Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 27 June 2007, Corrected Copy)

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

The President read the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

M R PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

That this House directs the Speaker to join with the President to make arrangements for the reappointment of Mr Ian Dickson as Parliamentary Ethics Adviser, on a part-time basis, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed from the period beginning 1 July 2007.

The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall have the following functions:

Advice to Members of Parliament

(1) (a) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser is to advise any member of Parliament, when asked to do so by that member, on ethical issues concerning the exercise of his or her role as a member of Parliament (including the use of entitlements and potential conflicts of interest).

(b) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser is to be guided in giving this advice by any Code of Conduct or other guidelines adopted by the House (whether pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act or otherwise).

(c) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser's role does not include the giving of legal advice.

Advice to Ministers on post-separation employment

(2) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser must on request by a Minister provide written advice to the Minister as to whether or not the Adviser is of the opinion that the Minister's:

(a) acceptance of an offer of post-separation employment or engagement which relates to the Minister's portfolio responsibilities (including portfolio responsibilities held during the previous two years of ministerial office); or

(b) decision to proceed, after the Minister leaves office, with a proposal to provide services to third parties (including a proposal to establish a business to provide such services) which relates to the Minister's portfolio responsibilities (including portfolio responsibilities held during the previous two years of ministerial office),

would give rise to a reasonable concern that:

(c) the Minister's conduct while in office was influenced by the prospect of the employment or engagement or the proposal to provide services; or

(d) the Minister might make improper use of confidential information to which he or she has access while in office.

(3) The Adviser must on request by a person who has ceased to hold ministerial office within the previous 12 months ("the former Minister") provide written advice to the former Minister as to whether or not the Adviser is of the opinion that the former Minister's:

(a) acceptance of an offer of employment or engagement which relates to the former Minister's former portfolio responsibilities during the last two years in which the Minister held ministerial office; or

(b) decision to proceed with a proposal to provide services to third parties (including a proposal to establish a business to provide such services) which relate to the former Minister's former portfolio responsibilities during the last two years in which the Minister held ministerial office,

would give rise to a reasonable concern that:

(c) the former Minister's conduct while in office was influenced by the prospect of the employment or engagement or the proposal to provide services; or

(d) the former Minister might make improper use of confidential information to which he or she had access while in office.

(4) If the Adviser is of the opinion that accepting the proposed employment or engagement or proceeding with the proposal to provide services might give rise to such a reasonable concern, but the concern would not arise if the employment or engagement or the provision of services were subject to certain conditions, then he or she must so advise and specify the necessary conditions.

(5) The Adviser's advice must include:

(a) a general description of the position offered, including a description of the duties to be undertaken, or the services to be provided, based on material provided by the Minister or former Minister but excluding any information that the Minister or former Minister indicates is confidential; and

(b) the Adviser's opinion as to whether or not the position may be accepted, or the services may be provided, either with or without conditions.

(6) Where the Adviser becomes aware that a Minister or former Minister has accepted a position, or has commenced to provide services, in respect of which the Adviser has provided advice, the Adviser must provide a copy of that advice to the Presiding Officer of the House to which the Minister belongs or to which the former Minister belonged.

Keeping of records

(7) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall be required to keep records of advice given and the factual information upon which it is based.

(8) Subject to clause 6, the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall be under a duty to maintain the confidentiality of information provided to him in exercising his function and any advice given, but the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser may make advice public if the person who requested the advice gives permission for it to be made public.

(9) This House shall only call for the production of records of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser if the person to which the records relate has: in the case of advice given under clause 1 (a), sought to rely on the advice of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser; or given permission for the records to be produced to the House.

Annual meeting with committees

( 10) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser is to meet annually with the Standing Committee of each House designated for the purposes of Part 7A of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act.

Report to Parliament

(11) (a) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser shall be required to report to the Parliament prior to the end of his annual term on the number of ethical matters raised with him, the number of members who sought his advice, the amount of time spent in the course of his duties and the number of times advice was given.

(b) The Parliamentary Ethics Adviser may report to the Parliament from time to time on any problems arising from the determinations of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal that have given rise to requests for ethics advice and proposals to address these problems.

Legislative Assembly R ICHARD T ORBAY
27 June 2007 Speaker

Consideration of message set down as an order of the day for a future day.

The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Dealing with Household Burglaries: NSW Police Force", dated June 2007.

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

Petition objecting to multiple parts of Killalea State Park being leased to private interests for 52 years to undertake a major accommodation development, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.
Private Members' Business items Nos 57 and 59 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.12 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 41 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the appointment of a select committee to inquire into electoral and political party funding, be called on forthwith.

I move this motion to suspend standing orders as, in practical terms, this is one of the last opportunities—before an almost unprecedentedly long winter recess—for the House to express a view on this matter. The motion as it is drafted has a reporting date of March 2008. Obviously, the House should be given an opportunity to decide whether it wants to proceed with this committee before we rise for the winter break. Rather than speak to the merits of the motion, which would be outside the standing orders, I commend to the House the motion to suspend standing orders.

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

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That Private Member's Business item No. 41 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.14 a.m.]: I move:

1. That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the funding of, and disclosure of donations to, political parties, and candidates in State and local government elections, and in particular:

(a) all matters associated with electoral funding and disclosure,

(b) the advantages and disadvantages of banning all donations from corporations, unions and organisations to parties and candidates,

(c) the advantages and disadvantages of introducing limits on expenditure in election campaigns,

(d) the impact of political donations on the democratic process, and

(e) any related matters.

2. That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, the committee consist of six members of the Legislative Council of whom:

(a) two must be Government members,

(b) two must be Opposition members, and

(c) two must be crossbench members.

3. That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, at any meeting of the committee, any four members of the committee will constitute a quorum.

4. That the committee report by the first sitting day in March 2008.

The right to vote includes the right to an informed vote. An informed vote depends on a political discourse that is free and fair. That is why debate on this issue is important. In 1981 New South Wales became the first jurisdiction in Australia to introduce election finance laws. The legal framework operated in isolation for three years until the introduction of similar provisions at a Federal level. It was more than a decade before Queensland introduced such laws, while Victoria and Western Australia followed suit only in the past five years. Both South Australia and Tasmania remain without any election funding laws. The election-funding framework in our State has remained in operation without review or revision for over 25 years. Therefore, the establishment of this select committee is not only overdue but timely. In recent years there have been numerous calls for election finance to be reviewed and overhauled. In April 2001 former Prime Minister Paul Keating remarked in the Australian Financial Review:

I think we would be better off if developers were forbidden from donating election funds to municipal candidates and to political parties.

Shortly before entering this place in 2004 the Hon. Eric Roozendaal advocated a spending cap on election advertising and greater scrutiny of political donations. In a speech to the Country Labor conference in June that year he said it was time to break the nexus between politics and campaign spending. He proposed that election campaign limits be set by the Australian Electoral Commission with the onus on political parties to demonstrate adherence to the spending cap. He said:

With the cost of electronic advertising continuing to rise, it is only going to become more costly. We need limits on how much all political parties are allowed to spend on advertising. I believe this could be regulated through the AEC and it is something I will pursue.

The establishment of a scheme for the public funding of elections was intended to head off the need for parties to draw heavily on private donations. Millions of dollars are distributed to political parties after each election according to their share of first preference votes. However, this public money covers an ever-decreasing portion of their election costs. The current level of concern about the need for campaign funding reform clearly indicates that our 25-year-old election funding system is in urgent need of review and reform in order to respond to the changing political environment.

Why a select committee? Why not? The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the House has just set up has a very limited charter. It also has a reference to look at the operation of the Electoral Act and the Election Funding Authority Act. But it is specifically limited to the administration of that legislation in the context of the last election. My vision for this select committee is different. This is about looking over the horizon and looking at policy issues; it is not about getting bogged down in the administrative minutiae of particular elections, particular donations and particular items of expenditure.

If I were to serve on this committee I would oppose any attempt by any member to hijack the select committee to run a particular agenda against a particular party. The terms of reference allow for the fact that there are likely to be diverging views among members, requiring the committee to look at advantages and disadvantages of particular proposals. The terms of reference also take into account the stated views of the Premier. By looking at all matters associated with electoral funding and disclosure, and also any related matters, the committee will be able to explore the constraints on State-based legislation of Commonwealth provisions. By nominating the reporting date as the first sitting day in March 2008 I wanted to make it clear that the committee should not be used to take potshots in the lead-up to the Federal election. I believe that the reporting date nominated in another motion on the notice paper would have run that risk.

Election funding reform is a complex problem and covers a number of issues. These issues include but are not limited to donor prohibitions, restrictions on political donations, limits on campaign expenditure, public funding of expenditure, the role of third parties, banning of soft money donations and improved donations and expenditure reporting. Effective election finance laws must be comprehensive and apply to all jurisdictions. They must act in parallel with the regulation of spending by third-party entities and be appropriately audited and regulated. A select committee is the best mechanism to investigate such a range of relevant issues and determine the best framework for election funding in New South Wales in the twenty-first century. Our State was the first in the country to introduce election funding laws a quarter of a century ago. We should continue to lead the way for Australia. This select committee will play an important role. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.20 a.m.]: The Greens support the motion. It is extremely important that such an inquiry take place. I agree with the comments of Mr Don Harwin that it is well overdue. This motion is listed under Private Members' Business as No. 41 on the Notice Paper . I draw to the attention of members a similar motion that is listed as No. 2 on the items Outside the Order of Precedence. I gave notice of that motion on 9 May. Mr Don Harwin gave notice of his motion on 29 May. The terms of reference of the inquiry in my motion are:

(a) all matters associated with electoral funding and disclosure,

(b) the advantages and disadvantages of banning all donations from corporations, unions and organisations to parties and candidates,

(c) the advantages and disadvantages of introducing limits upon expenditure in election campaigns,

(d) the impact of political donations on the democratic process, and

(e) any related matters.

Members would see that those terms of reference were picked up by the Coalition and put in a motion, notice of which was given on 29 May. The Coalition added that the inquiry should inquire into both State and local government elections. I support that addition. We support a select committee inquiry into this matter. Unfortunately, the Government was not on board at the time to make it a joint select committee. I believe members would prefer a joint select committee, if the Government were sensible about this matter. The Greens were ready to bring our motion forward. I understand that the conservative crossbenchers would not support the motion if I brought it forward. I am willing to forgo moving my motion—although notice of it was given before the motion moved by Mr Don Harwin—to ensure that this important matter goes before a full inquiry.

The importance of such an inquiry is further underlined by developments in this Parliament just yesterday. The Property Council gave briefings to many members of Parliament. The Property Council is a huge donor to the major political parties. Since 1999 it has donated more than $129,000 to the New South Wales Liberals and more than $116,000 to New South Wales Labor. Time and again the major parties, Labor and the Coalition, take millions of dollars from developers and then we see a progressive weakening of planning laws. Once again we hear that there could be another review of planning laws. I wonder how much more of those laws can be gutted. The New South Wales Liberals have accepted more than $7 million in developer donations and Labor more than $10 million.

The Hon. Michael Costa: The Greens took developer donations. You misled the Parliament the other day.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Mr Michael Costa is again interjecting with dishonest information about the Greens. I have put the proper information on the record. It would be useful if the Treasurer came clean about what he knows about Avondale Greens.

The Hon. Michael Costa: You banked their donation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, and we rejected it immediately. I put that on the record yesterday. Again, the Treasurer is being dishonest about this issue. He needs to come clean. I challenge him to say what he knows about Avondale Greens. It may be useful to have the Treasurer give evidence to the inquiry, because he has difficulty with this issue. The inquiry is extremely important. I am pleased to hear that it may be passed with the approval of all members.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.25 a.m.]: The Shooters Party supports the motion as it stands. The motion calls for a broad-ranging inquiry into electoral funding, including issues such as electoral funding by non-government organisations that may, in turn, be funded by Government through the back door.

The Hon. Michael Costa: You are not talking about the Total Environment Centre are you?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I did not mention any names, but I acknowledge the interjection of the Treasurer. We believe this inquiry is so important that not only will we support it but I will nominate as a member of the Committee. I look forward to doing work in this very important area. It is 3½ years till another State election. I acknowledge the statements by the Hon. Don Harwin that the inquiry is not intended to be a witchhunt leading up to a Federal election. The timing fits. The report of the inquiry is to be tabled after the forthcoming Federal election. I look forward to participating in what I am sure will be a thorough and far­reaching inquiry.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.27 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion to establish a select committee to inquire into and report on the funding and disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates in State and local government elections. The motion details the terms of reference. I would have preferred that the inquiry be referred to a general purpose committee to avoid placing a heavier workload on members of this House. But at times it is better to have a select committee. I support in principle that the inquiry be referred to a select committee. I served on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for a number of years. I would be happy, if the House wishes it, to serve on this committee as one of the crossbench representatives. It is important to relate the inquiry to the Commonwealth because, as members know, donations can be channeled through other States to avoid disclosure.

The Hon. Roy Smith: Or off-shore.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Or off-shore. That is one of the weaknesses of the inquiry: the terms of reference are restricted to State and local government elections. It may be possible to consider that issue under "any related matters". The wording of paragraph 1 seems to negate that possibility. It would be necessary for the terms of reference to be changed. When the House returns in September we should consider such an amendment and decide whether to expand the inquiry to include Commonwealth donations and funding. As the Hon. Robert Brown said, it would not be the desire of any member that the select committee act as a Star Chamber conducting a witch-hunt against individuals, organisations, companies or unions that have made donations. All donations are published and disclosed and are on the public record. It is a matter for the committee to look at the principles as listed in the terms of reference.

That is the way in which the committee should function. Obviously the Greens' motion would have established a joint committee. However, it was thought that it might have been difficult to get the other place to agree to a joint committee, whereas this motion puts the decision in the hands of this House if honourable members feel that is the way to go. That is a simpler and more straightforward approach. Setting up a joint committee may have led to long delays and the proposal might have been rejected by the Legislative Assembly. It is better to have one bird in the hand than two in the bush. The Christian Democratic Party supports this motion.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.31 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. Lee Rhiannon made a point about the date on which she gave notice and the date on which I gave notice. That point was answered by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. It was my judgment that the joint committee would not get off the ground, so I gave notice of a motion to establish a select committee of this House. Again, that decision was based on the reason for moving this motion rather than supporting a motion to establish a joint select committee.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile ended up reaching the same conclusion that I did about whether it was appropriate to refer the issue to a general purpose standing committee. Because the committee will deal with so many policy issues covering such a broad range of topics it is better that it be a select committee rather than a general purpose committee, which will in any case be available to consider budgets and short, sharp inquiries on other matters that come up relating to government administration; and that should be its focus. I thank all honourable members for their comments and I commend the motion to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.33 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 67 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a further order for papers regarding a desalination plant, be called on forthwith.

Question put.

Division called for.

Call for a division, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Motion agreed to.
Dr JOHN KAYE [11.03 a.m.]: I move:

That Private Members' Business item No. 67 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a further order for papers regarding a desalination plant, be called on forthwith.

My arguments for urgency rest on five key issues. The first is that progress towards signing the contract for the desalination plant has advanced significantly. On 25 June the Premier announced the preferred tenderer, and if we delay the public debate on this issue any further—

[ Interruption]

Mr President, I cannot hear myself talk.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I again make a personal plea for members to remain in their seats unless they are seeking the call.

Dr JOHN KAYE: On 25 June the Premier announced the preferred tenderer and said a contract would be signed in the near future. If we do not act now, pulling out of the construction of the plant or freezing the contract will become increasingly expensive. The second issue is widespread alarm that proceeding with a desalination plant that is not needed will inflict a significant cost on the community. Material on the Water For Life website, which includes the Metropolitan Water Strategy, identifies a 30 per cent dam water level trigger for building the plant, but the dam water level is now 50 per cent. Third, the Premier and the Minister have failed to produce any expert evidence that would contradict the advice that a desalination plant should be built at a 30 per cent trigger. Fourth, it is important that we allow the public to engage in this debate. Without that expert advice there is no way the public can meaningfully engage in a debate about the desalination plant.

Fifth, urgency on this matter is amplified by community outrage in Erskineville and Kurnell, where people will be directly affected by the works associated with the plant, and elsewhere. There is growing community disquiet that we are spending $1.76 billion on a desalination plant that is not needed. By spending that money in advance of its being needed we run the risk of pushing up water bills to produce an expensive and unnecessary water supply option that could be significantly delayed to the point at which dam water levels fall to 30 per cent. The Greens therefore argue that this motion is urgent and should be brought on for debate forthwith.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [11.39 a.m.]: The Government opposes this call for papers. Dr Kaye has suggested that the Greens sought to receive information in a reasonable manner through the Parliament. However, the facts demonstrate that that is completely untrue. The Greens asked a question in this House only last week and cannot be bothered to wait for the answer. The Premier and my colleague in the other place received a letter from Dr Kaye yesterday morning demanding information by 12 noon. These are not reasonable actions. What has been more than reasonable is the action undertaken by Sydney Water to consult, inform and educate the public about desalination. From mid-2005 Sydney Water undertook the following community engagement initiatives, specifically in the context of the desalination project. A desalination information page was established on the Sydney Water website—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. We are debating urgency; we are not debating the substantive issue.

The Hon. Rick Colless: But you gave five reasons.

Dr John Kaye: I gave five reasons for urgency.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I know how to deal with the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I accept the Minister's ruling. There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to be aware that we are debating urgency.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The matter is not urgent because yesterday Dr John Kaye sent a letter to the Premier demanding an answer by 12 noon. He must give the Premier a reasonable amount of time to provide an answer. The matter is not urgent because Sydney Water has put all the data on its website. For example, the web page provides an opportunity for online registration for information updates, and the entire planning for the desalination report and a range of fact sheets are available to download from the Sydney Water website. How could the matter be urgent? The material is on the website. A free-call number is available for general telephone inquiries about desalination.

The matter is not urgent because in July 2005 a community briefing was sent to all residents in Kurnell informing them that the preferred location for the plant was Kurnell. The matter is not urgent because a second briefing was sent to all Kurnell residents in October 2005. It is not urgent because environmental assessment, including Sydney Water's draft statement of commitments, was publicly exhibited for 71 days from 24 November 2005 to 3 February 2006.

The matter is not urgent because throughout this consultation period Sydney Water engaged directly with all potentially impacted communities. A summary of consultation and communication activities included phone, fax, email and online contacts. In other words, the matter is not urgent because all the people affected have had ample opportunity to consider the proposal and the details of it.

Sydney Water's website was regularly updated with a range of fact sheets on topics emerging from the environmental assessment process. Let us not forget that community information displays were held at shopping centres to ensure exposure to the highest number of people. I could go on at great length, but I do not believe this matter is urgent. It has had ample public consideration, and we have a lot of business to deal with on the business paper today that we should get through—at a reasonable hour, we hope. For these reasons I oppose the motion seeking urgency.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.42 a.m.]: I have some concern about Dr John Kaye's motion. He raised with me previously that he wanted a copy of a document—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Don't be so precious.

Dr John Kaye: Thank you. I will remember you said that. My point of order relates to relevance. This is a debate about urgency; it is not a debate about what I may or may not have said to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, or about the merits of the issue.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to continue to be relevant to the debate.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It is a matter of what is the urgent matter. Originally I understood that the motion was seeking virtually one document that gave advice. However, the motion seeks documents that recommend, support, justify or advocate the commencement or construction of a desalination plant. I do not know how much correspondence the Government has. I would assume it has thousands of letters from residents supporting the desalination plant who do not want to run out of water if we go through another drought period. It has become a more embracing motion, which could not be dealt with urgently by the Government in responding to it because it is now a catch-all motion.

Dr John Kaye previously gave notice of another motion, No. 49 on the business paper, which is lengthy and which bluntly says in paragraph (2), "This House calls on the Government to abandon the proposed desalination plant at Kurnell." So the purpose of this urgency motion is to stop the project going ahead. Dr John Kaye's intention is in print on page 346 of today's business paper. But he also wants to put the people of Sydney back on level 4 water restrictions. The Greens do not want to help provide the water that the city of Sydney needs, but they seek to restrict how citizens can use the water that is available. For these reasons we do not support the motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gay Ms Hale Dr Kaye Mr Khan Mr Lynn Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Mr Kelly

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

Mr Tsang Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Veitch

Mr Mason-Cox

Mr Hatzistergos

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Debate resumed from 26 June 2007.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Mr Catanzariti Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Ms Hale Dr Kaye

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Parker Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe

Mr Tsang Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Veitch

Mr Brown Mr Colless Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Harwin Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Nile

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Smith Tellers, Mr Ajaka Mr Clarke

Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for the Central Coast. Is the Minister aware that the leadership of the Hunter and Central Coast sub-branches of the Health Services Union [HSU] earlier this year proposed a vote of no­confidence in the divisional and sector management and the chief executive officer of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales? Is he also aware that this vote of no confidence was sparked by members' beliefs that there had been serious breaches of management practices leading to acts of harassment, victimisation and bullying of members and officials and further concerns that divisional and sector management teams have placed members at both physical and psychological risk on a daily basis? Is this the first occasion that the Minister has been made aware of this action by members of the Health Services Union on the Central Coast and the Hunter? If so, will he now direct WorkCover staff to meet with members of the Hunter and Central Coast sub-branches of the Health Services Union to discuss their concerns, particularly given the physical and psychological risk their members may be facing?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: My answers to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition are no, no, and no. I also refer him to my previous answers, and yes, it is the first time I have been made aware of the specifics he has raised, but I will check my telephone diaries to confirm that and advise him if that is not the case. I make the final point in respect to referring to my previous answers about WorkCover's role in these matters that WorkCover is a regulatory and inspectorial body and if complaints are made, it is WorkCover's role to follow up those complaints, investigate their veracity and make the relevant decisions about improvements and, in some cases, prosecutions.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Will you initiate them proactively?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is WorkCover's role to do that. I will make inquiries as to the status of any inspections that WorkCover has undertaken and I am happy to advise the member of those as soon as I can ascertain them. However, it is not my role, as Minister, to direct WorkCover to meet with anybody in particular, be that union officials, local union delegates or anyone else. As I have previously given a commitment in my answer, I will raise the matter with WorkCover, ascertain the status and advise the member accordingly.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister inform the House about selective places in New South Wales high schools?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, I can. I thank the honourable member for her question and her ongoing interest in education matters. Thousands of year 6 students are learning today whether they have been successful in gaining a coveted place in one of the State's selective high schools and 3,522 students are receiving offers, via post and email, for year 7 entry in 2008. Selective high schools give high-achieving, academically gifted students the opportunity to learn in a challenging and supportive environment surrounded by other similarly talented students. Competition for places is extremely high as selective high schools have an excellent and well-deserved reputation. It demonstrates that students and parents have great confidence in our selective public high schools: they want to get in.

More than 12,800 students sat the selective high schools test, which examined their reading, writing, mathematics and general ability. Their results and their performance in English and mathematics at primary school determine which students are offered places. I congratulate the successful candidates, but I take this opportunity to remind those who sat the test but were not successful in gaining admission to a selective high school that there is a range of high-quality, gifted and talented student programs in all New South Wales comprehensive high schools.

The selective high schools test was developed and marked by the Australian Council for Education Research and conducted at 137 government high school test centres throughout New South Wales in March. Selection committees comprising a school education director, selective high school principal and parent representative consider each applicant. The Iemma Government will create an additional 600 selective school places as part of the opportunities to specialise plan. The opportunities to specialise plan will create 600 new places at 15 comprehensive high schools, bringing the number of year 7 places to 4,100. There are always people who want to run down public education—the member for Oxley being the main offender—but the very strong demand for these places is evidence that parents and students recognise the worth of our best schools: studying the nation's premier curriculum.

Newspaper reports today indicate that the proposed national history curriculum would allow students to avoid learning about Gallipoli. New South Wales will not be handing over its gold standard, traditional curriculum. The study of Australian history is mandatory for New South Wales students, and has been compulsory for year 9 and 10 students since 1999. The proposed national curriculum would allow students to bypass Federation, Gallipoli, Australia's participation in World War 11, Australia's participation in Vietnam, but everyone in New South Wales studies a proper narrative history course, which includes all of these events and issues. They will continue to study in selective schools, in comprehensive high schools and in a range of non­government schools subject to the New South Wales curriculum. It is part of the nation's best curriculum with the help of the government and non-government sectors, and we will not allow John Howard and his mates to play political football with our kids' educational future.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that on 4 April 2007 the Roads and Traffic Authority developed an issues paper on the delivery program for the Victoria Road upgrade that said, "Even given the best case scenario the Premier's announced completion date of 2009 will be difficult to achieve" and "the project could continue beyond early 2012"? Is the Minister aware that the same issues paper recommended that he be informed about these delays in the project? Does the Minister recall that he told the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 June 2007 that he was not informed of the potential delays of the Victoria Road upgrade despite this recommendation being made almost three months ago? Has the department not briefed the Minister or has he forgotten he was ever briefed?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Last week I provided the House with extensive information regarding the upgrade of Victoria Road and the duplication of the Iron Cove Bridge. In relation to the question asked, I direct the honourable member to those comments. I take this opportunity to reiterate that delivering improvements to motorists and bus commuters on the Victoria Road corridor is a high priority for the New South Wales Government. It is one of the busiest road corridors in Sydney, with around 78,000 vehicles crossing the Iron Cove Bridge every day. We on this side of the House take our commitment seriously and we are getting on with the job of delivering this important project.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training, and Leader of the Government. I refer to the Minister's comment to this House in November last year during debate on the Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill that the planning Minister had no intention of removing the Government Architect from the Central Sydney Planning Committee. What material circumstances have changed to justify the planning Minister reneging on the assurance the Minister gave to this House on his behalf and now removing the Government Architect from the committee? If there has been no change in material circumstances, was the assurance given in bad faith in order to gain support for the contentious legislation before the House at that time?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I do not remember that specific commitment but I am happy to take the honourable member at her word and I will remind myself by reading Hansard . The short answer to the question is no, the commitment at the time was not given as some bad faith recommendation to the House. It was the view of the Minister at the time. Obviously the honourable member has already made the point. She is questioning the intention of the Minister back in November. I happen to know that the Minister's state of mind was that he did not at that time intend to remove the Government Architect from the Central Sydney Planning Committee. I know that as a fact. The commitment given to the House at the time was absolutely accurate. The planning Minister has made a decision now to appoint personnel to the committee that does not include the current Government Architect, someone I have a great deal of respect for and, if I were the planning Minister, I might have taken a different view. However, the planning Minister is the person responsible for these matters. He has a sound reason for doing what he has done. I will ascertain the detail from him and provide it to the House as soon as I possibly can.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Development. Will the Minister outline to the House what the Government is doing to help home-based business operators in New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his continued interest in promoting business in this State. The Iemma Government is committed to helping New South Wales home-based businesses. About two-thirds of small businesses in New South Wales are home-based. That means self­employment for almost 300,000 home-based operators, with at least 90,000 home-based businesses employing staff as well. Establishing a business at home is becoming increasingly popular. This can be linked to better technology and trends toward outsourcing and more flexible lifestyles. The use of computers and the Internet by home-based businesses is widespread. The Internet is now one of the most useful tools available to small business operators. It is a great opportunity for a home-based business or a small business to market itself internationally and reach a global client base. It is estimated that 90 per cent of small businesses in Australia are connected to the Internet. Most customers expect that businesses they deal with will be connected to the Internet and will have a website. Many of the workshops run by the Department of State and Regional Development have focused on how to use the web to build a business, such as Internet marketing.

On a recent visit to Tamworth I saw first hand the support the Government is providing to help this important sector of our economy when I attended a home-based business workshop run by the Department of State and Regional Development. The workshop was attended by 37 local business people and was designed to help them use low-cost web strategies to expand and grow their businesses. The Tamworth workshop was the final workshop in a series of 22 that the department has funded across New South Wales as part of its 2006-07 Home-Based Business Workshop program. They have proved to be very popular, with about 1,000 people attending the 22 workshops run in Sydney, the Hunter, the Illawarra, Cooma, Northern Rivers, Forster and Broken Hill. More than 2,500 people have participated in our home-based business workshops since they were first offered in 2003-04. This strong response underlines how keen home-based business operators are to network, improve their knowledge and skills and grow their businesses.

The businesses at the Tamworth workshop reflected the variety of enterprises that can be run from a home base. At the workshop were several IT businesses, honey producers, an export consultant, bed and breakfast operators, a real estate business and even a company that hires out London taxi cabs—strangely, run by a man of Irish descent. In another initiative, the department also provides the HomeBiz kit online at its website as a tailored resource for home-based business operators. In 2006-07, the kit has recorded more than 17,000 hits. I encourage home-based business operators in this State to find out how the department can help them to achieve their business goals.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What steps has the Minister taken to investigate allegations raised in respect of Redeemer Baptist College, North Parramatta, including but not limited to its failure to hold a worker's compensation insurance policy? In particular, given the serious nature of the allegations against the college, has the Minister considered instigating an investigation or proceedings that could lead to deregistration of the school?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member has my roles confused. I am responsible for the workers compensation regulator, WorkCover, and obviously WorkCover has a role in ensuring that all employers have appropriate workers compensation coverage, pay premiums and have relevant and up-to-date policies. I will secure that information for the honourable member as quickly as I can and make it available to the House. Obviously, also, there are responsibilities under the Education Act. The Board of Studies is the agency responsible for making recommendations to the Minister for Education and Training regarding the registration and accreditation of non-government schools. All registered and accredited non-government schools must comply with the requirements of the Act, which include delivery of the New South Wales curriculum, delivery of that curriculum by appropriately qualified staff, the provision of a safe and supportive environment for students and the public disclosure of all relevant school policies.

The Board of Studies completed an investigation into complaints about the school relating to requirements for registration under the Education Act, specifically around these four issues. Based on the evidence available, the board found that the concerns that were raised relevant to the requirements for registration were not substantiated. The New South Wales Ombudsman undertook a review of the matter and found the board had conducted a proper investigative process. I anticipate a supplementary question from Dr John Kaye. I have heard him and other members criticise a range of issues that relate to Redeemer Baptist School and funding and taxation issues. The appropriate authorities will deal with those matters, which at least in one case will be the Australian Taxation Office.

The matters referred to by the member are important and there are relevant provisions in the Education Act about the proceeds of funds from educational activities. The member is well aware of those provisions, as I have discussed them with him on a number of occasions. The Government is committed to a policy of ensuring that for-profit schooling does not occur as part of the New South Wales framework. I will provide the member with further information about the alleged WorkCover breaches as soon as they are available. I am satisfied that the investigation into issues pursuant to the Education Act have been completed and have resulted in a finding that the concerns raised are not substantiated and there is no case to deregister the school.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I ask a supplementary question. I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Training to section 21A of the Education Act.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: That is not a question; it is a statement.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is about to be a question. Has the Minister considered conducting investigations using his powers under section 21A of the Education Act?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I refer Dr John Kaye to my previous answer.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Who provided the funds to finance Getonboard Pty Limited?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That question clearly does not relate to my portfolio area and is out of order. If the Hon. Greg Pearce is interested in this issue, he should check the accounts.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My question relates to the Minister's pecuniary interests. It follows a question I asked and he answered on 31 May 2007 about Getonboard Pty Limited.

The PRESIDENT: Order! What is the point of order?

The Hon. Greg Pearce: My point of order is that the question is in order, as it relates to pecuniary interest.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: To the point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The time has elapsed to debate whether the question is in order. The Minister is now answering the question. The Minister accepts that he will not and should not debate the question, and that he may continue provided his answer is generally relevant to the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I was responding to the point of order. I cannot see how a question about Getonboard Pty Limited relates to my pecuniary interests.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Can the Minister inform the House about changes to licensing for L- and P-plate drivers, which come into effect in July?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for his question and interest in this important matter. Earlier this year I announced a package of reform to improve the safety of young drivers on the road. Last year the New South Wales road toll was a record low since World War II. But defying that trend, fatalities involving P-plate drivers increased by almost 30 per cent. That is why the Iemma Government is introducing a comprehensive package of reforms to the licensing system. From Sunday 1 July new rules for learners and P-plate drivers come into effect. We are restricting the number of peer passengers that first year or red P-platers can carry at night to one passenger under the age of 21. There will be sensible exemptions for P1 drivers who need to carry young passengers for their job, for volunteer work such as the Rural Fire Service and in emergency situations and for those who need to carry young family members.

The reforms also include the introduction of zero tolerance to speeding by first year P-platers, just as we have zero tolerance to P-platers and alcohol. Any first year P-plater who speeds will face a minimum three months suspension. This targeted zero tolerance approach to speeding, which has been suggested and backed by the NRMA, is practical, workable and enforceable. There is also a ban on mobile phone use by first year P­platers—that is, a ban on hands-free, Bluetooth and any other phone use. These reforms are in addition to changes for learner drivers that we announced last year, including a minimum 120 hours of supervised driving practice with 20 hours at night and a minimum of one year on L-plates.

The new licence conditions for learners and P-plate drivers are in line with similar reforms in Queensland, which will also come into effect this weekend. Later this year we will bring in a tougher test for learners that is focused on hazard perception and driver reaction. We want to be fair to young drivers and their families. That is why the Roads and Traffic Authority has carried out an extensive community education campaign and has written to all learner and provisional licence holders in New South Wales. As well as this direct mail-out, there has been extensive press, online information and radio advertising since early June. The Roads and Traffic Authority's motor registries have displayed posters and distributed brochures and the public can obtain information on the authority's website. These are sensible and balanced evidence-based initiatives aimed at saving lives and hopefully reducing the death toll of P-platers on our roads. We must do more to encourage young drivers to drive safely and to understand the dangers of drink driving, drug driving and speeding.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: As the relevant Minister is not in this House, I wish to ask the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice. Is it a fact that the University of Sydney is taking over the Callan Park psychiatric hospital site? Will the University of Sydney use the site for university educational purposes or can it redevelop the site or part of it? What is the Government's financial arrangement with the University of Sydney? Has the university purchased the site? If so, how much has been paid? What future provision has been made for the Callan Park psychiatric patients?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am aware of the issues that relate to the usage and future of the Callan Park site. The current situation is best dealt with by the Minister for Health. I will ask the Minister to provide a detailed answer to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's question. I will provide that answer to him and the House as soon as practicable.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Why has the Minister broken his promise during the March election to build a new security fence at Gymea Bay Public School in the 2007-08 financial year? What was the cost of vandalism at the school over the June long weekend, which resulted in a 30-metre graffiti hit—described by parents and citizens association president Gary Rigney as especially horrendous—along a wall of the newly completed school hall? Given the location of the school, its use as a shortcut between two streets, the ease with which skateboarders and loitering youth can access the property and almost weekly reports of vandalism, does he agree that his failure to build the promised security fence is good news for criminals but bad news for long-suffering staff and students at the school? Will he reconsider his decision to break his word to the people of Gymea Bay and restore funding for a security fence in the 2007-08 financial year?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The first point I make is that I was not the Minister for Education and Training at the time the undertakings the Hon. Catherine Cusack refers to were given. The second relevant point is that, as the honourable member is aware, the Government is proud of its record capital, recurrent and maintenance programs. During this term—and the funding is in this budget, both in the current year and the forward estimates—we will honour every promise that we made in the election campaign, including the one referred to by the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I will ascertain the commitment given by the previous Minister and ensure that I provide a detailed answer to that aspect of the honourable member's question.

The honourable member referred to the outstanding facilities at Gymea Bay Public School. I make the obvious point that the school's facilities are the result of our consistent long-term capital investment in high­quality public schools. I confirm that the Gymea Bay Public School has been included in the Better Schools Program and that it will have a security fence erected. The Government will invest $2 billion over the next four years in schools and TAFE facilities across the State to improve the learning environment for students and teachers.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: When?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Works will occur progressively over the next four years. The Department of Education and Training is in the process of finalising the program of works for this commitment, taking into consideration the funding approvals determined within the State Budget. The department will keep the school informed about the inclusion of the project in the forward program, and its safety and security directorate continues to monitor security trends closely. It will apply the Government's well-established risk­management strategies to help minimise the frequency of any security incidents.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Will the Minister update the House on the latest measures being undertaken to support clean coal technology in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for her timely question. Just this morning I was with the Premier when he welcomed a commitment by the State's coal producers to contribute $400 million from the Coal21 fund to the development of low-emission technology in New South Wales. That is a $400-million commitment that coal producers are voluntarily making available with the aim of ensuring that New South Wales is a world leader in the development of clean coal technology.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Greens might give those developer donations to the fund.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think they are going to adopt clean coal very shortly. Dr John Kaye sees himself as a bit of a gun when it comes to technology. He has an open mind occasionally and I can see the Greens getting right on board. But he has to sort it out with Ms Lee Rhiannon first! The funding will be used over the next 10 years for a range of specific projects at a State level. As stated this morning by Mark O'Neill, the Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association, the commitment of this industry funding would not have taken place without the State Government's active support and interest in low-emission technologies.

Honourable members should make no mistake, the State Government remains committed to reaching its interim target of year 2000 greenhouse gas emission levels by 2025 and a long-term target of 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Schemes like the one announced today will help it to do that. To achieve realistic cuts in greenhouse gases, we need industry support. That is why the Government has welcomed today's announcement. This is about balance. We need to meet the energy needs of New South Wales—to keep the lights on, so to speak—and to protect jobs while at the same time cut greenhouse gas emissions. The coal industry is New South Wales's largest export earner, contributing $6.8 billion to the State's economy. The Cardno Acil report released recently states that the industry supports 67,000 jobs, 13,000 of which involve direct employment in the industry itself. It is also a huge employment generator in this State and supports entire communities in regional areas. That is why the Government will continue to lead the way in investigating new ways to develop clean coal technology.

I recently visited Tokyo and Beijing with a delegation of industry leaders from the coal and energy sectors to examine first hand what our Asian neighbours are doing to reduce greenhouse emissions. Both Japan and China have a number of initiatives aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing the greenhouse impacts from the burning of fossil fuels. In discussions with key Japanese and Chinese government agencies and companies, I was briefed on the clean coal technologies being advanced in those countries. I also had the opportunity to visit a 250-megawatt coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle plant which was recently built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in the Fukushima province and which was commissioned by the major Japanese electricity and energy utilities.

The integrated gasification combined cycle is an environmentally friendly coal-to-power technology that is aimed at higher efficiency than the conventional coal-fired systems. It integrates coal gasification with combined-cycle power generation technology. For example, the Japanese integrated gasification combined cycle plant enables 20 per cent less coal consumption and 20 per cent less carbon dioxide emissions. In China, the Huaneng Group, a power producer based in Beijing, has pulled together a consortium of power and coal interests called GreenGen to build the first Chinese integrated gasification combined cycle demonstration plant. It will be a 250-megawatt plant in Tianjin, which will be commissioned by the end of 2009. [ Time expired.]

