Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 11 March 2009, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 11 March 2009
______

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

The President read the Prayers.

NATION BUILDING AND JOBS PLAN (STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY) BILL 2009

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 Della Bosca.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business item No. 136 outside the order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Private Members' Business item No. 165 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Private Members' Business item No. 176 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Private Members' Business item No. 177 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Private Members' Business item No. 190 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

PETITIONS

Gaden Trout Hatchery

Petition opposing the closure of Gaden Trout Hatchery, received from the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Precedence of Business

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith relating to the conduct of business of the House this day.

Precedence of Business

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That Government Business take precedence of debate on Committee Reports and Budget Estimates this day.

NATION BUILDING AND JOBS PLAN (STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY) BILL 2009

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Health, Minister for the Central Coast, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.08 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As it has been delivered in the other place, I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.09 a.m.]: The Nation Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill 2009 and the circumstances in which it has come into being are a stunning indictment of this Government. It is no secret that this bill has been introduced because the Federal Government, when it decided recently to implement a second stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis, made the funds that were to be given to the States contingent upon a variation of the usual State planning and delivery of infrastructure processes. This bill represents the loudest vote of no confidence in this State Government and other Labor State governments, such as the Bligh Government, by a Federal Government—a government of the same political persuasion.

The bill also brings into sharp relief the failure of the Government to invest in infrastructure and its poor track record on the completion of promised capital works. Having absolutely no faith in the Rees Government, the Rudd Government has made its stimulus spending package contingent on expedited planning and delivery. The result of these conditions is outlined in the bill now before the House. The Nation Building Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill is designed to steamroll the State's forward planning system in order to deliver projects quickly. If the New South Wales planning system was working properly and smoothly, this bill would simply not be necessary. As the Property Council of New South Wales commented in recent weeks:

The Government has said this bill is about protecting jobs but, as the shadow Treasurer has said, the need for real action on jobs is not something that has emerged recently. The member for Manly said:

Business has no confidence in the Government's fiscal management of the State, particularly its high payroll tax regime, and jobs are being created in other States as a result of that taxing regime. Following the mini-budget last year the Property Council of New South Wales commented:

With those comments from the Property Council and plenty of others is it any wonder that the Federal Government has decided to mandate the sort of approach that we are seeing in the bill we are debating today? As much as this bill highlights the need for the State's economy to be better managed, the bill also emphasises the need for major and comprehensive reform of our State planning process. This is a longstanding problem that has bedevilled our State for a long time, harming productivity, restricting growth and restricting employment. The Property Council of New South Wales has repeatedly criticised the Government for its poor record of coordinating infrastructure delivery across the State and has complained that the State Government's own processes have been too slow for far too long. As the shadow Treasurer, the member for Manly, said last week:

The Government's poorly coordinated and lengthy planning process, combined with its poor economic management of the State and its desperate addiction to spin, has resulted in a string of flashy announcements and promised new infrastructure projects which have been followed by delays, compromises and outright cancellations. The list of promised infrastructure projects overdue, scrapped or indefinitely delayed is growing longer, and includes the M4 East, the F3-M7 link, the Newcastle Port redevelopment, the Gerringong to Bomaderry Princes Highway upgrade, the North West rail link, the South West rail link, the Richmond line duplication, the Carlingford passing loop, and the expansion of convention and exhibition facilities. The list goes on.

Reports in today's Sydney Morning Herald reveal that two major rail upgrades designed to boost services for western Sydney commuters have sat idle for almost 12 months because RailCorp has failed to allocate resources to commission the projects. Over the weekend our State was stripped of the $50 million in Federal Government funding for maintenance of the Pacific Highway because the Rees Government axed $360 million in Pacific Highway upgrade funding in its mini-budget.

With the State's planning system unable to deliver projects from the Federal stimulus package expeditiously, the embarrassed State Government has been forced to comply with Kevin Rudd's requirements and establish an Infrastructure Co-ordinator General responsible for planning and implementing the timely delivery of infrastructure projects. The bill also establishes an advisory task force consisting of government and private sector representatives, requires State Government agencies to cooperate with the Co-ordinator General, provides for the Co-ordinator General to take over the delivery of infrastructure projects on behalf of State Government agencies, and enables the Co-ordinator General to streamline the planning and other approval processes for infrastructure projects.

The bill also steamrolls the planning system in this State, quashing normal community input mechanisms, disempowering local councils as consent authorities, and permitting the overriding of normal environmental controls. Quite simply, this legislation is even more draconian than the controversial part 3A, which was added to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Effectively, this bill tacitly acknowledges that the current system, even with part 3A, does not allow for the expeditious delivery of infrastructure in New South Wales. There can be no clearer indictment of the inability of government agencies to cooperate in the coordinated planning and delivery of infrastructure.

The Opposition has many concerns about this bill but the Rudd Federal Labor Government is forcing it on New South Wales because we have an incompetent State Government. It is an approach that leaves a lot to be desired but Federal Labor has said about its State colleagues that it is necessary, otherwise the policy approach it is taking to the global financial crisis will not be implemented. The position of the Opposition, as foreshadowed by my colleagues in the other House, is not to oppose this bill. It is a great pity that we find ourselves in this position, but the Federal Government has adopted a position on the Federal economic stimulus package and it is now incumbent upon New South Wales to do what it can to implement that package in line with Federal policy. It is a great pity we have to go down this path, particularly with the overriding of local planning processes, but that is what this Government has forced upon us.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [11.07 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I follow my colleague the Hon. Don Harwin to speak on the Nation Building Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill 2009. As my colleague has outlined, this bill comes from the requirement instituted by the Federal Government as part of its funding for the Federal Nation Building and Jobs Plan, pursuant to the Council of Australian Governments agreement reached at the beginning of this year. On 3 February the Federal Government announced its Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which is a continuation of the Federal Government rhetoric of ensuring that jobs are put first as a priority in response to the global financial crisis.

While the Opposition naturally supports jobs in these difficult economic times and, as the Hon. Don Harwin foreshadowed, we will not oppose this bill, we have major concerns about this Government's ability to deliver. I note in particular that the role of the Infrastructure Co-ordinator General has been a feast under this New South Wales Government. Indeed, I cast my mind back to the former Infrastructure Co-ordinator General, David Richmond—I do not know where his future lies at the moment. Honourable members will recall that David Richmond walked out on his $300,000 a year job as New South Wales Co-ordinator General after just 18 months.

At the time his walk-out was seen as a complete lack of confidence in the Government's ability to deliver its infrastructure agenda. On the day after former Premier Morris Iemma was successful in the last election, David Richmond was appointed with much fanfare as the man who would oversee the delivery of the very large infrastructure budget that the New South Wales Government put forward as part of its re-election plan. However, true to the Machiavellian form of the New South Wales Government, despite all that fanfare David Richmond left his position in very disappointing circumstances.

Fast-forward to 3 February 2009 when the Federal Government announced its $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The plan requires an Infrastructure Co-ordinator General to be appointed by each of the States to ensure that the priorities of the plan are actually delivered by the States. It is remarkable that, on the one hand, David Richmond exited the role of Infrastructure Co-ordinator General in a shambolic way and, on the other, the Federal Government has said, "We require this as part of our commitment to deliver this money to you; we need to make sure it is used effectively." It has created a role that had been relinquished just a few months previously. It is ironic, but I cannot blame the Federal Government for making this requirement part of the package it put to the States. It understands the long history of the New South Wales Government on poorly delivered infrastructure projects.

Indeed, the list is growing by the day and is extremely long. For the record I will mention a few to highlight that point. The one that comes to mind that was delivered fairly recently with much fanfare by the State Government is the Epping to Chatswood rail line. The Government delivered the project late, at twice the original estimated cost and with only half the line that was promised. Other highways and rail projects have been a complete fiasco under this Labor Government. One need only mention the north-west rail link, the on-again off-gain North West Metro, and clearways projects that are on and then they are off. The list includes a whole range of projects that are shambolic.

The list reminds me of the amusing analogy by Peter Costello on the Q&A program last week when he said that Kevin Rudd is a bit like a dentist: he has his mask on and he is leaning over the patient. I could not help but think that the patient etherised on the table was Premier Nathan Rees. In that analogy the New South Wales public are the ones etherised on the table, hoping to be revived by a jobs plan administered by the Federal Government because the New South Wales Government has no plan and cannot be trusted to deliver the solutions the New South Wales public are crying out for.

The PRESIDENT: Order! All members should cease interjecting on the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Thank you very much, Mr President. They should listen in silence and maybe then they will understand a few of the issues that concern the people of New South Wales. I have gone through a number of the projects that the New South Wales Government has failed to deliver. I was gobsmacked when I was informed that the Federal Government, as a preliminary aspect of the nation-building exercise, had asked the New South Wales Government for a list of priority projects for schools. It should not have been too difficult to provide such a list, but the New South Wales Government managed to completely stuff that up as well. It could not provide a list of priority projects for schools, yet the Premier came out in his robotic form and said, "Trust me, I will deliver for New South Wales because I say I will deliver for New South Wales and whether or not I am a patient etherised on the table—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: That is an appalling impersonation.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I could improve; I will work on that. "Even if I am a patient etherised on the table being subjected to dental procedures by our beloved Prime Minister, I will stand before you, hand on heart and I will deliver for New South Wales because you can trust me." One need only look at the list of projects where the Government has said that it can be trusted to deliver but has failed to do so consistently over the last 14 years. The past is a true indicator of future performance and the past condemns the State Government in such a way as to make words from Premier Rees completely without substance.

I note also that the bill points very clearly to failures in the planning system on the delivery of infrastructure projects. The planning system is subject to an upper House inquiry under the auspices of the Standing Committee on State Development, which is considering the future of the planning regime being foisted upon the State. The most recent changes to part 3A were meant to move a number of projects that fall within the purview of the Minister into planning committees to distance the Minister from making decisions that are clearly political and remove any perceived conflict of interest that might arise in those circumstances. Whilst there are improvements to the complete discretion that used to exist under part 3A, there are still problems that are evidenced by the manner in which the Minister has made decisions and exercised her discretion. Problems still exist under part 3A and acknowledgement that the planning system does not work is evidenced by the introduction of the National Building and Jobs Plan State Infrastructure Delivery Bill 2009 which, by its very title, is all about infrastructure delivery and the Government's failure to have a planning framework in place that can deliver. It is about the failure of the Government to have a can-do philosophy for the delivery of services and infrastructure in this State.

No wonder the Leader of the Government is leaving the Chamber. He understands this goes to the heart of good governance and that the Government consistently has failed the people of New South Wales on this front over the past 14 years. I also note that changes proposed to fast-tracking infrastructure will, in some cases, no doubt impinge upon other public interest objectives ensuring that the public has a right to have its say and a right to consultation on projects implemented as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It is true to form that the Government will stomp on the rights of people to get its agenda through. That has been its form in the past and, true to form, this bill has the potential to do that.

Having said that, the Opposition acknowledges that it is important to ensure that the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is delivered, and that it is delivered as seamlessly as possible, meeting the timeframes that have been committed to by the State Government as required by the Federal Government pursuant to that plan. If the bill facilitates that, it is a price to pay but the Opposition will not oppose it, for the reason that the Opposition is fundamentally behind the Government with regard to promoting jobs in these difficult economic times.

We understand that businesses are hurting and that the impact of the global financial crisis on the ground is significant. Indeed, I believe its impact will get worse. Through my business and through personal business contacts I have heard many stories about the difficulties that businesses are facing as a result of the global financial crisis. I can report to the House that many small businesses—which are often forgotten by these types of projects, certainly based on the government response, both Federal and State, that has occurred to date—are feeling the pain very much.

Last Friday night and on the weekend I attended meetings of business people in Goulburn and I spoke to a number of small business people in a range of different industries. The general consensus was that their businesses are down 20 per cent. In other words, 20 per cent of their businesses have been taken away as a result of the uncertainty and the lack of confidence. The Federal and State governments have been quick to point to the bounce in retail sales, which is predominantly dominated by the supermarkets and the major retail outlets. Whilst that seems to be reasonably resilient, it does not give us the whole picture. It simply does not give us a picture of what is happening in the real engine house of jobs in this economy, which is small business.

Small business people are very concerned about the way the economy is heading. They are concerned that people's confidence has been dented. The consistent theme I have heard is that the Government is not helping this by consistently talking down the economy at a Federal level. It is extremely important that the New South Wales Government not only walks the talk in relation to instituting a Nation Building and Jobs Plan but also talks the talk with regard to building confidence amongst the business community. It is not good enough to play the political game of simply softening up the electorate insofar as keeping people's expectations low so they will not be disappointed when the real storm comes for this country.

The picture is clear if one looks at the indicators overseas, particularly in America and in some of our major trading partners in Asia. One need only look at Japan, which has lost 50 per cent of its export market in the past few months. Its unemployment level is well above four million people and is rising ever more quickly. The signs there relating to the financial sector are very grim indeed. Whilst to date the impact of the global financial crisis in Australia certainly has been less dramatic, I fear that it will have a much more significant impact than has been felt to date. It is extremely important that governments act in that regard. That action should not only be in relation to something of the order of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan but also it should be in the rhetoric of government. Government needs to be very careful about what it says, so that confidence is not undermined for political purposes; indeed, it is important that confidence is built up so that we as a State and a nation can move forward in these difficult times.

I note that in that regard the New South Wales Government is perhaps relieved that somebody will throw it a lifeline—that somebody is prepared to provide the Government with a stimulus package. The reality is that the New South Wales Government has failed to provide a stimulus package of its own. It is economic orthodoxy throughout all world economies that in difficult times like this the only way to minimise the impact on jobs and on the economy is to provide a stimulus package. There will always be questions about how a government should provide a stimulus package, of what order it should be, and how it should target the package. They are legitimate questions, and they have been pursued in other places, particularly in the Federal Parliament. I do not think anyone disagrees that we need to have a stimulus package.

The Opposition is very supportive of a stimulus package directed at New South Wales—directed at community infrastructure, particularly schools, and directed at ensuring that investment will occur in housing, an area that has been badly neglected by the New South Wales Government. The public housing regime in New South Wales is very poor indeed. Resources going into that would be most welcome, as would resources in a whole range of other smaller projects. The importance of all that is to ensure that that stimulus occurs now and is fed through over the next few quarters so that New South Wales and Australia can move forward from what will be a difficult time economically.

This underlines that the New South Wales Government, in stark contrast to all other governments one could name, chose in its November mini-budget not to stimulate the New South Wales economy. Indeed, the Government chose to increase taxes and cut infrastructure funding. Of the order of $330 million was cut from funding for the Pacific Highway—which, as the Hon. Don Harwin noted, on the weekend resulted in a $50 million penalty for New South Wales. That sort of shortsightedness creates further problems and undermines people's confidence even more. Again the Opposition has taken the lead because there is a vacuum on the Government side about what should be done. What does a government do in an economic crisis? If we take Labor's perspective, it increases taxes and reduces the infrastructure spend to which it had committed and it does that in such a way as to maximise the political pain for the Opposition. Labor does it in country seats where it will not be affected; it does it in the northern suburbs where it will not be affected. The Government plays partisan politics in relation to infrastructure funding, rather than acting in the public interest, in the interests of all the people of New South Wales. It is directed for political gain. This is the shambles we have reached under this Government.

In stark contrast the Opposition has provided leadership in relation to a stimulus package in New South Wales. The Opposition, through Barry O'Farrell, put on the table a 15 per cent reduction in payroll tax for one year to stimulate businesses—businesses that were thinking about cutting jobs because they have lost 20 per cent of their turnover, which is consistent in a whole range of industries. Some businesses may have been thinking that they would employ a few more people because the industry is doing well. But they are not sure about doing that because their confidence has been buttressed so much by all the rhetoric, particularly from the Prime Minister, about this global financial crisis and the talking down of the economy, which I spoke about earlier.

Business is looking for the right environment in which to invest and to put people in jobs. The Labor Government consistently has a paradigm of business being a resource to milk for its own centralised government priorities, as opposed to the Opposition's perspective of business being the engine room for growth. If we get the business environment moving we will get the focus right to ensure that there is confidence for business to invest. We will then see the increases in government revenue that will flow from increased economic activity, which will then be sufficient to drive the government agenda relating to priorities across the board. That difference in philosophy underpins the difference in response from Federal and State governments of either Liberal or Labor persuasion. It is sad that the New South Wales Government will still not pick up the ideas being put forward by the Opposition in relation to a New South Wales stimulus package. The Government consistently refuses to entertain such ideas. Day after day the Treasurer points to the ways in which the Government is doing things, but the empty rhetoric continues.

The Nation Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill, whilst important in facilitating the implementation of the Commonwealth Government's $42 billion stimulus package, underlines the lack of credible response by the Government to the stimulus package, its lack of confidence in the New South Wales economy, its pathetic response to a planning framework to deal with issues of this nature, the inadequacies of part 3A and the fact that the Government will not—although the Opposition has suggested it many times—review the New South Wales planning framework from scratch rather than its bandaid approach. The bill is yet another incremental bandaid that seeks to pursue another political agenda of the Government in its 2011 electoral prospects.

As my colleague the Hon. Don Harwin foreshadowed, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. The Opposition points to the failure of the Government to deliver over the past 14 years. It has no concept of delivering anything on budget or on time and no doubt that pattern of behaviour will continue. The Government should get its act together but recent examples again point to its failure to deal with the priorities expected by the people of New South Wales. The Government should get on with the job of delivering and the Opposition will be closely watching it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.42 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Nation Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill 2009. The bill will ensure the timely delivery in New South Wales of the infrastructure projects funded by the Commonwealth under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan to implement the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreement of 5 February 2009 to reduce the impact on Australia of the global economic recession. All members are aware of the current economic crisis facing the United States of America, Europe, Australia and other nations throughout the world, and that it caused the recent serious collapse of the United Kingdom's financial viability. Jobs have been lost in Australia and overseas. The United States motor vehicle industry has collapsed and so has its banking sector, mainly through low-security or no-security housing loans that were provided over a period. Australia is coping with the crisis better than most countries but it still has to face it.

