Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 7 December 2004, Corrected Copy)

7 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1

1

1
1LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 December 2004
1

______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill
Protected Estates Amendment (Missing Persons) Bill
Health Legislation Further Amendment Bill
Threatened Species Legislation Amendment Bill
Stock Medicines Amendment Bill

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 59, a list of all papers tabled in November 2004 and not ordered to be printed.

The following papers were ordered to be printed:

(1) Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998—Annual report of the NSW Child Death Review Team for the year ended 31 December 2003.

(2) Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 and the Ombudsman Act 1974—Special report of the Ombudsman entitled "Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act Annual Report 2003-2004", dated October 2004.

(3) Police Integrity Commission Act 1996—Annual report of the Police Integrity Commission for the year ended 30 June 2004.

(4) Public Finance and Audit Act 1983—Performance Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled "Shared Corporate Services: Realising the Benefits, including guidance on better practice", dated November 2004.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following paper:

Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993—Report of Official Community Visitors for the year ended 30 June 2004.

Ordered to be printed.
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to standing order, of report No. 14, entitled "Inquiry into Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre", dated November 2004.

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to standing order, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.35 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to standing order, of report No. 10, entitled "Closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah Rail Service", dated November 2004, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, submissions and correspondence.

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to standing order, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [2.36 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of 16 November 2004, documents relating to the Greater Southern Area Health Service received on 30 November 2004 from the Director-General of the Premier's Department, together with an indexed list of documents.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the report entitled "New South Wales Auditor-General's Report—Financial Audits Report—Volume Five 2004", dated November 2004.

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to the Act, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Legislation Review Act, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 17 of 2004", dated 6 December 2004.

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to the Act, it had been authorised that the report be printed.
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to standing order, of the Government's response dated 26 November 2004 to the report tabled 28 May 2004 entitled "Inquiry into Port Infrastructure in New South Wales—Interim Report".

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to standing order, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

Petition requesting support for primary producers and opposing Department of Primary Industries budget cuts that may affect key field staff, front-line services and research and development, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Petition requesting a guarantee that the quality of services offered by the Post-School Options and Adult Training, Learning and Support programs will not be reduced through funding cuts or restructuring, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Petition praying that temporary protection visa holders be provided with the same rights and services as permanent protection visa holders, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Petition requesting recognition of residents' concerns about, and government monitoring of, applications for development in Bundeena and Maianbar, received from Mr Ian Cohen.

Petition requesting deferral of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority legislation until all documents relating to a draft Redfern-Waterloo plan are made public, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. John Ryan.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I inform the House that on 29 November 2004 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 resolved to extend to Monday 20 December 2004 the reporting date for the reference relating to the Designer Outlets Centre at Liverpool.

Government Business Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [2.52 p.m.], by leave: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. On Thursday 18 November, during debate on the adjournment motion, the Hon. Charlie Lynn made a series of disparaging remarks about me that need to be rebutted as inaccurate and misleading. He was speaking of the case of an estate agent, a John Leach, who was de-licensed by the Commissioner for Fair Trading. In his adjournment speech the Hon. Charlie Lynn related how he had questioned the Commissioner for Fair Trading, Mr David O'Connor, about the Leach case during a budget estimates committee hearing. The member then went on to say in his adjournment speech, and I quote from Hansard:

I was unable to pursue the issue because of the intervention of that duplicitous Labor lapdog in this place, the Hon. John Tingle. It is time he outed himself, formally joined the ALP and gave up the pretence of representing the Shooters Party.

At that point the Hon. Jan Burnswoods raised a point of order, asking the Hon. Charlie Lynn to withdraw what she termed "such a scurrilous attack on a fellow member of this House". The Deputy-President upheld the point of order and asked the Hon. Charlie Lynn to withdraw the remark, which, after some argument, he did. If the Hon. Charlie Lynn chooses to have that opinion of me, then that is his prerogative, but since that opinion seems to be based on his version of events in the particular budget estimates committee hearing, then he is wrong, and has misled the House.

I would like to state for the record that I had never heard of Mr Leach until the honourable member mentioned him in that hearing, and I had no reason to intervene. Further, Hansard shows that I did not take part in the Hon. Charlie Lynn's questioning of Mr O'Connor. I did not interrupt, make any comment, or seek to speak. There certainly was an intervention that interrupted the member's questioning, but it came not from me but from the Hon. Ian West, who raised a point of order relating to the Hon. Charlie Lynn referring to an individual in a particular case and his or her activities. The Committee Chair consulted the clerks and pointed out that questions by committees must be relevant to the matter that has been referred to them for inquiry and report. The Chair half upheld the point of order and extended the Opposition's time for questioning by two minutes because of the time taken to consult and rule.

I stress that the member was able to continue his questions; he was not in fact prevented from pursuing the matter, as he claimed on 18 November. I reiterate that I was silent until the Chair called for questions from crossbenchers. In my questions I did not mention Mr Leach or refer to questions that had gone before. It is a matter of regret that the Hon. Charlie Lynn's memory seems to have failed him in regard to this incident, and that he chose to make such an attack—

The Hon. Don Harwin: Leave is withdrawn. The member should know better than to do anything other than make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Leave to the member to continue his personal explanation is withdrawn.

Consideration resumed from 18 November.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I advise the Committee that a new Government amendment has been circulated.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.56 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1, lines 6 and 7. Omit all words on those lines.

The effect of Greens amendment No. 2 is to delete the definition of "thoroughfare". If the amendment is agreed to, thoroughfares will not be included as exempt areas and therefore will be subject to the provisions of the Act.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [2.57 p.m.]: Greens amendment No. 2 appears to be contingent upon the carriage of Greens amendment No. 1, which was defeated following a division of the Committee on the previous occasion. The amendment does not make any sense without the principal amendment, and the Government opposes it.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Greens amendment No. 3 and Australian Democrats amendment No. 5 are in conflict. I propose that both be moved at this time and that they be voted on seriatim.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.58 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1, line 14. Omit "or 11B".

It is difficult to pick up the context of the debate at a stage so long after the initial consideration. Essentially, should the provision of the bill on areas subject to temporary exemption come into force, that exemption would be in force until 2 July 2007. The effect of this amendment is to eliminate those exemptions and have the areas subject to the provisions of the Act upon gazettal of the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.00 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 5:

No. 5 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11, lines 13 and 14. Omit "11A or".

The effect of this amendment would lessen the exemptions and speed up the process, and I commend it to the Committee. Every delay costs us 12 lives per day. The tobacco industry, assisted by the hotel industry—which, mistakenly, believes that this will damage patronage—wants to set norms and market the idea that smoking is part of growing up—the adult world of smoking, drinking and the opposite sex.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.01 p.m.]: The Government does not support Greens amendment No. 3 for the same reason it did not support Greens amendment No. 2. It is contingent upon the Greens original amendment, which was not successful. Greens amendment No. 3 and Australian Democrats amendments Nos 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 will shorten the implementation phase of the bill and introduce a total smoking ban by 2006 instead of 2007, as provided for in the Government's proposal. The Australian Democrats amendments are similar to, but less draconian than, the Greens amendments, which is somewhat of a surprise. I congratulate the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans on his restraint.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: I am disappointed that I was not strong enough.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thought he would be. If the amendments were adopted, pubs and clubs would be prevented from having time to do the necessary design and construction work to expand outdoor areas and plan extensions, prevent bans from being communicated effectively to patrons and force a major cultural change on the New South Wales community without adequate consultation or time to adjust. The Government is planning a major advertising campaign to coincide with the phased-in introduction of bans. In part the advertising campaign relies on industry co-operation to spread the message among their patrons. The industry co-operated fully in promoting the original Share the Air campaign in 2000, but industry co-operation cannot be provided in the timetable proposed by the Greens and the Democrats.