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Is the Minister aware that Bakers Creek and 25 kilometres of the Macleay River trunk after the Bakers Creek junction are seriously contaminated with arsenic and antimony from previous mining operations at the Hillgrove site on the New England Tablelands? Will the Minister tell the Parliament what measures have been or are to be put in place at the Hillgrove mine site, now operated by Straits Resources, to ensure that there are no overflows from the tailings dam into Bakers Creek and the Macleay River, especially as a result of intense weather events such as heavy rain? What monitoring and action will the Minister undertake to ensure there is no further contamination from this site? I would be happy to go to the mine with the Treasurer.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is a wonderful offer, and each and every one of us should ensure that it happens! In answer to the question, yes, there has been a high level of precipitation along the coast and in many other areas of New South Wales in recent times. That is a change from the dark days last year when I was getting frequent representations from the member and her associates about the fact that underground mining, or longwall mining, was ruining our streams and creeks and taking away water. At the time I pointed out that I thought the drought had something to do with it.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: This is a serious situation. Answer the question!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will get to it in a second. I assure the member that those streams are now flowing, and flowing well, and mining is still going on.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Macca put his hands down and water started to flow.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am going to hire the Leader of the Opposition as my PR agent; he gets it right every time! And the Hon. David Clarke would be with him! I do not have the capacity to answer this question, and that is a bit of a pity. I will refer it to the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water for an answer. However, I assure the member that the Government will do everything possible to resolve this problem.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, and Minister for Regional Development. Is the Minister aware of the increasing pressures faced by the opal industry in New South Wales, in particular the falling number of miners, the declining ore body, the run down in infrastructure and services in Lightning Ridge and the lack of government funds to promote the industry? Given the economic value of this iconic Australian industry, the number of people directly and indirectly supported by it and the regional development benefits that flow directly to Lightning Ridge, what is the Government doing to assist? In particular, will the Government assist in developing a strategic plan for the industry as a whole?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I certainly have had a long and close association with the opal industry in Lightning Ridge. In fact, I was chairman of the Orana Regional Development Board for a long time during which one of the board members attempted to help value add to the opal industry. As honourable members would be aware, many opals are found in New South Wales, but they are sent overseas for processing and then returned to Australia to be sold. The board member was trying to set up an opal processing industry in New South Wales, and one day I will tell members privately why it did not go ahead. Many people make a living out of opal mining at Lightning Ridge. A story circulated at one stage that there were about 7,000 post boxes in Lightning Ridge but only 300 people on the electoral roll. I take on board what the honourable member has said and will see whether we can assist in some way, because the Lightning Ridge miners have a difficult life and work very hard trying to eke out a living.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister update the House on improvements to the maintenance of schools and TAFE campuses?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No government has spent more on school maintenance. We can put our increased investment in context by quoting the Commonwealth Treasurer. Peter Costello and his colleague Nick Minchin have made the celebrated claim that State governments have wasted revenue by paying nurses, teachers and police too much.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That's why the Treasurer wants the freeze on wages.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I'm not freezing wages. That's rubbish!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I acknowledge the interjections of both the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Treasurer. It is interesting dialogue.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Read the budget!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Catherine Cusack should listen to the Treasurer: he is right. Since Labor came to office, the average salary for a public school teacher has risen by 72 per cent. If Peter Costello is distressed by that, he will be beside himself to learn that our total education and training spending has increased by 87 per cent. And he will be appalled that we have increased school capital works spending by 168 per cent. Spending on school maintenance is up by 189 per cent. So we have almost tripled what our predecessors spent.

New South Wales now spends over $4 million a week on school maintenance, including an extra $30 million a year for four years to accelerate our planned program of works. Our new four-year contracts include preventive and programmed maintenance, and give principals a greater say in the prioritisation of works at a local level. With 2,200 schools, there will always be a program of maintenance. But this Government is spending more than ever before, with $256 million spent in 2007-08 to ensure schools and TAFE colleges are safe and efficient places in which to teach and learn.

We are also providing more than $530 million for capital works to construct and redevelop school facilities and to carry out major enhancements of information and communication technology in schools. We will start 24 new major school building projects this year, on top of the 42 major building works in schools that are already under way. As well, 68 schools will have toilet facilities renovated. The 2007-08 Minor Capital Works Program has an allocation of moe than $300 million for the continuation of air-cooling projects, the upgrading of student and teacher facilities, and the purchase of computers for schools.

Over four years, the Building Better Schools initiative will upgrade science laboratories at 155 schools, enhance food technology facilities at 31 schools, construct 27 school halls, build 17 multipurpose gymnasiums, upgrade 200 toilet facilities, and install security fences at a further 200 schools. So our maintenance spending is up 189 per cent, and our total education and training spending is up 87 per cent. But the Commonwealth is concerned that increasing teacher salaries is wasteful.

The Commonwealth tries to tell us how to run our education system but it does not know the first thing about service delivery. The Commonwealth does not employ a teacher, run a school, or teach a student—or, for that matter, put in place a maintenance program for a single item of capital. But the Commonwealth sure knows how to waste taxpayers' money. Expenditure on the Commonwealth education bureaucracy has increased by a massive 62 per cent since 2001. Not one of these extra bureaucrats teaches in a school or lectures in a TAFE college or university, or is involved with fixing a leaking tap or toilet.

In contrast, 95 per cent of New South Wales Department of Education and Training staff deliver front­line services to schools and TAFE colleges. New South Wales has the most efficient of all Australian government education systems. If families are interested in improving education in New South Wales and getting a bigger share of funding, they need to get rid of John Howard and Peter Costello.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is for the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. Is the Minister aware that visiting United States Professor Tyrone Hayes has condemned Tasmania's drinking water, saying chemical contamination from forestry activities potentially made it dangerous? Can the Minister assure the House that the chemicals simazine, atrazine and hexazinone, which have been banned in the European Union, are not being used in State Forests plantations? What measures are being taken to keep records of the usage of the chemicals on private land, including in agriculture, given their dangerous health affects?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am glad Mr Ian Cohen has an interest in the chemicals atrazine and simazine. I noted his interest in the genetically modified food debate some time ago. One of the advantages of genetically modified canola—not that I am making any statement about it here that should be read into further—is that it is unlike the canola we currently use in this State, which uses massive amounts of both these chemicals to control weeds—which is something I have not heard Mr Ian Cohen complain about in recent times. Yes, we use a range of chemicals, and they are used within the prescribed limits. I do not necessarily accept the evidence in relation to Tasmania.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister explain why the 2006-07 budget for the Kiama ramps was underspent by $2.95 million and whether the failure to utilise these funds for the project contributed to the blow-out in the expected completion date from 2007 to 2008?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am advised that the Kiama access ramps are to be added to the 5.3 kilometre Princes Highway Kiama Bypass, which was opened to traffic on 14 December 1987.

[ Interruption]

I have been practising. Members opposite take their small pyrrhic victories where they can find them, don't they? I am advised that the Kiama ramps project is progressing well. This project is a direct result of the efforts of the local member, Matt Brown, who is a tireless worker for his electorate. Every day he raises important issues relating to his electorate. The Roads and Traffic Authority is working through the planning and environmental processes in line with the appropriate government policies. An amount of $8 million has been allocated to the Kiama ramps in the 2007-08 Roads budget.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister advise the House how the Iemma Government is helping communities affected by natural disasters?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: All members would be aware of the private tragedy and devastation brought about by the recent Hunter Valley floods. Lives were lost, homes were destroyed, and businesses were pushed to breaking point. Besides causing personal loss, natural disasters such as floods and storms wreak havoc on many community facilities. Our parks, reserves, showgrounds and community halls are no exception. That is why the Iemma Government stands behind our communities and ensures that they are not left with the cost of repairing and replacing public assets in the aftermath of storms, floods and bushfires.

This commitment is delivered through the Natural Disaster Relief Scheme, which provides funds to reserve trusts to help them undo the damage caused by these sorts of disasters. Grants are made available to trusts and councils that do not have the financial capacity to meet the cost of restoring public assets from their own resources. A recent example of the scheme in operation is Armidale Showground. I recently announced a grant of more than $1 million to the Armidale Showground Reserve Trust for repairs to the showground following severe hailstorm damage in December last year.

Armidale Showground is a Crown reserve under the care, control and management of the community trust board. The showground is used for annual shows and many other important community events. Following a hailstorm in December 2006 several buildings at the showground were severely damaged. Unfortunately, the often-used exhibition shed was totally destroyed, while other buildings were severely damaged. This damage rendered the trust unable to hold income-generating events and left the community without a special event venue.

Following the trust's application, over $1 million was provided to fund the repairs. The grant will go towards the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the exhibition centre, as well as the restoration of numerous other buildings on the reserve. The funds have been transferred to the trust and repairs will be completed within 12 months. Following the restoration, Armidale will have an upgraded community showground that will be available to host community events as well as income-generating events. In addition to the $1 million, the scheme was provided with a grant of more than $40,000 in total for the Armidale Archery Reserve Trust and the Armidale Racecourse Trust to undertake repairs to the reserves following the storm.

In December last year the Government awarded more than $50,000 to the Junee Shire Council and the Illabo Showground Trust. The money helped to pay for restoration works at the Junee cemetery and the famous Illabo reserves, including the showground, following damage from bushfires earlier in the year. In the past 12 months grants have also been awarded in the Albury, Broken Hill, Dubbo, Wagga Wagga and Parkes areas. These are just some of the examples of how the Natural Disaster Relief Scheme provides tangible benefits to communities affected by flood, storm and fire.

The provision of such funds to our Crown reserve trusts demonstrates once again the Government's commitment to ensuring that our parks, showgrounds and community halls are looked after in times of trouble. The State Plan commits the Iemma Government to increasing public use and enjoyment of our wonderful parks and reserves. The Natural Disaster Relief Scheme and the assistance it provides to the trusts that manage these important community facilities is just another part of our commitment.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, and Minister for Regional Development. When will the Government finalise the floodplain harvesting policy? Will the Minister ensure that the policy will return harvesting to the 1993-94 cap levels and deal with development that is taking environmental water, and will not simply rubberstamp all existing unauthorised works?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As I understand it, this question is not related to my portfolio. I presume Mr Ian Cohen is asking me to answer the question on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water in the other place. I undertake to pass the question on to the Minister and to try to get an answer as quickly as I can.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister explain why the urology and vascular ward at St George Hospital has been without reliable hot water for the past four months, forcing nurses to collect and physically transport warm water from other departments in containers and putting themselves and others at risk of a workplace accident? Will the Minister ensure that WorkCover investigates the issue so that nurses are protected from unnecessary risk?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am not aware of the matters raised in the honourable member's question. I will seek some advice from the Minister for Health in respect to the matters. As I said in my previous answer in respect of WorkCover, it is an independent regulator and if these matters are drawn to its attention it will investigate them.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Could the Minister please update the House on the progress of implementing the National Livestock Identification System for cattle in New South Wales?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his very timely question. I am pleased to say that quite a lot of progress has been made since I last informed the House on this topic. I can report that after the roll-out of the National Livestock Identification System [NLIS] across the State our cattle producers have fully embraced the system. Those opposite—and I do not include the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—criticised us throughout that roll-out period, but despite that criticism the State Government worked alongside the cattle industry to ensure that the system was introduced efficiently and successfully.

Today, more than 111,000 property identification cards have been distributed to property owners in New South Wales and more than 8 million National Livestock Identification System ear tags have been sold in the State. The National Livestock Identification System provides the State's $1.3 billion beef industry and $400 million dairy industry with a robust livestock identification and traceability system that outshines the systems used by our overseas competitors. It is for this reason the Government backed the National Livestock Identification System from the outset, unlike some members opposite who were sceptical of the system.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We were not sceptical of the National Livestock Identification System, we were sceptical of you.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I said before that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not included. He should have been listening; I praised him a few minutes ago. He needs a bit of anger management. He has been like this since he switched from dealing with me to dealing with the Minister for Roads. He has become a little bit more aggro. We will have to talk about this later. We have supported our producers and the cattle industry to the tune of $5.4 million through subsidised National Livestock Identification System equipment, and we have targeted education and training campaigns. All cattle of any age must be fitted with a National Livestock Identification System device before they leave any property in New South Wales.

Since 1 January 2006 all movements of cattle between properties with different identification codes must be notified to the National Livestock Identification System database. I took the opportunity to visit the Orange saleyards recently and had a look at the fully operational National Livestock Identification System. Speaking to Orange saleyards manager, Dan Toohey, I learned that at Orange a 99 per cent-plus success rate was being achieved reading tags, and this is a familiar story across most of New South Wales.

[ Interruption]

We are working on that. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries works hard during the implementation phase to ensure that producers, livestock agents, saleyard operators and processors are well aware of their National Livestock Identification System responsibilities. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries continues to operate a National Livestock Identification System hotline offering direct telephone and email contact for industry participants concerning the National Livestock Identification System and related issues. This service was initiated in 2003 and to date has handled more than 17,000 calls at an average of 500 calls per month.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Eighty thousand are not being read properly.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I said 99 per cent-plus, which is pretty good when we are talking abouteight million transactions.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I said there were 80,000 tags.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is wrong. I said there was a 99 per cent-plus success rate. He should desist; he knows nothing about it. Industry training in the use of the National Livestock Identification System database has been delivered by New South Wales Department of Primary Industries staff to more than 750 participants. Since the mandatory introduction of the National Livestock Identification System in mid-2004, more than 53,000 cattle producers have purchased over eight million devices, and New South Wales has more than 5,900 producers with database accounts advising movements of more than 130,000 cattle per month. I believe the system is a very good one; it is the best in the world and that is why it protects our markets.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that the gazettal of the Pacific Highway for B-double usage is due to expire on 1 August this year? What review process, including a safety audit, has the Government done or commissioned to establish whether it is safe to continue to have B-doubles on those sections of the Pacific Highway still not upgraded to dual carriageway? Given community concerns about mixing B-doubles with local traffic on the yet to be upgraded sections of the Pacific Highway, what assurances can the Minister give that a comprehensive safety review will be carried out prior to the 1 August gazettal renewal?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Mr Ian Cohen asked me the same question previously and I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Does the Minister recall my question earlier today when I asked him if he had been briefed on the Iron Cove Bridge proposal? Is the Minister aware that he failed to tell the House whether he had been briefed? Could the Minister inform the House now whether he had been briefed?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Of course, the Victoria Road upgrade is a major priority of the New South Wales Government and has been for some time. Clearly, with 78,000 vehicles utilising that corridor it is important that we get the upgrade right for both motorists and public transport users. We are going to duplicate the Iron Cove Bridge—that is all in the public arena—and we are committed to that project and progressing it as soon as possible. As to the other parts of the honourable member's question, I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Was the Minister briefed or not?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What is the Iemma Government doing to improve literacy levels for children in New South Wales? Can the Minister provide the House with an example of an innovative and successful program?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Michael Veitch for his question and ongoing interest in literacy and early childhood education. Finding ways to engage students and generate a lifelong love of learning is a challenge in all communities. The Iemma Government is providing $81.6 million over four years for a stronger focus on literacy and numeracy in the early years of schooling. This includes the introduction of a consistent literacy and numeracy assessment to all kindergarten students in public schools to guide their learning, and the appointment of 200 additional reading recovery teachers.

Another plank in improving literacy levels is the Premier's Reading Challenge. So far 1,668 schools have registered in the challenge, with more than 260,000 students taking part. The challenge puts a stronger focus on literacy skills in schools and encourages students to enjoy reading. At the local level our schools all have literacy programs in place. One innovative example is the Dads Home Reading Program in Singleton. The program taps into the relationship between parents and children. Using fathers and male role models, it is designed to foster and support a shared love of reading. It really is a learning program with a deep social foundation. All schools in the Singleton community have worked together in the development of this program. It does this simply by encouraging fathers and guardians to spend a little time each day reading with their sons and their daughters using quality resources provided by the schools. By encouraging positive learning experiences—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You could hire out Mark Latham to do that.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I mentioned positive learning experiences. By encouraging positive learning experiences the program will help enhance the literacy skills learnt at the school level as well as build positive partnerships, both between school and home and within the home. This is a wonderful example of how home and school can work together to improve children's learning. Central to the philosophy of the project is creating a culture of daily reading at home with fathers and male role models. The project has been supported by the generous financial support of Xtrata Coal, which has enabled the purchase of home readers. This means that, together with existing resources, every kindergarten child in the Singleton area will have a range of high-quality, high-interest home readers to read on a daily basis over the year.
In addition, local schools support the program by providing teacher support to develop and run workshops; purchase, stock take and organise readers; and assist with the development of support material that guides conversations around the book being read. These workshops have been designed specifically for the dads of kindergarten children to help them to better support their children's reading.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You could get Eric to do it as well if you want to put them to sleep early.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Charlie Lynn. I believe that my colleague the Minister for Roads does read with his young children, in spite of his very busy schedule. It is a good thing and he is to be commended. Two of the workshops, led by the local principal, have been held with 90 dads already, giving them invaluable tools to help the children read. It is heartening to see so many dads taking such strong and involved interest in their child's learning. Learning and the love of reading are not just the domain of the school; parents and communities all have a role to play. I would like to share with the House the comments of Mrs Lynne Montgomery, Principal of Singleton Public School, who said of this very exciting project:

It has the potential to make a real difference for all children in the Singleton community … not only to their reading and progress at school … but in terms of developing a family and community culture based on the joy of learning.

The OECD recently found that New South Wales students have the second highest levels of literacy in the world, behind only Finland and ahead of the major developed nations. These record results demonstrate the work of our State Literacy Plan 2006-2008. [ Time expired.]

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Earlier in question time Ms Sylvia Hale asked me a question about the membership of the Central Sydney Planning Committee. Now is an appropriate time to reinvigorate the Government membership of the Central Sydney Planning Committee with a number of appointments due to expire. The selection of the new members has regard for the current review by the city of Sydney of its long­term vision document, Sustainable Sydney 2030, as well as the Government's rollout of its Metropolitan Strategy and sub-regional plans. The selection of new members introduces a range of skills in planning, architecture, civic design and building. The new State appointments are consistent with the provisions of the City of Sydney Act 1987 and will begin on 1 July 2007.

The following answer to a question without notice was received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:
On 31 May 2007 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Education and Training a question without notice regarding Seaforth TAFE. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

I am not aware if the Commonwealth Government is interested in operating an Australian Technical College at Seaforth. Despite Ms Bishop's alleged comment, the Commonwealth has not, to date, approached the Department with a proposal to procure the site.

Eight Australian Technical Colleges were identified for NSW by the Howard Government prior to the 2004 election and a ninth was announced in the recent Commonwealth budget. Yet three years later, only four are up and running, catering for about 500 students.

Even if all nine Australian Technical Colleges were eventually to take in their full complement of students, that would be equivalent only to about five per cent of the students that currently access vocational education and training in NSW public schools.

The Commonwealth would be well advised to redirect the $552 million earmarked for Australian Technical Colleges to TAFE NSW and NSW public schools, where the real work is done to reduce the skills shortage facing the Australian economy.

Given that TAFE NSW-Northern Sydney Institute, Northern Beaches College, is operating well within capacity and that enrolments at the College have risen by less than 1 per cent since 2001, there is no reason to reopen the Seaforth site as a training venue.

Questions without notice concluded.

[ The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I inform the House that Her Excellency the Governor has accepted the resignation of the Hon. Joseph Guerino Tripodi, MP, as Minister for Small Business and Regulatory Reform and appointed him as Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Regulatory Reform.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio tabled a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 1 of 2007", dated 27 June 2007.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Hon. Amanda Fazio.

Debate resumed from 20 June 2007.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [2.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate on the report, which has been interesting. Because I muddled a bit at the beginning I very much thank members of the committee for their participation in this inquiry. It was extraordinarily difficult. We were given the reference right at the very end of the sittings last year. All of us felt a long time was needed for an in-depth inquiry, but we all put the effort in to ensure we got everything we could out of it.

Some members perceived that there would be some paranoia by either the New South Wales Government and departments or the Federal Government and departments. That was not reflected in the inquiry or in the recommendations. There was quickly recognition that it was far too early to do an assessment of the effects of the Federal law on New South Wales women, but certainly people had concerns that needed to be considered closely. A major concern raised by several members was that the conciliatory and advisory board structures were set up only in central places, making it particularly difficult for many country women.

I thank people for thinking about the report and for participating in the inquiry. I commend the report to the House but I also recognise that one of the major recommendations we put forward was about processes to ensure that the Federal and State bodies work together, particularly when resources are limited. The idea that structures can be set up outside of the processes that give support to women and families, particularly in country New South Wales, and finding enough support structures for this to be delivered, was difficult to envisage.

A lot of concern was expressed in the evidence in relation to both women and men entering these negotiation processes with no legal advice. This was not about confrontation or things that the Act was to put together. Solicitors and lawyers who spoke with us were very concerned that people would not know the limitations on where they could go or what they could inquire about. That issue needs resolving in some way for the sake of both sides of any partnership that is in some stress. Young people and their families in particular need to understand their rights and legal responsibilities so they can go into negotiation processes equally.

Many concerns were expressed about women subjected to domestic violence, and the definitions necessary to prove that. Women are terrified that if they bring a domestic violence charge and somehow it is not proven they are responsible for that decision. Also, people were concerned that they could be accused of domestic violence. A lot of issues still need to be dealt with. Hopefully, both State and Federal organisations will work through the issue and achieve a positive outcome for the families affected.

I again thank people for participating: they broadened the debate extremely well. Despite some angst, particularly from the Federal Government—the suggestion for holding the inquiry came from the Coalition—we did a good job of bringing together the issues in such a short time. In one or two years, when the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act has been fully implemented, we will be able to see its exact impact.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 20 June 2007.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [2.39 p.m.]: Following on from the comments made by the Hon. Christine Robertson on another report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, I speak on the report on community-based sentencing options for rural and remote areas and disadvantaged populations, in particular, bonds and suspended sentences. Bonds are the most common type of community-based sentence ordered in New South Wales. In particular, supervised bonds were the focus of much discussion among submission makers and witnesses to the inquiry. While bonds are also the most widely available of the community-based sentencing options under review, the committee was advised that in some rural and remote areas supervised bonds are not available due to the lack of Probation and Parole Service staff to provide supervision. The committee recommended that the Department of Corrective Services identify the areas where supervised bonds are not available due to a lack of Probation and Parole Service staff and that steps be taken to extend supervision, or a modified form of supervision, to all areas of New South Wales.

The committee was concerned that where supervised bonds are available in rural and remote areas there is a lack of regular, accessible and appropriate programs and resources to support the rehabilitative purpose of supervised bonds. This undermines the effectiveness of bonds as a sentencing option. The committee has therefore recommended the expansion of the availability and range of programs available to address offending behaviours. The committee has also recommended that the Department of Corrective Services work closely with government and non-government agencies in the disability services field to identify and develop ways to improve support services to assist offenders with an intellectual disability or a mental illness in complying with the conditions of supervised bonds. The committee received considerable evidence criticising the operation of suspended sentences.

The criticisms, which particularly relate to rural and remote areas and Aboriginal offenders, include: the potential for net widening and sentence inflation; the fact that the court cannot partially suspend a sentence or impose a longer period of supervision with a shorter term of imprisonment; a reluctance by offenders to appeal lengthy suspended sentences; the impact of mandatory revocation of a bond when breached; and the requirement that the court must set parole and non-parole periods at the time of sentencing rather than at the time of breach. The committee has made a number of recommendations, including that the Attorney General consider amendments to the legislation relating to suspended sentences to alleviate the impact of these aspects of the operation of suspended sentences. Two further issues concerning the operation of bonds and suspended sentences in rural and remote areas and in relation to offenders from disadvantaged groups were also raised during the inquiry: first, the impact of intensive policing on offenders serving bonds or suspended sentences and, second, the difficulties some offenders have in fully understanding the conditions of a bond. The committee has made recommendations in relation to these issues.

Chapter 6 of the report relates to periodic detention. Periodic detention commenced in New South Wales in 1971. At the time of the inquiry there were 10 periodic detention centres covering the main urban centres on the coastal strip and only three inland centres—at Tamworth, Bathurst and Mannus. The committee is concerned that offenders in many rural and remote parts of New South Wales, who may otherwise be suitable for periodic detention, may be given sentences of full-time imprisonment due to the lack of periodic detention facilities. The committee has recommended that existing correctional centres in rural and remote New South Wales should offer periodic detention beds. The availability of periodic detention is determined not only by the location of periodic detention centres but also by the ability of offenders to consistently travel to the centres. Financial barriers and the lack of public transport can make travelling to periodic detention centres difficult. No single solution can be uniformly applied across the State. However, by tailoring transport solutions to meet the needs of specific locations greater access to periodic detention can be achieved. The committee has recommended that the Minister for Justice examine methods of improving transport for offenders to increase access to periodic detention in rural and remote areas.

The committee has also addressed several other issues relating to the periodic detention scheme. The current legislation does not allow the court to order a periodic detainee to attend therapeutic or educational programs, which undermines the value of periodic detention. The committee has recommended that the Attorney General consider a legislative amendment to give discretion to the courts to order programs designed to reduce the likelihood of recidivism for offenders serving periodic detention. The committee was informed that periodic detainees have their Centrelink payments reduced, which places a financial burden on detainees who nonetheless must maintain a home during their time in detention and incur other expenses. The committee has recommended that the Minister for Justice examine the deduction of Centrelink payments for offenders serving periodic detention, the impact on periodic detainees in rural and remote areas, the extent to which the deductions could render an offender unsuitable for periodic detention and whether an exemption should be sought.

A person who has previously served more than six months full-time imprisonment is not eligible for periodic detention. This exclusion disproportionately affects Aboriginal offenders, who are more likely to have significant criminal histories than non-Aboriginal offenders, and it fails to recognise possibly lengthy periods of rehabilitation. The committee has recommended that the Attorney General examine this issue with a view to introducing a time limit on previous offences and enabling an offender's record of compliance with previous orders of the court to be taken into account. In rural and remote New South Wales only four periodic detention centres cater for female offenders, and the number of female periodic detainees is low. It is not clear why the existing female periodic detention places are underutilised. It may be that the barriers that restrict access for offenders in rural and remote areas generally are further compounded by carer responsibilities for female offenders. The committee has recommended that the Department of Corrective Services examine the reasons why female participation in periodic detention remains low and identify measures that could be taken to increase their participation.

Home detention is dealt with in chapter 8 of the report. Home detention has been available in New South Wales since a trial program was introduced in 1992, but it is only available in Sydney and the Central Coast, Hunter and Illawarra areas. The evidence presented to the committee reflects general support for home detention and for its expansion. Home detention has considerable success in terms of rehabilitation and recidivism, with a recidivism rate of approximately 12 per cent as compared with the overall rate of reoffending among all prisoners, which is over 50 per cent. The lack of availability of home detention in many parts of New South Wales places offenders from those areas at a serious disadvantage compared with their metropolitan counterparts. It is inequitable that an offender should be more likely to be sent to jail because of his or her geographical location. The committee has therefore recommended that the Government, as a matter of priority, extend the availability of home detention to as many areas of New South Wales as possible.

The committee considered several issues relating to the availability and accessibility of home detention for disadvantaged groups. The committee was advised that home detention may not be suitable for some Aboriginal offenders in rural and remote areas because detainees must stay within the home, whereas Aboriginal people have a cultural preference to congregate together, often outdoors. The committee has recommended that the Department of Corrective Services examine ways of accommodating the cultural differences of Aboriginal offenders to provide greater access to home detention as an alternative to jail. Offenders who are convicted of certain offences or who have past convictions for certain offences are not eligible for home detention. This exclusion is a particular barrier for Aboriginal offenders due to the high conviction rate within the Aboriginal community. The committee has recommended that the department undertake an examination of the eligibility criteria for home detention to determine the extent to which the criteria unfairly limits the availability of home detention for Aboriginal offenders and whether the criteria should be modified.

In order to be eligible for home detention an offender must have a stable residence. The committee was advised that this requirement effectively excludes many disadvantaged offenders from home detention. The committee has recommended that the department examine the provision of assistance to disadvantaged offenders to enable them to meet this criterion. The committee received considerable evidence relating to the difficulties faced by offenders with mental health issues or intellectual disabilities in relation to home detention. These offenders, who would derive great benefit from home detention rather than jail, appear to be the least likely offenders to be considered suitable. The committee has recommended that the department examine ways in which offenders with mental health issues or intellectual disabilities can be supported adequately to enable them to be considered for home detention. Concern was expressed about the impact of the lack of home detention in rural and remote areas on female offenders. Home detention has particular benefits for female offenders and their families, particularly pregnant women or women with carer responsibilities. The committee has recommended that the department examine the uptake of home detention by female offenders with a view to establishing the level of demand and ways to overcome the barriers.

Two months after the committee received the terms of reference for the inquiry into community-based sentencing it received terms of reference to examine the possible introduction of a back-end home detention scheme in New South Wales. Through back-end home detention offenders can serve the last portion of their sentence in their home after having first served part of their term in jail. In conducting the two inquiries concurrently, it became clear that both terms of reference raised similar issues. Most inquiry participants expressed support for back-end home detention. Submissions highlighted that back-end home detention enables offenders to re-establish family and community links and seek employment. The committee considered whether back-end home detention conflicts with the principle of truth in sentencing and concluded that concerns about this principle could be overcome by the manner in which a back-end scheme operates. Back-end home detention has both benefits and disadvantages. Home detention, whether back-end or front-end, is not a suitable or preferable option for all offenders. The committee has not attempted to define how such a scheme should operate in all respects. This task would involve considerable discussion and research, which would best be undertaken by the Minister for Justice and the Department of Corrective Services. The committee has recommended that a pilot scheme involving a small number of offenders should be conducted.

During the inquiry many other issues that relate to community-based sentencing were raised. Several stood out for further consideration. Circle sentencing is an alternative sentencing court for adult Aboriginal offenders and takes the sentencing process out of the court setting and into the community. The Drug Court provides an opportunity for adult offenders with substance abuse problems to be diverted into treatment rather than imprisonment. The committee received a great deal of evidence on the relationship between the penalties for unpaid fines and mandatory disqualification of drivers' licences. In conclusion, the committee has considered the excellent work being undertaking by individuals and organisations across the State, including the Probation and Parole Service, the judiciary and community groups, to implement government policy in relation to community-based sentencing. It is essential, however, that equity of access to community-based sentencing is improved where practical. The committee's recommendations are extensive and represent the diversity of information received during its inquiry. The recommendations should be considered as a whole rather than in isolation. Many of the issues it addresses are interlinked. [ Time expired.]

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.49 p.m.]: I will speak briefly to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice report on community-based sentencing options for rural and remote areas and disadvantaged populations. I was the deputy chair of the committee when the inquiry commenced, but unfortunately I had to leave the committee in September 2005 before the inquiry concluded, before the report was written and before the recommendations were determined. Given that I was not party to the final hearings or the deliberations on the recommendations, it is not appropriate for me to comment directly on them. However, I do want to reinforce the point that other honourable members have made that this is a good example of how the committee system in this House can work to examine problems that, to a large extent, are almost intractable, and achieve important outcomes.

During the inquiry the committee members saw circumstances and conditions experienced by some of our fellow citizens, particularly in rural and remote areas, that were completely unsatisfactory. In digressing for a moment, I applaud the Prime Minister's initiative to deal with problems in outback communities. All honourable members are aware of those initiatives. The inquiry into community-based sentencing options for rural and remote areas and disadvantaged populations was referred to the committee by the Attorney General, and the inquiry commenced in about January 2005. The committee took a serious and thorough approach to dealing with the issues referred to it. A total of 60 submissions were lodged and five days of public hearings were held in Parliament House, at which 46 witnesses gave evidence. I was present at some of those hearings.

I found most compelling the visits that the committee made to a number of towns in rural and remote New South Wales to gather further information and to facilitate participation by people from the areas that were the focus of the inquiry. The committee visited and held public hearings involving local witnesses in Burke, Brewarrina, Griffith, Inverell and Bega. It also conducted public forums at which indigenous people gave of themselves to participate. Given the problems identified, they were particularly enlightening and concerning.

The committee also undertook a site visit to the Yetta Dhinnakkal Centre at Brewarrina. The circumstances of our getting there were a little unusual in that we were short of members and we had to exercise a bit of ingenious restructuring to enable a subcommittee to participate. However, it was a fascinating visit. While we are often critical of the Department of Corrective Services, we should be proud of the work being done at that centre and the encouragement being given to the people there.

It was a very interesting visit and I do not think I will ever forget attending the welcoming ceremony and having a spear placed into the ground between my legs. It was a surprise, but it was very good to participate with the boys in their cultural performance and in the discussions that we had afterwards. Like a couple of other committee members, I had the opportunity to purchase an original work of art done by one of the young men at the facility and to see the talent they have when given the right encouragement.

After I left the committee it went to Victoria and had discussions with Corrections Victoria. Again, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment directly on those discussions. However, the work done by the committee focusing on the four primary community-based sentencing options available in New South Wales—community service orders, bonds and suspended sentences, in particular, periodic detention and home detention—is well worth reading. The report contains a comprehensive discussion of each of those options. It points out some of the difficulties that other honourable members have mentioned about making community­based sentencing options available to people, particularly indigenous people, in rural and remote areas.

The issues we heard about and discussed included the intractable problem of young men who lose their licence and cannot work, who cannot get a new licence and who then get trapped in a cycle of further offending because they drive without a licence. We should not be proud of some of those issues and should make a major effort to overcome them.

The committee undertook an analysis of the availability of community-based sentencing options in rural and remote areas. Again, I commend the report to honourable members, particularly the examination of the issues relating to disadvantaged offenders and the availability of, and their ability to access, community-based sentencing options. As another honourable member mentioned, the report also includes an examination of whether it is in the public interest to introduce a back-end home detention scheme in New South Wales.

As I said earlier, the list of witnesses and submissions is important as it demonstrates the level of interest in the community in dealing with the issues on which the report focused. However, the unusual aspect of the report and the way the inquiry was undertaken is the extensive use of public meetings and fora. That was an important way to elicit information from and participation on the part of indigenous people. I again thank them for the effort they made to participate in those fora in the various rural and country areas the committee visited. The fact that the committee was prepared to undertake unusual methods to obtain information is something on which the Chair and other committee members should be complimented.

Unless we are really forgetful, we always thank the committee secretariat for their efforts. In this case they need an extra special thank you. The issues being addressed were complex, though not as complex as in some other cases. However, the logistics involved in this inquiry—particularly the visits to Bourke, Griffith, Inverell, Bega and Brewarrina—were well organised. But, most importantly, the staff—Rachel Callinan, Rachel Simpson, Pauline Cavenagh, Rebecca Main, Michelle Batterham, Annie Marshall and Dora Oravecz—ensured that the members of the community who not only gave evidence but also took part in the fora and other meetings were made to feel comfortable and able to participate in what could otherwise have been seen as a very formal event. I again compliment the other committee members and the staff on their work, and I thank the people who lodged submissions and participated in the inquiry.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [2.59 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Government acknowledges the report's strong support for community-based sentencing as a means of both punishment and rehabilitation for appropriate offenders. The Government also acknowledges that overwhelming support was expressed by a broad cross-section of inquiry participants for expanding community-based sentences throughout New South Wales. I commend to members the Government's response to the committee's report.

During the debate honourable members echoed concerns in the committee's report relating to the availability of community-based sentencing options in rural and remote areas. A range of community sentencing options are currently available and successfully used throughout country New South Wales, including supervised bonds, community service orders, and periodic detention. In fact, a study jointly published by the Judicial Commission and the Department of Corrective Services found that 85.3 per cent of orders supervised by country community offender services district offices were successfully completed, compared with 83.7 per cent of orders supervised by metropolitan district offices.

The Government is building on this success and, as is recommended throughout the committee's report, is working to dedicate more resources towards expanding community-based sentencing programs in country New South Wales. In 2005 the Commissioner of Corrective Services approved the creation of 39 additional community offender services positions in district offices, most of which were in regional New South Wales. They included additional probation and parole officer and liaison officer positions at Bathurst, Cessnock, Dubbo, Grafton, Kempsey, Muswellbrook, Orange, Wollongong, Junee, Glen Innes, Narrabri, Bateman's Bay, Young, Wyong and Tamworth; five new psychologists at Grafton, Wagga Wagga, Bateman's Bay, Tamworth and Orange; and additional clerical support at Newcastle, Glen Innes, Armidale, Gunnedah, Narrabri, Inverell, Batemans Bay, Bega, Lithgow, Tumut, Deniliquin, and Griffith.

The commissioner has also approved additional resources, including satellite telephones, computers, printers and motor vehicles. Interestingly, one of the issues raised in a submission from probation and parole officers was that the workers felt they did not have the facilities or equipment to deliver their job on the ground. Fortunately, this aspect has been addressed in a timely manner. The report notes the need to provide transport to work placements for offenders in rural and remote areas. These new resources include a bus for periodic detainees to travel between Batemans Bay and the Wollongong Periodic Detention Centre. The department is also investigating arrangements for the shared use of transport vehicles belonging to other agencies, such as local councils and organisations running community development employment projects. That is an exciting outcome from the committee's recommendations.

The committee made a number of recommendations relating to the need to increase the number of community service order work placements in rural and remote areas. As the report notes, the availability of such work placements often depends on whether there are suitable work projects in a community. As recommended in the report, the Government is encouraging organisations in rural and remote areas to participate in the community service order scheme to expand the availability of work projects. Councils are being offered a generous opportunity to come on board through the Department of Corrective Services' push to create new opportunities for community service work placements using the work gang approach, including the trialling of mobile work gangs.

Community offender services district managers also regularly liaise with local community organisations such as Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Apex Clubs and Chambers of Commerce to attract community agencies to the community service scheme. The Government is also acting on the report's recommendations to increase the involvement of private business in the community service order scheme. Corrective Services Industries, an organised unit of the Department of Corrective Services, currently works with Australian Business Limited and Unions New South Wales through the Correctional Industries Consultative Council to provide employment opportunities for prisoners upon their release from jail. The Government's support for increasing the involvement of private business in the community service orders scheme would extend this work into community-based initiatives.

The committee also recommended the extension of pilot programs, such as the Linking Together Program, to increase access to community service orders in rural and remote areas. The Linking Together Program was a trial established to address the issue of service delivery to remote areas where community service order staff do not have a regular presence. A local community member was employed on a casual basis as a conduit between the community and the department, based on a successful model trialled at Toomelah, an Aboriginal community north of Moree.

This and other pilot projects have shown that the success of community service work placements depends to a very large degree on having suitable persons with the capacity to provide supervision of work projects and the capacity to operate objectively within their community. Each community is different, and not all communities can provide suitable supervisors. Nevertheless, the Government is supportive of recommendations to extend these pilot programs.

Honourable members also referred to the interaction of indigenous people with the justice system. The New South Wales Government has a range of initiatives to address Aboriginal over-representation in the criminal justice system, some of which are referred to favourably in the committee's report. They include circle sentencing, community managed outstations, community justice groups, community patrols, and a dedicated Aboriginal justice plan. These initiatives are important elements in achieving the New South Wales Government's State Plan commitments to reducing crime rates and re-offending, strengthening Aboriginal communities and improving the outcomes for Aboriginal people, and embedding prevention and early intervention into government services. I am pleased to note that the Nowra Circle Sentencing Program received a National Crime and Violence Prevention Award in November 2005. The former Federal Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, presented the award in Canberra.

The committee gave extensive and careful consideration to home detention, particularly back-end home detention. The committee made a number of recommendations relating to improving the availability of, and access to, home detention for particular groups of offenders, including offenders in areas in which home detention is not currently offered, offenders in rural and remote areas, Aboriginal offenders, female offenders, and offenders with particular needs. We also made significant recommendations on back-end home detention, including running a pilot scheme, which would then be evaluated to determine the most effective model.

One of the aspects of chairing this inquiry that I found rewarding was that members from all parties worked together to come up with these carefully considered recommendations. I would like to acknowledge the comments made during the debate by the Hon. David Clarke. He said:

The committee has produced recommendations that are sensible and achievable. These recommendations were made after extensive and considered investigation and research by the committee.

I also acknowledge the comments of the Hon. Greg Pearce. Like all the other committee members, he made an extremely valuable contribution to this incredibly difficult inquiry. I note the Government's responses on these points and that it has acknowledged the "valuable contribution" the committee's report makes. We will follow with careful interest the progress and review of community custody, stage 3 of the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre Bill, which effectively constitutes a back-end home detention scheme. With regard to sentencing options for people with disabilities, I urge members to read the committee's report.

During the debate the Hon. Michael Veitch drew the House's attention to recommendations in the report relating to the treatment of people with disabilities, particularly those with an intellectual disability. The Government is mindful of responding to the needs of offenders with intellectual disabilities and mental health issues in community-based sentencing. The Department of Corrective Services provides community offender services staff with integrated training with regard to the management of intellectually disabled offenders as part of normal training. This includes providing new community service order trainees with two days training on mental health first aid, on disorders such as depression, anxiety disorders, psychosis, and on substance abuse.

The committee's report contains a recommendation concerning the provision of supported accommodation to offenders to enable them to be considered for home detention. As the report notes, intellectually disabled offenders are typically unable to access home detention due to a lack of a suitable home and lack of support to assist them to comply with the conditions of home detention. The provision of supported accommodation for such offenders will require a multi-agency approach involving the Department of Health, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and the Department of Corrective Services.