I support the Rudd Federal Government's attempt to deal with the crisis, with its $10 billion stimulus package last December. There is debate about whether that package had as much impact as was hoped, but it certainly had some. The Federal Government's decision to allocate a further $42 billion in a stimulus package was made more urgent by the closure of some Australian industries. In New South Wales there has been debate about the closure of Pacific Brands and the loss of jobs of long-term employees. The bill will provide for the expenditure of that part of the $42 billion stimulus package to be allocated to New South Wales.

The stimulus package must not replace normal State Government expenditure, nor is its purpose to save the budget of the State Government. The money is to be spent on new projects. Each State will receive a percentage—I am not sure whether the breakdown has been decided to the last dollar—based on the size of its population. A very strict timetable has been laid down. We have all heard that New South Wales paid a penalty because it was slow in taking up a funding allocation. The same principle will apply to this State's share of the $42 billion package if the Government does not efficiently organise itself to meet the strict timetable. I agree that the timetable is necessary to focus State governments, including Ministers and bureaucrats, on what must be achieved to ensure projects get off the ground.

In the $42 billion stimulus package the Federal Government has included personal grants of up to $900 per family to be used for spending. It is hoped that will stimulate the economy. No doubt many people will use the money to pay off loans or credit cards and perhaps a small percentage of it will go into poker machines or on cigarettes. I believe it would have been better if the Federal Government had devised a voucher system so that the allocated money could be spent only on products and not on gambling or other wasteful expenditure.

The bill is very simple. It provides a special structure for the efficient handling of the stimulus package. It provides for a Co-ordinator General to be responsible for the planning and timely implementation of infrastructure projects. The Co-ordinator General will be appointed to that office under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002. The legislation also provides for a taskforce, to be comprised of the Co-ordinator—who will act as the presiding member—members of government agencies and private sector representatives and experts. The taskforce will advise on the exercise of functions relating to infrastructure projects. Separate taskforces may be established for different projects or different classes of projects.

Clause 9 imposes an obligation on State government agencies to cooperate with the Co-ordinator General in relation to infrastructure projects, including providing information and assistance and complying with reasonable requests of the Co-ordinator General that agencies exercise their functions in a timely manner. The bill will also enable the Co-ordinator General to streamline the planning and other approval processes for infrastructure projects in order to ensure that the projects are delivered within the Commonwealth time frame under the COAG agreement.

That is a very important part of the legislation. If the Co-ordinator General does not have that power, we will not meet the timetable. Clause 23 will enable the Co-ordinator General to declare that an infrastructure project is exempt from all or any specified development control legislation or from such legislation if the carrying out of the project is authorised by the Co-ordinator General. Some people may believe that provision is draconian. I believe it is necessary in the crisis we are facing. These infrastructure projects must go ahead and must not be obstructed or delayed by a technicality. I am pleased to support the bill before the House.

[Debate interrupted.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: It is with great pleasure that I welcome to my gallery Baroness Caroline Cox, former Deputy-Speaker and former Chair of Committees of the United Kingdom House of Lords.

NATION BUILDING AND JOBS PLAN (STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY) BILL 2009

Second Reading

[Debate resumed.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.50 a.m.]: I speak on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill 2009, in particular, those aspects that interact with and, indeed, override the State's planning system. The Greens have been calling for increased investment in infrastructure for a very long time. We welcome the investment that gives rise to this bill. We welcome the increased investment in social housing and we support new social housing being built close to transport links and other services. We welcome increased spending on school maintenance and facilities. We also have been calling for improved long-term planning of infrastructure provisions. We have called at length for the Government to recognise the widespread concern that the community is being cut out of planning decisions and the need to ensure that the local community is consulted in a meaningful way about proposed developments that will impact on their area. Therefore, it is unfortunate that part 5 of the bill is such a ham-fisted attempt to overcome the Government's inability to plan effectively and to genuinely involve the public in planning decisions.

The State Government is asking us yet again to take it on trust when it comes to planning. Yet again it is taking to itself, via one of its appointees, enormous discretionary power to override the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and any other relevant legislation. Yet again it is protecting those enormous discretionary powers from any judicial review or scrutiny. Last year we opposed similar measures to expand the discretionary power and remove oversight in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Indeed, the Greens are the only political party that has been consistent since 2005 in its opposition to part 3A of the Act. That part was introduced in 2005. I said at the time that it is bad public policy to be expanding discretionary power, while simultaneously removing judicial oversight and review. At the time the Legislation Review Committee raised similar concerns. The Government has been a failure on planning. The system of planning in this State has been discredited by a combination of incredibly inept public infrastructure provision and a strongly held public perception that planning decisions are influenced by political donations.

The provision of infrastructure has been marked by a series of announced, then cancelled public transport projects and failed public-private partnerships, particularly relating to road tunnels. The integrity of major planning decisions under the notorious part 3A powers of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has been called into question time and again by the number of favourable decisions that have gone the way of major donors to the Australian Labor Party. In this context it is ludicrous for the Government to demand that it should be trusted to implement the projects without having to meet any of the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Fisheries Management Act, the Native Vegetation Act or any other Act that provides requirements for community consultation or protections against environmental or heritage destruction. The Greens, therefore, will oppose part 5 and clause 27 of the bill. Part 5, "Authorisation of infrastructure projects", comprises clauses 22 to 26. Clause 22 defines the term "development control legislation":

development control legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Clause 23 enables the Co-ordinator General to declare that an infrastructure project is exempt from all or any specified development control legislation, or is exempt from all or any specified development control legislation if the carrying out of the project is authorised by the Co-ordinator General. Clause 24 provides where an exemption from development control legislation is subject to the authorisation of the project by the Co-ordinator General for a proponent of the project to apply in writing for the authorisation. The Co-ordinator General may authorise the carrying out of the infrastructure project, subject to conditions set out or referred to in the authorisation. Clause 24 (6) states:

The breadth of the matters that the Co-ordinator General can make a determination on and conditions about and, in fact, decline to impose conditions, is absolutely breathtaking. How anyone can suggest in the current context that there should be no public scrutiny, no right of appeal, no right to question the Co-ordinator General's decision when it comes to, for example, bushfire protection is beyond me. We have here a recipe for projects that are totally inimical to the public interest being pushed through by the Co-ordinator General. It is not as though when it comes to the planning Act that government appointments have been of people so transparently appropriate to hold the position that the Parliament can trust the Government to get it right or there is no need to worry about the basis on which decisions are made.

Clause 25 relates to the application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to infrastructure projects where an exemption from that Act is given by the Co-ordinator General. Clause 25 (2) provides, amongst other things, that an environmental planning instrument under that Act cannot require development consent for or otherwise restrict such a project and that the environmental assessment requirements under part 5 of the Act do not apply to such a project. Clause 26 enables information about exemptions or authorisations given by the Co-ordinator General to be provided to councils for inclusion in planning certificates issued to prospective purchasers of land under section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Part 6, Miscellaneous, includes clause 27, which protects the exercise of certain functions of the Co-ordinator General, his or her delegate or a Minister from challenge or review before a court or administrative review body or from being restrained, removed or otherwise affected by any proceedings.

The Greens believe that these provisions are excessive and unnecessary. We believe that they represent poor public policy and the overriding of the few protections of public interest that remain in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and other Acts that are enumerated in the bill, such as the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Fisheries Management Act and the Native Vegetation Act. We will support those sections of the bill giving effect to the infrastructure investment but we will vote against those sections of the bill that give extraordinary powers to the Co-ordinator General and his or her delegate and remove his or her actions from judicial scrutiny.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

TRANSIT OFFICERS EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Can the Minister inform the House if the Government has finalised its decision to scrap New South Wales transit officers? Does the Government's plan include offering transit officers the opportunity to join the New South Wales Police Force? Will the Minister now inform the House exactly what this offer will entail?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am sceptical whenever the Leader of the Opposition jumps to his feet and talks about safety on the public transport system. Last year he asked me a misguided question about transport and I am fearful that he is misguided again. Let me make it clear for him. The New South Wales Government is committed to improving passenger safety on our public transport network. The New South Wales Government is always interested in looking at ways to improve passenger safety on our public transport system. At any given time a number of options to improve passenger safety come across both my desk and the desk of the Minister for Transport. The Government has not decided what direction any future enhancements to safety on our public transport system will take.

ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What action has the Government taken to ensure clinicians have input into the new Royal North Shore Hospital redevelopment?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The $950 million redevelopment of Royal North Shore Hospital is the biggest health infrastructure project in the State's history. It will be a superb medical facility for New South Wales families and for the nation, not just for the next few years but generations to come. The process of consultation with clinicians around design commenced in 2006, before and during the tender process, and involved doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and administrative and support staff.

Through a coordinated process clinicians representing the medical and nursing community at Royal North Shore Hospital had the opportunity to review the three proposed designs, the first time this has ever occurred on a project of this kind in New South Wales. The clinicians identified a number of issues and negotiated a resolution to those issues before the final tender was awarded. The New South Wales Government committed to this unprecedented level of consultation because we wanted to ensure clinicians had a voice in the planning of this major hospital.

The next step was schematic design consultation, which involved a total of more than 200 staff, a quarter of which were medical clinicians, and each of 48 groups met at least three and sometimes four times to review the plans for their departments and to comment on the relationship between the rooms in each department. The detailed design process is continuing through the construction phase and clinicians will continue to be involved.

Australasian Health Facility Guidelines recommend two sizes of theatres: 42 square metres and 52 square metres. We are building both those sizes at Royal North Shore Hospital plus two theatres at a larger 56 square metre size. In addition to two existing theatres in the Douglas Building, the new Royal North Shore Hospital will have six theatres at 42 square metres, 10 theatres at 52 square metres and two theatres at 56 square metres. The two larger theatres were added in the first quarter of 2008 as a direct result of consultation with the surgeons. These theatres will be digitally integrated. That means that surgeons can access patient files and diagnostic information online and they can look at patient x-rays and see records that include pharmacological history and patient history. Images from these theatres can be beamed in real time or as recorded images to other teaching facilities not only anywhere in New South Wales but the world.

Every one of these theatres meets or exceeds the Australasian Health Facility Guidelines. The theatres at some of our most prestigious teaching hospitals, such as Royal Prince Alfred, St Vincents and John Hunter, used for trauma, cardiothoracic surgery and liver transplants, are smaller. What is planned for Royal North Shore Hospital meets or exceeds the Australasian Health Facility Guidelines. As a result of concerns expressed today by some staff I have asked Mr Bob Leece, the current chair of the Health Infrastructure Board, to work through the remaining issues with the clinicians at Royal North Shore Hospital. Mr Leece has an impressive track record as former Deputy Director General of the Olympic Coordination Authority and recently appointed Infrastructure Co-ordinator General and chairman of the New South Wales National Building and Jobs Planning Task Force. He has been chairman of the Health Infrastructure Board since the beginning of this project. [Time expired.]

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ANNUAL REPORTS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister recall that the Auditor General's report of February this year recommends the department's 2008-09 annual report clearly disclose actual performance against significant key performance indicator targets? For what reasons did the department's 2007-08 annual report disclose its actual results against the prior two years but not against the 2008 targets? What is the Minister's response to the fact that the Auditor General said that this made it impossible to assess how the department performed against those targets? Can the Minister tell the House why he is trying to hide these figures?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not trying to hide any figures whatsoever. In terms of that particular report I will get the member a detailed answer.

LONG BAY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX PRISONER ESCAPE

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Corrective Services. On 5 March I asked a question about an escape from Long Bay jail, which he declined to answer on the grounds that the matter had been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In the light of this, what was the justification for Commissioner Ron Woodham yesterday releasing footage of the prisoner speaking about how he allegedly escaped? Is it common practice for two assistant commissioners to be present on such occasions? Has the original interview with the inmate been recorded? If so, will it now be released to the media along with closed-circuit television footage of the boom gate at the time of the escape? How far will the Minister go to perpetuate a cover-up?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The allegations that have been raised in this matter have been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. As the matter is now before that body I am unable to comment at this time. But I will say that Commissioner Woodham is entitled to deal with matters relating to operational security as he sees fit. Indeed, it is his responsibility to keep the public informed about the management of security issues at the Long Bay Correctional Complex.

POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. What action is the Government taking to improve police infrastructure in this State?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Rees Government is investing in a better future. New South Wales has the largest infrastructure program underway of any State in Australia. The Police portfolio is making an important contribution to that Olympic-style infrastructure program. We are doing this by ensuring that our hard-working police officers are provided with modern and safe police stations. In this term the Government has already completed nine police stations. It is now investing $316 million to build new police stations and to refurbish existing police stations. There will be 21 new police stations and seven major upgrades before the next election. In the past three months the Government has opened three new police stations in Lismore, Dubbo and Orange, which are not Labor electorates. Each new police station built and every redevelopment of an existing police station generates more jobs. These are much-needed construction jobs that support the New South Wales economy and local communities. As I said, many of them are in rural and regional New South Wales.

I am advised that each of the projects in Lismore, Dubbo and Orange employed 15 to 20 people during the design period, up to 50 people during construction, including in the supply of building materials, and 75 people onsite at the peak of construction, including many local subcontractors. At a time when we know that economic conditions will get worse before they get better, these infrastructure projects provide valuable support for our local businesses and communities. Of course, new and refurbished police stations provide a significant boost for our local police. Whilst the buildings themselves do not reduce crime, they do provide the police with access to the latest technology and facilities to support their work.

In December I opened the new Lismore police station, which is a $13.9 million state-of-the-art facility. The three-storey building houses 159 police officers and administrative staff, including the local area command, general duties police, highway patrol officers, detectives and other specialist officers. On 9 February I joined the Premier and Commissioner Scipione at the opening of the new Dubbo police station.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And Thomas George?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: He is a fantastic local member. The new station represents an investment of more than $20 million, which is a massive boost to the Dubbo economy and community. The new four-storey station accommodates 111 local police officers and administrative staff, and the Western Region Police Command. For the first time, the new station allows all police units in Dubbo to be accommodated in the one place, instead of spread across a number of separate locations across town. Department of Corrective Services officers will also be accommodated in the building and there is room for first-class training, conference and gym facilities. As recently as 26 February I opened the Orange police station, which cost $9.4 million. The station is the new headquarters of the Canobolas Local Area Command and accommodates 109 police officers and administrative staff. Next month I will be opening a new police station in Wagga Wagga. The next phase of the police infrastructure program is underway. [Time expired.]

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I recently turned the first sod to commence the construction of a new police station at Windsor. The Government is also close to awarding contracts for the construction of new stations at Kempsey, Granville and Lake Illawarra. Camden, Wyong and Port Stephens are next on the list. As members can see, this Government is giving front-line officers the funding, resources and powers they need to drive down crime across New South Wales. It is also creating jobs in our local communities when and where they are most needed.

SEAFORTH TAFE SITE SECURITY

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Health. Has the Government provided security for the now abandoned Seaforth TAFE site? Why is the site no longer protected? Is the Government aware that buildings have recently been gutted, with wiring pulled out, water flowing through the rooms and structural brickwork damaged? Is the Government aware that the police fear that it is only a matter of time before arsonists set fire to the abandoned buildings? Does the Government acknowledge it has a duty of care to protect this public property? Will the Government take immediate action to provide security for the Seaforth TAFE site and restore it as a valuable TAFE training and education facility?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am aware of some of the background to the Seaforth TAFE issue. Clearly obligations exist with regard to occupational health and safety issues and other matters. I will provide a response to the member's question as quickly as I can and report back to the House in a timely fashion.

GUNNEDAH POLICING

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the mayor of Gunnedah has said that the council and the community are concerned about the lack of police officers in the town? Is the Minister aware of the mayor's further comment that if an arrest is made on a Friday or Saturday night the town is effectively without police services for at least two hours? How many officers were on duty in the Gunnedah district on the night of Saturday 28 February 2009? Is it correct that only one officer was on duty for the entire Gunnedah district of some 11,500 people on that night? What is the Minister doing to overcome the concern expressed in Gunnedah about the shortage of police resources on the ground?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have been advised that the Oxley Local Area Command's authorised strength as at 31 December 2008 was 121. The actual strength was 132, which was 11 officers above the authorised strength. I am also advised that the Oxley Local Area Command received four probationary officers from the December 2008 attestation class. I am advised that the authorised strength in the Gunnedah sector as at 31 January 2008 was 19, with an actual strength of 19. The latest data from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research dated September 2008 reflects the outstanding work being undertaken by officers attached to the Oxley Local Area Command. The statistics show that all categories except steal from motor vehicle are stable. These positive crime statistics show that the Oxley police are doing a fine job of controlling crime. I wrote to the member about police in that area and also answered a question last week, so I suggest he looks in his post box.

GREENPOWER PROGRAM

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Energy. Will the Minister update the House on what action the Government is taking to encourage the use of green power in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the member for her question and her interest in the Government's successful GreenPower program. The Carr Government established the GreenPower program in 1997 to foster greater investment in renewable energy. The program provides independent accreditation of renewable energy generation projects in New South Wales and gives consumers the confidence to purchase renewable energy products. They know that by purchasing from GreenPower they are buying a genuine, clean, green renewable energy that will reduce greenhouses produced by electricity generation. At the same time, the program fosters greater investment in renewable energy development. The program has been immensely successful and is now national. Since it was established, GreenPower has been responsible for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation in Australia by about 6.5 million tonnes a year. That is the equivalent of taking 1.5 million cars off the road for a year.