Complete indoor smoking bans represent a major cultural change for many patrons of pubs and clubs. The tradition of having a cigarette with a beer remains strong in some sections of the community, especially in regional New South Wales. It will take some time to educate patrons in alternative habits. The Government strongly supports this cultural change for the reason spelled out in the Minister's second reading speech. Obviously, the Government understands that in some ways such a culture change is urgent. However, it is unrealistic to expect that it could occur by July next year. The Government's timetable phases in bans between January 2005 and July 2007. It is a realistic proposal and mirrors similar timetables in other States and jurisdictions. Bear in mind that we are attempting to bring industry with us.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: You've got no hope. You might as well face facts.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I disagree with the honourable member's assertion. There has been a high level of co-operation from the hotel industry and the club industry, given the difficulties these proposals present for them. The honourable member is underestimating the industry's attitude. Both the Government and the Minister have been successful in bringing the industry on board. Acceptance of these amendments would upset the delicate balance that is achieving something that many people, like the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, have been striving to achieve for some time in a way that will not affect too adversely the sensibilities—

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Money.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, it is not just about money. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is attempting to take a rise out of me, but he will not be successful. The Committee should be aware that this type of significant change could be achieved only with the co-operation of the industry.

Democrats amendment No. 5 negatived.

Greens amendment No. 3 negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.05 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 6 and 16 in globo:

No. 6 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11, line 18. Omit "section 13.". Insert instead:

section 13, or

(c) that is the subject of an order under section 13A (1) (b).

No. 16 Page 6, schedule 1. Insert after line 20:

[10] Section 13A

Insert after section 13:

13A Powers of council in relation to exempt areas

(1) The council of a local government area may, by order published in the Gazette:

(a) impose conditions in relation to exempt areas contained in premises in the local government area, or

(b) declare that specified premises in the local government area are not to contain an exempt area.

(2) An order under subsection (1) has effect from the date that it is published in the Gazette or from such later time as may be specified in the order.

(3) The occupier of any premises in respect of which conditions are imposed under subsection (1) (a) must comply with those conditions.

Maximum penalty:

(a) 10 penalty units, in the case of a natural person, or

(b) 50 penalty units, in the case of a body corporate.

(4) A council is to ensure that a copy of any order made by it under this section:

(a) is published in a local newspaper, or if there is no such newspaper, a newspaper circulating throughout the State, and

(b) is given to the Director-General.

(5) Failure to comply with subsection (4) does not invalidate an order.

These amendments tighten the definition of exempt areas. The problem with gambling areas in hotels is that they have always tried to enlarge the exemptions, which turns them into a farce, just as the Share the Air campaign was a farce. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.07 p.m.]: The amendments grant local councils the power to ban smoking in indoor areas of licensed premises without obligation to state reasons and, seemingly, without any right of appeal. This would create massive uncertainty in hotels and clubs around the State because at any time at the whim of councillors every premise could face the prospect of withdrawal of permission to allow smoking. The 2000 Act permits the Director-General of Health to withdraw permission to allow smoking on a licensed premise, should that premise fail to abide by the provisions of the bill. This power is exercised only after due process and with full possession of the facts. These amendments would risk a patchwork of smoking restrictions around the State, dependent on the whims of individual councillors. For these reasons the Government opposes Australia Democrats amendments Nos 6 and 16.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.08 p.m.]: The point is that in every jurisdiction where control of smoking restrictions has been taken by a government that is nearer to the people the restrictions have been tighter and they have been supported. The smoke-free movement started in some little town in the backwoods of California and everyone scoffed: who cared what the little town did. Gradually, as the movement spread, it went through smaller and smaller towns, which fell like ninepins until, finally, Los Angeles and New York fell to the progressive forces.

Because the tobacco industry is big, it tends to make governments bigger. It dictates the policy of the United States of America and tends to dictate Australian Federal Government policy. It has always dictated State Government policy well ahead of local government, which is more closely connected to the people, not upon tobacco money. Local government actually does what the people want, and does it more quickly than other levels of government. The beauty of this legislation is that it will involve local councils and will progressively move along reforms, unlike this rather slow Government. I commend the amendment to the Committee. It is very important because it also involves giving power back to the people.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.11 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 8 to 12 in globo:

No. 8 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11B, line 2. Omit "4 July 2005 until 2 July 2007". Insert instead "1 January 2005 until 1 January 2006".

No. 9 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11B (2), line 5. Omit "4 July 2005 and before 2 July 2007". Insert instead "1 January 2005 and before 1 January 2006".

No. 10 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11B (3) (a), line 11. Omit "4 July 2005 and before 3 July 2006". Insert instead "1 January 2005 and before 1 July 2005".

No. 11 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11B (3) (b), line 12. Omit "3 July 2006 and before 2 July 2007". Insert instead "1 July 2005 and before 1 January 2006".

No. 12 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11B (4), lines 17 and 18. Omit "4 July 2005 and before 2 July 2007". Insert instead "1 January 2005 and before 1 January 2006".

These amendments are part of a sensible campaign to reduce the time of implementation in a staged fashion. I believe it would be possible for premises to become smoke-free at the end of this month and New South Wales could begin the new year with smoke-free environments, which is something people have been expecting for 20 years. But the Government has been extremely slow and disappointing. Be that as it may, if a phased-in timetable is needed, these amendments will speed up the implementation and introduce the reforms by 1 January 2006.

I commend these amendments to the Committee as a slightly speedier timetable, which will be implemented some 15 months before the next election, so the Government need not be frightened of electoral repercussions. In addition, over that 15-month period, 12 lives a day will be saved as a result of improvements in air quality and their effects. Although the optimal number of lives will not be saved immediately, the chances of people contracting thrombosis or having a heart attack reduce dramatically within 48 hours of ceasing smoking, so a number of serious ailments may be avoided by individuals not being exposed to tobacco smoke. These amendments will also have the effect of dramatically reducing the recruitment of adolescents by the tobacco industry over that period. I commend the amendments to the Committee as a staged and sensible improvement in the Government's implementation timetable.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.12 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

Page 5, schedule 1, proposed section 11B (4), line 14. Omit "100". Insert instead "200".

This fairly simple amendment seeks to change the size of the exempt area in a club, hotel, nightclub or casino from 100 square metres to 200 square metres, and is a practical response to calls from some of the State's smallest licensed premises. A number of such premises exist in the central business district and in some small rural areas. I am reliably informed—so I do not need to go on a pub crawl to know—that a number of small hotels and licensed premises are landlocked and are restricted in the space they can provide. They are usually family businesses. The amendment will allow landlocked hotels and clubs that have a small footprint to provide a usable area for smokers in the lead-up to the total ban on smoking inside licensed premises, rather than have them segregated in a tiny space.

The amendment will apply only to establishments with a maximum frontage of 40 metres and a maximum depth of 50 metres. The size of the space will be reduced if the small hotel or club has an available area upstairs. The size of the space will automatically be reduced to 25 metres by 20 metres if the establishment has a ground floor and a first floor and will apply to the smallest and most modest of licensed premises. The amendment will apply only to the small and traditional inner-city hotels or hotels and licensed premises in villages and hamlets in rural areas of New South Wales. Increasing the size of the space to 200 square metres will not give any special dispensation to average size premises. The amendment will not even apply to small town bowling clubs that have large auditoriums; it has been framed to capture only small operations.

The amendment will not permit open slather, and maintains the restriction on smoking to no more than 50 per cent of the internal areas of hotels and clubs. It will not promote an environment to encourage more smoking. It is designed to prevent overcrowding in the small postage-stamp size areas that are set aside for smokers. Increasing the size of the space to 200 square metres is no more than a practical and workable solution, and it will apply to only a limited number of venues. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.16 p.m.]: The effect of the Opposition amendment is that hotels with an area between 100 square metres and 200 square metres will have their exempt area increased from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. The whole idea of referring to smoking areas rather than smoking volumes is absurd: It is like having urinating and non-urinating ends of a public swimming pool or smoking and non-smoking sides of an aircraft. In a sense, it is akin to arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. The fact is that smokers, who are a significant minority, do not like being together, so they want to take up half the area of premises, and thereby pollute the other half, which is what used to occur on aircraft.

This amendment will merely increase the smoking area in public premises. In essence, smoking areas are a farce because they effectively pollute all the air in premises. When I recently walked through the door of an RSL club I was greeted with an airconditioned fug of polluted or vitiated air. This amendment will make conditions in similar premises marginally worse, and it should be opposed.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.17 p.m.]: The Government opposes the Opposition amendment, which seeks to amend proposed section 11B (4), which provides that in premises where the combined bar, gaming machine and recreation room cover less than 100 square metres, smoking will be permitted in an allowable space not exceeding 50 per cent. In effect, small premises will be exempt from the 25 per cent milestone between 2006 and 2007. The concession was made precisely for the reasons that I suspect underlie the Opposition amendment. The concession will benefit small and mostly rural hotels where the 25 per cent milestone could create an allowable space, making a space that is extremely small and unrealistic in terms of functionality.