The committee heard a good deal of evidence about specific programs to assist offenders to rehabilitate themselves, and about the kinds of sentencing that do not allow offenders to access those programs. The report contains recommendations about this aspect. The Government has a range of strategies to reduce re-offending behaviour, including drug and alcohol programs, work and education programs, anger management courses, and psychological programs to treat sex offenders and violent offenders. Country areas have experienced problems with gaining access to the programs because of the low level of professionals in these areas, but certainly the Government is working hard to provide access to the programs for people who need it.

New South Wales is tougher than other States on repeat offenders. For example, we have tougher bail laws to crack down on repeat offenders and increased powers for police. In no way does the Government's endorsement of the committee's report contradict the community's tough-on-crime attitude, and nor did the committee hear evidence putting forward such an argument.

Disadvantaged populations most definitely should have the same access and in its answer to this House the New South Wales Government has pointed out that that is exactly what is happening. There have been changes in the State Parole Authority in relation to the control of recidivism and there have been major changes also in the support of people serving community-based sentences. The Committee and the Government are doing a good job and I thank everyone for their contributions in this debate.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 19 June 2007.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [3.10 p.m.]: I note at the outset that it is a little odd that I am speaking to this important New South Wales budget that was delivered recently by the Treasurer, given that the shadow Treasurer has not had the opportunity to give his budget reply speech. I look forward to hearing that in due course. I congratulate the Treasurer on yet another budget celebrating victory of spin over substance, another budget that demonstrates his masterful sleight of hand, another budget that demonstrates his wonderful self-indulgent and self-congratulatory approach to economic management in this State.

Let us briefly consider some of the headline figures. The Treasurer trumpeted a budget surplus of $444 million, and that looks good at first blush. However, that surplus is on the back of an accrued $401 million stamp duty assessment in respect of the sale of Sydney airport in 2003 Let us briefly consider some of the headline figures. The Treasurer trumpeted a budget surplus of $444 million, and that looks good at first blush. However, that surplus is on the back of an accrued $401 million stamp duty assessment in respect of the sale of Sydney airport in 2003—an assessment that is being hotly disputed by the Federal Government. The reality is that this trumpeted surplus is just that—trumped up. On close examination it simply vanishes into thin air, leaving us with, at best, a break-even budget. When one throws in the rubbery wages growth figures that even the unions claim are patently misleading and unrealistic, the real picture of this budget is simply another Labor deficit. Only this Treasurer could turn a budget deficit into a budget surplus and claim the credit—a masterful sleight of hand indeed.

It should be noted that this poor New South Wales fiscal position, particularly relative to other States, is occurring under the brightest economic conditions, which are, of course, thanks to the responsible economic management of the Howard Government. The Labor Government has been, and continues to be, the unwitting recipient of windfall revenue from strong economic conditions. This has translated into strong growth in State revenues, but, sadly, it has failed to translate into strong economic growth, with New South Wales still the laggard of the mainland States.

This significant State revenue growth includes an estimated $17.625 million from the Commonwealth out of total State budgeted revenue of $37 billion in 2006-07. This means that in 2006-07 about 47.6 per cent of State revenue will come from the Commonwealth. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this year Commonwealth Budget Paper No. 3 estimated that New South Wales would receive $162 million more from the GST than it would otherwise have received under the former Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. This windfall gain is estimated to grow to $631 million in 2007-08, $970 million in 2008-09, and $1.1 billion in 2009-10.

We do not hear the New South Wales Treasurer talking about windfall gains from the Commonwealth—quite the opposite. What we continually hear from the Treasurer is a simplistic assertion that the Commonwealth should pay all the GST collected from New South Wales back to New South Wales. That is deliberately misleading and fails to acknowledge the historical basis upon which these payments have been made through the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Indeed, New South Wales now has a share in a growth tax that will continue to fund services and infrastructure in our State. The introduction of the GST was a great deal for New South Wales and continues to be so.

What we need is a government prepared to invest in the future of this State; a government that is willing to take responsibility for its own actions and inactions, instead of seeking to blame the Commonwealth Government or anybody else it can for consistently failing to perform. Despite the rivers of gold that have flowed into the New South Wales Treasury coffers from the GST, the Commonwealth grants and the property boom, we are still expecting only a break-even budget this financial year. Where has the money gone? I wonder if we will ever know. Where it should have gone is into the provision of world-class services and infrastructure for the people of New South Wales. Alas, we continue to see second-class service delivery in our hospitals, we continue to see a massive maintenance backlogs in our schools, and our key infrastructure continues to crumble.

The budget seeks to address this appalling situation at last. It plays catch-up for all the years of neglect by promising to commit to $12.5 billion for capital works in 2007-08 and nearly $50 billion over the next four years. It is about time, but can we really trust this Government to get the job done? Like most things, the best indicator of future delivery is, of course, this Government's past record of delivery. Labor has consistently failed to deliver infrastructure projects on budget and on time, or even at all, despite promises to the contrary. I instance The Spit Bridge, the Lane Cove Tunnel, the Cross City tunnel, and the list goes on and on. How can we believe the Government will deliver on future occasions?

Also, the competition for skills critical to the construction of major infrastructure from both the private sector and other State governments will put pressure on project timelines and cost estimates. Indeed, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia highlighted this problem last year and pointed to the likelihood that the skills shortage would result in the delay of State infrastructure projects. The Government is trumpeting its record infrastructure spending but we cannot get enough money for essentials such as school maintenance or enough money to fix the toilets or install air-conditioning at many of our schools. The list goes on and on.

In contrast, we have a Government that is committed to a desalination plant that the public does not want or need. Currently, the Sydney Catchment Authority has recorded levels of more than 50 per cent in the catchment areas around Sydney, yet the Government refuses to abandon the desalination project and is looking to waste well over $1.5 billion—money that could be better spent on key infrastructure and services Sydney is crying out for. The Government would certainly be better placed by investing that sort of money in recycling and stormwater harvesting, particularly in water tanks, as proposed by the Coalition. But, no, we get a desalination plant whether we like it or not.

Not only are there challenges to infrastructure delivery, there are serious challenges to micro-economic reform for the Government. One of those challenges is in relation to the retail electricity assets held by the Government. As the Leader of the Opposition in the other place pointed out in his budget reply, the Coalition will look to sell these retail electricity assets, given the diminution in their value that will occur over time as a direct result of competition from the private sector. Over time we will see private sector competitors such as Origin Energy and AGL taking clients from the retail sector held by the Government and, as a result, reducing the value of those assets.

The Coalition thinks the best thing to do in these circumstances is to sell those assets and avoid the diminution in value, and by doing so realise those assets for more important priority infrastructure projects that this State needs. With $4 billion expected from the sale of those electricity assets, I welcome a promise by the Coalition to put that money into the establishment of a State infrastructure fund. Indeed, $2 billion of that $4 billion has been earmarked for renewal of the State's public schools. That is certainly investing in our future.

The people of New South Wales well know that Labor really means economic incompetence while the Coalition stands for economic security. Treasurer Costa demonstrated this beautifully when, soon after delivering last year's budget, he responded to the following question put to him by Steve Price, "Treasurer, we have the highest unemployment rate, the lowest growth rate and we're the highest taxed State in the Commonwealth. They're all facts, aren't they?" by saying, "But they are facts that have little significance. They have little significance in economic terms."

I wonder what does have significance in economic terms. Perhaps it is the $1 billion that the Government has spent on political advertising over the past 12 years, or the $1 billion it has spent on consultants. Perhaps it is the millions of dollars more it has wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy, including the poor lost souls on the Government's unattached list. I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that billions of the $400 billion-plus revenue over the last 12 years has been wasted. The rivers of gold into the New South Wales Treasury have been wasted. There has been a failure to invest in essential infrastructure and services. This Government has betrayed the people of New South Wales on these important fronts. The budget holds out false hope that the Government can fix the problems of its own making. Time will tell.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.20 p.m.]: This budget is sold on the basis of the surplus that it produces. It is important to understand that the surplus is purely a financial surplus and underlying that financial surplus are two crucial deficits that will play out in New South Wales and this nation in a way that will create huge and untold damage for the present generation and future generations. The first of those deficits relates to services. In particular, adequate funds were not provided to ensure quality service provision to education and the Aboriginal community. The second deficit relates to the response to climate change. There is no doubt that this budget had the fingerprints of one of New South Wales's leading climate change sceptics all over it.

Premier Morris Iemma says he is committed to tackling dangerous climate change but if he is genuine, he has been thoroughly and profoundly undermined by a Treasurer who boasts of his credentials as a climate denier and climate sceptic. This budget was truly a victory for Treasurer Michael Costa and the so-called browns within his Cabinet, who have successfully subverted any efforts to seriously address global warming. The flagship of this Government's response to climate change in this budget was the so-called Climate Change Fund. Indeed, the fund was about climate change but a component of it was directed towards water, which can only be seen as an adaptation measure, not a mitigation issue.

By a trick that is incredibly popular in money media spin, the annual amount was multiplied by four, and we were told that the fund was a four-year fund. In reality only $77 million per annum will be allocated towards climate change, and that is substantially less than the land tax cuts of $117 million per annum delivered to some of the wealthiest landowners in New South Wales. It is a measure of the Government's absence of commitment to address climate change in this budget that it was able to spend more money on land tax cuts than on the Climate Change Fund. Indeed, not all funds will go towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

To add insult to injury—or dare I say, add salt to the wound—on the day that the budget was delivered, when it was raining heavily in New South Wales, the Government announced the construction of a desalinisation plant. Not the desalination plant we have to have but a desalinisation plant we actually do not have to have; a desalination plant that is unnecessary, dangerous and expensive. The Government has attempted to convince the people that it has sound economic management credentials yet it is investing in a $1.76 billion white elephant, which is not a cost-effective option compared to the other available water supply technologies.

Debate has emerged from the budget about the sale of electricity retailers. Over the next three months as the Owens inquiry brings down its findings much more will be said about this. However, I flag now, on behalf of the Greens, our complete and total opposition to the sale of electricity retailers. Not only is it bad news for employment and the total net wealth of the people of New South Wales but it is extremely bad news for any efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity retailing works best when there is a partnership between consumers and retailers—a partnership based on reducing total consumption. However, with a privately owned retailer, particularly a privately owned retailer that may be owned by a large electricity generator, there will be no incentive for the retailer to work with the consumer to reduce total electricity consumption. Selling the retailers will be a major step backwards in our efforts to reduce total electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Many comments that members might wish to make about the budget cannot be said because the Government, using the flimsiest of excuses, withheld some of the most important data that has traditionally been published with budgets: data that breaks down expenditure into individual program areas. The consequence is that debate about individual spending on programs—for example how much we are spending on maintenance in public education or new electricity infrastructure—are at the mercy of media releases of the Minister. We will have to wait two to three months to obtain that information. There is no way that one can seriously critique the budget without knowing where the dollars are going. That is the nature of the budget. The people of New South Wales have been denied that information because of the flimsiest of excuses: the Government is reorganising government departments and cannot provide the information. It makes one wonder what is going on in New South Wales Inc. when the so-called managers of the economy cannot tell us what has been spent and what is about to be spent on individual programs.

One aspect of the budget that the Greens welcome, however, is increased spending on infrastructure. We have argued for this for a long time. However, there is infrastructure and there is infrastructure. The desalination plant is not worthwhile infrastructure. There are some examples of worthwhile infrastructure in the budget. The problem remains that too much of the infrastructure expenditure is being handed over to public­private partnerships. The experience of the Cross City Tunnel, public-private partnership schools in the United Kingdom and in Canada, and public-private partnership water provision around the world demonstrates that there are real and profound medium- and long-term issues associated with the delivery of infrastructure for profit. Time and time again people are the real losers when it comes to profit motive being introduced into the delivery of infrastructure.

The budget was also bad news for Aboriginal people. At a time when Australians should not cut funding to Aboriginal people we witnessed a major cut in the New South Wales budget in this regard. Underlying this was the failure of the Iemma Government to fund the 88 "Breaking the Silence" recommendations, which if implemented would have significantly gone to the heart of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal community. Marcia Ella-Duncan, in consultation with Aboriginal communities around New South Wales, developed those recommendations. It would have cost a mere $20 million to $40 million per annum to implement recommendations that would have put New South Wales at the forefront of those States seeking to address the blight of child sexual abuse and other abuse in society. However, the victory of the spreadsheet, of the bottom line, of the triple-A rating and of Standard and Poor's over the humanitarian outcomes we could have had in this budget is writ large in the absence of money for child sexual abuse in indigenous communities in New South Wales.

The budget failed to deliver on services to public schools and technical and further education colleges. The Minister touted his increased funding to our public education system, but when we take into account inflation, rising teachers salaries—and of course they should rise because teachers are grotesquely underpaid—and massive cost increases in education, it becomes obvious that no increase has been delivered at all. In 2006 the Auditor-General identified a maintenance backlog of, from memory, $115 million. There was no new money in the budget to address that backlog. For too long students in public education and in TAFE colleges in New South Wales have had to undertake the exciting experience of education in a second rate environment. It is high time the Government dropped its fetish with triple-A ratings and budget surpluses and invested in saving our future climate and invested in public education. [ Time expired.]

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.30 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak on this year's New South Wales budget, which delivers improved and expanded services for families in Western Sydney. It delivers on the Iemma Government's commitments to the people of Western Sydney. Western Sydney is a great place to live and the Government is working hard to make it even better, with more than $2.16 billion being spent on vital health services, education, roads and transport. That constitutes a massive boost to services and infrastructure in Western Sydney—a jump of $143 million over the previous year. That means better schools, transport, roads, hospitals and policing for the people of Western Sydney. It ensures Western Sydney gets its fair share.

This budget unashamedly backs Western Sydney through improved services for the region and record amounts of infrastructure spending, and it delivers on our commitments. It provides support and relief for hardworking families in Western Sydney who are doing it tough in the face of spiralling fuel prices and rising interest rates. Most of all, it confirms Labor's long and strong record of economic management. A strong economy is crucial for the future prosperity of families in Western Sydney. A strong economy equals more jobs, and that equals prosperity and opportunity for people in Western Sydney and for Western Sydney as a whole.

This budget is not the result of luck. It is the result of hard work and discipline. Labor should rightly be associated with responsible economic management. Our record says this. Record spending on infrastructure says this. Eleven budget surpluses say this. Labor and good economic management go hand-in-hand, and that is helping to secure Western Sydney's future.

[ Interruption]

The Western Sydney region covers a vast area. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, who is interjecting, probably does not know where it is, but for those of us who call it home, Western Sydney is a vast area covering 5,773 square kilometres with a population in excess of 1.5 million at the time of the 2001 census. No doubt the latest census figures, which are to be released in the near future, will show the region's population has grown significantly. That is why the Iemma Government is driving improvements to road infrastructure, traffic flow and road safety for the region.

A comprehensive $335 million funding package will allow major projects to move forward in Western Sydney. An amount of $15 million has been made available to complete the construction of the Windsor Road flood evacuation route over South Creek, thereby helping to reduce traffic congestion and allowing a safer journey for motorists; $40 million has been allocated to complete the construction of the North West Transitway between Blacktown and Parklea; more than $50 million will be provided this year to continue the widening of the Great Western Highway through to the Blue Mountains; $4 million has been allocated this year to undertake planning and pre-construction for the project to widen Camden Valley Way to four lanes between Cowpasture Road and Bernara Road; $3 million has been allocated for the Narellan Road extension, from Camden Valley Way to The Northern Road; and an amount of $12 million is available to widen Hoxton Park Road.

The Iemma Government continues to drive improvements to health services in Western Sydney, because families deserve the very best in health care. This budget delivers on the Government's commitments to providing a top-class health system, additional beds, continued redevelopment of hospitals and improved mental health services. People in Sydney's West will benefit from an allocation of $1.25 million to expand the award­winning mental health Housing Accommodation Support Initiative. I am sure other members will agree improvements in the provision of mental health services is most important, and I am most pleased about that expansion. The people of Sydney's west will also benefit from an allocation of $2.4 million to upgrade and enhance a range of medical imaging and patient monitoring equipment at Nepean Hospital, which I had the opportunity to attend with my grandchildren; and $18.4 million to complete redevelopment of Westmead Hospital, including refurbishment of the renal unit and Women's Health and Newborn Care Centre, which is very important in an area of high population growth.

In Mental Health $2.2 million has been made available to improve psychiatric emergency care centres at Blacktown and Nepean hospitals; $5.3 million has been allocated to refurbish cancer wards at Westmead Hospital and enhance the very important breast screening services; $3 million is provided to develop ambulance stations at Liverpool and Auburn; and a central medical imaging hub will be established at Liverpool Hospital, as part of a $62.9 million four-year program to upgrade medical imaging services across the New South Wales public hospital system.

In policing, Western Sydney is a big winner, with an $11.2 million investment in building safer communities through upgrades to Fairfield, St Marys, Windsor, Granville and Camden police stations. The people of Camden, Penrith, Hawkesbury and Liverpool will also be pleased to know they will benefit from funding for mobile police stations to be based in their communities. The feedback I have gained from local area commanders is that the mobile police stations provide great opportunities for community policing and are most welcome by both police and the community.

In education, the Iemma Government is working to provide opportunities for the people of Western Sydney. Funding will be invested in literacy and numeracy, vocational training, school maintenance projects and school security in Western Sydney. Included also will be upgrades to TAFE facilities at Lidcombe, Katoomba, Macquarie Fields, Bankstown, Granville, Castle Hill, Richmond and Narimba. There will be upgrades also at a number of schools: Hazelbrook, Minto, Busby West, Liverpool Girls, Marsden Road, Eastern Creek, Casula, Rosehill, Westmead, Birrong—a school that I and my children attended—Lidcombe, Carlingford West, Marayong, Hobartville, Penrith and the Hills Sports High School.

A good transport system is crucial for families in Western Sydney, and we are working hard to provide a comfortable, reliable service for passengers in the region. As someone who commutes regularly on public transport in the region I can certainly attest to the improvements in those services. We are doing this with funding for easy access upgrades at Seven Hills, Auburn and Werrington train stations. Obviously easy access is very important for our seniors and less mobile citizens in western Sydney. An amount of $4.9 million has been allocated for the Schofields to Vineyard duplication; $289 million has been provided to purchase land for the North West Rail Corridor and South West Rail corridor as part of the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program; and $53.1 million has been provided for 126 new buses for private operators.

We are delivering on our commitments to secure our future water supply for the people of Western Sydney. The budget delivers funding for water, wastewater, recycled water and stormwater infrastructure, including $57 million for the South Western Sydney Sewerage Scheme; more than $35 million for upgrades to sewage treatment plants at Rouse Hill and West Camden to cater for growth; $38 million for the Western Sydney recycled water initiative replacement flows project; $12 million on the Hoxton Park dual reticulation area; $9 million on the Rouse Hill recycled water plant; and $3 million on planning and conceptual designs for existing and new land release areas.

Western Sydney is a great place to live. That is why I live there and why I chose to raise my children there. This budget drives further improvements to the quality of life for families in Western Sydney. That is not just the Government's view. The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, through its president, Councillor Tony Hay, has praised the State Government for providing substantial funding towards its election infrastructure commitments to the region in the 2007 State budget. Councillor Hay said:

It is entirely appropriate that infrastructure projects in Western Sydney be given priority given the region's current population and projected growth.

Clearly, Councillor Hay, on behalf of Western Sydney councils and their communities, is pleased that the budget has provided for a number of local education, health and community services projects in Western Sydney. The budget delivers on our commitments to the people of Western Sydney, the front-line services we guaranteed and the infrastructure we owe our children. The Iemma Government will never ever shirk from that responsibility. We will continue to provide a better future for the people of Western Sydney, while delivering on our commitments. I congratulate the Premier and the Treasurer on the 2007 budget.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [3.40 p.m.]: As a new member of this House I looked forward to the 2007­08 budget that was brought down by the Government on Tuesday 19 June 2007, believing it may offer new direction. Sadly, by 12.30 p.m., after listening to the Treasurer's Budget Speech, I was left bitterly disappointed and with the realisation that the Government seems set to deliver another four years of spin and no substance. In my inaugural speech I told honourable members of this House that I would pursue the chronic underfunding of our criminal justice system—an issue I have spoken about as often as I can. However, the Treasurer did not listen to my calls for increased spending in the criminal justice system because this year's budget cut the budget of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions by $3.2 million.

I remind the House that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases. Having previously worked for the Clerk of the Peace—now known as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions—I am well aware that without a well-funded and adequately resourced Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, police may find themselves in a situation in which there is no-one to prosecute the suspected criminals they have arrested. That the criminal justice system is run in such a fashion is untenable. The Government's budget cuts to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions suggest that job cuts may now be inevitable. With cuts of almost $2 million to employee-related expenses over the next year, there will not be the necessary prosecutors required to ensure the efficient operation of the criminal justice system. The President of the New South Wales Bar Association, Michael Slattery, commented on the budget, saying it was a "policy of contradiction." Mr Slattery said:

Increased policing must mean increased demand on prosecution, defence and court resources and this needs to be recognised by adequate budgeting.

Clearly, this year's budget fails to do so. The budget cuts to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have come at a time when the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is already overstretched. On 1 June 2007 the Daily Telegraph reported that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions planned to stop prosecuting all summary child sexual assault cases and drug offences, with the cases to be handled instead by police. This drastic proposal, which the Director of Public Prosecutions admitted would have a serious impact on the administration of justice in New South Wales, is the result of the severe budgetary constraints faced by his office. Police prosecutors have also raised concerns about their workload. An article in the Sunday Telegraph on 3 June 2007 detailed the critical shortage of police prosectors in New South Wales, with as many as 60 extra officers needed to keep pace with the growing workload. Quoting a source, the article stated:

The prosecutors unit is about to collapse. There are real problems there.

The Deputy Director of Legal Services, Tony Trichter, backed up the claim and admitted a "critical staffing shortage". It is of great concern that the chronic underresourcing of the criminal justice system may result in alleged criminals escaping conviction on serious matters, such as child sexual offences, because inexperienced people have to prosecute the matters. Of even greater concern is the real possibility that our criminal justice system is so overstretched that alleged criminals may escape prosecution because there may be nobody available to properly prosecute such matters. The Government had an opportunity to respond in the 2007-08 budget by committing the funds that are so desperately needed for the under-resourced criminal justice system. Instead, the Government chose to cut the budget of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions by 3.3 per cent. If the Government were serious about reducing crime rates in New South Wales, it would not only increase funding for the police but also ensure the criminal justice system has the resources needed to properly prosecute criminal matters.

Having expressed my disappointment at the Government's neglect of the criminal justice system, I will now address the issues impacting the St George Illawarra province. Before the State election, the Labor Government made a number of promises. Unfortunately, this budget has revealed many of those promises as empty, underfunded or seriously delayed. The first project I refer to is the duplication of the Alfords Point Bridge. Before the election Alison Megarrity promised that the Alfords Point Bridge duplication would be complete by 2007. The budget revealed the 2007 completion date for the Alfords Point Bridge duplication was merely a pre-election lie to the people of Menai. The expected completion is now delayed until 2008. Not only has the completion date been delayed by 12 months, but the estimated total cost of the project has blown out by an incredible $20 million—from $25 million to $45 million. This is a clear illustration the Government cannot deliver major road infrastructure on budget or on time.

I am also concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the promised widening of the Alfords Point Bridge approach over Henry Lawson Drive. The budget gives no indication of an expected completion date or an estimated total cost, leaving a cloud hanging over the entire project. Having lived in Menai for three years, I am well aware of the frustration of residents. It is one of the reasons I moved out of Menai. For the sake of residents in that area, I hope this is not another empty election promise from the Labor Government.

Another major road project I would like to have addressed is the long-awaited Kiama ramps. In 2003 the member for Kiama, Matt Brown, promised the Kiama ramps would be complete by 2007. But the budget has revealed the Kiama ramps project will not be finished until 2008. The budget also revealed that the funds allocated for this important project in the 2006-07 budget were underspent by $2.95 million. I am concerned that this was a major contributing factor to the perpetual delays. The budget merely confirmed that Kiama's residents would be stuck in gridlock on Gipps Street and Terralong Street for another 12 months, waiting for the completion of the long overdue ramps.

The budget also revealed a massive blow-out on the estimated total cost of the Wollongong Northern Distributor extension of from $72 million to $101 million. That is a blow-out of $29 million. The $29 million blow-out on the Wollongong Northern Distributor extension and the $20 million blow-out on the duplication of the Alfords Point Bridge adds up to nearly $50 million of waste—all because of the Government's inability to manage major infrastructure projects. This money could have been spent on other essential roads projects, such as community consultation and planning for an extension to the F6, expediting the Oak Flats to Dunmore Princes Highway upgrade or expediting the Berry bypass.

When Morris Iemma became Premier he said that mental health would be one of his key priorities. However, this year's budget reveals more talk and no action. The Government promised that a 20-bed community care mental health unit at St George Hospital would be completed by 2009. However, the budget has revealed a 12 month delay. This delay could be a result of the Government underspending its 2006-07 budget on this project by $1.27 million. The Government also underspent its 2006-07 budget for the Sutherland Hospital non-acute mental health unit by $1.48 million. The budget revealed that the Illawarra older persons mental health unit will not be complete until 2009, that is, two years after the original completion date of 2007. This too could be the result of this Labor Government's underspending the 2006-07 budget for this project by $1.529 million.

The Government has also underspent its 2006-07 budget for the Shellharbour Hospital 20-bed mental health unit by $380,000. I hope this underspending does not result in the delay of this essential project. The 2007-08 budget is a clear indication that the Hon. Morris Iemma and his Labor Government are all talk and no action when it comes to addressing the mental health crisis being faced in the St George-Illawarra region. I conclude by urging the Government to address urgently the issues I have raised, to consider seriously these important matters and to stop the spin and get on with the job.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.50 p.m.]: Taking the overall budget at face value, I must congratulate the Treasurer. This is my first take-note speech on a budget. The Shooters Party is 15 years old and importantly now has two members in this place. Our success in having the second member elected in March shows that our constituency has begun to expand, particularly in country and coastal areas. We will represent that constituency to the best of our ability and endeavour to work and negotiate with the Government on matters that specifically affect our constituents. In doing this, we may well seek to have an impact on budgetary targeting.

Although my opening remark was congratulatory in tenor, I add the caveat that although the Government has been very good over the years at announcing things that it will do, many of its projects have been slow off the mark and others—like the newly expanded desalination plant—seem to have progressed quickly. While I am referring to water, I hope the Government will allocate money in future budgets to build the Welcome Reef dam, which was supposed to have been started in 2002 and completed two years ago, in 2005. That vital infrastructure was wrongly sacrificed on the altar of green extremism and was sunk not by science or any vestige of good sense or good economic management on the part of the Government but by ideology. Major infrastructure should stand or fall on science and the need to meet the future requirements of New South Wales and the funds available to build the infrastructure, not the green idealism that has sunk so many projects in the past. If the science and economics stand up, so should the project—in this case, the dam.

Many great successes can be attributed to our pioneers. It is regrettable that our political leaders have perhaps lost their way. Over the past 12 years the Government has not kept up with the needs of our State's infrastructure or has built less than optimum facilities. Honourable members would be well aware of how many rural services have not been given priority by governments in the past, and perhaps by this Government. In the city, the M5 is a good example of non-optimal planning. Touted as the saviour of the south-western suburbs when opened, it has now become a peak-hour car park. It was disappointing to hear the Premier on radio this week or last week saying in an effort to comfort the long-suffering commuters that the M5 is a victim of its own success. Mr Premier, it is a victim of short-sighted planning, just like the apparent abandonment of Welcome Reef dam.

Having said that, the Government's commitment to spend a record $12.5 billion on capital works in the next financial year is to be applauded, and it is timely. The Government has also trumpeted the fact that it will spend nearly $50 billion over the next four years on capital works, and if it gets those projects up in that time, again, it will applauded. However, I note that there is already talk of the Victoria Road improvements here in Sydney being delayed because of a labour skills shortage. I drive on that road every day. This is the sort of issue that will hurt the Government if it does not deliver for the people of New South Wales. People are not interested in why something is not done; just the fact that the Government has said it would do something and it has not. I urge the Government to back up the scale of this record budget by ensuring that it delivers on its promises in a timely manner.

I raise some of these issues because the Shooter's Party constituency is, generally speaking, reflective of the broad social and political demographic in this State. Indeed, our origins lay in the fact that the three major parties—Labor, Liberal and The Nationals—deserted law-abiding firearms owners when they most needed support. The Shooters Party members are keenly interested in what the Government does for country areas. Not everyone lives in Sydney and it is easy for those west of the Great Dividing Range or on the north or south coasts to feel isolated and ignored, particularly around budget time. Indeed, they regularly refer to NSW as standing for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.

It is unfortunate that crossbench members have not yet been provided with full details of the budget. Therefore we cannot see what is being spent and where it is being spent. We can rely only on the Budget Speech and the associated papers, and they are not exactly full of detail—certainly less so than last year. Government members seem to get details on budget day, while the rest of us have to wait several weeks at least. I believe that the Treasurer is reviewing that situation—I certainly hope so. In the interests of transparency and accountability, next year we would like to see all honourable members given full, detailed breakdowns of expenditure on budget day or immediately thereafter.

From what little we are able to glean from the budget papers, we welcome the $2 million provided for the Hill Top regional shooting complex near Bowral. This will be a wonderful facility for seven clubs in the Southern Highlands and Illawarra and, indeed, clubs all over the outer south-western metropolitan area of Sydney. It has been a long time coming. However, I am disappointed that the new member for Goulburn in another place seems to be opposing the construction of this regional complex without seeking any real information from those involved. Rather, she has perhaps taken her lead from one small group that has decided to oppose it on the NIMBY principle. I sincerely hope that, should the member for Goulburn manage to have the project derailed, which I doubt, she appreciates that the next useable range for these clubs is probably the very successful one at Goulburn—right in her electoral backyard. I am delighted that the Government is so committed to the Hill Top project and look forward to the first day of competition shooting on the range.

While welcoming that $2 million, which goes with the initial grant of $1.2 million for what might be considered shooters' interests, I will now speak about what I consider to be a major area to which funding may be better directed. The Government should consider funding and legislation that deliver sensible, sustainable and achievable environmental outcomes without having to accommodate the green extremism it has so shamelessly duchessed since 1995. The green industry does not have all the answers to the problems of the world. However, for more than a decade it has been funded here in New South Wales and Federally as if it did. For example, since 1995-96—and signalled to continue in this budget—the State Government has been increasing the area of national parks. While the Shooters Party has a real problem with mindless expansion of national parks, and utterly opposes further political expansion of marine parks, more importantly, we would like to see better management regimes put in place for existing parks, particularly as that relates to access for all and management of fire risks and feral animals—and in marine parks more practical and scientific management of biodiversity protection.

There has been a 300 per cent increase in the cost per hectare to manage our terrestrial national parks since 1995-96, but at the same time the consumer price index [CPI] has gone up by only about 35 per cent. Curiously, there has been only a 20 per cent increase in staffing. That means costs have increased nearly nine times faster than inflation. Indeed, more than $1 billion has been spent over and above what normal CPI indexing would have produced over that period. As another example, since 1995-96 the total cost—and by that I mean loss—to State Forests New South Wales associated with the transfer and assessment of an additional 1.9 million hectares of State forests into national parks runs to $632 million, together with a loss in direct employment of around 750 jobs. In many State forests, and on certain Crown lands, the Game Council is successfully running a program involving volunteer hunters culling feral animals. We should get those volunteers into the national parks on the same basis.

The Shooters Party will be looking closely at the handouts in this budget to the so-called green non­government organisations. Our constituents, and indeed all New South Wales taxpayers, would be surprised at the level of government funding that certain organisations enjoy. These are the groups that then pop up claiming to have all the answers to every environmental issue one can think of, and having a position on everything that they decide is important. Those groups include the Nature Conservation Council and the Environmental Defender's Office. It is very expensive largesse. The Shooters Party will be looking closely at the handouts in this budget to the so-called green non­government organisations. Our constituents, and indeed all New South Wales taxpayers, would be surprised at the level of government funding that certain organisations enjoy. These are the groups that then pop up claiming to have all the answers to every environmental issue one can think of, and having a position on everything that they decide is important. Those groups include the Nature Conservation Council and the Environmental Defender's Office. It is very expensive largesse.

The Shooters Party will also be looking closely at the funding provided to and grants made by the Environmental Trust. Honourable members may not be aware, but this trust has had massive funding increases. It had a budget of $24 million in 2004-05, and then in 2005-06 it went to $64 million. Last year its budget was $94 million. The trust will now administer an additional $365.5 million of new grant programs over the next five years under the City and Country Environment Restoration Program. The Shooters Party has a number of ideas that we would be pleased to put to the Government on how these areas in the budget may be improved. I repeat my opening remarks: Taking the overall budget on face value, I guess the Treasurer is to be congratulated.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.00 p.m.]: Prior to the last election the Premier opined about the state of the Government, saying there was more to do but we are heading in the right direction. However, New South Wales is not heading in the right direction. I highlight this by contrasting the spending in the budget on prisons and housing. The budget shows that expenditure on Corrective Services next year will be $868 million, an increase of 8.9 per cent on the previous year. Prisons expenditure is forecast to increase in future years as more and more people are sent to jail, requiring an increasing proportion of the State budget to be diverted from community services to prisons.

The budget contains significant expenditure committed to opening a new prison at Wellington, as well as additional facilities at South Nowra and expanded facilities at Lithgow and Cessnock. The prison population is forecast to grow to 9,800 by June 2008, an increase of well over 50 per cent since Labor came to power. The budget papers also show that the number of people held on remand in the State's prisons has increased from 1,864 in June 2003 to 2,439 in April 2007, an increase of over 30 per cent.

The Attorney General says the Government is well prepared to cope with an increased number of prisoners but that it would be far more beneficial to the State, in both social and economic terms, to consider ways of putting fewer of our citizens into prison. One such way would be to address the serious housing affordability issues in this State. Homelessness and poor or inadequate housing are significant contributors to crime rates. With significant increases in prisons funding what has happened to housing funding? Housing problem? What housing problem? That is the underlying message in this budget. The budget offers little help to those struggling in Australia's most expensive city and State.

The budget showed that the Government's talk about being interested in housing affordability is about as solid as a fibro shack. What we wanted to see in the budget was some bricks and mortar. Remember the Premier saying housing affordability was one of his top three priorities? Remember the Premier saying he was going to release a housing affordability strategy in August 2006? Nothing eventuated. Yet again we will hear more of the same—buck passing to the Federal Government; land release will solve everything; the market needs time to self-adjust—and more of the same tired rhetoric. Meanwhile, New South Wales is one of the most unaffordable places in which to live in Australia.

This budget was extremely mundane. It shows that the State Government has no intention of tackling the eroding housing affordability situation in New South Wales. The State Government reduced its part of the funding to the Housing Policy and Assistance Program from $237 million to $224.5 million. There is an increase in the housing budget overall, from $712.1 million in the last budget to $763.2 million in this budget, as part of the Government's four-year housing funding. However, the Aboriginal Housing Office has lost out. There will be less money—about $2 million less—and fewer new dwellings for indigenous tenants.

The other area that has been given a rough deal is homelessness programs. Funding for these programs has been cut from $2 million to $1.4 million—a totally unacceptable outcome given that the figures that show more people, including children, are in danger of becoming homeless and presenting at services. There is nothing much in this housing budget that is new. Certainly, those currently ineligible for public housing—that is, the working, lower- and median-income earners who are trapped paying rent to private landlords—get almost nothing. On the other hand, investors will get land tax cuts and will no longer have to pay mortgage duty.

The Government has favoured community housing with some extra funding, but to be effective community housing needs to be able to grow. The State Government refuses to give community housing organisations title to properties, which makes it almost impossible for them to borrow money to purchase more community housing. Likewise, they need to be able to charge a range of rents to a range of income groups, as City West Housing Company is already able to do. This is an extremely mundane outcome at a time of rising housing unaffordability.

The Department of Housing is redeveloping Minto, Bonnyrigg, the Gordon Estate in Dubbo, and the blocks of flats at Elizabeth Street, Waterloo. But these redevelopments are unlikely to result in any net gain, and may even result in net losses of public housing stock. Stock additions have not kept up with demand. As I have said in this place on many occasions, the Department of Housing must be fully resourced to allow it to stop operating as a housing provider of last resort and to restore it as a broad provider of low-cost housing for ordinary people, including ordinary working people. Such an approach would allow the department to start producing an economic surplus, in turn allowing it to invest more in low-cost housing. But to achieve this result would take a 10 to 15 year commitment from the State Government. Today we have seen no evidence of the Government been prepared to make that commitment.

The Commonwealth has reduced much of its funding since 1995 and the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement allocations have fallen in real terms. Indeed, there has been something like a 25 per cent reduction. The Federal Government is not really interested in housing; it has totally abdicated any active role. We have no national housing strategy, no housing Minister, and a Prime Minister with no interest in the 30 per cent of Australians who have not entered the nirvana of home ownership—the 30 per cent who are renting, and will probably keep on renting and paying off someone else's mortgage while that person receives a swag of tax benefits.

I am sure the Treasurer will claim that shared equity loans are the answer to all our woes. But he is yet to address the clear inflationary impacts of giving people access to more credit rather than controlling housing prices. Neither Labor nor Liberal wants to talk about the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks and incentives given to owner-investors—tax breaks that we now know have helped fuel an unsustainable property bubble. A lot of people in New South Wales are not interested in the slanging match between the State and Federal governments—and the Greens are certainly not interested. What we and the people of New South Wales want is more affordable, accessible housing.

I said at the beginning of this speech that I wanted to contrast spending on prisons and housing. Spending on corrective services, in total expenditure and increased expenditure, significantly exceeds the Government's spending on housing. The number of prison beds has increased enormously while the number of social housing beds has hardly increased at all. It raises a very serious question for the Government: Has an ever-increasing prison population become the Government's way of housing the socially disadvantaged and the mentally ill? An examination of the budget appears to indicate that the answer is yes.

In conclusion, the Greens welcome the small funding increases in housing but in relation to prisons the budget indicates that more people will be going to jail, which is surely a negative indicator of social cohesion and social justice. Under Treasurer Costa New South Wales remains obsessed with delivering economic growth to the big end of town at the expense of long-term community needs and broader social benefits. Sadly, this is a backward-looking budget that is focused on the areas and underlying issues of yesterday rather than laying the groundwork for a secure, successful and socially just tomorrow.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.08 p.m.]: This is a budget of missed opportunities. The State will breathe a collective sigh of relief when Michael Costa is no longer Treasurer. New South Wales needs a Treasurer who is committed to and believes in public services rather than a Treasurer who treats his State and his budget as a dry run for a job with the private sector. There are many areas that have been neglected in this budget, and I start with the issue of Port Botany. The New South Wales Government's push for the expansion of Port Botany will require the expenditure of more than $700 million of public money to create a 51-hectare third terminal.

This project has been approved without contracting a stevedoring company to develop and operate the third terminal, and there is no business or transport strategy. Contractual arrangements for the quota of containers being processed by P and O, now DP World, and Patricks, now Toll Holdings, the incumbent Port Botany stevedores, should be introduced so the quota does not exceed the combined total capacity of 2.6 million containers per annum. The offer of the current stevedores to self-fund the expansion has been rejected by the Government. It is time the Government explained why it has rejected this offer.

Save Botany Beach is a local organisation doing outstanding work to bring common sense to planning for the future of Botany. The Greens support the work of this organisation, and the New South Wales Government should be listening to it. The Government now needs to provide the necessary budgets, including the $700 million allocated for the Port Botany expansion, in conjunction with the Federal Government's AusLink funding for the development of various projects in this area. We need appropriate road and rail infrastructure to upgrade current trade operations at Port Botany, the completion of the freight rail line between Maldon and Dumbarton to support freight between Port Kembla and Sydney, and the upgrading of the freight rail line between Newcastle, Sydney and Port Newcastle, as set out in the New South Wales Ports Growth Plan.

The New South Wales Government needs to upgrade the inappropriate road and rail infrastructure to support the current port operations and it needs to address Sydney's increasing population, the increased activity at Sydney airport and the urban developments around Alexandria-Green Square, as well as the forecast annual increase in container trade, which is intensifying the gridlock Sydney experiences daily. Yet the New South Wales Government is planning to triple Port Botany's capacity.