There is no doubt that New South Wales is a leader when it comes to taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Labor government established the GreenPower program and we continued to lead the nation in green power sales. The latest quarterly GreenPower figures mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald today indicate that New South Wales sells more green power than any other State. Sales in New South Wales from October to December 2008 were the highest in any jurisdiction at over 126,000 megawatt hours. That is an increase of 14 per cent over the same period last year. More than 226,400 or about 8.1 per cent of the State's household electricity customers and 10,300 businesses are now voluntarily purchasing green power.

About 237,000 New South Wales electricity customers have made the switch to clean and green renewable energy accredited by GreenPower. That is an increase of 17 per cent over the same period last year and it demonstrates the importance that the people of New South Wales place on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the renewable energy industry. Nationally, more than 911,000 electricity customers are now purchasing green power, which represents 9.3 per cent of all electricity customers in Australia. National green power sales in the quarter were 476,762 megawatt hours, which is a huge increase of 36.5 per cent compared to the same period last year.

I am proud that customers in other States are following the lead of customers in New South Wales by opting to pay a little extra on their electricity bill for GreenPower. The key to the success of the program here is strong regulation and support by the New South Wales Government. The New South Wales Government has made it mandatory for all energy retailers to offer at least 10 per cent GreenPower to new or moving residential customers. New South Wales householders and business owners can choose to buy their electricity from 100 per cent GreenPower accredited sources, or a lesser percentage, such as 50 per cent or 25 per cent of their electricity consumption.

Energy retailers must then purchase enough renewable energy certificates from accredited GreenPower generators to cover the amount of electricity their GreenPower customer consumed. Retailers and GreenPower providers are audited every year to ensure the figures stack up and that there are sufficient certificates to match GreenPower sales. The New South Wales Government also produces quarterly reports to track GreenPower sales and monitor the effectiveness of the program. In addition to strong oversight and regulation, the New South Wales Government has invested in marketing campaigns to raise community awareness of the GreenPower program and encourage greater uptake. As the latest quarterly report shows, this investment has paid off with record numbers of New South Wales energy customers now choosing to purchase GreenPower. I will be working with the Commonwealth Government over the coming months to ensure that the program continues to be effective under the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

SOMERSBY SAND MINING AND SOMERSBY PUBLIC SCHOOL

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Health and Minister responsible for the Central Coast. With respect to the current proposal for a sand mine 260 metres from Somersby Public School, is the Minister aware of the 2008 Queensland Cancer Council review of lung cancer cases around Redlands sand quarries that found higher than average rates of lung cancer? Is he aware of warnings by the World Health Organisation that overexposure to dust containing crystalline silica, present in the air from sandblasting, causes silicosis and temporary and permanent disabilities and death from conditions such as lung fibrosis, emphysema and pulmonary tuberculosis? Given that as education Minister he noted concerns about health impacts on Somersby students, how will he as health Minister ensure that the health of schoolchildren and residents is protected if this sand mine goes ahead? Does his Government have a policy on whether extractive industries should be located so close to a school?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The member's question is a good one. I am familiar with the issue from my knowledge of matters that are occurring on the Central Coast and also from my previous portfolio with regard to the placement of the school at Somersby. The education department is considering a number of issues in relation to those matters. I am also quite familiar with the tragic impact, potentially, of silicosis and other lung diseases and their relationship, potentially, with various forms of mining. Indeed, I have had a great interest in this area from a number of points of view, both as WorkCover Minister and also as Minister responsible for matters in relation to the Dust Diseases Board.

It is important that the member is careful in her use of epidemiological information. I am not sure that the case she points out from Queensland necessarily has a relationship to this form of sand mining. I suspect it may not but I am happy to reserve my judgement on that. I will ascertain from both the Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Planning the latest information on these matters and will also seek my own advice and come back to her with an answer.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in that he said he suspects that the study of the Redlands sand quarries is not relevant to the Somersby situation—what does he base that judgement on?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is really asking for an opinion but I will be a bit bold and make the point that I was warning the member not to do the opposite, to draw more conclusions than may be available. I was not dismissing the possibility that there is a relationship; I was simply warning her not to necessarily embrace that because two situations are similar it means the same outcome will occur. I am happy to say I have a neutral view based on the information the member has put before the House. That is my interpretation of the matter. I simply caution her against a strict application from one place to the other. I will get back to her with information as quickly as I can.

SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE RESPONSIBILITIES

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State. In view of his answer yesterday about his responsibilities as Special Minister of State, "to look into the better delivery of services," will he advise the House of the amount of his ministerial budget as allocated by the Treasurer for the financial year to 30 June 2009?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Let me start by thanking the honourable member for his question. He has obviously decided to take a liking to me, which I am pleased to deal with. I will come back to the member with the specifics of his request but I say from the outset that this Government takes the position of Special Minister of State very seriously. As part of my responsibilities this Government will see the rollout of 4,000 additional government-funded apprenticeships over the next four years. That is 1,000 additional apprentice places—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. My question was directed specifically to the ministerial budget. It is not within the purview of the answer for the Minister to give a ministerial statement at this time. I ask you to draw the Minister back to the purview of the question.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order: Mr President, regularly when you are asked to rule on points of order I note you give the response that the Minister be generally relevant. Can you define what generally relevant is? It seems it is interpreted very widely and it would be useful for all of us to understand that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Rulings of former Presidents, by which I am bound, clearly define the point raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon. With regard to the point taken by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, I ask the Minister to be generally relevant.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thought I was being generally relevant with regard to my responsibilities as Special Minister of State. One responsibility the Premier has charged me with is the rollout of additional apprenticeships, and in that regard I thought I was being generally relevant. Nonetheless, I will get back to the member with a response.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing Order 95 requires the Chair to enforce the standing orders and rules of the House. I make the observation that thus far in question time a number of questions have contained argument, inferences, imputations, ironical expressions, hypothetical matters, and requests for expressions of opinion and statements of Government policy. I urge members to refer to Standing Order 65 and, if further assistance is needed, to seek the advice of the Clerk before drafting their questions.

TREE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the Government doing to help settle neighbourhood disputes regarding trees?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In 2006 the Government introduced an important law to settle neighbourhood disputes involving trees. The Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act was designed to meet the needs of people encountering problems with trees on their boundaries but who have been frustrated by the drawn-out resolution mechanisms of their local councils. The law allows people to make an application to the court to remedy, restrain or prevent damage to property or to prevent injury to persons from a tree that is located on an adjoining property. The law defines a tree to include any woody perennial plant resembling a tree in form and size.

While backyard disputes usually do not make the six o'clock news, trees have the potential to damage and injure and cause major anxiety to homeowners across the State. The Act is about reducing tension between neighbours, as it allows them to resolve their disputes quickly, cheaply and justly. It costs individuals $189 or corporations $378 to make an application to the court concerning a tree. Those fees can be waived in exceptional circumstances.

A court commissioner hears disputes on site and there is no need to retain the services of lawyers or arborists. I am pleased to report that the Trees Act has proved exceptionally popular. Figures from the Land and Environment Court show that 144 and 140 tree matters were resolved in 2007 and 2008 respectively. Statistics from the court show also that approximately 85 per cent of applicants sought tree removal, 70 per cent claimed risk or injury from a tree, and 90 per cent claimed risk of damage to property from a tree. Caringbah resident Paul Murphy told the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader about a large gum tree that had caused $11,000 worth of damage to his property. He said:

He told the paper that he used the Trees Act to resolve his problem and it did not require a lawyer. Statutory review of the Trees Act is currently underway. We have encouraged anyone who has used the legislation or has an opinion on the law to make a submission to the Attorney General's Department. To date, the department has received more than 200 submissions. Some of these submissions suggest changing the law so that neighbours can use the Act to remove trees to improve their views. This was a sentiment championed by the member for North Shore. It is interesting to watch the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition when the member for North Shore is mentioned. On 15 November 2006 she told Parliament:

Fortunately for the people of New South Wales the fantasies of the member for North Shore did not materialise. The Act is good law, designed to protect people and property. It is not intended to protect views for the likes of the member for North Shore.

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS CLAIM SETTLEMENT TIMES

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. According to last year's Auditor-General's Report the Crown leaseholds entity has $1 billion of land granted to Aboriginal land claimants that has not been transferred due to absence of legal title and, at current surveying capacity, it will take 20 years for current claims to be cleared. Is the inability of the Department of Lands to expeditiously survey and transfer legal title to relevant local Aboriginal land councils contrary to the purpose of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act? If that is the case, what does the Minister intend to do about remedying the department's surveying capability, which has been raised by the Auditor-General in the past? Can the Minister provide the House with details of the average title transfer period for successful claims over the last 10 years? Further, will the Minister investigate the surveying hold-ups experienced by the Arakwal custodians in the Byron shire, where I live?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the Minister responsible for Crown lands for the purposes of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 I determine land claims against the eight criteria contained in the Act. Claims are granted or refused according to whether the claimed land is lawfully used or occupied, and is needed for residential purposes or for any essential public purpose. Claims granted are required to be transferred to the claimant Aboriginal land council as freehold land. Following transfer, any subsequent development of that land must accord with the environmental planning instruments that apply to the land. Overall, I have very little discretion in the final determination of claims. The outcome is largely dependent on investigations carried out, having regard to the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983.

Currently 9,184 claims are being investigated by the Department of Lands. Something like 8,000 claims were received in one year and 950 new claims were lodged in the last 12 months. It will take an enormous amount of work to work through those claims. Unfortunately, many of those claims are on freehold land. In any one year the department might approve 20 claims and reject 350 claims. These are approximate figures, but in the vast majority of cases the claims involve freehold land owned by ordinary people. Unfortunately a lot of these claims have not been properly researched, and that causes an enormous amount of work for the department and limits the amount of time available for processing correct claims. The department also has a limited number of surveyors. We have asked the department to prioritise the claims it wants surveyed and to be transferred over.

ST GEORGE POLICING

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the most recent statistics from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research reveal that the St George local government areas rank in the top 15 per cent of all New South Wales local government areas for the recorded rate of robbery? Can he explain why police numbers in the St George Local Area Command have been allowed to fall from 169 in 2003 to 140 at present, a loss of 29 officers, when at the same time robbery rates have been increasing in the region?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As I have repeatedly said, the Government uses the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research to provide independent reporting on crime data. It provides quarterly reports, which provide numbers of recorded criminal incidents by offence in the last 12 months. The latest data by the bureau shows that the work of our police is having a significant impact on crime across New South Wales, with most major offence categories remaining stable or falling.

As I said yesterday, every Opposition member calls for an increase in police numbers in their local area. We should concentrate on the quality of work done by the men and women of our police force. As I continue to report, we have 2,399 more police—an increase of 18.6 per cent or almost one-fifth more police officers in the last decade than when the Opposition were in office. In December 2011 there will be 650 more police, bringing our total figure to just under 16,000. I will keep repeating those figures until members are sick of them. New South Wales has the fourth largest police force in the western world. The allocation of police officers is done on an operational and crime statistics basis, not like it was done in the past. I will not identify the areas because I do not want to embarrass the members, but in decades past some members who are still members of this Parliament used to exert political influence to try to get police stations upgraded to 24-hour police stations. The Police Force refers to some of these police stations as retirement villages. There is no crime in those areas but they still have 24-hour police stations because the Opposition made political decisions in regard to them.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Public Sector Reform, and Special Minister of State. Will the Minister update the House on the latest information available about the New South Wales public service?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the member for his question and ongoing interest in the public sector. The New South Wales public service performs outstanding work in delivering services to the people of New South Wales. There are around 303,000 full-time equivalent workers in the New South Wales public sector, and that equates to 10.6 per cent of the New South Wales labour force. It is vitally important that the public service continually looks to the future, and an important part of this is ensuring that talented and intelligent young people continue to be encouraged to join its ranks.

We need these young people now to help us deliver services across the State. It is even more important that these young people can fill senior positions within the New South Wales public service in the future. The Government already enjoys the benefit of having thousands of very professional and highly skilled young people working across the public service. It is important that we recognise the best and brightest of these young people for their achievements. That is why the Department of Premier and Cabinet is sponsoring an award, offered by the New South Wales Division of the Institute of Public Administration Australia, to recognise outstanding performance by a young person within the public service.

The 2008 Department of Premier and Cabinet Young Professional of the Year Award will be awarded to a young professional, under 35 years of age, within the New South Wales public sector. The award provides an opportunity to acknowledge a young person who has made an outstanding contribution to their government agency, the public sector and the community. The winner of the award will be presented at the Seventh Institute of Public Administration Australia New South Wales CEO and Young Professionals Breakfast, to be held on Friday 3 April. There are two worthy finalists for the award and I wish to acknowledge their contributions today. The 2008 finalists for the Department of Premier and Cabinet Young Professional of the Year Award are Kerry-Anne Stewart and Julie Wood.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Where are they from?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I am glad you asked. Kerry-Anne Stewart is Senior Project Officer of Housing Partnerships for Housing New South Wales. Kerry-Anne was nominated principally for her successful negotiation of agreements for shared access trials for offenders with co-existing disorders. The trials are an important element in the implementation of the Housing and Human Services Accord. The accord is a key reform for Housing New South Wales to ensure clients with complex needs are able to access the support they require. Soon after joining Housing New South Wales, Kerry-Anne took control of finalising the negotiation of agreements with several other government agencies as well as with various non-government organisations. Kerry-Anne played a key role in successfully concluding these complex and sensitive negotiations, to the benefit of Housing New South Wales clients.

The other finalist is Julie Wood, a graduate officer within the sustainability branch of Sydney Water. Julie played an important role in coordinating and co-authoring an award-winning article on Sydney's desalination plant produced by the sustainability branch of Sydney Water. She was a member of Sydney Water's graduate program at the time, and according to her supervisor, Dr Renee Kidson, her contribution to the article and her team have been outstanding. Each finalist is an example of the outstanding talent and work being completed within the New South Wales public sector. I extend my sincere congratulations to both finalists for the award and wish them the best of luck. It is very pleasing to know that our public service will be able to call on such talented people in the future. I also congratulate the New South Wales Division of the Institute of Public Administration Australia and the Department of Premier and Cabinet on their support for the award.

ELECTRICITY GENERATION TRADING RIGHTS

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer stand by the statement made by the then Secretary of the Treasury, Mr John Pierce, given under oath at a budget estimates hearing on 18 November last year, that the successful private sector bidder for generation trading rights will be involved in "detailed decisions in how the plant is operated", including, as was outlined by Deputy Secretary Cosgriff, industrial relations? If so, can the Treasurer explain why the information provided on the Government's energy reform website in the form of a question and answer document says that operational matters and industrial relations will continue to be delivered by the public sector, which is in direct contradiction to the statements made by former Secretary Pierce and current Deputy Secretary Cosgriff?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: In these challenging times it is more important than ever that the New South Wales Government makes the necessary decisions to stimulate investment and jobs. Our plan to secure the State's future electricity supply will support jobs and encourage investment. Delivering the energy reforms now means that when the economy enters the next growth cycle New South Wales is stronger and poised to capture new growth and new opportunities. The Government's revised electricity reform package involves the sale of energy retailing businesses and potential—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The question related not to the issues the Treasurer is referring to but to information provided by Treasury Secretary John Pierce and Deputy Secretary Cosgriff through statements made in budget estimates hearings and on the website. I do not see how references to the arguments for privatisation can constitute a relevant answer when the question was specifically about the relationship between the private sector and the public sector with regard to electricity privatisation.

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

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Government's revised energy reform package involves the sale of energy retailing businesses and potential power station development sites, and the transferring of generators' wholesale electricity trading functions to the private sector. This package will create the right environment for the private sector to step up and build new generating capacity, and that will allow the Government to avoid having to spend between $7 billion and $8 billion on building baseload power stations. It will also remove—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: Mr President, the Minister is clearly flouting your ruling. You asked him to be generally relevant. We agreed that the question was about statements made by Deputy Secretary Cosgriff and then Secretary Pierce. The Minister is generally referring to arguments about electricity privatisation and is not addressing the question. He is flouting your ruling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will take the point of order under consideration. In the meantime, are there further questions?

BUILDING THE COUNTRY PACKAGE

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for State and Regional Development. I refer to the Building the Country Package local infrastructure support funds. Is the Minister aware that the guidelines and expression of interest forms for these funds have not been released and are unavailable for community groups? Is the Minister further aware that officers from his department have been telling community groups that the closing date for expressions of interest for funding under this package was 20 February? I ask the Minister to inform the House and the many confused community groups what is going on.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I inform the Hon. Melinda Pavey that I am the Minister for State Development and that Mr Costa in the other place is the Minister for Regional Development. This matter falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Costa. Prior to the present arrangement, the matter fell within the province of the Hon. Tony Kelly, who was at that time the Minister for Regional Development. There is clearly a demarcation issue here, and I am not going to upset it. I will refer the Hon. Melinda Pavey's question to the Minister for Regional Development.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House what action the Government is taking to deliver a quality agricultural education program to the people of New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Despite years of drought and the current global financial crisis, agricultural education remains strong within the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries [DPI]. This State can be proud of what is being done to educate farmers and those associated with land management across New South Wales. In fact, we are the envy of other States—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition agrees with me on that; he is nodding his head—because of what we have been able to achieve in this education and training field, particularly in recent years. The New South Wales Government's single statewide specialist registered training organisation Tocal College has two campuses: Murrumbidgee Rural Studies Centre at Yanco and CB Alexander Campus at Tocal, Paterson. The college also has staff based at other Department of Primary Industries institutes, such as the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institutes at Camden, Tamworth and Wagga Wagga.