The Opposition's amendment changes the dimensions from 100 square metres to 200 square metres. I believe that the amendment is based on a misunderstanding. The 100 square metres do not include the entire floor plan of the building; it includes only the bar and gaming machine and recreation rooms. Kitchens, cellars, toilets, thoroughfares, verandas and so on are not taken into account. Extending the area to 200 metres would create a major expansion of the allowable smoking areas in the premises in the period between 2006 and 2007, and would go far beyond simply assisting small premises to make the adjustment. It would provide them with an artificial advantage over other premises and potentially defeat the purpose of the phased-in reduction of areas set aside for smoking in licensed premises. For those reasons the Government does not support the Opposition amendment.

Australian Democrats amendments Nos 8 to 12 negatived.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan

Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid

Ms Rhiannon Mr Roozendaal Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Ryan

Ms Robertson

Question resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 1 negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.28 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 13:

No. 13 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11C, lines 34-38. Omit all the words on those lines. Insert instead:

11C Review of exemptions

(1) The Minister is to convene a working group to regularly review any exemptions from smoking in enclosed public places provided by this Act.

This amendment will ensure that the Minister reviews the exemption for casino private gaming areas and that he maintains parity with smoking restrictions that are in place in casinos in other States and Territories. It is assumed that the lack of smoking restrictions will increase business for casinos, that that is a good thing and that, therefore, the Minister should put his foot as far as he who goes least far—the opposite of Casca's position in Julius Caesar, who said, "And I will set this foot of mine as far as who goes farthest." In this instance the Minister should put his foot as far as who goes least far. Effectively, the Minister will review the exemption only if the other States and Territories go ahead with their proposals. My amendment will ensure that the Minister does not take into account what the other States and Territories are doing.

This is a case of the Minister doing the right thing by the people. It has been suggested that allowing smoking in casinos is good for the State's budget when all it does is cause disease and provide casinos with exemptions. Sometimes the tobacco industry states that the right to smoke is something that is reserved only for rich and important people—those who are squandering their money in high roller gaming rooms. This amendment will ensure that the Minister convenes a working group to review any exemptions from smoking in enclosed public places. Effectively, the Minister does not have to go as slowly as other States and Territories, which in a sense is a step forward. The Minister should pay more regard to health and less regard to how slowly other States and Territories are proceeding in the granting of exemptions to casinos. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.31 p.m.]: The Government opposes Australian Democrats amendment No. 13. Exemptions for international private gaming areas at Star City Casino have been granted to maintain parity with the casino's interstate competitors—obviously Queensland and Victoria. It is important to note that the private gaming area of Star City Casino represents a tiny part of the overall casino floor space and that that space is not open to the general public. It should also be pointed out that this exemption would be subject to review every 12 months. This exemption does not absolve Star City Casino from its responsibilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.32 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 14:

No. 14 Page 6, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 11C (2), line 2. Omit "2006". Insert instead "2005".

This amendment will ensure that the review of Act takes place more quickly to establish what progress is being made. It will also mean that the first review is carried out in 2005.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.33 p.m.]: I have already referred to the difficulties relating to this cluster of amendments, which includes Australian Democrat amendment No. 14. This amendment seeks to vary the Government's timetable, which will result in an unnecessary imposition on the industry. Any attempt to roll back from that position would not bring the industry within the spirit of the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.33 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 15:

No. 15 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 12 (3), line 15. Insert "or any right to compensation a person may have because of a smoking related injury" after "2000".

This amendment will strengthen the right to compensation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Smoking-caused injuries will occur for a long time. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act people must be able to take action as a result of any damage caused to them in premises that are unwilling to enforce smoke-free indoor air. That provision must be strengthened. Frankly, this Government is still very weak in this area. Private tort law has been the driving force behind the enforcement of smoke-free indoor air, which in a sense is sad. It is a disgrace that private tort law has had to be the driving force against the greatest preventable cause of death in the world. That progress has been driven by individuals using tort law and American tort law rather than by any visionary public health policy by this Government and most other governments. This amendment will strengthen that provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.35 p.m.]: The Greens support this amendment and most of the other amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. It is inconceivable to me that employers should knowingly persist with and encourage smoking when they are conscious of the damage that it causes not only to their patrons but also to their employees. I find absolutely extraordinary the notion that high rollers rooms in casinos should be exempt. Whether we like it or not, there is probably a higher concentration of employees per patron in high rollers rooms than almost anywhere else in a casino. I think that this admirable amendment spells out very clearly the responsibility that employers have to their employees. If employers are prepared wilfully to risk their employees' health they should have to bear the consequences.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.36 p.m.]: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and Ms Sylvia Hale, but this amendment will have the opposite effect. Ms Sylvia Hale obviously did not hear me state earlier in debate on a previous amendment—and I repeat what I said for her benefit and for the benefit of other honourable members—that the provisions in this bill will not absolve Star City Casino from its responsibilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That includes its responsibilities as they pertain to employees in the so-called high rollers or private gaming areas.

The Government opposes Australian Democrat amendment No. 15 as it relates to the right of anyone injured as a result of being exposed to tobacco smoke to seek compensation. The relationship between this bill, the two workers compensation Acts and the Occupational Health and Safety Act is quite clear. That legislation would only be further complicated by the adoption of this amendment to proposed section 12 (3). It is clear that the exemptions in the bill will not affect any duty that a person may have under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of the relevant workers compensation legislation would know that it could not affect any claims that one might make under workers compensation. This amendment would only cause unnecessary complications. The bill does not affect the right afforded to people to take appropriate and legitimate action in relation to smoking-related injuries.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.38 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 17:

No. 17 Pages 6 and 7, schedule 1 [10], line 21 on page 6 to line 13 on page 7. Omit all the words on those lines.

The amendment would remove a provision in the bill that states:

Compensation is not payable by or on behalf of the State arising directly or indirectly from any of the following matters occurring before or after the commencement of this section:

(a) the enactment or operation of this Act or the Smoke-free Environment Amendment Act 2004,

(b) the exercise by any person of a function under this Act or a failure to exercise any such function,

(c) any statement or conduct relating to the regulation of smoking in enclosed public places.

It goes on to define "compensation", "statement", "State" and "Act". It was suggested as early as the 1980s by Michael Tubbs, barrister, that one could take mandamus action against the Government for doing so little about tobacco-related injuries and that one could sue the Government if there were any delay. It was seriously suggested that something should be done to force the Government's hand and provide compensation to people who were injured by the Government's inaction in this matter. To make the Government not liable for the exercise or non-exercise of any function under the Act is effectively to exempt the Government from its own legislation.

I am told by those involved with the Cancer Council of New South Wales that the Government is quivering in fear of being sued for loss of profits by sections of the hotel and gaming industries and that this provision was included to avoid that outcome. I would be interested to hear the Australian Hotels Association or an individual hotel, perhaps backed by the tobacco industry, express its disappointment that the people who flocked to pubs and clubs to play on gaming machines and to drink cannot continue to smoke, pollute the air and kill people. I would love to hear the hotel and gaming industries claim that they have lost money because of this bill, demand the right to continue to make money and to kill people and then sue the Government for denying them that right. If the Government thinks any such action could succeed without the Australian population dying from laughter at the absurdity of that proposition, it has been fooled considerably more than I thought.

I know that the Government has been led by the nose to the idea that it takes years to phase in smoking bans. The Government has been led by the nose to the notion that, 25 years after the tobacco industry expected legislation to be enacted ensuring smoke-free workplaces and public areas, it is still too early to introduce this bill and there has not been enough consultation about it. The Minister for Industrial Relations mouthed that absurd nonsense again today. The thinking is that the hotel and gaming industries will sue the Government, claiming that it has taken their profits by gradually introducing these bans at a glacial pace. It is simply absurd that the Government feels the need to include this clause.