The AusLink study of Sydney's urban corridors shows that total vehicle trips are expected to increase by around 50 per cent over the next 20 years. The deal between the New South Wales Government and Toll Holdings included an 18-hectare option on any expansion of Port Botany in return for vacating Darling Harbour prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympics. As both DP World and Toll Holdings have been excluded from tendering for the development and operation of the third terminal footprint, the Port Botany expansion is looming as a major problem for this State because the port is clearly not getting transport arrangements by ship, road and rail in the right proportions. If there were any need for the port expansion surely there would be signed contractual agreements in place to guarantee surety of tenure before the first patch of valuable sea grasses is destroyed.

During the commission of inquiry into this project a submission of the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources recommended a smaller expansion. The commissioner's final report recommended a maximum expansion of between 30 and 35 hectares after considering the incumbent stevedores' submissions. On 14 October 2000 Premier Morris Iemma announced that his Government would ignore the recommendations of the commission of inquiry and bulldoze ahead with a 51-hectare stage one expansion. The Port Botany development plan is nothing to be proud of. The project is bad news for business because if there is not a quick turnaround of goods and they are gridlocked, businesses will obviously lose money. Additional greenhouse gas pollution will result from the bulk of the containers having to be moved by road.

These days we hear many reports about health problems. To gauge how serious these problems are, one only has to look at dental health. While dental health problems remain very serious, one positive aspect of the budget was that a School of Dentistry and Oral Health has been established at Charles Sturt University, which will help address the shortage of dentists and oral health workers in rural New South Wales. Dental health has reached a crisis, and no relief is in sight after this budget. There are 200,000 people on the waiting list for public dental services in New South Wales. The School of Dentistry and Oral Health at Charles Sturt University is welcome but we certainly need much more to address the problem. A paltry additional $4 million has been allocated to public dental services. The overall budget for dental health across New South Wales now stands at $134 million. That is a disgrace. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales recommends that public dental health needs an injection of $170 million to address waiting lists, workforce shortages and limited services. Obviously, we are a long way from achieving that.

Overall, New South Wales needs an injection of considerably more money. Many groups working in the dental health area have stated that for many of the basic services the initial outlay is not huge. Some services that are required are school dental services being made available to private persons in small communities, especially the elderly or people holding pension cards. Scholarships should be provided to dental students willing to work in rural areas. More dental courses should be introduced in rural universities. Education is needed on the importance of good dental hygiene, including preventative measures. It is not very costly but has great returns. Dentistry as a career in rural areas should be encouraged. Overall, we need many more dental therapists.

Another area where problems remain—they will continue under this Treasurer—is coal communities. There is no money in this budget for people who are affected by mining or under the threat of mining. One such community is Gloucester. Gloucester Coal has lodged an application for a new exploration licence covering an area east of its existing activities. This is near the boundary of the Glen Nature Reserve. I have been to this area, which is absolutely stunning. I would recommend others go there. It is a very fragile area: there are steep inclines, a beautiful wilderness area with tumbling creeks—

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Snow.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, snow. The watercourses and surrounding forests include many significant ecosystems. The effects on downstream waterways from this coalmine have not been fully estimated. Mining coal from this area would have devastating environmental impacts. Money is needed and should have been in this budget to assess the economic, community and environmental impact of this mine and all other mines. We hear the Treasurer go on about the economic benefits of these mines, but so often it is to the loss of other economic benefits in the local community. That is where we need to weigh up what should go forward.

Another problem area with this budget is rural transport. Rail infrastructure and planning for rural New South Wales have again been left out of the budget. It appears there is no money for the reopening and reinvigorating of existing rural branch lines. All I can see in this budget is more funding to facilitate freight moving from rail on to road. Under heavy vehicle management, the Roads and Traffic Authority is putting money into managing higher mass limit vehicles. We know the B­doubles are getting bigger: we are going to have B-triples. That is a disaster for public safety and it is not the most efficient way to move freight. There is also the spin-off with more greenhouse gas emissions.

There is no money to restore CountryLink rail services. I remember years ago when Michael Costa was Minister for Transport and CountryLink was shifting from being a rail-based service to a coach-based service. That process is continuing, and it is absolutely tragic. It means fewer people can travel, particularly elderly people and people who are sick and disadvantaged. They find it much harder to use a coach. The budget contains $200 million to upgrade the country regional network, but the Greens suspect most of the money earmarked will be spent on new rail infrastructure for the mining industry. This budget is nothing to be proud of.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [4.17 p.m.]: I congratulate the Iemma Government on the 2007-08 Budget and, in particular, the record $11.2 billion in school and TAFE spending, which is an increase of 4.9 per cent. This $500 million increase in the 2007-08 budget includes provision for five new trade schools and record investment in school maintenance and capital upgrades. This is good news for schools such as Biddabah Public School in Lake Macquarie, which will have four permanent classrooms to replace the four demountables. Old Bar Public School in Myall Lakes will undergo a major upgrade, including five new classrooms, a new communal hall, canteen and shade structure, a new administration-staff facility, a new library with a special programs room, a bus bay, additional car parking, covered walkways and ramp access to existing facilities.

In particular I welcome the announcement of 200 reading recovery teachers additional to the existing 910 in 826 schools to be phased in over the next four years. This is a $19.5 million investment. Reading recovery is a statewide program in New South Wales government schools. This research-based early intervention program seeks to reduce reading and writing failure and was developed in New Zealand by Dame Marie Clay. The program's success resulted in its nationwide implementation in New Zealand in the early 1980s. Since then reading recovery not only has expanded to Australia but has been adopted as an effective literacy intervention program in the United States of America, Canada, Ireland and Denmark.

The reading recovery program identifies students experiencing reading and writing difficulties after their first year of school and provides intensive one-on-one teaching. These early years are critical to students who are at risk of failure. It sets the stage for later learning. Without such intervention students often require expensive long-term remedial assistance. By intervening in the second year of school, reading recovery can help bring students at risk, through intensive daily instruction, up to average classroom levels within 12 to 20 weeks.

The program's goal is for students to continue to succeed in a supportive classroom environment without any, or with very little, additional support. This is not a remedial program; it is based on early identification to prevent reading failure. Within the reading recovery program each student's regular classroom instruction is supplemented with a 30-minute daily lesson individually designed to meet his or her literacy needs. In each lesson a trained reading recovery teacher works with the student in reading and writing tasks that aim to develop the effective strategies they use as independent readers and writers. They bring together a set of strategies that together create the opportunity for sustained improvement in literacy.
The students selected to participate in the reading recovery program are those who, after a year at school, appear to be at the greatest risk of literacy failure. Reading recovery is based on a theory of learning that recognises the complexities of students' literacy behaviours. As a teaching method, reading recovery supports teachers in learning how to make the moment-by-moment teaching decisions that promote accelerated progress, allowing a student to perform at the same level as his or her peers. Studies in New Zealand, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada demonstrate that reading recovery enables most students who are experiencing difficulties in literacy learning to make the accelerated progress necessary to read at the grade level of their peers in an average of 15 weeks.

Students who successfully complete the program are described as discontinued. Eighty-seven per cent of students have successfully discontinued the program and most of these students continue to thrive within the classroom without requiring additional assistance. The best way for any parent to help their children in reading recovery is to make sure their children attend school every day in order not to miss their reading recovery lessons. It is also important that parents play an active role in having their children read to them. My six­year­old daughter, Anastasia, reads me her book every night as my bedtime story as part of her reading program. I commend the reading recovery program to the House and I congratulate the Government on expanding it and the Education budget.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.21 p.m.]: I wish to refer to two matters that affect budget revenue. The budget is expected to provide a surplus of $376 million. However, that figure was based on the Treasurer anticipating receiving approximately $400 million in tax revenue from the sale of Sydney airport to Macquarie Bank. It appears from statements by the Federal Treasurer and senior Federal Coalition Ministers that the Federal Treasurer may withhold that money, almost threatening to take New South Wales to court. I hope the Federal Government will review the situation in view of its massive surplus of $12 billion to $15 billion, because $400 million would make little difference to the Federal Government's budget whereas it will make a significant difference to New South Wales. If that money is not forthcoming New South Wales will go into deficit.

Treasurer Costa and I have spoken on numerous occasions about the Goods and Services Tax [GST]. The Federal Government still has not adjusted that figure to guarantee that New South Wales will receive its proper share of the Goods and Services Tax and that the money raised by that tax is returned to New South Wales as revenue. Indeed, the gap has widened to $2.4 billion. If that figure were added to the $400 million from the sale of the airport, New South Wales would have a surplus of $2.8 billion. The Federal Government is not keeping the money it receives from New South Wales in Goods and Services Tax; it uses that money to subsidise the other States. However, those States now have healthy economies and while it may have been necessary when the Commonwealth began and up until the 1940s and 1950s, in the twenty-first century it is no longer necessary for New South Wales to subsidise the other States. Indeed, I believe we are a laughing stock in those States.

Under the good stewardship of this Government the physical assets of New South Wales have increased from $183 billion and are estimated to be worth $280 billion by 2011, reflecting continued and future capital expenditure on infrastructure. In many ways the Premier and the Treasurer are to be congratulated on the budget in view of the severe drought that has affected much of New South Wales and reduced crop reduction by 70 per cent. Also, Australia has experienced two interest rate rises and witnessed the ongoing controversy over petrol prices and the effect this has on family spending and business profits. Every time petrol increases, trucking companies that transport goods pass those increases on to the consumers, which has a negative flow-on effect to the economy.

Recently I spoke in the House about the unemployment rate, which is at a national 30-year low. The percentage of people in New South Wales of working age in employment has reached record levels. Business investment has continued to grow exceptionally strong—by 53 per cent—since 2001­02 and will continue to grow during 2007-08. Increasing business investment indicates business confidence in New South Wales. Many of us have been concerned that some increased taxes, such as two years ago, may have caused a loss of some investment money to other States, particularly to Queensland. The reductions are not major but the reductions in various taxes will be an incentive for business to remain in New South Wales and for people to invest in New South Wales as well.

I am pleased with the increase in the Health budget. That has been an area of concern and controversy with the problems that occurred in the previous year at hospitals such as Campbelltown and Camden. Again, we need to ensure that this increased allocation—an increase of $831 million to $4.5 billion, an increase of 7.1 per cent—goes not to fund extra bureaucrats in the health system but to front-line services and allowing greater efficiency in each of our public hospitals to reduce waiting lists and provide, as has been occurring over many years, top grade care for New South Wales citizens who find it necessary to go to a public hospital so they can receive A-grade health care. There needs to be close monitoring of that expenditure to ensure that that money does not just go to extra bureaucrats.

I support the plan to have 12 new after-hours general practitioner clinics around the State. Over the past couple of years it has been suggested that they could be linked with State hospitals and would take the pressure off emergency facilities in hospitals. Sometimes people go to hospital waiting rooms when they could go to a general practitioner clinic, and that would remove some of the pressure off our public hospitals and reduce waiting times for patients who have genuine need and should be attended to promptly.

Sadly, the problem of mental health is increasing in our society—some of it, I believe, related to the use of marijuana, cannabis, in society. People have had the mistaken view that it is a harmless recreational drug, but now, thankfully, medical experts are agreeing that it is a factor in the increase in mental health problems, schizophrenia and the increasing number of people who have depression. I am pleased th Sadly, the problem of mental health is increasing in our society—some of it, I believe, related to the use of marijuana, cannabis, in society. People have had the mistaken view that it is a harmless recreational drug, but now, thankfully, medical experts are agreeing that it is a factor in the increase in mental health problems, schizophrenia and the increasing number of people who have depression. I am pleased that mental health spending in the budget will exceed $1 billion, an increase of $105 million, an 11 per cent increase on last year's allocation. I know the Premier has made this one of his personal interests and concerns as Premier.

I am also pleased that the Government is expanding the new trade schools with an allocation of $5 million. New trade schools will be developed at Penrith, Wyong, Sutherland, Tamworth and Nambucca Heads. I hope the New South Wales education department will cooperate with the Commonwealth, which last year announced it was prepared to finance trade schools as well. There should be no conflict, only cooperation, so that the students of New South Wales get the benefit of both the 25 State trade schools to be opened and the Commonwealth trade schools. There should not be any kind of jealousy to block New South Wales. I am pleased, finally, to see the success of the—[ Time expired.]

The Hon. DON HARWIN [4.31 p.m.]: This budget take-note debate resulted from a sessional order I moved last week, and the debate is going quite well. However, due to the expiration of my time I will have to make the bulk of my remarks after the winter recess.

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

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

1. That Ms Sharpe be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that Ms Fazio be appointed as a member of the committee.

2. That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the resolution of the House of 27 June 2007 the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly fix the time and place for the first meeting of the committee.

3. That a message be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly conveying the terms of the resolution agreed to by this House.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter) [4.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.
The Duties Amendment (First Home Plus One) Bill 2007 implements a new stamp duty concession for first home buyers, announced by the Treasurer on 23 February 2007. First Home Plus One delivers yet another concession to first home buyers to complement the existing benefits and concessions provided under the First Home Owner Grant Scheme and First Home Plus stamp duty scheme. Since its introduction in July 2000 to the end of April 2007, First Home Plus has provided assistance to over 247,000 first home buyers in New South Wales, with stamp duty savings totalling over $1.6 billion. In 2005­06 over 93 per cent of first home buyers who applied for stamp duty exemption paid no duty on the purchase of the property.

In the three years since the First Home Plus scheme thresholds were increased, over 121,000 first home buyers have taken advantage of the increased thresholds, with transfer duty savings of over $1.1 billion, representing an average benefit of over $9,770 per person. In addition, the New South Wales Government has distributed $2.1 billion to 287,000 first home buyers through the First Home Owner Grant since the scheme began in 2000. In the quarter ending March 2004, first home buyers in New South Wales represented only 7.9 per cent of housing finance loans. By December 2006, the quarterly share of first home buyers housing finance had increased to 16.4 per cent. Under the new scheme, First Home Plus One, first home buyers who enter into a shared equity arrangement are eligible for a new stamp duty concession, with effect from 1 May 2007.

A shared equity housing arrangement can take a number of forms and includes an arrangement under which a person acquires a less than full interest in his or her home with the remaining interest acquired by another person. Shared equity arrangements can assist first home buyers by helping people who could not otherwise afford to buy a home to enter the property market, by reducing the time needed to save for a share in a home, or by allowing first home buyers to buy a home of higher value than they otherwise would have been able to afford.

First Home Plus One will further assist these first home buyers by providing a duties concession worth up to $18,000. If the equity partner acquires no more than 50 per cent of the property, an eligible first home buyer will be entitled to a proportion of the First Home Plus duty concession. For example, an eligible first home buyer taking a 50 per cent share in a $500,000 home will save $8,995 in transfer duty and would save $14,392 in duty if taking an 80 per cent share. In addition, a mortgage given to assist the financing of the purchase would be eligible for the full mortgage duty discount of up to $1,941.

The bill provides two further concessions under First Home Plus. First, if an equity partner acquires no more than a 5 per cent share, the full First Home Plus concession applies as if the eligible first home buyer were buying a 100 per cent interest. This will ensure that the purchase of a small share by a loan guarantor as part of the financing arrangements does not reduce the concession available to the first home buyer. Second, the bill requires only one of the eligible first home buyers to satisfy a residence requirement to occupy the home as their principal place of residence for six months commencing within 12 months of settlement. This The bill provides two further concessions under First Home Plus. First, if an equity partner acquires no more than a 5 per cent share, the full First Home Plus concession applies as if the eligible first home buyer were buying a 100 per cent interest. This will ensure that the purchase of a small share by a loan guarantor as part of the financing arrangements does not reduce the concession available to the first home buyer. Second, the bill requires only one of the eligible first home buyers to satisfy a residence requirement to occupy the home as their principal place of residence for six months commencing within 12 months of settlement. This addresses the obvious point that the equity partner will not occupy the home, and is also consistent with the First Home Owner Grant Scheme.

The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Land Tax Management Act to ensure eligible first home buyers are not subject to land tax on their share of the home if it would otherwise be exempt from land tax as that person's principal place of residence. First Home Plus One is the latest step in the Government's continuing focus on providing assistance to first home buyers. New South Wales continues to have the most generous stamp duty concession scheme for first home buyers in Australia, with the highest property value limits and the most inclusive eligibility criteria. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [4.35 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Duties Amendment (First Home Plus One) Bill, but it is a rather pathetic response by the Iemma Labor Government to the housing affordability crisis it has fuelled in New South Wales, particularly for first home buyers. Just this week the latest Housing Industry Association figures showed that New South Wales was lagging behind the other States, with new home sales falling by 14 per cent in May. New South Wales has been lagging behind the other States on a range of economic indicators for some time, but especially in the housing sector. The latest figures demonstrate that the economic policies of Iemma and Costa have failed to revive the New South Wales housing industry. The statistics released this week by the Housing Industry Association show that new home sales in May 2007 were up 25.7 per cent in South Australia, up 2.8 per cent in Queensland but down by 14 per cent in New South Wales.

The Hon. Michael Costa: And 27 per cent in Western Australia.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, they were not 27 per cent.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Was it 37 per cent?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, 21 per cent. The New South Wales Housing industry requires real tax breaks to encourage more investment and construction. The token land tax cuts announced by the Treasurer will do nothing more than return bracket creep. We are in favour of any genuine efforts taken by this Government to encourage home ownership and address the State's crisis in housing affordability but we believe that what the Iemma Labor Government is giving back in this instance—in the case of the First Home Plus One bill—pales into insignificance when measured against the record-breaking tax revenues it is currently reaping from the long-suffering residents of this State.

We all grew up knowing the great Australian dream was to buy a house, have a couple of kids and a comfortable retirement. Home ownership has historically underpinned our economic growth and, for millions of Australians, it has been a crucial element in achieving financial security and freedom. Under the Iemma Labor Government, however, housing affordability has slipped to depressingly low levels, putting the great Australian dream of home ownership out of reach for so many who used to take this ambition for granted. Stamp duty concessions to first home buyers by this Government are a step in the right direction. Yet there is so much more this Government should be doing to relieve this situation.

We currently face a shortfall in the construction of new homes created by years of neglect by Labor. Housing approvals and commencements in New South Wales are at their lowest levels for more than 30 years and the sector is in crisis as investment and jobs flee to other States. That New South Wales under Labor is no longer an attractive option to develop land and housing was confirmed recently in the report to shareholders of housing industry leader AV Jennings. That report disclosed that Jennings intends to do more work "in less aggressively taxed States" such as Victoria and Queensland. Jennings asserts that its sales performance in all States has been satisfactory except in New South Wales, where there is a major issue due to State and local government charges on greenfield residential developments. The Jennings report says State Labor's lack of land releases have made the situation even worse. The State tax take in New South Wales on new house and land packages under the Iemma Labor Government is simply out of control.

The Property Council of New South Wales has recently highlighted the obscene level of New South Wales State Government charges for new house and land packages by comparing the situation in New South Wales with our interstate counterparts. On the Queensland Gold Coast home buyers pay about 4 per cent in State taxes on a new house and land package worth $392,000, and Victorian State taxes would come to $23,000, or 6 per cent, on a $367,000 house and land package in Melbourne. On a $570,000 new house and land package in Sydney's northwestern suburbs, the New South Wales State tax is 14 per cent, or a staggering $80,000, of the total cost.

As Labor's tax take grows each year, more New South Wales residents are excluded from the housing market. Last year 25,000 people left New South Wales for another State in search of jobs, affordable housing and a better life. In an environment where Sydneysiders now spend more than 37 per cent of their incomes on housing and, it is said, many overstretched homeowners in New South Wales are just one mortgage repayment away from homelessness, the Labor Government simply throws homeowners a bone in the form of an extension to the First Home Plus scheme and hopes that will keep them quiet.

Prior to the budget the Coalition said that Labor must take drastic action to reduce the high State taxes that are squeezing developers, homeowners and renters out of the State's housing market. Since the March election, the Iemma Labor Government has adopted several policies from the New South Wales Liberal­Nationals election platform. They should have considered taking on our land tax and payroll tax policies, which would send a strong message to investors and business that New South Wales is a State that wants to grow and wants to lead the country again.

It is not as if there are no policy options available to Iemma and Costa. For example, the Coalition's policy at the last election to top up the First Home Plus grant from the current $7,000 to $10,000 would provide a much-needed boost for young people seeking to purchase a new home worth up to $500,000. Incorporating such a measure would have nominally cost the New South Wales Government $90 million over two years of the stimulus package and it would have generated demand for an additional 2,000 new homes and the equivalent of 2,800 job opportunities.

Labor could have adopted the Coalition's policy at the last election to establish a stamp duty concession of $4,000 to investors providing rental accommodation for two years. Such an initiative, which could have commenced in this budget, would boost rental accommodation stock at the affordable end of the spectrum. While this measure would have cost approximately $64 million for the relevant period, it would be almost completely offset by the increase in demand for new housing and the additional State revenues generated through increased economic activity and employment.

Finally, the Treasurer could have embraced the Coalition's initiative at the last election to exempt employers from paying the cost of WorkCover premiums for apprentices as a means to boost youth employment and ease the long-term skills shortages affecting a range of sectors, including the building and construction industry. At a time of national and international prosperity, investment dollars are being sucked out of property and into the stock market. The result is a fall in available rental accommodation and rising rents. The problem in New South Wales is that the Iemma-Costa Government's high property taxes are driving investors out of the State. Whilst we support the measure in the bill, it will hardly have a major impact on the housing affordability crisis in New South Wales. The Government needs to do much more in this respect.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.43 p.m.]: The purpose of this legislation is to extend stamp duty and land tax exemptions and concessions to eligible first home buyers who purchase a home valued at up to $600,000 in the case of a house or $450,000 in the case of vacant land, where there is an equity partner. This will extend the concession, or a proportion of it, to the first home buyer who is purchasing part equity in a home but will require an equity partner—for example, a financial institution—to be liable for a proportion of the land tax. The bill supplements the existing concession regime for first home buyers and extends it to a shared equity situation. The Greens do not oppose the bill. We recognise that this concession will make it easier for a few first home buyers to buy a home by entering into a shared equity arrangement. However, we believe it is important to look closely at shared equity home loans and the dangers entailed therein.

With this bill we are not talking about a scheme that creates a government-assisted shared equity home loan in which the Government becomes a partner of the home buyer. We are not talking about setting up a scheme similar to the schemes operated by the Western Australian and Northern Territory Governments. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 March 2007 Annette Sampson described the Western Australian scheme:

Targeted at low to middle income first home owners, the scheme allows the government to buy up to 40 per cent of eligible borrowers' new homes while the borrower pays for the remainder through a low deposit home loan. The home owners are able to repurchase the government's share of their property as their finances permit.

The New South Wales scheme simply extends—in shared equity arrangements where the partner is a relative, friend or, more likely, a financial institution—concessions that are available to other first home buyers. Although shared equity home loans may extend home ownership to more people, it is necessary to sound a note of caution about these schemes, especially where the equity-holding partner is seeking to make a profit out of the arrangement. The Labor Party, both Federal and State, has seized upon shared equity instruments as a potential cure for the increasingly severe housing affordability problem.

The State Treasurer and Federal Member for Sydney, Tanya Pilbersek, who is Labor's national housing spokesperson, increasingly encourage people to enter into partial equity home ownership. In fact, the Commonwealth is admitting that, in the absence of such schemes, the average family cannot afford to buy an average house. The "cure-all" approach that it advocates is an admission of failure: failure to recognise the dimensions of the problem confronting the community; failure to recognise the risks involved in shared equity schemes; and failure to espouse long-term initiatives that will resolve the problem rather than exacerbate it.

Instead of focusing on the problem—wildly unaffordable housing—Labor is saying, "Oh well, if you can't afford to own a house, you can own half a house through a shared-equity arrangement." Is it really expected that shared equity schemes will help new homeowners into the market? That seems not to be the expectation of the major promoters of the scheme. On 14 May, the day after Rismark International, in conjunction with Adelaide Bank, announced its new shared equity mortgage, the Sydney Morning Herald economics writer, Matt Wade, analysed the scheme in an article entitled "Equity trade-off for bigger home loans". Matt Wade said:

The chief general manager of Adelaide Bank, Stephen Small, said the product would target first-time buyers lacking the full finances for entry into the home-owner market. Equity finance mortgages can be used by borrowers to buy homes that are up to 25 per cent more expensive than they might have been able to afford using a traditional home loan.

But the most important market for the new mortgage may be second-time buyers who want to purchase a more expensive property, or existing borrowers who refinance to reduce their monthly loan repayments.

That is the view of Matt Wade. It gives the lie to the notion that the scheme will assist many new first home buyers into the market. Shared equity finance was first championed about five years ago by Christopher Joye and Andrew Caplin in their paper entitled "A Primer on a Proposal for Global Housing Finance Reform". It was published under the auspices of the Liberal thinktank Menzies Research Centre Limited as a policy prescription for the housing affordability problem. Joye is now Managing Director of Rismark International, which is a financial institution specialising in shared equity home loans, through which he clearly hopes to profit by exploiting out-of-control housing price rises.

Private shared equity arrangements have pitfalls. They rely on house price appreciation. It can be argued that they help to stoke house price inflation because they increase purchasing power. The more easily finance becomes available, the more people will be anxious to buy even part of a home. The more competition there is, the greater the inflationary effect. The result could well be a zero sum game rather than a real solution to the problem because new home buyers will still be competing with each other as well as with investors and with people trading up.
Moreover, financial institutions can be expected to offer shared equity loans predominantly in areas where they anticipate the greatest capital gain occurring. Financial institutions can be expected to participate in a shared equity scheme only when they believe the house will appreciate in value, they receive a 40 per cent share of any capital gain, they are liable for only 20 per cent of any loss and the homeowner shoulders 100 per cent of rates and maintenance costs. As Nick Holuguie writes on the Urban Mag website, such schemes must turn a profit for the banks and are dependent on capital gains. He says that given the many risks, the land would have to be such that the value would appreciate quickly and there would have to be value in having purchasers signed up even though they could not afford to purchase the whole property.

Clearly, if this Government wants to champion shared equity home-ownership schemes, it should implement schemes as other Labor governments have done. The Government is, after all, a far preferable partner in such arrangements because the desire to make a profit from the arrangement is not—or should not be—central to its concerns. Government is able to borrow more cheaply than the private sector and government can afford to carry the equity for a longer period. However, risks still remain. The low-income borrower may default—as happened with thousands in the discredited HomeFund scheme—and the whole operation will still depend on the property appreciating in value. Notwithstanding such considerations, it is true that successful government-based shared equity schemes do operate in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. As Annette Sampson noted in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 March entitled "Warning on shared equity":

The more traditional shared equity schemes involve shared ownership, with the lender taking a stake in your home.

Western Australia's First Start program is a good example. Targeted at low to middle income first home owners, the scheme allows the government to buy up to 40 per cent of eligible borrowers' new homes while the borrower pays for the remainder through a low deposit home loan. The home owners are able to repurchase the government's share of their property as their finances permit.

She distinguishes this form of shared equity from the mortgage developed by Rismark, and stated:

The Rismark mortgage is a loan, not an equity product, and you retain full ownership of your home. But instead of paying interest on the loan, you give up some of your home's appreciation.

The broader picture is that housing is unaffordable. Prices and rents are too high for low- to medium-income households to cope with without plunging into housing stress; that is, spending more than one-third of their gross income on housing or rental costs. On 11 May the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Miloon Kothari, released a report on his mission to Australia that focused on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. The report compelled the head of National Shelter, Adrian Pisarski, to note:

The levels of homelessness and housing poverty in Australia are unacceptable and require serious Federal Government attention. It is disgraceful for a nation as wealthy as Australia to be the subject of such a damning D.N. report.

The Greens could not agree more. We have no State housing strategy, no national approach to housing and no national housing Minister. What we do have is a taxation regime that encourages speculation in real estate to the detriment of a large section of the population. Negative gearing rewards and assists those who seek to buy a second house at the expense of those who possess no house at all. While investors benefit from the many tax perks available to them, those who are renting pay off the mortgages of investors and, as a result, are unable to save enough for their own home deposit. Even if they can muster a deposit, many cannot afford the repayments, and the longer they save, the further the goalposts are moved as house prices ratchet up. The solution for these people, according to Labor, is to get into a shared equity arrangement and to buy part of a house. However, this approach is fraught with perils for the unwary. As Annette Sampson outlined:

Like reverse mortgages, equity finance mortgages can have wide-ranging consequences, not all of which are easily foreseen. Where appreciation is high, they can be expensive and they are more complex than standard home loan borrowings. Their terms and conditions can also be more restrictive.

As I noted earlier, shared equity schemes rely upon rising house prices. Every time an investor-buyer acquires an extra property, relying on borrowing against their already accruing asset base, they out-borrow, out-spend and out-bid the younger renter household seeking to buy their first home. Even in ower-cost suburbs, such as Mount Druitt, aspiring first home buyers are being outbid at auctions by vultures such as the Property Secrets group, which is snapping up repossessed or ex-Department of Housing properties. For others who are forced to move even farther from Sydney to the Central Coast in search of affordable housing, the price they pay is a two­hour commute to work to drive buses, staff train stations, work in hospitals, and mop floors, and then do a two-hour return journey.
The microeconomic benefit of shared equity home ownership that accrues to the homebuyer is home ownership and consequent security of tenure. However, at the macro level, these benefits may be non-existent if such schemes feed house price inflation. The Government must be proactive on housing. There is nothing stopping the Government, through Landcom, from providing a greater number of reasonably priced, smaller homes to means-tested applicants for purchase or rent. Landcom already has a limited program. The Greens believe it should be expanded significantly. In order to maintain affordability, the Government must either retain some equity or place a caveat on resale to ensure that when a property is on-sold only means-tested applicants are eligible to purchase it.

The Government has been threatening—or promising—an affordable housing strategy for ages. We have heard promises, but seen nothing apart from a few minor announcements on a little bit more public housing, or a pilot program here and there. Minor announcements do not a State housing strategy make. The Greens do not oppose this bill, but ask the Government to explain its overall housing affordability strategy for New South Wales—if there is one—and to address the macroeconomic implications of shared equity schemes, such as the inflationary effect they may have on housing prices.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.58 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Duties Amendment (First Home Plus One) Bill 2007. This proposal was announced by the Treasurer as a new stamp duty concession for first home buyers. A shared equity arrangement involves homebuyers bringing in another purchaser to enable them to buy a home sooner or to buy a higher value home than they could otherwise have afforded. The equity partner is usually a family member of the first home buyer or a person or company approved by a financial institution.

The bill will amend the Duties Act 1997 to provide the duty concession on the purchase and any mortgage given in support. Transfer duty is calculated by reference to the proportion of the property purchased by the equity partner. The full mortgage duty concession applies. The bill also amends the Land Tax Management Act 1956 to ensure that first home buyers who are eligible for the new concession are not subject to land tax on their interest in the home if the equity partner is a company or special trust.

We strongly support the First Home Plus One stamp duty concession, which is based on the First Home Plus Scheme. The scheme provides concessions or exemptions from stamp duty for eligible first home buyers on homes valued at up to $600,000 and vacant land valued at up to $450,000. An eligible purchaser is a purchaser who has not, and whose spouse has not, at any time owned residential property in Australia. Under First Home Plus, all purchasers were required to be eligible first home buyers. Under First Home Plus One, a joint purchase under a shared equity arrangement is eligible if the eligible first home buyers are acquiring at least a 50 per cent interest in the home.

One of the criticisms of the scheme is that it does not have any way of dealing with people who are in the very high income bracket and who are able to buy million-dollar homes and so on, because the scheme is not means tested. Apparently, means testing would be very difficult to apply in this area.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It is half a million dollars.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Half a million dollars is the maximum?

The Hon. Michael Costa: Yes, then it cuts out.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Commonwealth scheme still does not have a cut-out?

The Hon. Michael Costa: It does not relate to the Commonwealth scheme.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: We support the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.01 p.m.]: The Duties Amendment (First Home Plus One) Bill 2007 removes one element of discrimination concerning availability of concessions related to first home purchases. In that regard the bill is worth supporting. I endorse the comments of Ms Sylvia Hale, but I want to take a slightly different perspective on the bill and look at what it does not do. The bill does not in any way address the severe housing stress that many people are facing in New South Wales. People who rent without the prospect of owning their own homes, or those who cannot even afford to rent and who live on the streets or in accommodation provided by charitable organisations, will not receive the benefit of the extension of these concessions. To that extent they are somewhat regressive.
More than 267,000 low-income households in New South Wales live in housing stress and spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs. The waiting list for public housing is at 70,000. Yet, despite the demand for secure and affordable housing, the New South Wales Department of Housing has been building fewer homes and has made it even harder for people to be eligible for public housing.

As Ms Sylvia Hale pointed out, the effect of the bill will be to drive up housing prices, rather than drive them down. To that extent, the bill is doubly bad news for people who do not own their own homes and who do not have the prospect of owning their own homes. First, the bill fails to deliver any benefits for such people; and second, it drives up housing prices. The Greens call on the Government to look at the overall issue of affordable housing. It should not tinker at the edges with yet another bill that provides nothing more than an announcement for the Premier and the Treasurer to make come election time so they can pretend they are doing something about housing affordability. The Government should address the severe and debilitating crisis facing so many people in New South Wales.

There is but one solution to that crisis, and that is to increase the public housing stock, to assist the residents who are suffering most from the housing shortage and for whom the expense of finding a suitable home is prohibitive. If the Government can find money in the budget to fund this concession to first home purchasers, surely there is also money in the budget to fund those who are far more disadvantaged, those who are currently homeless, and those who have little prospect of funding their own home.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter) [5.04 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I am thanking them more out of politeness than for the value of their contributions, because two of the latter contributions I found quite extraordinary. Obviously Ms Sylvia Hale was referring to some other bill, not the bill that is before the House. The bill we are debating has nothing to do with the equity mortgages that Ms Sylvia Hale spoke about.

The bill is about a simple proposition. It arose out of an approach that was made to me and a number of other members about why grandparents, in particular, could not provide equity funding for their grandchildren in relation to the purchase of first homes and why they were, in their words, discriminated against for the first home owner concessions. I thought it was reasonable that if a grandparent or immediate family member wants to provide additional support to a family member to purchase a home or a better-quality home, they should be able to do that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Greens don't believe in inheritance.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, they want the Government to provide for everyone's home. That is the genesis of the bill. It was never meant to be a comprehensive housing strategy. The fact is that in order to provide that concession I have to introduce a bill in Parliament because I have to amend an Act of Parliament to allow the concession. And it is a valuable concession. On a home valued at $500,000 there is a transfer duty concession of around $17,990 and a mortgage duty of $1,700. Assuming that 90 per cent of the cost of the home is borrowed, that constitutes a total saving of more than $19,000. This will save people around $10,000 on this type of housing. It is sensible that we facilitate such a concession.

The unbelievable rantings of Ms Sylvia Hale about the evils of equity loans had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. I think most members would share people's concerns about sensible borrowing practices against the equity in their home. Of particular concern is that people sometimes use those types of arrangements for consumption purposes rather than investment purposes. I do not want to give Ms Sylvia Hale personal financial planning advice. It seems she is doing pretty well in that regard; the last time I looked at the Pecuniary Interest Register she had a few investment properties herself. But it reflects poorly on Ms Sylvia Hale that she would seek to criticise the Government over this scheme when we are seeking to do something sensible to facilitate family members primarily helping each other to obtain first homes or better-quality homes. However, it is consistent with the Greens' strategy to bag out anything the Government does, simply to score cheap political points.

The Greens have got it absolutely wrong on this one. This is a very sensible proposal. I do not expect that it will be broadly utilised, but in cases where it is utilised it will provide a good concession consistent with the Government's intention to provide concessions to first home owners. It was quite extraordinary to hear this sort of nonsense from the Greens. I would have thought that for once they would simply welcome the proposition, rather than seek to grandstand on it. Obviously the Greens are chronically unable to take that view on any issue.

It was also extraordinary to hear the socialist rant from Dr John Kaye about public housing. It was suggested that the Government must be an equity partner for everyone. That is really not what we are proposing under any funding arrangement or structure we have in place. We provide public housing for people in need, and we provide many units of public housing. We also provided greater funding for public housing in the recent budget. Any notion that the Government will be the equity partner for anyone who is moving into the first home market is simply madness. However, it is typical of the Greens, and it is typical of their lack of understanding about how markets work. That was evident in their confusion about equity loans and shared equity schemes.

I also want to criticise the Opposition. This was not meant to be a comprehensive package. It is a small but significant amendment to the First Home Owners Scheme to provide some additional benefits. One of the things we have been trying to do in recent times is to get the Commonwealth to extend its scheme, which is the First Home Owners Scheme, to mirror this type of arrangement. The Commonwealth has refused to do that to date. If the Opposition wants to help, I suggest its members talk to their colleagues in Canberra and do what the other State governments are arguing: extend the first home owner concessions to mirror this type of scheme. I will not criticise the Opposition further on this matter. As I understand it, the Opposition is supporting the bill.

Ms Sylvia Hale: As are the Greens.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know what the Greens are supporting. However, I acknowledge the interjection. Ranting and raving about matters that are not even before the Parliament is a strange way to show support for anything!

Ms Sylvia Hale: This is about the housing program.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This is not about the housing program. I say it again: this is about providing an extension of an existing concession to another group in a particular circumstance. It is about allowing people to help family members to enter homeownership. The Greens ranting about housing policy demonstrates their complete lack of understanding. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Michael Costa agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Costa.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter) [5.11 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I commend to members the Budget Speech, which the Leader of the House has already incorporated in Hansard.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.11 p.m.]: I refer honourable members to the excellent reply to the Treasurer's Budget Speech that was delivered by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place on Thursday 21 June, and also to the very thoughtful and very relevant speech by the Leader of The Nationals on the same day in the other place in reply to the budget. Whilst I obviously do not want to repeat all that was said by those members in their speeches, it is important that I highlight a number of factors raised by them.

We received in this budget more of what we have received for the past 12 years: a great deal promised, but very little delivered, a serial failure to deliver on promises, and an inability to bring in major infrastructure projects on time and on budget. The critical issue to be considered now that we have had over a week to review and comment upon the budget is whether the people of New South Wales can be confident that a State budget can be managed by the Treasurer, Michael Costa. Should we be surprised at the Hon Michael Costa's performance? Over the years he has been in Parliament and held various ministries he has made numerous rash decisions whenever he has been under pressure, and those decisions have cost the people of New South Wales.

It is obvious from the two budgets the Treasurer has delivered that he cannot budget. He is now attempting to rewrite history. We heard the Treasurer say on a couple of occasions after he delivered the budget that New South Wales was heading into recession earlier this year, but now he claims that he never believed that; that he did not think New South Wales was travelling down the path to recession, as many commentators thought prior to the recent State election. But let us examine the performance of this Treasurer. Last year, with his first budget—not thinking that New South Wales was in difficulty—he budgeted for a deficit! Where was his faith in his predictions then? Where was his faith in the Australian economy, which was travelling along so well? Even with his first budget he could not get it right. He budgeted for a deficit and ended up with a surplus!

We hear the Treasurer's constant mantra of excuses for why his Government has not been able to deliver much-needed services and infrastructure to the people of New South Wales. We continue to see crumbling infrastructure notwithstanding the headline numbers that the Treasurer keeps quoting. One example of that mantra, which I think has now finally been dispelled, is the claim that GST revenues are being whipped away from New South Wales unfairly. Why has the Treasurer and the Premier not done a deal with the other State premiers and with the Federal Leader of the Opposition to reallocate the GST, if that is what he really believes should be done? Notwithstanding the Treasurer's trumpeting of this budget, New South Wales remains the highest taxing State on a per capita basis, with each person being taxed $2, 535 per annum.