Tocal College is imbedded within the Department of Primary Industries to service its programs. Education is an integral part of the department's services to rural industries—a flagship program is the short courses delivered under the PROfarm banner. PROfarm has been an outstanding success since its establishment in 2005. More than 18,000 people have undertaken courses, most of them farmers and hands-on land managers.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's the one you wanted to get rid of.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, that is not right. PROfarm is my initiative, thank you! The Department of Primary Industries PROfarm courses are run in locations that suit farmers. In other words, hardworking farmers do not have to travel for hours to do a course. Tocal College works closely with partners and other funding bodies, such as Catchment Management Authorities and the Australian Government's FarmReady Program, to provide the best courses for this State's farmers. PROfarm has an arsenal of around 125 short courses ready to go, depending on needs and seasonal requirements. These courses are mapped and accredited to comply with national standards. As a result, those who undertake a PROfarm short course build themselves a basis for a full qualification. No other State has such an integrated system for short course development and delivery.

The college's experience indicates that a farmer who is actively involved in learning and running a farm is operating at around a diploma level. Therefore, through attending PROfarm courses, and by having a track record in successful farm management, a person who may have left school early can gain a Diploma of Agriculture through skills recognition. Traditionally Australian farmers have had lower formal agricultural qualifications than their counterparts in other OECD countries. I am confident with all the good work done by the Government through Tocal College the situation will be reversed here in New South Wales.

The college has formal links with many of the State's universities and a Tocal College qualification is recognised as part of a university degree. The college therefore provides an avenue for people working on farms and at a distance from educational facilities to gain a formal qualification. It is impossible to put a price on this type of education access, and I take great pride in seeing what Tocal College has achieved for our State's primary producers. College experience shows that Tocal graduates move quickly from operational positions to those involving management of what are often large commercial farming operations and agribusiness service centres. Both campuses of the college are used extensively by the community and host field days. The Tocal field days have a regular attendance of around 25,000 to 27,000 people per annum.

The historic Tocal homestead at Paterson, which is run as part of the college and the Tocal Agricultural Centre, is also used extensively for community purposes. In recent years around 12,000 to 13,000 people have visited the site for a range of tours, functions and receptions. New South Wales is a leader in rural education and the college's campuses often receive requests and interest from elsewhere in Australia and overseas. The State's primary producers are well serviced by the college and provide great support for its ongoing operation.

PORTABLE FINGERPRINT SCANNERS

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Police. Police were reported to have used new portable fingerprint scanners at the recent, for all ages, Soundwave Music Festival, held at Eastern Creek on Sunday 22 February 2009. How many people were subject to these scans? Were any minors subjected to scans? If so, did the police obtain consent from a parent or guardian before scanning the fingerprints of minors? What reason did the police have for using such devices at a music festival?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: If you have done nothing wrong, you have no reason to be frightened about any of these devices. They only catch criminals!

Ms Sylvia Hale: Point of Order: My question was specifically about the use of scanners and the potential scanning of fingerprints of minors. The Minister has in no way addressed my question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Chair cannot direct Ministers how to answer questions.

POLICE DRUG DETECTION DOG USE

The Hon. DON HARWIN: I direct my question to the Minister for Police. What is the Minister's response to the comments made by the member for Coogee as reported in the Wentworth Courier in which he describes the use of police sniffer dogs at dance parties and music festivals as an ineffective drug deterrent strategy, an attack on civil liberties, and a strategy that goes after the wrong targets? Are these comments an indication that the use of sniffer dogs at such events might currently be under review or expected to be the subject of the review in the coming months?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Why are people so concerned about police using such effective methods to catch criminals? The Government continues to give police the powers, the resources and the support they need to continue to reduce crime—particularly drug crime—and drug detection dogs of the New South Wales Police Force are a valuable resource. They can be used without a search warrant at licensed premises other than restaurants, and also at sporting events, concerts, dance parties, parades and similar public entertainment events. For instance, dogs have been used on trains and stations at Bankstown, the inner west, the eastern suburbs, the North Shore, the Illawarra, on the northern, southern and western lines, and at bus stations. The message is: If you are a criminal and you are carrying drugs at any of these places, you are likely to get caught. The dogs can be used where warranted.

The question of the Hon. Don Harwin alluded to whether the Government is likely to step back from this policy. It is not. In 2008 in the fight against crime the New South Wales Police Force laid almost 12,000 drug-related charges and seized an enormous amount of illicit materials. Police shut down 29 clandestine drug laboratories, 13 drug chemical storage sites and two pill-press sites. A further 29 charges were laid for possession of precursor drugs and charges in relation to some 61 drug houses were laid. I make no apology for the Government providing such resources to police or for the police using them.

HOSPITAL PATIENT SURVEY RESULTS

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I address my question to the Minister for Health. Will he inform the House of community feedback the Government has received about the performance of the New South Wales health system?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question. The Opposition will be dispirited to learn that, despite its ongoing efforts to use the New South Wales health system as a political football and spread misinformation about how it is performing, the community is not buying its propaganda. The New South Wales public hospital system continues to meet the challenges and the demands placed on it by the community it cares for. That is reflected in the published results of the annual statewide patient survey.

In 2008, 79,000 people who had received health care from our hospitals and other health facilities responded to the survey. I am pleased to inform the House that the vast majority of patients—89.2 per cent—rated their care as good, very good or excellent. A further 63.8 per cent of patients indicated they would definitely recommend the health service to friends or family. Both results were higher than those of the previous year. Other key findings from the 2008 survey included: 81.2 per cent of respondents said they found the availability of nurses good, very good or excellent; almost 74 per cent said they always had confidence and trust in our nurses; and 77 per cent said that they found the availability of doctors good, very good or excellent. It found further than community health patients were most likely to recommend that service to family or friends.

It is clear from these results that our hardworking clinicians, and other health professionals, are doing an excellent job delivering health services across the State. We know this because the survey covered a wide range of patients, including overnight inpatients, day only inpatients, paediatric inpatients, adult rehabilitation inpatients, non-admitted emergency patients, community health patients, and cancer inpatients and outpatients. The findings also demonstrate that the Opposition is out of touch with the community's views about our public hospitals and the people who work in them. That is not to say the Government is not striving to further improve our public hospitals and other health facilities.

The survey helps NSW Health identify the most important areas for improvement. The 2008 survey results have identified areas where NSW Health needs to further improve performance in providing care to patients. This includes providing appropriate emotional support and promoting the involvement of family and friends in the delivery of health care. It is clear from the results that the communication skills between health professionals, patients and their carers need to be further enhanced. That issue has been picked up in the recently released Garling report into acute care services in New South Wales public hospitals. I am currently working on a health action plan, based on the findings of the Garling report, to address some of these issues. The plan will be announced later this month.

In addition, the survey results are being actively used to improve health care services to the people of New South Wales. Each area health service has produced an action plan indicating how the most important issues raised by patients will be addressed. The patient survey results follow the release of the Australian Medical Association's 2008 report card into Australia's public hospital system. It found New South Wales is the lead State in four out of the seven performance benchmarks, including elective surgery and emergency department performance. The New South Wales public hospital system is world class and no politically motivated misinformation or intemperate remarks by the shadow spokesperson can possible change that fact.

GREATER WESTERN AREA HEALTH SERVICE

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister explain why he has ruled out reviewing the structure of the Greater Western Area Health Service or reducing its geographic size in the wake of the resignation of chief executive officer Dr Claire Blizzard, given that in the past the Minister has used the size of the area covered by the Greater Western Area Health Service as an explanation for its many troubles? Does the Minister think that is the right decision, given that a former Dubbo hospital executive has said that now would be a good time to downsize the Greater Western Area Health Service and the area? Can he inform the House as to the future of Greater Western Area Health Service financial officer Mr John White, who is said to be on extended sick leave, amid speculation he is not expected to return to his job?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner has put words into my mouth. I do not believe that in any recent statements I have made claims about what we will or will not do in relation to the Greater Western Area Health Service. In a general sense, I have said that we do not ask a commissioner who is given specific terms of reference in response to a coronial report to provide a report to the Government and the Parliament and then, without explanation, decline to follow his recommendations. One of the principal recommendations of Commissioner Garling was that the boundaries of area health services not be changed.

It is also important to note that the member has drawn an inappropriate conclusion about the issues around the unique challenges of the Greater Western Area Health Service. Indeed, all area health services have unique challenges in relation to scale, population and size. The same argument potentially applies across the board to any area health service. I thank the member for her question, but Commissioner Garling has given us a very strong recommendation about the area health services boundaries. There are many important issues we need to deal with in coming to grips with the health system, particularly in the Greater Western Area Health Service. Disregarding Commissioner Garling's recommendations, particularly his principal recommendations, is not a good way to start.

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

Questions without notice concluded.

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

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) AMENDMENT (CHILDREN'S EMPLOYMENT) BILL 2009

LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) AMENDMENT (SEARCH POWERS) BILL 2009

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

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

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled the following paper:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council for the year ended 30 June 2008.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

NATION BUILDING AND JOBS PLAN (STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY) BILL 2009

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [2.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I seek leave to put questions on the bill by parts where there are no amendments or objections raised to those parts. Is that acceptable?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: No.

Clauses 1 to 2 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.37 p.m.]: I wish to talk on clause 3 of the bill, the objects of the Act. The Greens support the objects of the Act because we support the principles of economic stimulus.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Dr John Kaye indicated quite clearly that he wished to talk on clause 3. We are in Committee. He cannot talk on a clause; he can only move amendments.

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I do not propose to proceed to talk on this further. However, there is a motion before the Committee and standing orders provide that members can talk to motions. But I will not continue to address this matter.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There is no point of order.

Clause 3 agreed to.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I will call members when their amendments are due to be moved.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Could you just clarify the position, Madam Chair? Dr Kaye said that because there was a motion before the Committee members are entitled to speak on that motion. Therefore, when each clause is called on one could speak about that clause, is that correct?

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): In theory yes, in practice no. However, I ruled in favour of Dr John Kaye.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.40 p.m.]: I move:

Page 4, clause 6 (3) (e), lines 22-23. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment is consequential upon what happens with the proposed amendments to part 5. The Greens oppose allowing the Co-ordinator General to override the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In fact, we oppose part 5 in its entirety. If passed, this clause would enable the Co-ordinator General to declare that an infrastructure project is or will be exempt from all or any specified development control legislation. This is an extraordinary power to place in the hands of one individual, particularly when that individual is appointed directly by the Government, is not answerable to the Parliament or an electorate, and whose actions cannot be subjected to judicial review.

The powers to be conferred on the Co-ordinator General in part 5 go beyond the extraordinary powers that have been granted to the Minister for Planning under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. At least in that instance the Minister is subjected to questioning in the Parliament and estimates committee hearings, and is ultimately answerable to the electorate. No such constraints apply to the Co-ordinator General. In considering the granting of such extensive powers to the Co-ordinator General, we should consider the impact of granting similar powers to the Minister for Planning under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.42 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment, which seeks to remove the functions under part 5 from the list of functions of the Co-ordinator General in clause 6 (3) of the bill. This proposed amendment would be consequential on the removal of the part 5 of the bill. The Government opposes the removal of part 5 and therefore opposes this amendment.

Part 5 of the bill allows the Co-ordinator General to vary the usual planning and environmental approval process in relation to an infrastructure project to ensure that the project can be delivered within the time frames required by the Commonwealth. The Government has recently made important changes to the infrastructure State environmental planning policy to streamline the approval processes for school infrastructure and affordable housing projects. The processes under the infrastructure State environmental planning policy will be taken advantage of wherever possible to deliver these projects. If a project can be delivered within the required time frame under the existing approval process, there will be no need for the Co-ordinator General to make use of part 5 of the bill. However, given the Commonwealth's tight time frames under the existing approval processes, an alternative approval mechanism needs to be available to ensure that all projects can be commenced and completed on time. Part 5 of the bill provides that alternative mechanism.

Under clause 23, the Co-ordinator General will be able either to exempt a project from the usual development control legislation or to require an alternative authorisation under clause 24. The Co-ordinator General will be able to impose those conditions on an authorisation that he deems appropriate, including requirements to provide for public notification, environmental protection, heritage conservation, threatened species protection and bushfire protection. This will ensure that appropriate conditions are imposed on development authorised under part 5 of the bill. The Government opposes the removal of part 5 because it is necessary to ensure that the projects funded under the nation building and job plans can be started and completed within the Commonwealth tight time frames and the Council of Australian Governments agreement to ensure that we receive funding for those projects.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.45 p.m.]: I support this amendment, which effectively removes the capacity of the Co-ordinator General to exercise the functions listed in part 5 of the bill. This amendment is designed to remove the Co-ordinator General's capacity to subvert the planning system. Part 5 and the way it is empowered by this subclause of the bill is part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act writ large. It attracts to it all the negative aspects of part 3A; it allows all the overriding of environmental planning instruments and the capacity of communities to have input into the planning process and to control their own environment that are included in that legislation. However flawed the New South Wales planning system may be, this legislation short circuits it.

The Greens appreciate the urgency of these infrastructure projects. It is not only a matter of the jobs that they will create in the short term but also the economic activity they will generate that will shorten the duration of the recession and the infrastructure they will create that will hopefully be socially and environmentally useful to the State's future and our economy. As my colleague pointed out in her second reading speech, the Greens support the bill in principle for those reasons. However, the underlying problem is the sense of haste overcoming due process. That is evident in respect of this part of the bill and the parts that will enable the Co-ordinator General to create his or her own procurement processes and to override the ordinary functions of the public service. The entire bill has been drafted and introduced in great haste.

It is important in understanding the Greens' amendment to appreciate the reason for that haste. The States failed to obtain a sensible deal at the February 2009 Council of Australian Governments meeting. The Prime Minister was able to bully the States into accepting his timetable, rather than one which was more realistic and which respected the need for economic development during this global financial downturn, and to create jobs to alleviate the 7 per cent unemployment facing us. He did that in a way that guaranteed that the outcome would not only respect local communities but also achieve the best possible value for money for schools, public housing projects and transport projects. However, because of Kevin Rudd's command and control approach to life and the pressure he has put on the system, we are seeing a rush job that will not only botch up the planning system but also the decision-making process regarding the quality of the projects. The quality of infrastructure outcomes and the planning system will be victims of the timetable established by Kevin Rudd. Not only will the public sector lose out but the communities involved will also lose out.

The Greens also are concerned that employees within the Department of Commerce will lose out. If this high-speed infrastructure approval and development process occurs without appropriate investment in the department to provide additional people to undertake project management, massive pressure will be imposed on the staff and that will compromise their conditions. Therefore, it is important that we do not allow ourselves to be bullied and railroaded into a piece of legislation that undermines the environmental planning instruments and undermines the ability of local communities to have an input in decision making and the right to challenge that decision making where it affects them.

The infrastructure projects envisaged here include roads, railways, school developments and public housing. Apart from roads, these are all worthwhile projects but they have to be done in a way that respects the needs of the community. The problem with part 5A, and clause 6 (3) (e) that grants the Co-ordinator General the power to use part 5, is that it will inevitably end up undermining the rights of those communities to protect their local environment and to protect their quality of life. For those reasons we urge members to consider Ms Hale's amendment, and we commend it to the Committee.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.50 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes this attempt to delete part 5 and related clauses from the bill. To do this would substantially cripple the Government's proposal, and I indicated to the House during the second reading debate that that was not the position the Opposition would take. The Opposition's position is it would not oppose the bill. I want to make one other brief comment. Today we have had at least two different versions of when this bill was going to be debated. All members are considering what is an extremely important matter very much on the run. The bill only came into our House at 11 o'clock today. It only went through the lower House yesterday. The first I saw of the amendments we are debating—even though I made a request for them earlier this morning—was when I walked into the Chamber less than 20 minutes ago. My staff have been running between Chambers getting advice from the shadow Minister on these amendments. I do not think it is a satisfactory way to deal with such an incredibly important piece of legislation.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [2.52 p.m.]: The Shooters Party cannot support this amendment. We concur with the comments made by the Opposition Whip. This amendment would virtually cripple the bill. The bill is intended to fast-track development, projects and jobs in this State—and I do mean fast-track. The bill is urgent and necessary, and the idea of placing impediments in the way of getting those projects up is unconscionable. I know the Greens do not necessarily support development but this State is in a parlous condition as far as the economy is concerned and certainly as far as jobs are concerned. This Chamber should be supporting every effort of the Government to get these projects on the way. Amendments that stand in the way of getting things done quickly are not very helpful; in fact, I think they are anti-worker. We cannot support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.53 p.m.]: Like the Shooters Party, the Christian Democratic Party does not support the amendment. We understand this bill has some unusual features, and that is because we are facing an economic crisis, an emergency. We do not want to see New South Wales or Australia go through what has happened in other countries that have gone bankrupt. Thankfully, Australia has a strong economic base, so I do not believe that will happen, but this legislation is to ensure that it will not happen. It will save jobs and create jobs in New South Wales. So, we do not support the amendment.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.54 p.m.]: I deal firstly with the issues raised by the Hon. Don Harwin. The amendments came across from Parliamentary Counsel in the middle of question time. I asked that they be distributed immediately. I am sorry if the member did not receive a copy. The second thing is that I must confess to having been taken by surprise. I was not aware that we were not proceeding with committee reports and I was not expecting this debate to proceed immediately after lunch. Having said that, I find the experience of part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has caused outrage across the State. Whether it is at Catherine Hill Bay or at Anvil Hill coalmine or Vincentia, right across the State people are outraged by part 3A. It seems to me to be totally inconsistent on the one hand to say what has happened under part 3A is reprehensible and then to reconfirm and even extend those powers in this bill.