On my first reading of the clause, I thought it was intended to stop people suing the Government over its lack of action regarding the provision of smoke-free environments. That may be the case; if so, let them sue, and I wish them luck—although they probably will not succeed because the Government will delay the case and send them broke. I do not think the tobacco industry or any of its lackeys in the hotel or gaming industries would take similar action. I think this clause illustrates the extent to which the Government is terrified of the tobacco lobby and its lackeys. It is extraordinary that it even contemplates putting nonsense like this in the bill. My amendment simply deletes the clause, which is what should happen.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.42 p.m.]: That was a very confusing presentation by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans but I will try to do justice to it in my response.
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Did it confuse?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It confused me, and I tried to follow it closely. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is very proud of spending much of his life campaigning against smoking in public places and against the tobacco industry in general. In debate on this bill he has portrayed the pubs and clubs as accomplices in an evil conspiracy by the tobacco companies. Yet, by moving this amendment, the honourable member is seeking to offer them a bonanza by pursuing litigation against the Government for potential economic loss arising from this legislation.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: They've got no chance.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is easy for the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to say that. I go to a lawyer for legal advice and a doctor for medical advice. The honourable member is a doctor—

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Would you go to Arthur for medical advice?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, I do not think I would, but that is a personal proclivity. I think this amendment is based on the wrongheaded view that the clause is attempting to close some potential avenues of litigation available to the supposed victims of public smoking. It will not have that effect; it will simply ensure that there is no bonanza for the pubs and clubs if they make some claim of economic loss. I can assume only that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans's lifelong antismoking crusade has embroiled him far too deeply in his own little conspiracy with the plaintiff legal community, which would be the biggest single winner from the defeat of this proposition. It would enjoy a bonanza from running the cases on behalf of hotels or clubs, regardless of whether they were justified. I urge the Committee to defeat the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.44 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Page 7, schedule 1 [11]. Insert after line 18:

(f) the determination of what is a room (including a bar room, gaming machine room or recreation room) for the purposes of this Act.

This amendment seeks to clarify a misunderstanding that has arisen in consultation about the bill. It deals with the issue of how a room is defined in this bill as opposed to its definition in the Gaming Machines Act, which obviously hotels and clubs are more familiar with. The current definition of "room" in the Gaming Machines Act is quite specific and extends even to an alcove. This amendment will allow a room to be defined more appropriately for the purposes of this legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 15 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [3.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This bill will help provide for the sustainable management of Rookwood Cemetery now and for future generations.

It represents the Government's commitment to ensuring that the legislative framework that governs the management of this important reserve is as effective as possible.

The bill will enable land to be set aside within the reserve areas of Rookwood Necropolis for denominational crematoria.

It allows the tenant of the existing crematorium to appeal to the Land and Environment Court by against a valuation made by the Valuer-General.

It also clarifies certain provisions relating to the revenue stream of the Joint Committee of the Necropolis Trustees, (the JCNT) and updates the Necropolis Act to accord with current legislative drafting principles.

Before discussing the proposed amendments in more detail, I would like to provide members with some background about the Rookwood Necropolis.

As many members would be aware, the Rookwood Necropolis was established in 1868.

It is one of Australia's oldest cemeteries and one of the largest dedicated burial grounds in the world, being some 283 hectares in total area.

The burial grounds have been in continuous use since its creation, with more than 800,000 bodies interred at Rookwood.

Rookwood is more than a cemetery. The area preserves a record of our architectural and social history, and is one of the reasons why Rookwood is a popular tourist attraction.

A Permanent Conservation Order protects 81 hectares which encompasses one of the largest Victorian era public cemeteries in the world.

But it is the principal role of the Rookwood Necropolis, as a city of the dead, which has given rise to the amendments placed before the House today.

Within the parameters of the Necropolis, there are several denominational reserve trusts including a General trust. These groups represent a wide range of religious and national groups which manage dedicated lands for burial purposes.

The various denominational reserve trusts at Rookwood , like many other cemetery trusts, are grappling with the problem of decreasing burial space.

The trusts have specifically allocated geographic areas for burial.

Based on current burial trends, some trusts have only enough land available for two to three years of interments, while others may have 20 to 30 years.

The trusts are exploring a variety of options to help them to manage their reserves for the future.

In managing available burial space, each trust is affected by the burial rites and rituals observed by those interred within its respective reserve area.

For those faiths that allow cremation, this option will extend the viability of existing cemetery space, by reducing the land required for interment

While this bill proposes that each denominational reserve trust has the ability to set aside land for a crematorium, the Government believes it is unlikely that every trust would seek to build a crematorium.

In determining whether to proceed with the construction of a crematorium, a trust would undertake an evaluation of the project to ensure that the proposal is viable.

Any trust that seeks to build a crematorium would also be responsible for funding the construction of the facility and for obtaining the appropriate building consents and planning permissions.
The JCNT is a management body created to maintain the infrastructure, such as roads and drainage, across the entire area of Rookwood cemetery.

These works are funded by contributions from each of the denominational reserve trusts, and rent from the existing crematorium. The rental payments from the existing crematorium provide a substantial portion of the funds used by the Joint Committee for maintenance.

The current legislation provides that the rental payable by the tenant of the existing crematorium may be calculated in two ways.

The rent may be based on 10% of the value of the land area of the crematorium, or based on 5% of the imputed revenue of the crematorium.

Where a difference exists between the two calculations, the higher figure is used. Historically, the land value has been higher.

The bill will establish a review mechanism for the parties directly affected by the land valuation. Such a mechanism did not previously exist.

Both the Joint Committee of Necropolis Trustees and the tenant of the existing crematorium will be able to appeal to the Land and Environment Court in relation to the valuation accepted by the Valuer-General.

This represents a more equitable process, and demonstrates to Government's ongoing commitment to ensure an effective legislative framework to administer the Rookwood Necropolis.

This bill also proposes to clarify the way that the Joint Committee determines the contributions payable by the reserve trusts, the process for approving these determinations and the timeframe for payment.

This will enable both the Joint Committee and the reserve trusts to better administer their finances and plan for the future.

In order to ensure that all facilities operating in the Necropolis make a contribution to the upkeep and management of the cemetery, the proposed amendments also provide for any denominational crematoria to pay a regulated fee to the Joint Committee based on the number of cremations carried out.

This fee will not apply to the existing crematorium, and is not intended to be a disincentive to cremation activities.

Rather, it is intended to safeguard the revenue stream of the Joint Committee to ensure that it can continue to maintain shared infrastructure within the cemetery grounds at an appropriate level.

Finally, the opportunity has been taken to modernise the language of the Act.

This bill includes a number of consequential amendments ensuring that references reflect the terminology of the current Crown Lands Act 1989 rather than the repealed Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913.

The bill addresses the need for greater flexibility in managing available burial space by providing denominational reserve trusts with the ability to establish crematoria should certain preconditions exist.

These amendments will not provide a solution for every reserve trust or every faith in managing available burial space.

But they do provide new options for those who do want to explore this option to improve the longevity of this historic cemetery.

Trustees of cemetery reserves are taking up the challenge of managing these spaces for the future.

This bill will assist trustees in carrying out their job by providing them with new options, and clarifying existing practices.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.50 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that the Rookwood Necropolis Amendment Bill will not be opposed by the Opposition. The objectives of the bill include provisions to enable additional crematoria to be constructed, subject to the normal planning controls on the Rookwood site. It also provides for the right of appeal of a lessee of the crematorium to the Land and Environment Court in respect of the determination of rent based on land value for the existing crematorium site. The bill allows for a levy for cremations for the denominational crematoria that may be constructed in the future. I note that the levy will not affect the existing crematorium.

Rookwood Necropolis Cemetery, like most cemeteries in the Sydney metropolitan area, is currently experiencing logistical concern about the decreasing available burial places. The Opposition acknowledges that this amendment to the Necropolis Act 1901 is only one response to the shortage of available burial spaces. Rookwood Necropolis was established in the 1860s and is one of the largest and oldest cemeteries in the southern hemisphere. Originally it was a full-blown Victorian extravaganza, replete with fountains, canals, mausoleum, lavish gardens and funerary sculptures which, due to the ravages of time, vandalism and insufficient security, became overgrown and menacing until the Federal Government came to its aid with extensive renovations under the Federal Governments Federation, Cultural and Heritage Projects Program.
Rookwood Necropolis Cemetery, where more than one million people have been interred, sits on some 300 hectares of land and is one of the largest burial grounds in the southern hemisphere and probably the world. The headstones and monuments reflect the history of the colony of New South Wales and the development of the city of Sydney. The heritage value of the cemetery is of such significance that it is protected by an Act of Parliament. Six denominational trusts and the Joint Committee of Necropolis Trustees manage the Rookwood area. All trust officers employ their own staff and keep their own records. Maintenance of the cemetery is funded by the organisations which do not receive government assistance. More than 80 religious and cultural groups use Rookwood as a final resting place for their loved ones. Funerary customs, brought here from all over the world, reflect our multicultural society.