The Hon. Michael Costa: That is not true. We are number three.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, we are number three on a per capita basis, but we are still the highest on the record.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Yes, but you have got to take out the GST.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: So you admit it! Thank you. The Treasurer has admitted we are the highest. And what have we got? We have record revenues—once again exposing the fact that this Treasurer simply cannot budget. He was out by $2.3 billion with regard to revenues. And I bet that when we see the final budget report in September-October it will be even higher and the Treasurer will be even further out in his calculations because he just cannot get it right, even now! Probably worst of all is the Treasurer's disgraceful inability and lack of commitment to control expenditure. Notwithstanding the fiddle he did with the repayment of money for the Epping-Chatswood railway, his promise this year that the increase in expenditures would be kept to 1.9 per cent has been blown well and truly out of the water. He has now admitted that it will be 3.6 per cent, even though the trend is way over 5 per cent. What about other assumptions in this budget? The union movement was the first to complain about the assumption in this budget that wage increases for public servants would be kept to 2.5 per cent, plus productivity, of course.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I am glad you mentioned productivity.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Absolutely. Will the Treasurer deliver on productivity? He gave up on it over the past couple of years and delivered wage rises without any productivity increases in return. Of great concern to many people is the total State sector net debt, which will double in four years from $19.3 billion to $39.3 billion as at 30 June 2011. The fact that the increase in debt breaches the Government's own Fiscal Responsibilities Act should be cause for concern. Certainly there is scope for borrowing, particularly given the crisis we have in delivering infrastructure, but alarm bells are ringing in that regard. The Government must manage this properly, otherwise further pressure will be placed on monetary policy.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Egan blew every budget for 10 years. He was lucky that John Howard was in government federally.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Absolutely.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: This Treasurer will be the same.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Absolutely. I now turn to the derisory tax cuts and the 0.1 per cent land tax release. The same amount will be collected in 2007-08 as forecast for 2006-07. Payroll tax will increase by 28.5 per cent between 2006-07 and 2010-11. The Government has missed the opportunity for substantial tax reform. Indeed, it has missed that opportunity for the past 12 years. Instead, we have typical spin from the Government. The Treasurer put out a press release on the same day as the budget when he claimed to have given billions of dollars in tax cuts. When one reads the press release, half of the tax cuts that he quoted as having been given in the budget were attributable to the vendor duty, which most honourable members thought was abolished last year and, indeed, no revenue appears in the forward estimates.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is called creative accounting.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes. Then he claimed savings on workers compensation premiums as land tax. That is the sort of spin the Treasurer tried to put on the budget. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition made an announcement of vision and reform. He announced that if the Coalition were in government, it would establish a State infrastructure fund that would address 12 years of neglect. Obviously the fund would require special legislation to be established. It would have an independent board to oversight its operation and transparency would be assured with the Auditor-General reporting annually to Parliament on expenditure of the funds. In a visionary announcement the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the fund initially would be $4 billion, expected to come from the sale of retail electricity businesses in New South Wales, that is, businesses in EnergyAustralia, Country Energy and Integral Energy.

These businesses have been losing value since the market was opened up in 2002. I refer honourable members to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. He referred to the recent sale of businesses in Queensland and gave an undertaking that there would be no sale of generators or distribution businesses. Of the State infrastructure fund, the first $2 billion was specifically allocated to education infrastructure because the ongoing maintenance backlog over 12 years has been a disgrace. Report after report mentions rundown schools. The Coalition is committed to the public getting the modern school infrastructure that is necessary in the twenty-first century.

The Leader of The Nationals, who is also the shadow Minister for Education and Training, will be pivotal in the implementation of the State infrastructure fund when the Coalition comes to office. He emphasised the need for vision and leadership in the budget. It should be a vehicle to implement vision. The challenge now for a government with record revenues is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. New South Wales will not regain its status as the leading State without strong leadership to give it better services and infrastructure. It needs a change of government and I am pleased that the Leader of The Nationals will be part of that. He pointed out some of the other excuses and fallacies used by the Costa-Iemma Government.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Costa-Iemma Government?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, I like it that way: the "Costalot" government. One of the other mantras of the Treasurer is that New South Wales in some ways is not a beneficiary of the resources boom but, in fact, 21 per cent of the Australian mining industry is employed in New South Wales and more than half of the Standard and Poor's top 50 companies have their headquarters in Sydney. Of course, the big banks are also located in Sydney. The Leader of The Nationals mentioned the cost to people, particularly in regional and rural areas, of the Iemma-Costa Government's failure to secure outcomes in schools, roads, health. Rather than inputs, he suggested we look at outcomes as a measure, which is something the Government has refused to do.

When one looks closely at the budget one realises that it is full of tricks and errors. The first trick is the payment of the $960 million to the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation to repay part of the debt on the Epping to Chatswood rail link, which is a disgrace in that we have half the original railway for more than double the cost. The Treasurer has not yet explained why he did not account for that $960 million in the usual way; declare a surplus of $1.4 billion and then repay the debt. Perhaps he could address that matter in reply. The Treasurer also has not explained why last year he got the superannuation payments so wrong. In last year's budget they expected to borrow $2.2 billion to put into superannuation, but that did not occur and the Treasurer has not explained what the difference will be in terms of interest payments and the outcome of the budget as a result of that.

The Self Insurance Fund is an interesting area as well. The New South Wales Self Insurance Corporation this year has budgeted for other operating expenses of $872 million, but I wonder whether the Treasurer is not just building in a little cost saving. If one looks at the results from last year, it was budgeted to have other operating expenses of over $1 billion and came in at only $300 million so there was a saving of expenses of approximately $768 million. The prior year, primarily due to the tort reforms that have squeezed compensation out of injured people, it was budgeted at $1.1 billion for other operating expenses and it came in at $748 million. There is a neat little savings of $500 million that the Treasurer has snuck in there. I mentioned earlier that he has already abandoned his expenses controls for this year. The 1.9 per cent increase is out to 3.6 per cent and he has admitted that he cannot make the expenses savings that he looked at. The Self Insurance Fund is an interesting area as well. The New South Wales Self Insurance Corporation this year has budgeted for other operating expenses of $872 million, but I wonder whether the Treasurer is not just building in a little cost saving. If one looks at the results from last year, it was budgeted to have other operating expenses of over $1 billion and came in at only $300 million so there was a saving of expenses of approximately $768 million. The prior year, primarily due to the tort reforms that have squeezed compensation out of injured people, it was budgeted at $1.1 billion for other operating expenses and it came in at $748 million. There is a neat little savings of $500 million that the Treasurer has snuck in there. I mentioned earlier that he has already abandoned his expenses controls for this year. The 1.9 per cent increase is out to 3.6 per cent and he has admitted that he cannot make the expenses savings that he looked at.

We have also had the interesting little dalliance on the airport sales debt. The Treasurer suggested that he would sequester Commonwealth property and all sorts of things. It would be interesting to see, when that matter is resolved, whether the State or Federal Government is right. The Government is in the habit of underestimating revenue. With respect to transparency, this budget is a greater disgrace than any before it. This time the lack of information extended to removing the program, key performance indicators and staffing details that have appeared in budgets for many years. The excuse given was that because of the election the Government was not able to get the information together and will issue it some time in the future.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is rubbish. They would not be able to base their budget on it.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Absolutely. In 2003 the Government did not have any trouble including the information in its budget. This Treasurer simply cannot predict the numbers. It is no surprise that he cannot put the programs in there.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They are like Lotto numbers.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes. I do not know where he gets his numbers, but it is certainly not a question of somebody being able to rely on them. Whole sections of the budget have for no apparent reason a tendency to secrecy; for example, no detail is given in relation to schools. This year the Roads and Traffic Authority could not put in start dates for its projects. Explain to me how it does not know when projects start. Princess Eric is the Minister and that is probably part of the explanation but you would have thought it could tell you when it starts its projects. The trading enterprises do not put in any information about their projects. To get a real picture of where the State is going, we have to wait to see their annual reports, and we know the Government will delay those annual reports for as long as possible and continue to make it as difficult as possible.

I do not need to comment on the desalination plant. I am sure many other honourable members will do that if they feel it is worth doing. I turn to the Appropriation Bill for a moment. It includes some revealing commentaries on this Government. The 2006-07 year has an extra appropriation of more than $300 million for implementing community feedback processes after regional Cabinet meetings. What is that doublespeak?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Spin doctoring.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Is that spin doctoring? What a surprise! There were expenses associated with transition of administration: $350 million. That transition of administration has come up a few times. There are some old surprises in the bill and some memories as well. One of the items in the Appropriation Bill for 2006-07 is a settlement of costs associated with the Conservatorium of Music redevelopment project—$4.5 million. Do honourable members remember that? That set the scene for budget overruns but it is back with us. I thought this was quite a good one too. The Department of Planning has an extra $1.5 million to establish a flying squad to assist councils with rezoning and subdivision applications in the land release process. Isn't that lovely?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Peter Woods in the sky.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It probably is Peter Woods in the sky. Honourable members should not forget this one, Roads and Traffic Authority $25 million—recognise the figure? It is funding to implement revised transitional arrangements following the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel. No wonder the Treasurer could not find it when he was asked before the election. Here it is—$25 million. Perhaps the Treasury could explain another $300,000 plus to reimburse the Cross City Motorway for loan security duty paid to the Office of State Revenue. There it is, giving money back left, right and centre.

The Treasurer should be embarrassed about schedule 2 to the Appropriation Bill—payments relating to the 2005-06. We were a lot younger in 2005-06. Here the Treasurer is admitting that he is so slack on the accounts that the Government had no idea what it was spending and what it was not spending. It supposedly signed off the accounts last September. The Auditor-General signed it off for 2005-06, yet here we have pages and pages of new payments—payments the Treasurer missed.

The Government missed a grant to the Museum of Contemporary Art. It gave it to the museum in 2005­06, but the Government just realised that. The Opera House did well. It got $27 million for maintenance and upgrade work in 2005-06 but the Treasurer only just noticed. He has signed off on the figures and had the Auditor-General sign off and, oops, $27 million for the Opera House. The Premier's Department spent $2.5 million that the Treasurer had forgotten about on a campaign and recruitment advertising initiative for front-line public service staff. The Government forgot another $2.5 million on advertising. How much did it spend on advertising leading up to the election?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: About $100 million?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It was about $102.5 million. Remember when the Treasurer became Minister for Infrastructure and the Premier introduced his new infrastructure structure to get projects underway? The Government has just discovered that in 2005-06 it cost the Government $1.5 million to establish the infrastructure implementation group. He did not notice at the time. Then there is the establishment of the Premier's delivery unit. I am not sure what that means, but that is another $1 million, and the Treasurer only just found it. I want to give a few more examples in the bill because it is quite important.

I told honourable members about the $1.4 million for establishment of the infrastructure implementation unit, but that was just recurrent spending. There was another $290,000 in capital. I do not know where all this money went, with the Treasurer keeping an eagle eye on the books, holding onto costs until a year and a half later when he discovered the money has been spent. I will not go through all of them because there are too many. I will credit the Government with one thing, though, and it deserves credit for this. In 2005-06, 18 months ago, it did not notice at the time that it spent $11.5 million on purchasing land for the northern beaches hospital—a good acquisition, but the Treasurer did not know. He has only just discovered it and is only just getting it approved.

One of the big savings announced last year that I will come back to on another day was the decision to establish a new property authority. The Government has just about got it up and running and it is supposed to deliver savings. I will come back to those savings in due course. Part of what it was supposed to do was take over the New South Wales police property portfolio and make big savings. Guess what is in this bill for 2005-06 that the Treasurer has only just discovered? The police paid over $1 million for costs associated with the appointment of a private sector partner to manage the property portfolio. The police had little faith in what Iemma and Costa were suggesting.

The Hon. Michael Costa: That happened before.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Treasurer did not even notice. That is the sort of management we get from this Government. Here is another little beauty from 2005-06. We talked yesterday about dinner in drag at the races. The Department of Commerce has just discovered that in 2005-06 it paid an extra $3.8 million additional funding towards the construction of the Western Sydney International Dragway. The Roads Minister went to dinner in drag at the raceway, all paid for by the Department of Commerce. Here it is in the Appropriation Bill. They forgot about it and only just discovered it. Obviously, the dragway wanted its money before it put on the races for the Minister.

They are just some of the highlights of that bill. I could go on for a long time but I just want to talk about blow-outs and delays on infrastructure projects. After having a quick look at Budget Paper No. 4, in one year the total budget blow-outs totalled $2.6 billion. The Treasurer cannot manage anything. He cannot deliver anything on time or on budget. The blow-out was $2.6 billion for 194 projects. The delays on over 180 projects totalled 219 years. I will save this list to go through at a later occasion. I will enjoy going through the examples of the Treasurer's mismanagement one by one. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the critical issue is that the people of New South Wales cannot be confident that the Treasurer can manage the budget. As to his performance last year, I refer to his report card: revenue wrong by $2.3 billion, employee expenses wrong by $870 million, other operating expenses wrong by $770 million, result wrong by $1.14 billion. He picked a deficit when it was a surplus. That is the budget!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter) [5.42 p.m.], in reply: I was not going to say anything on the budget because members will have an opportunity later to have their say on it. But I want to respond to some of the issues raised by the Hon. Greg Pearce. I will not take as much time as the honourable member did. The budget was well received by a number of independent commentators. They were not people associated with the Labor Party; they were independent people who represent key sectors of the economy. Graham Wolf of the Housing Industry Association said:

It is a very good budget for the housing industry. It will help trigger and stimulate investors back into the property market, which has been a big issue for the industry.

It goes on. I do not want to waste the time of the House but I will indicate that Ken Morrison of the Property Council said:

Today's budget has delivered good news for property owners and investors in New South Wales.

The Government should be congratulated for having the most competitive land tax regime in Australia.

The NSW Government has announced a major boost to infrastructure funding today.

The budget's focus on securing our electricity supply and investing in better transport systems is right.

The NSW Government should be congratulated for accelerating the removal of mortgage duty and lease duty.

The list goes on. The New South Wales Business Chamber Chief Executive Officer, Kevin MacDonald, congratulated the Government on its $49 billion infrastructure outlay, and said:

I commend the Premier for driving an infrastructure strategy focused on improving the economic position of NSW and in seeking greater private sector involvement through the use of public private partnerships [PPPs].

The Government's approach is sound and well considered. It represents real progress in the delivery of the State Infrastructure Strategy.

Importantly, it is funded by the right mix of government funded capital, debt and private sector involvement.

Mr MacDonald congratulated us on focusing on the economic capacity of New South Wales. And here is a person from the past. Members of this Chamber would remember this person. She was a member here before the Hon. David Clarke got rid of her. Sydney Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Patricia Forsythe said:

This is a good budget for Sydney.

The budget also contains some good news for the property sector with the announcement that the land tax rate will be reduced from 1.7 per cent to 1.6 per cent.

Good on you, Patricia! She has obviously seen the light since David gave her a new career path in the private sector. She is now able to see with more objectivity the merits of the New South Wales Government. The Real Estate Institute said it was delighted with the budget and it applauded our initiatives in that sector. The list goes on. The National Retailers Association Chief Executive Officer, Margy Osmond, a person also well known to the Opposition, congratulated the Government on its budget and said it was refreshing to see no tax increases for New South Wales families, and more money to improve and expand public transport and roads. She said that should be welcomed with open arms. CPA Australia again congratulated the Government on the budget. The list goes on. Although I do not want to waste the time of the House, I want to put one last one on the record. The Queensland Leader of the Opposition, or the Leader of the Liberal Party, Bruce Flegg, congratulated the New South Wales Government on its budget.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is not the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: What is he?
The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is the Leader of the Liberal Party.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is right; you guys are blueing up there. The Queensland Leader of the Liberal Party drew a contrast between the Queensland budget and the New South Wales budget and said that the New South Wales budget was superior in a range of measures, particularly in the areas that the Opposition has criticised, that is, infrastructure and the total tax take. Andrew Stoner congratulated the Government on the money we are spending on Kempsey police station. It is nice to hear that from the Leader of The Nationals.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What else would you expect from the local member? It is hardly an endorsement of your silly budget.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is great that he made positive comments. I give him credit for having seen the merits of our budget. Even Barry O'Farrell congratulated the Government on its initiatives in mental health. The Midwives Association also congratulated us, and mental health experts further endorsed the budget. From Professor Ian Hickie of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, more congratulations on the Government's expenditures. The list goes on. Community service representatives congratulated the Government. The one I was surprised with was the arts. We were congratulated on our increase in the annual grants to the Museum of Contemporary Art. There were regional endorsements. Overwhelmingly, we received support from editorials and people who are not supporters of the Government. In fact, some of them who advocated that they voted for the Liberal Party in the last State election have endorsed our budget.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Sensible people.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: They got it wrong. Even the Teachers Federation welcomed additional funding for classrooms, particularly in the Hunter. It goes on and on and on. I do not know what the Hon. Greg Pearce was talking about. He was obviously reading the last Federal budget, particularly when he talked about infrastructure overruns. The Government did have some overruns in infrastructure projects. I do not deny that, but that is a normal component of Government capital works programs. The scope of works may change or the cost of raw materials may increase. A project may be impacted by labour market shortages caused largely by the Federal Government. Weather and heritage issues are important considerations on building projects.

One project was held up for a significant period because of heritage issues. I am happy to accept the criticism, as long as the honourable member realises that the overruns in the budget, particularly as it relates to the government sector, account for a small proportion of the infrastructure component. Clearly, the Government should do better in these areas, and it will endeavour to do so. However, there are factors outside its control that make these projects difficult to predict with precision. For example, the upgrade of Windsor Road is a $500­million project and some heritage issues arose that significantly increased the cost and delayed the project. We cannot plan for these things, but they are part and parcel of construction.

Even the Commonwealth Government, which spends a miserly $5 billion a year on infrastructure compared with our $12.5 billion in this year's budget, has had all sorts of problems. It surprises me that the Commonwealth Government's problems are in critical areas such as defence procurement. The Tiger helicopter project is three years behind schedule and the cost has blown out from $1.5 billion to $2 billion. The high­frequency radio communication modernisation project is six years behind schedule. Its original budget was about $500 million and it now stands at nearly $700 million. The guided missile frigate upgrade is six years behind schedule. It was originally estimated to cost $1.2 billion, but that figure is now $1.5 billion. The Commonwealth Government had to own up to the fact that at least $10 billion worth of defence projects have faced significant delays and cost blow-outs, and some have even been scrapped. The Commonwealth Government has decided that those projects cannot be delivered. I have a list here that is pages long.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Will you table that?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not want to table it; I do not think it is relevant.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: We will do lists at four paces and we will use this one.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My list looks pretty good. The Australian Defence Force's air refuelling capability project is seven years behind schedule and there has been a blow-out of nearly $1.7 billion. The FA18 Hornet project is five years behind schedule. These are important issues of national defence: we need this equipment to defend the country. The Hon. Greg Pearce is worried about the Windsor Road project being delayed because of heritage issues. However, at a time when we have been told we are facing the threat of international terrorism and national security issues, Commonwealth defence project after Commonwealth defence project has been delayed. On average, these projects are six—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There are no international terrorists on Windsor Road.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is right, but there are problems. As I said, the Commonwealth high-frequency radio project is six to eight years behind schedule. I am sure our people in the gulf on patrol would like to have an anti-ship missile defence capability. That project is four years behind schedule and about $150 million over budget. The Anzac ship helicopter project is eight years behind schedule. I do not mind trading infrastructure delays: the Commonwealth Government's record demonstrates that it is a disgrace with regard to managing capital works programs. It is true that out of a budget of about $10 billion we found $200 million in overruns because of issues such as heritage, scope and so on.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: It is $2.6 billion.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is not right. These projects can be subject to delays. If honourable members want to follow this through they should refer to the Australian Financial Review of 13 March 2007, which contains a list of all these Commonwealth projects. I hope we can sleep well at night knowing we have such a competent Department of Defence looking after our interests in respect of defence procurement. I am very uneasy about that. If honourable members opposite want to relate these projects to the Windsor Road upgrade being delayed by heritage issues they are welcome to do so. However, that is why the people of New South Wales rejected them at the last election. That was only recently—March.

I am surprised that the public of New South Wales did not realise the Opposition's merits and appreciate the wonderful projects and programs it was putting forward during the election campaign! I wonder why they did not rush into the ballot box to vote for the Coalition! Of course, part of the reason was that the public wanted to vote for Michael Costa—because a vote for Labor was a vote for Costa—and they returned this Government. The other reason they did not vote for the Coalition is that they had no faith in its ability to manage the State's finances, so they returned the Labor Government.

I do apologise to the taxpayers of New South Wales: I did get the numbers wrong. We were going to have a deficit, but unfortunately we brought in a surplus. I used part of that surplus to reduce State debt so that the Government could continue this record capital investment program. I know that disturbs the Hon. Greg Pearce, and I am sorry. I do not want him to lose any sleep over it. I hope that next year we have an even larger surplus than we are predicting. The honourable member does not understand that a budget is a projection into the future.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Which you got wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not have a crystal ball. All I can do is to estimate, based on the best information available, where we are likely to be in 12 months, and to ensure that those elements we can control we manage as best we can. If we have an equity market that is a little more buoyant than predicted and we get a one-off windfall we will use the extra revenue to reduce debt, which is prudent. The Commonwealth Government has not been able to predict for the past 10 years what its revenue outcomes will be. As a consequence, it has brought down surplus after surplus after surplus—although it did have two deficits in its early years in office. Those surpluses were well above the Commonwealth Government's estimates.

The Commonwealth Treasurer also got it wrong on the expenditure side. Buoyant revenues, particularly in the corporate sector, are covering up the Commonwealth Government's incompetence in managing its infrastructure projects. We are not in that luxurious position; we have to manage well to bring in our budgets. This budget shows that the Government is managing well. I could go on but I will not because it is 5.55 p.m. I did not want to say these things but the Hon. Greg Pearce got me going again. I commend the bills to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Michael Costa agreed to:

That these bills be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.59 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007. The bill amends the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 to ensure that a person who is subject to a sentence of imprisonment for a single class 2 offence is not excluded from reporting requirements under that Act merely because the person's sentence has been suspended and they are not subject to supervision. The Government has prepared this bill as a matter of urgency as the children of New South Wales deserve the best possible protection from people who have been convicted of child sex offences or other serious offences committed against children.

Since October 2001 we have had a system in place in this State which requires people who have been convicted of sex offences and other serious offences against children to report their personal details to the New South Wales Police Force for a fixed number of years while they are living in the community. I strongly support this system, which is legislatively underpinned by the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. Registrable offences are listed in two separate categories under the Act. Class 1 includes the most serious offences, such as child murder and sexual intercourse with a child. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Class 2 includes other offences such as acts of indecency against a child and possession of child pornography.

Persons who have been convicted of a registrable offence or offences and meet a minimum sentencing threshold are required to report to police and are defined as registrable persons under the Act.

The information registrable persons provide means that police are told where these persons live, where they work, and what car they drive.

Registrable persons are also required to let police know about any children they reside with or have unsupervised contact with and affiliation with any clubs or organisations that have child membership.

They are also required to inform police in advance of their intended interstate or international travel arrangements.

This information increases and improves the accuracy of child sex offender intelligence held by police. It also assists in the investigation and prosecution of child sex offences committed by recidivist offenders as well as in the police management and monitoring of child sex offenders in the community.

The data held on the NSW Child Protection Register is also uploaded to the Australian National Child Offenders Register.

This database, which is managed by CrimTrac, is used to assist police from other jurisdictions in monitoring child sex offenders.

This national database also allows NSW police to receive alerts from the Australian Federal Police about registered persons travelling overseas who have not reported this information to police.

It was recently brought to my attention that a legal technicality identified in the case of Khanna v. Commissioner of Police NSW has resulted in 26 people being removed from the Child Protection Register.

This followed from a decision delivered by Mr Justice Brereton in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the effect that while the applicant had been convicted of a single Class 2 offence, he was not a registrable person as he had been subject to a suspended sentence without any supervision.

This case has set a terrible precedent and it is essential that the Act be changed to close this unintended loophole.

Currently section 3A(2)(b) of the Act provides that persons who have been convicted of a single Class 2 offence are only registrable persons if the sentence imposed on them included:

(i) a term of imprisonment, including a term of imprisonment the subject of a periodic detention order, or an equivalent order under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, or

(ii) a requirement that the person be under the supervision of a supervising body or any other person or body.

His Honour Justice Brereton held that the wholly suspended sentence that had been imposed on the applicant was not a 'term of imprisonment' for the purposes of the Act.

I am advised that since this decision was delivered, the NSW Police Force identified 26 other persons in the same circumstances.

Acting on the advice of counsel retained by the Crown Solicitor's Office, the NSW Police Force wrote to each of these people in May 2007 advising them they could be removed from the Register if they wished.

The Counsel's Memorandum of Advice referred to the amendment included in the bill which I am introducing today.

The Advice noted that, assuming the amendment is passed and has retrospective effect, the Commissioner of Police should write a further letter to those persons informing them that they are once again required to report to police under the Act.

I am advised that the 26 persons have been convicted for crimes including possession of child pornography, acts of indecency and indecent assault upon children.

These are crimes that Parliament saw as sufficiently serious to include as Class 2 registrable offences under the Act.

Furthermore, it was Parliament's original intention that persons who committed such crimes would be required to report to police on at least an annual basis and have their personal details recorded on the Child Protection Register.

The fact that they have received a suspended sentence is not necessarily an indication their actions were at the lowest level of seriousness, as other factors involving the offenders' personal circumstances are taken into account on sentencing.

Persons who receive a suspended sentence are technically sentenced to imprisonment; however that penalty is suspended in whole or part.

Misconduct during the term of the suspended sentence can lead to its revocation and incarceration of the convicted person.

I will now outline the provisions of the bill.

Schedule 1 [1] amends the definition of an existing controlled person to include a person who immediately before October 2001 was serving a term of imprisonment the subject of a sentence supervision order.

This provision will capture any persons who were subject to a sentence supervision order immediately prior to the commencement of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 in October 2001.

Schedule 1 [2] defines a sentence supervision order as an order under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Schedule 1 [3] amends the definition of a registrable person to include a person whose sentence is the subject of a sentence supervision order.

This provision means a person is a registrable person even if the sentence that was imposed on the person consisted solely of a term of imprisonment the subject of a sentence suspension order.

Schedule 1 [6] clarifies that the bill extends to any person who has been sentenced in respect of a registrable offence at any time before the commencement of this bill.

The provision allows that as soon as practicable after its commencement, the Commissioner of Police will give relevant persons written notice of their reporting obligations and the consequences that may arise if the person fails to comply with those obligations.

This provision is essential so that the 26 persons who have been removed from the Child Protection Register do not take advantage of the court decision to escape the appropriate scrutiny and monitoring by the NSW Police Force that their presence on the Register mandates.

The judgment in Khanna v. Commissioner of Police NSW is an unintended consequence of the drafting of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 , which can be simply remedied by the Act being amended to make clear that 'imprisonment' includes a suspended sentence.

I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [6.01 p.m.]: The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007 amends the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 to ensure that a person who is subject to a sentence of imprisonment for a single class 2 offence is not excluded from reporting requirements under that Act merely because the person's sentence has been suspended under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It is yet another example of the Government being forced into action after being publicly exposed for taking its eye off the ball.

The problems started last year when a male who had been convicted in 2004 of committing an indecent act on a child in Victoria and who was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, which was suspended for 18 months, sought an injunction to stop his name going on the Child Protection Register. In January this year the Supreme Court ruled that the offender was not a registrable person, and it ordered a permanent injunction on the Commissioner of Police and the New South Wales Police Force making an entry on the register.

In January this year the Government was alerted to the fact that there was a problem with the legislation as it stood, yet it took until last week before the legislation came before the Parliament. The Minister for Police told us that it was the Government's first opportunity to correct the problem. However, this should have been one of the first pieces of legislation introduced into the new Parliament. The House resumed on 8 May, for the first time after the election. Why could the legislation not have been dealt with on that day? Given the seriousness of this matter, I suspect that leave could have been given to have the bill pushed through the Parliament in one day, as we have seen in the past with other pieces of legislation that are less important and less significant in terms of their impact and the need to protect children in our community.

Instead of fixing the problem, in May, at the direction of the Minister for Police, police wrote to offenders to tell them they could come off the register. The Government tells us that 26 offenders took up the offer to have their names removed from the register. These are offenders who had been found guilty of an offence against a child and who had been sentenced to imprisonment, even if in some cases the sentence had been suspended. They posed a risk to children or a child, they were convicted of acting criminally towards them, and regardless of whether the court feels that they will reoffend the Opposition believes there is no doubt that they should be on the Child Protection Register. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.04 p.m.]: I support the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007, which is very important. As sometimes happens when a court decision has been made, it has a flow-on the effect and it is then necessary for the Government to introduce legislation to rectify a problem brought to light by the court's decision. In the Supreme Court of New South Wales Mr Justice Brereton ruled that an applicant who had been convicted of a single class 2 offence was not a registrable person as he had been subject to a suspended sentence without any supervision.

One of the problems with offences involving child abuse, various sexual offences and serious offences against children is that some of the offenders are found guilty but they receive a suspended sentence. On many occasions I have been critical about the extremely short sentences imposed for child pornography. Although the offence carries a five-year maximum sentence, some offenders are sentenced to only eight months imprisonment, as happened in the case of Dr Power. Indeed, Dr Power is appealing against his sentence on the basis that it is draconian. In the worst case scenario, some judges give a suspended sentence and that suspended sentence is without any supervision. Because of Mr Justice Brereton's decision, 26 people were able to apply to have their names removed from the Child Protection Register.

The Child Protection Register is vital for the New South Wales Police Force, and police in other States, to keep track of these individuals, who may move interstate, as they often do. Sometimes they even try to change their identity, change their name and so on so that they may not be easily apprehended if they come into contact with children—for example, when they are not supposed to be involved with work in which there is contact with children. It is vital that the register operate so these individuals can be tracked wherever they go in Australia.

The data held on the New South Wales Child Protection Register is uploaded to the Australian National Child Offenders Register. This database, which is managed by CrimTrac, is used to assist police from other jurisdictions in monitoring child sex offenders. The national database also allows New South Wales police to receive alerts from the Australian Federal Police about registered persons travelling overseas who have not reported this information to police. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill and congratulates the Government on its speed in rectifying the situation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.07 p.m.]: I am sure there is universal agreement in this House that as a State and as a community we need to act to protect children and young people from violent crimes. Paedophilia is a horrendous problem, and a child protection register is one tool in helping to stop it. The important question is whether the bill, which extends the Offenders Registration Scheme, will actually achieve greater protection for children. As I said in this House in 2004 when the Government introduced amending legislation to the principal Act:

We need to know how effective the Child Protection Register has been to judge whether it should be expanded, or whether we should put more funding and attention into other strategies, such as community education and information, personal safety and protective behaviour programs for children, the training of professionals in the identification of abuse, services for victims, treatment services for sex offenders, and intensive supervision of the most serious sex offenders.

There is a need to weigh up where resources should best be directed. For example, studies show that treatment programs for some child sex offenders, particularly cognitive behavioural approaches, can be effective in changing behaviour. But we know in New South Wales there is a shortage of treatment programs and unacceptably long waiting lists to access them.

The New South Wales Ombudsman, in his 2005 report on his review of the Child Protection Register, said:

The register is just one aspect of a broad range of child protection measures … and should not create a false sense of security or be seen as the single solution to protecting children from sex offenders.

After six years of the operation of the Offenders Registration Scheme, I am still unaware of any research that shows whether the Offender Registration Scheme has been effective in tackling paedophilia. It would be very useful if the Minister would comment on that. Child sex offences are hideous crimes and this area of law deserves significant research to ensure we get the most effective response. The Greens want the most effective response to this very serious threat to children's safety; we do not want a response that just looks like it should be effective.

This scheme is based on the assumption that an offender who is monitored is less likely to reoffend. If there were any evidence that the registration scheme reduced rates of violent crime against children the Greens would be more confident in their support for extending the scheme. I again urge the Minister in his reply to tell the House if evidence exists to show the effectiveness of this scheme. The New South Wales Ombudsman expressed concern in his review that some police commands were monitoring all registered persons in the same way, regardless of the person's assessed risk. He advised that the focus of police efforts should clearly be on registered persons who pose the greatest risk to children in the community, with targeting according to risk, which would provide the most efficient use of police time and resources. The Greens sincerely hope that the New South Wales Police Force has taken this observation on board and refined its operations to make sure this is the case.

The amending bill seems to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to child sexual offences, and that risks diverting resources from where they are most needed and where they can be most effectively targeted to stop child sex offenders. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007 extends the Offender Registration Scheme and applies it retrospectively to include persons whose term of imprisonment has been wholly or partly suspended. The context of this bill is the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Khanna v The Commissioner of Police . The Government has justified the bill on the basis that the amendment is merely a clarification and is closing a loophole to make it clear that people on suspended sentences should have been included in the Child Protection Register.

However, a reading of Justice Brereton's judgment in the Khanna case tells a different story. Justice Brereton looked at the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act, the relevant case law, and the comments of the then Minister for Juvenile Justice, Carmel Tebbutt, in her second reading speech on the bill, and Justice Brereton came to the conclusion that it was not the intention of the Parliament to include people with suspended sentences on the Child Protection Register. I will quote a portion of Justice Brereton's judgment where he carefully weighs the competing considerations of protection and rehabilitation in concluding:

The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act serves an important function in protecting the community from the risk of children being exposed to persons who have committed sexual offences against children. However, most protections of one class of person involve incursions on the liberties of others, and this Act endeavours to balance the goal of the protection of children with the rehabilitation of offenders after they have served their sentences by recognising that some classes of sex offenders do not pose a sufficient risk to justify the imposition on them of the stigma of registration to the detriment of their effective rehabilitation.

The terms of the Act and the second reading speech indicate that in balancing those considerations Parliament has determined that a single offence in the less serious category (Class 2) that attracts a sentence indicative of a judgment that supervision after sentencing is not required is not such as to warrant registration.

The judge comments that the policy that informed the Government's original exclusion of people who will be caught by this bill was:

… the view that such sentences were demonstrative that a court was satisfied that the offender was not of sufficient risk "to warrant any supervision after sentencing".

The impression I get from Justice Brereton's judgment is that the bill is not merely designed to close a loophole; it extends the Offender Registration Scheme, and the Government should be honest about that. This legislation is important because being on the Child Protection Register involves significant deprivation. The reporting period for an adult offender may be from eight years to the duration of the offender's life. Only registrable persons with a lifelong reporting period are eligible to appeal against their inclusion on the register. For any other person there is no provision for review or repeal in respect of determination of a registration requirement. The New South Wales Ombudsman noted that was a matter of significant concern to those responding to his review of the register.

I am concerned that this bill is another initiative prompted by sensational media reports. I note that the Government did not seek to amend the bill in the five months since Justice Brereton handed down his judgment; it waited until after the Daily Telegraph ran an article a couple of weeks ago claiming that hundreds of paedophiles could be removed from the Child Protection Register. It should be self-evident that law reform should not be driven by sensational tabloid coverage. But all too often with this Labor Government it is.

The Greens will monitor whether the Government honours its legislative obligation to table the report of the review of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, taking into account the Ombudsman's review of the scheme, which was tabled in November 2005. The police Minister's review must be undertaken and tabled as soon as practicable after receipt of the Ombudsman's report, but we know the Government does not always comply with its obligation to report on its review of legislation, as we have seen with the New South Wales Privacy Act review, which is almost two years overdue. The Greens support this bill but we believe the Government needs to be more informative and more honest with this House about why it is dealing with the bill tonight.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [6.16 p.m.]: The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007 amends the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. The bill will ensure that a person who is subject to a sentence of imprisonment for a single class 2 offence is not excluded from the reporting requirements of the Act merely because the person's sentence has been suspended under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

In essence, the bill seeks to close a loophole in the principal Act, which has allowed convicted child sex offenders serving a suspended sentence to be removed from the Child Protection Register. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, which is vital for the protection of children in our community. In speaking on the bill I raise serious concerns about the length of time it has taken the Government to introduce a bill to close the obvious loophole. I will briefly detail the events that preceded introduction of this bill.

In 2004 a man named Khanna was convicted of an indecent act on a child less than 16 years of age. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment but the sentence was suspended for 18 months without a requirement that he undergo any supervision. In June 2006 New South Wales police contacted Khanna and requested that he complete a notice as part of the registration process for the Child Protection Register. Khanna sought a declaration and an injunction restraining the Commissioner of Police from entering his name on the Child Protection Register. The Government should have become aware of the potential loophole at this interlocutory hearing, which was 12 months ago.

The case came before the Equity Division of the New South Wales Supreme Court in October 2006. One would rightly assume that the Crown Solicitor, acting on behalf of the Commissioner of Police in this case, made the Attorney General's Department aware of a potential loophole in the Act. As the Government should have been aware of the loophole from October 2006, it is of great concern to me, as a father of six beautiful daughters, that we are only debating today a bill to close the existing loophole—nearly eight months later. On 30 January 2006 Justice Brereton ordered a declaration that Khanna was not a registrable person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. He made a finding that the loophole did exist and that persons serving suspended sentences were not registrable persons for the purpose of the Act.

Justice Brereton's decision was handed down nearly five months ago, yet it is only today that we are debating this important bill. I note that at the time the decision was handed down the Government could have recalled Parliament to pass this amending bill to immediately close the loophole. Instead, this important bill that is vital for the protection of children is only being debated in the House today, 12 months after the Government should have been well aware of the loophole.
This is a matter of great concern and the Government has failed to explain the reasons for the extensive delay. In fact, it has not even touched on the reasons for the delay. I believe it is important that all reasonable efforts are made to protect the children of this State. The community has an expectation that we immediately, without hesitation, do all we can to protect children from people who have been convicted of committing sexual and other serious offences against children. The bill will close the loophole in the principal Act. It will ensure that people who have been given a suspended sentence for committing sexual and other serious offences against children will be listed on the child protection register. I reiterate that the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The bill urgently rectifies a loophole recently brought to the Government's attention in relation to the definition of "registrable person" under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. It is important that we close this loophole so that the children of New South Wales are provided with the utmost protection possible from convicted child sex offenders. The Government makes no apology for having the toughest child protection register in Australia. We will always make sure that New South Wales police have the powers they need to keep our children safe.

In response to comments by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that sentences are too low, I say that the fact that a sentence is suspended does not necessarily reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court can take into account other factors when sentencing, for example the offender's personal circumstances. Ms Lee Rhiannon asked whether the register is successful in preventing reoffending, or whether the Government merely responded to a Daily Telegraph article? She also asked when the legislation would be reviewed. My response is that the decision of the judge in the relevant case resulted in 26 persons found guilty of class 2 offences being taken off the child protection register. These are serious offences. Class 2 offences include possession of child pornography and indecent assault. The fact that a sentence is suspended does not necessarily reflect the seriousness; relevant factors include the personal circumstances of the offender. I reiterate that the Government makes no apology for having the toughest register in Australia.

With respect to matters raised by the Opposition, I understand that the New South Wales Police Force sought advice from the Crown Solicitor regarding the findings of the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Khanna v Commissioner of Police NSW [2007] NSWSC after the case had concluded earlier this year. The advice was to write to the 26 people on the register subject to a suspended sentence without any supervision and offer to remove them from the register. These letters were sent in May 2007.

As soon as the Government was advised of the situation the Minister took steps to ensure a speedy resolution to rectify the problem. That is why the Government introduced as a matter of urgency the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Suspended Sentences) Bill 2007. The bill will close the loophole and define persons who have been convicted of a class 2 registrable offence and subject to a suspended sentence as "registrable persons". I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 5 to 16 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.26 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am proud to speak on this bill, which is the result of the combined efforts of Country Labor in getting ethanol firmly on the political agenda. For years there has been a lot of talk about ethanol; indeed, the Federal Government has made an art form out of it, with round tables, unenforceable targets, mountains of press releases but no real action. In the words of the Premier earlier this year, the time for talk on ethanol is over.

This bill fulfils a commitment we took to the election in March. It is a solid, first step towards getting more and more biofuel. The bill demonstrates our commitment and leadership on biofuels. I am confident that the bill will be a catalyst in forcing real change in the fuel industry in New South Wales and across the nation. The other States are looking to New South Wales for a lead on biofuels and, in the absence of Federal leadership, it will be up to the States to work together on a national biofuel strategy.