The Greens have made it perfectly clear that we support the bill insofar as it will facilitate social housing and appropriate infrastructure. The Government's track record in relation to so many large developments is so appalling—it has ridden roughshod over community wishes and has paid no regard whatsoever to hundreds of community submissions that have been made about part 3A projects—there is absolutely no basis for the Greens, or the public, for that matter, to trust anything the Government does. We fear that whatever the Government was prepared to do under part 3A, it will do doubly bad under the provisions of this Act. We do not believe it is wrong to oppose the provision or that we cause a problem by doing to because we believe that is consistent with our position in relation to the powers that the Government has taken to itself under part 3A and in subsequent changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. So the Greens are very pleased to move this amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.57 p.m.]: To amplify what my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale has said, there is a fine balance between expediting projects and respecting the process. There is no question that we need to expedite these projects. Many of these projects are extremely important to stimulate the economy, not only to create jobs in the short term—and for that alone they would be worthwhile—and to strengthen the economy so we come out of the recession more rapidly—

The Hon. Henry Tsang: So support it.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Hang on a second—but also so that when we come out of the recession, we will have a society that functions off a stronger infrastructure base. However, there is a fine line between making sure those projects happen in a timely fashion and respect the planning processes. One can always take the approach of Robert Brown and argue the absurdity that because the Greens oppose part 5 of this legislation they are therefore opposed to all development. That is an easy and exceptionally lazy argument when it comes to debating that fine issue of how we expedite the procedure. We are saying that simply giving the Co-ordinator General the powers of a mediaeval king to ride roughshod over all known environmental planning instruments, over all known environmental planning legislation, over all community opposition, is pushing the balance much too far in favour of the projects.

We need to bring the community with us on infrastructure projects. The community needs to have some say on infrastructure projects, yet part 5 shuts the community out. If you live next door to a school, a public housing site or a transport corridor, whether you are a worker or not, you will no longer have any input into the process. You will have no appeal against being dealt with in arbitrary fashion. You will have no capacity to exercise influence over the process. That has pushed the line too far. We have gone overboard in expediting these processes. For that reason we oppose part 5 and this section.

Question—That the Greens amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Mr Cohen
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye

Noes, 29

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin

Mr Kelly
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mr Pearce
Mr Primrose
Ms Robertson

Ms Sharpe
Mr Smith
Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.06 p.m.]: I move:

authorised person

The purpose of the amendment is to remove what I believe is an unintended ambiguity in the bill. Clause 8 at page 5 of the bill enables the Co-ordinator General to delegate his or her functions to an authorised person who includes a member of a task force. Clause 7 states that the advisory task force consists of a nominee of each government agency that the Minister determines to be represented by the task force and "such other persons with relevant private sector business or other expertise as are appointed by the Minister". The problem with the way the legislation is now drafted—and I do not believe it was intentional—is that it would leave it open to the Co-ordinator General to delegate his or her powers to, for example, an employee of Leighton. This could create a perverse outcome whereby an employee of a private sector developer could exercise powers under part 5 and have powers to override environmental planning instruments for a proposal for an infrastructure project for which the developer was the potential developer.

That is unlikely, but it leaves open the possibility of creating a massive conflict of interest. I do not think the Government had this intent but it is important to make it clear that an authorised person, that is, a person to whom the functions of the Co-ordinator General can be delegated, is a government agency or a member of staff of a government agency. I make it absolutely clear that delegation remains with public sector employees. The amendment is sensible and will not in any way restrict the capacity of the Co-ordinator General to delegate authority within the public sector, which I presume was the intent of the legislation in the first place. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.10 p.m.]: Although the Government does not believe that the amendment is necessary, it will not oppose it. The decision to delegate under clause 8 rests with the Co-ordinator General, who is a public servant. The Co-ordinator General is accountable to the Premier, who is of course accountable to the Parliament. The delegation decision therefore rests with a public servant and not a member of the private sector. The Government also notes that most of the members of the task force will be nominees of the government agencies and not members of the private sector. While the Government considers that the amendment is unnecessary, it will not oppose it.

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

Greens amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 21 agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.14 p.m.], by leave: I move two Greens amendments in globo:

(3) The Co-ordinator General is to ensure that any exemption under section 23 and any authorisation under section 24 are made available on a publicly accessible website within 48 hours after the exemption or authorisation is granted.

Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 simply insert in the bill two very important accountability mechanisms. Our concern is that under part 5, and other various other sections of the Act, the Co-ordinator General will have a massive amount of power. The Co-ordinator General will have power not only to override the planning system but also to direct the public service. The Co-ordinator General will have power to overturn the normal modes of public sector decision making and public sector accountability. We believe that, at the very least, whenever the Co-ordinator General issues an exemption under section 23 or an authorisation under section 24, those exemptions and authorisations should be made publicly available on the website within 48 hours so that people are informed of the decisions made.

The Government will probably argue that exemptions under section 23 and authorisations under section 24 will be published in the Government Gazette, which I am told will be available on the website at some point. However, Greens members of this House and our staff who have spent time going through the Government Gazette know that it is not always easy to find entries in it. Greens amendment No. 2 would ensure that those exemptions and authorisations are available in a clearly accessible place on the website, so the community can track the decision making of the Co-ordinator General. The Co-ordinator General is about to spend, on our behalf, a large amount of money and make a large number of very influential planning decisions. It is important that the community has accessibility, on a fairly timely basis, to the Co-ordinator General's decisions in order to understand what they mean.

Greens amendment No. 3 inserts a subclause which requires the Co-ordinator General to provide to the Minister, every six months after the commencement of the Act, a report on the exercise of his or her functions under the Act, including the exemptions and authorisations given and so on. The proposed subclause also requires that any such report be laid upon the table of the House. This is simply a mechanism for understanding the cumulative impacts of the Co-ordinator General's decisions. Greens amendment No. 2 deals with the day-to-day impacts of the legislation, whereas amendment No. 3 deals with the cumulative impacts, so that a reasonably up-to-date version of the decisions the Co-ordinator General has made and their impacts are available to the community.

If the bill is passed today and becomes law, the Co-ordinator General will exercise extraordinary powers over the public sector and the planning system. Having the day-to-day decision making and also the cumulative effects of it available for public scrutiny is an important mechanism for securing public confidence in the decision making of the Co-ordinator General. The period of six months is a compromise period. If we were to make it any longer than six months for the biannual report to be published—

The Hon. Henry Tsang: It is an annual report.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Parliamentary Secretary refers to the six-monthly report as an annual report. I presume it is a biannual report. Nonetheless, we will not worry about semantics. My point is that if we were to leave it any longer than six months a large number of decisions would be made before there is the opportunity for this form of accountability. If we make it any shorter than six months, the Co-ordinator General will be lumbered with a reporting task that may take time, in what presumably would be a very busy period of his or her life. Therefore we feel the period of six months is a good compromise between public accountability and the workload imposed on the Co-ordinator General. I commend Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 to the Committee.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.18 p.m.]: The Opposition supports Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3, which are eminently reasonable. There cannot be a serious case against them; they are all about transparency and accountability. Dr John Kaye has made his case well and the Greens have the support of the Opposition.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.19 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: How could you do that, Henry?

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I will tell you how. The proposed requirement that an exemption or authorisation under part 5 be made available on a website within 48 hours after the exemption or authorisation described is unnecessary.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Why?

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I will tell you why. The bill already includes the power for the Co-ordinator General to impose conditions on the grant of an authorisation under part 5. This could include requirements for the public notification of the carrying out of approved projects. The Co-ordinator General can consider the need for notification on a case-by-case basis. The power to impose a condition regarding public notification provides sufficient notification requirements in relation to appropriate projects.

The Government also opposes Greens amendment No. 3. The proposed requirement for a six-monthly report is unnecessary. The bill already provides for a review of the exercise of the functions of the Co-ordinator General under the Act 12 months after the commencement of the Act by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. This 12-month review of the exercise of functions under the Act will provide a sufficient review of the exercise of the functions by the Co-ordinator General. The proposed amendment is unnecessary.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.21 p.m.]: I thank the Opposition for its support. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Greens amendment No. 2 is unnecessary because the Co-ordinator General has the power to require project developers to report on their developments. It is a discretionary power. It is a power that the Co-ordinator General may or may not choose to exercise. That is completely different to requiring the Co-ordinator General to place on the web within 48 hours of a decision being made—in one easily accessible location—the details of an exemption or authorisation. The Greens maintain that amendment No. 2 is separate to the power that the Co-ordinator General may or may not use at his or her discretion and it therefore remains necessary.
Greens amendment No. 3 is very different to a review. A review is conducted by parliamentarians, or other people appointed by the Minister, getting together to assess the operations of the Act. That is not what is sought by Greens amendment No. 3. It seeks a report from the Co-ordinator General that brings together the outcomes of his or her decision making over the previous six months. A Co-ordinator General worth his or her salt would keep a diary of decisions, and it would be no more than just bringing those together with a foreword and afterword. It would give in one place, tabled in this Parliament and publicly available, a record of the decisions of the Co-ordinator General. The Government has not put up convincing arguments to Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 and we ask it to reconsider these relatively low-key amendments to improve accountability.

Question—That the Greens amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 19

Mr Ajaka
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Ms Rhiannon

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 22

Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes

Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Mr Primrose
Mr Robertson
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Smith

Mr Tsang
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments negatived.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Dr John Kaye: Madam Chair, has the question been put on clause 26? I did not hear clause 26 put.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): The question was put and clause 26 was agreed to.

Ms Sylvia Hale: Will you put the question that part 5 stand as part of the bill?

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I will explain the procedure I have adopted. Unless I have sought leave to put the bill by a specific part, I have put it clause by clause. I put questions on the clauses in part 5 clause by clause. Consequently, when the amendments were lost, I then put the question that clause 26 be agreed to.

Ms Sylvia Hale: So there is no need for you to specifically put the question on part 5?

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): That is right. I put the question that clause 26 as read be agreed to and it was agreed to. I will now proceed with other amendments. Greens amendment No. 2 on sheet C2009-004 was consequential on the omission of part 5. As part 5 was not omitted, the amendments circulated as Greens amendment No. 2 cannot be moved.

Ms Sylvia Hale: Why is my amendment to clause 27 consequential on the omission of part 5? My amendment to clause 27 seeks to limit powers in relation to the protection of the exercise of certain functions.

The CHAIR: Ms Sylvia Hale may move the amendment, if she wishes. I merely make the point that if it is agreed to, the bill will look unusual.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.33 p.m.]: I move:

Page 14, clause 27 (1) (d), lines 12–13. Omit all words on those lines.

Clause 27 protects the exercise of certain functions by a protected person, that is, the Co-ordinator General, his or her delegate or a Minister. One of the functions that is sought to be protected is in clause 27 (1) (d), which provides:

the declaring of an exemption or giving of an authorisation under Part 5.

The implications of this provision are set out in clause 27. The width of the protections offered is extraordinary. Clause 27 (2) states:

Clause 27 (3) rules out the right to procedural fairness and natural justice. Clause 27 (4) states that no court of law or administrative review body has jurisdiction or power to consider any question involving compliance or non-compliance by the protected person. Clause 27 (5), which is particularly interesting, states:

This section has effect despite any provision of this Act or other legislation or any other law (whether written or unwritten).

The bill refers to "unwritten law". I do not know what unwritten law is. Is it Murphy's law? Is it law received from on high? Is it the law of the prophets? Who knows? Certainly the bill has this most peculiar reference to "unwritten law". We must remember that we are dealing with the power of the Co-ordinator General, his or her delegate or the Minister to approve or give exemptions or authorisations under the Act to projects that could amount to the expenditure of $14 billion. Yet clause 27 prevents action being taken in relation to the non-exercise or the improper exercise of functions. It is extraordinary that this action is to be denied the community and members of the public who will be most affected by such projects. This extraordinarily wide authority will be put into the hands of one person, and any improper exercise of those powers cannot be challenged in any court of law and will not be affected by any law, written or unwritten. The more that power is concentrated in the hands of the Government, individual Ministers or their delegates or the Co-ordinator General, the greater the need for oversight by the legal system to ensure that such powers are exercised appropriately.

The bill does away with those rights to review and gives the Co-ordinator General the unfettered ability to do as he or she pleases, with no restraints. The Greens have moved an amendment to delete clause 27 (1) (d), which is an important part of the bill. This is not a precedent, as we have seen with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, where the Minister's powers and also the decision of private certifiers in a number of cases cannot be reviewed. Given the amount of money involved and the impact that the proposals may have on the wider community, this is an extraordinary power. I commend Greens amendment No. 2.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.38 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 2, which seeks to remove clause 27 (1) (d), which makes the declaring of an exemption or giving of an authorisation under part 5 of the bill a protected function. The amendment is consequential on the removal of part 5 of the bill and is to be moved only if part 5 is omitted, but clause 27 is not omitted. The Government opposes the removal of part 5 and clause 27, and therefore opposes this amendment.

Further, the Greens have proposed that the privative clause at clause 27 of the bill be omitted. The Government opposes the removal of clause 27. The bill is about ensuring that the projects funded by the Commonwealth under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan are delivered within the Commonwealth's time frames. New South Wales must satisfy the tight time frames set by the Commonwealth in order to qualify for the Commonwealth funding. Constructing the project works within the tight time frames will also ensure that these projects provide a stimulus to our economy as soon as possible. We need to have certainty to know that the projects can proceed as approved and that the tight time frames can be met. The privative clause at clause 27 is about providing the certainty that when a project is approved by the Co-ordinator General it will be able to proceed as scheduled.

I note that the privative clause is similar to section 44H of the now repealed World Youth Day Act. The privative clause provides certainty that approved projects will not be held up by legislation that could otherwise delay projects so that they do not comply with Commonwealth time lines and therefore do not receive Commonwealth funding. While the exercise of the Co-ordinator General's function is subject to the privative clause, it should be remembered that the Office of the Co-ordinator General is accountable to the Premier, who is, of course, accountable to the Parliament.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.41 p.m.]: I support my colleague's amendment to delete clause 27 (1) (d) from the bill. The effect of clause 27 (1) (d) is to remove the capacity for decision making of the Co-ordinator General in respect of exemptions or authorisations to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or even called into question before a court of law. The clause removes the capacity for the functions of the Co-ordinator General to be restrained or removed or otherwise affected by any proceedings before a court. It takes away any natural justice or procedural fairness, and even where the Co-ordinator General improperly exercises those functions he or she cannot be challenged.

The divine right of kings has come back to visit us: the idea that a Co-ordinator General can be created who cannot be held accountable for anything and whose decisions cannot be challenged in any way by a court of law. The Co-ordinator General will not be subject to the common law, the authority of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to any of the recourses that members of the community and aggrieved persons have. It will put the Co-ordinator General in a unique position, one last enjoyed, I suggest, by Charles I of England prior to his decapitation. There will be no recourse to a court of law from a decision made by the coordinator general. In 2009 we should not be passing such legislation. We should have more faith in our legal system and citizenry and not agree to one person in our society possessing such extraordinary powers.

We accept the need to expedite the authorisation of infrastructure projects; that is not in question here. What is in question is the damage that could be done to our system of justice and to our understanding of that system and of procedural fairness by a clause such as this. It will remove one individual entirely from the region of the courts of law. Even if that individual behaves entirely improperly, there can be no recourse to any court of law. It is our democratic duty to delete clause 27 (1) (d) to ensure that at least appeals can be made to a court of law against the decisions of the Co-ordinator General. To be absolutely clear and to clarify the matter for the Hon. Henry Tsang, this is not about removing part 5; what we are talking about here is the removal of protection afforded by a court to challenge, review or quash a decision by the Co-ordinator General.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.44 p.m.]: There is certainly some validity in what Dr John Kaye is saying about privative clauses—not what I would call legislative best practice by any means. I addressed this issue briefly in my remarks during the second reading debate. The National Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill 2009 is all about the fact that the Federal Government has moved a vote of no confidence in this Government's capacity to handle infrastructure in this State. The Opposition has taken the view that although it is not particularly happy with aspects of this proposal, it will not impede the Federal Government's economic stimulus package. We regard clause 27 as part and parcel of the approach the Federal Government has taken and, therefore, we will not support the amendment.

Question—That the Greens amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Dr Kaye
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Ms Hale

Noes, 29

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin

Mr Kelly
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Primrose
Ms Robertson

Ms Sharpe
Mr Smith
Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment negatived.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.50 p.m.]: Madam Chair, I advise the Committee that I will not move Greens amendment No. 3 as circulated on sheet C2009-004.

Clause 29 to 31 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendment.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon. Amanda Fazio tabled, on behalf of the Chair, report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 2 of 2009", dated 10 March 2009.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: In tabling the report I note that it indicates that the Hon. Roy Smith is a member of the committee. I advise that Ms Sylvia Hale replaced the Hon. Roy Smith as a member of the committee in November 2008, and I will ensure that the error is not repeated in future reports of the committee.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE SIR JOHN BRYAN MUNRO FULLER, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [3.56 p.m.]: I move:

I express the Government's condolences to the family of Sir John Bryan Munro Fuller, a former member of this place, who passed away in January. Sir John was born in Mosman in 1917 to Queen's Counsel Bryan Fuller and his wife Isabel Deane. Sir John was educated at Knox Grammar. Upon completion of the Leaving Certificate in 1935, he spent two years working on government experimental farms at Bathurst and Trangie. I presume they were the farms that later became Department of Agriculture research stations. From there he joined the staff of Winchcombe Carson before working as a stockman and jackaroo in Queensland in the Camooweal and Mount Isa districts. Upon the death of his father, Sir John inherited a dairy farm at Kiama and purchased a wheat, wool and cattle property at Kallateenee near Coolah. Sir John joined the Country Party in 1940 and became the secretary of the Coolah branch. I think Coolah is the home of many Nationals. He went on to serve the party in various positions, including as vice chairman and chairman of the Australian Country Party.