The committee oversees the maintenance of joint infrastructure such as roads and drainage within the area of the Necropolis. Currently, the only crematorium at Rookwood is subject to a statutory lease to a private company due to expire in 2025. The trust is currently funded by rental paid by the existing crematorium tenants, as well as by levies paid by the denominational trusts, which is in accordance with the criteria established by the current legislation. Any new denominational trust establishing a crematorium will also contribute a fee or levy for each cremation. The levy will initially be set at $100 per cremation, indexed to the consumer price index. The Catholic Cemetery Board has been pursuing this matter with the Government and intends to establish a crematorium at Rookwood on land held by it in trust to encourage cremation within the Catholic faith. The crematorium will be a state-of-the-art facility and will utilise modern technology. The Opposition also recognises that this is not a suitable solution for all religious groups, but for those that permit cremation the amendment will provide one option to assist the efficient management of burial space. The Opposition commends the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.54 p.m.]: The Rookwood Necropolis Amendment Bill amends the Necropolis Act 1901 in order to do a number of things including: to facilitate additional crematoria to be constructed, subject to planning controls; to provide a right to the lessee of the Rookwood crematorium to appeal to the Land and Environment Court in respect of the determination of rent based on land value for the existing crematorium site; and to allow for a levy for cremations for denominational crematoria. I welcome the changes made to the Necropolis Act—two Greek words meaning the city of the dead—by this bill. With the one million people who have been interred, buried or cremated there it really is a large city of the dead, one of the largest cities in Australia.

The Rookwood Necropolis Cemetery was established in 1868. Apparently, it is one of the largest cemeteries in the southern hemisphere, comprising 283 hectares in total. The burial grounds have been in continuous use since the cemetery's inception. Interestingly, a permanent conservation order currently protects 81 hectares of the cemetery. It should also be noted that this is one of the very fine places where one can see some of the best of the ancient forms of roses growing in Australia because all of the very old and beautifully perfumed roses have been growing for more than a century. The cemetery is managed by six denominational trusts and the Joint Committee of Necropolis Trustees, a committee which oversights the maintenance of joint infrastructures such as the roads and drainage within the area of the Necropolis. It is also the home of some fine gravestones and interesting forms of burial that has been seen over the past 150 years.

Rookwood is also the burial place of many people who were reinterred there from the existing Cathedral burial ground space between where St Andrews Cathedral and the Town Hall stand today. Bodies that were buried in that cemetery were taken and reinterred in the Rookwood Necropolis. Within the parameters of the Necropolis there are various denominational reserve trusts, including a general trust. Each of those religious and national groups manage dedicated land for burial purposes. As pointed out in the second reading, and as an obvious consequence of the phenomena of increasing populations, the trusts are grappling with the problem of decreasing burial space. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that burial trends tend to indicate some trusts have only enough land available for two or three years of interments while others have 20 to 30 years left.

I have observed in cemeteries around the world that some graveside are only as long as the upper bone in the upper leg and that the bodies, after drying out, are compressed and compacted into the length of an ossuary, which is about two feet long. The bill makes provision for land to be set aside. Some cemeteries of the world prefer vertical burials rather than laying them out horizontally in order to get more burials per square hectare, even though they might be double and triple-decker graves. This bill makes provision for the land to be set aside within the Necropolis for the purpose of denominational crematoria. Any trust that seeks to build a crematorium will be responsible for funding the construction of the facility and obtaining the necessary building consents and planning permissions. As an aside, the Catholic Cemetery Board has been pursuing the matter with the Government for some time, and intends to establish a crematorium at Rookwood on land held by it in trust to encourage cremation within the Catholic faith.

When I was young all the priests argued about Catholic people being cremated, that with the resurrection of the body all the bodily parts would need to be in one place. However, I argued at that time that all the body parts were present in that little jug on grandma's shelf. I also say to the Leader of the House that in those days we used to argue that the more Catholics who were cremated the better. It is acknowledged, however, that not all denominational trusts will proceed with the construction of crematoria. I note that there is only one crematorium at Rookwood which is currently certainly oversubscribed. I have conducted services at Rookwood for several hundred people and note that additional crematoria are needed in the area.

The Joint Committee of Necropolis Trustees is currently funded by rental payments made by existing crematorium tenants, in accordance with criteria established by the current legislation as well as by levies paid by denominational trusts. As was pointed out in the Minister's second reading speech, the current legislation provides that the rental payable by the tenant and the existing crematorium may be calculated in two ways. It may be based on 10 per cent of the value of the land area of the crematorium or 5 per cent of the imputed revenue of the crematorium. Where there is a difference between the two calculations, the higher figure is used. Historically, the land value has been higher. However, with this funny language called English, it is quite unusual to speak about a tenant in the Rookwood crematorium. A bill established to review mechanisms for the parties is directly affected by the land valuation. Such a mechanism did not previously exist.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Did the Minister promise on 3 November to travel to the Central Coast and publicly meet and hear commuters' concerns? In light of the commitment, why did the Minister not honour his promise, but instead make an unpublicised trip last Friday, thus denying commuters the opportunity to complain to him personally about the appalling rail service from the Central Coast to Sydney? Why did the Minister not bother to honour his promise reported in the Daily Telegraph to allow them to accompany him on the return trip?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition is completely predictable in his questions. I am glad he is because he gives me an opportunity to respond to some mischief-making that has occurred.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are predictably hopeless.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am predictably hopeless, says the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This is the member who sat on a polling booth, I think at the Parkes East booth, at the recent election—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: I draw attention to the standing orders on relevance. Clearly, the Minister is not responding to the question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: I actually support the point of order. I have instructed my colleagues that they are not to mention Dubbo at all. The word Dubbo must not pass their lips. Poor old Dubbo Dunc here, who is responsible for the catastrophe in Dubbo, is a nice man and we do not want to humiliate him or make things difficult for him in the last week of the sittings of this year's Parliament. So I say to my colleagues: You are not allowed to mention Dubbo.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: I thank the Leader of the Government for making it unnecessary for me to say that in nine years the support for the Labor Party in Dubbo has gone from 28 per cent, to 14 per cent, to zero.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will not mention Dubbo unless it is to do with railways.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As we were talking about relative hopelessness, and as I was about to point out, Parkes East booth, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sat on for many, many hours, saw a 22 per cent decline in the vote for The Nationals.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: This clown of a Minister chooses to ignore the question and the ruling.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: I listened carefully to the Minister's response to the question, and he did not use the word Dubbo, so he is clearly not out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I was saying, the fact of the matter is that I do travel regularly on trains on the northern line—as do my wife and daughter. Minister Della Bosca indicates that he also has travelled on this line. I do not need to be involved in a publicity stunt to know what northern line commuters are thinking. I have travelled on that service on many occasions, as I will continue to do. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition meeting his commitment to travel on that service and explain to the public the Opposition's strategy to restore rail services. Is it to recruit truck drivers? Is it to ignore Waterfall? Is it to use the Essential Services Act? The Leader of the Opposition has a lot of explaining to do.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We would like to see him travel on that service and explain how the Essential Services Act, recruitment of truck drivers and ignoring Waterfall and Glenbrook will somehow fix rail services. I think the best thing I can say is that Mr 22 Per Cent wasted his time at the Dubbo by-election.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Commerce. Can the Minister outline the latest efforts by WorkCover New South Wales to reduce or eliminate fraud in the workers compensation scheme?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I commend the honourable member for her interest in this matter. Fraud by employers, workers and service providers is a potential threat to the viability of the State's workers compensation scheme. It can also provide an unfair advantage to businesses that are prepared to evade their responsibilities. Honourable members would be aware of the recent reduction of $576 million in the WorkCover scheme deficit. That substantial reduction—over just six months—is largely due to a combination of better claims management and stronger investment returns, of course aided by increased compliance measures.

A package of workers compensation compliance initiatives was introduced in the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2000. That package formed the basis of a tougher approach by WorkCover to fraud. The broader provision on fraud enables WorkCover to prosecute any person who commits an act of fraud against the WorkCover scheme, including a penalty of $55,000 or two years imprisonment, or both. Penalties for premium evasion and other failures to comply with workers compensation insurance requirements were also significantly increased and interest charges on avoided premium were introduced, as was an on-the-spot fine for non-insurance.