I know that members of The Nationals and the Liberal Party privately acknowledge the efforts of Country Labor in introducing this bill. Speakers in another place, despite contradictory remarks, basically applaud the Government's actions. It stands in stark contrast to the Federal Government, which has no real plan, merely a lazy, market-based approach that has failed to attract the major oil companies and real biofuel production in New South Wales.

The unenforceable $350 million litre mandate is clearly seen as a joke by most stakeholders. All we have from the Federal Government is wishy-washy statements such as calling in the major oil companies and no doubt asking them nicely to recommit to the target. The Federal Government's laissez-faire approach is clearly not working, and the bill shows the way forward in getting action on biofuel.

Over the past couple of months I have had extensive discussions with the major oil companies and they are firmly on board. Already there are 150 service stations, so by the end of the year we expect there will be close to 300 service stations that will be able to supply biofuels. BP is making a concerted effort to have 100 service stations. It is working to have blending facilities as quickly as possible. For some time Caltex has had a large program of rolling out those facilities and it will continue to do so. Shell is doing the same, while Mobil has been talking with the Government and is committed to having blending facilities. Also, I have had discussions with Woolworths and Coles. Woolworths sells 20 per cent of the fuel in New South Wales. All those firms are committed to getting on board. This bill has formed the impetus for them to get moving, and I ongratulate them on the way they are moving forward.

I would ask the Federal Government to extend its $10,000 subsidy that goes to 1 October to help service stations to convert. I ask that because there will now be a lot of pressure to get service stations converted between when this comes in and 1 October. Clearly they will not be able to get enough done by then. If we can get an extension it will stop some of that mad rush.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Have you written to the Federal Government?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have asked it publicly. That is a good idea: I will write tomorrow to the Federal Government. The bill's 2 per cent target is achievable and will provide a shot of confidence for the entire industry. It also puts New South Wales ahead of the pack when it comes to capturing the benefits and opportunities presented for our State on biofuels. Besides the immediate benefits, research into the next generation of biofuels is already occurring—right across the globe. So-called second-generation biofuels—which can potentially produce fuel from a wide range of biomass—have even greater potential in terms of jobs, production levels and environmental benefits. We have already had discussions with one company that is setting up in the north of the State to do just that.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Gunnedah?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: This one is on the coast, looking at forest floor biomass, waste products. The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring that New South Wales is well placed to be at the forefront of this new potential source of alternative fuel well into the future. While this bill focuses on ethanol, let me make it clear that the Government will continue to examine strategies for other renewables—like biodiesel. In my discussions with industry stakeholders there is a clear acknowledgment that biodiesel has an important role to play in addressing issues such as fuel security, cleaner fuel, and regional jobs.

While the Federal Government has dealt a savage blow to biodiesel production through its changes to the Fuel Act, we need to continue to explore ways to promote biodiesel. I will ask the expert panel to take into consideration wholesalers' efforts and initiatives in other biofuels when it comes to reviewing their requirements under the mandate. I ask that the balance of the second reading speech, which is the same as that given in the lower House, be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I am very proud to introduce the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007 to the House. The bill marks an important step forward in our efforts to promote renewable biofuels in Australia. It is the first mandate of its kind in Australia and fulfils a commitment given by the Premier in February this year that a re-elected Iemma Government would introduce a mandate requiring 2 per cent of the total volume of sales of petrol in New South Wales to be ethanol.

Members may be surprised to know that the history of ethanol as a fuel goes back to the earliest days of the automobile industry. Henry Ford's T Models were designed to run on both petrol and ethanol. After prohibition killed off ethanol in the 1920s, ethanol disappeared, only to be brought back as a fuel source in the Second World War. Cheap, and some may now say, unsustainable petrol prices up to the 1970s made ethanol uncompetitive. The oil crisis of the 1970s sent shockwaves throughout the industrialised west. That is where the modern history of ethanol starts.

Until recently Brazil has been the major driver of ethanol use internationally. During the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] oil crisis, Brazil decided to embrace ethanol as a petrol substitute. The modern ethanol industry that has emerged in Brazil is testimony to those decisions made in the mid-1970s. In the last decade, with talk of peak oil, concerns over greenhouse gases and climate change and ongoing instability in the Middle East, the importance of energy security has moved to the top of the political agenda across the world. Most industrialised nations have turned to a number of fossil fuel alternatives to begin to address and meet the future energy needs of their people. Biofuels is one aspect of that broader strategy.

The bill is a strong commitment to the future of biofuel in New South Wales and reflects a lot of the public policy work that is taking place in jurisdictions across the world. The world is catching up with the pioneering work of Brazil. The United States of America has embraced ethanol and biofuel and has enshrined its greater uptake through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which will double the use of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012. The European Union is calling for higher levels of biofuel use, as are other major trading partners such as India, China and Japan.

The bill sets a clear path for the future of ethanol use in New South Wales, and mirrors movements taking place all around the developed world. A number of benefits can flow from a greater uptake of ethanol. A number of proposed ethanol plants are currently on the drawing board, with 10 or so plants in the planning stages across the State. The mandate will send a strong signal to the biofuel industry that provides the impetus for further investment in rural and regional New South Wales, as well as around Australia, generating hundreds of jobs. This is yet another example of the Iemma Government's commitment to generate jobs in the regions and country areas of New South Wales. A sustainable ethanol industry right here in New South Wales could offer many other benefits, from added income for our primary producers and added value from the double use of grain products to spin-off benefits for industries such as fertilisers and stock feed.
In addition, a 2 per cent mandate is a good start toward greater fuel security and less reliance on fossil fuels. Less fossil fuels means less greenhouse gas emissions, which is good for the environment and for us all. Federal Government trials that are currently under way will provide more information on the environmental impacts of ethanol-blended fuels. With motorists getting hit for six at the petrol pump, and with the world apparently locked into ever-increasing oil prices, ethanol-blended fuel is not only increasingly competitive, but these days costs more than 40¢ a litre less to produce than the average terminal gate price for petrol. This translates to savings at the petrol pump in the order of 2¢ to 3¢ a litre cheaper than unleaded petrol.

Another reason we need to turn to domestically produced fuel is the impact on our balance of payments. The nation's trade fuel deficit has spiralled out of control under the Howard Government over the last few years. With local oil supply dwindling and the price of imported fuel likely to remain high, supporting locally produced fuel products like ethanol is a step in the right direction when it comes to improving our balance of payments and increasing the nation's fuel security. The initial 2 per cent volumetric mandate is both realistic and achievable. At the same time it sends a strong message to industry and motorists alike that the State Government supports and, more importantly, promotes the use of ethanol as fuel and is willing to act on that. The mandate provides a signal to this emerging industry, which needs tangible support to create a long-term sustainable future.

The legislation proposes a mandate that sends a strong, positive message to consumers, producers, and wholesalers. But it is a mandate that is workable and flexible enough to react to a variety of situations, both foreseen and unforeseen. It is all well and good to say we are introducing a 2 per cent mandate, but good governance is about coming up with legislation that can adapt to ever-changing conditions and circumstances. More of this will come later. A recent Queensland report found that a 10 per cent mandate would lead to several operating plants, creating hundreds of direct and indirect jobs. However, to simply say we are going straight to a 10 per cent mandate, while it may be possible, would not be responsible without further detailed investigation.

The last thing we need is an unworkable mandate that leads to price shocks or supply constraints. This is why the Premier established a task force last year to report back to him later this year on the feasibility of a 10 per cent ethanol mandate, as well as the broader use of other biofuels such as biodiesel. Rather than throwaway lines, the Iemma Government will be guided by the evidence and stakeholder feedback before any decision beyond the 2 per cent level is taken. I go back to the current proposal. As I said, the mandate contained within the bill is workable and achievable. It will operate not simply in a vacuum but in conjunction with the prevailing economic, environmental, and commercial climate of the day.

The 2 per cent mandate will commence operating from 1 October this year, which will require wholesalers to furnish their first quarterly reports to the Government by the end of January 2008. Part 2 of the bill provides that a primary wholesaler must ensure that the volume of ethanol sold by the wholesaler during the relevant period is no less than 2 per cent of the total volume of all petrol sold by the wholesaler during the relevant period. It is important at this point to clarify the Government's intention. Reports in the media have tended to confuse the Government's intentions. The Government recognises that you simply cannot put ethanol­blended fuel into many engine types. Some examples where ethanol is not suitable include pre-1986 vehicles; motorcycles, as I found out through a sad experience; aeroplanes, about which I do not intend to find out through a sad experience; and lawnmowers—and I shall not use a lawnmower again!

Let me make it clear that this legislation is not about putting 2 per cent ethanol in all petrol sold in New South Wales. Rather, it is about setting a mandatory level of 2 per cent of the total volume of petrol sold in New South Wales each quarter. It would be timely for me to remind members that the maximum allowable amount of ethanol to be blended into neat petrol is 10 per cent—sometimes referred to as E10. In today's terms, that roughly translates into about 125 million litres of petrol. If that amount were sold through E10, it would work out to be approximately 1.25 billion litres of ethanol-blended fuel, that is, approximately one in five litres of all petrol sold in New South Wales. The Government is not going to tell industry the best way to reach the mandated levels. It is up to industry to work out how to best reach those levels.

Part 5 of the bill establishes an expert panel to advise my colleague the Minister for Regional Development on the application of the mandate over any particular period. The expert panel will comprise the Chief Executive Officer of State and Regional Development in the capacity as chair of the panel and the chief executive officers of Primary Industries, Environment and Climate Change, and Commerce. The expert panel will advise the Minister on whether the 2 per cent mandate will be effective for any one quarter and whether total or partial exemptions can be made to any wholesaler. The expert panel will take into account the widest possible range of considerations before it makes any recommendation to the Minister.

Some of the issues that will need to be considered by the expert panel and the Minister are the price of producing ethanol compared with the average terminal gate price of petrol over any quarter, the availability of ethanol to be blended, the availability of water or feedstock to produce ethanol, consumer acceptance, matters pertaining to health or public safety, or any other extraordinary reason. Clauses 12 and 13 of part 3 of the bill set out in broad terms the basis behind the granting of any suspension or exemption from the mandate over any particular period. The regulatory system is designed to be as simple as possible, with primary wholesalers required to submit returns to the Government. Part 2 of the bill provides for returns from primary wholesalers, who will be required to provide the total volume of petrol sold, including ethanol-blended petrol; the total volume of ethanol sold in the form of ethanol-blended fuel; as well as any other relevant information that may be required by regulation.

Reporting compliance will be simple and streamlined, with the information required by the Office of Biofuels replicating information already required by Federal bodies. The expert panel will make recommendations to the Minister for Regional Development on whether the mandate will operate in any particular quarter, and if so, at what level. For example, it may be decided for a particular quarter that only a 1 per cent mandate should apply. It will make recommendations on whether the mandate is to operate and, if so, whether there are any justifiable grounds for the Minister to grant whole or partial exemptions to any wholesaler. Part 3 of the bil Reporting compliance will be simple and streamlined, with the information required by the Office of Biofuels replicating information already required by Federal bodies. The expert panel will make recommendations to the Minister for Regional Development on whether the mandate will operate in any particular quarter, and if so, at what level. For example, it may be decided for a particular quarter that only a 1 per cent mandate should apply. It will make recommendations on whether the mandate is to operate and, if so, whether there are any justifiable grounds for the Minister to grant whole or partial exemptions to any wholesaler. Part 3 of the bill deals with penalty provisions applicable to wholesalers who have failed to comply and have not been able to justify an exemption, or have failed to furnish returns or keep records. They range from the Minister publishing the names of those who have failed to meet requirements and the nature of their transgression, through to tough financial penalties ranging from $11,000 to $110,000,

Part 4 of the bill deals with enforcement. But I stress at this stage that it is the Government's hope that mandatory levels can be reached in a spirit of cooperation. The flexibility of the bill and recognition of factors that may make it inappropriate for the mandate to operate is a sign of our good faith to work with industry and consumers to promote the greater uptake of ethanol and other biofuels. The Government will review the Act after three years to ensure the policy objectives remain valid and whether the terms contained within the Act continue to be appropriate.

We are operating within a fairly dynamic environment when it comes to biofuel. Members would be aware that the Premier’s E10 taskforce will report back to the Premier later in the year about the viability of extending the mandate to 10 per cent by 2011. The Government’s biofuel strategy is both short-term and long­term. In the short term, we want to get right behind a sustainable, long-term alternative fuel industry in New South Wales. We want to help to position New South Wales to be able to capture and benefit from the biofuel revolution. The mandate is a tangible step in that direction. Through departments such as State and Regional Development, Primary Industries, and Environment and Climate Change we are working with stakeholders in the industry in exploring proposals already on the drawing board, as well as investigating so­called second-generation technologies. This emerging technology could lead to more diverse forms of biomass used as inputs to create biofuel.

The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007 is about putting words into concrete action. For too long there has been a lot of talk about biofuel and getting behind our fledgling biofuel industries. The New South Wales Government is deeply committed to pursuing a number of strategies to promote the domestic production and use of biofuels such as ethanol. Back in the early 1980s the Wran Government had the foresight to lead the nation in mandating unleaded petrol. Although in its early days, biofuel, like ethanol, represents a largely untapped source of opportunity—for jobs, for the environment and our own fuel security, to name but a few. The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007 is a first step down that long path. New South Wales is leading the nation, but is doing so in an incremental, cautious, evidence-based way. The mandate will send a strong signal to motorists, investors and the fuel industry that the Iemma Government is serious on renewable fuels. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[ The Deputy-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) left the chair at 6.32 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m. ]
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang, on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

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

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

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.02 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007 with some concern, which I will explain later. A move towards the use of biofuels in motor vehicles in New South Wales is a step forward. The Greens support this initiative in the motor vehicles and fuel industries, with some degree of reservation. The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill provides for a minimum volumetric ethanol content of 2 per cent in the total volume of petrol sold in New South Wales, beginning in October this year. This follows the Premier's pre-election announcement in February that a mandatory ethanol content of 2 per cent would be introduced as a first step in potentially moving towards a 10 per cent mandate. The Premier's E10 task force is investigating this next step.

While the Greens do not oppose the bill, we feel it may have limited environmental benefits. It is likely to boost jobs in rural New South Wales, which is a positive factor. But the Government should not be lauding the proposed scheme's benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which it is unlikely to do in a significant way. The Greens support the development of biofuels only when there is minimal impact on biodiversity, natural resources and productive agricultural land. I am advised that the 2 per cent mandate can be met by the current potential of by-products from the flour, starch and gluten industry. That is acceptable.

Further, I understand that Manildra will cover the 2 per cent in the capacity of its mills, and that other larger mills could increase their capacity. If it does not take away from other sections of the industry, the Greens support that proposal. However, I believe we should proceed with great caution when it comes to higher mandates.

There are many unresolved issues regarding biofuels, and they are certainly not the one big solution in making fuels more climate friendly. I will elaborate later on some of the problems that have resulted from higher mandated biofuel content overseas. I am concerned about an issue raised by the Minister in his second reading speech in that he said that the Government could look at forest floor biomass as a potential fuel source. Many other potential fuel sources that could be extracted within New South Wales or imported would be of considerable concern to the Greens.

A significant proportion of the energy content of ethanol comes from fossil fuels that are used to grow, transport and manufacture the fuel. Therefore, ethanol blends may not significantly reduce CO ₂ emissions. The bill provides for 2 per cent, which I am assured will come from the waste stream. However, this is a consideration that I encourage the E10 task force to take into account when making its deliberations about any increases in mandatory ethanol levels.

According to New Scientist , the drive for "green energy" in the developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical rainforests. From Borneo to Brazil, virgin rainforest is being razed to grow palm oil and soya beans to fuel cars in Europe and North America. This has partly come about as a result of regulations in Europe for fuel to be blended with biofuels. Rising demand for green energy has led to a surge in the international price of palm oil, with damaging consequences. The United Kingdom-based Rainforest Foundation reported:

… the expansion of palm oil production is one of the leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia. Once again it appears we are trying to solve our environmental problems by dumping them in developing countries, where they have devastating effects on local people.
One of the main alternatives to palm oil is soya bean oil. But soya production is the largest single cause of rainforest destruction in the Brazilian Amazon. Biofuel is gaining popularity all over the world. China is looking at cassava as its source, Cuba hopes to revitalise its sugar industry for ethanol production, and Hungary wants to replace Russian energy imports with corn-based ethanol. The benefits of corn, for example, are not clear-cut. It takes a lot of energy to grow corn and turn it into ethanol. Cultivating it takes a lot of water, fertiliser and pesticides, which also have an environmental impact. In the United States, 27 per cent of this year's corn crop will go to the surging biofuel industry. Apart from the environmental concerns, there are also social justice implications.

The increased use of commodity crops for biofuel production will undoubtedly push up the price of crops, such as canola, sunflowers and corn. In fact, it has done so in some areas. If excess grain is used for biofuel production, Americans and Australians will not go hungry. But the resulting slump in the global grain supply will see those in impoverished countries face food shortages. In Mexico, for example, the United States' demand for ethanol from corn has pushed up corn prices to the point where the staple food is now unaffordable to many poor Mexicans.

Also of serious concern is the development of genetically engineered biofuel crops, which, although not intended for human consumption, will contaminate the food chain. These are all issues that must be considered by the task force looking into increased biofuel production. I am pleased that the expert panel to be established by the bill will include the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment and Climate Change. As the Hon. Phil Koperberg said in the other place, concerns over peak oil, climate change and conflict in the Middle East have pushed energy security to the top of the political agenda and driven industrialised nations to look to fossil fuel alternatives to meet their future energy needs. I agree that biofuels have a place in this respect. But they must not be used at the cost of biodiversity, natural resources and food security.

It is crucial that we in New South Wales and Australia start to get serious about recognising peak oil and making the transition away from fossil fuel dependency. Biofuels can play a part, so long as strict guidelines are adhered to in order to ensure sustainability. Sweden has set a goal of being oil free by 2020. We must ensure that we have measures in place for a transition away from oil before it runs out. I have given notice of a motion urging the Government to adopt the Oil Depletion Protocol, which commits signatories to a transition away from dependence on oil.

The other key issue the Government must address is reducing oil dependency by reducing our reliance on private motor vehicle transport. It is all very well to mandate a few per cent here and a few per cent there, but unless we move towards a robust and effective public transport system, we will be just tinkering around the edges without making a real dent in addressing climate change. My colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon will speak more about the transport issue. Having said that, I am a great supporter of biofuel industries and I hope that we can move forward with them in a sustainable manner. I have certainly been an enthusiastic supporter at a personal level. For 18 months I have driven a vehicle fuelled by—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: But it smells like fish and chips.

Mr IAN COHEN: That is correct. My car uses 95 per cent biofuel. I am enthusiastic when talking about people in my home area who make biofuel from used cooking oil. I buy my biofuel from a North Coast cooking oil company, which sells oil to local restaurants. It collects used oil and sends it to the Hunter area, where it is converted to biofuel.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: It is a fantastic company.

Mr IAN COHEN: I agree with that interjection; it is a fantastic company. At a boutique level it is wonderful. I feel a sense of liberation as a greenie member of Parliament driving around using a completely recycled fuel.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: That company received funding from the Howard Government.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection that the company gets funding from the Howard Government. Good luck to it if that is the case. It is important to recognise the enormous amount of goodwill on the part of the public with regard to biofuels. I enjoy using biofuels so much that I created a sticker depicting a fish pulling a chip in a wok, just like a chariot. The message is about running a vehicle on vegetable oil. The caption is "Biodiesel—Good Carma". That is the sort of thing that is happening in my area in the north of New South Wales and it is being enthusiastically embraced. I look forward to farming communities benefiting from the production of biofuel and its use in heavy vehicles. The concerns and criticisms I express are real. People are concerned about the source of biofuels and the impact of their production—and there are many problems. If I heard the Minister correctly, he talked earlier about a number of biofuel production areas on the coast. If they are on the coast, the operators may well look to import raw material.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I hope you mentioned the forest floor and waste products in the timber industry.

Mr IAN COHEN: We have heard much about where it should stop in terms of taking supposed waste and degrading the forest and the ecosystem with very intense use of cellulose products. We have seen that with the woodchip industry and various aspects of the forest industry. I do not expect to be among the majority debating this issue in this forum. It is a concern, so we should try to get it right from the start. The Greens support the biofuel industry, but with the proviso that we examine ecological and social sustainability as we move forward. As an enthusiastic user of biofuel and someone who is keen to see those industries develop in a sustainable manner, I support this bill. However, the Government must tread very carefully with regard to the source and processing of the material so that it can achieve a win-win result and these alternative industries can be developed. The Greens are very enthusiastic about the potential and we support the bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [8.14 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill. As the Minister said, this bill is the product a great deal of work and effort by Country Labor. Unlike the Coalition, Country Labor is active in the community, listening and constantly driving the Government to do more and more for country families and communities. This bill is a good case in point.

The mandate, which will commence on 1 October, will send a strong message to the industry, consumers and investors that the New South Wales Government is serious about biofuel. The mandate will achieve real action on biofuel while being flexible enough to consider whole or partial exemptions and suspensions in light of market factors such as supply, price and consumer demand. Country Labor has been promoting the benefits of biofuel in the community. It passed constructive and progressive motions at country conferences and last year achieved unanimous support for an ethanol mandate at the Labor Party's annual State Conference in New South Wales. While backing biofuels, Country Labor also condemned the Howard Government for its lack of leadership on biofuel, branding Howard's target of 350 million litres by 2010 as a pathetic joke. Country Labor also called on the Howard Government to extend the current ethanol subsidy to 2018 to allow the industry time to get on its feet and not to be swept away by cheap overseas imports. A year later, that concerted effort by Country Labor is paying off.

I do not need to remind the House of the potential benefits of ethanol in terms of jobs, the environment and reducing our reliance on overseas fuel imports. These are accepted across the board. What is surprising is the apparent disinterest in biofuel on the part of the Howard Government. Flimsy targets are widely seen as a joke and a sop to the fuel majors. What surprises me is that we have The Nationals defending the action—or should I say "inaction"—of the Howard Government over the past decade. The Nationals, particularly the Federal members, should hang their heads in shame on this issue.

Against the backing of diverse groups such as the New South Wales Division of the Australian Medical Association, New South Wales Farmers Association and the NRMA, The Nationals members sit there caught in the headlights, unable, or unwilling, to get any traction. That again demonstrates what most people widely acknowledge these days: that The Nationals are out of touch and are simply a small faction of the Coalition riding on the coat tails of their Liberal masters. However, the price of that ride is selling out country communities for the economic rationalism at any price agenda of the Liberal Party. Given the Howard Government's laissez-faire approach to biofuels, Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world with regard to renewable alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It yet again demonstrates the Iemma Government's leadership on this issue. The Premier is to be congratulated on listening to Country Labor and getting action on biofuel. The Minister for Rural Affairs, and Minister for Regional Development, the Hon. Tony Kelly, deserves praise from all sides for his championing of the biofuel issue. In light of Federal indifference it is up to the States to lead the way on biofuel, and this bill is a strong push by New South Wales in that direction. I support the bill.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.18 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007, and I do so particularly on behalf of The Nationals—the party that has delivered this legislation even though we are not in government. The Nationals have driven this issue at a national level since the beginning of this decade.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask all honourable members to stop interjecting on the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The Nationals have driven this debate in the regions also since the beginning of this decade, and we have much of which to be proud. I take the earlier point made by the Hon. Tony Kelly that he felt he deserved applause for introducing this legislation. I said to him across the Chamber that on the day he apologises for what the Labor Party did in 2002 when Simon Crean in Federal Parliament destroyed the ethanol industry—

The Hon. John Ajaka: Shame!

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: They shamed themselves. They should hang their heads in shame. I might give the Hon. Tony Kelly a clap, I might cheer for him, but only if he apologises for what the Labor Party did to the ethanol industry in 2002. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response in his reply. I am sure he is a man of honour; I have been told he is. We will see.

As I said, the Coalition has always supported the ethanol and biofuel industry, as evidenced in our policy that was released earlier this year, before the State election, entitled "Cleaner Vehicles, Cleaner Fuels: Practical Initiatives to Improve Air Quality". The Coalition, through Andrew Stoner and the Opposition Leader at the time, Peter Debnam, has long supported the need to promote environmentally friendly fuels and biofuels in order to initiate the take-up of environmentally friendly vehicle technology.

The Coalition understands that ethanol has the potential to create hundreds of jobs throughout rural and regional Australia. Additionally, the Coalition understands the need for New South Wales to move forward and lead Australia in greenhouse gas emission reductions. Our policy points out that ethanol is a combustible fuel made from crops such as wheat, corn and sugarcane, and which pollutes less than petrol. Unlike fossil fuels, ethanol is made from totally renewable materials. A mix of 10 per cent ethanol and 90 per cent petrol gives a 30 per cent reduction in carbon monoxide. Furthermore, a greater use of ethanol-blended fuels would produce advantageous outcomes, including a reduction in hazardous air pollution that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, lower fuel prices for motorists, decreased reliance on imported petroleum products, the creation of new jobs in regional areas, and the provision of more secure incomes for our farmers.

The Coalition's Ethanol Action Plan was formulated by suggestions made at many roundtable meetings held over the past year involving a combination of oil companies, scientists, ethanol producers, environmental groups and service station organisations, thus encompassing a plan that considers an acrosstheboard view. Those roundtable meetings and the public discussions that the Opposition led before the State election have resulted in this bill. We support the bill, but we believe it could go further. We believe that the Government needs to be jolted and prodded along the way to deliver—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: The Federal Government?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The State Government needs to be prodded along the way to deliver what can be realised by this industry. I wish to address a couple of points made by Mr Ian Cohen. I am disappointed that the honourable member did not mention the fact that the Manildra Mills' Bomaderry plant is an excellent example of how waste product from wheat can be turned into fuel, in the form of ethanol. Before that waste product was turned into ethanol it had little or no value. The product does not provide competition for grain as a food export; it is simply a waste product of wheat that we are now putting into our cars.

I note that Manildra Mills is investing many millions of dollars into the plant on the Shoalhaven. The company has invested about $200 million into Shoalhaven starches. The new expansion of the plant at Bomaderry will cost about $170 million. The number of employees in the Manildra group is 852, and the number of employees at Bomaderry is around 250. The major employers are in the west of the State, around Manila, where the wheat plants and the production capacities are located, and the waste product is transported by train across to Bomaderry. The plant runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The salary bill for the Bomaderry region is around $23 million.

Obviously there are many benefits. The ethanol plant at Bomaderry currently has a capacity to produce 100 million litres and the plant will be expanded over the next 12 to 18 months. By the end of 2008 the ethanol plant will have a capacity to produce upwards of 300 million litres, which would be adequate for a 4 per cent ethanol mandate. In terms of good environmental outcomes—using waste products, and not putting further demand and competition on a food product—the company is an excellent example of Australian ingenuity. The work that Manildra Mills has done needs to be applauded.

I go back to the important point that in 2002 Simon Crean in the Federal Parliament allowed that company's reputation to be sullied and destroyed for the sake of a cheap political headline. That event created great uncertainty and concern within the Australian community about the safe use of ethanol in vehicles. It was a very serious matter and it should not be forgotten. I accept that the Australian community has moved a long way from that point in 2002 given its respect and trust of the ethanol product, but it has only occurred as a result of a lot of hard work. The Nationals have been at the forefront of that hard work in promoting the positive environmental benefits and economic benefits to our regions.

Mark Vaile, our Federal Nationals leader, has certainly been at the forefront of that promotion, as was his predecessor, the Hon. John Anderson. At this point it is appropriate to raise some issues that John Anderson spoke about during a life membership acceptance speech at The Nationals conference in Singleton two weeks ago. John Anderson spoke about ethanol and the future of the industry for Australia and the regions. He said:

And as we see this convergence of great difficult issues of climate change, of the possibility of reaching peak oil, the end of cheap oil over the next 5 to 10 years … I believe we will have real concerns about energy security and as we put that together with the real needs and the opportunities that are provided by the rural communities for new industries, we need to look seriously to something that our American friends are advancing much more than we are.

…

Ethanol is like the early-stage computers, and I mean no disrespect to the people in the industry at all. It is a simple two molecular alcohol that comes from plant production. In reality, when if you look at where the Americans are going and don't be unaware of the great ethical debate that is opening up, 16% of their corn is now going into ethanol, producing 3% of the nation's liquid fuel needs. That has already had such an impact on corn prices that you have had political unrest in Mexico …

He said the Americans are "really going on this" in an extraordinary way. John Anderson continued:

They are pouring massive resources into the secrets of extracting the sugars from plate material other than grain, liquid celluloses. It is not only the public sector [but the private sector as well].

The opportunities are extraordinary. Biomasses in this country may very well be an opportunity for a whole new set of rural industries, a whole new set of opportunities for jobs in rural areas.

I hope that in the future we embrace those opportunities and possibilities more efficiently than has happened in New South Wales thus far. I also point out that the community of Gunnedah, which is in the electorate of the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, is leading the way on ethanol. Major investment is going on in Gunnedah with the construction of a $100 million ethanol plant. It is close to completion. The project has been supported by the local community and the Federal Government. It is predicted to inject $516 million into the regional economy, with $1 billion predicted over five years. The project provides permanent employment for around 50 people at the site, 350 in direct jobs in transport and marketing and more than 500 jobs in construction. That is a great boost for Gunnedah.

The Minister would be aware that given the difficulties with the Pilliga and the limitations on the industry in that region that have been imposed by the Government, this is a boost that Gunnedah desperately needs. I congratulate the proponents of that plant. It is important that we secure more and more sources of ethanol in New South Wales. One of the concerns is that the 2 per cent ethanol mandate is about having adequate ethanol supplies within New South Wales upon which service stations can call.

I also raise the concerns that were expressed by the Lot Feeders Association of Australia—and this goes to the very heart of using grain rather than waste products to produce ethanol, as is being done in Manildra. The Lot Feeders Association of Australia is very worried that artificially generating demand for ethanol through a mandate or through subsidies will artificially increase the price of grain, a product from which ethanol is extracted.

Despite the drought, the New South Wales beef industry is currently very healthy and is enjoying strong international prices. Lot feeding is a particularly profitable industry. Lot feeders are worried that grain shortages could result from hastily introduced legislation. It is important to be aware of the supply and demand issues involved with ethanol production. I also note that in the Minister's address earlier he referred to a North Coast plant that is looking to use scraps from local timber and forest industries to create ethanol. This is a positive outcome in that ethanol can be made from waste products rather than from grain, and this will alleviate the concerns about grain shortages.

We have enough potential, adequate land and sufficient innovation in this country to grow trees and other products such as soya beans. Mr Ian Cohen referred earlier to palm oil prices increasing throughout the world, partly because of the demand for biofuels. I do not know if we have many areas that will successfully grow palm oil, but we certainly have good soya bean growing capacity throughout New South Wales, and soya bean farmers are particularly successful. It is a relatively small industry but it provides opportunity, and it is that type of opportunity that should be encouraged. We should not be putting obstacles in the way of innovation and private industry.

The bill proposes that penalties be imposed on those failing to keep proper records, those who knowingly provide false information and those who fail to meet mandated levels ranging from 11,000 to 110,000. The Coalition believes that a more cooperative approach must be taken towards regulating such a mandate when farmer organisations and other industry bodies are approached and included in the decision­making process. Private industry should be encouraged to invest in the fuel of the future. The Government needs to take the lead and stimulate business activity in order to produce the required levels of ethanol production.

The Opposition will not oppose the bill. We will, however, be keeping a close eye on the Government's progress to see whether it achieves the mandated levels. The Nationals and the Liberals believe that this will provide a great boost to regional New South Wales. It has the potential to provide even more investment opportunities at the same time as it improves the environment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.32 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007, which will mandate a minimum 2 per cent ethanol content for total petrol sales in New South Wales by requiring primary wholesalers of petrol to ensure that the volume of ethanol sold by them in the form of petrol ethanol blend is at least 2 per cent of the volume of all petrol sold by them. Obviously, this bill only applies to sales and deliveries in New South Wales.

We congratulate the Government and the Minister, the Hon. Tony Kelly, on introducing this legislation. There has been long, drawn-out debate over a number of years about the use of ethanol in vehicles in New South Wales in order that we may reduce our total dependence on oil and petrol, which is made from oil, and may support our own oil wells rather than those in the Middle East, the supply from which can be affected without warning as a result of armed conflict or other events out of our control.

The advantages of using a renewable alternative fuel such as ethanol are great. It will provide jobs in rural and regional New South Wales. It has been said that it will give support to the Manildra plant at Bomaderry and enable it to use grain or wheat waste to produce ethanol. I regularly drive past the plant on my way to Nowra; I live at Gerroa, which is not very far from the plant. The plant provides 250 jobs, but if the company expands it will provide more jobs in the region, and that will benefit the very large population of Nowra, which is very close to Bomaderry in the Shoalhaven region. It will also provide the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, place less reliance on fossil fuels and provide alternative markets for primary producers, who are always looking for ways in which to expand. In this way waste wheat or grain can be used to produce ethanol.

We are pleased this bill has been introduced. I note the Government is targeting a 10 per cent mandate by 2011, and this is being monitored by the Premier's E10 task force. My only comment is, why wait until 2011? Why can the target not be reached earlier? We should encourage the task force to bring forward plans to achieve 10 per cent before 2011. I do not think we need to wait that long. We support the bill.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [8.36 p.m.]: I intend to speak only very briefly on the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007. The Hon Melinda Pavey, in leading for the Opposition, did a very good job outlining the issues involved. As a resident of the Shoalhaven I most certainly would like to say that this bill is most welcome. The Hon Melinda Pavey talked about the economic impact of the Shoalhaven plant at Bomaderry—a plant I have visited and inspected. It is now the largest private employer in the Shoalhaven at Manildra. Sadly too many of our large private employers, including Gates Rubber and Dairy Farmers, have left Nowra because of the burdens that too many small businesses in regional areas face because of this Government's policies on a variety of issues. Manildra stays strong and plays a wonderful role in the Shoalhaven as a corporate citizen.
The Hon Melinda Pavey referred to the events of 2002 when the then leader of the Federal Labor Party and leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Simon Crean, launched a disgraceful attack in the Federal Parliament on Manildra and its principal, Mr Dick Honan, for cheap and short-term political advantage. It is important to remember and deprecate those events. Mr Honan has put an incredible amount of personal capital on the line to develop the biofuel industry in our country, and I believe that in doing so he has made a great contribution to our fuel security in the long term. He is very much to be congratulated I would hope by all members of this House.

The events in 2002 set us back and were followed by a disgraceful campaign to try to back up what was said in the Federal Parliament, with others joining in, trying to suggest that the use of ethanol-blended petrol was deleterious to motor vehicles. Clearly this was not the case. The case was advanced in self-interest, although that was not always obvious. We have now reached this position several years on. We may have reached this position much earlier had it not been for those events. I congratulate Manildra on the contributions it has made to the Shoalhaven and to the shareholders, who have put their capital on the line to help build the biofuel industry. I thank them.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the biofuels debate. I will refer to comments made by the Hon. Ian Cohen, in part addressed by the Hon. Melinda Pavey. Manildra already has flour plants out in Manildra, near where I live, Gunnedah and Narrandera. The other plant, at Bomaderry, uses the starch waste only to produce ethanol. It is not a question of food for fuel; it is very efficient and very good for the environment when ethanol is produced in that way.

Mr Ian Cohen expressed concern about how ethanol might affect food supplies overseas. Germany has an ethanol plant that uses 700,000 tonnes of grain per year, but none of it comes from food supplies. In the European Union a lot of land has been set aside for ethanol production. In other words, farmers are paid not to farm because there is too much production, but the land used for ethanol production is land that was normally set aside but put back into production just to produce ethanol. Mr Ian Cohen suggested that ethanol might be imported from overseas, which is why some of the plants were on the coast. The plant on the coast that I mentioned is a trial plant to investigate using biomass from the forest floor. All the other proposed plants are in rural and regional areas such as Coleambally, Gunnedah, Condobolin and Trangie.

We are moving cautiously and have put in place a biofuels task force to monitor the increased production of ethanol so that the mandate keeps pace and to ensure that there are no imports from overseas. We are doing this to kick-start the biofuel industry to make it bankable, to ensure that there is demand for the products, to create jobs in country areas and to protect the environment. The Hon. Melinda Pavey stated that she was not sure whether there was sufficient supply for the 2 per cent mandate. I am advised that the current expansion of the Manildra plant by itself will cover the 2 per cent mandate, which will mean jobs for Nowra. The expansion there will be ready in time. Although I will not reveal what the fuel companies have told me, they have already put in place deals to ensure they have sufficient supply from that area. This is not counting the supply that comes from Queensland from CSR sugar.

Lot feeders also have some concerns about the legislation, but with the current mandate of 2 per cent those concerns are not great. The task force will continue to monitor the situation and will make sure that the Government continues to balance supply with demand. The proposal is to plant corn at Coleambally as an alternative to rice in some areas where the market is not large enough for rice. So this will not take away corn that is used for food, and it will save up to 50 per cent of the water that would have been used to produce rice. The companies will give farmers in those areas that option, which should make the Greens and the environmentalists happy.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile stated that the proposals will reduce reliance on fuel imports. About a decade ago our fuel imports were $488 million; they are now $10 billion. This is one way of trying to reduce our fuel imports. He asked why we should wait until 2011 for the 10 per cent requirement and whether we could move earlier. I have not embedded in the legislation anything past the 2 per cent, even though the Premier has said that he wants to have E10 mandated completely by 2011. We will use the task force to monitor the new plants to make sure that there are enough available to produce the ethanol required. We do not want to import ethanol. If more plants come on stream—we usually have 12 to 18 months notice because of the construction period—we will bring the legislation back to the House and fine-tune it so that we keep pace with production.
The Hon. Don Harwin said that Dick Honan, his father before him, and his son, have put an enormous amount of personal capital into the ethanol industry in Australia. Indeed, they have spearheaded it. We are way behind the rest of the world and we are pleased to support the company and the approximately 900 jobs across country New South Wales that come from the industry. Simon Crean has been mentioned tonight: concerns were raised about issues he raised years ago. He claims he was misreported and his aim was to achieve the 10 per cent level that the Prime Minister ultimately brought in. He actually takes credit for the 10 per cent level legislation that the Prime Minister brought in.

The Hon. Don Harwin: That sort of rewriting of history would make even Paul Keating blush.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: You mention Paul Keating. It was actually Paul Keating who gave the first $5 million subsidy to Manildra.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It was an investment grant, not a subsidy.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Investment grant. John Howard cancelled that $5 million investment grant and it was a long time before John Howard saw the light and supported the industry. I am pleased that everybody now is unanimously in favour of the new biofuel bill.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [8.49 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This speech has been delivered in the other House. It varies in a number of small respects from that speech. With the consent of the House I will incorporate my remarks in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 introduces miscellaneous amendments to various Acts governing superannuation arrangements for New South Wales public sector employees.

The main purpose of the bill is to allow members of the State Superannuation Scheme to salary sacrifice their compulsory contributions to the scheme.

The bill also contains amendments to allow the Treasurer to authorise the SAS Trustee Corporation to enter into indemnity agreements with the Corporation's Board members and Chief Executive. The Corporation is the trustee for the defined benefits schemes known collectively as the Pooled Fund.

Finally, the bill also makes minor amendments to clarify the intention of certain legislative provisions.

The proposed amendments do not affect the value of members' superannuation benefits or increase the Government's superannuation liabilities.

I will firstly detail the amendments to allow members of State Superannuation Scheme to salary sacrifice their compulsory contributions to the scheme.

Members of the State Superannuation Scheme are required to pay contributions to entitle them to the employer funded superannuation benefits payable from the scheme. Currently members can only pay their compulsory contributions from after-tax salary.

Some Honourable Members will recall that amendments were passed by the Parliament last year to allow members of another public sector superannuation scheme, the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme, to pay their compulsory contributions from pre-tax salary. This commenced operating on 1 April 2007.

The amendments in this bill extend these salary sacrifice arrangements to members of the State Superannuation Scheme. Members will be able to pay some or all of the compulsory member contributions from pre-tax salary. These arrangements may provide tax advantages to some members, depending on their individual financial circumstances.