Sir John enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force in the early 1940s and, although he did not serve, he stayed involved in the Volunteer Defence Corps. In 1955 he was elected to serve as a local government councillor on Coolah Shire Council, and he served on the council until 1965. He entered the Legislative Council in April 1961 and served as Minister for Decentralisation, Minister for Planning and the Environment, Deputy Leader of the Government, Leader of the Government, and, until his retirement, as Leader of the Opposition. He was a member of the Legislative Council for more than 17 years. Interestingly, Sir John served as Leader of the Government in this Chamber from 1968 to 1976 as a member of the National Party. Although he was the junior Coalition member, he held the position of Leader of the Government in this place. I am not aware of a similar arrangement ever having taken place in this House—before or since.

Sir John's service to both his community and to this place was recognised in 1974, when he received a knighthood, and again in 1977 with the award of the Queen's Jubilee Medal. Sir John's involvement in community organisations and charities was both varied and numerous. It was clear Sir John was a man of action who would readily seize the opportunity to represent the concerns of farmers, their families and rural communities. Therefore, it is fitting that this House recognises his life and his passing.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.59 p.m.]: I thank the Leader of Government Business for the opportunity to speak to a condolence motion for Sir John Fuller. Sir John was probably one of the greatest men ever in this place. In paying tribute to him today we acknowledge him as a former member and as a Leader of The Nationals in this place, a Leader of the Government and a Leader of the Opposition. As the Minister said, the fact that Sir John was Leader of the Government and then Leader of the Opposition, as a member of the junior Coalition party, showed that the faith placed in him by his peers was both huge and justified. As the Minister indicated, Sir John was born in Mosman on 22 September 1917 and educated at Knox Grammar at Wahroonga.

On 4 February many members of this Chamber and of the other House, together with former members from all sides of politics who had served with him here, and many others, including former Deputy Premier Ron Mulock and former Federal and State members, attended his funeral service across the road. His niece and his granddaughters, Claire Fuller, Rachel Fuller and Lisa Messenger—those fabulous girls—did the readings and read a poem. There was also a eulogy from Cathy Charlton and from our colleague George Souris. They talked about a man we did not know or see but probably would have expected. His granddaughters talked with love about fish and chips on Sunday nights with grandpa and grandma in Sydney. That brought a degree of humanity to the funeral.

We were told about his life before he entered politics. Sir John married one of the daughters of the Webb family from Bathurst, so his time at the agricultural station in Bathurst was not wasted. The Webbs were a well-known pioneering family from the area and owned Glanmire, one of the principal properties and homesteads in the region. He married his beloved Tottie, as she was known, from that family. A colleague told me a story that John Fuller was good at tennis; that he was a natural sportsman. One day, when it was time for dinner, John could not be found. Apparently the evil Webb brothers had ambushed him and tied him to a tree because they were sick of being beaten at tennis by John Fuller. I do not know whether that story is true but I suspect it probably is.

John was probably born into the service of politics. His uncle, as the Minister indicated, Sir George Fuller, was a member of the Australian Parliament 100 years ago and later twice became Premier of New South Wales. His father, Bryan, was a King's Counsel, and it did not take John long to follow in their footsteps. At the age of 27 he joined the Graziers Association and became its vice-president. John was a member of the Coolah Shire Council for 11 years, New South Wales chairman of the Country Party in 1959 and its Federal vice-president prior to entering Parliament in 1961. John was elected to this House in April 1961 and his parliamentary career spanned 17 years between 1961 and 1978—a remarkably short period considering what he achieved in Parliament. He started his parliamentary career with his maiden speech and the words:

These words guided the young legislator for many years. John had a strong sense of moral good and was not himself decadent or complacent. He was held in the highest regard for his great strength of character, his leadership and his personal modesty. John became the Minister for Decentralisation in 1965 and held that portfolio for eight years—a long period in the one portfolio, as the Minister for Police can verify. It is a long time by any measure. My colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is going to talk about his achievements in this portfolio. I will just touch on John Fuller's achievements with the Bathurst-Orange growth centre, which probably is the most liveable area in regional Australia. The Bathurst-Orange growth centre was a legacy of John Fuller's work and his early contacts in the Bathurst region and with the Webb family. In 1972 he became Minister for Planning and Environment and held that portfolio for a further three years. Subsequently, when the Coalition lost office in 1976, he served as Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council and held that position until 1978.

During his time in Parliament, John played a pivotal role as the anchor in the upper House for a rock-solid Coalition government. That Government, which held office for 11 years, remains the longest-serving Coalition Government in the history of New South Wales. Yet John had carriage of some of the most difficult episodes in the long history of this mother of Parliaments. Only one member had ever been expelled from Parliament—in 1917. But in 1969, when a judge found that a member of the Legislative Council had brought Parliament into disrepute, it was John Fuller, as Leader of the Government, who moved the motion of expulsion of a member of his own party. I do not think you will see that too often. The motion succeeded on the Government's own numbers. It was a mark of the character of the Coalition Government of the day and a mark of the strength of character of its leader in the Legislative Council that this rarest of standing orders was invoked to uphold the standing of the institution that stands at the peak of our democracy.

John, in his other role as Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, performed probably his most important and pivotal legislative role, in the reform of the Council. Many of us remember that at the time Neville Wran was trying to abolish the Legislative Council, and Sir John became the spokesperson for the Legislative Council managers in the free conference of managers with the Legislative Assembly about the Constitution and the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Bill. I shall spend some time on this because John Fuller was involved in this important part of our history. In June 1977 the Premier, the Hon. Neville Wran, introduced a bill that provided for a reduction in the membership of the Legislative Council from 60 to 45 and for members to be directly elected by the people under a non-preferential proportional system, with the whole State as one electorate, similar to the system in use in South Australia and Israel. The bill passed the Legislative Assembly without amendment—what a surprise—and was sent to the Legislative Council for concurrence.

In the Legislative Council the second reading of the bill was amended to refer it to a select committee. The committee was to comprise five Opposition members and three Government members. However, the Leader of the Government, the Hon. Paul Landa, indicated that Government members would not participate in the select committee inquiry. Being mindful of the two-month "failure to pass" provision, the committee presented an interim report in which it indicated that it had not been able to complete its investigations and review all the evidence and required more time to consider the bill. In presenting an interim report without leave and thus fulfilling its reporting requirements, the committee extinguished itself.

On 10 November 1977, five months having elapsed since the bill was first sent to the Legislative Council, Premier Wran reintroduced the bill into the Legislative Assembly, where it was passed, and it was again sent to the Legislative Council for concurrence. The second reading of the bill was again amended in the Legislative Council to refer the bill to the select committee. This time the committee was given leave to report from time to time. When proposing the adjournment of the House for the Christmas recess in December 1977, the Leader, Paul Landa, moved that the House adjourn until Wednesday 25 January 1978. However, John Fuller, then Leader of the Opposition, successfully moved an amendment, against the wishes of the Government, for the House to adjourn until 10 January 1978.

During the debate that ensued John indicated that the select committee would be in a position to report before the expiration of the two-month statutory period stipulated under section 5B. As foreshadowed by John Fuller, the select committee presented its report when the House resumed. In its report the committee recommended that the bill should be rejected because the list system of voting did not allow an elector to vote for a candidate of his or her choice, no preferences were allowed and groups securing less than a quota of formal votes cast were excluded, therefore unduly favouring major parties.

Immediately on presentation of the committee's report, the Leader of the Government moved that the second reading of the bill stand as an order of the day for the next sitting day. We all know this. The second reading debate on the bill commenced on the following day and John moved an amendment to the second reading that the bill be rejected and returned to the Legislative Assembly. The amendment was carried and the bill returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message rejecting the bill, including nine reasons for its rejection, and requesting the adoption of the recommendation of the select committee for the convening of a constitutional convention to review the method of election, functions and powers of the Legislative Council.

There was no precedent of the Legislative Council having previously responded to a bill in this manner. Subsequently the Legislative Council received a message from the Legislative Assembly requesting a free conference on the bill and advising of the appointment of 10 members of the Legislative Assembly as managers for the conference. The last free conference had taken place 50 years earlier and no officer of the House had experience in the necessary arrangements. At the free conference, which I am told by staff of the Parliament was held in the old Parliament in temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, Premier Wran acted as the spokesperson for Legislative Assembly managers and Sir John Fuller acted as spokesperson for Legislative Council managers. With both managers adopting a hard line from the start of discussions, a compromise seemed remote. Anyone who knew the strength of character of both individuals would understand that statement.

After three days of negotiations in seething heat the conference of managers finally reached agreement on the system of voting and the process of reform that introduced direct election to the Legislative Council. A memorandum of agreement was prepared and ratified by Premier Wran and Sir John Fuller. Subsequently 88 amendments were made to the reform bill in the Legislative Council to give effect to this agreement. This amended reform bill received overwhelming support at a referendum in June 1978 and the Legislative Council, pretty much as it exists today, is largely the result of the reforms introduced at that time by Sir John Fuller.

Over the years John led a number of successful trade missions to North America, Asia, Africa and Europe and, as the Federal President of the Australian Institute of Export, laid a strong basis for Australia's burgeoning international export trade. John was knighted in the New Year's Honours of 1974. If only people like John Fuller were knighted, we would still have imperial honours. On top of his academic talents John Fuller was a great sportsman, who played tennis, golf and bowls. He was a regular at the Country Party early morning tennis at the courts just behind Parliament where the new library building now is, and was also a member of the parliamentary bowling team. Long-serving parliamentary researcher Dr David Clune remembers John in the following words:

As I said earlier, Sir John was knighted in 1974 and when he retired from politics he continued his active involvement in charities and organisations. He concurrently served an 11-year term on the Council of the University of New South Wales. His community work included Keep Australia Beautiful, Barnardos, the National Free Enterprise Foundation and the Heart Foundation, to name but a few. He was a strong supporter of the role of the Crown in the Australian Constitution, a patron of the Australian Monarchist League and a supporter of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. Monarchist League Chairman Philip Benwell said John would be greatly missed. He was quoted as follows:

That description rings true for many who knew John. John Fuller was both a friend and a mentor to me. I feel honoured to have followed him in three of the many roles that he had: firstly, as chairman of the then Country Party, now The Nationals; secondly, as a member of the Legislative Council; and, thirdly, as Leader of The Nationals in the Legislative Council. I do not have aspirations to move beyond those roles. Even though he served two decades before me I often sought his advice on contemporary issues because of the concise wisdom he gave. Unlike some people, when you asked his opinion it was not to tell you not to do something; it was to tell you, "We tried this and this is why it didn't work. Perhaps if you try this, it may work." That is the sort of sensible wisdom you would expect from a man like John Fuller. Rather than exhibiting negativity he would say, "These are the problems we encountered. This is how you may be able to get around it."

John made a contribution few of us could ever hope to get near, a lasting contribution that improved the lives of many Australians. John was an outstanding bloke, a man with a wicked smile, a great sense of humour and, as Philip Benwell said, a twinkle in his eye who has left a wonderful legacy. I would like to extend the sincere condolences of all National Party members and the New South Wales Parliament to the members of his family and his friends. He will be sorely missed by all those who benefited from the pleasure of knowing and working with him.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.20 p.m.]: I join with members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the life and times of the Hon. Sir John Fuller, who was a member of this House for 17 years from 1961 to 1978. Sir John was an impressive man who made a very significant contribution to New South Wales as a leader in the Askin-Cutler Liberal-Country Party Government in this State, especially as a result of his commitment to decentralisation of population, businesses and jobs, and to his party, which espouses that decentralisation policy. Sir John had a very strong commitment to community service, and he worked long and hard for many worthy causes years after he had left public office. He was the Minister for Decentralisation for a long stint, namely eight years, from 1965 to 1973. He was then the Minister for Planning and Environment from 1973 to 1976. There is no doubt that his legacy from those years lives on today, particularly in country and coastal New South Wales.

Sir John was a very proud and dedicated member of the Country Party. He joined the party in 1940 and became the secretary of the Coolah branch. He became vice-chairman of the Federal council of the party in 1962. He was a central councillor from 1945 and became the vice-chairman of the party a year later. He was elected State Chairman of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Country Party, a position he held until 1964. He was a member of the Federal executive of the party, and more recently he was a trustee of the party. Sir John also served as chairman of the party's capital fundraising arm, the National Free Enterprise Foundation, from 1982 to 1988. The foundation accumulated funds for, among other things, the purchase of the party's head office in Hunter Street in Sydney, an investment which the party, in its current manifestation, holds in good stead to this day.

As a Minister, Sir John had a strict rule. On any one of his very many visits to country localities, the local Country Party office-bearers were to be given advance notice of the date of the visit, his accommodation place and how to contact him. Wherever he went, he was always available to have a yarn to any Country Party member or office-bearer. I can imagine that on occasions he would have been very tired after attending to ministerial duties on such visits, but he saw it as his obligation to pay due respect to the members of the party across the State. As far as he was concerned, it was an important part of being a Country Party Minister. It meant, of course, that he was very well informed on all manner of issues and was a revered figure.

Sir John's political pedigree was not pure Country Party. He was a nephew of George Warburton Fuller, who was briefly the Premier of New South Wales in 1921 and again from 1922 to 1925. John Fuller's father, Bryan Fuller, a King's Counsel, was a founding member of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. It is said that Robert Menzies offered the young John Fuller a staff job on one occasion when he was going to England but John Fuller declined the offer, protesting that he had no interest in politics. His priority was the family dairy property near Kiama, which he inherited after his father's accidental death in 1956, and the wheat, wool and cattle interests he was developing in the Coolah district.

Early on John Fuller showed that strong trait for public service, and he served as a councillor on Coolah Shire Council from 1955 until 1965. Educated at Knox Grammar at Wahroonga, John gained his leaving certificate in 1935. As was mentioned, he spent two years on government experimental farms, at Bathurst in 1936 and at Trangie in 1937. His father had wanted him to follow him into the law, but young John wanted to be on the land. I recall talking to him about the experimental farm at Bathurst, which is at the site of what was then Mitchell College of Advanced Education, which the Hon. Tony Kelly knows well, and which is now the Bathurst campus of Charles Sturt University, a site which has an extraordinarily long history in serving as a place for education and one which Sir John's party has actively promoted and supported throughout.

John joined the staff of stock and station agents Winchcombe Carson, and he was then employed as a stockman and jackeroo in Camooweal, in Queensland, and in the Mt Isa district. He came back to New South Wales in 1939, when he inherited his father's dairying property near Kiama and also purchased his property near Coolah. In 1940 he married Eileen Webb, of the Webbs in Bathurst, and they made their home on the black soils in the Coolah district. Sir John was a director of Country Television Services Pty Ltd in Orange from 1962 to 1965. On the board he represented the Graziers Association, which had a shareholding in the company. He told Paul Davey, the author of the book The Nationals:

We, the directors, had no influence on news content, but we did influence programmes, most of which were coming from the United States. We found country viewers were more sympathetic to British programs in the mid-1960s, so we swung programming in that direction, even though it cost more.

A pretty wise decision, I reckon. John Fuller was a long-serving councillor on the New South Wales Graziers Association Council from 1944 to 1946. At age 27, he was the youngest person to serve on the Graziers Association Council in those years. He was also a local office-bearer at Coolah. Later on, continuing his ongoing interest in education, he served on the governing body of the University of New South Wales. He was President of the Australian Club, in Macquarie Street, from 1984 to 1987. That establishment has been the venue for many a Nationals-Country Party meeting—before, during and after Sir John's tenure as its president. I know that at one stage when he was a trustee for the party a little group of members used to have a few caucus meetings at the club over a gin and tonic before they turned up to the finance meetings to do battle. That is another story.

Sir John was the first president of Keep Australia Beautiful in New South Wales. Again drawing upon his role in government as the Minister for Decentralisation, he was Federal President of the Australian Institute of Export for five years and he was president of the Arthritis Foundation of Australia for 11 years. One of his favourite charities was Barnardos children's homes. He served on the Barnardos committee from 1980 to 1995, and then was the President of Barnardos Australia from 1985 to 1995. When he was chairman of Barnardos, I recall Sir John's pride and excitement that he was to host a visit to Barnardos in Sydney by Diana, Princess of Wales. I recall him briefing us on the plans and then afterwards giving us a debriefing about how successful it had been. Of course, with Sir John at the helm, the visit went without a hitch. He was pretty chuffed to have that honour. Sir John was also a member of the council of the Heart Foundation. As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, he was national patron of the Monarchist League. He was also on the advisory committee of the Odyssey House McGrath Foundation. As if he did not have enough to do, he was also chairman of the Rushcutters Bay Maritime Reserve Trust.