A further range of measures to improve compliance was introduced under the Workers Compensation Amendment Act 2002. Those included a broader definition of wages and requirements for principal contractors to check that their subcontractors have the proper workers compensation insurance. I announced further changes in February 2003, including a doubling of resources in the existing WorkCover Fraud Investigation Unit, the establishment of a dedicated fraud prosecution unit within WorkCover's Legal Group, steps to increase the co-operation between government agencies and assistance to insurers to develop more sophisticated detection systems within their organisations.

WorkCover now employs 20 specialist full-time staff to investigate and prosecute fraud and non-compliant activity in the scheme, as well as five other positions involved in data mining. As a result, I am advised that there has been a fourfold increase in WorkCover's prosecutions since June 2002. Last month, a man who undertook secondary work while receiving workers compensation benefits was ordered to repay more than $10,000 in restitution, pay $9,000 in legal costs and was sentenced to 1,500 hours community service in Forbes Local Court. This month, a court ordered a man to pay over $18,000 and perform 250 hours community service for making false claims and working while receiving weekly benefits.

In 2002-03 WorkCover successfully conducted more prosecutions than the entire Australian Tax Office, nationwide. WorkCover has arranged an ongoing anti-fraud training program for insurers and will shortly introduce new measures to assist insurers to better detect and eliminate fraud-related matters. WorkCover investigates every report of fraudulent activity and appropriate action is taken. WorkCover's compliance unit now has sophisticated data mining software to detect potential fraud within the scheme by service providers and employers as well as claimants. During 2003-04 WorkCover issued approximately 13,000 requests for wage audits to insurers; identified approximately $25 million in additional premiums together with an additional $13 million in late payment fees; and issued 217 fines and penalties for premium evasion with a total value of approximately $1 million. Although the legislative and regulatory frameworks for compliance are necessary, WorkCover is committed to a process of education and the provision of information as the best way to ensure that everyone understands their rights and responsibilities.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does an internal New South Wales Fisheries document indicate that Fisheries staff are upset with bureaucratic and/or political interference in the construction of the Palmer report on illegal fishing for commercial gain or profit in New South Wales? Does the document claim that the New South Wales Fisheries management team is ill-directed and poorly focused, and lacks leadership and vision? What is the Minister's response to staff within New South Wales Fisheries that findings contained in the Palmer report are neither new nor enlightening, and that they have been raised previously with Fisheries management?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Sometimes I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should stick to sheep, like most members of The Nationals, and try not to get into matters about which he has no knowledge. His knowledge of Fisheries is pretty low. He should have directed the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner to ask questions on Fisheries.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: But she doesn't know about fish.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: She knows about fish. I was on a committee with her for years. Even when the Hon. Eddie Obeid was on the State Development Committee we examined the fishing industry in greater depth. She knows a lot about fish. The Palmer report is a landmark report in trying to wipe out black market fishing in this State. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be the only person in this State who would try to put down the report.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's your staff.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Your Fisheries officers.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Absolute rubbish. The report is a landmark, clear-cut report that deals with the issues. The campaign has been effective. Last week alone, following upgrading of our compliance activities, our staff seized 1,976 abalone, 92 per cent of which were undersize. The campaign is working. The compliance effort has been enhanced. This is the second major bust of about 1,500 or 1,600 abalone in this State in recent times. I do not know what the honourable member is on about.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's your document.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Rubbish!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And you know that.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition tries to make mountains out of molehills, as usual. Last night I attended the Seafood Industry Forum and met with most of the leading figures in the fishing industry who believe in the Palmer report. They believe that the department is doing extremely well in enforcing compliance. Major busts in recent months totalling nearly 4,000 abalone is a fantastic effort. But that is not all of it—there have been other compliance activities. Forget his little bit of nonsense.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You won't talk to the staff.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I talk to our staff all the time.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That's not what your staff are telling us.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Go and try to get a few votes for The Nationals.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police. Has the Minister seen media reports of an incident in which a motorist claims police warned him that he was not driving fast enough? Will the Minister investigate the circumstances in which a retired police officer, Mr Geoff Blunt, alleges he was pulled over by a highway patrol car on the Pacific Highway at Kew, near Port Macquarie, and warned that truck drivers had called in to say that he was driving too slowly? Did the highway patrol officer say that truck drivers had complained about Mr Blunt driving at 85 kilometres per hour instead of 100? Did the officer say that he should drive faster? If it is not mandatory for everyone to drive at the maximum speed limit and if this event is confirmed, will the Minister take action to make sure it does not happen again?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Police.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister inform the House of the recent New South Wales Government initiatives relating to child neglect?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the honourable member for her important question. We all know that the neglect of children can have terrible consequences. Neglect occurs when those with legal responsibility to care for a child fail to provide the necessities of life, such as adequate food, clothing, medical aid or shelter. The Government is working with families to reduce the incidence of neglect through an early intervention approach. This includes $150 million in additional funding for early intervention programs over five years, as well as the $117.5 million Families First program, all of which aim to intervene early when problems first occur and prevent more serious problems from occurring further down the track. Many children and families have been, and continue to be, helped through these programs. They are making a clear difference in the approach that parents take to parenting, and in understanding their families' needs.

Although the vast majority of parents and carers take great care of their children, or accept support and assistance when they need it, there are cases that demonstrate a complete and inexcusable failure to care for a child to such an extent that the child's life or health is seriously endangered. Although organisations like the Department of Community Services are an important safety net to provide care and protection to children in need, parents should not regard the existence of the department as a licence to walk away from looking after their children. Regrettably, some parents have this view of the world. To address this issue the Government recently strengthened and clarified the State's child neglect laws. The new provision in the Crimes Act, which commenced in October, states that a person who has parental responsibility for a child under 16 years and who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide the child with the necessities of life is guilty of an offence if that failure causes a danger of death or serious injury to the child. The maximum penalty is five years imprisonment.

This change builds on the amendments to the Crimes Act at the end of 2003 with regard to the offence of exposing or abandoning a child, which lifted the age of the child in this case from two to seven years to better reflect community expectations. These new provisions complement the neglect-related sections in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, which provide for a financial penalty of up to $22,000. The Government's efforts to strengthen and modernise the law of child abandonment and neglect make it clear that those who endanger the life or health of a child can face significant financial penalties or gaol. Although the Government does not believe custodial sanctions should follow automatically in all cases of child neglect, imprisoning an individual with parental responsibility for a child clearly should be available to a court in severe cases. We need guidelines in this complex area that make distinctions between parents who need extra support, extra home visiting or some other sort of support, and parents who have been provided with ongoing support but who to continue to ignore their child's welfare.

The task force to develop these guidelines comprises officers from NSW Police, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Community Services. They will provide direction on whether to provide an official warning to parents, whether to seek a fine under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 or whether to seek prison terms of up to five years under the Crimes Act. Child protection is a shared community responsibility. The Department of Community Services is steadily improving its capacity to respond to families with increasingly complex issues in a high-volume environment. Although the Department of Community Services will always try to help children and families under pressure, the care of children is a shared responsibility between the community, parents and carers. It is an accepted fact, and it is backed by research, that a child's best chance to prosper comes from having a loving and supportive family. It is appropriate that we send a message to those who would wilfully ignore a child's welfare that they can face stern action through the courts. The prosecution guidelines will make appropriate distinctions between parents who need extra help and parents who simply do not appear to care about their children. I look forward to the task force reporting back during 2005.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Will she outline the length of involvement that the Department of Community Services has had with the two young children who were prostituting themselves for at least a month in the Southern Belles brothel in Wollongong? Will she authorise the Children's Guardian to undertake case file reviews of these young girls' cases to determine whether the department met its statutory responsibilities in their cases? Given the dreadful failures highlighted by this sad case and the department's inability to provide its annual report to Parliament this year, does the Minister retain confidence in the Department of Community Services?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Dr Peter Wong for his question. He is referring to a case on which I provided extensive information to the House towards the end of last year at a time when it was receiving significant public attention and to an estimates committee. In regard to the role of the Children's Guardian, it is my recollection that the two young girls to whom the honourable member referred were not in out-of-home care. Therefore there would not be a role for the Children's Guardian. I am happy to follow that up because it may well be that the girls spent a period in out-of-home care. I cannot recall at this stage whether that is so, but certainly my recollection is that they were not in out-of-home care at the time of those incidents. The department has continued to be involved in the lives of those two girls. I am happy to provide further information to the House, but I do not have that information with me at the moment.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. What are the Government's criteria for identifying people with very high support needs in the new Community Participation Program? How many people does she expect to support with the $1.4 million she recently allocated to meet the needs of clients with very high support needs? How did the department arrive at the estimate of the amount of funding needed to provide for clients with very high support needs?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. John Ryan for his question. He has referred to further changes that I announced on 26 November relating to the Community Participation Program for young people with a disability. As I announced, participants will have one level of funding which has been set at $13,500 per participant, but in addition an amount of $1.4 million has been allocated to service providers who are working with participants with very high support needs. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care is working with service providers and their peak organisation, the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled [ACROD], to develop the criteria and process for the allocation of this funding.