The capacity to pay compulsory superannuation contributions from pre-tax income on a salary sacrifice basis will potentially benefit around 28,600 members of the State Superannuation Scheme as well as the approximately 60,000 SASS members already eligible to salary sacrifice their compulsory contributions.

I now turn to proposed amendments to the Superannuation Administration Act 1996. Section 80 of this Act deals with the liability of the SAS Trustee Corporation and its Board members for things done or omitted in good faith and the circumstances in which a trustee may be indemnified. As a matter of good practice, the Corporation enters into indemnity agreements for these purposes.

The SAS Trustee Corporation requested legislative amendments to put beyond doubt that Board members are adequately protected from liability for actions taken in good faith, along similar lines to the protection available in State Owned Corporations.

The bill introduces machinery amendments to address the concerns of the SAS Trustee Corporation. They expressly provide the Corporation with the power to enter into indemnity agreements with current and former Board members and the Chief Executive Officer. Indemnification agreements will only apply against a liability incurred while the former Board member or Chief Executive were officers of the Corporation.

It is intended to provide indemnification only for actions or omissions made in good faith. Indemnification is not intended to be available for actions that arise, for example, from failure to act honestly, or without the required degree of care or diligence. The SAS Trustee Corporation has advised that there are currently no outstanding liability actions.

I note that the SAS Trustee Corporation's investment performance was well rated with their returns for one and three years being in the top half of Australian superannuation funds as at 31 December 2006.

The opportunity is taken in this bill to make minor amendments to provisions in various superannuation Acts to remove ambiguity of interpretation.

The bill contains amendments that will clarify provisions relating to the superannuation entitlements applying to executive officers who are members of the State Superannuation Scheme and the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme. When the Senior Executive Service was established in 1989, legislation was introduced to allow, among other things, executive officers to transfer their benefits from these schemes to the Public Sector Executive Superannuation Scheme, or since its closure in 1999, to First State Super or another complying superannuation fund.

The current provisions are capable of being misinterpreted to mean that executive officers have to first cease employment before the benefits can be transferred. This was never intended and has caused confusion in the administration of the superannuation schemes. The bill clarifies that executive officers continue to have the right to transfer their benefits out of their scheme at any time.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [8.50 p.m.]: The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill has a number of purposes. The first section of the bill proposes to allow members of the State Superannuation Scheme to salary sacrifice some or all of their compulsory member contributions. The second part proposes granting the board and chief executive of the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation clear indemnity for actions taken in good faith. The final part of the bill clarifies an executive officer's ability to transfer superannuation benefits from the State Superannuation Scheme and the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme to the Public Sector Executive Superannuation Scheme, First State Super or another complying fund without the need to resign.

Currently there are 28,000 State Superannuation Scheme members, and their compulsory personal contributions are taken from after-tax income. Therefore, those contributions are taxed at a higher rate than if they were contributed via salary sacrifice, which is a pre-tax contribution. From 1 April this year the 60,000 members of the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme could choose to pay compulsory contributions through salary sacrifice, either fully or partly together with all other State schemes. This bill seeks to extend the system to the State Superannuation Scheme.

Following a 2004 review of its indemnity agreements the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation requested legislative amendments to put beyond doubt that board members were adequately protected from liability from actions taken in good faith along similar lines to protections offered to State-owned corporations. The New South Wales Chief and Senior Executive Service was established in 1989 as part of the Government's program of public sector reform. The legislation enacted at the time enabled executive officers who were members of the State Superannuation Scheme or the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme to transfer their benefits from those schemes to the Public Sector Executive Superannuation Scheme or, since that fund's closure, to First State Super or another complying superannuation fund. The current legislative provisions regarding this transfer are liable to some misinterpretation.

Salary sacrificing provides tax benefits for compulsory superannuation contributions because it means contributions are taken from pre-tax salary and are therefore taxed at a lesser rate than if they were taken from after-tax salary. For example, a government employee on a gross salary of $65,000 who chooses to salary sacrifice $5,000 will be charged income tax on the remaining $60,000, which equates to $13,350 based on current tax rates. A person on the same gross income who does not choose to salary sacrifice will be charged income-tax on the full $65,000 and will therefore be charged $14,850 income tax and arrive at a net salary $1,500 less than the salary sacrificed equivalent.

As I mentioned, the second part of the legislation involves granting the board and the chief executive of the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme Trustee Corporation clear indemnity for action taken in good faith. Providing indemnity in the circumstances is designed only for actions or omissions that may attract the liability but are taken in good faith. Indemnification is not intended to be available for actions that arise from, amongst other things, a failure to act honestly or acting without due diligence.

The final part of the bill clarifies an executive officer's ability to transfer superannuation benefits from the State Superannuation Scheme and the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme to the Public Sector Executive Superannuation Scheme, First State Super or another complying fund without the need to resign. This removes ambiguity in relation to a seemingly minor point as to the ability of executive officers in the Government's New South Wales Chief and Senior Executive Service to transfer superannuation entitlements. It clarifies existing legislation that enables them to move their benefits out of their scheme at any time. Therefore, the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [8.56 p.m.]: I declare the Greens' support for the bill. I also declare that I expect to be a recipient of benefits under the State Superannuation Scheme. However, I do not believe I have a conflict of interest—I am no longer paying money into the scheme—as I am rolling my funds over. I just put that on the record so it is clear. As I understand it, the bill extends the right to salary sacrifice to make compulsory superannuation contributions to a large number of public sector workers—about 28,000. It is supported by the Teachers Federation and the Public Service Association and therefore is supported by the Greens.

The provision of retirement saving should be seen as a valid pre-tax expense and a way of making the Commonwealth Government pay a fair share of the cost of running the public service. It can certainly afford it given the size of surpluses it is currently running. I know how hard many teachers work, particularly many older teachers who would be in the relevant scheme. Any financial relief we can afford to give those teachers and other public sector workers is a fillip that is well-deserved and is in the best interests of our society.

Many of those older teachers carry with them an enormous amount of experience, of wisdom, of knowledge of pedagogy and a knowledge of how to get the best out of kids. Many of these older teachers are very tired because of the years of service and dedication that they have put in. If this bill represents some recognition of the hard work that those teachers have put in that is good. The right to live a satisfying and secure retirement should not come at a massive sacrifice to working people. All working people should have the right to look forward to a high-quality retirement wherein they have secure financial arrangements and enough spare money to enjoy themselves, to travel and to live a decent life. We welcome this bill and support it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.59 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. The bill introduces amendments to various Acts governing superannuation arrangements for New South Wales public sector employees. The main purpose of the bill is to allow members of the State Superannuation Scheme to salary sacrifice their compulsory member contributions to the scheme. The bill also contains amendments, which we support, to allow the Treasurer to authorise the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation to enter into indemnity agreements with the corporation's board members and chief executive. The corporation is the trustee for the defined benefits scheme known collectively as the pooled fund.
The bill makes some other minor amendments. One of the positive aspects of this amending bill is that it clarifies the position of executive officers. The current provisions are capable of being misinterpreted to mean that executive officers have to first cease employment before the benefits can be transferred. That was never the intention of the legislation and it has caused confusion in the administration of the superannuation schemes. The bill now clarifies that executive officers continue to have the right to transfer their benefits out of their scheme at any time. We support the bill.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [9.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions and note that all speakers spoke in favour of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [9.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

My speech is similar to that delivered in the lower House. Any changes have been provided to members of the House. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Police Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 introduces miscellaneous amendments to the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906. This Act governs the Police Superannuation Scheme which provides superannuation and workers compensation style benefits to police officers recruited prior to the scheme's closure to new members in April 1988.

The main purpose of the bill is to allow members of the Police Superannuation Scheme to salary sacrifice their compulsory member contributions to the Scheme.

The bill also contains other amendments to clarify the intention of certain legislative provisions.

The proposed amendments do not affect the value of members' superannuation benefits or increase the Government's superannuation liabilities.

Members of the Police Superannuation Scheme are required to make member contributions at around 6 percent of salary. Currently these compulsory member contributions can only be paid from after-tax salary.

The amendments will allow Police Superannuation Scheme members to pay some or all of the compulsory member contributions from pre-tax salary under an effective salary sacrifice arrangement.

Some honourable members will recall that similar amendments were passed by Parliament in 2006 to allow members of the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme (known as SASS) to pay their compulsory member contributions from pre-tax salary. The SASS salary sacrifice arrangements came into effect from 1 April 2007 and potentially benefit around 60,000 SASS members.

The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 currently before Parliament proposes to extend similar salary sacrifice arrangements to another scheme that covers around 28,600 public sector employees, the State Superannuation Scheme.

This bill extends the salary sacrifice arrangements to the Police Superannuation Scheme and employees covered by the Police Association Employees (Superannuation) Act 1969. Around 3,700 serving police officers may potentially benefit from these arrangements. It is anticipated that Pillar Administration and NSW Police Force will be able to finalise implementation of the salary sacrifice arrangements by early 2008.

The amendments and proposed start date have been made in consultation with the SAS Trustee Corporation, the NSW Police Force and Police Association of NSW.

The three schemes in question: SASS, the State Superannuation Scheme and the Police Superannuation Scheme are complex, older defined benefit schemes which vary in their designs. The salary sacrifice changes are being implemented in stages to allow time for State Super and employers to implement system changes and provide detailed information to members.

The passage of this bill will mean that all New South Wales public sector employees who are members of the defined benefit superannuation schemes will have the capacity to salary sacrifice their compulsory member contributions to those schemes. It is noted that Commonwealth public servants who are members of the defined benefit Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme are not able to salary sacrifice their compulsory member contributions.

New South Wales Government employees will continue to have the capacity to also make additional salary sacrifice contributions to an accumulation scheme such as First State Super.

Given the Commonwealth changes to the taxation of superannuation benefits and the co-contribution measures, it will be important for employees to carefully consider their individual financial circumstances before making salary sacrifice decisions. Employees will be encouraged to seek independent financial advice.

Under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, benefits are payable to current and former police officers who have been certified by the SAS Trustee Corporation to be incapable, from infirmity of body or mind, of discharging the duties of the member's office. The amendments make clear that such a certificate is to be provided where a police officer or former police officer is incapable, from infirmity of body or mind, of exercising the functions (including powers, authorities and duties) of a police officer referred to in section 14(1) of the Police Act 1990. The functions referred to in that section are those conferred or imposed on a constable by or under any law, including the common law, of the State.

The proposed amendments are intended to overcome the decision in Christopher Morley v SAS Trustee Corporation (2007), New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. The amendments make clear that a police officer who cannot personally perform the functions imposed on all police officers by section 14(1) of the Police Act 1990 shall be entitled to a superannuation allowance on being discharged.

Furthermore, the bill also makes clear that it is not relevant to consider an officer's actual rank or position at a particular point in time when determining whether he or she is capable of performing the duties of a constable.

The opportunity is taken in this bill to make minor amendments to the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906.

Minor amendments are proposed to the provisions dealing with what are known as section 12D medical expenses. These expenses are payable in respect of police officers who are hurt on duty and covers things such as ongoing visits to the doctor or physiotherapist.

For many years these have been administered directly by the NSW Police Commissioner. This arrangement is currently provided for by a Deed of Arrangement between the SAS Trustee Corporation and the Police Commissioner, consistent with the provisions of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996.

The SAS Trustee Corporation recently agreed to assume responsibility for the payment of these expenses and decided it would be more efficient and cost effective to outsource this function. Any increased costs associated with outsourcing are expected to be marginal. The proposed amendments clarify that the Trustee can outsource the administration of medical expenses.

The amendments relating to the payment of medical expenses do not affect the Trustee's role in administering any of the other benefit payable from the Police Superannuation Scheme. The Police Commissioner's role continues to be responsible for determining whether an injury or death of a police officer arose out of an "on duty" incident.

The bill also contains minor amendments that clarify the meaning of provisions relating to the superannuation entitlements of executive officers who are members of the Police Superannuation Scheme. Similar amendments are contained in the other superannuation bill before Parliament applying to executive officers who are members of the State Superannuation Scheme and the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme.

Since the Senior Executive Service was established in 1989, executive officers who are members of the defined benefit schemes have been entitled at any time to transfer their benefits in those schemes to an accumulation scheme. After the Public Sector Executive Superannuation Scheme was closed in 1999, executive officers could transfer their benefits to First State Super or another complying accumulation fund.

The transfer provisions are currently capable of being misinterpreted to mean that executive officers have to first cease employment before the benefits can be transferred. This has caused confusion in the administration of the superannuation schemes. The bill clarifies that executive officers continue to have the right to transfer their benefits out of their scheme at any time.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [9.03 p.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Police Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I thank the staff of the Minister for Education and Training who provided the Opposition with a copy of the Minister's speech prior to its presentation this evening and a briefing on the bill. The briefing was held to address concerns that were raised, quite rightly, by the shadow Minister for Finance, Mr Mike Baird, following the contribution in the other place by Mr Michael Daley, the member for Maroubra and Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Police. As a result of Mr Daley's contribution and the limited information that was provided to the Legislative Assembly, Mr Baird raised his concerns during debate on the bill. This morning the Minister's office held a briefing with the Opposition to discuss Mr Baird's concerns. I was fortunate to be present at that briefing.

The Hon. Don Harwin rightly asked whether I should declare an interest. In 1980 I became a member of the old Police Superannuation Scheme, which was closed in 1988. Although I am no longer a member of that superannuation scheme I keep a watchful eye on the continuing role of the superannuation scheme for existing members. Honourable members would recall that in 2006 we talked about the need for changes to police superannuation legislation as a result of the Boland case. We were assured that the matters raised in the Boland case, which identified difficulties in the legislation, would be rectified. However, a recent matter known as the Morley case has again required that the legislation be amended.

The bill has four main parts. It will enable police officers who are members of the Police Superannuation Scheme, which was closed to members in 1988, and employees covered by the Police Association Employees (Superannuation) Act 1969 to make salary sacrifice contributions to the scheme ¾ that is, contributions from pre-tax salary. Having spoken to members of the Police Association and rank and file members of the Police Force, as I do regularly, I indicate that the Opposition has no problems whatsoever with that amendment. We are seeing a move towards salary sacrifice across the public sector. The House has just debated the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, which will extend to 28,600 public service employees under the State Superannuation Scheme the right to salary sacrifice. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose this amendment.

The legislation also clarifies the provisions under which medical expenses are paid to medically retired police officers. It will shift the administration of medical expenses payments from the Police Force to a contractor. During our briefing with the police ministry this morning we discussed the cost factor and were given assurances that the amendment would not have a significant impact. For that reason the Opposition does not oppose that part of the legislation. A further purpose of the bill is to clarify the definition of "duties of office" when assessing whether police officers are eligible for benefits. This aspect of the bill relates to the Morley and Boland cases. Having been satisfied with the explanation given this morning by the ministry about the definition of "duties of office", the Opposition does not oppose this part of the legislation. The final part will clarify the rights of current executive officers or members of the Police Superannuation Scheme to transfer superannuation benefits out of their current scheme.

One area of particular concern to the shadow Minister for Finance was the role of the police commissioner in approving medical expenses. At the time the legislation was pushed through the Legislative Assembly he suggested that provision was in contravention of legislation relating to the responsibilities and rights of the police commissioner. During the discussions we held this morning with the police ministry we were give information—it has been further elucidated in the second reading speech—that there is a deed of arrangement between the SAS Trustee Corporation and the police commissioner that is consistent with the provisions of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996. We have been assured by the ministry that the deed of arrangement allows the police commissioner to undertake the role provided in this legislation and clarifies the responsibilities and rights of the police commissioner with regard to superannuation matters involving police officers.

The final area of concern raised by the member for Manly related to overall cost. Again, the Opposition has been assured by the ministry that it is a cost in the order of thousands of dollars rather than millions of dollars. As we have no other information before us at this stage, we are not in a position to oppose this legislation. I have had representations from colleagues in the New South Wales Police Association. Be that as it may, the Opposition does not oppose this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Police Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill affects only police officers who are members of the Police Superannuation Scheme, which was closed to new members in April 1988. The legislation has some very positive aspects that we are pleased to support. The bill amends the principal Act to clarify the circumstances when a police officer or former police officer may be certified to be medically unfit for the purposes of payment of a superannuation allowance gratuity.
The bill also amends the principal Act to enable the payment of gratuities payable to members hurt on duty in respect of loss of limbs, medical expenses and other matters other than from funds established under the Police Superannuation Scheme. These amendments will relieve many of the worries that police officers have who may be medically unfit or hurt on duty. The bill also makes some minor amendments and it will not increase the Government's superannuation costs. I understand the bill is supported by the New South Wales Police Force and the Police Association of New South Wales. The Christian Democratic Party therefore supports the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.08 p.m.]: The Greens support the Police Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. We understand that 3,700 serving police officers in the now closed scheme will be able to salary sacrifice their compulsory superannuation contributions under this bill, thereby increasing their net income and doing so in a way that does not impose an additional cost on the State Government. As I said, the Greens support the provision of retirement savings in a way that provides a satisfying and secure retirement. We feel that that should not come at the expense of a massive financial sacrifice for working people, particularly police officers. We welcome and support the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.09 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the Police Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, which introduces changes to the Police Superannuation Scheme. As most honourable members said, the main purpose of the bill is to allow members of the Police Superannuation Scheme to salary sacrifice their compulsory contributions to the scheme. This follows similar amendments passed for members of the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme and to the State Superannuation Scheme.

The measures will assist members of the schemes and their families to better manage their superannuation and finances. The bill also allows medical expenses in relation to hurt-on-duty injuries to be paid under an arrangement approved by the Treasurer. Currently the Act allows medical expenses to be paid only by the trustee through the superannuation fund. Further amendments also clarify that the trustee is to provide a certificate of incapacity to a police officer who is incapable of personally exercising the functions of a constable, irrespective of the rank or position held by the officer at the time. Finally, the bill makes minor amendments to clarify the rights of executive officers in the Police Superannuation Scheme to transfer their benefits out of the scheme at any time. The proposed amendments do not affect the value of members' superannuation benefits. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.13 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007 continues the well-established statute law revision program that is recognised by all members as a cost-effective and efficient method for dealing with minor amendments. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. This session, the bill includes two additional schedules to deal specifically with statute law revision amendments consequential upon the enactment of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and the Police Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2006.
Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister considers does not warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. That schedule contains amendments to 55 Acts and instruments. I will mention some of the more notable amendments to give honourable members an indication of the kinds of amendments that are included in the schedule. Schedule 1 amends the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 to insert a standard provision that allows penalty notices to be issued in respect of prescribed penalty notice offences under that Act as a sensible alternative to launching a full-scale prosecution. A consequential amendment is also made to the Fines Act 1996 to provide for the enforcement of any such penalty notice.

Schedule 1 will change the titles of presiding office holders on a number of parliamentary committees to "chair" and "deputy chair", to ensure that consistent titles are used across all such committees. These titles are already reflected in the standing orders. The Acts that are amended in this respect are the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, the Constitution Act 1902, the Freedom of Information Act 1989, the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the Legislation Review Act 1987, the Ombudsman Act 1974, the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901, the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989, the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 and the Public Works Act 1912.

Schedule 1 also changes the name of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 to the Petroleum (Offshore) Act 1982 and makes other amendments to that Act as a consequence of the repeal of the Commonwealth's Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 and the commencement of the Commonwealth's Offshore Petroleum Act 2006. Cross-references in a number of other Acts and instruments are also amended by schedule 1 as a consequence of these changes. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 is amended to clarify that the Chairperson of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council is to be full-time and to clarify the remuneration arrangements that may be specified in the instrument appointing an administrator to manage the affairs of a land council.

The Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Act 2006 is also amended to make the registrar appointed under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, instead of the Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales, the returning officer for elections of board members of local Aboriginal land councils. The Electoral Commissioner will remain the returning officer for the State level New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council elections. Other amendments made by schedule 1 are to the Companion Animals Act 1998. These amendments will ensure that the provisions of the Act dealing with dangerous dogs and restricted dogs are consistent. For example, the amendments provide that a dog that is the subject of a proposed dangerous dog declaration must be confined, tethered or restrained in such a way as to prevent it from attacking or chasing a person who is lawfully on the property where the dog is ordinarily kept. This will ensure parity with the current requirement for restricted dogs.

Schedule 1 also amends the Pesticides Act 1999 to make it clear that a fee is not payable under that Act in respect of a revocation or variation of a clean-up notice or a prevention notice. The amendments also permit the Environment Protection Authority to waive payment of the whole or any part of the fees in respect of those notices without an application being made for such a waiver. The last schedule 1 amendment I will mention is to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. It clarifies that the prohibition on docking an animal's tail extends to the non-surgical means of docking a tail—for example, by means of a rubber band. This reflects the intention expressed in the second reading speech when the relevant amendment was considered in 2004.

Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill—for example, amendments arising out of the enactment or repeal of other legislation, correcting duplicated numbering and updating terminology. Schedule 3 makes statute law revision amendments that are consequential on the enactment of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and include standardising terms used in other Acts so they are consistent with those used in the Legal Profession Act.

Schedule 4 makes statute law revision amendments that are consequential on the enactment of the Police Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2006 and change references to "NSW Police" to "New South Wales Police Force". Schedule 5 repeals a number of Acts and provisions of Acts. Schedule 6 contains general savings, transitional and other provisions. The various amendments are explained in detail in explanatory notes set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts and statutory instruments concerned or at the beginning of the schedule.

If any amendment causes concern or requires clarification, it should be brought to my attention. If necessary, I will arrange for Government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any provision is of concern and cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the bill, the Government is prepared to consider withdrawing it from the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.22 p.m.]: By the skin of our teeth, the Executive Officer to the Leader of the House and I have been able to satisfy the major concern I had about one matter referred to in the index of Acts wholly repealed by schedule 5. The matter has now been dealt with, so I do not need to raise it in debate. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007 is one of the thinnest statute law revision bills I have seen. As my colleague the member for Epping said in the other place, the bill is largely just a politically-correct rewrite of a whole series of references in Acts of the Parliament to "Chairman", "Deputy Chairman" or "Vice Chairman". Even the Chairman of Committees in this House gets a mention. After the bill passes, the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees in this House will be no more. As a result of the bill, that position will be Deputy President and Chair of Committees.

I wonder how many members knew that and whether that sort of significant change to the Constitution should have gone through by way of statute law revision. But for the fact that my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is currently otherwise engaged on another matter, I am sure he would be most animated about this point. I note that the Leader of the House, who also is a former occupant of the position, is also currently distracted but would otherwise have something to say. Perhaps he was told about the change when it went through Cabinet.

I draw to the attention of the House other significant provisions in the bill. First, the bill will give effect to something the Opposition has supported for a long time: renaming "NSW Police" to "New South Wales Police Force". Honourable members will be interested to know that that is a feature of the bill. Otherwise most of the changes are fairly straightforward. In the normal processes that the Opposition follows in these matters, all the shadow ministers whose portfolios cover Acts that are covered in the bill have considered the bill and have no concerns they wish to raise. On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that we will not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.26 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party has no objection to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007. As the member for Epping said in the other place, these changes seem to be designed more to make us politically correct, regardless of whether it is absolutely necessary. I find it most frustrating to be called a "chair". A chair is what people sit in; a chair is not a title of anything. I think it is ridiculous. I support the Prime Minister, John Howard, who is insistent about retaining "Chairman" at the Commonwealth level. I believe it is wrong to have a sweeping change and that we are now forced to use the terms "Chair" or "Deputy Chair". In all the committees I have chaired I have insisted on being called "Chairman", and I sign letters as "Chairman", not as "Chair". As I said, "chair" is what people sit in. I therefore object to that politically correct change.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.27 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I commend the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007 to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.29 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As the speech has been delivered in the other place I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The bill continues the Government's substantial track record of environment protection through the use of effective market-based instruments to deliver environmental improvement in New South Wales. The bill delivers one of the Government's election commitments, announced in March 2007, by extending the existing waste and environment levy to liquid waste disposal. When Labor introduced the Protection of the Environment Operations Act in 1997, it revolutionised pollution control legislation in New South Wales. It has delivered environmental improvements across New South Wales by using economic instruments such as load-based licensing, tradable credits and financial assurances to complement conventional environment protection regulation. The Government also has a very strong record in driving improvements in the field of waste management, helping to deliver the sustainable solutions to waste and recycling that the community wants.

The waste and environment levy is the Government's key economic tool to drive waste avoidance, and promote resource recovery and recycling. In an environment where the State's economy is growing strongly, waste being disposed to landfill has actually reduced on a per capita basis since 2000. In 2000 it was 1,201 kilograms per person and in 2006 it was 1,131 kilograms per person. The levy has provided the incentive to return resources to the productive economy of New South Wales. For example, the levy has driven a significant increase in the processing of construction and demolition waste. Timber and metals are being recovered from demolition waste, and used bricks and concrete are being used in road making. These materials are no longer being lost to landfill.

New South Wales is also leading Australia in investment in alternative waste treatment technologies. Put simply, the levy makes disposal to landfill more expensive. By putting resource recovery on an equal footing, the levy is encouraging innovation and helping business think about alternatives to landfill. The alternate waste technology plant at Eastern Creek would not have been built without the economic framework that the levy provides. The waste and environment levy is also a key element in providing major funding for the Government's City and Country Environment Restoration Program. The program was announced by the Premier in November 2005, and is investing $439 million over five years to tackle our most significant environmental challenges in New South Wales.

Some of the initiatives include the RiverBank Project, an Urban Sustainability Fund, environmental trust funding for environmental community projects, and funding for waste compliance and enforcement programs. Under the current regulatory scheme, the waste and environment levy is only paid on the disposal of solid waste to landfill. Waste facilities that transport waste to another place for legitimate reuse may claim a deduction from the levy. In this way the levy provides the financial incentive for industry to make resource recovery options possible. There is currently no equivalent incentive for recovering resources from liquid waste.

The bill amends the Protection of the Environment and Operations Act and associated waste regulation to extend the waste and environment levy to liquid waste. These changes build on the success of the current levy framework and provide consistency in waste regulation by applying the levy to the more hazardous liquid wastes across New South Wales from 1 August 2007. Extending the waste and environment levy to liquid waste provides an incentive for generators of liquid waste to reassess their environmental performance. Many industries are already being proactive and moving in this direction as sustainable business practices are becoming more common. By using this economic instrument, businesses that improve their environmental practices will effectively reduce their costs.

The levy will commence at $38.60 per tonne and increase annually until 2010-11. The liquid waste levy will only be paid on liquid wastes that are required to be tracked in New South Wales, as agreed under the National Environment Protection Measure. These are the most hazardous of the range of liquid wastes in New South Wales. The bill introduces deductions from the levy where liquid waste is transported to another place for legitimate reuse. These deductions are a direct incentive for industry to recover any reusable components of this liquid waste. For example, it will encourage the recovery of grey water for industrial and agricultural use, and the recovery of other valuable resources such as acids, oils and solvents.

Importantly, the bill will ensure that dangerous liquid wastes are not being excessively stockpiled or stored across New South Wales. By encouraging industry to recognise the inherent value in liquid waste, operators and generators will have a greater incentive to move these wastes off site for treatment. Whilst the levy is paid on receipt of wastes, deductions are provided when that waste is sent off site for legitimate recovery, recycling, processing or disposal. The levy will discourage unscrupulous operators from accepting hazardous liquid waste and creating large, dangerous stockpiles. This will help reduce the risk to the community and the environment. The extension of the levy is also expected to return a modest level of revenue—up to $16 million over four years to fund important environmental initiatives.

In summary, there are three key aims of a levy on liquid waste disposal: to provide a financial incentive for industry to reduce the generation of these liquid wastes in their businesses; to provide a financial incentive to push hazardous liquid wastes that are being stockpiled on site, out of storage and to an appropriate facility for treatment; and to provide a financial incentive for the development of treatment technologies, and create markets that can facilitate reuse and recycling opportunities for liquid wastes in New South Wales.

The levy has evolved since its introduction in the 1970s to reflect the community's changing expectations for greater resource efficiency through waste avoidance and resource recovery. Aligning these principles across all wastes sends a clear message that resource recovery is a key priority in all waste management practices. By using economic tools effectively and consistently, the Government will continue to demonstrate its commitment to environment protection, and will help deliver on the community's desire for improved sustainability outcomes in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [9.29 p.m.]: The Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Waste) Bill 2007 extends the contribution payable under section 88 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act from solid waste only to include certain types of liquid waste received at waste facilities. Currently, the contribution is payable only in respect of solid waste received at those facilities. The liquid waste levy is payable across the State of New South Wales at a flat rate of $38.60 per tonne, equivalent to the Sydney metropolitan area solid waste levy, and is planned to increase annually to about $58 per tonne in 2010-11. This is a blunt tax implemented with a blunt time frame and with no consultation with the industry in which it will be levied.

The Government argues that the solid waste levy has been accompanied by reductions in solid waste per capita since 2000, although there has been a significant waste levy in New South Wales since 1995 with the introduction of the Waste Minimisation and Management Act. The Government argues that a levy on liquid waste will lead to similar reductions in liquid waste. The Minister said in her second reading speech in another place that a levy such as this is a key economic tool to drive waste avoidance, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is simply a tax. By the Government's own admission it is a tax on business of $16 million, rising to something like $58 million or $16 million in a couple of years time.

There is no evidence that the levy will lead to a significant reduction in liquid waste. The cost of disposing of liquid waste is already high and discourages excessive production. The Australian Environment Business Network considers that the levy will have only a marginal impact on reductions and says that the cost of disposing of liquid waste varies dramatically according to the type of liquid waste. Some businesses would be only marginally caught up in this whole process; for other businesses, such as businesses involved in the production of chemical pesticides, it currently costs about $1,500 a tonne to dispose of their waste. For smaller scale businesses a $38 levy is a huge impost on their business, but for big businesses a $38 levy is a very small increase in what they already pay. It is not a fair tax. As I said, it is a blunt instrument that is applied as a flat tax across the network.

The Opposition is concerned that the levy will not achieve what the Government purports it will achieve. Will it reduce the amount of liquid waste that is being disposed of? Will it improve resource recovery from liquid wastes or will it encourage more and more industries to simply stockpile? Will it act as a disincentive to industry to reduce its waste stockpiles? If the Government's primary purpose were to reduce liquid waste it would impose greater restrictions on liquid waste treatment and it would need to demonstrate that there is currently a problem with existing regulations. There is no evidence that the solid waste levy has reduced solid waste. There are a number of factors that explain the per capita reduction in solid waste since 1995, and it is ridiculous to argue that a levy is responsible for this.

The levy is to be applied only at the liquid waste treatment plant gate, increasing the likelihood that producers of liquid waste will illegally dump to the sewer on site or somewhere else. This levy increases the cost of liquid waste disposal by about 63 per cent. As my Coalition colleagues pointed out in another place, in 2005 the Government abolished the Waste Fund altogether but significantly increased the levy, and it has been increasing the levy ever since by $6 a year, plus the consumer price index. The waste levy will reach about $64 a tonne in 2010-11. The industry supported the levy increase on the basis that the Government would help it meet waste reduction targets, but the Government has not done that.

The Government established the five-year $439 million City and Country Environment Restoration Program, but the Coalition estimated that the Government would raise $1.3 billion over those five years, and the recent budget suggests that it will raise $1.263 billion—precious little of which is going to waste reduction measures. The Government has not consulted with people on this legislation. When the shadow Minister's office contacted the industry about a week or 10 days ago it knew nothing of this bill: it had not seen it; it had not been consulted about it; and the Government had not asked it what it thought about paying an additional sum of money in its rates for the program. It will pay an extra $30 year through this levy to fund the loss of jobs in the timber industry in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion and to fund the running of the Government's national parks program.

This levy is a tax on businesses to pay the environmental costs of the Government's flawed policies in other areas of the State, and it will reduce the competitiveness of New South Wales industry. The shadow Minister pointed out in her second reading speech that there is no comparable liquid waste levy in any other State of Australia. In another place the Minister responded to that by saying there was a levy of $130 a tonne in Victoria, but that levy is applicable to solid waste only, not liquid waste.

New South Wales waste levies are significantly higher than those in other States, including Queensland, where there are no levies at all; instead, the Queensland Government relies on tough waste disposal legislation to produce desirable environmental outcomes rather than ripping a little bit more out of business with absolutely no guarantee there will be any reduction in waste at all. The proposed liquid waste levy means industry will pay twice. There is already a liquid waste charge applied by Sydney Water at industrial sewerage rates, dependent on the volume and nature of the liquid. These charges are in excess of service fees and represent a tax on sewer use. This proposed levy is in addition to those rates.

The Government will most likely argue that this levy is to be applied only to liquid waste, not for sewer, but all liquid waste once treated to a required standard is either sent to the sewer or stored as solid waste. To levy this form of liquid waste is just double dipping by the Government, because the levy is paid at the treatment plant gate as liquid waste, and when it is sent to solid waste it is also paid there. Industry argues that this levy has been introduced in haste and without any consultation and that it will not be able to have in place the systems it requires by 1 August.

The question has to be asked: Why is the levy being introduced with such haste? It is not going to make any difference if it does not come into effect until 1 September, 1 October or 1 November. It is simply a tax and the Government is as keen as anything to have it in place as quickly as it can. The industry would prefer to have 1 January as the start date as it has had no prior warning of the levy's introduction, other than some minor debate and minor mention on the Premier's website that the Government was going to look at this issue.

The Opposition has a number of significant concerns about this levy: its cost, its capacity to achieve the reductions, and the fact that it is not going to be able to be implemented effectively within the four weeks between now and when it comes into effect. Accordingly I move:

That the question be amended by omitting the words "now read a second time" and inserting instead "referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 for inquiry and report."

Mr IAN COHEN [9.39 p.m.]: The Greens are pleased to support the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Waste) Bill 2007, which extends the waste and environment levy to liquid waste disposal. I congratulate the Government on this initiative. It will be of significant value as it will act as an incentive to industry to recycle its waste and to send less treated material into the system. It will result in less pollution and will free up finances that may be used to support other environmentally sound projects. It is frustrating that expenditure for such projects do not come from consolidated revenue. But given the Treasurer's often-expressed attitude, I would be surprised if any funding were to come direct from Treasury to support environmental initiatives.

Having said that, the Government is undertaking a worthwhile and timely exercise. The system has worked with solid waste, and anything that produces a net gain for the environment by encouraging industry to recycle liquid waste and fund environmental projects is an important step forward. The bill has some faults, and in that regard I understand the concerns expressed by the Hon. Rick Colless, who mentioned the introduction of the levy. I ask the Government to consider extending the August deadline, which is very short, because this is an onerous task. Complaints have also been made about lack of consultation. I think that is part and parcel of government.

The Hon. Rick Colless: This Government.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Rick Colless. I have not experienced the other government.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Slash and burn, they were!

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, I have read my history and there are certainly some strong similarities. Having said that, it is a fair call by the Opposition that the commencement date be extended to give industry an opportunity to adjust. I am sure industry would welcome such a move because the deadline is very close. Waste facilities in New South Wales currently pay a waste and environmental levy on all waste received at landfill facilities. The Greens supported the legislation that introduced the levy. It provides an economic incentive for industry to recycle and recover as much as possible prior to sending products into the waste stream. However, as the Protection of the Environment Operations Act currently stands, the levy applies to solid waste only.

The bill seeks to extend the levy to include liquid waste and therefore will encourage greater resource recovery in the liquid waste field, as well as promote cleaner production in the industry. The levy should provide an incentive to reduce the generation and storage of liquid waste that is potentially hazardous. It is pleasing that recycling facilities or facilities that are solely for the purpose of recycling will be exempt from the levy. Such incentives have been proven to work with solid waste. The Eastern Creek recycling facility is a good case in point. It is operating very successfully, and the demand for recycled materials is growing, as the economic value of material that was previously regarded as waste skyrockets. About 18 months ago I visited the large-scale facility at Eastern Creek with a number of members of Parliament and I was impressed. This fantastic facility is creating a resource out of waste. It was quite inspiring. If that can be repeated with liquid waste, it will be a valuable step forward.

Another positive aspect of the bill is that deductions for reusable components of liquid waste should encourage the recovery for reuse of resources that once would have ended up in the waste stream. This will encourage the use of grey water for industrial and agricultural use. Rather than being dumped in the sewage stream, grey water will be reused, and this may one day convince the Government that there are many other ways of dealing with the perceived water shortage—or what I tend to regard as the profligate misuse of water in Sydney and surrounding environments. We can maximise the use of grey water for industrial and agricultural purposes through the liquid waste levy.

The revenue generated from the levy will help to fund environment initiatives under the City and Country Restoration Program to the tune of $16 million over four years. The Greens support funds being directed to important environmental projects such as, among others, the New South Wales RiverBank Program to buy back water licences from overallocated river systems to restore inland river and wetland health. The water in our rivers has now been generally resource allocated—one might even regard it as being privatised—and we are now in the sad position of having to direct public money towards keeping wetlands alive. Water­sharing plans have not achieved long-term security to the environment. The RiverBank Fund is a starting point to secure the future environmental health of our inland river systems. A much larger amount of money will be needed to prevent significant inland wetlands from disappearing. The revenue generated from the levy will help to fund environment initiatives under the City and Country Restoration Program to the tune of $16 million over four years. The Greens support funds being directed to important environmental projects such as, among others, the New South Wales RiverBank Program to buy back water licences from overallocated river systems to restore inland river and wetland health. The water in our rivers has now been generally resource allocated—one might even regard it as being privatised—and we are now in the sad position of having to direct public money towards keeping wetlands alive. Water­sharing plans have not achieved long-term security to the environment. The RiverBank Fund is a starting point to secure the future environmental health of our inland river systems. A much larger amount of money will be needed to prevent significant inland wetlands from disappearing.

The Macquarie Marshes is a case in point. The Macquarie River system is overallocated by almost 100 per cent. An investment of $280 million is needed to purchase enough water to prevent this internationally significant waterbird sanctuary from dying. The RiverBank Fund will provide only a small fraction of this amount. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the environmental flow water will actually reach the marshes. The extent of illegal flood plain harvesting in the Macquarie Valley has not been identified or dealt with, as was shown by a recent report by the Inland Rivers Network documenting the theft of environmental water from the Macquarie Marshes. If the Government is going to provide millions of dollars towards buying water for the environment, it should at least ensure that the water actually reaches the environment. Compliance and prosecution should be treated as a priority and offenders should feel the full force of the law.

Concerns have been expressed about the lack of consultation with industry. Unfortunately, this is a pattern with much of the legislation introduced by the Government. There is an increasing lack of transparency and consultation in everything this Government does. Nevertheless, I understand the introduction of the levy was flagged before the election so the industry has had time to get used to the idea. I imagine there would be reluctance on the part of industry to accept the levy. That is natural and has been reflected in the comments of other members. That happens whenever legislation that penalises polluters is introduced. It is important that the bill is passed, and the Greens will support it.

The Hon. Rick Colless has suggested sending this bill to a committee. I have given consideration to that amendment and the arguments put by the member to support it. Whilst I have some sympathy for the concept proposed—and I do hope that the Government will postpone the commencement date to allow industry to adjust to it—I believe that the delay would be too long and too many environmental benefits would be lost as a result. Accordingly, the Greens cannot support sending the bill to a committee at this time. We acknowledge the issues raised by the Hon. Rick Colless but we cannot support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.50 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Waste) Bill 2007, the main purpose of which is to extend the waste and environment levy. It has been the policy of the Government to implement a procedure whereby contributions can be made. At present, section 88 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 requires waste facilities in New South Wales to pay a contribution—the waste and environment levy—on all waste received at landfill. By putting a price on waste disposal, the levy's key objective is to provide an economic incentive for industry to recycle and recover resources. The levy acts as a market driver to divert waste from landfill. This policy outcome has been recognised and supported by industry.
The revenue generated from the levy is important. It helps provide funding for clear environmental initiatives under the City and Country Restoration Program, committing $439 million over five years for projects such as the RiverBank Fund and urban sustainability, along with funding for the Environmental Trust. Facilities that are used solely for the purpose of reusing, recovering, recycling or processing waste are exempt from paying the levy. In addition, owners of licensed waste facilities that transport waste from the premises to another place for legitimate reuse and recycling may claim a deduction from the levy. Under the current regulatory scheme, the waste and environment levy is paid only on the disposal of solid waste to landfill. No levy is currently payable on liquid waste disposal. That will change with this legislation. The Government announced, as part of its election commitments, that it would do this, so it is not a surprise that this bill has been introduced.