When Sir John passed away at the end of January one of his former parliamentary colleagues, the former State member for Oxley and former Federal member for Lyne, Bruce Cowan, recounted the extraordinary contribution that Sir John Fuller's decentralisation policies had made. For example, in the communities in the Manning Valley, in particular Taree, companies that benefited from those policies—that is, they were attracted away from the city to set up business in the country—included Speedo, Stebercraft, Lansdowne Engineering, which is now known as United Group Rail and still operates at Taree, and Beacon Cables. The new businesses were a vital shot in the arm for development of the valley, bringing with them a host of new residents and much-needed jobs. As Bruce Cowan said:

Much of the engineering and manufacturing work carried out there today is built upon his legacy. Under the decentralisation scheme engineered by John Fuller, businesses were eligible for 90 per cent of the cost of moving out of Sydney and into regional New South Wales. The State Government contributed 60 per cent of that funding, local councils 30 per cent and business 10 per cent. Apart from moving and set-up costs, in some cases the scheme covered the cost of housing of key personnel moving to the country, as well as freight concessions for new businesses. The Taree council and the Chamber of Commerce also played a part. Speedo went off shore—as we know—but many of the businesses, or their offshoots, to benefit from that program are still there today. For instance, Motherson Sumi—formerly known as Britax—is a very important Taree business.

Another city to benefit from John Fuller's legacy was Tamworth and one of the companies that underpinned the Tamworth local economy for a long time was JAKAB. That company, which originally built buses, later developed into a specialist motor vehicle builder and built up a substantial export market to places such as the United Kingdom and Malaysia. JAKAB also built ambulances for use in the New South Wales and Victorian ambulance services, and engaged in building military vehicles for export to the Middle East. The engineering base of the Tamworth economy is still very important today. It is interesting to recall the comments of the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Mr Barry O'Farrell, on the passing of Sir John's great legislative and Country Party colleague Sir Charles Cutler:

John Fuller was in the gallery of the Legislative Assembly at that time—

The Country Party was the Coalition's minor party, and that was an extraordinary situation. John Fuller became the Minister for Decentralisation and Development when the Askin Government came to power in 1965. He believed that Sydney was becoming too congested and there needed to be a policy change. At one point country centres were responsible for 39 per cent of the State's population growth. In that capacity he led trade missions on behalf of New South Wales to North America, South-East Asia, Africa, Asia, Europe and the Pacific. He later became the Minister for Planning and Environment and he would have been one of the first Australian Ministers for the Environment. His portfolio included large parts of the Department of Local Government, the Department of Environmental Control and the Department of Health.

It may have seemed a little incongruous that John Fuller, who favoured minimal Government planning controls, should have such a portfolio. But he proved yet again to be one of the Government's most able ministerial planners. Occasionally Sir John encountered situations where urgent planning was required. On one occasion when he was leaving home from Coolah to go to his ministerial car, he found his way blocked by the flooded Black Stump Creek. His solution was to strip off and carry his clothes and briefcase over his head—notable for his slicked-down hair and neat moustache—as he waded across. When the Wran Labor Government came to power John Fuller became the Opposition leader in the Legislative Council, despite being in the Coalition's minor party. He retired from Parliament in 1978 but continued with the many other community duties that he held so dear.

The Mitchell Library holds Sir John's papers and they include quite a number of photographs of him performing tasks as a Minister. In one photograph he is seen treading the first grapes at Hungerford Hill in the Hunter Valley. In another, he is pictured chatting with former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam over a glass of wine at the black tie Chamber of Manufacturers annual dinner in 1973 held at the Wentworth Hotel. Their paths crossed over negotiations about the Albury-Wodonga Growth Centre—they did a deal on Bathurst-Orange versus Albury-Wodonga. In another, he is seen opening a boomerang factory and the State Library notes—I have no doubt he would have been horrified at the lack of protocol—the national flag was incorrectly used over the plaque.

As State Chairman of the Country Party, Sir John Fuller was part of that group that ensured a good working relationship between the Country Party and the Liberal Party in the period of the Askin-Cutler leadership. In fact, the relationship was so good that when there was a vacancy in the Presidency of this House in 1966, the Premier insisted that the Country Party's Harry Budd be the Liberal-Country Party nominee in the ballot, and he was elected. Two years later, the Leader of the Government died and Premier Askin decided the new Leader of the Government would be the senior Minister in the Council, John Fuller.

During that Government's time in office the saga of the building of the Opera House was an important issue. John Fuller related to Paul Davey that when Davis Hughes, the Country Party Minister for Public Works, went on a two-month overseas tour in 1967 to study architectural, engineering and construction techniques that could be applied to the revolution in the design of the Opera House, leaving John Fuller as the acting Minister for Public Works, he said before he left:

John Fuller commented:

John Fuller denied that the Government sacked Utzon or forced his resignation. He said:

In preparing for Government for the 1962 election, as noted by Ian Campbell in his monograph for the New South Wales Parliamentary Centenary of Federation Project, on the subject of decentralisation, he said:

The plan, worked out in detail by Davis Hughes, had the support of employer organisations and was a winning element of the 1965 campaign. I have many memories of Sir John but I will briefly recount one memory of another Minister who took over Sir John's former ministerial office. The new Minister had spent his first day in his new office. He was taking his leave at the end of the day when his staff approached him and asked if he wanted them to lock up. The new Minister replied, "What do you mean lock up?" The staff replied, "Mr Fuller always asked us to lock all the cupboards and all the drawers at the end of each day." The new Minister said, "I have not got much to lock up but you can lock that up, if you like." The new Minister indicated the drinks cabinet, so they did. He was very bemused by John Fuller's concern for security.

It was a privilege to have known and to have worked with Sir John Fuller. It was also a privilege to have known Lady Fuller, who died in 2006. Although he was a very imposing man, it is true that more often than not Sir John had a twinkle in his eye. I offer my condolences to Sir John's son, Bryan, his daughter, Sally, and their families.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [4.39 p.m.]: I offer my condolences to the family of Sir John Bryan Munro Fuller. Although I did not have the opportunity to know him as intimately as the two previous speakers did, I know that he was indeed a very fine man. Sir John was a member of this place for 17 years from April 1961 to August 1978. He served as the Minister for Decentralisation for eight years, the Minister for Planning and the Environment for two years, Deputy Leader of the Government for two years, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government for seven years, and Leader of the Opposition for two years. That is a most eminent parliamentary record covering nearly two decades. Sir John joined the Country Party in 1940 as secretary of the Coolah branch. He was Vice-Chairman of the Australian Country Party, Federal, from 1962 to 1968; Chairman of the Australian Country Party, New South Wales, from 1959 to 1964; a member of the Federal Executive of the Australian Country Party from 1945 to 1988; and a former trustee of the National Party of Australia, New South Wales branch.

Sir John was a farmer and grazier from Coolah. He was educated at Knox Grammar and gained his Leaving Certificate in 1935. He spent two years on the government experiment farms at Bathurst and Trangie, which are now the Department of Primary Industries research stations. For a while he worked for Winchcombe Carson. He was then employed as a stockman and jackaroo in Queensland, returning to New South Wales in 1939. He then inherited his father's dairying property near Kiama and purchased the property at Coolah. He was involved in many organisations, such as the Country Television Services. He was a councillor of the New South Wales Graziers Association from 1944 until 1946 and again from 1954 until 1965 and was vice-president of the association in 1965. Sir John was a leader of trade missions to North America in 1967, South-East Asia in 1968 and 1972, Africa in 1969, Asia in 1970 and 1973, Europe and the United Kingdom in 1971, and the Pacific Islands in 1974. He also served as a councillor of the University of New South Wales from 1967 and was President of the Australia Club from 1984 to 1987. He was a member of the University of New South Wales Council from 1967 to 1978 and the first President of Keep Australia Beautiful in 1995.

Sir John was Federal President of the Australian Institute of Export from 1986 to 1991, and a member of the State and Federal councils from 1979 to 1995. He was President of the Arthritis Foundation of Australia from 1980 to 1991, President of Barnardo's Australia from 1985 to 1995 and a committee member from 1980 to 1995, President of the National Free Enterprise Foundation from 1982 to 1988, and a member of the Council of the Heart Foundation, New South Wales division, since 1979. He was also national patron of the Monarchist League in Australia since 1997 and served on the advisory committee of the Odyssey House McGrath Foundation from 1993 to 2001. As the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner mentioned, he was also Chairman of the Rushcutters Bay Maritime Reserve Trust from 1993 to 1996. Sir John had many interests. He served in the Royal Australian Air Force during World War II but did not serve overseas. He was knighted in 1974 and received the Queen's Jubilee Medal in 1977. It is a most impressive record of a very great man. I did not meet Sir John Fuller until I became a member of this place. He was a thorough gentleman and a statesman for whom I had great respect. I extend my condolences to the family of a fine man with a fine parliamentary career.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.43 p.m.]: I join with my colleagues in passing on our condolences to the Fuller family and pay tribute to the life of a remarkable father and grandfather. Like the Hon. Rick Colless, I was not that well acquainted with Sir John Fuller. But the times I met him, the twinkle in his eye was evident. He was a very kind, generous and gracious person. He was willing to share his experiences, his thoughts and his ideas. Sir John Fuller's funeral was beautiful and a celebration of his life. Even in the photograph on the front of the service card, the twinkle in his eye was obvious. He would have been overwhelmingly proud of his granddaughters Claire Fuller, Rachel Fuller and Lisa Messenger, who gave scripture readings and recited a poem. They are stunning girls. The love they have for their grandfather and the very big part that he played in their lives was evident. We have heard the record of his commitment to the community—a very long list of the organisations and associations that he was part of—but obviously he never forgot that family was the most important thing. Sunday fish and chips in the Fuller household sounded like a good experience. The Hon. George Souris delivered one of the eulogies at the service. In true form, George was excellent. I will quote part of his eulogy, which members of this Chamber will enjoy:

This is a rare moment when a lowly member of the lower House is able to honour the contribution of a member of the rather exalted New South Wales upper House. However, I lay claim to the credential that I was Sir John's local MP, as Coolah was in the electorate of Upper Hunter.

It might be enjoyable to remind George Souris of those words. I reiterate the comments of the Hon. Duncan Gay and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner about the major part that Sir John Fuller played in reforming the Legislative Council. As Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council he played a central role in the reform of this House. He was intimately involved in the 88 amendments that were made to the reform bill. The amended reform bill received overwhelming support in a referendum in June 1978. The Legislative Council, as it exists today, is largely the result of the reforms that were introduced at that time. I also place on record the difficulties involved in the management of expenditure for the Opera House, and the myth that has evolved around the Opera House and the controversy with the architect. In his book The Nationals, Paul Davies quoted a story in which Sir John was asked to be acting Minister responsible for the Opera House. The book states:

Bill said to me before he left "if it all falls to the bottom of the harbour while I'm away, you'll cop the blame". When he came back, it was still there and he gave me a wristwatch as a token of thanks for looking after things. I still wear it today.

I wonder whether Ministers in this Chamber have received wristwatches for doing a good job while another Minister is away. It is a lovely story. Further to the comments from the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, Sir John Fuller was committed to the core principle of our party, that is, jobs, growth and development outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. One of the projects he was most proud of was the initiative to set up the first separate Department of Decentralisation and Development. Sir John Fuller was the first Minister to have that portfolio and he introduced a $12 million revolving Country Industries Assistance Fund to be built up at the rate of $2 million a year. He said at the time:

Such has been the effectiveness of the Government's appeal to industry to locate new and branch factories in country areas that the funds available are, in fact, committed ahead. Our Government will therefore double the annual contribution to the Country Industries Assistance Fund from $2 million to $4 million in the next financial year.

That was part of the election platform in 1968. It is proper that we recognise the life and contribution of Sir John Fuller and extend our condolences to his wonderful family.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.49 p.m.]: I will add to what has already been said by speaking about my association with Sir John Fuller, which brought a great deal of happiness to my wife and me. We had known him as a pastoralist and a parliamentarian, and also through his association with many organisations with which he had been involved since he became a member of the Legislative Council back in 1961. I was involved with him through his commitment to Knox Grammar School. He was an old boy and he was very interested in the school. Our sons attended the school and I had an association with the school on behalf of the church. It was very important to Sir John that the best traditions of the school were kept.

I also knew Sir John Fuller well as a member of the board of the Australia Club. He was President of the Australia Club from 1984 to 1987, and he invited me to join him and a regular group of men who lunched together on a Friday—it was a "Thank God it's Friday" luncheon club. My close friend Professor Alf Pollard urged me to join the club and through my membership I was introduced to a wide circle of significant Australian businessmen. Sir John loved to go to the Australia Club and he loved to lunch. In more recent years, particularly since his wife died, he had a diary of luncheon dates for every day of the month. He attended an organisation that had regular luncheons and he enjoyed them.

Over a number of years until somewhere in the mid 1990s I met regularly with him for lunch at the Australia Club. I owe Sir John a great debt of gratitude because he introduced me to some very significant Australian businessmen who came to lunch at the club, most of whom became donors to the Wesley Mission. That entree made a lot of difference to the Wesley Mission.

I also worked closely with Sir John in his work with Barnardos because I was responsible for Dalmar Child and Family Care, which has grown over the years to care for about 4,000 children each year. His role as Chairman of Barnardos meant that we met on a number of issues. I will always think of him in terms of the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. Sir John invited me to be chaplain at a number of functions at the Australia Club at which Prince Philip was our guest. He invited me not just to say grace but also to talk to Prince Philip and make him feel at home. I sat with the Prince and we enjoyed a long dialogue.

Much was made at the funeral, and has been since, of the Sunday fish and chips he had with his granddaughters, but I can inform the House that when he was at the Australia Club it was not fish and chips on the menu. He cared wonderfully for his wife. After her death I visited him in a pastoral care role. It was an honour to be present at his funeral and to be with his family. With all the members of this House and the other place I to pay tribute to him. Every evening this House is in session I sleep at my bolthole in the Australia Club. I have a regular room and less than 20 metres from my room there is a large presidential portrait of Sir John Fuller on the wall. As I walk past I always say, "Good evening, Sir John".

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

Motion agreed to.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.

BARANGAROO DELIVERY AUTHORITY BILL 2009

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. Della Bosca.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES

Debate resumed from 10 March 2009.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.56 p.m.]: I continue my condolence speech on the motion moved by the Hon. Michael Veitch relating to the Victorian Bushfires, which states:

In a national disaster as immense as the Victorian bushfires I draw attention to the great work of the Australian Red Cross, which has played a leading role in the humanitarian response to this disaster. Red Cross teams have been providing personal support to all those returning home. Clearly this is a very difficult time for them as they try to come to terms with the sheer scale of the disaster.

The Red Cross inquiry centre has dealt with more than 40,000 calls from the public, and more than 1,000 volunteers and staff have been involved in responding to those calls. I understand from the Australian Red Cross that Australians have donated $227 million to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal. As Lewis Kaplan, Executive Director New South Wales, Australian Red Cross, stressed when acknowledging the donations of the Australian Chinese community to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal, the Red Cross is taking no administration fees. Every dollar donated to the appeal has gone into a trust fund and is being distributed under the supervision of an independent advisory panel chaired by John Landy, former Governor of Victoria. Other panel members are Robert Tickner, Chief Executive of the Australian Red Cross; Pat McNamara, former Deputy Premier of Victoria; Lyn Gunter, Mayor of Murrindindi Shire Council; and Professor Glyn Davis, Vice-Chancellor, University of Melbourne. I quote Robert Tickner, who said:

The power of humanity is also international and crosses national borders. This is reflected in the assistance of the Chinese Government in providing high-quality satellite images and data to Australia. Those images and that data have greatly assisted in the rescue efforts. As Professor Mark Wainwright, Chairman of the Australia-China Council, whose role is to promote cultural and educational exchange, said, the council will now also encourage science and technology cooperation between the two countries. Professor Mary O'Kane, the New South Wales Chief Scientist and Scientific Engineer, praised the productive relationship that has developed between the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information and the China Centre for Earth Observation and Digital Earth, particularly during the bushfire.

I thank the Australian Red Cross for its efforts in helping the victims of the Victorian bushfires. Red Cross staff have been working tirelessly to process the donations. I also thank the Australian Chinese community for its generous support of the Victorian Bushfire Appeal. On behalf of the Government I also express my sincere appreciation to the Chinese Government for its timely assistance in providing satellite images and data on the bushfire sites. I congratulate Premier Rees for his initiatives in response to this disaster and for his leadership in motivating people to support those in need, which shows that we Australians do care.

Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [5.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

COMMUNITY CABINET MEETING

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [5.00 p.m.]: I will give the House a little insight into the community Cabinet meeting that the New South Wales Government held in Queanbeyan on 10 February, which was attended by about 200 people. The most interesting, or perhaps amusing, part of the night was the start of the proceedings when the Premier introduced his Cabinet. They were arranged in front of the audience like prisoners before their execution. Indeed, most of them looked as though they were about to be stoned. What came to pass was really no surprise. The questioning that followed was very much to the point and demonstrated the lack of faith that the local community has in the New South Wales Labor Government's ability to deliver despite the rhetoric and promises made at the beginning of the meeting.

One of the first questions directed at the Premier was from a local member of the public who accused the Government of behaving like a mob of Chicago gangsters. The Premier replied that trust was at the centre of the problem of governance in New South Wales. Doing his RoboCop impersonation, the Premier said that he would turn that perception around in the public interest. The pretentiousness and emptiness in that statement certainly rebounded around the room given the community's firsthand experience of this Government's inability to deliver.

The locals raised a range of issues. The most consistently raised issues were the lack of trust in the Government, the lack of services provided locally and, most importantly, the lack of investment in key infrastructure in Queanbeyan and the broader Monaro region. I noted the call for a comprehensive regional road solution, which the local community has been requesting for the past 14 years. Locals mentioned the need for a real bypass around Queanbeyan and an improvement in Australian Capital Territory/New South Wales cross-border roads. The Premier said that he would look into the issue. No doubt he will respond in a few weeks as he promised he would and will undertake to examine the issue further. We are awaiting the results of another study of this difficult issue and no doubt the Premier will offer yet another feasibility study. Feasibility study after feasibility study has been carried out but we still cannot get any action.