It is not possible at this stage to answer the specific questions asked by the honourable member with any level of certainty other than to say that the department has worked very closely with ACROD on the refinement of the policy proposal and has worked closely with a number of key service providers. We will be informed by that process and come up with a definition for those with very high support needs. It is my expectation that the definition will be resolved within the next month.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House about the new time standards protocol introduced by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission has established new time standards to expedite the processing of industrial and occupational health and safety matters brought before the commission. The introduction of the new time standards is in line with the process of reform currently being undertaken by the commission. Under the new time frames, the State commission will list all industrial disputes within three to 10 days, finalise all unfair dismissal applications within two to nine months, finalise all enterprise agreements within three months, and finalise all leave to appeal matters within 18 months. These new procedures will give employees and employers the best chance of resolving differences quickly and getting back to work, particularly in the case of unfair dismissal applications. In order to maximise the chances of reinstatement, cases must be managed quickly and effectively. This feature of the New South Wales industrial relations landscape is another basis of the stark contrast with the Federal system—a system that the Howard Government wants to shore up through a unilateral takeover using its corporations powers.

When time is taken to examine the performance of the two systems, the very real threat by the Federal Government creates a genuine cause for alarm on the part of both employees and employers. Members will already be aware that the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act is unnecessarily complex and that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is difficult to access without legal advice, yet the Federal Government is intent upon dismantling the efficient and harmonious New South Wales industrial relations system and replacing it with a system that is inefficient and underfunded. The latest evidence of the Federal system's poor industrial relations performance can be found by reference to be Australian Industrial Relations Commission's annual report for 2003-04. The report states:

... that in the current year, there will be a significant gap between the funds provided by the Government... and the funds necessary for the provision of Registry services to the Commission and the public.

The report also states "that forecasts for later years indicate ongoing deficits of some magnitude". The report asserts that, without a significant increase in funding from the Federal Government, the commission and the registry will have no option but to reduce their services in 2005 and 2006. The findings stated in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's annual report are alarming. They seriously question the ability of the Federal Government to sustain its proposed industrial relations takeover.

The Federal Government wants to bring 85 per cent of all employees under the coverage of the Federal system yet, based on the findings of the Industrial Relations Commission's own annual report, the Federal commission is incapable of dealing with its present caseload, let alone the caseload of an expanded jurisdiction. How can the Federal Government justify this takeover when the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is presently underfunded and, by its own admission, forecasting a reduction in services? I reiterate to the House that the New South Wales Government will continue to protect its system, which is based on fairness to both workers and employers.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will he inform the House how many prisoners, both young offenders and adult inmates, are currently in full-time education programs? Is he aware that some jurisdictions offer incentives to prisoners who undertake full-time education programs? What incentives, if any, are offered to prisoners in New South Wales to undertake full-time education programs? Are there any plans to implement additional incentives?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The figures that I have for August 2004 indicate that there were 410 inmates across the correctional system undertaking full-time study in the Department of Corrective Services. I should add that the monthly average in 2003-04 of inmates enrolled in education courses in New South Wales was 4,519. Although 410 inmates were engaged in full-time education in August 2004, that figure is not reflective of all those in the correctional system who are involved in educational activities. The total figure is much higher because some inmates participate both in work and in education.

There are 181 teachers delivering more than 75,000 teaching hours across 33 correctional centres and the department purchased 19,000 teaching hours from TAFE, which means it is possible for inmates to participate in full-time education study through TAFE as well as through the adult educational and vocational training institutes that currently exist. In August 2004 the intensive learning centre was opened at the John Morony Correctional Centre, which provides opportunities for 12 young offenders to study in a full-time program. It is anticipated that the numbers will increase to a maximum of 50 young offenders over the next two years. The inmate educational programs across the State include adult literacy and numeracy, English as a second language, communications skills, vocational training, Aboriginal education, employability skills, general life skills and further education.

The honourable member asked me a question about incentives and there are obviously clear incentives for individuals to advance by undertaking courses that will assist them in rehabilitation. That is a fairly obvious advantage, but in relation to young offenders we are anxious to ensure whenever possible that they are encouraged to undertake full educational programs, particularly through the intensive learning centre. For that reason, when the centre was opened it was indicated that young offenders who participated in full-time education would be remunerated in present wage rates at the same level as they would otherwise earn in industries. In other words, they would not be dissuaded from undertaking education by forgoing the opportunity of earning income from the performance of manual tasks. I trust that answers the honourable member's question.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. Is the Minister aware of the distribution of Christmas cards, in this festive season, at Central Coast railway stations in November? What action is the Minister taking in respect of that distribution of Christmas cards?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition was handing out Christmas cards on railway stations.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Did they hand them out in Dubbo?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: They might have received some votes if they had handed them out in Dubbo. I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition did not get right the make of my motor vehicle. He ought to know that I do not have a chauffeur driven V8 with a DVD and GPS. I drive a little Prado—an interest I share with the Leader of The Nationals, Mr 22 Per Cent.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Media coverage of locusts over the past few days has focused on locust swarms in the south of the State. Will the Minister update the House on the State's locust control program?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: A photograph on page three of today's Daily Telegraph would give honourable members a good idea of what rural communities, response teams and landholders are facing in their ongoing locust control efforts. The photograph shows a man walking through a swarm of locusts.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It shows what a good job you have done!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition quipped to the effect, "You are not doing a good job." To indicate how out of touch he is I will share with honourable members a letter I received from the Country Women's Association of New South Wales, which states:

Dear Minister,

We congratulate the Department of Primary Industries, Plague Locust Commission and the Rural Lands Protection Boards on their handling of the current locust plague.

We realise that the situation is still of concern to some areas of the state but know that you are striving to deal with these problem areas.

When dealing with farmers, your staff members have been professional and courteous, and this is much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Coakley,
General Manager

At least the Country Women's Association got it right. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition continues interjecting, it is appropriate that I put on the record an analysis of the by-election at that place we are not meant to mention. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must have had a pretty difficult time during that by-election. It was a very warm day, and almost 1,000 voters turned up at Parkes East.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister has clearly failed in his responsibility to handle the locust plague. Yet in response to a question—which, surprisingly, was asked by a member on the Government side of the House—on an issue that is important to people in rural New South Wales he wants to play silly political games. I ask you to draw the Minister back to the question that was asked.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may mention Dubbo only in reference to the locust control program.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Dubbo is the second-largest area to be plagued by locusts. I realise that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did his best out there and at Parkes East—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the first time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: At Parkes East the Deputy Leader of the Opposition managed a 21.8 per cent swing against The Nationals.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is quoting from an unnamed document. I request the Minister to table the document, because I believe it is the script that the Premier used in the lower House today. He has just put the document down.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not read from that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Minister did. He changed documents. He does not have an original thought. He used the document that was written for Bob Carr, the one scripted for Bob Carr.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: The Minister was not referring to any document other than that entitled "Results of the Two Candidate Preferred Count" issued by the State Electoral Office for the electoral district of Dubbo. That document lists the polling places, and states that in Alectown, Cowley got 63 votes and Fardell got 92; in Ballimore, Cowley got 41 votes and Fardell got 74 votes; in Bogan Gate, Cowley got 80 votes and Fardell got 74 votes; in Churchill Gardens, Cowley got 830 votes and Fardell got 982 votes. I could go on.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I seek to move that the document quoted by the Minister be laid on the table.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: What document?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That one. Table it!

