvements ensure that teachers who suffer a workplace injury get back to good health and back to work sooner, thereby reducing disruption to classes and improving educational continuity.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development report, which drew upon the expertise of 400 scientists, 60 countries, the World Bank and most United Nation bodies? I ask whether the Minister noted that the executive report summary of the synthesis report adopted the following position:

Assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development; information can be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of which are as yet unknown.

Are there any circumstances under which the Minister would revoke the approval of Roundup Ready canola and InVigor Hybrid canola that he gave on 14 March?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I need to point out something important to assist Mr Ian Cohen's understanding of this matter. The decision I made earlier this year in relation to canola and the growing of a commercial-scale food crop in New South Wales was based upon legislation that was passed almost unanimously by this House. Only four Greens voted against the legislation. I make it very clear that all the decisions I have made in relation to this matter fall squarely within the framework of that legislation, which was agreed to by this House last year.

The legislation sets out the procedures I must follow with regard to any proposition put before the GM Technology Committee by any proponent. That procedure is set out very plainly. What it means is that in New South Wales—unlike, say, in Victoria—all proposals to commercialise GM technology are examined by an expert panel. The composition of that expert panel—despite the bleatings of some of Mr Cohen's friends—has not substantially changed since it was established in 2003: its membership has not changed. In fact, two people who are stridently anti-GM remain members of the committee.

The Hon. Rick Colless: But you don't tell them when—

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They know precisely.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They don't.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member does not believe their nonsense. That committee has met and under the terms of the legislation has considered the proposition and referred the matter with a recommendation. I had some questions—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Prove it! The question is whether, if you had further information, you would change it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Listen to me! In relation to the matter then being put forward I sought further advice from the committee, which it subsequently provided and then made the recommendation. I endorsed the committee's recommendation. It was a very simple, straightforward process. I do not intend to change my position on the matter. If the committee advises me to do so I will reconsider the decision. I have seen heaps of information about this issue and it is highly charged. The evidence that persuades me is that this is important and useful technology and that it will expand greatly over future years to encompass other forms of agricultural product.

At the bottom of this debate is a disconnection in the heads of the Greens and their supporters. We are prepared to support gene technology and all of its benefits for humankind. Most learned journals published over the past few years include many proposals about gene technologies and their implementation to assist humans in offsetting the impact of disease. This is done openly, and there is no doubt that what is involved is gene modification, to rectify genetic defects. However, the Greens and their small gaggle of supporters have come to the conclusion that we cannot genetically modify a plant or an animal. I find that an appalling disconnection, but they might get their heads around it philosophically at some stage. [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 9 April 2008 the Hon. Trevor Khan asked me a question without notice regarding Elton Consulting and the Tamworth Learning 2020 process. I can advise that Elton Consulting Group was engaged following a standard public tender process administered by the Department of Commerce. The consultation process undertaken by Elton Consulting was extensive and involved a variety of opportunities and settings for all members of the community to be involved from start to end.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 3 April 2008 the Hon. Melinda Pavey asked me a question without notice regarding Orange and Central West TAFE courses. I advise the member that recently TAFE New South Wales-Western Sydney Institute began providing on-the-job training for baking apprentices, including for apprentices previously enrolled with the Western Institute. The popularity of this mode of delivery meant that there were insufficient apprentices at TAFE New South Wales-Western Institute, Orange campus to form face-to-face classes. From semester two 2008, Western Institute will also offer on-the-job training for baking apprentices at Orange. Western Institute has been offering on-the-job training for its butchery apprentices for many years and is continuing to do so this year.

In relation to the certificate IV in Residential Studies (Building) qualification offered by TAFE New South Wales-North Coast Institute, the target group is qualified tradespeople currently in work who are seeking to become licensed building contractors. Five campuses of the institute offer the course on a part-time basis with evening classes in conjunction with some self-directed study. This delivery method has proved very popular and effective. North Coast Institute is not aware of any demand for a full-time program.

Questions without notice concluded.

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. John Hatzistergos.

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.

[The President left the chair at 1.07 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The PRESIDENT: Order! During debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008 earlier today a point of order was taken that the contribution of Ms Lee Rhiannon appeared to be based on unreported in-camera evidence from the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding. Following debate on the point of order I ruled that the member may continue her speech following her assurance that her speech was based on independent research and not on unreported in-camera evidence given to the committee. I also cautioned the member that disclosure of unreported evidence from a committee would amount to a contempt of the Parliament. Standing Order 224 (1) provides:

The evidence taken by a committee and documents presented to it, which have not been reported to the House, may not, unless authorised by the House or committee, be disclosed to any person other than a member or officer of the committee.

Several Privileges Committee inquiries have upheld the principle that unauthorised disclosure of committee evidence and documents could amount to a breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament. In 1998 the Senate Committee of Privileges set out guidelines for dealing with improper disclosure of committee material that determined that in relation to in-camera evidence:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the Senate who are party to disclosure of in camera evidence may be expected to face severe findings of contempt, with attendant penalties, and a possible prosecution under the criminal provisions of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Publishers and authors within the media, regardless of whether the source of the documents is discovered, can similarly expect to face severe sanctions.