Locals also raised the issue of the Queanbeyan Hospital. They are delighted to have the new hospital, but the reality is that the services provided there are not properly supported by this Government. We have wonderful nurses and clinicians, but they do not have the support staff or equipment that they need to get the job done. In particular, the hospital still has no CT scanner or ultrasound service. The Government has also not clarified whether renal services will be provided. These are basic services that most hospitals operating in similar circumstances would have as a matter of course. Despite having a local member who is a Minister in this Government, the local electorate is continually presenting business cases for basic services. Mental health services are in a shambles in the Queanbeyan district. Residents must travel to Goulburn, Sydney or Wollongong because basic services are not provided locally. If those services were offered locally, patients would be able to remain at home near their families and access the support that only families can provide. Disability services are also an issue in the region. I have said a number of times in this place that nothing is being done to address that issue. We have an apartheid-style regime between the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. New South Wales residents cannot access disability services in the Australian Capital Territory. However, that cross-border access is encouraged in other health service areas because New South Wales provides the backbone of funding for the Australian Capital Territory. Again there is no more action; again there is more of the same. The residents of Queanbeyan are sick and tired of this Government. [Time expired.]

HOLY CITY EVENTS

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.05 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the forthcoming Sydney Holy City events, which will be held over the weekend of 14 and 15 March 2009. They are being organised by the 200 Korean Christian churches in Sydney in cooperation with other Christian churches and community organisations. The Holy City Movement, as it is now known, was initiated by Christian leaders in Korea in 2004—although Christian leaders in Korea first promulgated it about 37 years ago. The movement has spread to cities such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago in America and some major cities in Japan. The first Holy City Convention—the Sydney Holy City Convention—took place three years ago. The movement is fundamentally a Korean Christian movement, but it is now attracting many people across cultures, and even non-Christians. That is because the theme of the movement is understood, very healthy and very hopeful. It is particularly attracting people in North America, where moral standards are in decline.

Last year in Sydney about 2,000 people joined in the Holy City Sydney march along George Street. This year we are expecting more than 2,500 people to join us under the convention's banner. The participants will come from a diverse range of groups and organisations in Sydney. We will also have special guests from Korea. One of the two main events this year will be a spectacular at the Sydney Sports Stadium on Saturday 14 March. This will involve Korean guest speakers and local musical groups from different ethnic backgrounds. The other main event will be a Holy City march that will be held this Sunday. Participants will assemble at Belmore Park at 3.00 p.m. for a preliminary music program. They will then be led by a Korean Salvation Army band down George Street to Martin Place. On arrival at Martin Place at 5.00 p.m. a multicultural musical program will be performed for the public.

The aim of the Holy City Movement is to create a holy and decent city in which families can live without moral decline, violence and crime. Sydney's 200-odd Korean churches have about 50,000 members and represent many denominations, including Presbyterian, Baptist and the Uniting Church. I have been privileged to make five visits to Korea to share in important Christian events such as the fortieth National Prayer Breakfast, which was addressed by the President of Korea Lee Myung-Bak, who visited Sydney only last week.

Korean Presbyterian churches in South Korea have had strong links with Australia, as Australian Presbyterian missionaries took the gospel of Jesus Christ to Korea more than 100 years ago. It was a very challenging time for them to be living and working in a different culture with a different language and primitive conditions. There were no hospitals or medical facilities until they were established by Australian missionaries. The Chang Shin Christian College in Masan, which was founded by Australian Presbyterian missionaries, still respects and remembers the leadership of those Presbyterian missionaries. On my recent visit to the college to celebrate the 100th anniversary I saw the marble memorials that have been erected to honour those Australian Presbyterian missionaries, who are still so greatly appreciated by the current Christian churches in Korea.

The president of the college, Dr Kang, has always spoken highly of the contribution the Australian Presbyterian missionaries made. Some of those missionaries sacrificed their lives because of disease contracted as a resut of poor living conditions. In many cases young missionaries died shortly after their arrival in Korea. Their ministry is greatly appreciated and honoured by Korean Christian churches today. I invite anyone who is free to do so to share in these events next weekend, either on Saturday night or Sunday afternoon, and to be part of a spectacular parade through the streets of Sydney.

GARRY HULME TRIBUTE

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [5.10 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to Garry Hulme, who served as controller of Canterbury State Emergency Service. Garry passed away suddenly in November 2008. He had a proud history of service to his community and was an integral part of Canterbury State Emergency Services from 1970 until his death. In 1970 Garry joined the State Emergency Service, working in the operations centre for three years supporting local units. In 1973 he left the division headquarters and transferred to the Canterbury local unit. Here, Garry was instrumental in beginning negotiations with Canterbury council to upgrade facilities for training and the storage of equipment. With the assistance of the council, a cottage was provided in Campsie for the local emergency service to base its operations. During these early years, the unit consisted of just six members, and Garry used his own vehicle for emergency work as no official vehicle was available at the time. Garry and his colleagues spent many weekends attending local fetes and community events selling tea, coffee and cakes in order to continue to raise the much-needed funding for supplies and equipment.

During the next few years, membership increased, and with the assistance of fundraisers, supporters and funding from local and State governments, Garry was able to obtain vehicles to assist the emergency work and vastly expand the capabilities of the Canterbury State Emergency Service. Garry and his members continued their fundraising efforts and volunteered long hours, giving up evenings and weekends approaching community groups, government bodies and businesses for donations to purchase necessary equipment and supplies. Consequently the unit became very skilled and professional. Garry's achievements did not go unnoticed at divisional headquarters and in 1983 he was appointed Controller of the Canterbury State Emergency Service.

Garry was a well-known identity in the Canterbury area and surrounding districts and his involvement in a number of community-based ventures was acknowledged and appreciated. Garry's commitments were to his wife, Margaret, his three children, his employment and his volunteer work. Garry's sudden death was a shock to the wider community. In fact, many people learned about his grave condition only hours before he passed away. Garry was diagnosed with cancer three weeks before his death and he had seen a specialist only two days before he passed away. Many people did not know he was ill and it was a great shock to our community.

Garry's State Emergency Service career spanned almost four decades. When one speaks to Garry's State Emergency Service colleagues it is clear that he was not only a respected controller but also a treasured friend who was greatly admired for his warmth, humour and approachable nature. Garry was a hard worker with a positive attitude. I understand that Garry's mentoring, training and leadership skills encouraged a number of young people to pursue careers in the emergency services field after their volunteer work in the State Emergency Service. Garry faced adversity in his own life, but seemed to focus more on the needs of others. Despite major heart bypass surgery in 2006 and losing his right leg to diabetes-related complications, he remained positive and continued his role as Controller of the Canterbury State Emergency Service Unit until his death. Garry left many friends behind, and other people in my community will remember him not only because of his work with the State Emergency Service but also because he was a very genuine and likeable person.

Since Garry's passing, I have heard several anecdotes regarding his kind nature and his sense of humour. He was extremely supportive of new and younger State Emergency Service members and adopted the attitude that there are no problems, only solutions. There are endless stories of Garry's reputation as a practical joker, his love of camels and his vast camel collection. Garry had affectionately nicknamed the Canterbury State Emergency Service unit the Canterbury Camels, a nickname he coined due to the camel's ability to go a long way on a little. Garry's contribution to the community was formally recognised with a number of awards. In 2004 he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for his service to the community. Although Garry will be sadly missed, his contribution will not be forgotten and he will be remembered fondly by all whose lives he touched. I place on record my appreciation for Garry's tireless contribution to our local community of Canterbury and to the broader community that he served.

I have known Garry Hulme since the 1980s. I always found him a wonderful person, very approachable and very supportive of my community. I ran into him at many local community events. It will be very difficult for me to go to the next event knowing that Garry will not be there with his great sense of humour and his willingness to help anyone who needs assistance in the community. I extend my deepest sympathies to Garry's wife, Margaret, his children, Rae-Anne, David and Paul, and his grandchildren on their loss.

WESTERN SYDNEY GOVERNMENT SERVICES

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [5.15 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House some serious issues concerning the State Labor Government's arrogance towards the people of Penrith and, indeed, greater western Sydney, who have been ignored and neglected by Labor for far too long. So bad is Labor's attitude to the people of Penrith and western Sydney that it has defeated every attempt by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition to help struggling families in those areas. One only has to look at how western Sydney members of Parliament voted against the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, to cut payroll tax by 15 per cent. In Wentworthville, 233 jobs were lost recently following the decision by Pacific Brands to close its manufacturing plant. Premier Rees has done nothing to avoid this State's emerging financial problems while Coalition leader Barry O'Farrell has gone to great lengths to help alleviate the pressure on small businesses to make it easier for them to employ people. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out that:

No-one can deny that payroll tax cuts have the direct effect of making it easier for companies to keep their workers in jobs. Payroll tax cuts would make employing people more affordable. The Coalition's proposed payroll tax cuts are a practical way for the State Labor Government to help families and businesses, but would Labor pick up this great policy initiative in the best interests of the people of New South Wales, especially western Sydney? Sadly, no. By cutting payroll tax, almost $1 billion would remain in the New South Wales business sector, and that would fund the equivalent of almost 16,500 jobs. Payroll tax plagues small business and has resulted in many western Sydney residents losing their jobs.

Another issue that has had a huge impact on jobs for western Sydney residents is Labor's mini-budget land tax hike. That hike has caused a massive drop in building applications across New South Wales. Urban Task Force Australia predicted last November a potential loss of 87,000 jobs in Sydney in the ensuing 12 months as a result of the adverse impacts that Labor's land tax hikes have caused in the construction industry. It is expected that western Sydney will lose 4,727 jobs over the next 12 months as people realise they cannot afford to build because of the risk of attracting land tax.

Recently, my colleague Jillian Skinner, the Coalition's shadow Minister for Health, also exposed cancelled elective surgery at Westmead Hospital and the fact that 100 beds are to be closed. At Westmead Hospital 1,027 people are waiting for surgery, yet the Labor Government is closing beds, cancelling operations and cutting staff shifts of both nurses and doctors. The closures mean people will be forced to wait longer for treatment, often in pain and discomfort with their movement restricted, and often having to take leave from work. It is time that Labor put the health needs of western Sydney up front as a priority, instead of continually downgrading such services.

The long-running saga of a false pre-election promise regarding a fast rail link from Sydney to Penrith and Blacktown—to make the train trip from Penrith to the city 28 minutes instead of 48 to 74 minutes, from Blacktown to the city 17 minutes, and from Parramatta to the city 11 minutes—is another infrastructure project that the people of western Sydney will never see under Labor.

Local Labor members of Parliament Karen Paluzzano, Diane Beamer, Paul Gibson and Richard Amery have been completely ineffectual in achieving this fast transport project for their electorates. Western Sydney commuters will be forced to put up with unreliable and overcrowded train services because the Labor Government has failed to complete a project to increase rail services on the western line, specifically track and signalling works, to bring Lidcombe and Homebush turnbacks online—part of the so-called clearways program, which has been plagued by delays, budget blowouts and setbacks.

Labor's incompetence means commuters will miss out on up to five extra train services, which would help to alleviate the unreliability and massive overcrowding crippling the CityRail network. The Government has let down commuters by failing to properly manage and implement major transport infrastructure or, for that matter, any infrastructure project. It cannot complete projects on time or on budget. Labor's policies and lack of commitment in serving the needs and interests of western Sydney continues to be a disgrace.

SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK V8 SUPERCAR RACES

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.20 p.m.]: The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is currently accepting public comment regarding the proposal to convert Sydney Olympic Park into a street circuit for the V8 supercar races. The public had 10 days to submit a comment from when it was posted on the departmental website on 6 March 2009, so only five days remain. Submissions must be directed towards the very specific terms of reference, which include: Is the area of national significance? Is it home to migratory bird species? Would the event damage protected wetlands? Does the area shelter ecological communities or threatened species? In the case of Sydney Olympic Park the answer is a resounding yes to each of these questions.

I have submitted my own comment to the proposal, but today I point out a number of questions left unanswered in the proposal that maybe of more interest to locals. Firstly, I note that no noise impact studies were done for human beings or domestic animals in the area around the parklands and that any noise testing undertaken involved testing during events at the showground or parkland, such as the Big Day Out, which generated no more than 51 decibels of noise and had no effect on the birds. Racing cars generate noise in the order of at least 90 to 95 decibels, so the proposal has purposely glossed over the real noise threat of the supercar event to birds and other wildlife.

Secondly, the timetable included in the proposal has the preparation work starting seven weeks before the race but elsewhere the document states that work will start 13 weeks before the race. I wonder what is supposed to happen between 13 and eight weeks before the race and why it is not detailed in the timetable proposed. In all, I note that the community will be disrupted for 17½ weeks for an event that will only last three days! Thirdly, the removal of immature trees is part of the proposal. Local councils define immature trees as trees under five metres, with any tree over five metres protected by the Tree Preservation Act. The spotted gums along Australian Avenue, which the proponents intend to remove, are all over five metres tall—I have checked this—so they should fall under the Tree Preservation Act. In any case, the proposal does not stipulate a time frame for removal of the trees nor any mention of where alternative trees will be planted. Residents would like to know exactly how many trees along each median strip are to be removed.

A number of safety concerns have been raised. The proposal being assessed by the Commonwealth department does not stipulate when the road lane markings and cycle lane markings will be removed and replaced. This includes stop and give way signs, which are basic to road safety. These heavily used roads will be expected to re-open at 6.00 a.m. on the Monday following the race, so very little time is being given to have all the signs replaced. That poses a major safety issue for automobile traffic and cyclists. I ask whether that risk is one that road users of the area should be required to face. For whose benefit are we risking their lives?

I would like to raise many more points of concern to the public but instead I encourage residents and all other concerned citizens to read the proposal. Hopefully people can find it on the website of the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts under "EPBC Act", which appears in the left-hand column of the site. If people click on "Latest Referrals and Public Notices", which can be found on the top right-hand side, they will be taken to a page entitled "Invitations to Comment". They should then scroll down to "V8 Supercar Events". Those who make it that far should receive a medal. I ask those who read the proposal to please consider making a comment to the department on the plan to hold V8 supercar racing in Sydney Olympic Park, which was never designed for this purpose. It is my firm belief that this proposal is seriously wrong and I hope the department does not permit the event to proceed. Rather, the event should go to the purpose-built racetrack at Eastern Creek.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. IAN WEST [5.25 p.m.]: The abysmal, vast and variable conditions that millions of workers around the world are subject to is not, surprisingly, a huge contributor to their productivity, efficiency and efficacy. One often neglects the importance of these aspects to ensuring a safe, creative and prolific workplace. The global financial crisis is affecting the workplace as corporate bosses intensify their flight to cheaper labour markets and do all they can to increase their piece of the pie at any cost. Worse still, some are eager to criticise and undermine the fundamentals of a fully functioning modern Australian workplace.

Too often workers are demonised, devalued and thought of as commodities, products or just mere numbers, rather than human beings. Subsequently, their conditions are attacked in the name of buzzwords such as "cutting the fat", "streamlining", "efficiency" or "reform". The truth is that every time one of these buzzwords is enacted, it affects the lives of ordinary, hardworking Australians in the most negative way. As we all know, the trade union movement has been a longstanding advocate and voice for all working Australians and their families, especially the most disadvantaged employees—workers in the cleaning, maintenance, manufacturing industries; disempowered women and migrant workers whose second language is English—those who will be most affected should the current economic crisis continue.

It is sickening to think that the most basic conditions that we demand for ourselves are constantly being undermined for some pseudo-economic arguments that devalue people and their primary role in our economic development. Invariably we will hear more and more of this as everyone competes for his or her share of the diminishing cake. Governments must resist demeaning and reducing job opportunities in the public sector. It is hard enough to stop capital fleeing to cheaper labour markets overseas. It is a responsibility of government to invest and plan to increase the size of the cake. The best and most effective way to do this is to have a strong, efficient and highly skilled public sector. Public sector employment must be honoured and respected as the backbone of our economy. Increasingly we are seeing the private sector cutting back and unable to provide minimum standards and expectations for its customers and employees. The recent assaults on work safety in the construction industry highlight this.

A recent construction site collapse in Melbourne was due to complete overloading of scaffolding. Because of this, three workers were injured when the scaffolding collapsed underneath them. Luckily they were not killed. The Castlereagh Street scaffolding collapse in Sydney could have resulted in many deaths. What is most concerning is that the collapse was avoidable. WorkCover used to regularly check scaffolds in New South Wales, but these days WorkCover response teams investigate work sites only when they get a call. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union raised issues of safety regarding the Castlereagh Street scaffolding one year ago. However, only an improvement notice, not a prohibition notice, was issued. This means that construction was allowed to continue for a year prior to the collapse.

The Castlereagh Street scaffolding collapsed because components of the scaffolding were missing. Kevin Bell, the Managing Director of Bells Scaffolding, the largest private scaffolding company in Australia, commented on 702 Radio:

Cutting costs, cutting jobs and cutting work safety cuts service delivery and increases profits for business, and, in the worst circumstances, cuts people's lives. It is not sane or sensible to economically rationalise people's safety and conditions of work; it is criminal and cannot be tolerated. Thankfully the New South Wales Government is looking more and more at job creation and protection and at skills training by creating 4,000 new apprenticeships and spending $56 billion on infrastructure projects over the next four years. In the current economic crisis it is clear that there is a need for strong Government commitment to the people of New South Wales, creating new and more public sector jobs—

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until Thursday 12 March 2009 at 11.00 a.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 11 March 2009, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links