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: I believe the Treasurer has abused the standing orders and used a point of order to score debating points, and that is farcical. He read from a document that is completely unrelated to the point of order. I ask that you stop members from engaging in such behaviour and rule substantially on the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing Order 56, which sets out clearly what is demanded of members with regard to an order requiring a document to be laid on the table, states:

(1) A document relating to public affairs quoted by a Minister may be ordered to be laid on the table, unless the Minister states that the document is of a confidential nature or should more properly be obtained by order.

(2) An order under paragraph (1) may be made by motion without notice moved immediately on the conclusion of the speech of the Minister who quoted the document.

Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wish to move such a motion?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes I do, Madam President. The Minister was reading from a document that was attached to the document he is now holding. The Minister may wish to lie, but the House knows that the Minister was reading from another document.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I ask the honourable member to withdraw his comment that I lied.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used such unparliamentary language, he will withdraw it.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I withdraw the word "lie". If the Minister wishes to mislead the House—and that is not unparliamentary language—and read from a second document that was attached to the first document—

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It was not attached.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was. The Minister was reading from a document that was prepared for the Premier to read in another place. Anyone on this side of the Chamber who was watching the Minister would have seen him quoting from that document. The Minister quoted from a document and we do not know its sources. How did the Government know where particular National Party members were?

The Hon. Michael Costa: We know where you were.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: People from the Labor Party were not working at those polling booths. Why does the Government have such an interest in this matter, given that in that electorate in 1995 it got 28 per cent of the vote and in 2003 it got 14 per cent of the vote? So much for the stewardship of Country Labor and so much for road kill. After another 12 months under this Minister the Government's percentage of the vote went from 14 per cent to zero.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition moved a motion that a certain document be tabled. He is now referring, chapter and verse, to how badly the National Party performed at the Dubbo by-election. While I am happy to have that on the record, clearly it is not relevant to the motion that he moved. He is simply wasting the time of members during question time. I ask you to draw him back to the motion he moved relating to the tabling of a document and stop him from wasting the time of the House.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I formally move:

That the document quoted by the Minister be laid on the table.

I accept the point of order taken by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot move that a document he claims that the Minister was using be tabled when the Minister has assured the House that he was not quoting from that document.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: To the point of order: I would like to clarify the matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not see what I was reading from.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We will get the video of it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Then you can have a look.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Then we will know because the video will have picked it up.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the second time.

The HON. IAN MACDONALD: Let me explain this matter for the benefit of honourable members. I was reading from a document that I obtained from the web site of the State Electoral Office. Having received that document, I had written on it earlier that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had done remarkably well for The Nationals at Parkes East by getting a 22 per cent swing against him in that booth. As a member of The Nationals he worked hard and admirably all day in very hot temperatures. I put that document down on top of the previous document I had referred to—the letter from the Country Women's Association, which refers to the good efforts of this Government's in relation to the locust campaign. I then picked up another document and I was about to read some really good quotes from it. I hope I get a chance in a minute to read out those quotes. I was then going to deal with some other issues. I do not think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should get so precious about this matter.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You had a 22 per cent swing against you.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If I had a 22 per cent swing against me in the middle of rural New South Wales, there would be no doubt that I would be quite upset.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher negatived:

That this debate be now adjourned until the conclusion of question time.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Madam President, I remind you that I have taken a point of order. Standing Order 56 refers to "a document relating to public affairs quoted by a Minister". We have the Minister's assurance that the document the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants tabled was not quoted by the Minister. I suggest to you that the motion is therefore clearly out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister made it clear from which document he was quoting. The Chair accepts the assurance of the Minister. The Leader of the Opposition moved a motion calling for that document to be tabled. I will now put the question.

Question—That the document quoted by the Minister be laid on the table—put.

Motion agreed to.

Document tabled.
Later,

The Hon. TONY KELLY: During question time the House resolved that a document from which the Minister for Primary Industries had quoted be tabled. I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.
______

NSW STATE ELECTORAL
OFFICE

POLLING PLACE	CANDIDATES	EXHAUSTED
	COWLEY	FARDELL
ALECTOWN	63	923
BALLIMORE	41	742
BOGAN GATE	80	742
CURCHILL GARDENS	830	98260
COOKAMIDGERA	31	271
DUBBO	710	85149
DUBBO EAST	1204	147585
DUBBO GROVE	897	105854
DUBBO HOSPITAL	80	831
DUBBO NORTH	880	111235
DUBBO SOUTH	835	104753
DUBBO WEST	658	77339
ELONG ELONG	42	407
EMMAGOOL	68	351
EUMUNGERIE	92	846
GEURIE	246	23914
GOLLAN	43	381
CUNNINGBLAND	54	322
LOURDES HOUSE	220	29114
MONTEFIORES	314	33810
MUMBIL	72	762
NARROMINE	1257	104460
ORANA HEIGHTS	1399	161488
PARKES	659	94136
PARKES EAST (Duncan Gay -22% all day)	409	6919
PARKES HIGH	205	34819
PARKES HOSPITAL	278	47217
PARKES SOUTH	257	49223
PARKES WEST	285	5697
PEAK HILL	280	38715
TOMINGLEY	113	851
TRUNDLE	183	2086
TULLAMORE	98	1292
WELLINGTON	624	76736
WELLINGTON EAST	444	52326
WONGARBON	173	17616
YEOVAL	235	1748
TOTAL	14359	17440820

44.02%

53.47%

2.51%

* Dawn Fardell won 26 out of 37 booths.
* Of the 11 booths lost, 6 were only lost by less than 10 votes at each booth.
* Won Nat strongholds: Peak Hill, Alectown, Trundle.

______

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister please elucidate his answer?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The south of the State is now at the peak of locust swarm activity, while swarms are easing off in the north. Overall, the number of new hatchings continues to drop—down to 302 reports this week, which is nearly one-fifth the number of new reports just one month ago. We have now issued enough insecticide to treat nearly 850,000 hectares, including 300,000 hectares covered by aerial control and 550,000 hectares treated through ground control, confirming once again that this is the largest locust control campaign in the history of the State. As I mentioned earlier, locust swarm activity is peaking in the south, in particular, around the Wagga Wagga and Young rural lands protection board [RLPB] districts.

Control teams are doing everything possible to treat swarms using aerial sprays to help minimise migration and limit the level of egg laying. In the past week alone teams from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and the Australian Plague Locust Commission have treated another 120 swarms. That includes swarms in the Coonabarabran, Dubbo, Forbes, Gunnedah, Molong, Mudgee, Narrandera, Hillston and Hay districts. Authorities will continue to target locusts in the south of the State but are prepared for some temporary delays. Predicted storm activity throughout the week could hinder aerial efforts in some districts. Staff members are also waiting until the locusts move to more open areas away from the town before they can continue their full-scale attack with control chemicals.

Unfortunately, we are bracing ourselves for a further round of locust egg hatchings, with recent reports suggesting some locusts were continuing their breeding cycle. I assure honourable members that our trained and committed staff members are fully prepared for any future hatchings. The Government has full faith in the ability of its response team to limit the impact of any future generations, including staff from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, the RLPBs and the New South Wales Farmers Association. Every member of this team deserves full credit for successfully limiting the impact of locusts so far through their consistent and targeted control. They have already managed to give our winter crops significant protection from the locusts, with experts still forecasting a total harvest of just over eight million tonnes. For every dollar we spend on control efforts, the benefit to our farmers is estimated to be approximately $30.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government, representing the Minister for Energy and Utilities. Has there been a call for expressions of interest [EOI] in managing demand for electricity in New South Wales? If so, what stage has that process reached? What level of demand reduction can be expected as a percentage of peak load? Is the Government likely to be in the same position as the Victorian Government, which had blackouts while EOI responses sat in the bottom drawer with no action having been taken? What has the Government done with the $10 million that it previously had in a fund as a sop to demand management after the central business district grid augmentation?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Despite the fact that the honourable member's question contains argument, I will refer it to the Minister for his answer and report back to the House.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Emergency Services. Given the number of volunteer rural firefighters deserting the service as a result of Government neglect and failure to provide adequate safety equipment, why has the Minister been sexing up volunteer numbers to justify funding for his growing bureaucracy? Just how many volunteers are there?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I could not hear the whole of the honourable member's question, in particular, her argument when she commenced her question. There are approximately 67,000 volunteers in the Rural Fire Service. In the past two years State emergency service numbers have in