Under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 members of this House are guaranteed freedom of speech. The rationale for this freedom was described in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 334 as:

… the need to ensure so far as possible that a member of the legislature and witnesses before committees of the House can speak freely without fear that what they say will be later held against them in the courts. The important public interest protected by such privilege is to ensure that the member or witness at the time he speaks is not inhibited from stating fully and freely what he has to say.

However, while article 9 provides absolute freedom from outside interference, debate in the House is still subject to the rules that Parliament itself imposes. The difficulty in relation to the debate in this Chamber today is the extent to which a member is constrained from bringing before the House material which, although the subject of in-camera evidence before a select committee, has nevertheless been independently researched and compiled.

I would urge members to exercise restraint where there is a likelihood that their speech could interfere with the workings of a committee appointed by this House. Members should also be cautious of attempts by third parties to circumvent the decision of a properly constituted committee of this House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.51 p.m.]: Prior to the adjournment I referred to part 3A development approval, and I will give evidence of such approval being obtained by developers who have been massive donors to the Australian Labor Party. I will cite cases of developments that have followed directly from large donations, and I will cite developers saying that donations obtained access and more. The Greens cross-matched the outcomes of development applications dealt with under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act with political donations records, and the results strongly suggest that political donors receive more favourable treatment than non-donors.

Donations by property developers to major political parties since part 3A of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act was introduced in mid 2005 total more than $8.5 million. Since mid 2005 almost $3 billion worth of developments have been approved under part 3A of the Act for 13 developer companies who are political donors. In the same period developers have made more than $6 million in political donations, including more than $2 million to the New South Wales Labor Party, which held power in New South Wales, and more than $1.4 million to the Federal Liberal Party, which held power at the Commonwealth level.

Contrast that with the projects that have been refused. According to the Department of Planning's 2005-06 major developments monitor 28 projects were refused under part 3A in that period. Not one of the companies that had its projects refused was a political donor. Only two donor companies had proposed adjustments to their section 96 contributions refused, but the developments were approved and built.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is circumstantial evidence.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile tells me that is circumstantial evidence. It is overwhelming circumstantial evidence when all development applications were approved for those who did donate and only non-donors had their developments refused. That is beyond circumstantial evidence, surely. In many instances proponents of development applications under consideration by the Minister for Planning, or his department, have made numerous large donations to the New South Wales Labor Party while the Minister was determining their development applications.

It is worthwhile examining a few specific examples. Rosecorp made a donation of $25,000 to the New South Wales Labor Party three weeks after having a part 3A project approved. Rosecorp made a further donation of $27,500 to the New South Wales Labor Party four days before submitting a request to the Minister for approval to submit a concept plan for another part 3A project. Payce Consolidated Ltd is an interesting case. From 2000 to 2005 Payce donated exclusively to the Liberal Party—it was not an Australian Labor Party donor. In June 2006 Payce made its first donation to the New South Wales Labor Party, one month before commencing a part 3A development process. Over the following 12 months, as its application was being considered and approved, it donated a further $105,000 to the New South Wales Labor Party, leading to a successful approval of its application.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You have got to show the link though.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile fails to see the connection. I suspect the people of New South Wales see that connection. If he lets me finish he will hear of many more cases.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Prove it.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I will do so in a minute. He must be patient. In December 2005 Buildev Tinonee commenced a part 3A development approval process for a residential development at Buckets Way. In January 2006 the four Buildev companies began regular monthly donations to the New South Wales Labor Party at $2,291.85 each per month, or a total of $9,164 per month. Those donations continued until at least April 2007, and we presume they are ongoing. During the State election campaign in 2007 Buildev paid more than $50,000 in campaign bills for the Labor Party candidate for Newcastle, Ms Jodie McKay, which was not declared by Ms McKay or the New South Wales Labor Party. Buildev was having its Buckets Way project assessed under part 3A during that time.

The Village Building Company donated $164,000 over five years and its consultants, Endeavour Consulting, donated a further $36,000 to the New South Wales Labor Party in the lead-up to the decision by the Minister to support a residential development at Tralee, despite a committee of inquiry recommendation against such development. Babcock and Brown made a large donation to the New South Wales Labor Party while it was negotiating with the Government over a 50-year lease of Crown land at Killalea State Park for the purpose of a commercial resort development.

The conflict of interest arising from these donations is obvious. The Minister always replies, however, that donations do not count and all decisions are made on their merit, but people find that increasingly hard to believe when they look at some of the decisions that have been made. On multiple occasions the Minister for Planning has overruled or ignored advice from independent committees of inquiry or his own department to make determinations that resulted in significant financial windfalls for political donors to the New South Wales Labor Party.