To allow industry to adjust, the liquid waste levy will be phased in over a four-year period commencing on 1 August 2007. The rate of $38.60 per tonne equates to the solid waste levy in the Sydney metropolitan area. The rate will increase annually to 2010-11, mirroring the solid waste levy. The levy will be paid only on tractable liquid waste, which relates to potentially hazardous liquids. Over the past couple of years authorities have discovered drums hidden away illegally at the back of Liverpool and other places. Many have become rusty and are now leaking. Ruthless operators arranged with landowners to dump their waste for a fee. No protection or proper storage was provided; the material should never have been stored there in the first place.

The briefing note states that the Waste Regulation will also be amended to provide deductions from the levy for usable components that can be recovered from the waste, such as water. This will encourage the recovery from waste of water for industry and agriculture, and assets or solvents that can be put back into the productive economy. On the one hand, there is the new levy of $38.60 per tonne, and on the other hand there are deductions. Are the deductions significant? Do they amount to 1 per cent or 10 per cent? Is it an amount of money per tonne? In her speech in the agreement in principle debate in the other place the Minister referred to these important deductions and said:

The bill introduces deductions from the levy where liquid waste is transported to another place for legitimate reuse. These deductions are a direct incentive for industry to recover any reusable components of this liquid waste.

She went on:

Whilst the levy is paid on receipt of wastes, deductions are provided when that waste is sent off site for legitimate recovery—

This relates to liquid waste—

recycling, processing or disposal. The levy will discourage unscrupulous operators from accepting hazardous liquid waste and creating large, dangerous stockpiles.

It has been said on a number of occasions that there will be deductions. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to outline the formula for those deductions. That may remove some of the concerns of those who oppose the bill.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.56 p.m.]: Debate on this bill has been pretty illuminating. In discussions with the Opposition about its views on the bill, we were in agreement about the little time allowed to operators in the waste industry to adjust their processes—maybe to buy new plant and equipment—and to put themselves in a position whereby they could further treat waste rather than just be taxed $38.60 a tonne and pass on that cost to consumers—which it would inevitably have to do. At the same time, some of the arguments Mr Ian Cohen advanced were quite valid. However, having said that, Mr Ian Cohen's comments drove home to me how in many cases it is difficult not to want to stick your nose into the way this Government does its business. I have said on previous occasions that the Shooters Party tries to let the Government get on with the business of running the State, but that becomes difficult especially when we are given next to no information or time and are asked to vote on issues such as this—which itself does not give any time to the industry that will be affected by it. A couple of hypotheses have been raised in debate. The Opposition suggests that any tax, if it is applied incorrectly, too harshly or too quickly, could lead to illegality—in other words, dumping.

Liquid waste—and I am talking about the general waste stream, not highly toxic uranium liquid or arsenic—generally speaking has different characteristics from that of solid waste. When solid wastes are dumped they can leach over a long period and create long-term environmental problems. When liquid wastes are dumped they can create a problem overnight, and that problem can travel very quickly in the right circumstances, and for a great distance. I am reminded of the plume that the Orica company is endeavouring to clean up at Botany at this very moment. I am inclined to come down on the side of caution here, to give a bit more thought to this proposal and to allow further consultation with the industry. We are inclined at this point to support the Opposition's amendment.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.59 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. The Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Waste) Bill 2007 represents a continued and credible focus on environment protection under the Iemma Labor Government. It delivers on the broader objectives of the principal Act, such as the need to maintain sustainable development in New South Wales. It also meets the key objectives of reducing risks by using mechanisms that promote pollution prevention and cleaner production, the elimination of harmful wastes, the reduction in the use of materials, and the re-use, recovery and recycling of materials. The bill extends the waste and environment levy on solid waste, which has proven to be a key stimulus for innovation and the opening up of potentially lucrative markets for resource recovery and recycling. Extending the levy to liquid waste will stimulate cleaner technology to reduce the generation of potentially hazardous liquids. It will also encourage the recovery of reusable liquids and wastewater that would otherwise go to the sewer.

The bill provides consistent regulation across the waste industry by aligning the way solids and liquids are managed for disposal. In doing so, this legislation sends a clear message that the Government is serious about waste and resource management in New South Wales. Putting a price on these wastes for disposal will promote tighter business practices and innovative resource management. The Government will ensure environment protection and efficient resource management across New South Wales, particularly at a time of increasing growth where sustainable practices are critical. Using economic drivers such as the waste and environment levy will ensure that we achieve sustainable solutions without cutting business growth. I am pleased to inform the House that the revenue raised from this levy will be ploughed straight back into environmental initiatives, such as the maintenance and upkeep of this State's iconic national parks.

I turn now to address some of the points made by members. The levy is not a tax. The Government recognises that the liquid waste market has matured in recent times. The existing waste and environment levy has been successful in driving waste avoidance and resource recovery of solid waste. As part of the Government's City and Country Environment Restoration Program, the existing levy is now starting to reach a level that is encouraging greater innovation and the return of resources to the productive economy. The extension to the liquid levy is intended to provide the same incentive for the hazardous end of liquid wastes. Where wastes can be segregated and reusable components recovered, a deduction from the levy is available. Some facilities are already starting to do this. The levy is intended to encourage more of this. Where treatment facilities cannot recover the resources from waste, they will pass the price increase back to their customers. That will provide the intended incentive for their customers to seek ways to avoid the generation of those wastes.

The solid waste levy is a highly effective economic tool. Following advice from the waste industry, the Government announced in November 2005 that it would increase the solid waste levy under the City and Country Environment Restoration Program. The increase in the solid waste levy was designed to make landfilling—that is, disposal of potentially valuable material—more expensive compared with recycling. The solid waste levy has changed the market landscape so that there is now significant investment in New South Wales in alternative waste treatment technologies. This is directly driving decreases in waste disposal. The levy has also provided the opportunity for businesses to enter the market and to help deliver more sustainable waste management outcomes. Through the use of innovative market-based mechanisms such as the waste and environment levy, New South Wales is leading the way in waste management across Australia.

As to the issue raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about deductions, basically 100 per cent of what is recovered will be able to be deducted—that is, 100 per cent of all that can be extracted will be deducted. As to the timing in the legislation, the Opposition would have us believe that this levy has been sprung on an industry that is completely oblivious, despite very public announcements months ago that the levy would eventually be brought in. The Premier announced the introduction of a liquid waste levy in March 2007. The introduction of a liquid waste levy generated considerable discussion within the industry at the time. Industry was given specific details on the liquid waste levy in letters sent on 18 June 2007. Officers from the Department of Environment and Climate Change have also been meeting with individual companies and industry associations to help them understand these new requirements. These meetings will be followed up with site visits between now and the commencement of the levy to explain how the changes will affect industry practices and business operations.

I also point out that this is an enabling bill, particularly in terms of the specific starting date for extending the levy to liquid wastes. The Department of Environment and Climate Change is not, and never has been, in the business of springing levies on unsuspecting and unprepared industries. The department and the Government have listened carefully to industry concerns over the last week and believe there may be some implementation practicalities due to the short time frame. Let me make one thing clear: The object of the bill is to reduce the generation of potentially hazardous liquid waste. To that end, compliance, stimulating better technologies to reduce this waste, and driving recycling are our main priorities. The Government is now committed to ensuring that industry has the appropriate time to incorporate this change so that the transition runs as smoothly as possible. It is proposed that the new start date for the collection of the liquid waste levy will be 1 October of this year, and the regulations will reflect this change. The Department of Environment and Climate Change is not only working closely with individual waste treatment facilities to facilitate the extension of the levy to liquid wastes, but it will also be working proactively with industry associations to help communicate changes to the much broader groups of waste generators and transporters. The Government does not support the Opposition's amendment. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Ajaka Mr Brown Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Miss Gardiner

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

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Smith Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Ms Hale Dr Kaye

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe

Mr Tsang Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Veitch

Mr Gallacher	Mr Catanzariti
Mr Khan	Mr Hatzistergos

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. Kayee Griffin , as Chair, tabled report No. 36, entitled "Citizen's Right of Reply (NRMA)", dated June 2007.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Kayee Griffin.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [10.15 p.m.]: I speak tonight on the Labor Government's unwanted, unnecessary, environmentally unfriendly, energy-guzzling desalination plant at Kurnell. Earlier this week the Government awarded a contract to the Blue Water consortium to build the unwanted desalination plant. The companies constituting the consortium include Veolia, the construction group John Holland and the engineering consultants Sinclair Knight Merz and Maunsell. As Ms Lee Rhiannon noted in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald , the consortium members have donated $172,566 to the Labor Party since 1999. Ms Rhiannon was quoted as saying, ''These donations show that the planning process for the desalination plant has been corrupted."

As honourable members are aware, this morning Government members of the Legislative Council blocked an urgency motion demanding that the Iemma Labor Government produce all documentation in relation to the $1.8 billion Kurnell desalination plant. The ongoing secrecy surrounding the project has fuelled questions about what the Government is trying to hide. What is the Iemma Government afraid of? If it has been honest, it has nothing to fear from the papers being made available.

Professor Stuart White, the head of the Institute of Sustainable Futures at Sydney University and the man who helped develop the Government's water policy, has warned of the potential for the desalination plant to be a white elephant. The Government has persisted with the desalination plant, despite the rains that have drenched Sydney over the past few weeks and that have increased our dam levels to above 50 per cent—more than 20 per cent above the Government's original trigger level for building the desalination plant.

The rain in the last few weeks has made it clear that Sydney does not have a rainfall problem; Sydney has a water catchment problem. Sydney is the second wettest capital in Australia behind Darwin. We receive much more rainfall each year than Melbourne and London. However, on average 97 per cent of that rain runs off and simply goes out to sea. The solution to the problem we face lies in large-scale stormwater harvesting and water recycling. This is the option that has been supported by the community, water experts and environmentalists. Yet the Government persists with the unwanted desalination plant.

In the recent budget, of the $1.8 billion set aside by Sydney Water for capital expenditure, more than $1 billion has been allocated for the construction of the Kurnell desalination plant. In addition, only $28 million has been allocated to water recycling. No funding has been allocated for major stormwater harvesting programs. It is clear that the Government has its priorities all wrong. It should be investing in large-scale stormwater harvesting and water recycling, as well as fixing leaking pipes and water mains. Each year Sydney Water loses approximately 10 per cent of reticulated water to leaks from its pipes and mains. Rather than spend $1.8 billion on an unwanted desalination plant, which will destroy the environment and a community and add only 14 per cent to the overall water supply, the Government should invest this money in fixing deteriorating water infrastructure. If the Government addressed the fact that Sydney Water currently recycles less than 3 per cent of its yearly water demand In the recent budget, of the $1.8 billion set aside by Sydney Water for capital expenditure, more than $1 billion has been allocated for the construction of the Kurnell desalination plant. In addition, only $28 million has been allocated to water recycling. No funding has been allocated for major stormwater harvesting programs. It is clear that the Government has its priorities all wrong. It should be investing in large-scale stormwater harvesting and water recycling, as well as fixing leaking pipes and water mains. Each year Sydney Water loses approximately 10 per cent of reticulated water to leaks from its pipes and mains. Rather than spend $1.8 billion on an unwanted desalination plant, which will destroy the environment and a community and add only 14 per cent to the overall water supply, the Government should invest this money in fixing deteriorating water infrastructure. If the Government addressed the fact that Sydney Water currently recycles less than 3 per cent of its yearly water demand while it loses almost 10 per cent of its supply through leaky pipes and mains it could increase water supply by 164 million litres a day.

The community has made it clear it does not want the desalination plant. The residents of Kurnell are preparing to step up their campaign against the desalination plant, which stands to destroy their community. Many residents are ready and willing to lie down in front of bulldozers, and some are on standby with trucks to block Captain Cook Drive. There are plans to picket Parliament and, with the permission of the police, to protest outside the home of the Premier. This must demonstrate how serious the community is and how opposed it is to desalination. It is important that the community continue to send the Government a strong message that its environmentally unfriendly, energy-guzzling desalination plant at Kurnell is not wanted. I encourage all residents throughout New South Wales to let the Government know that the desalination plant is unnecessary and unwanted.

The simplest way for me to summarise this matter is to share with the House a recent conversation I had with my 15-year-old daughter, Chanel, who said to me, "Dad, I must be really stupid. I don't understand why they are going to build the desalination plant. It makes no sense at all." I replied, "Darling, you are more intelligent than most of the members of the Government, because the reality is that the desalination plant is quite simply plain stupid."

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.19 p.m.]: I speak tonight on an issue that is at the centre of our democracy: our right to vote. I point out that voting is both a right and a responsibility. I was somewhat astonished recently when I discovered that that was not the attitude of all people aspiring to political office. I was surprised to discover that Dr Sue Page, The Nationals candidate for Richmond in northern New South Wales, had not enrolled to vote until the 2004 Federal election. It was so shocking and hard to believe that I felt the need to speak about it tonight.

Dr Page has an impressive resumé. It is something she will tell you about at length, if asked. She is proud of her advocacy roles within the health system, being a former President of the Rural Doctors Association and Chair of the North Coast Area Advisory Council. She is proud of the fact that she has lived in northern New South Wales for over 20 years. Despite this, until 2004 she felt no compulsion to vote for the people representing her at any level of government. She felt no need to tell any government what she thought at a ballot box.

In my view it is somewhat ironic that someone who speaks loudly about advocating for people and representing people treats this civic responsibility with such little respect. I am sure that I do not need to point out to honourable members that this disrespect is also against the law. Dr Sue Page was 43 years old when she finally took the time to enrol herself to vote—25 years after she was required by law to do so. Let me be clear: the first time she enrolled to vote was in 2004. She has skirted her civic responsibility 11 times at Federal and State levels. She has missed six Federal and five New South Wales State elections. And now this person wants to represent the people of northern New South Wales in Federal Parliament! It simply beggars belief.

When I discovered this blatant breaking of the law and disregard for the democratic processes of our nation I was simply astounded. I decided to continue to look at when Dr Page decided that she should enrol to vote, and I found that it was about one week after the Prime Minister called the 2004 election. The irony is that if John Howard's extreme electoral reforms had been in place in 2004 Sue Page would still have found herself without a voice in the last Federal election. While I was musing on these issues the plot thickened. Sue Page did what all candidates do at election time: she gave a radio interview.

The topic of the interview went from Sue's childhood and her advocacy work to her favourite music and how much she loved living in northern New South Wales. Then it took a turn. The presenter spoke about the changes to the electoral Act that I previously outlined. Then the presenter asked for Sue's opinion. A transcript of the program reads:

PRESENTER: "Don't say that voting is this boring, arbitrary thing. It's not, it's very important … Would you agree with that Sue?"

SUE PAGE: "Absolutely. It is quite interesting to me the number of people who will very freely make comments about what they like or don't like about Government … if you actually care about what happens in your community then you need to care about the drivers that govern the types of … what resources come into your area, what schools are provided, all of those sorts of things. Local Government, State Government, Federal Government—they all have an impact on your daily life. Vote for the ones you want.

What an astounding response from someone who has dodged voting for any parliamentary representative for over 25 years! The answer Dr Sue Page gave Bay FM on Wednesday 20 June was the correct one. It is just a shame that it took her till she turned 43 to come to it—that the 18-year-old Sue did not receive this piece of wisdom from her 43-year-old self. As I have previously stated, there is a sense of irony in these facts. But this is a serious issue, and it deserves careful scrutiny.

We on this side of the Chamber believe that voting for one's elected representative should be taken seriously. Clearly some members on the other side of this Chamber do not take this issue just as seriously; otherwise they would never have endorsed Dr Page in the first place. For years The Nationals have been telling rural Australia that it represents their interests. We all know that this is blatantly not true, that The Nationals have sold out the bush on Telstra, industrial relations reform, the GST, et cetera. But now The Nationals offer a candidate with such low respect for the democratic traditions of our country.
This discovery has shocked me. I did, perhaps naively, think that any person wanting to represent the people of Australia in one of her parliaments had a high regard for the democratic processes and traditions of this country. But I stand corrected. It is now up to the people of Richmond to decide who they want to represent them. If they take into account this flagrant disregard of responsibility and if they care about the voting system and the democratic processes of this country the people of Richmond will endorse Justine Elliot, a hardworking, deserving local member. [ Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.24 p.m.]: I was extremely alarmed at the serious allegations made against Redeemer Baptist School last week by Dr John Kaye when he used the words "extraordinary tax sham and welfare fraud", which are plainly false. This week I have been making inquiries about the allegations. I found that there is no basis for these allegations against the school, which has a proud 26-year record of achievements. I have had a long association with the school to encourage it to maintain high educational standards and high moral standards for its students, who are exceptional. Dr John Kaye has failed to produce any substantive evidence for his allegations. That is a seriously irresponsible approach to take.

The school informs me that at no time has Dr John Kaye made contact with the school to raise these matters. Interestingly, similar unfounded allegations were made last month on the Today Tonight program on Channel 7. The background to this issue is important. An ongoing legal dispute between some ex-teachers and the school is before the court. It is entirely probable that those ex-teachers, to help further their legal case, are using the media and trying to use members of this House. When they cannot achieve something through legal means they use the media and politicians. In essence, they are trying to circumvent the legal process.

The strategy is to try to embarrass the school publicly in order to put pressure on it. The people running the school are good, strong Christians who will not bow to such improper pressure. One of the key issues in the legal case is the legal status of the teachers at Redeemer Baptist. Following my inquiries I inform members that there has already been a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in relation to several of the issues that relate to the operation of the school and the nature of its relationship with its staff. That court decision is confirmation that members of the Ministry Order of the Redeemer Baptist Church who contribute as staff in Redeemer Baptist School are volunteers. As members would be aware, this is a very common arrangement in respect of the involvement of religions in the conduct of schools throughout the country.

Those who are truly interested in this matter should give careful consideration to the judgment of Justice Henrik Nicolas in the matter of Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Glossop and Ors [2006] NSWCS 1201. Dr John Kaye also mentioned in his speech personal financial matters regarding the Bursar of Redeemer Baptist, Russell Bailey. Mr Bailey tells me that, once again, Dr John Kaye has not even made the effort to speak with him about this. In addition, apart from the size of the stipend Mr Bailey receives, the other information mentioned by Dr John Kaye is also wrong.

I know those running this school, and I accept unreservedly that the school has not been involved in any wrongdoing or impropriety as alleged by the Greens member. He should apologise. Members should keep the following in mind when judging what Dr John Kaye says about Redeemer: Redeemer is inspected at regular intervals by the New South Wales Board of Studies. In 2005 the school was granted the maximum five-year registration and accreditation from the Board of Studies, with the following comment from the government inspectors:

The School has a distinctive Christian worldview and seeks to encourage and strengthen Christian families and has very close links with the Redeemer Church community. Students at the School have consistently obtained high academic results for the School Certificate, the Higher School Certificate and in a range of state and national competitions.

The school's finances are audited each year, which is a requirement for the receipt of Australian Government funding. Each year the school provides to the Government a financial return as part of its financial accountability. The Australian Government audited this financial return in 2004. Two of the school's year 12 students from 2006 were awarded first prize in the BHP Billiton Science Awards in February this year.

Redeemer is renowned for its success in the Science Teachers Association of New South Wales Young Scientist Competition, the Minister's Young Designers Awards, the Prime Minister's Business Partnerships Corporate Social Responsibility Essay Competition, the Dorothea Mackellar Poetry Competition, the BHP Billiton Science Awards, and the Intel International Science and Engineering Awards held in North America, at which students from Redeemer have represented Australia on three occasions. On each occasion the Redeemer students have won significant awards, including first in technological communication at last year's event in Indianapolis. I believe the school should stand on its reputation and that anyone attacking the school should be sure of their facts before they used parliamentary privilege.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [10.29 p.m.]: The little nation of Lebanon is facing perilous and difficult times. A continuing and growing pattern of terrorism, Syrian-inspired destabilisation and frequent assassinations of prominent political leaders has emerged, the purpose of which is to destroy this democratic, independent and multi-faith State. This growing cycle of violence and instability is not only of concern to all people of goodwill who believe that a free and independent Lebanon is essential for stability and peace in the Middle East; it is also of concern and anxiety to the Lebanese-Australian community—those hundreds of thousands of Australians whose ancestry is Lebanese. They are concerned that the terrorist organisation Hezbollah is using Lebanon as a proxy for Syria and Iran to engage in murderous terrorist attacks against Israel and its citizens. They are concerned that even though Syria was forced to end its 30-year occupation of Lebanon it continues to outrageously interfere and intrude into the sovereign affairs of Lebanon, with a goal of eventual incorporation of all of Lebanon into a greater Syria.

Lebanese-Australians are concerned that the assassinations of prominent and respected political leaders Prime Minister Farik Hariri, a Muslim; Minister for Industry Pierra Gemayel, a Christian; and only a few days ago Walip Eido, a prominent Muslim parliamentarian, continue, with the clear purpose of depriving the pro­western, pro-democracy, multi-faithed Lebanese Government of its parliamentary majority. They are concerned that despite a resolution of the United Nations Security Council for an investigation into who inspired, directed and carried out these assassinations, the Syrian-directed and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese parliamentary Opposition continues to obstruct the Government in implementing this security council resolution.

Lebanese-Australians are concerned that a new danger has entered the fray—the Al Qaeda- linked Fatah Al-Islam, a murderous terrorist network whose declared aim is the destruction of an independent Lebanon in which all religious faiths live in peace, and its replacement by a theocratic regime based on a perverse interpretation of Islam and an Osama Bin Laden interpretation of Islam, in which Christians, Druze and the great majority of Muslims would be the losers.

These are the concerns of the great majority of Lebanese-Australians, whether they are Christian, Muslim or Druze. They are concerned that their relatives and friends back in Lebanon are suffering the destruction of their property, the loss of their livelihoods and even the loss of their lives, and because of their loyalty and love for Australia they are concerned that terrorist elements are operating out of this country, assisting in a variety of ways to promote this subversion and destruction of Lebanon. Recent events would tend to confirm these fears, with the arrest in the last day or so of several Australian citizens suspected of being engaged in terrorist activities in Lebanon.

Only two weeks ago I was asked to speak at a rally of many hundreds of leading members of the Lebanese-Australian community. The rally was organised by the Pro-Lebanese Alliance of March 14 Organisations, a coalition of political parties—Christian, Muslim and Druze—that comprise the present pro­western, pro-democracy Government of Lebanon. The rally was called to support the Lebanese Government in its fight to preserve democracy, to resist Syrian interference and to support the Lebanese army fighting so valiantly Fatah Al-Islam terrorists in northern Lebanon. It was also to support United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1757 calling for the investigation of the wave of political assassinations that have terrorised the nation and that are widely assumed to have been planned in Damascus.

Amongst the parliamentarians, both Liberal and Labor, who spoke at the meeting was the Attorney­General of Australia, the Hon. Philip Ruddock. A few days later my wife and I were among the many people, including parliamentarians from both major parties and representatives of the major religious faith traditions found in Lebanon, who attended a mass at St Joseph's Maronite Church, Croydon, organised by the Maronite Catholic Society. It was a mass in memory of the dozens of young soldiers of the Lebanese army who have lost their lives defending their nation from the violence unleashed by the Fatah Al-Islam terrorists.

The great majority of Lebanese-Australians live in hope that things will change for the better. They are immensely grateful for the Australian Government's support of United Nations Security Resolution No. 1559, which calls for Syria's complete withdrawal from the affairs of Lebanon; for the Australian Government's support of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1701, which calls for the disarmament of aimed militias in Lebanon, the most aggressive and violent of which is Hezbollah; and for its support of the United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1757, which calls for an investigation into Lebanon's wave of political assassinations.

The community is experiencing great pain and despair at the suffering of present-day Lebanon. People in the community mourn the growing loss of life and the attempted subversion of Lebanon's democratic values at the hands of terrorism and, above all, they hope and pray that Australia never becomes a beachhead for the forces of extremism, intolerance and terrorism that are currently unleashing their destruction in the once­peaceful land of Lebanon.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [10.34 p.m.]: I wish to comment on Director Martin Durkin's documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle , shown on the ABC last week. It argues that man­made emissions have only a marginal impact on the world's climate, and that climate change can be better explained by changing patterns of solar activity. It ends with the warning that uncontrolled global warming hysteria is potentially devastating to economic development in the Third World. The Great Global Warming Swindle contains some memorable assertions. Lord Lawson of Blaby said:

Politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change. There is such intolerance of any dissenting voice. This is the most politically incorrect thing possible, to doubt this climate orthodoxy.

Professor Richard Lindzen of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said:

People have decided that you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees, you shouldn't disagree either. Whenever you hear that, that's pure propaganda.

Professor John Christy, lead author, said:

We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science.

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, said:

The whole global warming business has become like a religion, and people who disagree are called heretics.

The filmmakers promoted it as "the definitive response to AI Gore's An Inconvenient Truth ". Reaction to the documentary has been mixed. When first aired in the United Kingdom, the documentary attracted 2.5 million viewers, and 246 complaints to the television regulator. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed for The Great Climate Change Swindle , and his comments were included. He has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his material was used. He said:

My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrassing. I was duped. I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included.

Durkin says Wunsch was not duped into taking part. Further revelations have emerged. Patrick Moore was correctly quoted in the documentary as being a founding member of Greenpeace, but he has been an active critic of it for the past 21 years. Nigel Calder edited the New Scientist , but that was back in 1962. Durkin has also admitted that the claim that volcanoes produce significantly more carbon dioxide than humans is wrong, but claims this is minor and has been corrected.

Britain's Channel 4 said supporters of the documentary outweighed the critics six to one. ABC director of television Kim Dalton said that all sides of the hotly contested global warming debate deserved to be represented. I obviously agree with this point of view. The Great Climate Change Swindle website does make a point when it says:

The whole global warming alarm, we believe, raises serious issues about the way science functions in the real world, about the political bias of scientists, about censorship within the scientific community itself, about the routine practice of scientists drawing false or inflated conclusions from ambiguous or uncertain data, about the manifest failure of the peer review process, about the extraordinary unwillingness of scientists who have invested time and reputation in a particular theory to consider evidence which directly contradicts it, about the elevation of speculation to the level of solid data, and much else besides.

I am not saying I have all the evidence on this, nor am I definitively saying that climate change is or is not happening; I am simply saying that it needs more critical attention than it is currently getting. Christians are not expected to be experts in these fields, but they are expected to carefully weigh the evidence. My question in the climate change debate is, "Who is swindling whom?"

It seems that this new controversy is based on a very old issue: Who makes money and gains power from this? Those with a vested interest in maintaining current emissions oppose the science of climate change ferociously, while new economies and organisations that profit from emissions abatement schemes and increased environmental concern fervently support it. The thoughtful people in the middle ground need to be aware of this while listening to all aspects of the debate before deciding on their response.

The Hon. IAN WEST [10.38 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to comment on the unilateral intervention of the Federal Government in State and Territory Government issues. In particular I will comment on some of the influences on the Federal Government's recent announcement that it plans to intervene in indigenous communities. While no-one can doubt the desperate situation and the need for ongoing, sustained and collaborative action, I draw the attention of the House to a letter sent to the Prime Minister signed by 90 individuals, indigenous groups and community organisations warning that the Federal Government's measures "go well beyond an emergency response", and will have a profound effect upon such things as land ownership. Indeed, in expanding on her support for the letter, former chief of the now defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Pat Turner, said:

We are totally against tying serious social need to our hard-fought land ownership and land tenure.

We believe that this Government is using child sexual abuse as the Trojan horse to resume control of our land.

No compensation will ever, ever replace our land ownership rights.

Greg Phillips, a population health expert at Melbourne University, said:

Land is essential to Aboriginal cultural identity, sense of spirituality and is therefore protective of good health.

There is no need to tie abuse interventions with land tenure, it's too much of a stretch for this nation to take and the Federal Government is lying through its teeth to do so.

You do not have to take children away and you do not have to take communal rights to land away to deal effectively with abuse and violence.

While a full detail of the Federal Government's policy is yet to be released, people should remain vigilant of what the Federal Government's intervention into the affairs of States and Territories will mean for land ownership. Last week I spoke in this place about a front group called Independent Contractors of Australia, which played a large part in the Federal Government's Independent Contractors Act, passed last year in Canberra. I draw the attention of the House to a related group called the Bennelong Society. Like Independent Contractors of Australia, the Bennelong Society is closely linked, especially by way of personnel, to business lobbyists, the Institute of Public Affairs and the H. R. Nicholls Society.

The Bennelong Society's prescription for Aboriginal communities is to remove all barriers to selling and exploiting Aboriginal land. It preaches this both overtly and with the same rhetoric its sister groups have used to sell workplace changes. For instance, in March 2007 the society's president, Dr Gary Johns, former Keating Government Minister and former Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, wrote in a paper entitled "Making Land Rights Work":

Children must attend school, adults must not be paid to not work, they must be free to buy and sell their assets, including land, they must care for their property, and they must be free to migrate from their land.

It is interesting to note that the paper this quote comes from is based on a speech delivered at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia. There are a number of other reasons to be sceptical of the Bennelong Society. The society's secretary, Ray Evans, was executive officer at Western Mining Corporation from 1982 to 2001. He is also a noted right-wing activist and is president of the H. R. Nicholls Society and secretary of the green house denial organisation, the Lavoisier Group.

The society's connections to the Institute of Public Affairs, through Dr Gary Johns, are not a good look either. The Institute of Public Affairs has reportedly received donations from mining companies such as BHP and Western Mining, as well as other industry groups including forestry group Gunns. With the amount of influence that groups such as the Institute of Public Affairs, Independent Contractors of Australia and the H. R. Nicholls Society have had on Federal Government policy—the WorkChoices legislation and the Independent Contractors Act—we must be mindful that this indigenous policy may reflect the plans of the Bennelong Society and the businesses who support this organisation. If honourable members would like further history on the matter, I urge them to read in detail www.bennelong.com.au website.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.43 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to the late John "Jack" Doohan, OBE, whose funeral I attended with the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner last Wednesday. I served in the Legislative Council with Jack Doohan as my Whip for three years from 1988-1991, and he was one of the most decent men ever to sit in this House. That was evident at his funeral last Wednesday, which was attended by former members from all parties—Liberal, Labor and The Nationals. Jack's family said his Irish heritage instilled in him a love of family, a love of stories, poetry, music and singing. But Jack also inherited a strong aversion to injustice and a steely determination to act against it, which shone through during his admirable career as a member of Parliament. Jack was passionate about helping people in the bush. In his maiden speech on 28 February 1979 Jack said:

As members of this newly constituted Legislative Council we serve the entire state as an electorate. This House has a responsibility to assist in bringing about a balance between country and urban interests.

In that speech Jack spoke of the need to extend electricity to the whole of the State. Indeed, Jack was mighty proud to have helped in achieving that with the then National Party Minister, Robert Webster. He also spoke about the importance of developing industries in country areas. In his eulogy last Wednesday Jack's son John asked the rhetorical question, "Where did such a man as Jack come from?"

John James Doohan was born in a midwife's cottage on the banks of the Darling River in Bourke on 25 February 1920, the seventh of nine children. At the time his father was proprietor of the Carriers Arms Hotel in Bourke, the drinking hole, as some members would know, of Henry Lawson and venue for many of his famous stories. The Union Buries Its Dead and Send Round The Hat were all penned at that hotel.

At the age of three, the family moved from Bourke to the property "Minley", a sheep-grazing block near Louth in western New South Wales out the back of Bourke. Jack said on many occasions that these early days at "Minley" were some of the happiest days of his life, although times were tough as the Depression set in. School was held on a neighbouring property, where his sisters would take turns to act as teacher. He was later educated at that great institution St Joseph's College in Hunters Hill. His spare time was spent playing cricket and tennis. His best mate in those days was his sister Lillian. They would catch Murray cod in the river, using a line and bait, and then sell the fish to the mailman for sixpence a pound.

When the Second World War began Jack went away to war, while his older brother, Bert, stayed home to help. Both were keen to go, and Jack always said he was so grateful to Bert for staying, which he perceived to be the tougher battle, with the shortage of supplies and labour and the horrendous drought of 1943 and 1944. It is interesting that these two countrymen both felt that each other had the worst deal. Neither was envious of the other. Jack's war years were spent in New Guinea. He spoke very little about these times, except to say that his memory of the Army days was mostly one of comradeship.

Jack returned from the war in 1944 aged in his mid-20s and married his great love, Poppy, or Mena Beryl O'Shannessy, which is her proper name, a country girl from Barringun and Enngonia. The ceremony was at St Marys Cathedral in Sydney. At the time Jack was ill with malaria and was apparently so weak that he could hardly make it up the stairs but he was not going to postpone that great day. The newlyweds drew a block of land in the returned soldiers' ballot that was located 200 miles west of Bourke on the Queensland border. They built their own fences and for three years lived in a little shack that they also built using cane grass and second­hand corrugated iron. They were a formidable partnership. Jack once wrote of Poppy, "She was small and frail but she knew how to work and hardly knew how to stop". Anyone who knew Jack will know that Poppy was the great love of his life.

Jack had the same determination and dedication. As well as being a shearer, fencer, soldier, dog catcher and grazier, Jack served on a remarkable number of boards and committees over the years. These included the Pastures Protection Board, the Wild Dog Destruction Board and the Central Council of the Bush Nursing Association of New South Wales. Jack was a director of the Grazcos Cooperative Limited and Farmers Grazcos, President of the Wool Committee, and a member of the Australian Wool Industry Conference, the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, the Joint Wool Selling Organisation and the Graziers Association of New South Wales.

Jack also served on the National Parks and Wildlife Service Advisory Committee for more than a decade. He was trustee of the McGarvie Smith Institute for 24 years, and chairman of the National Wool Producing Industry Training Committee and the State Shearing Industry Committee for 13 years. He was a member of the New South Wales Fauna Protection Panel and the Trade Development Council and chairman of its Rural Panel. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, the Australian Wool Industry Conference Executive Committee, the parliamentary Select Committee into the Joint Western Division of New South Wales, and the Western Division Advisory Board.

I am proud to have followed Jack Doohan as a trustee of the Bush Children's Education Fund, of which he was also a member for 30 years. Many members make long-winded final speeches in Parliament that are filled with hubris and are a Whitlamesque attempt to rewrite history, but not Jack Doohan. His last recorded comments in this place were as Chairman of the Printing Committee. On that occasion the Hon. J. J. Doohan rose to his feet, drew himself erect and said, "Mr President, I bring up and lay upon the table the second report of the Printing Committee". The Clerks who were in this place then will know that members on both sides of the House would then say, "Hear! Hear!" The final word about Jack in this place came from the Hon. Gordon Ibbett, who said:

I wish to place on record my thanks for the way in which the Hon. J. J. Doohan, as Chairman of the Printing Committee—

no-one knew what the Printing Committee did; we suspect not much—

has conducted that committee. The Printing Committee, and its Chairman in particular, have done a lot of hard work in preparing the committee agenda for members. The Hon. J. J. Doohan has always been able to give members an answer to every question they have asked.

Not a single question was ever forthcoming. He continued:

As the Hon. J. J. Doohan may not be here to present another report, I take this opportunity to congratulate him for the work he has done. I thank him also for all the assistance he has given this Parliament.

Those comments were greeted with thunderous applause. That is how this understated man left the Parliament. For years Jack Doohan, a Country Party MLC, travelled regularly to Broken Hill. It is interesting to note that the unions in Broken Hill allowed him to use their meeting hall for his constituent interviews. Those on both sides of politics will know that union hall in Broken Hill is known by everyone as "the Kremlin". Jack never tried to change anyone's vote but I suspect that the recent election of the new member for Murray-Darling was due in no small part to Jack's work with the people of the Western Division.

As well as his dedication to the job, Jack had an immense love for his family—of whom he spoke so lovingly and so warmly on any occasion—his wife, Poppy, now deceased; his son John, a lawyer with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Dubbo; his daughter, Melissa, a cardiologist in Sydney; their respective partners, Sally and Brian, and four grandchildren whom Jack adored: Michaela, Thomas, Alexandra and Matthew. There is much that we in the House can learn from the career of the late Hon. John Doohan. In his maiden speech Jack talked about the need for members of all parties to work together constructively. He said:

Perhaps too much time is spent in laying blame for past mistakes and too little in deciding how mistakes can be avoided in the future.

The life, and particularly the political career, of the Hon. Jack Doohan is best summed up by former member for Gwydir, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, who said Jack was:

… the most honourable man ever to have served country people and the Country party and his legacy will live long.

I have found no-one who would disagree with that. I know that Jack is missed by many, but particularly by his two great mates, the Hon. Sir John Fuller and the Hon. Bob Rowland Smith.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [10.55 p.m.]: The Hon. Jack Doohan has been described universally as a gentle man, and that is true. He was a self-effacing, quiet person who hid his light under a bushel. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, Jack was born in Bourke in 1920, the son of a local hotelier. He was born into a large family with a proud Irish background. He stayed true to his Western Division heritage throughout its life. Jack and his wife, Poppy, whose death 20 years ago devastated Jack, set out to make their life on the land in the far west of New South Wales. They built their first remote home out of cane grass. I did not know about that extraordinary part of Jack's life in that remote part of New South Wales until his funeral service last week.

I knew Jack Doohan as a member of the National Country Party's Central Council. He was a member with special qualifications. He became the New South Wales vice-chairman of the party and had been the President of the New South Wales Graziers Association. He followed quite a list of association State presidents to be elected to the party's central council in that capacity. In the National Party we know that as rule 7.1.1 (g) of the party's constitution. As the vice-chairman Jack was involved in practically all the party's decision-making processes. He was an important member of the party's leadership team and the finance committee.

Jack was then elected to the Legislative Council. As Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Jack Doohan was the Rick Colless of his day: the party Whip. As a member of the Legislative Council he continued to prosecute the case for rural people generally and for people in the more remote pastoral areas of the State in particular. His service to those people and their industries was recognised when Jack was awarded an Order of the British Empire. Jack was elected to this place in 1978 to fill the casual vacancy created by the resignation of the former party leader and Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, his great friend the Hon. Sir John Fuller. Jack was re-elected at the 1981 general election and completed his term as a member in this place at the 1991 general election.

Jack was indeed a gentleman, but he was also possessed of a quiet determination. He was not a tub­thumping person but you always knew where he stood on any particular matter. Jack started out on a life of service to his community, particularly the people of the Far West, when he was appointed to bodies such as the Wild Dog Destruction Board. As his reputation for public service spread, Jack was elected and appointed to an ever-growing list of rural bodies, ranging from the Pastures Protection Board to the Advisory Council of the National Parks and Wildlife Service—to which not too many Country Party members had been appointed. Like many people in the remote parts of New South Wales, Jack paid special attention to the Royal Flying Doctors Service, working alongside his parliamentary colleague the Hon. Judy Jakins, who also came from the Far West.

I join my colleagues in The Nationals in expressing my condolences to John and Melissa and their families, including Jack's grandchildren. The loss of a beloved grandparent like Jack can be most distressing to young children as such an event is often their first experience of the reality of our mortality. They will sorely miss him. However, in years to come they can study the list of names of those who came to the Mass of Thanksgiving for Jack Doohan at the Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Killara last week and comprehend that virtually a generation of Jack's remaining peers were there to pay tribute to his service to the Western Division, the Parliament—former parliamentary colleagues from the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party were present as well as past and current members of The Nationals, both State and Federal—his party, the pastoral industry, to Australia as a serviceman in Papua New Guinea in World War II and to New South Wales.

I also record my appreciation of the way the service was conducted by Father Paul Cahill, who ministered to Jack in his later years during his rather long and painful illness and who came to know him well. Father Cahill warmly welcomed all the congregation to the church that meant so much to Jack and his family. He conducted the service in a manner that reflected wonderfully the type of person that Jack was and provided the framework for an apt tribute to his remarkable life and times. Vale Jack Doohan.

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

Motion agreed to.